Lord Gavin Barwell was the Chief of Staff for Theresa May – in a field with numerous candidates, probably the worst British Prime Minister in living memory. Reacting to a recent Daily Sceptic article that laid out the science surrounding carbon dioxide, he pounced on an X repost by “Toby and his mate [yours truly]” and stated: “I suspect the next generation may pursue people like him who sought to delay action for damages.” Barwell’s comment is as silly as it is sinister, but it indicates considerable elite derangement as members observe their Net Zero fantasy falling in flames. Net Zero was only ever an elite luxury belief backed by 30 years of lies, fake science and constant climate scare forecasts that never happened. Removing all hydrocarbons from industrial societies will lead to economic and societal collapse. Removing hydrocarbons from the developing world is just plain wicked.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
Economics |
Samizdata quote of the day – elite derangement & Net ZeroMarch 5th, 2025 |
 21 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – elite derangement & Net ZeroLeave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
No, Gavin Barwell was/is not the junior son of a Duke. Baron Barwell is, instead, a life peer. He is, thus, Gavin, Lord Barwell.
This is a hill I will die upon. Someone has to maintain standards and distinctions, no? For what is the point of having these distinctions of titles unless we distinguish between them?
I anticipate that no-one will be held to account in the future either for their resistance to climate change ideology or their acquiescence to it.
The field of potential ‘criminals’, for or against, is far too wide for any legal blame to gain a toehold.
What we have here is instead Elite Derangement Syndrome – scrabbling around for someone to blame for the ongoing collapse of Net Zeroism cult.
There being no substance to the CO2 Panic, only ill-informed people are taken in by it, and some others pretend to be becauese it provides so many opportunities for weakening our society and at the same time gaining status as a far-sighted prophet of doom. Theresa was not well-served by having someone in either category in a senior position in her team.
“… and at the same time…” – you forgot the most important reason for believing in (or at least, belonging to) the Great Global Warming scam. Lots of grifters are still lining their pockets, feathering their nests and dining-out on it; and lots of cynical or deluded politicians are still thumping pulpits and wailing that “Climate Change is gonna’ killusol!” THOSE are the guys I’d hold to account, given my druthers; but I don’t see it happening anytime soon. For one thing, it was blown up so far and so wide that ‘believers’ likely still outnumber ‘deniers’ even this late in the game, and for another thing, we still have all the COVID mask-and-vax Karens to work through. And IMHO, they’re far more deserving of being called-to-account; the GWAlarmists just blocked roads and threw soup on paintings, the COVIDiots fired and arrested people, froze bank accounts and rode little-old-ladies-with-walkers down on horseback. And both groups monstrously abused taxpayers’ trust.
But on reflection, the GWAlarmists also splattered the landscape with solar panels and wind turbines; so what the hey, let’s go after them both.
I was no fan of Theresa May and remember a lot of people at the time she was PM saying she was worst PM ever. However, even then I thought Blair and Cameron had been worse, and following BoJo, Sunak and Starmer I think they were much worse.
Maybe rose tinted spectacles given we’d not had COVID and all that bollocks yet but 2017, 2018 seem almost halcyon compared to now.
I’ll admit though the way all that net zero crap got voted through with barely a protest back then was very bad. Not untypical though – same happened with bank bailouts, lockdowns, same happening with Ukraine policy now. Perhaps had Theresa May had a big majority like BoJo/Starmer had she’d have been worse. The most disastrous stuff under her was stuff she could get bi-partisan support for, like Net zero/ trans right etc. Otherwise, her lack of parliamentary votes limited the damage she could do.
The BoJo/Sunak government in one respect was a blessing. Tories beforehand had said they couldn’t deliver a ‘proper’ Tory government because they couldn’t get a big majority. Well they had one in 2019-2024, and showed everyone what a ‘proper’ Tory government entailed and it was a shit show. This certainly cured me of any residual loyalty to them.
Likewise.
@Martin.
Me too!
Researchers continue to produce papers undermining the CO2 scare. Here are the conclusions from a recent one in Japan:
‘This paper shows that the assumption of 280 ppm CO2 concentration in the atmosphere at the onset of the Industrial Revolution, which is the premise for modern climate change research, is flawed.
There is no doubt that the figure of 280 ppm is a significant underestimate. The various inexplicable phenomena and contradictions seen in the CO2 reconstruction values from Antarctic ice cores symbolize the flaws in the data. This is due to the inherent limitations of the ice core reconstruction method itself.
The main cause of the rising atmospheric CO2 is the rising SST, which acts much like the universal gravitation. And of course, it is also the result of the overall effects on the carbon cycle due to various factors on Earth, such as photosynthesis and respiration, as well as the atmospheric temperature that affects them. Furthermore, anthropogenic emissions have had no significant effect on the atmospheric CO2 from the statistical standpoint.
Therefore, the increasing CO2 is largely due to natural phenomena. Analysis of the external and internal factors that cause variation in SST and the degree of their influence awaits further study.’
(SST is Sea Surface Temperature)
See: https://notrickszone.com/2025/03/04/new-study-casts-doubt-on-the-accuracy-and-reliability-of-the-modern-and-paleo-co2-record/
Barwell’s comment isn’t even original in its evil.
Some of us remember 10:10 ‘No Pressure’
I remember Theresa May starting off well – see her Lancaster House Brexit speech for instance. But in a few short months she became a supporter of Brexit-In-Name-Only so I have concluded that she was ‘got at’ by those around her.
Why would anyone need to be held to account for resistance to climate change ideology? Those that placed themselves in opposition to this nonsense have been proven to have been correct. If such people had been listened to instead of being vilified, the dreadfully destructive policies that were based on such nonsense would have been avoided.
C02 is essential for plant growth – and levels of it are still below optimal levels for the growth of food and other crops.
Should we sue Gavin Barwell for low crop yields and people lacking food?
As for “New Zero” ZERO emissions of C02 by human activity – yes it would, unless there were a massive number of nuclear reactors built (wind and solar are certainly not enough on their own – although they may indeed make sense for some homes and some commercial buildings), mean societal collapse and mass death.
Yet the international establishment, including the British branch of it, are fanatically committed to this policy – and are indeed THREATENING anyone who dissents from the policy. Part of the general policy of PUNISHING dissent – which leads me to the bitter conclusion that the West has, largely, ceased-to-exist.
There are two possible answers as to why the establishment are pushing such a policy.
Either, internationally, we are ruled by idiots – who have no idea what they are doing.
Or, alternatively, we are ruled, internationally, by evil people, who actually want societal collapse and mass death.
Of course, it is possible that some are idiots and some others are evil. Plus the conformists, lower down, who just go along with everything – because they will be punished if do not speak and act in support of the policy.
Stonyground
There are many, many examples of people who were correct (but not politically so) receiving special attention from those parts of the government most charged with inflicting. Like as not, being correct is the indictment rather than the exoneration.
I have a much better explanation for any rise in sea-water. The number of boats and ships is rising! Each boat, by itself, displaces only a small amount of water. However, the numbers would now be in the millions. Just sink all the boats and ships, and the water would return to normal levels!
The rise in sea levels has been pretty constant since the end of the last ice age – there is no evidence that it has accelerated since the industrial revolution.
The issue is confused (DELIBERATELY confused) by certain interests (both government and corporate) pretending that subsidence, the fall of land in certain areas, is “rising sea levels”.
Two examples spring to mind.
After the terrible river floods of 1927 the United States government built an complex system to control the Mississippi river – but this system means that much less slit is carried down the river to Louisiana, meaning that land levels around New Orleans drop – the land-levels-have-dropped, it is not the sea that is rising it is the land that is not being renewed.
The other example is New York City – vast buildings crushing the land, and ground water being pumped out, leading to massive subsidence.
But the government and corporate interests that have made New York City an unsafe place, do not want to admit responsibility for what they have done – so they blame “Climate Change” or “Carbon” – by which they mean C02.
Why would anyone need to be held to account for resistance to climate change ideology? Those that placed themselves in opposition to this nonsense have been proven to have been correct.
– Stonyground’s word “proven” is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting here. Many, many people (I use the term loosely) and organized bodies, including numerous national and lesser governments (including Canada and the U.K., and until 20 Jan this year, the U.S.) didn’t get that memo; and the farce winds merrily onward through taxpayers’ wallets – just ask any Canadian at the pump whose fuel purchases suffer shrinkflation thanks to carbon tax.
“I used to say to our audiences: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”” – Upton Sinclair
I’m next to water right now. If all the fatties I see around me were to jump in at the same time, some Pacific Island nations would be in trouble.
As has been stated many times, by many people, but it is well worth stating again…..
If people really believed that C02 emissions were a deadly threat they would support a massive expansion of nuclear power – solar and wind are just not sufficient on their own (not even close).
Some DO support a massive expansion of nuclear power (for example the late James Lovelock) – but most of the activists do NOT. That casts doubt on the sincerity of most of the activists involved in this campaign.
I have a serious comment, but first: fatties and ships! I love it…thank you bobby b and Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker) Gray.
The serious: could (should?) the IPCC issue any sort of statement to correct the misuse by the MSM of their reports?
I have in mind the statement here that the IPCC has not said there is any correlation between recent severe weather events and CC. I get that they are not supposed to be political, but when everyone in the MSM and most governments ignore the science they report on and interpret their work in ways that result in disastrous policies, don’t they need to speak up? In a measured way of course, at least to start with.
And don’t get me wrong: I’m very skeptical of most of the “science” the IPCC claims to represent. I also suspect there are a lot of good, honest scientists involved with the IPCC but they’ve been keeping their heads down. Maybe I’m just too hopeful in the basic decency of people?
Or have the IPCC done this and I’m just unaware?
Different topic, re Paul Marks’ comment above this one: here’s a suggestion for people who really believe CC is an immediate threat to humanity, let’s have a Manhattan Project level effort on nuclear power. Suspend all the rules and regs holding up construction (not the design features related to safety…but those are known engineering designs) and build 50 nukes in 5 years in the US (and corresponding numbers elsewhere).
“Fifty in Five”!!! Catchy, eh?
After all, back in 1942, we made a new element in 18 months! Kilograms of it!
“Stonyground’s word “proven” is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting here.”
Well maybe. Proving something beyond reasonable doubt is incredibly difficult. However, a great many predictions were made based on the premise that slightly increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere would cause dangerous temperature rises. I am not aware of a single one of these predictions being correct in over four decades. Even the moderate temperature rises that have been observed are more easily explained by natural variations. Such variations have been happening since the Earth has existed.
My take on the IPCC was that it was made up of people who would all be out of a job if they admitted that there wasn’t actually a problem.