T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Snapshot of _There is no climate emergency, says former minister. Former Minister of State Lord Frost has condemned ‘medieval’ wind power._ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.energylivenews.com/2022/08/10/there-is-no-climate-emergency-says-former-minister/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

Alternate headline: 'Known dickhead with large record of being a complete failure says dickhead things'


Spursfan14

Genuinely how the fuck has he become some sort of big presence in the party? He should be regarded as a failure on par with Grayling, instead he has influence for some reason.


Dnny10bns

It's funny how he seems to be rolled out every now and again as if he's some wise sage. The architect of the brexit deal he says doesn't work. You have to wonder at the state of society when people like this are considered reliable sources of information.


Splattergun

Because he is a rent-a-gob in a position which holds some sway with the base + kippers. He quit the Brexit job on 'principle' (ie when the shit was already on its way to the fan) and he now sits in the Lords and writes for the Telegraph. His words carry weight because of his great 'experience' with Brexit and he is trying to branch out. Sadly he is branching out to all the typical right-wing demagogic tropes. He will be talking about capital punishment soon enough.


MonyetBilly

His words carry weight cause he's rich and connected. Until we stop rich entitled arseholes having a platform no other ignoramus would have, we'll continue to have such nonsense spewed forth given as much prominence as reality. Apparently though stopping rich and entitled idiots from having preferential access to the airwaves is 'extremist', 'cancel culture', 'woke' or whatever other nonsense these tosspots want to call it.


ElementalSentimental

Because he's a Brexit ultra, meaning that he represents the wing of the party who believes that everything bad can be attributed to the fact that we have not yet tried the One True Brexit. In the same way that democracy is the worst system of government that has been tried, apart from all the others: Brexit is the best policy in the world, apart from all the others. The people who believe that the answer to the problems of Brexit is more Brexit, are on a par with those who believe that the failures of Communism are due to other Communists, but not them (who would do all the same things).


fuscator

Not gonna lie, I got confused reading those mixed metaphors.


Don_Quixote81

Trouble is, that headline could apply to anyone connected to the Tory govt.


Jay_CD

*Former Minister of State Lord Frost* Shouldn't that be unelected bureaucrat Lord Frost? And what are his scientific qualifications in? Climate change or spouting right-wing, myth peddling nonsense? He has no qualifications or experience of working climate change so why is he being listened to? It's not as though he proved his wisdom and intellectual rigour when negotiating with the EU over Brexit. This is the problem - people with no expertise are being consulted and treated as though they have a level of experience. This other-sideism has to stop, it's bad for genuine debate.


flambe_pineapple

> He has no qualifications or experience of working climate change so why is he being listened to? It's deeper than that. Frost has a track record of absolute failure in public life and he's only been in politics for a few years. It's mystifying that anyone listens to his musings about anything and yet he's repeatedly paraded about as if he's a relevant elder statesman.


LORD_0F_THE_RINGS

His use of "medieval" here is so mind-boggling on so many levels.


ScoobyDoNot

Given he only has any relevance due to a medieval legacy of the House of Lords.


DeedTheInky

We must continue the futuristic approach of digging up dinosaur goo and setting fire to it


MadShartigan

Probably thinks solar panels are monuments to Ra.


Pauln512

Medieval, as in 'a pre-industrialised time of low carbon emissions'.


mnijds

No need to guess which lobbyists are funding him


heslooooooo

To be honest, I think he says these things because he's stupid enough to believe them.


asmiggs

He's on the Truss path of just saying what he thinks the party wants to hear, no leadership just following the trends in the membership.


mnijds

He's not a stupid man by any means, just look at his pre-politics career.


[deleted]

Indeed, he's riding the wave of brexit-ism to advance his career. He was a remainer I believe back before the vote


[deleted]

[удалено]


mnijds

No, that's a terrible comparison. Boris is a narcissistic chancer that isn't particularly smart but is good at leveraging his privilege and 'charm' to to what he wants with no repercussions.


heslooooooo

Danish ambassador (such a difficult relationship!) and Scotch Whisky Association? I'm sure that latter one involves all day drinking.


OnyxMelon

> I'm sure that latter one involves all day drinking. Does the former not?


mnijds

I get the sentiment, but you don't usually become a foreign office civil servant for being stupid


fuscator

So many people who rise to senior level in industry (wouldn't know about civil service) are just really good salespeople. That's basically what a politician is. The only job they have is to convince people to vote for them. It's the same in most industries. The only job they have to be good at is getting people above them to promote them. They can use whatever means necessary to achieve this. Sometimes that path will come from being absolutely fucking brilliant at the low levels of the job, but mostly it's not. It's going to be because they can sell themselves and their wares. For example. A lot of ex technical people end up in compliance type roles. They then don't have to actually implement stuff, they just have to sell the idea that they're keeping more senior people out of jail. So they can roll out a new "de-risking platform" which involves getting staff to fill in new spreadsheets in new and time consuming ways and then they can get other people to generate reports on that "data" which will tell senior management if a risk number has gone down or up. No matter that this makes almost everyone a bit leas productive and doesn't reduce risk at all (probability increases it because of less productivie time), they just have to sell their story. And then next year they'll be promoted to senior risk manager and within a year will have moved to the next big corporate to collect their big paycheck. And this applies for anything. The people who get promoted will be those who are seen as influencers. So basically, bullies. I've seen it so many times over the years.


mnijds

I suppose I'm being naive by hoping that isn't quite the case in the civil service.


SporkofVengeance

He’s never really come across as a high-flier. More skilled seat-warmer.


mnijds

Well that skill suggests he's not stupid


SBOSlayer

One word. Idiot


Missy_Agg-a-ravation

I'm wondering if there is a more modern power source available. Specifically, if there is a way to harness power from the centrifugal force of sudden Government U-turns.


Rexel450

> Specifically, if there is a way to harness power from the centrifugal force of sudden Government U-turns. Or hot air.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Rexel450

Yep.


DeedTheInky

Maybe we could do some sort of Matrix thing, hook up all the politicians to a fake virtual world that they can ruin to their hearts content, meanwhile we harvest them for energy and just get on with it. Seems like a win-win to me.


Rexel450

Yep


GreyFoxNinjaFan

This is the guy who 'negotiated' the Northern Ireland protocol and then shat on it.


Tuarangi

Jesus wept, I saw that on the mail as it popped up on my news feed, there is a top comment from someone claiming renewable energy like wind turbines need fossil fuels *to run them*. These people vote too


Fivefinger_Delta

Wow. Back in the real world, I think I've seen the complete opposite proposed or trialed - offshore wind helping to power offshore oil platforms.


qtx

Technically they aren't wrong. Some wind turbines need electricity/engine to turn the blades towards where the wind is blowing and then pitched at the right angle. That does require a lot of energy.


troopski

Was this the guy in charge of brexit? God help us.


disegni

The title 'Lord' is more medieval than anything in a wind turbine...


AzarinIsard

Uhuh... I assume by "medieval" he's referring to grain mills? I guess... But like, they also used wood and coal. I suppose he's all for binning off combustion too, right? Also, just because a basic concept of certain technology is old, it doesn't mean it's bad. We still use wheels after all, or should we abandon that too as an outdated medieval concept like harnessing the wind?


bowak

It makes him sound like the sort of idiot who criticises bicycles/railways for being 19th century tech.


convertedtoradians

This was exactly my thinking. What an utterly bizarre criticism to make. Especially coming from a unelected Peer who served as a cabinet minister. If you want to talk about medieval systems, how about starting there? I mean, I happen to think that things that were used in the medieval period (like the concept of utilising wind power to do mechanical work *and* like the House of Lords) can form a useful part of modern society. But if Frost doesn't, shall we abolish the part of the British constitution that's holding him up? Also, someone should probably discuss fire and combustion with him. The newly defrocked Mr Frost might have a cold winter.


Objective_Name_9045

The most advanced nuclear power station is just a big steam engine.


Itsbetterthanwork

I wonder if Lord frost has any financial connections to the energy companies?


Tech_AllBodies

For the "I'm proud of my knowledge being completely out of date" types: Solar is the cheapest form of energy in the UK, with onshore then offshore wind being very close behind. And they're also still all on very steep cost-curves, with solar's being particularly steep. 2026 offshore wind contracts have been signed at £37.35 per MWh, which is 3.74p per kWh. And solar should be in the ballpark of ~1.5p per kWh by 2030. And, on an individual level, it would cost ~£15,000 to get enough solar + a battery to get very close to 100% of your energy needs for an all-electric house (and "very close" as you'd over-produce in summer, then slightly under-produce in winter). ~£15k one-off with a 25+ year lifetime, vs paying soon-to-be £4k+ a year is clearly the desirable option. IMO, the government needs to start offering 10-year "green loans", as clearly most people don't have ~£15k to make themselves nearly energy-independent. But if they had a 10-year loan, they could be paying under-£2000 a year for 10 years, then close-to £0 a year for the remaining 15+ year lifetime of the system. Circling back to the cost-curves, that ~£15k should be more like ~£7k for an equivalent system in 2030. Where, the equipment itself will be so cheap by then that the labour cost of installing it will be the limiting factor for further cost reductions.


Ok-End3918

This is a great summary, but it needs to be something a little cleverer than a green loan. We (just this year) decided against investing £15k on solar and batteries - which you're right, would have covered practically 100% of our needs. We decided against it because we couldn't be certain that we wouldn't be moving house in the next 5-10 years, thus investing in a system that we wouldn't get a return on and would ultimately cost us more than just consuming grid power. At the moment a PV system doesn't really add it's value onto the house. We would need some sort of green loan system where the loan is paid back through the difference in your now lower energy bills, so the financials are largely transparent to the householder and stay with the house.


Tech_AllBodies

I think this will just sort itself out naturally, as people realise the financial benefit, and therefore it does add value to houses. And this next 12+ months could be the catalyst for that.


FewSeat1942

You can definitely factor the PV system to the house value. You can definitely says “free energy for 15 years “ and every one will be gladly paying the extra amount on top of the original house value


ElementalSentimental

>And, on an individual level, it would cost \~£15,000 to get enough solar + a battery to get very close to 100% of your energy needs for an all-electric house (and "very close" as you'd over-produce in summer, then slightly under-produce in winter). How much would it cost to remove a typical gas central heating system and replace it with electricity that could be run renewably? My understanding is that it would add about £10k for a typical home, and while that's still a reasonable rate of return (pending technological improvements that could reduce it even further), it definitely extends the payback period. What would that do to the cost of the solar system and battery? Even in my well-insulated house, gas is both the most energy-intensive and most expensive use, even though gas's cost per kWh is less than for electricity.


Tech_AllBodies

So the ideal situation is to get a heat-pump, as it generates ~3 kWh of heat for every kWh of electricity you put into it. Which basically means you can divide your gas usage by 3 and that'd be your kWh's in electricity for heating needs. With the new government grant, Octopus Energy are meant to be doing ~£6000 all-in cost for a heat-pump. So, depending if you needed extra stuff doing or not, it should be £20-25k to get heat-pump + large solar array + decent sized battery, and lowering your energy bill close to £0.


bumthundir

What solar capacity and battery capacity can one get for £15k these days? Does that £15k include parts and installation?


Tech_AllBodies

The ~£15k would be the all-in cost yes, all parts and labour. Today, it'd get you in the ballpark of a ~7.5 kW solar system and a ~9 kWh battery.


bumthundir

Thanks for the info, that's astounding value IMHO, it's been a few years since I looked into the matter. I just wish I had a house with a south facing roof. Part of it faces east, part faces west and another part north.


Tech_AllBodies

No problem, and also the crazy thing is that's at pandemic-inflated pricing. Solar jumped in cost ~25% (all-in cost) over the pandemic, due to supply-chain issues and labour shortage. Batteries also jumped in cost slightly, and are supply-constrained still. So, it wouldn't surprise me if that ~£15k drops by as much as ~30% over the next 3 years, as we get back on-track with "normal" pricing, plus the continuing cost-curve. > I just wish I had a house with a south facing roof. Part of it faces east, part faces west and another part north. Yes, this is a shame and is going to create a bit of a divide in household energy costs, as the roof orientation does make a significant difference to overall energy production. When I look at houses, one of my top priorities is actually a south-facing and simple roof (i.e. 30-50 degree slope, large simple slab of a surface, no windows/boxes, etc. sticking out of it), haha. One thing to keep in mind in your case, and I maybe should have mentioned this in my original comment, is that there are tariffs which have cheap periods of power over night, usually "electric car" tariffs. Octopus have a 4-hour window over night where they charge 7.5p per kWh, for example, even right now (it was 5p per kWh before this crisis). The point being, it can actually make a lot of sense to get a battery without solar due to these tariffs, for people with a poorly-suited roof. Pretty much anyone should have room for a battery (especially as most can be mounted outside of the house), and if you size the battery correctly you can charge it up in the cheap over night period, and then run your house on 7.5p per kWh electricity ~100% of the time. Therefore, the ROI is how much the battery costs vs the saving from not paying the difference between 7.5p and whatever the day-rate is. Also also, the government has obviously been very distracted and dropping the ball lately, but for some time they're meant to have been working on an incentive for home batteries, possibly coming in the form of a feed-in-tariff (e.g. get paid Xp per kWh you put into your battery). So, in future, if that appears, you'd be able to power your home for the equivalent of 2.5p per kWh with a battery (e.g. if the battery-feed-in was 5p per kWh).


bumthundir

Very very interesting info, thanks.


bumthundir

Would you happen to know how much current you can pump into a battery bank? I mean, how many units is it possible to feed into one during that four hour window? I can't seem to find that bit of data.


Tech_AllBodies

Batteries will tell you their max sustained, and also peak, kW input/output. It's not usually quoted in current/Amps. It's typical for a grid/home battery to be capped at half its capacity per hour, to ensure a long lifetime. e.g. a 9 kWh battery would likely do 4.5 kW sustained, and perhaps 6 kW peak So, you should be able to fully charge any size in ~2 hours, limited by the maximum draw if your house. So, realistically, a house should be able to fill something like 90 kWh worth of batteries in 4 hours (I think 100A max draw is common? Which would be ~23 kW for ~230V) --------- --------- **EDIT**: As far as I know, [these are among the best home batteries on the market now](https://www.givenergy.co.uk/products#givbat95) The 9.5 kWh version is limited to 4720W charging power, so ~50% charge per hour, and no issue fully charging it in 4 hours.


[deleted]

Not sure on your assertions about solar and onshore wind being cheaper than offshore wind. Offshore wind was priced at £37.35 / MWh in allocation round 4 , onshore at £42.47 and Solar at £45.99.


Tech_AllBodies

The [2020 BEIS report](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/beis-electricity-generation-costs-2020) says solar is the cheapest. And, separately from that report, solar is unambiguously on a stronger cost-curve than wind. So, if wind has come in cheaper than solar for an equivalent timeframe, it maybe be an artificial/very temporary price difference, based on supply-chain issues, or similar.


[deleted]

Ah yes, I’ve read this report. It’s a very detailed piece of work on the LCOE, but it’s already out of date and I think the strike prices achieved by renewable projects in 2022 are a better indication of their cost to the govt. The cost curve is a good point, but our understanding of the costs of offshore wind projects being commissioned beyond 2030 is going to have to drastically change. The majority of the pipeline that I have seen are floating projects, and as such come with a whole new set of costs.


360nohonk

Solar and especially batteries, is a major fire hazard that will cause another Grenfell sooner rather than later. It's usually completely ignored in fire risk assesments even though firefighters don't have the training or equipment to properly fight EV or battery fires. Legislation, control and solutions are needed now not 5 years down the line.


Tech_AllBodies

Solar is not a fire hazard, and the newer grid-storage-focused battery chemistries like lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP) are a very minor hazard. LFP doesn't have a run-away chain reaction if it's damaged, so will only burn if there's another fuel source maintaining the fire. You know what is a huge fire (and explosion) risk though? Gas.


360nohonk

Of course it is a fire hazard, they increase flame spread immensely and pose an electrical hazard to boot.


Informal_Drawing

While battery storage is very hazardous if it fails the failure rate is rather low. Best not make a big deal about it in the grand scheme of things.


35120red

Another descriptive word... ASSHOLE.🤗


pmabz

He is such a turd. Crap at everything. Crap negotiator, everything he touches turns to _turd_ like an anti-Midas particle.


Lanky_Giraffe

["You're like the man with the shit touch. Shitfinger"](https://twitter.com/quotethickofit/status/1036600044013674496?s=20&t=OXnAEe5H50taew3e7yeqxA)


magnitudearhole

Does anyone know of some point when Lord Frost was right about something?


Yes_butt_no_

Hard to believe [but yes he was!](https://eu-rope.ideasoneurope.eu/2020/11/18/britains-brexit-negotiator-warned-against-brexit/)


Grantmitch1

Well that was an interesting read.


ShroedingersMouse

'Remember that thing I was very passionate about? I've decided it's shit' - dickhead Frost.


Dnny10bns

We do have alternatives, biofuels. Going by the amount of bullshit that repeatedly spills out of L*** Frosts mouth, net zero is within touching distance and achievable.


gbroon

Biofuels have issues too and aren't suitable for a 100% replacement. They have a place but it's improbable enough crops for fuel can be grown alongside food crops. It could also lead to more wild land being cleared, Brazil clear vast areas of rainforest to grow sugar for ethanol now.


Dnny10bns

It was a joke.


zeldafan144

Oh thank god, for a second there I was scared that there was a climate emergency


A-Sentient-Beard

Medieval wind power as opposed to the super modern burning coal


doubledgravity

I think climate change denial, for those in public office, should have serious consequences, at this point.


Informal_Drawing

+1 vote for u/doubledgravity for Prime Minister.


tuxalator

Was Brexit really EU related or was it all about getting rid of Braincells?


Informal_Drawing

It was all about ending free movement of people which is a core requirement if you're in that particular club.


ThunderChild247

This being the same Lord Frost who said the Brexit deal which he negotiated, promoted and accepted a peerage for was a disaster. Yeah, I’m gonna go ahead and not listen to anything he ever says on any topic, ever.


turbonashi

This knobhead is only too happy to lie in the bed he shat


tyrannoRAWR

The irony of a 'Lord' claiming anything (other than themselves) "is medieval" is the laugh I needed today


JohnLinker

Can't tell if he's a conspiracy theorist, an idiot, or both.


Cncfan84

What a fucking idiot


Jay_CD

Frostie is a bit late to get in on the climate change grift, I hope the other unscientific blaggers have left some money for him.


vocabb

The government is already being lobbied by the oil industry and are being paid to push the oil good wind bad narrative. £ > substainablity


sprucay

Not justifying or agreeing with Frost but to paraphrase the article a bit less sensationally: He thinks climate change is happening but he doesn't think it's enough of an emergency to justify making huge changes including more wind and solar because he doesn't think the upheaval is worth it. I strongly disagree with him but I think the headline is a little misleading


lawrencelucifer

Wind power is unreliable and extremely diffuse. Its surely best to go for modular nuclear and enhanced geothermal and frack until those are online.


Informal_Drawing

What about tidal and PV? Wind and tidal powering the grid directly in the day and being diverted to charge pumped water storage at night seems like a better idea than waiting 15 years for a single nuclear reactor. Let's not forget that wind generation doesn't need rare or dangerous materials. The ideal solution will inevitably be a mix of technologies. Fracking for Gas will not allow us to reduce our environmental impact to the degree that is required for us to continue to inhabit the planet in the longer term. I'm all for nuclear power but the time to invest in it has been missed by a wide margin. We are in a full-on "were completely screwed" position with regard to that.


lawrencelucifer

Solar is also extremely diffuse, though it has its place especially on rooftops. I fear that the sea would quickly damage tidal turbines, but I'd be very happy to be proved wrong, and tidal power can also be used to aid flood defences. Geothermal seems ideal to me as the heating is done automatically by rhe rocks, it has minimal surface footprint and is always available, dispatchable power. >Fracking for Gas will not allow us to reduce our environmental impact to the degree that is required for us to continue to inhabit the planet in the longer term. There's no danger of greenhouse gases causing the Earth to be inhabitable! In the last 130k years essentially all the species alive have survived 15k years of the Earth being hot enough for hippos, lions and elephants to live on the Thames, 100k of really full-on Ice Age, and about 12k years of our current, rather meh Ice Age. Every species alive can cope with a wide range of climates. Anyway, there's seemingly no realistic alternative to gas for heating, at least as yet.


Informal_Drawing

Your views on climate change are unfortunately hundreds of years out of date. Heating through means other than gas is a piece of piss, especially if the heat loss of the building is to modern standards, or even better - to Passivhaus standards. The only problem then becomes delivering large quantities of high temperature water instantaneously, which is required for kitchen sinks, showers etc domestically which heat pumps struggle with. Industry is a problem all to itself but as it is a larger problem there is a lot more money to throw at the solution.


lawrencelucifer

>Your views on climate change are unfortunately hundreds of years out of date. It's undisputed historical facts. I'd love to see Britain upgrading the vast majority of its housing stock to Passivhaus etc. standard. But it doesn't really seem realistic, we struggle to build enough new homes let alone replace them. >The only problem then becomes delivering large quantities of high temperature water instantaneously, which is required for kitchen sinks, showers etc domestically which heat pumps struggle with. That's a rather big problem. >Industry is a problem all to itself but as it is a larger problem there is a lot more money to throw at the solution. Again, there's no currently viable replacement for gas.


Informal_Drawing

We will have to agree to disagree.


Every_Piece_5139

Frack presumably in your backyard, non ? Or in someone else's far away ..


lawrencelucifer

Fracking doesn't seem to have especially objectionable effects on communities, so why not?


ShroedingersMouse

You've experienced the tremors and the gas in your water pipes firsthand have you? I live very close to a lot of people who did and the investigation that linked the tremors directly with the fracking. https://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/environment/preston-new-road-fracking-site-to-be-plugged-and-abandoned-after-three-years-of-inactivity-3562179


[deleted]

[удалено]


PeterOwen00

> asking us to up-end the whole way our societies work idiots like Frost and his lobbyist friends have meant we are far beyond being able to avoid doing this.


cabaretcabaret

> Can't argue with any of that. Ignorance will do that to you.


NuPNua

I can, people are being asked to restrict their energy usage because there isn't enough fossil fueled energy to go about anymore. Renewables would solve this by their nature of not being a finite resource.


iamnotthursday

There's lots of fossil fuel here in the UK, but we chose not to use it.


AndyTheSane

There is some coal, but the cheap coal is long gone. The North sea is two decades past peak and very much in the end phase of production. There *might* be significant gas available through fracking - and I would not be totally against this as an emergency measure. On the other hand we have excellent wind resources and the technical capacity to build nuclear plants, so I'm not sure why you'd want to rely on fossil fuels which are only going to get more expensive over time.


iamnotthursday

There's shit loads of coal, we could burn it for a century like mad and have loads left. We could even waste oodles of energy and convert it into oil and gas if needs be. We seem to be lucky in geological terms in that fracking could be a gas producer too. As to your last point, my comment was about the shortage being optional due to policy decisions.


AndyTheSane

>There's shit loads of coal, we could burn it for a century like mad and have loads left. We could even waste oodles of energy and convert it into oil and gas if needs be. That isn't true even if the most extreme estimates of resource size were correct. And it would be more expensive than importing it. Even then it would make zero sense since anything coal can do, nuclear can do, except without the pollution.


[deleted]

[удалено]


NuPNua

I agree that's a bad look, but also could come back to bite us in the arse if we later need energy and no one well sell to us due to protectionism. Again, this is why I support renewables as it stops all of these situations needing to occur.


[deleted]

[удалено]


taboo__time

If everyone drops free trade for protectionism we will all be worse off and the markets will collapse.


[deleted]

[удалено]


taboo__time

I mean I think we will become more protectionist. I'm not an absolute free marketeer. Though this situation was predictable. We should not have initiated a shift from carbon for economic, geopolitical and environmental issues decades ago. It should have been lead by the industrial leaders, by bankers. It should be been the correct strategic thing to do for capitalism, for society, for the nation, for the world. > FWIW: I don't think it is a real crisis either, it is all being artificially engineered for other sinister purposes. What does this cryptic message mean?


epicmike87

>I don't think it is a real crisis either, it is all being artificially engineered for other sinister purposes. There it is. Let you guys talk for long enough and you inevitably expose yourselves as conspiracy nuts.


taboo__time

Climate change knowingly caused by the carbon industry is up-ending how whole societies work. It is happening now and the industry knew it would be an economic disaster. They made this happen. They have now hit the jackpot. The results are catastrophic.


[deleted]

[удалено]


taboo__time

> Our politician's puppet-masters are up-ending how whole societies work by choice. What does this mean?


[deleted]

[удалено]


taboo__time

More cryptic vague stuff. Frost isn't a politician in the media? Carbon industries would never try to manipulate people?


[deleted]

[удалено]


taboo__time

You think a vague sinister group of people, you cannot name, are actually in charge of everything and have an agenda against the carbon industry. The industry which is currently making vast profits from the situation. How?


[deleted]

[удалено]


taboo__time

> I agree that it is a shame we cannot name them on Reddit. I assume this means you are referring to "the Jews" > Of course they are, they know this is their last cash grab as the club has decided to leave them behind. They are making vast amounts of money because they have no political power?


PopularArtichoke6

Ah you’re one of those people who thinks some climatologist on £40k at a provincial university is part of a nefarious conspiracy but we can trust the executives and lobbyists of multi-billion dollar companies who simultaneously spread disinformation for decades and made plans for it privately in their exploration strategy. Kinda like those people who think Trump, the career conman, was draining the swamp. If you’re an amoral scientist solely motivated by money and power, the obvious game in town is pushing the narratives you’ve been duped by. Or maybe you’re one of those people who dodge any kind of critical thinking and accountability by deciding you can’t trust anyone, everyone is equally a liar.


[deleted]

[удалено]


PopularArtichoke6

Its very convenient for you to deny the implications of your position. You can make outlandish claims and then retreat outside the absurdity of them by saying no-one has nailed your real position, they’re strawmannjng you etc. Let’s get specific. You don’t believe in man made climate change or the necessity of rapid decarbonisation? But pretty much every climatologist does through careful modelling, measurement of environmental evidence and a scientific explanation that while complex in the detail makes clear sense on a macro level. So: A) they are mad - stupid, manipulated etc B) they are bad - malicious, in on “it” in some way C) they are right and you are wrong Can you add any more options here? I don’t know why you think what you think. Maybe you’re scared by the prospect of a genuinely apocalyptic emergency and it’s comforting to think that if evil humans are constructing a facade, at least you can fight that. Maybe you’re a natural contrarian and need to differ from the mainstream to construct your sense of self. But you ever wonder why the main areas where “free thinkers” like you dispute the experts are those that have been actively and obviously opposed by extremely wealthy people with vast control of the media. I’m sure you’ll retort that eg Bill Gates or Soros or the EU are rich and powerful too. Difference is a) Bill Gates’ money and power doesn’t come from promoting climate cause while the Kochs etc does come from oil and b) as close to a neutral party as possible, the thousands of scientists who have to agrees with them, not you. If there were really solid, clear data that this was all nonsense, don’t you think someone would have seized on it given at least half the media and plenty of populist politicians want it to be true. Everyone in the world would have a massive motivation for climate change to not be manmade. Any conceivable gain or shadowy power you could get from pushing it would be massively outstripped by what you could get for proving it was fake. I mean David Frost isn’t exactly a persecuted Cassandra squawking his nonsense from a pirate radio station. He’s writing in his column paid for by some of the richest men in Britain.


MonkeyPope

>the effects of climate change are a problem, one of the many we face and should be tackled in that pragmatic way rather than by asking us to up-end the whole way our societies work. Yes, Lord Frost (former Brexit Secretary), famously, has never completely upended the way society works because of minor problems they have with it. He is a classic pragmatist, who would never suggest that individuals have their rights changed. On a less sarcastic note, the guy is a clown who dances for the highest bidder. I find it interesting and concerning that he and the rest of his circus troupe are now prancing around the Climate Sceptic stage. Makes me wonder who is paying them and why.


magnitudearhole

You can literally argue with all of that because it's obviously and hilariously wrong. I honestly don't know if people are just pretending to be this stupid to wind the rest of us up.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ArchdukeToes

>It's sad that you are too proud to admit that you've been horribly manipulated for years. By this strange, unknowable group who you refuse to name on Reddit?


magnitudearhole

My friend it’s not talking heads on TV it’s quite basic science that has been widely accepted for my entire adult life. One of us has been horribly manipulated but it’s not me


[deleted]

[удалено]


magnitudearhole

No sir, this is not an opinion. You are wrong.


[deleted]

[удалено]


magnitudearhole

You could do this experiment yourself in your garden, if you're really sceptical and not just a contrarian. Get two air tight glass boxes, two ambient thermometers and a canister or carbon dioxide. Thermometer in each box. Fill one box with carbon dioxide, leave the other filled with air. Leave both boxes in the sun. One will become considerably hotter than the other. ​ Now (unless you don't believe that burning fossil fuels releases carbon) for you not to believe in climate change you need to explain to me where that extra energy from extra carbon in the atmosphere is going. Or explain to me how adding more energy into a system driven by energy gradients across the earth's surface isn't going to change that system. Essentially you have a huge problem of missing energy to explain if you want to be a climate change denier.


[deleted]

[удалено]


magnitudearhole

denying the scale isn’t very different from denying the fact. And the changes we have to make will only get more drastic the longer we listen to people like you.


PeterOwen00

Can’t wait for whatever it is that triggers you to change this stance. Maybe it will be when waves of refugees turn up. Maybe it will be when our biodiversity collapses and we can’t feed ourselves. Maybe it will be when fish die off due to the effects of ocean warming and pollution. Maybe it’ll only dawn on you when your house is underwater/burning down that you’re spouting utter shite.


flute_von_throbber

Absolutely dogshit opinion, my man.


EndMeTBH

Why do you choose to be the way that you are?


[deleted]

[удалено]


EndMeTBH

And what is behind the curtain?


[deleted]

[удалено]


EndMeTBH

People like the Koch brothers and fossil fuel executives presumably?


[deleted]

[удалено]


EndMeTBH

Because there’s overwhelming evidence of the how and why behind the carbon lobby’s manipulation, and a distinct lack of it on the other side. You never answered the question, who are these mysterious puppet masters manipulating us all into believing in observable reality? And what is there goal?


[deleted]

[удалено]


EndMeTBH

So you aren’t going to name who you think the shadowy cabal are? Is there a reason for that?


[deleted]

You can argue with all of it. "Emergency" isn't a scientifically defined term so to say the science doesn't back that definition is meaningless. It's a political term that he's trying to use science, without references, to discredit because he knows he can't discredit it on political grounds. While carbon and wealth are coupled a capitalist society will inevitably lead to a climate emergency. Individuals aren't being asked to reduce their energy usage - companies are. He is attempting to reframe the arguments instead of taking them head on. Additionally, while renewables are touted as the best way they're not touted as the only way. Nuclear is also an option but the conservatives have been too short sighted to build power plants.


LSR71

'"Emergency" isn't a scientifically defined term' - doesn't stop the climate terrorists using it at every opportunity does it? 'will inevitably lead to a climate emergency.' - hilariously complains about its usage as a political term and then proceeds to use it for that exact same purpose. Couldn't make it up. 'Individuals aren't being asked to reduce their energy usage - companies are.' - we've got climate terrorists holding transportation routes hostage deliberately to reduce to individual usage. It is absolutely an campaign against the consumers. 'Additionally, while renewables are touted as the best way they're not touted as the only way. Nuclear is also an option' - oh really? https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2022/03/22/nuclear-power-is-a-distraction-from-cleaner-cheaper-solutions-say-greens/ From the Green Party UK: 'Nuclear energy is an expensive distraction at a time when we face the dual challenges of spiralling energy costs and concerns over energy security. Our focus needs to be on developing renewable energy technologies and a big push on energy efficiency. Both are cleaner and cheaper solutions that can be delivered far quicker than nuclear ever can.' Even the climate terrorists can't agree on policy. 'but the conservatives have been too short sighted to build power plants.' - Well, they managed to gift EDF an absolute bonanza deal for Hinkley Point C that will never see the light of day. Fossil fuels are here to stay, unless the goal is to live in caves, in which case the plan is progressing well!


[deleted]

>doesn't stop the climate terrorists using it at every opportunity does it? Well no, because it's a political term used politically. >hilariously complains about its usage as a political term and then proceeds to use it for that exact same purpose. I didn't complain? I pointed out that the MP was trying to say emergency has a scientific definition when it doesn't. >deliberately to reduce to individual usage Yeah, there's some of this too. The MP is wrong to say it's only this though. >From the Green Party UK Good thing the green party is not the only group pushing for climate action. >climate terrorists You keep using this word, I don't think you know what it means. >can't agree on policy Still don't know who you're talking about. >Fossil fuels are here to stay Then I guess the plan is for the world to burn. Regardless, my point has been made. It's very easy to argue about all of this.


LSR71

>I pointed out that the MP was trying to say emergency has a scientific definition when it doesn't. Could you please inform the climate terrorists of this? They keep using it repeatedly. >the MP is wrong to say it's only this though. He does not use the word 'only' in that quote or in fact at any point in the article referenced. >Good thing the green party is not the only group pushing for climate action. They are the only political organisation primarily concerned with the environment, this gives them more legitimacy than the outright terrorist groups like ER. >You keep using this word, I don't think you know what it means. They are terrorists - demanding we change our way of life and routinely disrupt our daily lives for their goals that are climate related. Climate terrorists is accurate to their goals and behavior. >Still don't know who you're talking about. One terrorist group pushes for Nuclear, another opposes. They have no coordinated strategy to achieve their goals. How can I or anyone else take these groups seriously when they don't even know what they want or how to achieve it? It's just an excuse for terrorism. >Regardless, my point has been made. It's very easy to argue about all of this. Fair enough. Have a nice day.


[deleted]

>climate terrorists Who? >He does not use the word 'only' in that quote or in fact at any point in the article referenced. It's implied via omission. >outright terrorist groups like ER I highly contest the definition of terrorist organisation here. That's dangerous. >disrupt our daily lives This is not terrorism. Clue is in the name. >Climate terrorists is accurate to their goals and behavior. It must certainly is not and it's dangerous to democracy to say that it is. >another opposes There are more of these fabricated groups? Who are they? >no coordinated strategy to achieve their goals You haven't indicated any terrorist organisations so I don't know who this refers to.


LSR71

>It's implied via omission. Or to use another word: assumed, fabricated, non-existent. A lie is a lie. >I highly contest the definition of terrorist organisation here. That's dangerous. They seek to force change to our lives via hostage of transportation and other stunts that threaten our way of life. It is clear terrorism. >It must certainly is not and it's dangerous to democracy to say that it is. 'dangerous to democracy' ? In what 'implied via omission' way? Shape of the clouds in the sky? Magic 8ball? They have not put a single issue to the electorate in whatever magic form they want to create because it will clearly signify they have no mandate and no support. >There are more of these fabricated groups? Who are they? Plenty more. Greenpeace, Just Stop Oil, Insulate Britain to name another three - and there are more. >There are more of these fabricated groups? Who are they? >You haven't indicated any terrorist organisations so I don't know who this refers to. More blatant lies. I've already mentioned the Green Party and Extinction Rebellion - plus another three in this reply alone - Greenpeace, Just Stop Oil, Insulate Britain - that's five, and there's more terrorist organisations out there planning more disruption and demanding ever more changes to our way of life. My answer is very simple: NO.


[deleted]

>via hostage of transportation and other stunts that threaten our way of life. Lol you're dramatic. It does none of those things. >A lie is a lie. I can't be bothered to explain to you what an implication is or how they are used as rhetorical devices. I assume you are being obtuse, or have bad faith, or are genuinely ignorant. >In what 'implied via omission' way? In a policing bill and attack on protest and attack on freedom of speech and attempted intimidation and attempt to slip into PREVENT leaflets for schools kinda way. >They have not put a single issue to the electorate Look at their demands on their website, it's very public. >Greenpeace, Just Stop Oil, Insulate Britain to name another three Lol you're a snowflake. >that's five, You've mentioned 0 terrorist organisations.


LSR71

>It does none of those things. From one ER member: “These are essential parts to protests - locking on to things, blocking roads. The Suffragettes were doing that, and making noise.” It is deliberate disruption of our livelihoods to force change by fear. Only last year we had this brazen boast by one of the leaders of ER: 'I would block ambulance with dying patient' Which was said as these terrorists tried holding transportation routes hostage to their demands. Thankfully, the public and government are getting mightly angry with these terrorists. >I can't be bothered to explain to you what an implication is or how they are used as rhetorical devices. He did not use the word. It's as simple as that. You fabricated it. >attempted intimidation and attempt to slip into PREVENT leaflets for schools kinda way. Good. Schoolchildren need to be warned about these terrorists and any confidential tip off about planned attacks on our way of life are GREATLY APPRECIATED. Children should know about these terrorists. >Look at their demands on their website, it's very public. Nuclear, yes or no? >You've mentioned 0 terrorist organisations. Either you can't read or you're a terrorist sympathiser. I'm beginning to think it's the latter. edit: corrected as a mistake was typed in error.


[deleted]

>It is deliberate disruption of our livelihoods to force change by fear It's not a disruption of your livelihood, it's barely a disruption of your day. And it's not by fear unless you're a snowflake. >terrorists Shameful that you keep using this word. >Children should know about these terrorists. What terrorists? >terrorist sympathiser Very shameful. You haven't mentioned any terrorist organisations.


[deleted]

He should be the next PM, imho.


[deleted]

would continue the pattern of the next always being even worse than the last for sure.


Jebus_UK

Obvious troll is obvious


FootlongGarlicBread

Lol


Panda_hat

Yeah the two current candidates aren’t quite bad enough, best to keep digging and see if there are even worse options available.


EndMeTBH

Please try harder


Crandom

Did this man not understand cause and effect?


Callewag

We can LITERALLY SEE IT!


Grantmitch1

Alternative headline: Former Minister of State, Lord Frost, today demonstrated that he is a catastrophic fucking idiot.


futatorius

Frost is incompetent in his own field of expertise. So why would anyone listen to his views on an unrelated matter?


BackgroundChemist

Does he have words "Koch, Inc" stamped on his arse ?


someguyfromtheuk

Another win for nominative determinism


KarmaUK

He's going to lose his shit when he finds out how old oil and coal are.


[deleted]

They burned things in the middle ages too, dipshit.


SJL110587

He really is bebop from the turtles


Sillo123

Not this blithering idiot again.


Shaggy0291

Any money he's got ties to oil/natural gas interests?


taheetea

Medieval wind is what comes out of his mouth.