Stephen Barlow

Yes!

Exactly. A stain on humanity.

Free speech hypocrisy. The Trumpian right, never respected free speech, they just wanted the right to be racist.

Some of this could be put down, to Starmer being politically inept, but even the most politically stupid person, would have realized by now, that they are heading in the wrong direction, and are going to crash the Labour Party. In whose interests, is that?
3/3

Starmer has repeatedly pursued policy, that is very unpopular with Labour voters, and makes no sense, in terms of winning the next general election. This is what makes it clear, he's controlled. Because he refuses to pursue policy consistent, with staying in government.
2/3

I think it's very simple, Starmer is a full-owned shill, a puppet for vested interests. How this came about, whether he was bought with blackmail, or money, or a combination, I don't really care. However, the evidence is clear, Starmer is not his own man.
1/3

Yes, we know what it looks like, because that is what it is like, you sold out. Cut out the waffle and self-justification.

Biodiversity collapse threatens UK security, intelligence chiefs warn Ecosystem destruction will increase food shortages, disorder and mass migration, with effects already being felt

I could go on and on about this. About all the clever techno-fixes to alleviate climate change, whilst ignoring the fact that this would do nothing to help the biodiversity and ecological crisis, which is equally, if not more serious.
www.theguardian.com/environment/...
19/

Which is more sensible, to stop smoking to lower your cancer and other health risks, or to go all out, to find ways of avoiding cancer and other health risks, whilst continuing to smoke heavily?
18/

But ah, the clever ones will say, we've tried the cooperation and sensible thing approach, and it didn't work, because governments wouldn't cooperate.

You think it more likely they will cooperate on geoengineering? It would need massive cooperation and consensus, when they were in chaos!
17/

But most of all, why are you putting so much store in an impractical and reckless venture, when it would be far more fruitful of doing the sensible thing of mitigation and system change to a sustainable system?
16/

Yes it is true, that in the world of business, and state adventure, that great profit can be made with risky ventures, and empires built. But most fail, catastrophically. For every bold venture that succeeds, temporarily, countless ones fail. Reckless stupidity, is not the answer.
15/

Our culture of the last 200 years, has developed this tradition, where people jump in feet first, with hare-brained schemes, and they are up and running, without doing the most basic feasibility test. This is derived from business/venture think, where risks are taken.
14/

How in the face of such historical precedent and experience, do people think we could realistically get consensus, and agreement, global cooperation on implementing a dangerous, reckless measure, with governance falling to pieces?
13/

It may seem common sense, that faced with a planetary emergency, that governments will cooperate for the common good.

But look at the 30+ year history of the COP talk on climate change, where they haven't even been able to agree on phasing out most fossil fuel burning.
12/

One of the first steps of effective problem-solving and finding viable solutions is testing how viable, and realistic a solution is, long before asking if it is ethical and moral, what the side effects might be etc. Because if it falls at the hurdle of efficacy, it can be discarded.
11/

Then there is the fact, that if governments, could cooperate rationally for the common good, then why didn't they agree the easy route of mitigation, phasing out fossil fuels, and moving to a sustainable system, economy?
10/

Already in the US, the government is being run, by insane cultists, who are detached from science, reason and evidence. You think in a state of global collapse, that governments would be more rational and cooperative than ever, or in a state of chaos and conflict, and irrationality?
9/

Who would be applying this global techno-fix, which would require global cooperation and agreement, on a massive scale never seen before?

In the event of extreme warming and ecological collapse, governments and states as they are, would be chaotic, and in a state of collapse.
8/

Likewise, it could cause serious ecological damage, and could go dangerously wrong. However, I argue, there is a far greater problem, simple impracticality. It is envisaged this techno-fix, would be applied, when this warming got out of hand. This is absurd thinking.
7/

There are complex technical difficulties of assessing the degree of cooling we would need to apply to a complex system, already with many loops driving warming and cooling, and all the associated feedback loops, balancing it, which we don't fully understand.
6/

Let me given an example of this. The false idea that to counteract, global warming, we need to implement a means to cool the planet i.e. geoengineering.

What I say, is not an exhaustive list of what is mistaken with this mad, bad and dangerous notion.
5/

To recap, we can say with complete confidence, that a suggestion is mistaken, or at least very dubious, when there is clear evidence to contradict it, or arguments to contradict it, that the person making the suggestion, cannot answer or address.
4/

Conversely, it is impossible to say with complete confidence, that something is right and correct, because there maybe reasons why something is erroneous, we just haven't yet discovered it. This is why we must be wary of saying something is definitely correct.
3/

The reason I'm able to say with complete confidence, that these ideas are erroneous, is not arrogance. It is possible to say with complete confidence that something is mistaken and erroneous, if you can produce evidence and arguments, which contradict it. And I can!
2/

I am repeatedly finding influential commentators on the climate and ecological crisis, making completely mistaken and erroneous assertions about what we need to do i.e. solutions. I appreciate, they are trying to be helpful, but it causes confusion.
1/🧵

Has no one actually read what I said, and the references I have used, to prove it is not just me saying this. It is real. We face massive challenges in the very near future, that threaten the very existence of our civilization.

Talk about abject denial.
4/4

The UK government didn't want you to see this report on ecosystem collapse. I'm not surprised | George Monbiot It took an FOI request to bring this national security assessment to light. For ‘doomsayers’ like us, it is the ultimate vindication, says Guardian columnist George Monbiot

Plus there's total incoherence, in the government's own intelligence services point to major ecosystem and biodiversity collapse, causing global chaos and food shortages, over the forthcoming decades. Yet, governments are acting like there's a bright future.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
3/4

Bill Gates: AI will take over almost every job - except these three - TECHXPO As Artificial Intelligence (AI) develops at an ever faster pace, many fear that the technology will sooner or later displace humans from the labour market. According to Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates...

This transition stuff is a bizarre euphemism, making it sound like there will only be temporary job losses because of AI. No, most jobs can be replaced with AI, and this will accelerate over time.

There is a total lack of joined up thinking and coherence.
techxpo.hu/en/bill-gate...
2/4

There is a clear inconsistency and contradiction, between governments trying to coerce even the sick and disabled into work, and the government promoting AI, which will put large numbers of people out of work. It is like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
1/4🧵