Friday, July 19, 2024
HomeClimate WatchNet Zero nonsense: A taxpayer’s protest

Net Zero nonsense: A taxpayer’s protest


Open letter to Dame Norma Redfearn, Mayor of North Tyneside and Deputy Mayor of the North of Tyne Combined Authority

Dear Dame Norma,

Open letter: UK-100

Under a headline trumpeting ‘Council joins national UK100 network’, the news pages of North Tyneside Council’s website proudly display a photograph of you, pen in hand, in the act of signing up those you claim to represent to something called UK-100: a ‘network of local leaders who have pledged to lead a rapid transition to Net Zero with Clean Air in their communities ahead of the government’s legal target’.

A year has passed since that announcement, but North Tyneside’s participation in such a network would still be news to the vast majority of its electorate, few of whom habitually browse the website in question: nor would your costly commitment to tighten the screws even harder and faster than required figure high amongst the priorities of householders struggling to keep up with rises in council tax, while gazing dispiritedly at pot holes in their roads and overflowing wheelie bins in their back lanes.

I note, with dissatisfaction, that the beaming lady standing next to you in the photograph, as you sign us up to what many would regard as a hare-brained scheme, is one of my own councillors. I do not remember any of the leaflets in which she advertised the good works of herself and her colleagues making it clear that they are now colluding in a nexus of behind-the-scenes influence, funded by alleged ‘philanthropists’ and designed to accelerate a contentious political agenda; that they are, in effect, being used to provide a fig-leaf of ‘democracy’ for measures which would have no hope of gaining the informed consent of a majority of residents were all the facts to be put on the table and publicly debated.

To return to the photograph: you yourself, I see, are not beaming. In fact, you do not look too happy, as you sit poised to sign the controversial document. Perhaps you are aware of the enormity of what you are doing: of your negligence in failing to seek public endorsement before doubling down on policies so inimical to the precarious living standards of the very people whose interests you, as a member of the Labour Party, might be expected to defend. Have you, maybe, inadvertently happened upon some powerful evidence falling outside of the narrow ‘consensus’ on climate change which is considered fit for public consumption by the BBC, and failed to expunge it completely from your mind? Are you uncomfortably aware, in the recesses of your conscience, that ‘consensus’ and ‘science’ are mutually exclusive propositions?

In case you do not appreciate the devastation that must result from the policies you are set upon intensifying, I refer you to an article by one of the many reputable voices contesting their wisdom. As Professor Norman Fenton points out, successful implementation of the Net Zero agenda will mean ‘either a colder, hungrier population or massive depopulation’.

Perhaps you believe that such ‘collateral damage’ can, sadly, be justified. Perhaps, hounded by remorseless propaganda (from government, from the media, from NGOs and corporations) you really do believe that human beings are responsible for a looming climate crisis of such cataclysmic proportions that There Is No Alternative: that only universal pauperisation and a soaring death toll, as reliable sources of energy are replaced by the caprice of windmills and solar panels, can ‘save the planet’. If this is the case, you would do well to free your mind from nudge-unit propaganda, and balance the diet of guilt and doom offered by the likes of the Guardian and the BBC with a little healthy scepticism.  With this in view, I can thoroughly recommend the website of Paul Homewood, and the series of articles, ‘The’ Climate Science is Settled. Any questions? – Parts 12 and 3,  by Iain Davis. Please read and digest what they have to say, and follow the links to other sources of information which you might usefully weigh against the prescribed credo of anthropogenic climate change.

We are told that the precautionary principle requires us to take pre-emptive action to limit or circumvent future disasters. What is not emphasised is the equal importance of undertaking a preliminary risk/benefit analysis based not on the speculations of computer modellers or of some consensus-based ‘settled science’, but on observed facts and experience: all the more so, when dealing with unprecedented situations involving fiercely contested ‘certainties’. Had you respected the precautionary principle, you would have examined all the evidence and consulted all the various strands of expert opinion before exposing North Tyneside to the unnecessary hardships that may result from your experimental response to an unproven, and unprovable, hypothesis.

I have previously written to you requesting an airing in the council chamber of warnings from many well-qualified scientists regarding the impact of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) exposures, and suggested that you seek the informed consent of residents, before permitting 5G to subject them to a further intensification of non-thermal radiation. You refused to undertake a public consultation and debate, rejecting the evidence of such pre-eminent researchers into the effects of EMFs as Dr Martin Pall of Washington State University, and citing instead the advice of North Tyneside’s Director of Public Health (a nurse, health visitor and clinical manager), who takes her guidance from the very bodies whose inadequacy Dr Pall has exposed in his e-book here. You are now, once again, accepting as gospel truth a ‘settled science’ which is energetically challenged by increasing numbers of eminent scientists, and committing yourself to the controversial, and potentially disastrous, measures which this entails without obtaining the informed consent of those you allegedly represent.

Please stop acting beyond your authority by enabling policies which presume fundamental changes in our way of life, but which have never been spelled out in detail to the general public or gained their explicit approval in elections at either national or local level. For a start, please withdraw North Tyneside from the unrepresentative network of intrigue known as UK-100.

Yours sincerely

Gillian Dymond

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Gillian Dymond
Gillian Dymond
Gillian Dymond is 78, a mother and grandmother living in the north-east of England.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.