James West

@afneil Do you think it’s a good idea that bankers are making decisions with immense consequences whilst p***ed?

“Smell the alcohol”?! Wow. I wonder what she thinks it will be like when she and the Greens get their way and legalise heroin? Also, she says that, unlike MPs, she doesn’t think bankers would have a drink then go back to work. What planet is she on?

@afneil The fuel is free and unlimited. So, to first order so long as the turbines last a reasonable time then they’re economic to run. But, hey, our “foremost investigative journalist of his generation” knows more about energy production than the professionals.

You seem to be under the impression renewables are forever. Some of the early offshore wind farms have already been decommissioned and thousands more turbines will be decommissioned in the decade ahead. The North Sea is quite an unforgiving environment and 20 years of turbine life a reasonable assumption. After that they need to be dismantled or refurbished. Both options are expensive.

@rahmstorf @Electroversenet And of course “Electroverse” is an account well known for rejecting fundamental underpinnings of modern physics such as relativity and quantum mechanics.

@Electroversenet This is a disinformation account. The method here is cherry picking: our Potsdam station (I work there) just outside Berlin did have massive air pollution in GDR times that is now gone. The air is as clear again as in the 1950s, but temperatures are 2 C warmer, due to CO2 rise.

Sunlight at Earth's surface has surged since the 1980s. Germany's Potsdam station shows 15 more W/m² of solar energy reaching the ground than during the 1970s dimming era. The Netherlands, Switzerland and Japan all show the same trend. Austria shows even more: 23 extra W/m². It's called global brightening. As air pollution dropped, the atmosphere cleared and sunlight flooded back in. That increase in surface radiation is 10 times larger than the forcing from CO2 over the same period. In short, the air got cleaner, the sunlight stronger and the land a little warmer. The data say so, the physics say so, it's only the narrative that doesn't.

@JimSteeleSkepti @DrKutney All these arguments rest on the absurd premise that generations of climate scientists have failed to consider alternative explanations, both obvious and less obvious. They haven’t. twitter.com/khayhoe/status…

@JimSteeleSkepti @DrKutney I strongly suggest you read why your arguments are wrong and were debunked decades ago. There’s a list of over 200 such arguments listed here. I suggest you read and understand them before publicly embarrassing yourself any more. skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Q. How are we doing in stopping global warming? A. Not very good. #ClimateBrawl

@respect65 All these arguments rest on the absurd premise that generations of climate scientists have failed to consider alternative explanations, both obvious and less obvious. They haven’t. twitter.com/khayhoe/status…

"It is hard to detect any obvious and continuous link between CO2 and temperature across the entire geological record going back 600 million years to the start of abundant life on Earth." CO2 is NOT the dial controlling the climate dailysceptic.org/2026/03/25/sho…

@silent_majori @Ceist8 @Rexdinasaur @anika_climate There was no consensus on cooling 50 years ago. But even if there was, so what? If new evidence convinced scientists that was wrong and warming was predicted instead, isn’t that how science is meant to work? Or aren’t scientists allowed to change their minds?

@Ceist8 @Rexdinasaur @anika_climate I'm sure you're not as dense as you make out to be by avoiding the point. 8yr old do not, like teenagers, question the validity of what the teacher tells them. Even if as you say it's invalid KIDS DO NOT QUESTION THE TEACHER ... get it?

A common thread in the climate crisis is that no matter how much we do “It will never be enough!!….the crisis is too BIG and we are already too late!”. “Climate change” is just the latest instalment in a 60 year doomsday narrative. What was your generation’s doomsday narrative? Nuclear winter? Impending ice-age? Ozone layer? This is me talking about it at the recent International Climate Conference in Washington DC, i was hosted by the Heartland Institute! @HeartlandInst

@Ceist8 @newagemaker1 @Rexdinasaur @silent_majori @anika_climate And yet another “Electrical Engineer”

@newagemaker1 @Rexdinasaur @silent_majori @anika_climate It's funny how these "critical thinker" "truth seeking" "free speech" advocates block anyone who posts evidence-based science refuting their science-illiterate wilfully ignorant opinions 😉

@toadmeister No scientist claims it will rise 1.2m by 2030. It’s rising by over 4mm per year and is accelerating. science.nasa.gov/photojournal/2…

The mainstream media love a good sea level climate scare story. The latest claims the seas will rise by 1.2m by 2030. The actual data, however, show no acceleration at all in the past 150 years, says Paul Homewood in the Climate Skeptic. climateskeptic.org/p/fact-check-s…

@anika_climate The IPCC AR6 WG1 report went through two draft and one final review cycles. Anyone could have raised comments on those drafts if they had issues with the reports. Did you raise any comments? If not, why not? If so, to what effect? But don’t argue you didn’t have the opportunity.

@anika_climate But if you really want “public debate” why do you block anyone who challenges or corrects your arguments with facts and science?

🚨URGENT!!!! During the last 28 years there has been NO PUBLIC broadcast DEBATE held on the science that underpins Net-Zero by 2050 in the UK or elsewhere! If the scientific consensus is wrong, our ideological move to net zero will cause mass human starvation by eliminating nitrogen fertiliser, we have already gone from 19 to 4 oil refineries here in the UK and without oil refineries you lose your ability to produce Nitrogen, an important component of fertiliser. Our food security is being DECIMATED by replacing productive farmland with solar panels and by dimming the sun, the most important factor for crops. Do we really need to go into famine until we decide enough is enough? At what point will you say no?!

@anika_climate But if you really want “public debate” why do you block anyone who challenges or corrects your arguments with facts and science?

@anika_climate Any public debate with non specialists would be like explaining the Big Bang theory to people who keep saying “but I can’t feel the earth move so how can it be orbiting the sun?”. Any debate on climate science would always get “but you do know the climate has changed before?”

@anika_climate Science is not “debated” in public forums with non specialists. Have there been “debates” on Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Evolution, or any other field of science? If you believe the science is wrong then publish your arguments and evidence in a peer reviewed paper.

@Hawkwood101 @Ceist8 @anika_climate @ClimateDepot Meanwhile. Basic physics and models predict increased CO2 causes: ✅rising temperatures ✅rising sea levels ✅receding glaciers and land ice ✅depleting sea ice ✅acidifying oceans ✅increasing ocean heat content ✅other lines of evidence All observed.

@Hawkwood101 @Ceist8 @anika_climate @ClimateDepot And a guy who posts conspiracy theory nonsense isn’t in any position to call anyone a “retard”. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree our CO2 emissions are changing the climate. Every national science academy agrees with them.

@Electroversenet I strongly suggest you read why your arguments are wrong and were debunked decades ago. There’s a list of over 200 such arguments listed here. I suggest you read and understand them before publicly embarrassing yourself any more. skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Professor Emeritus Dr. Ian Plimer calls it "the great CO2 fraud." For decades we have been told that human CO2 drives global warming but Plimer points out: "No one has ever demonstrated that human emissions drive temperature." Ice cores show the opposite of the narrative. "Temperature rises first," says Plimer, "and only centuries later does CO2 follow." For more than 200 years chemistry has shown that CO2 is the gas of life, not a pollutant and not a threat. The planet is far greener today because of higher atmospheric CO2 levels, and crop yields are breaking records. According to Plimer 'runaway warming' is not science, it is propaganda built on inversion and fear.