The only poll that counts is a vote.

Until people can vote for or against what Greenpeace and the UN want, opinion polls are for the birds.

"The survey was conducted by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), analysts at the University of Oxford, and NGO partners using a new approach: mobile gaming."

Seriously...

"From October 7 to December 4, 2020, advertisements in popular mobile games like Angry Birds and Words With Friends were replaced by the survey in 17 languages. "

That's not how "the people" express their voices, Greenpeace.

Moreover, it's f***ing weird.

"Survey questions were drawn from a game that puts players in the role of politicians who are trying to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees or less through different policy areas. "

It is therefore self-selecting, you cretins.

"The survey results provide an invaluable asset for world leaders who will come together later this year at COP26, the UN’s annual climate change conference..."

Imagine that! A mandate manufactured out of a computer game that runs on smartphones.

They are insane.

Read my report for the @thegwpfcom on the UK Climate Assembly, which was an obvious and deeply flawed attempt to circumvent democracy.

The Climate Assembly was convened by six parliamentary select committees:

@CommonsTreasury
@CommonsTrans
@CommonsSTC
@CommonsHCLG
@CommonsEAC
@CommonsBEIS

But half of the funding came from two green billionaire "philanthropic" foundations who controlled the event.

Those foundations are the European Climate Foundation (ECF) & the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation (EFF) @EsmeeFairbairn.

(Don't take my word for it - the influence of political organisations in Parliament is supported uncritically by MPs like Darren

The Climate Assembly brought together 108 "randomly selected" members of the public, who heard from speakers chosen by four 'expert leads'.

One of those leads is Chair of @theCCCuk, Chris Stark @ChiefExecCCC.

That's obviously problematic, as the report explains.

The other Leads are:

* @Bankfieldbecky formerly of the @GreenAllianceUK

* @lwhitmarsh, chair of UK Centre for Climate Change & Social Transformations (CAST)

* Former @UKERCHQ chair & chair of @theCCC's Net-Zero Advisory Group, Jim Watson.

No bias there then.

Bad faith smears, such as this article, omits so much context, order of events and perspective, in order to turn Lockdown into a partisan issue.

Context like claims about 500K deaths, and 67 million people under house arrest for a year.

67 million house arrest years, and their as yet uncalculated second-order consequences amounts to vastly more lost QALYs than were allegedly lost to Covid19.

No lockdown sceptic I am aware argued against precautionary measures for the categorically vulnerable.

Moreover, the lockdown hawks have traded on rank fearmongering, leaving much of the public with the view that ~10% of the population had succumbed to the virus. There has been no effort from the official narrative to address that fear.

Here, Lawson takes Yeadon's comment, which is a statement about ONS's reporting of the week -- ONS's own claim of no statistically significant increase -- as a claim about the year.

https://t.co/J0ZBFKxfG4

He goes on to wonder what Yeadon was referring to, though Yeadon's Tweet was clear enough. The 5-week figures give some big number-drama to his story, but the daily death rate is less stark: 1,691 versus 1,397. Hardly heart-warming figures, but hardly the year 1349.