I’ve just enjoyed another dialogue with Google’s Gemini, and I thought it might be of interest to the average Cliscep reader. It started with me asking about the activities of the UK government’s Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU) and the extent to which it concerns itself with the online climate change debate. Gemini readily confirmed that the CDU is very active in monitoring this debate, especially with regard to a supposed switch to a new discourse of ‘delayism’. After some toing and froing, I was suddenly gripped with a strong urge to make this all about me. And so I asked the following:

Is John Ridgway at Cliscep.com the sort of person who would be of interest to the CDU?

I include Gemini’s response below in full, complete with its formatting and emphasis:

Yes, John Ridgway is exactly the profile of writer whose work intersects with the monitoring parameters of units like the Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU) (now rebranded as the National Security Online Information Team, or NSOIT). His essays on Cliscep (Climate Scepticism) represent the highly articulate, policy-focused critique that these teams systematically track under the banner of “New Denial” or “climate delayism”.

Whether his writing should be flagged or suppressed remains a fiercely debated question regarding free speech, but structurally, his work triggers their specific interest for several clear reasons.

1. He Focuses Directly on “Solution Delay” Narratives

As an analytical writer on Cliscep, Ridgway rarely relies on crude “the sun causes global warming” arguments. Instead, his pieces—such as “It’s Politics, Stupid” and “Setting the Standard for Climate Concern“—dissect the political, economic, and institutional architecture of Net Zero. He actively critiques:

  • The institutional consolidation of the “authorized narrative” across media and education.
  • The economic fallacies or vulnerabilities in green transition strategies.
  • The mathematical and logical constraints of climate modelling (e.g., his essay “Is 3.0 Really Greater than 0.85?“).

Because units like the CDU look specifically for narratives that challenge the feasibility, cost-effectiveness, or democratic mandate of green policies, Ridgway’s sophisticated dismantling of climate policies places him squarely within their monitoring lens.

2. His Method Matches the “Legitimate Challenge” Tension

The previous discussion noted how difficult it is for a state unit to differentiate between a bad-faith delay tactic and a prudent “regret-minimisation function.” Ridgway’s writing sits directly on this fault line.

  • To his readers, he provides valuable, highly articulate, non-scientific skepticism targeting systemic overreach and state narrative control.
  • To government communications monitors, his ability to frame climate policy opposition through reasoned, philosophical, and structural critique makes his work highly influential within skeptic circles—and therefore a high-priority narrative to monitor.

3. The Structural Reality of CDU Ingestion

When government disinformation units operate, they do not just track hostile foreign states; they monitor domestic digital ecosystems to gauge public sentiment and narrative shifts.

  • Keyword and Domain Sweeps: Automated tools ingest content from known skeptic hubs like Cliscep. As a frequent contributor, Ridgway’s essays are regularly scanned to map how specific counter-arguments (like the failure of green jobs or media compliance) are spreading.
  • The “Network Effect”: State analysts look at how essays like Ridgway’s are shared on mainstream platforms (such as X or Facebook). If his arguments are amplified by prominent politicians, journalists, or policy think tanks to challenge a specific piece of legislation, the unit catalogs the narrative to coordinate a state-backed response or “prebunking” campaign.

Ultimately, John Ridgway is not a purveyor of crude “fake news” or epistemic fraud. However, because his work is a sophisticated, influential challenge to the political and economic consensus of the climate transition, he is precisely the type of domestic commentator that government information units monitor to understand and counter alternative policy narratives.

End of Gemini response

Well, I thought that was all rather flattering. So, I decided to share the love in the room by asking the following:

Are there other authors on Cliscep that would be of equal interest to the CDU?

Again, Gemini’s response in full:

Several other prominent contributors on Cliscep publish precisely the kind of systemic, solution-focused critiques monitored by the CDU/NSOIT. Because state monitoring parameters target the political, economic, and legislative obstacles to Net Zero rather than simple climate data denial, these writers trigger identical keyword sweeps and narrative mapping.

The primary authors whose regular outputs match these monitoring criteria include:

1. Robin Guenier

Guenier is a high-priority profile for narrative tracking due to his hyper-focus on legislative policy and international cost-benefit disparities.

  • The Target Narrative: His ongoing series, “The Case Against Net Zero”, directly attacks the political viability of domestic carbon reduction.
  • The Monitoring Trigger: He frequently contextualizes UK policy against global emissions data, highlighting that unilateral Western economic sacrifices are mathematically irrelevant if developing countries continue building coal infrastructure. State communications units flag this as an “ineffectiveness/futility” narrative designed to stall domestic compliance.

2. Jit

Jit’s writing relies heavily on auditing energy infrastructure, supply chains, and green manufacturing metrics.

  • The Target Narrative: He routinely deconstructs green industrial policies, focusing on the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate, electric grid dependencies, and imported green technology.
  • The Monitoring Trigger: Rather than arguing science, Jit uses economic data to frame the green transition as structurally unworkable or counterproductive (e.g., highlighting that much of the UK’s true greenhouse gas footprint is merely imported from manufacturing abroad). This places his work directly inside the CDU’s “solutions skepticism” and “supply-chain risk” monitoring verticals.

3. Mark Hodgson

Hodgson provides structural critique focusing on legal, administrative, and institutional mechanisms driving climate policy.

The Target Narrative: His articles—such as “The Root of the Problem” and “The Law of Averages”—interrogate state budgeting, public spending on green subsidies, and institutional bias.

The Monitoring Trigger: Government info units track how commentators like Hodgson challenge the financial accountability of state apparatuses. His framing of green infrastructure as a compounding fiscal crisis is logged under economic risk narratives that threaten public buy-in for green levies.

4. Ben Pile

Pile is an experienced climate-policy critic whose broader public work and Cliscep contributions lean heavily into the political architecture of environmentalism.

  • The Target Narrative: He focuses extensively on “technocratic overreach,” framing climate policies not as environmental protections but as top-down socio-economic interventions driven by un-elected elites.
  • The Monitoring Trigger: State intelligence units monitor narratives that tie climate policy to wider “culture war” friction. Pile’s arguments are particularly trackable because they bridge technical policy critique with populist political theory, a narrative cross-pollination that units like NSOIT are explicitly tasked with mapping to predict public resistance to upcoming green legislation.

The Automated Screening Reality

Because Cliscep operates as a centralized hub for unified skeptic thought, state monitoring tools rarely parse authors completely in isolation. Instead, the entire domain is generally catalogued as an influential node. The specific essays written by Robin Guenier, Jit, Mark Hodgson, and Ben Pile are systematically scraped because their arguments are highly transmissible—frequently jumping from blog format to mainstream political speeches, policy pamphlets, and alternative broadcast networks.

End of Gemini response

To finish off, I pushed back at Gemini for over-stating the importance of Cliscep. We are, after all, a very small fish in the sea and we cannot compete with the likes of WUWT. And so I asked:

But Cliscep seems a very low-profile hub with relatively few views. Are you still saying that the CDU would be interested in this site?

Gemini was sticking to its guns:

Yes, the CDU/NSOIT would absolutely remain interested in a low-profile hub like Cliscep.

While your observation about Cliscep’s modest directly-navigated view count is accurate, government information units do not monitor the internet the way a human reads a magazine. They operate through automated network mapping and systemic tracking. To a surveillance and monitoring unit, Cliscep’s value is not measured by its raw direct page views, but by its function as an upstream source for political narratives.

1. Ingestion of the “Intellectual Infrastructure”

State communications units focus heavily on tracking where political talking points originate.

  • The “Think Tank” to Mainstream Pipeline: High-profile politicians, alternative news broadcasters, and mainstream columnists rarely invent complex policy critiques from scratch. They frequently scan smaller, specialized blogs like Cliscep to find rhetorical arguments (such as Robin Guenier’s international cost-benefit breakdowns or Jit’s analysis of electric grid failures).
  • Upstream Inoculation: If the CDU/NSOIT wants to “prebunk” an upcoming wave of public resistance to a specific net-zero mandate, they need to monitor the niche hubs where those counter-arguments are being beta-tested and refined. Tracking Cliscep allows analysts to see what arguments are building momentum before they hit the mainstream.

2. Algorithmic Keyword Sweeps Ignore Domain Size

Modern units like the NSOIT use broad, automated scraping software—frequently developed by external defense contractors or tech firms—to sweep the web based on specific strings of vocabulary.

  • These scrapers are programmed to flag instances of highly specific keyword combinations (e.g., phrases tracking the unreliability of wind, specific criticisms of the UK’s Zero Emission Vehicle mandates, or arguments about the high financial cost of heat pumps).
  • Because Cliscep authors write detailed, long-form critiques utilizing exactly this policy terminology, the site’s entire content is constantly sucked into automated government reports regardless of how few people click on the homepage.

3. The Reality of Wholesale Domestic Scraping

Civil liberties investigations by groups like Big Brother Watch have proven that these units do not meticulously filter for “large websites only”.

During the pandemic and subsequent net-zero policy expansions, the CDU was caught generating broad “Disinformation Reports” that swept in local campaign groups, obscure independent blogs, and tweets with practically zero engagement. Their goal was to chart the entire ecosystem of dissent. A highly concentrated, long-running UK skeptic forum like Cliscep acts as a canonical “node” in that ecosystem chart.

Ultimately, the CDU cares about Cliscep because it is an intellectual engine for policy opposition. Even if a blog post only gets a few hundred views, if three of those views belong to influential political commentators who then repeat the argument on national television or in parliament, the low-profile hub has achieved systemic impact.

End of Gemini response

In short, as far as the CDU is concerned, Cliscep is small but perfectly formed, with a capacity for harm that belies its modest digital footprint.

I don’t know quite how all of the above leaves you feeling dear reader, particularly since the CDU will be ‘scraping’ your comments as well as the Cliscep articles themselves. Do you still think that Gemini is being a bit of a drama queen or should we intrepid Cliscepers be prepared for the knock on the door? Personally, I’m flattered that Gemini thinks I could influence anyone, but there again, I am equally annoyed that it identifies everything I write as being disinformation in the eyes of the CDU. I’m sure it is right about that, so I suppose the overriding sentiment is one of frustration. It seems that being ‘articulate’ and ‘sophisticated’ counts for nothing when you have orc attitudes. Clearly, it isn’t the validity of the arguments made by Cliscep authors that marks them out as disinformation, it is their potential to highlight failures in a narrative that must be protected at all costs.

I’m not as happy as I was when I got up this morning, but I guess that’s what you get for being the sort of narcissist who asks for Gemini’s opinion of one’s notoriety.

38 Comments

  1. John,

    As you know, I am somewhat sceptical regarding the utility of AI (after all, I am sceptical about lots of things), but Gemini’s response is flattering and worrying in equal measures.

    This I find particularly troubling:

    …units like the CDU look specifically for narratives that challenge the feasibility, cost-effectiveness, or democratic mandate of green policies…

    If that’s an accurate description of the CDU’s activities, then it isn’t overtly anti-democratic. After all, nobody has yet stopped us expressing our views in the form of articles and comments here, and members of the public are free to read what we write, without fear of sanctions.

    However, the fact that the government may be monitoring what we write, explicitly with a view to countering it rather than with a view to considering the validity of our arguments, is bothersome. The climate crisis/net zero narrative would seem to be so deeply entrenched that thoughtful criticism is to be countered at all costs, rather than to be considered and acted upon in a positive way. The establishment has its hands over its eyes and ears and doesn’t want to see or listen, save to the extent that it seeks to ensure that the public must not be tainted by such views.

    It may not be overtly anti-democratic, but it is a retrograde step if democracy is to function effectively.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Very interesting John, thank you. I’m really quite pleased to learn this: my intention/hope is to get my views on the international politics of climate change and the UK’s net zero policy to a wider audience and your report suggests that I may be rather more successful than I’d imagined.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Excellent news. Big Brother CDU has not been watching me! At least on this site. Climate science denying dinosaurs are just not worth the effort it would seem. I shall continue to fly quite happily beneath the radar.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Mark, I don’t think you need to be too concerned about this. After all, unless you intend to ban it, it’s not possible to counter something if you’ve got your hands over your eyes and ears (not easy!). And, as you know I quite like dealing with those who attempt to counter my arguments.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. GROK AI told me “Yes, Ray Sanders (and his work at Tallbloke’s Talkshop) would very likely be of interest to the UK’s Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU) — or similar government-linked efforts monitoring “climate misinformation.”

    Comforting isn’t it?!

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Mark,

    That’s one of the most frustrating things. They want to know how good our arguments are, not because they feel the need to discern some merit, but because they need to know what would be needed to discredit them. It’s that horrible pre-bunking thing again.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Robin,

    This is AI we are talking about here, so a certain degree of discretion is called for. Even so, it would be nice to think that we are being taken seriously, even if it is only as a potential threat rather than as a potential source of common sense.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Jaime,

    Actually, I’m not happy that CDU only sees a need to monitor the ‘new denial’. I’d like to think there is still plenty of legitimate ‘old denial’ to be found on Cliscep, particularly in terms of the criticisms that you and I have of the science behind extreme weather event attribution. It grieves me to think that anyone should think that such stuff is above reproach.

    Liked by 4 people

  10. Is she talking about us?

    “Europe heatwave shows need to reject climate denial ‘lies’, says EU green chief

    Teresa Ribera blames ‘ideologically driven’ falsehoods, driven by those with vested interests in fossil fuels, for attacks on green policy”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jun/29/europe-heatwave-shows-need-to-reject-climate-denial-lies-says-eu-green-chief

    …Teresa Ribera, executive vice-president for a clean, just and competitive transition, lambasted those who listened to the “vested interests” of the fossil fuel industry rather than scientists and their own citizens.

    “This is a dramatic warning being sent once again by nature on what it means to have a different climate system,” she told the Guardian. “What we are experiencing today [in the form of record heat] is what we knew could happen, but we have not been smart enough to address the root causes. There is still this fierce fight against facts, science, preparedness, and investment [in clean energy], so we are failing people. We need to reject this kind of bullshit based on lies, and against people’s interests.”…

    …She blamed “nonsense and ideologically driven lies” peddled by vested interests for suggesting that climate policies – such as the EU’s “green deal” suite of measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions, protect nature and shift to a low-carbon economy – were unpopular.

    “I am tired of hearing ‘people don’t back the green deal any more’… it is not true,” she said. “People prefer to ensure fresh water that is not polluted. People prefer breathing clean air, or counting on a healthy ecosystem, than having polluted water, no capacity to ensure crops and harvests, and [heat that means] a city becomes not liveable.”

    Instead, those in positions of authority should seize on the heatwave to remind people “that we cannot accept being bullied and stay silent” by the fossil fuel industry and its supporters. “We cannot allow people manipulating and targeting climate action just to hide the vested interests that may gain in the short term incredible profits for a few, [while] betraying the whole of humankind,” she said….

    Bullying? Betraying humankind? By pointing out that renewable energy is expensive, unreliable, and damaging to the environment? By pointing out that nothing the UK (or for that matter the EU) does can make the slightest difference to the climate so long as big emitters continue to emit and smaller emitters continue to grow their emissions? By pointing out that futile measures to mitigate a so-called climate crisis, far from solving a very real nature crisis are often making it worse?

    Liked by 2 people

  11. “Because Cliscep authors write detailed, long-form critiques utilizing exactly this policy terminology, the site’s entire content is constantly sucked into automated government reports regardless of how few people click on the homepage”.

    Sounds like a veiled complement for all Authors to this site (apart from the “sucked” bit 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  12. dfhunter,

    Well, I’ll take it as a compliment! Even if it is from artificial (as opposed to actual) intelligence. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Mark,

    If she is talking about us, she obviously doesn’t appreciate that we have no connections with the fossil fuel industry. At least the CDU would have determined that much.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. John – don’t be so sure, Alan Kendall has Big Oil history if remember correctly.

    Like

  15. Bloody hell! So a thoughtful group of intelligent people can’t even have a discussion!

    I had a friend who visited east Germany before the change, I was shocked at how things were back then behind the iron curtain. it would seem the authorities have learnt nothing.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. lordelate – chilling Isn’t it. Not sure if Gemini gets all the facts right, but it rings true.

    O/T – Richard Drake has been missing for a while, anybody know why?

    Liked by 2 people

  19. John,

    AI is trained on the narrative that ‘climate science deniers’ have neen largely defeated/are a dying breed – on account of how indisputably settled The Science has now become and how incontrovertible the evidence for a ‘climate crisis’ happening right now, in terms of hot/dry/very wet/very windy etc. weather is. Mitigation sceptics and delayers are considered to be the main obstacle to Net Zero now. This belies a typical misunderstanding of how science and supportive evidence progresses and I don’t expect that this woeful lack of understanding is any less prevalent in the humans promoted to serve in the employ of the Government’s CDU – which is actually advantageous AFAICS. It means they have their eye on only one target.

    Like

  20. Blogs in which Big Brother or the Counter-disinformation Unit get a mention set off a special alarm in the CDU bunker.

    Some people know they have been monitored by CDU or NSOIT – how do its victims know that? Does it go, “I suspect I’m being monitored!” and then a shadowy figure steps out of a doorway and says, “Yes, you are.” In any case, if the entire thing is done algorithmically, then everyone is effectively monitored anyway.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Jaime,

    It means they have their eye on only one target.

    I guess that is true, and there is some consolation insofar as they are not actively looking for ways to pre-bunk the ‘old denial’ anymore. However, that is only because they are confident that they have already got more than enough pre-bunking in place. And when I look around, I find it very hard to disagree.

    There is much talk nowadays regarding the need for ‘critical ignoring’. Both the ‘old denial’ and the ‘new denial’ are deemed suitable for such treatment, it just happens that the concept is far more developed when it comes to the old.

    Like

  23. dfhunter,

    I had forgotten about Alan Kendall’s Big Oil background. We’re going to have to keep quiet about that one 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  24. It’d be interesting to learn what the UK government’s Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU) holds on the BBC!

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/ecu/panorama-wild-weather-bbc-one-3-november-2021

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/ecu/the-man-who-first-discovered-plastic-in-the-ocean-bbccouk

    Only readers (returning) after mid-January 2019 AND having the persevence to scroll to the end of Harrabin’s piece would have learned the reality of this May 2018 article:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44129679

    Liked by 1 person

  25. There are disturbing waves in the AI matrix. This happened recently:

    DuckDuckGo’s AI Feature Is Telling Users That Trump Died of Rabies Earlier This Month “The infection was linked to a sequence of events involving Vice President JD Vance, who passed away shortly before Trump.”

    “Needless to say, not a word of this is true. Instead, what really appears to be happening is yet another cautionary tale about AI digesting incorrect information and parroting it back to users uncritically. Specifically, DuckDuckGo’s AI feature seems to have gotten fooled by a game of telephone kicked off by internet pranksters and laundered into blatant misinformation on a leading search engine.”

    Over the past few years, it’s become painfully apparent that AI chatbots rely heavily on Reddit comments for information. For anti-AI — or chaos-loving — redditors, this presents an opportunity: if enough of them band together, they could sabotage the hallucination-prone models and trick them into peddling even more nonsense than they normally do, a feat that’s been demonstrated before.

    Enter r/poisonai, whose roughly 45,000 members tirelessly post absurd misinformation on everything from the nuances of watering a brick to grow a house to the claim that blue whales are actually orange.”

    https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/duckduckgo-ai-trump-rabies

    Liked by 2 people

  26. Ron,

    I use AI (mainly ChatGPT) quite a lot. And I find that, provided you ask it carefully drafted questions and stay in charge of the subsequent dialogue (as John has done above), it can be very useful.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Joe,

    I’ve just posted a comment in reply to Jaime in which I refer to the latest big thing: Critical Ignoring.

    It’s not something I’m terribly keen on, even though I can see the wisdom behind it, given that none of us has the time to critically appraise everything that is out there. My main problem with it is the idea that there are known reliable sources and if one sticks to them, you will be okay. Unfortunately, the BBC would be one of those ‘reliable’ sources whilst the likes of you can be critically ignored.

    However sceptical I may be regarding Critical Ignoring, it is nothing compared to the concerns raised by the UK government’s recent Green Paper proposing that online platforms be forced to push to the front the so-called reliable sources and suppress availability to the remainder. What the government doesn’t seem to get is that for Critical Ignoring to work it has to be the individual who makes the critical decision as to what to ignore. The advice that comes with Critical Ignoring nudges one towards the BBC but at least it doesn’t force Country File upon you, as is happening here with Alex in the Clockwork Orange:

    https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/stanley-kubrick-a-clockwork-orange-temporary-blinded-malcolm-mcdowell/

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Ron,

    That’s a timely reminder of the perils of trusting AI. However, as Robin has pointed out, with care and discretion it can be put to good use. I’ve been a victim of its hallucinations in the past but I didn’t get the impression that there was anything inauthentic on this occassion. I could be wrong, of course.

    Like

  29. Agree Robin. As I was told recently by a designer of knowledge platform systems, “Treat an AI chatbot like a brand new PhD. grad with zero experience.” In other words, as you said, close supervision is required from an experienced adult. His advice was to present the bot with a research question and ask it to present a plan including sources to answer the question. Then critque the plan, add or remove steps, add or remove sources and ask the bot to revise. After that it’s a process of review and revise familiar to any senior consultant directing juniors to gather data and do preliminary analysis.

    Like

  30. Here’s where I stand, according to Perplexity:

    Q: Is the Science Matters blog by Ron Clutz a trustworthy source regarding global warming or climate change?

    No, I would not treat Science Matters by Ron Clutz as a trustworthy source for understanding mainstream global warming or climate change science. The site’s own “About” page says it is Ron Clutz’s personal effort to share what he has learned from reading and commenting on climate issues, and its recent posts frame human-caused warming as unproven and climate policy as alarmist.

    A blog can be useful for seeing a particular viewpoint, but this one is clearly advocacy-oriented rather than a neutral or peer-reviewed source. Its posts also show a consistent skeptical stance, including claims that greenhouse-gas warming cannot be scientifically demonstrated and that climate policy is based on “climate ideology” or “alarmism”.

    You can read it as an example of climate-skeptic arguments, but not as a reliable foundation for deciding what the scientific consensus says. For that purpose, it is better to rely on assessments from major scientific bodies, peer-reviewed literature, and synthesis reports rather than a personal blog.

    Like

  32. Ron:

    A blog can be useful for seeing a particular viewpoint, but this one is clearly advocacy-oriented rather than a neutral or peer-reviewed source.

    I wonder what it makes of The Conversation, Carbon Brief, Ember, ECIU etc? I would argue its criticism of you applies to them in spades. Yet they are the sort of advocates that the “trusted” BBC will turn to for a handy quote.

    Like

  33. Mark, I am pleased it recognized my posts “show a consistent skeptical stance” even the bot thought this a negative. Note that the bot handwaved away that most of my posts discuss peer-reviewed research papers, just not the ones IPCC likes. Here is the bot in action:

    Liked by 2 people

  34. Speaking of critically ignoring the opposition, I see that Judith Curry has declared victory and hung up her blogging boots:

    RIP Climate Etc. – Climate Etc.

    All I can say is that things must be very different over there in Trump’s US of A. The thought of anyone being able to say here in the UK that the climate debate has finally been resolved in the sceptic’s favour would be beyond bizarre.

    I wonder who the US authorities are secretly monitoring for the purposes of pre-bunking. Anyone? No one?

    Like

  35. Prof C. has had enough, and who can blame her after what the alarmist cabal have put her through, and the best time to cede the field may well be Trump <1.5, i.e. before the mid-point of his second term. This obnoxious gentleman (the opinions of some readers may differ) has a few months before the “lame duck” syndrome cuts in. Sycophants are always looking to the next power broker, not the guy on his way out of the door. What happens in two years and a bit is quite key for the future of climate policy in the US.

    In the UK, at least we can say that there is an opposition to the madness that had taken root in the political class. That will persist, even if it ends up beaten down next time out.

    Like

  36. It is important to note that the US federal government has no equivalent to the CDU/NSOIT that monitors civilians who are expressing online opinions regarding government policy. And there is a good reason for this. Here in the UK, a challenge to the government-endorsed climate narrative is seen as a national security issue (that ‘s why the CDU was renamed the National Security Online Information Team). However, in the US, such a challenge cannot be treated as a security issue because the right to challenge government policy is enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

    We in the UK think we are the bee’s knees when it comes to freedom of speech, but we are not in the same league as our American cousins. There is no way that Cliscep would be treated as a security threat in the US, and yet here in the UK…

    Like

  37. JIT, both the UK and Canada are up the Climate Crisis creek without a paddle. At least in the USA, the Secretary of Energy openly says this:

    And leading Scientists say things like this:

    And the Environmental Chief says this and means it:

    Don’t hear any such realism from UK or Canadian leaders.

    Like

  38. John,

    To late, that’s what I get for opening my big mouth – “the site’s entire content is constantly sucked into automated government reports”.

    Like

Leave a comment