{"id":444956,"date":"2026-05-18T04:10:54","date_gmt":"2026-05-18T11:10:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=444956"},"modified":"2026-05-18T04:34:04","modified_gmt":"2026-05-18T11:34:04","slug":"intellectual-yet-idiot-ed-miliband-and-the-economic-illiteracy-driving-britains-energy-crisis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=444956","title":{"rendered":"Intellectual Yet Idiot: Ed Miliband and the Economic Illiteracy Driving Britain\u2019s Energy Crisis"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

From Tilak\u00b4s Substack<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Tilak Doshi<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The international committee responsible for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change<\/strong>\u2019s official climate scenarios quietly delivered<\/a> a bombshell last month: the notorious RCP8.5 \u201cbusiness-as-usual\u201d<\/strong> pathway \u2014 the extreme emissions scenario that has underpinned virtually every climate alarm, every net-zero urgency claim, and every justification for Britain\u2019s ruinous energy policy for the past fifteen years \u2014 has been declared officially \u201cimplausible\u201d and eliminated from the next generation of models feeding into the IPCC\u2019s Seventh Assessment Report. The \u201cera of global boiling\u201d<\/strong> speech<\/a> of the UN Secretary General Ant\u00f3nio Guterres <\/strong>in 2023 now sounds even more ludicrous than it already did then.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Roger Pielke Jr.<\/strong> \u2013 whose research has been heavily cited by the IPCC across all three Working Groups \u2013 analysed<\/a> this stunning admission by the panel in his Substack The Honest Broker<\/em> on 29th<\/sup> April. The high-emissions scenarios (RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5 and SSP3-7.0<\/strong>) that dominated research papers, government reports, and headlines are now recognised as describing futures that will not happen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet while the IPCC itself has finally abandoned the nonsense doomsday model it once promoted as the \u201cbaseline\u201d, British Energy Secretary Ed Miliband<\/strong>, his fellow net-zero zealots in Whitehall, and his globalist colleagues in power in the EU, Canada and elsewhere press ahead with Net Zero<\/strong> undeterred. Indeed, \u2018Mad Ed\u2019 and gang is doubling down<\/a> on the very policies built atop that now-discredited foundation. This is Intellectual Yet Idiot governance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The IYI Class and Miliband\u2019s Credentials<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a 2016 essay<\/a>, Nassim Nicholas Taleb coined the term \u201cIntellectual Yet Idiot\u201d<\/strong> to describe the credentialed class \u2014 policymakers, academics, journalists and think-tankers \u2014 who impose grand narratives on society while bearing none of the costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

What we have been seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking \u201cclerks\u201d and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to speak, 4) how to think\u2026 and 5) who to vote for.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

They may ace exams, dominate elite discourse and signal virtue from the safety of their stately homes in the countryside or Oxbridge common rooms but lack practical judgment and \u201cskin in the game.\u201d As the essayist and blogger Marcus Stone observed in his analysis<\/a> of intelligence without judgment, that there is a clear distinction among mere ignorance (the absence of knowledge), outright stupidity (reflecting the bell curve in the distribution of IQ, a fact of life), and the irredeemable learned idiocy of those who cling to narrative over reality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Long before Taleb, George Orwell<\/a> put across the point acidly: \u201cThere are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.\u201d Thomas Sowell<\/a> was another keen observer of the phenomenon: \u201cThere is usually only a limited amount of damage that can be done by dull or stupid people. For creating a truly monumental disaster, you need people with high IQs.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ed Miliband<\/strong>, Britain\u2019s Energy Secretary and a PPE<\/strong> \u2013 which does not<\/em> stand for Pernicious Political Elite<\/strong> \u2013 graduate of Oxford, embodies the IYI archetype with alarming precision. He even wants to ban<\/a> tumble dryers to appease Goddess Gaia. His recent pronouncements on \u201cbreaking the link\u201d between gas prices and electricity bills, his dismissal of North Sea oil and gas resources<\/strong>, and his relentless program of mandates and subsidies for unreliable intermittent renewables reveal not just policy error. Miliband exposes a profound economic illiteracy that threatens Britain\u2019s prosperity and energy security. The Guardian-<\/em>reading ideologues and comfortable Oxbridge academics repeatedly intone net zero mantras and incantations of \u201ccheap\u201d renewables while ordinary citizens pay the bills.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBreaking the Link\u201d: Misunderstanding Marginal Pricing<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Miliband\u2019s flagship idea \u2014 repeated by his civil-service wonks, favoured economists such as Professor Mariana Mazzucato<\/a> of University College London, and dutifully echoed by the Guardian<\/em> and even the increasingly gone-woke Economist<\/a><\/em> \u2014 is that the UK must \u201cbreak the link between gas price and power price.\u201d Chancellor Rachel Reeves (\u201cRachel from Accounts\u201d) backs<\/a> Miliband on this quest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The argument runs that it is unfair for renewables<\/strong> to be priced at the marginal cost set by \u201cexpensive\u201d natural gas generation. This, we are told, makes \u201ccheap\u201d wind and solar artificially expensive. It is a claim so basic in its misunderstanding of markets that it would fail an A-level economics exam.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Every freely traded commodity or service \u2014 electricity, gas, oil, copper, wheat, pork bellies, haircuts \u2014 prices at the margin. The highest-cost supplier needed to meet demand sets the price paid to all suppliers in equilibrium where the supply and demand curves intersect. The same principle is illustrated by Adam Smith\u2019s water-diamond paradox: water is cheap because it is abundant at the margin; diamonds are costly because the marginal unit is scarce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be sure, no one expects Miliband and his PPE buddies to have read Adam Smith\u2019s Wealth of Nations<\/em> at school:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or no value in exchange; and on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use. Nothing is more useful than water: but it will purchase scarce anything; scarce anything can be had in exchange for it. A diamond, on the contrary, has scarce any value in use; but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Miliband and his fellow IYIs appear never to have encountered the concept. They mistake the foundational principle of marginal pricing in economics for a policy failure that can be legislated away. As independent energy consultant Katherine Porter explained in her excellent recent Spiked<\/a><\/em> interview<\/a>, every market participant understands this; only the IYI class treats it as a quirk unique to British power markets that can be abolished by decree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

North Sea Oil and Gas: Domestic Benefits Ignored<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The same learned idiocy, so well described by Marcus Stone, infects Miliband\u2019s second favourite talking point: that developing North Sea oil and gas is pointless because \u201cwe cannot influence world prices.\u201d Again, the narrative trumps reality. Natural gas has no single world price; it trades in regional markets \u2014 Europe\u2019s TTF, Asia\u2019s JKM, America\u2019s Henry Hub \u2014 because pipelines and LNG<\/strong> liquefaction and shipping impose large transaction costs on fungibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Increased domestic production would displace the most expensive marginal supply (often imported LNG cargoes), lowering the clearing price for British consumers. Ms. Porter said that increasing North Sea<\/strong> gas output could displace LNG entirely in summer months, when imports are low, and reduce prices accordingly. The gas from a North Sea rig does not magically enter a global pool; it flows through pipes straight into the British grid. And, yes, it will be priced at the margin, at the point where the most expensive supplier of North Sea gas meets the utility-consumer with the highest willingness to pay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oil is much more fungible since it is far easier to store and transport and there are global reference prices such as West Texas Intermediate (\u201cWTI\u201d) and Brent. Other crude oils price against these reference prices once differences in the quality of the crude and its location are accounted for. But the principle holds: increased North Sea production of oil or gas adds to the nation\u2019s GDP whether it is exported or supplied to the domestic market. It also creates jobs, skills development, shareholder returns and tax revenues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Again, Miliband\u2019s PPE does not seem to have covered (or it was unlearned soon after school finished) the simple accounting convention GDP = C + I + G + (X \u2013 M) which is the most famous identity in macroeconomics. Britain\u2019s GDP is the total value of all goods and services finally produced in the country in a year. By the accounting identity, it is also the sum of expenditures in consumption, investment and government spending plus exports (money foreigners spend buying British goods and services) less imports (money British people spend buying foreign goods and services).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is it that the policy wonks in Whitehall don\u2019t get? How can it be fine for the UK to chase out further investments from its own jurisdictions of the North Sea while at the same time buying oil and gas from Norway in the face of this simple macroeconomic accounting? In a Robin Hood reversal<\/strong>, is Miliband\u2019s aim to impoverish the country\u2019s own citizens while enriching the already much richer Norwegians? This is all in the name of Britain\u2019s \u201cclimate leadership<\/a>\u201d as Rupert Darwall has thoroughly dissected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under Miliband\u2019s punitive windfall tax regime, it was reported last week that even BP is considering<\/a> selling its North Sea assets for a full exit while Norway invests afresh. Norway\u2019s government, unafflicted by Stone\u2019s learned idiocy, issued<\/a> 70 new drilling permits for oil and gas just last week.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another garbled argument<\/a> offered by UK\u2019s Net Zero proponents in their quest to shut down new investments in the North Sea goes as follows: \u201cOil and gas are globally traded commodities. The UK is too small a producer to affect the world price. Therefore, more North Sea drilling will not materially reduce UK energy prices.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At one level, this is trivially true. But anyone with a smattering of A-level economics would ask, \u201cwhat has that got to do with anything?\u201d Do countries produce stuff only if it reduces domestic prices? In what universe? Countries produce because it is profitable for them to do so (collectively speaking, since it is business firms that actually produce output). Increased production adds to the country\u2019s GDP<\/strong>. The firm\u2019s shareholders benefit as do those that gain employment and skills from the increased activity. And this does not include another elementary economic principle of the \u201cmultiplier effect\u201d: the process by which an initial increase in spending, investment, production or income generates additional rounds of economic activity throughout the wider economy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is yet another version of idiot economics. An argument that circulates among Miliband allies, climate campaigners, net-zero commentators and mainstream media hacks runs roughly as follows: \u201cNorth Sea oil is sold on international markets anyway, so it does not belong to Britain in any meaningful sense. Therefore drilling more does not improve British energy security or reduce bills.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet again, one must summon much mental fortitude to grapple with the thoroughly befuddled logic. What happens to the UK\u2019s balance of payments in all of this? Do not British exports improve the current account and strengthen the pound? Furthermore, how can increased output of North Sea oil and gas not<\/em> enhance UK\u2019s energy security, one asks incredulously. But in vain, for in the world of net zero zealotry, such views smack of right-wing Thatcherism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

IYI Economics vs. Real World<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the normal world, ordinarily, exports are good, production is good, profitable industries are good, trade surpluses are good, high-value industrial sectors are good. But in the leftist-globalist world of IYI governments and policy makers \u2013 where the Church of Climate rules supreme \u2013 fundamental laws of economics are legislated against, and hydrocarbons production is cast as morally suspect and economically irrelevant. When saving the world is at stake, these issues raised by level-headed economists are mere fripperies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Profitability itself is suspect and attracts the charge of culpability. In a now deleted post on X, Mr Miliband\u00a0accused<\/a>\u00a0BP of profiting from the Iran war crisis<\/strong> in arguing for retaining the windfall tax<\/strong> on North Sea investments. He considered it \u201cmorally economically wrong.\u201d Of course, he did not try to understand why in times of extreme price volatility, commodity trading desks with sharp traders — as BP has — do exceptionally well. That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, war profiteering. Without the imprimatur of a PPE qualification, the double-barrelled adjective presented by Mr. Miliband is a bit of a poser. Back in the normal world, profits are good \u2013 since they pay for wages, rents, taxes and happy shareholders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The British public has stirred. Britain\u2019s stunning local election results delivered an unprecedented rout against both Labour and the Conservatives in favour of the relatively right-leaning Reform UK party<\/strong> which became electorally consequential only in the last year. It is a revolt by indigenous working- and middle-class voters against what David Starkey has called<\/a> Britain\u2019s long-standing \u2018uniparty\u2019 elite. It may mark the beginning of the end of the Westminster two-party system that has defined British politics since the late 17th<\/sup> century when the very concepts of the modern state first emerged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be sure, the revolt wasn\u2019t just against Miliband\u2019s punitive net zero mandates but against the entire package deal offered by the globalist uniparty elite which includes open borders, ever closer union with the EU despite Brexit, and the excesses of a politically correct welfare state that values immigrants over indigenes. The ballot box remains the only reliable mechanism for removing those who suffer no consequences for their luxury beliefs and idiot economics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A sane energy policy — now that the IPCC itself has backed off from its implausible \u201cend is nigh\u201d scenarios — would start by recognising marginal pricing, not futilely trying to abolish it; allowing North Sea oil and gas output to rise so long as the private sector is willing to invest under competitive auctions; dropping the pointless carbon pricing on gas and indeed on all energy-intensive industry; putting a stop to the endless subsidies for renewables; ending the mandates for EVs that few want to buy; and cutting over-regulation of the nuclear power sector along, for example, proven South Korean timelines and costs rather than under Britain\u2019s regulatory bloat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Britain cannot afford another decade of IYI governance. Keeping the lights on, quite literally, depend on it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Yet, while the IPCC itself has finally abandoned the nonsense doomsday model it once promoted as the \u201cbaseline\u201d, British Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, his fellow net-zero zealots in Whitehall, and his globalist colleagues in power in the EU, Canada and elsewhere press ahead with Net Zero undeterred. Indeed, \u2018Mad Ed\u2019 and gang is doubling down on the very policies built atop that now-discredited foundation. This is Intellectual Yet Idiot governance.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":444958,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691843124,691841795,691822002,691838747,691820941,691818154,691818610,691819148,691828237],"class_list":["post-444956","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-intellectual-yet-idiot","tag-ed-milibands-department-of-energy-security-and-net-zero-desnz","tag-green-blob","tag-ipccs-rcp8-5-model-scenario","tag-labour-party","tag-net-zero","tag-north-sea","tag-oil-and-gas","tag-woke-gobbledegook","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/0-ChatGPT-Intellectual-Yet-Idiot-Ed-Miliband-and-the-Economic-Illiteracy-Driving-Britains-Energy-Crisis.png?fit=1536%2C1024&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1RKI","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":448594,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=448594","url_meta":{"origin":444956,"position":0},"title":"The Justification for Net Zero Has Vanished with the Demise of RCP8.5","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/05\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Any justification for Ed Miliband\u2019s Net Zero climate policy, whether real or imaginary, has vanished with the official abandonment by the IPCC of the scariest concentration scenario RCP8.5. Even Tony Blair can now perceive that the pursuit of Net Zero is unwarranted and harmful to Britain.","rel":"","context":"In \"climate alarmism\"","block_context":{"text":"climate alarmism","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-alarmism"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/0-Copilot_The-Justification-for-Net-Zero-Has-Vanished-with-the-Demise-of-RCP8.5.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/0-Copilot_The-Justification-for-Net-Zero-Has-Vanished-with-the-Demise-of-RCP8.5.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/0-Copilot_The-Justification-for-Net-Zero-Has-Vanished-with-the-Demise-of-RCP8.5.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/0-Copilot_The-Justification-for-Net-Zero-Has-Vanished-with-the-Demise-of-RCP8.5.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":442131,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=442131","url_meta":{"origin":444956,"position":1},"title":"Miliband\u2019s Favourite Economist Doesn\u2019t Understand How Markets Work","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/01\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Ed Miliband, as Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero in the Labour government, spoke at a Good Growth Foundation event. He praised Mariana Mazzucato (UCL professor, often called the \"godmother of missions\") for shaping Labour's approach. Miliband framed the transition away from fossil fuels as delivering both\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Economics\"","block_context":{"text":"Economics","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=economics"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/0-Milibands-Favourite-Economist-Doesnt-Understand-How-Markets-Work.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/0-Milibands-Favourite-Economist-Doesnt-Understand-How-Markets-Work.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/0-Milibands-Favourite-Economist-Doesnt-Understand-How-Markets-Work.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/0-Milibands-Favourite-Economist-Doesnt-Understand-How-Markets-Work.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":285084,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=285084","url_meta":{"origin":444956,"position":2},"title":"Why Are Scientists So Slow to Abandon Their Failed Climate Models?","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"10\/25\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Climate modeling has arguably been worse than nothing because false information has been presented as true and \u201cconsensus.\u201d Alarmism and disruptive policy activism (forced substitution of inferior energies; challenges to lifestyle norms) have taken on a life of their own. Fire, ready, aim has substituted for prudence, from science to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"climate alarmism\"","block_context":{"text":"climate alarmism","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-alarmism"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0climate-models-epic-fail.webp?fit=999%2C775&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0climate-models-epic-fail.webp?fit=999%2C775&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0climate-models-epic-fail.webp?fit=999%2C775&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0climate-models-epic-fail.webp?fit=999%2C775&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":417121,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=417121","url_meta":{"origin":444956,"position":3},"title":"Delaying Ed Miliband\u2019s net zero targets \u2018could save UK \u00a3350bn\u2019","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/12\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Slowing the pace of net zero could save the British economy \u00a3350bn, an official report has concluded.","rel":"","context":"In \"electricity bills\"","block_context":{"text":"electricity bills","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=electricity-bills"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQMqy9_f6yr67z5k2ltqADcIvC61Pg6nOCDDG-_QoOwtzrezXd9r8ON9BYtYGYyPEtXeOBTIChfsEMPd1R803x9MxouHJL94mGV4FRKxX2R3ZnLrxJZhJSuHCO6tosD30_A1aq06_9foB2Odzr6mnqjWXjHeOA.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQMqy9_f6yr67z5k2ltqADcIvC61Pg6nOCDDG-_QoOwtzrezXd9r8ON9BYtYGYyPEtXeOBTIChfsEMPd1R803x9MxouHJL94mGV4FRKxX2R3ZnLrxJZhJSuHCO6tosD30_A1aq06_9foB2Odzr6mnqjWXjHeOA.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQMqy9_f6yr67z5k2ltqADcIvC61Pg6nOCDDG-_QoOwtzrezXd9r8ON9BYtYGYyPEtXeOBTIChfsEMPd1R803x9MxouHJL94mGV4FRKxX2R3ZnLrxJZhJSuHCO6tosD30_A1aq06_9foB2Odzr6mnqjWXjHeOA.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQMqy9_f6yr67z5k2ltqADcIvC61Pg6nOCDDG-_QoOwtzrezXd9r8ON9BYtYGYyPEtXeOBTIChfsEMPd1R803x9MxouHJL94mGV4FRKxX2R3ZnLrxJZhJSuHCO6tosD30_A1aq06_9foB2Odzr6mnqjWXjHeOA.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQMqy9_f6yr67z5k2ltqADcIvC61Pg6nOCDDG-_QoOwtzrezXd9r8ON9BYtYGYyPEtXeOBTIChfsEMPd1R803x9MxouHJL94mGV4FRKxX2R3ZnLrxJZhJSuHCO6tosD30_A1aq06_9foB2Odzr6mnqjWXjHeOA.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":442725,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=442725","url_meta":{"origin":444956,"position":4},"title":"IPCC Admits Apocalyptic Climate Scenarios Are \u201cImplausible\u201d \u2013 Meaning Most Media Scare Stories Over Last 15 Years Are Officially Junk","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/06\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Activist climate scientists, journalists and Net Zero-obsessed politicians are in shock following an official admission from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a set of key assumptions promoting a climate \u2018crisis\u2019 since 2011 are \u201cimplausible\u201d. The notorious set of always-improbable RCP8.5 \u2018pathway\u2019 assumptions which fed into computer models\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"BBC\"","block_context":{"text":"BBC","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=bbc"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/RCP8.5-Is-Officially-Dead-Climate-Science-Finally-Retires-Its-Implausible-Extreme-Scenario.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/RCP8.5-Is-Officially-Dead-Climate-Science-Finally-Retires-Its-Implausible-Extreme-Scenario.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/RCP8.5-Is-Officially-Dead-Climate-Science-Finally-Retires-Its-Implausible-Extreme-Scenario.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/RCP8.5-Is-Officially-Dead-Climate-Science-Finally-Retires-Its-Implausible-Extreme-Scenario.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":413191,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=413191","url_meta":{"origin":444956,"position":5},"title":"Ed Miliband flies to Brazil climate conference\u00a0twice","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"11\/14\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Ed Miliband is making two identical 12,000-mile round trips to attend\u00a0the UN climate summit in Brazil.","rel":"","context":"In \"Brazil\"","block_context":{"text":"Brazil","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=brazil"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0AQNr0Piy25gojnizWe9A1b4wphe4keWFpwQOt1PN57ocB9PPR1zgfUueeMgMf6M-FmB1HDNSZJLfL3mTspGTelGpzs5DRysLwzTCH2uYZsWGSvv_E9T-VybpuBanVquL-1.jpeg?fit=1077%2C936&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0AQNr0Piy25gojnizWe9A1b4wphe4keWFpwQOt1PN57ocB9PPR1zgfUueeMgMf6M-FmB1HDNSZJLfL3mTspGTelGpzs5DRysLwzTCH2uYZsWGSvv_E9T-VybpuBanVquL-1.jpeg?fit=1077%2C936&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0AQNr0Piy25gojnizWe9A1b4wphe4keWFpwQOt1PN57ocB9PPR1zgfUueeMgMf6M-FmB1HDNSZJLfL3mTspGTelGpzs5DRysLwzTCH2uYZsWGSvv_E9T-VybpuBanVquL-1.jpeg?fit=1077%2C936&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0AQNr0Piy25gojnizWe9A1b4wphe4keWFpwQOt1PN57ocB9PPR1zgfUueeMgMf6M-FmB1HDNSZJLfL3mTspGTelGpzs5DRysLwzTCH2uYZsWGSvv_E9T-VybpuBanVquL-1.jpeg?fit=1077%2C936&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0AQNr0Piy25gojnizWe9A1b4wphe4keWFpwQOt1PN57ocB9PPR1zgfUueeMgMf6M-FmB1HDNSZJLfL3mTspGTelGpzs5DRysLwzTCH2uYZsWGSvv_E9T-VybpuBanVquL-1.jpeg?fit=1077%2C936&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/444956","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=444956"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/444956\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":444975,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/444956\/revisions\/444975"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/444958"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=444956"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=444956"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=444956"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}