This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
What we should ask is not whether or not these claims are genuine but why they are being made if, as is the case, they are not.
I think we are seeing the reason in the most recent unilateral decisions by Mrs May's Government (unilateral: not in any manifesto and, in the present government, with no mandate to do anything much at all whether in a manifesto or not).
Firstly Mrs May decides we will have only electric cars by 2040, then Oxford decides it will allow only electric cars in the city by 2020 and then Mrs May (or her luminous greenie ministers indulged in every whim) have announced we will also no longer have gas for cooking or central heating.
Of course, this all dismisses the concerns that even with fossil fuels for transport and gas for cooking and heating, successive disastrous energy policies have left us facing a very significant energy (electricity) shortfall in the not so distant future. And now these policies add a far from insignificant additional burden of making up for the loss of fossil fuels. And this without all the added costs of converting everyone's homes to all electric and providing car charging points everywhere.
Thus this story is a necessary precursor to announcing a massive new investment in new generating capacity.... from wind farms and whatever other expensive unreliable sources they can think of and trying to head of the consequent alarm by claiming it will cost less than we thought. Even if it will be a Big Lie oft repeated till we stop questioning those who know better.
Doubtless challenging any Government proclamations will soon fall under the new hate laws... and why not? It is already the case that as an EU member we are subject to the EU's law which includes that one shalt not criticise the EU, its officials or its policies (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1325398/Euro-court-outlaws-criticism-of-EU.html )
I think there are a couple of developments that are coming along in the next couple of years which might stem the tide of Greenery in the UK.
The first development is that I think we're likely to exit the EU with no trade deal, and we then revert to trading with the EU on WTO terms like the rest of the world does. In my view, the UK government behaves as though it isn't going to get a trade deal. If you were confident about getting a trade deal with the EU then you would have triggered Article 50 within a few weeks of the Referendum - you would only delay the triggering for 9 months if you were hoping that the EU would somehow soften in its attitude towards you, maybe hoping Juncker would be dismissed. The next thing you'd do if no trade deal was expected would be that you would go for a snap general election after triggering Article 50 - holding the snap election means you don't have to hold the next general election until 2022 instead of 2020, giving you 3 years (instead of 1) for the country to get used to the idea of being out of the EU with no trade deal after leaving in 2019 (only 1 year before the next general election might be a bit short given the extensive platform provided to pro-EU people in the UK broadcasting media). The EU also behaves as though it doesn't want a trade deal, insisting on some absurdly high exit fee being agreed to before allowing trade talks to go ahead.
The advantage of exiting with no trade deal, for the sceptic of Greenery, is that the UK is then decoupled from the Green regulations and the general Green-leaning influence of the EU. With a trade deal, even if somehow the UK managed to extract major concessions from the EU on freedom of movement, I can imagine UK politicians conceding to the EU on the environmental stuff.
The second development is that I think that Boris Johnson could replace Theresa May as leader (and PM) in two or three years time. Boris would be the ideal man to take on Corbyn as he has a good track record in defeating the Loony Left, having managed to keep the Loony Left's Ken Livingstone out of office as mayor of London for eight years. Boris has shown some scepticism towards Greenery in the past, but mainly through his newspaper columns. The last 5 prime ministers that we've had in the UK, starting with John Major, have been Green-leaning, but I suspect that Boris is a bit more sceptical about Greenery than any of those five.
An update to the thread - as might be expected, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has agreed with GWPF that the offshore wind advertising campaign conducted by Greenpeace in association with other groups mentioned earlier in the thread was misleading:
advertising campaign was misleading
However it only amounts to a minor scolding, Greenpeace has got away with just giving an assurance to the ASA that it will not use the disputed claim again in any future advertising campaigns.
Only the Daily Mail seems to have publicised the story that the advertising campaign was misleading, so it is possible that any politicians and civil servants who were actually influenced by the campaign over the past few months will not be aware that the campaign was misleading, as Green-leaning people don't tend to read the Daily Mail.
I would argue that the BBC should not employ any actors, like Peter Capaldi and Emma Thompson in this case, who have been associated with misleading advertising campaigns. The BBC has always taken the noble position of avoiding being funded by advertising, so it would be consistent for them not to employ people connected with misleading advertising.