The ultimate Sci-fi film?

Sci fi movies like star wars involve the creation of heroes fighting a dramatic war against some evil foe.

I’ve already expressed my sympathies with the auks of middle earth – who are supposed to be an evil underclass living in some dark continent who can be killed mercilessly by the “white” men of middle earth such as the “white” did to Aborigenies in Australia, Africa, S.America. Of course, the “whites” live in green gardens with houses stacked with goods – much like the tobacco/slave traders used to. And the “auks” toil and sweat in the hell holes of manufacturing industry – which is clearly where the whites get all their finery from as I never saw a Hobbit doing a days work in any film.

And I’ve said that much of the reason academic hate industry, engineering and therefore climate sceptics, is because they are still tied up in the “clerical culture” that created the Universities and Academia we see today, and that this culture sees themselves as being the “elite” … whilst everyone else are the “Auks” who have to be kept in their place and not “defile” the “elvinish” realms of academia.shire

Portrayal of Blackcountry

Portrayal of Blackcountry

The industrial goods within the Hobbit home. Plates, cups, knives, forks, clothes, wheat (flour)

The industrial goods within the Hobbit home. Plates, cups, knives, forks, clothes, wheat (flour)

The alarmist view of sceptics

The alarmist view of sceptics

But, I’ve now been searching for what real soldiers say to each other in battle and particularly at how humour was used to steady the nerves of troops …

Except, what I see on videos of real soldiers which is full of the language of real people: “fucks”, “bastards” and “shits” and I assume filled by sexual humour (if the accounts of some soldiers are to be believed) … but it’s too crude for Youtube and can I find anything like this “recorded by any academic”? No!

Here’s what one officer speaking to real troops sounds like:

It’s as if the academics were living in a totally different universe and had never been to war (which is obviously true about most). But one quote did stand out:

Among rural people, the presence of women incites indecent jokes, as can be seen with the entry of the barmaid. But in refined society, the presence of a woman inhibits indecent talk which men reserve for the occasion when they are alone by themselves. In such society, where there is a wide social gap all references to the sexual act would be inhibited, and because this, would be amusing if made.

By “rural” they mean people who “don’t speak like us at public school” – who don’t speak “like we’ve got a silver spoon shoved up our arse”.

But another instance proves academics just lie to us:

At Waterloo, Pierre Cambronne commanded Napoleon’s Imperial Guard. When all was lost, a British officer asked him to lay down his arms. Generations of schoolboys have been taught that he replied, “The Guard dies, but never surrenders.” Actually he said “Merde!” (Shit). The French know this. Their euphemism for “merde” is “the word of Cambronne”.

So here we have a clear case of an original being totally completely fabricated by academia and then liberally (silver) spoon fed to ignorant naive schoolkids (sounds much like global warming hysteria – the same people, the same mentality of lying).

Of course – it helps to understand just how pervasive this “norman” v. “British native” battle has become if know that most of the so called “swear” words (words banned in so called “polite” company) tend to be Anglo-Saxon in origin, and that if you want to make something sound “academic” all you need do is to replace the words stemming from an Old-English root to one based on a Norman root (or better still Greek or Latin). You can say exactly the same thing: “Man-made” or”Anthropogenic” … but “Man” is good old English and is akin to swearing whereas  “Anthro” means exactly the same “man” but comes from Greek. Like all the “man” haters who claim it is sexist, they are quite happy to use the same meaning in another language, and that is because you sound “academic”, aka “polite” aka “PC” and by using any words that are not native British, you pretend to know something (you don’t). That’s why phrases like  “Anthropogenic” are so popular in academia.

What has actually happened, is that quite proper words and phrases in Old English have been rebadged and rebranded as crude swearing by teachers & academics brought up in a Norman-French culture that hates the Native Britons, their language, their culture and the people.

Ok, perhaps I’m just feeling pissed off. First, because academics write a lot of waffle – and I’m sick to death reading accounts that look down their noses at everyone else – which replace the noble words of real people with PC crap. But also it;’s because everything I’m reading is the words of Eton or “St.Pauls” public schoolboys writing home to their ma and pa … at the end of the quote it usually says “and he was killed 8 weeks later”.

You’ve got to have some sympathy even if they are upper class twits who volunteered to lead their troops into battle wearing special uniforms that marked them out as the ones whom everyone aimed their guns at (possibly not all from the front).

But of course – this “public school” versus the “tommys” is the remnants of a ethnic divide that came about at the Norman invasion (although the origins are even older, perhaps as much as a thousand years earlier).

Yes, William the Bastard was a very nasty thug – who only has any kind of reputation because a 1000 years of sychophantic texts from historians brought up in the Norman-French culture of academia need to maintain him as a hero rather than the ruthless thug he was.

And to them he really was the hero – one who gave them and their ancestors control over the rest of us …. who allowed them to steal wealth beyond their wildest dreams – who gave the invaders and all their descendants their privileged “public-school boy” culture and all their benefits including for example the “Royal Society” … who still embody many of the Norman-French ideas (such as their language and words being superior in “science” than those horrible native Britons and their “vulgar” engineering and industry).

Then I was reading how the “upper class” officers in WWI, had to stop wearing officer uniforms because the obliging Germans would pick out these “upper class” twits who William the Bastard put in charge and kill them first.

Just as all the Norman-French rich CHAVS (CHeltenham boys college AVerage)  these days are toning down their language to make themselves sound like natives (it’s hard to be elected – even with all the money behind you – if you sound like a CHAV), so in WWI, they had to dress like the British natives.

And I was thinking in the midst of this: “who are the Tommy’s (Native British) real enemy …. the Germans or the silver-spoon up their arse Norman-French officers and Oxbridge academics” …

… when it occurred to me, that I would love to see a movie based on the same dilemma … and how easy it would be ….

We star with a standard star trek video … and then it suddenly cuts to a standard star wars video. Each has all the usual characters, all the normal themes that they are heroes …. but this time we have them meeting each other and … we see in each camp that to them they are thrashing the hell out of some evil empire attempting to destroy them  … but we as outsiders see two groups of favourite characters, both of whom are always portrayed as heroes and always in the right …. but trying to kill each other.

It would literally be a horror film – and to be honest, whist the present generation are quite capable of eating their dinner whilst watching scenes of people’s legs being blown off and blood gushing realistically over the floor … what they cannot cope with is moral ambiguity.

When do we ever see a film, where there is not a very clear and unambiguous hero. Indeed, whilst I propose the idea, I’m not convinced I would like the film … and it might be necessary to create two films – one ending in a victory for Star wars and another for Star Trek.

For more examples of “battle speeches” see:

Posted in Climate | 1 Comment

Latchmore Brook: Another piece of nature at threat from eco-fascists

To put it simply … they want to dump 10,000 tonnes of gravel into a stream to move it a few meters … because that is “natural”?

Friends of Latchmore

If there is one thing I learnt from my own run in with eco-facists on our local area known as “Lenzie Moss”, it is that eco-fascists enjoy destroying nature: chopping down trees (press), showing their “eco-powers”, by flooding areas of sensitive shrubby-moss and converting them to “municipal carpark” style areas of wet grass.

Of course, the real driving force is their own greed. Raw nature – that is the landscape that develops without man – doesn’t create any employment for these vile eco-fascists. So, they need to create a “pseudo-nature” …nature that can’t exist without employing this eco-fascists!

In our area was known as the “Mountain moss” – a RAISED area, which was covered in moss and surrounded by areas of shrubland … mainly because of the large amount of rain it receives and not through poor drainage … they sought to create an area of FENLAND … or sunken bog WITH NO TREES.

And because this whole daft scheme is based on some idiotic academic “research” in some lowland areas of (dry) England – and not in raised areas of moss Scotland … it now requires an army of eco-fascists to force the area to be “restored” into an English Fen.

The problem is that the raised bog was only naturally devoid of trees, Where the deer used to eat the saplings faster than they could grow. In other words in the wet centre. But because the eco-fascists come with their “no trees grow on bog” … “research” … they insist they have to cut down all the trees, which then removes the cover for the deer, and so the deer no longer eat the grass and saplings … so the grass and saplings are now taking over and the natural moss vegetation that anyone with any common sense would be trying to save … is now disappearing.

And an area of superb natural beauty where dozens of people could go and be happy because of the tree screening feel they were alone, now has all the tree screening removed, so rather than feeling like wilderness … this site (a few miles from Scotland’s biggest city) now looks directly out onto a road, a railway, … and over the flats of Glasgow and the trees and moss are now just a flat wasteland of grass (with far less birds!)

So, when I saw this headline on the BBC:

New Forest stream campaigners dubbed ‘climate deniers’

I knew this was extremely likely to be another evil money-grabbing bunch of eco-fascists trying to force their own (bogus) view of “nature” onto nature … for money. And sure enough, it’s industrial eco-fascism, trying to get their greedy hands on shedloads of public money which yet again is trying to destroy nature to make it “natural”.

So please support:

Friends of Latchmore

Posted in Climate | Leave a comment

Climate alarmists – forgetting the climate

These headlines today just about say it all:

  • Climate Progress : 2 claims that Americans like to make about undocu­mented immigr­ants, debunked
  • Climate Progress : In Fox’s ‘Pitch,’ women and sports aren’t mutually exclusive concepts
  • Climate Progress : Twitter suspends top Second Amendment advocate who called for violence against Charlotte
  • Climate Progress : Police won’t be charged for killing Korryn Gaines and shooting her 5-​year-​old son
  • Climate Progress : Hillary Clinton actually broached the topic of poverty
  • Climate Progress : Pastor disputes cops’ account of how a protester was shot in Charlotte
  • Climate Progress : The GOP committee obsessed with Planned Paren­thood is harassing scientists
  • Climate Progress : Teenage Syrian Olympian swimmer reminds world leaders what’s at stake for refugees like her
  • Climate Progress : The myth of Gary Johnson
  • Climate Progress : Dakota Access pipeline is a long-​haul fight, but tribes have scored a key victory

OK, I occasionally blog about things other than climate – but then again I’m not “Scottish climate sceptic” but “Scottish sceptic”. But when you call yourself “Climate progress” and you have almost nothing to say about climate – something is dire!

The reason is obvious – we’ve had the El Nino temperature peak, and contrary to all their hype, the world showed no untoward effects and is dead set on being cooler for a good more years to come … to put that in simple terms … the return to “19,20,21,22,23…. years no warming”, no increase in extreme weather, no change in snow, droughts, floods, etc. etc. etc. another year without an increase in Hurricane trend, another year, where the trend is global cooling, another year where the politicians have far better things today than pander to idiot climate fanatics.


Posted in Climate | 4 Comments

Do climate sceptics risk becoming politically popular?

Asking a climate sceptic whether they want to become politically popular is one of the truly bizarre questions – because if we cared at all about being popular we’d have never been climate sceptics (back in the dark days before climategate).

But obviously, we’d love the rest of the world to accept our views – there’s nothing we’d like better than people joining us – it’s just we’re not going to change our views to join them to become popular.

However “being popular” was not something we risk much – at least amongst the “political classes” of media and politicians. Indeed, there’s a lot to be said for being in a minority – because when you are, it’s pretty certain that whatever politician or journalist we annoyed – it was pretty certain they were some brainless alarmist. So, no worry or pussy footing about – we only had to remember the few dozen on our side and could clag off the rest.

But now, with the British conservatives becoming increasingly sceptics, Donald Trump look more and more electable compared to the tired out and email entangled Clinton and now Sarkozy coming out to support real science, real evidence and common sense, there’s now a real chance that we sceptics might become the “political consensus”.

Increasingly as we fire a “pot shot” at the media we risk “friendly fire” – hitting some journalist or politician who is increasingly hostile to climate alarmism.

However all is not lost! At least for us sceptics in Scotland – we still have our delusional politicians (notably the SNP) and there is no immediate prospect of us ever having to praise our politicians for finally adopting evidence based climate policy.

Posted in Climate | 3 Comments

Out of Hospital – Update

12 days out of hospital and I’m still slowly returning to “normal” – although I’m still on strong drugs which have “interesting” effects and with the diagnosis as to what caused my stay in hospital still unclear I’m trying to avoid any foods, plants, chemicals & medicines, that could just be responsible.

In terms of climate: it’s been odd coming back to the subject. It’s as if it’s stuck in a time warp and I feel as if I need a “remote”  to “fast forward” over the boring bit of time where so many people still believe in “global warming” to the part of time where things start to get interesting again as the subject of climate is debated with intelligence rather than senseless dogma.

And Brexit (and the previous Scottish vote against separation) have given me the confidence, that despite what some in the media constantly try to tell us, and the rantings of our stupid politicians, not only do people who think like me dominate the on-line discussions – but we are the real majority.



Posted in Climate | 9 Comments

Just out of hospital

I repeated the story so many times:

On the Thursday I was working in the Garden and noticed a scratch and some spots which I assumed were insect bites.

Friday there were more.

Saturday I went swimming and thought jokingly: “I hope it’s not infectious”.

Monday 2.30am the spots, intense itching and conjunctivitis was so bad I went to A&E and got prescribed anti-biotics.

Mon-Thursday was spent on the sofa almost 24hr a day watching TV because the background noise stopped me thinking about the itching.

Thursday – I started packing a bag knowing my wife would send me to hospital when she saw me, but also arranging cards and presents for her as it was her birthday.

Thursday ended with me only being able to give a urine sample with help.

Fri – not sure where I was. I can’t be sure as I didn’t have a mirror to look, but much of my body must have been covered with a rash.

Sat – Mon – I must have been in the same ward -I guess I took my first steps unaided on Sat but always unable to sleep more than a few hours at night.

Tues – finally escaped – discovered that I can still type (just) although it feels like rubber bands are pulling all my tendons in.

As for treatment – it’s now a lot simpler with only one A4 sheet filled with chemicals I can’t pronounce. The biggest hassle was working out how to apply all the various different creams – finishing at the lips, then wash the hands that applied the cream, gargle the mouth wash and take the pills with water without swallowing the cream on my hands/lips. Also how does one prevent creams that creep along the body – going into the eyes (horror picture of result may follow)

(painfull tendonitice prevents more)


Posted in Climate | 1 Comment

Is it time to consider the end of western civilisation due to climate?

With more recent research suggesting a link between solar and climate I’m left with a strange dilemma.

For years, I’ve had the luxury of knowing that global warming is not going to happen**. So, I’ve used as one of the main weapons against the wind-industry/academic-grant driven scam the narrative of a bunch of “end of world” nutters trying to scare the pants off the public.

However, the problem I have, is that whereas I can be certain that global warming is not going to happen, I (now) know that sooner or later, we – or our descendants – will experience relatively quick and catastrophic cooling and to be frank, I’ve very little idea what will cause it.

What I do know, is that every single time you hear the phrase “catastrophic global warming” – whilst it will never warm catastrophically, the climate can and has changed catastrophically – using the same feedback mechanism – but always (in an inter-glacial like now) getting cooler rather than hotter.

So, why should we worry about cooling when the world is “getting hotter”

First off the world is not getting hotter. To put it very simply & crudely the only figures showing warming are those that have been deliberately tampered with by people I have no respect for. Second, there are two good reasons to believe that we are in for a few decades of cooling:

  1. The Atlantic Multi-decadel Oscillation which was responsible in large part for the 1970s-2000 warming, has now peaked and we are likely to find out just how much warming it contributed as we see that boost to temperature taken away.
  2. The low level of sun-spots is indicative of cooling.

With two drivers suggesting cooling (and with CO2 having very little actual effect), it seems very likely we will see cooling. (N.B. – I cannot rule out the possibility that the two are connected and that AMO is induced by changes in sunspots)

Will this precipitate us into an ice-age?

Here’s the rub – because of the dangerous and idiotic obsession by academics on CO2 for the last decades – and thus the assumption that the lack of CO2 was the cause of the last ice-age, we don’t have a clue what actually causes ice-ages. So, we may be a decade away from seeing ice growing up the Thames and Glaciers beginning their march down to Glasgow. Or there may be no chance at all of it happening any time soon. But we just don’t know.

All anyone (or at least all I) can say with any certainty is that we are only likely to see a new ice-age when it gets colder. Which is obvious I know – but it means that I am much happier thinking it may warm than that we may see cooling!

What is the point in worrying as we can’t stop it?

There is a line of thought that goes like this: we can’t do anything about a new ice-age if it happens. So why bother to even contemplate it.

My answer to that is that whilst colder weather is a relatively benign issue in our advanced civilisations (there have only been 1million additional winter deaths in the UK during the period of the global warming scare), the social and economic impacts of a descent into colder climate would be horrendous. And, whilst it would be foolish to think we could stop climate change, we can at least prepare – or at the very least – start thinking about it and seeing if there is anything we can do to prepare.

In engineering terms, the risk is relatively low (1 in 20 in a lifetime), but the consequences are quite severe … not to a few … but to everyone in northern countries (i.e. those that saw glacial ice during the last ice-age)

The outlook for “thinking about preparing” is not good

If the Scottish government response to both climate and brexit tells me anything it is that politicians as a whole are gormless idiots (I used to think they had some “cunning plan” – that illusion was destroyed by the inept and tantrum like behaviour I saw in Scotland after Brexit). Likewise, academics are hopeless. I’m no longer naive enough to believe that academics can be trusted to work in the public interest – having them advise government is no better (or worse) than e.g. having Micro$oft advise government on computer security.  Both groups are just pushing their own interests largely ignoring the public good. Nor do I have any faith at all in charity “pressure groups” – who have shown themselves to be extremely easily manipulated by big business as have greenpeace, FOE etc. on climate.

You’d think I would have faith in “climate sceptics” – but to be honest, sceptics often tend to have more faith in the “science” than academics. Instead, what I find is that they tend to get very angry over specific aspects which they’ve discovered is wrong. So, e.g. you’ll find many sceptics are far more wedded to the idea of “positive feedbacks” than most academics. This is because sceptics tend to have a “belief” in science, whereas academics come from an environment where they have seen many instances where their ideas will prove wrong. And likewise, sceptics tend to be very hostile to new ideas – science is “science” as it was taught to them at University. And it is only with great reluctance that they give up their long held views. In contrast academics know that “science” is largely a political body and what matters is whose ideas are currently in vogue.

 The start of the next ice-age.

By my estimations there is around a 1-in-10 to 1-in-40 chance that in the next 100 years the “next ice-age” will start. That’s a clever way of saying “looking back people will say it started” … whilst avoiding the issue of how quickly the climate of Northern Europe will become uninhabitable. In other words, I’m not saying that in 100 years time there’s a ~1 in 20 chance that it will be accepted the ice-age has started. Yes (if it happens) we will have seen some extensive periods of cold, but there may well also be (fewer) periods of warm – instead in a long time, when people look back, there’s a ~1 in 20 chance they’ll see the change to severe cold as starting in the next 100 years.

 What we really need is “global cooling alarm”.

By implication, at some point in time in decades to millennium after that “start”, Scotland will become all but uninhabited.  If that happened over 1000 years, then it would be net migration of 100 people a week, 10-20 a day – a substantial number in the statistics, but easily hidden in the hustle and bustle at the various airport. If however it happened over a period of 100 years – well that would be similar in scale to the 1970s “highland clearances” and it would be noticed even by those who do not look at the statistics.

But likewise, where would all those people go? As the northern edges of the western civilisation haemorrhage people, they don’t just die – but instead will go somewhere. Such large numbers will quickly change the social and political make-up of any host countries.

Given that the most climate-sensitive economic sector is farming, most likely the cities will be relatively lightly hit – and it will be farming and other sectors (with no interest to city politicians) that will bear the brunt of the climate. So, to start of, “global cooling” is not going to look like a problem itself, instead “emigration/immigration” is going to be the big issue – and not from the cities – but from “climate sensitive” communities like farmers.

And notice how this is all the same – as the utter crap** we’ve heard about global warming (but in reverse).

And this is the whole point of this article. I personally don’t like all the “alarmist” crap. I feel that we ought to decide issues like this in a sane sensible way based on hard evidence and good science. But I also realise (as you’ll see from my comments about re useless politicians, NGOs, academics and media) that most people seem incapable of wanting to know about, let alone understanding or correctly interpreting the “hard facts”.

So, here I am just asking the question: if we have something as important as the potential end of western civilisation – and we know the idiots “running the show” haven’t a clue and don’t listen to common sense, perhaps we need the alarmist idiots who go about like headless chickens – to start clucking about global cooling?

**I’ve said many times it’s obvious the inter-glacial climate is capped from warming – so whilst I am not certain of the mechanism – I’m certain global warming alarmism is a total load of crap

Posted in Climate | 4 Comments

Parking Global Warming II

Back in April (Parking global warming), it was clear to me that this year was going to be pretty dull in terms of climate. Because on the one hand, we sceptics were could not so clearly point to the “no global warming in 18 years” until the El Nino warming was over. But conversely, it was clear to me as the El Nino peaked much earlier and much lower than predicted that the alarmists also would have nothing to crow about.

So, given that many in the US were working hard to prevent the Clinton Climate Clown getting into office and the priority of brexit, we’ve had a very slow year so far.

But one snippet just made me smile when I read that the growing evidence against global warming alarmism is finally having its effect on the arch alarmists like Silly Billy Con-alley.

A hectic week of rowing and two weeks in Norway has left a bit of a hole in my blogging schedule. I also think it is about time to recognise that my long drift away from active involvement with science**, combined with not-a-lot-going-on-really in actual climate science means I’ll need to find other things to write about.

**Given that silly billy has no science qualification, the idea he ever had anything to offer science is ridiculous!

The key here is the phrase “not-a-lot-going-on-really in actual climate science”, which can be translated as “the evidence [data-python] is now starting to overwhelm the green hype [constricting the hell out of alarmism]”. In other words, despite record temperatures in 2016 due to the El Nino – the alarmists like Silly Billy know that to convince anyone now, the temperatures had to have been much higher … and not only that … to have stayed higher. But now with the Satellite temperatures clearly having peaked earlier this year and with the impending recommencement of the “no warming for … 19 years”, I’m not surprised the green alarmists are disillusioned, demoralised and looking for some other green lawn to shit on.

And clearly if Trump gets in as the next US president, the global warming hype is dead.

But oddly, I think even if Clinton gets in, I just cannot see the alarmism continuing in the US. The reason for this is that Democratic Politicians just love green voters … because like a one night stand … they just have to whisper the right words to them and then they can get screwed for the night (vote for the politicians) … and then will gullibly wait happily for years left like dirty trash on the side walk without any real demands until they next needed. OF COURSE DEMOCRATS LOVE THEM!

So, I wouldn’t believe a word Clinton is saying about the environment. As far as I can see in private she’s no more green than Trump – and the only difference I can see is that Trump is openly hostile to greens whilst Clinton says one thing in public and laughs at them in private. And put it this way … who else can greens vote for? Clinton need do nothing more than be slightly more green than Trump and every gullible green will happily get skrewed by the Democrats … just to keep Trump out.

Likewise the UK government continues to grow ever more sceptical of climate alarmism. And once we leave the EU, the umbilical chord from the EU to UK green extremists is cut, I can’t see them being much of a political force and I’m sure the EU and UK will see very different energy futures.

The Global Warming epidemic is over

The best analogy I have is that of an epidemic disease. The first time a population encounters it, the epidemic spreads like wildfire. However, each time it recurs, the disease causes an increase in immunity. So that whilst the disease tends to recur time and time again, the speed and violence of the epidemic decreases. So, if we look back at the way the public react to “global warming” events, back in 2007, the reaction to even the smallest event was a cascade of news. But these days, the public just aren’t interested any longer even to stories like “the hottest year evah“.

The danger of global warming alarmism is largely over. Like flu, a new variant of this nasty disease may not re-appear in some virulent form,  but even the most severe forms of the “virus” now have far less effect and the public quickly tires of them. As for common garden alarmism: it is largely ignored.

So, obviously those like Silly Billy who gained their pleasure by riding these anti-science epidemics – now have to seek your thrills elsewhere. (Apparently having spent much of his life telling other people to cut down on fossil fuel use – he now spends a fortune on fossil fuels jetting off to Norway, Japan & other places for his thrills these days)

Posted in Climate | 5 Comments

Is Climate Scepticism part of a much larger political movement?

Having devoted a month of my time to Brexit (followed by a serious PC error) I’ve not been involved in the Climate debate for the last few months. But it’s given me time to mull over a peculiarity of the Brexit vote: very much the same people supporting Brexit also support the science on Climate. And in general bonkers climate alarmists tended to be  bonkers for the EU. Why?

And what is also extremely obvious is that just like climate, the “political class” were far more supportive of the EU than the people in general.

As I watched (public sector university) expert after expert being paraded before the people in the press and media to tell us all how to vote – it all seemed so familiar. Politically motivated “experts” dressing up their own personal views as “science”/”economics” and looking like a load of numpties and not being believed by any except the gullible press & politicians themselves. I thought climate scepticism was an argument about science – I now realise (at least on the alarmist side) – it’s almost identical to the pro-EU “camp”. It’s the political will of the “political class” being foisted (irrespective of the evidence) on the rest of us. And this trick of dressing it up as “science” or “expert view” is just a cheap political trick the political class have been using for years to fool the public.

But first what do I mean by “political class”? Obviously I count the politicians (like the 128/128 numpty Scottish MSP who voted for “climate change” legislation). But in addition I also mean the overwhelming number of journalists (particularly in public sector broadcasting) who support both the EU & “climate change” (and every other ‘PC’ cause = “press consensus”), but I’d also add in many others in the “public sector” including civil servants and academics into this “political class”.

Which begs the question “who isn’t in the political class?”. First and foremost are the self-employed. Those who work for a living (as typified by the number of vans in roads known to be supportive of Brexit). Next anyone who works for the private sector, with support for the pro-EU “PC class” growing with the size of coy and the higher they rise up the slippery ladder.

In short, those who are in the political class are those who are able to get their views into the old-style media:

  • “mainstream politicians”, with the symbiotic relationship with the press of “you scratch our back and we’ll scratch yours”;
  • academics who the press love to print as “experts” (meaning the press are clueless as to whether or not they are right – but as public sector “officials” they didn’t see any point fact checking as who would they ask but the same people?)
  • government officials
  • and those big enough or rich enough to have massive PR departments flooding the press with press releases and buttering them up to get their views printed.

In the past, with climate, I’ve explained the difference between climate sceptics and alarmists as between those with a good science education who like to base their views on the evidence and those with a poor grasp of the scientific method who like to base their views on what someone else tells them is true.

This explained why journalists and politicians tended to be so gullible on climate – they themselves were clueless – so they based their views on the (public sector) experts.

However, with the same kind of divide occurring during Brexit, and (unlike climate) with scientific knowledge not being the key reason why people voted for Brexit, I’m seriously wondering whether climate scepticism isn’t part of a much wider political movement in society.

In other words, climate sceptics are climate sceptics because we are part of the “anti-political class” movement – who ALSO just happen to have an interest in climate.

Note this is very different from traditional “left v. right” party politics. It’s not about which party we favour – it’s above a beyond the traditional stereotype of left versus right. And e.g some very prominent Brexit supporters were also extremely left wing in their views (e.g. Jim Sillars in Scotland). Indeed, I strongly suspect “left” and “right” are no longer meaningful, but instead are (and were) ways for the political class to demark views as “extreme” that were not “in the centre” (meaning their own views).

Why has the “anti-political class suddenly gained importance in the last decade”?

The reason is quite simple. Before the widespread use of the internet, the way we heard what “the public think” was through the press and TV. But this was not actual “public opinion”, instead it was the prejudiced opinion of the “political class”. So, for example, for years the public were told that the public view was that anyone who mentioned immigration was a racist, any politician who dared to talk about leaving the EU was “splitting” from their party, that the world was warming etc. etc. According to the press’ assertion of “public opinion” most of the public did not agree with “public opinion” – and because we didn’t know better they got away with it!

Then along came the internet, and suddenly rather than hearing “public opinion” through the filter of the “political class” we started hearing it direct from the public. As such all those “PC” views that we were being told were part of “public opinion” are now known to be the views, not of the public at large, but of a very small group of the press and media and others in the “Political class” dressed up as “public opinion”.

To my mind, this change in information flow – and by it power to the public – has undoubtedly been thee greatest revolution in my life time.

The Future of Politics

One of the most intriguing events over the last few months has been the effective break-up of the UK labour party. On the one hand we have Corbyn – who undoubtedly had a massive vote from party members, on the other we have the “political class” Blairite party apparatchiks – the (non-socialist) “Oxbridge graduates” who used to control our country who used to foist their non-sense PC ideas on us claiming it was what the public wanted.

I don’t know (or care) enough about internal labour party politics to know whether this is part of the change “against the political class”, but even if it is not, it is the kind of change we would expect. The rebalance of power from those MPs “in the political class” against those ordinary members who are less “in the PC”. If true, it is not surprising that the UK press are as hostile to Corbyn as they are for example to Trump (both of whom seem to be riding the wave of popular support against their respective party machines). Likewise, the rise of UKIP – feels to be a very similar change …. and just to prove it’s not just the right nor sane … the rise of the SNP/EUnionists in Scotland (something which I feel has peaked after Sturgeons EU-Tantrum).

So, we can describe a direction of change (i.e. out of the PC EU, away from climate nutterism, etc.). That is good, but it is also creating a huge conflict in the political class because it is a move against the present political class itself. And like a branch, the political class will bend with public opinion – but when it is the class itself that public opinion is against, it’s difficult to see how it can bend without breaking.

So, how does society and the way we govern ourselves change to reduce that conflict? How does politics now reflect what the majority or people outside the political class want and need – when it’s the political class that is in control that is the problem?


  1. The first option is simple – politicians know which side their bread is buttered and they are just as capable of anyone else of going onto social media to find out what the public is thinking . On the down side – they used to rely on the journalists to filter and make sense of “public opinion”. So, now that journalists have shown themselves to be as delusional about some issues as the politicians, who do the politicians then turn to? Maybe they just need to learn to “sense” public opinion through the internet – or maybe (like climate) – those who get on in politics are not the ones who can understand public opinion?
  2. The second option is to try to pre-emptively change the mechanisms of government to somehow include the public more. One way to do this is to have more referendum. But given the huge cost in time and effort to ensure a proper public debate (and I admit we failed in Scotland to achieve this given the poor support for leaving), it’s not something we want too often. Another possibility is to create “citizen juries”. The idea here, is to take groups of people at random – and then to pay them to look at issues in depth (in the way we hope the public – through opinion formers – look at issues before a referendum). This would allow the “political class” to understand what the public would think if they were to have a referendum.
  3. And the third option is “revolution” … not in the sense that I’m proposing anything specific … but in the sense that sooner or later the public will get fed up with the political class and kick their arses … in an as yet unknown way.

The People’s Revolution!


Just an observation from talking to those supporting the EU: the EU they supported wasn’t the EU that actually existed. Instead it was a view of what the EU ought to be like. Again this is very much like the climate. The alarmists are not fearful about the actual climate which shows no significant warming for 18 years, instead they are fearful of the climate as they imagine it to be.

I coined the phrase “facebook EU” – to describe the way the EUnionists seemed to thing the EU was something you should “like” and “be friends with” (to contrast with the real EU where the EUro is heading to collapse, the economy is going to ruin, and freedome, liberty and democracy is dead/dying.)

So, again, it’s a fight between “pragmatists with their feet on the ground looking at what is actually happening” … and … “Utopian, ignore-the-facts-just-listen-to-the-(so-called) ‘experts'” on the other.

Posted in Climate | 7 Comments

Thankyou everyone that voted for Brexit

The moment I first suspected we had won, was in the counting hall, which moments before had been filled without about 20 SNP scrutineers, who suddenly left leaving only us 3 brexiteers.

At first, I thought it would be close, perhaps even a few thousand votes. But as the night progressed it became clearer and clearer that it was a resounding vote for brexit.

It was one of the most audacious victories ever. We in Brexit were fighting almost the entire British state, media, academics, the BBC were almost single handedly running their own pro-EU campaign as was much of the rest of the press.

And we won – all down to the work of the many individuals and I have to say it UKIP.


Posted in Climate | 1 Comment