Tommy Robinson – Vindicated

When I originally decided to come out in support of Tommy Robinson, I knew I was taking a chance. On the one side, there was good evidence that there had been a campaign of press and establishment hatred against him and that the establishment were intent on putting his life at risk which would likely end in his death.
On the other, all the press agreed that he was someone everyone should hate and that only vile people could possibly support. However, human rights are rights irrespective of whether you agree with someone or what they say, and clearly Tommy’s human rights had been severely ELIMINATED.
However, yesterday I read his statement to the court found here and I was totally appalled. Because I had assumed he had mistakenly broke reporting restrictions. Instead, what I found is that he had done everything I could conceivably imagine AND MORE to ensure he did not break reporting restrictions. He had acted with the utmost professionalism and yet despite his vigorous attempts to do everything he could to comply, the judge WITHOUT EVEN A HEARING OR LEGAL REPRESENTATION summarily through him in jail for 13 months.
There is no doubt in my mind – particularly because the judge did not ensure that reporting restrictions were made available – and because the judge took no action against the BBC who Tommy was reading out – the judge is incapable of the necessary impartiality needed for a fair trial and …

That judge should be sacked

(Although I would allow them to present their case, have it heard and have legal representation – something they denied Tommy).


There is so much wrong with this video. I found it searching for Dumbarton which is near Glasgow.

  • Why were they bouncing marbles was the obvious question. A question that never gets answered.
  • Why is the teacher near Glasgow speaking with an American accent. And don’t the kids pick up accents quickly?

  • What are the rules of this game?
  • Where are these marbles coming from
  • What on earth are the sticks they using for this …whatever it is?
  • What is that on the kids shoe?
  • Why the ruler?
  • Why do the side blocks move out (they are obviously being hit to the side but how)


Could genetics be killing global warming alarmism?

If one looks at clothes fashions and women’s fashion in particular, it is very easy to see that from as far back as records permit us to view them, women’s clothes have been changing rapidly so that it is usually possible to distinguish a photo not to the decade or even the year but sometimes to within a few months.
And the small glimpses we have of history also show that throughout the ages women have been “fashionable”. So this clearly isn’t something that arrived in modern times, but instead it appears to be an instinctive human behaviour particularly of women.
A while back, I was pondering the reason for this, and began to hypothesise that the reason women regularly change fashion is that one generation tries to distinguish itself in some way from the previous generation. To put it very crudely, they try to advertise themselves as “fresh meat” on the sex/marriage market. And thus I hypothesised in order to show that they are “fresh”, women instinctively seek out ways to appear “fresh”. And they do this by finding new styles of clothing.

Global Warming

And then looking today at the latest information showing interest in Global warming has plummeted with it featuring last in all groups “Democrats shelve climate change as an election talking point” I was pondering why this occurred. For example: had we sceptic managed to convince the alarmists of the science? obviously not from my recent conversations. So what?
Then it hit me. Perhaps the sole reason that global warming alarmism is decreasing is … fashion. That each generation tries to find new ways to be new a fresh, and that after 20 years of being the last generations way of showing their distinctness from the previous ones, that the new generation just wants something new AND DIFFERENT FROM THE LAST GENERATION over which to show its concerns.
In other words, it’s not the science, it’s not the politics, it’s just that global warming is so “last generation” as an issue.
And thus … by implication … the only reason that global warming came to prominence may also be fashion. The previous generation having gone nuts about global cooling, what better way to show that they are a new generation with new ideas than to go nuts about entirely the opposite of the last general.
The concept that we’ve been fighting a mere fashion for the last 20 years, or that we won because scepticism literally became “fashionable” rather than the eloquence of our arguments etc. is profoundly depressing. I can’t think of anything more humiliating than to have won this debate because we literally became fashionable.

Why faking the temperature has not been helpful to alarmists

Back before the days when the alarmists starting obviously faking the global temperature by adding in “readings” … is what best describes the dross data from buoys … to fake a warming trend, you could say two things about alarmists:

  1. They were winning the propaganda battle as most people believed them not sceptics
  2. They were hugely embarrassed by the lack of warming since around 2000.

But eventually, clearly the pause got to them and they fabricated warming by massively multiplying a miniscule sub-noise trend seen in buoys (and one extremely easy to manufacture by selecting where the buoys are placed). They then created their latest “graph” that clearly shows unequivocal warming … but they then lost the propaganda battle. Why?
I was thinking about this. From the public’s point of view, they have absolutely no way of knowing whether the alarmists are faking their data. So, how come they lost faith when the graphs got better?
The reason I suggest, is that people like the alarmists are a lot more believable when the data DOESN’T support them. To be more exact, the DATA is more believable when it doesn’t fit what the “experts” want it to be. That may seem crazy. The idea experts look more credible when they’re struggling to explain why the data is “wrong” sound crazy, but apparently it is true.
So, far from becoming more and more believable as the data became a better and better fit to the predicted CO2 “warming”, the reverse happened: it became more and more obvious the data was being tampered with and that the “experts” were just a bunch of frauds.
That’s because the public know that data that doesn’t fit what the experts want it to show is more believable, than data that happens to show exactly what the “expert” says (and particularly when a few years back they showed very different data that wasn’t showing what they wanted it to show).

The Role of Sceptics

Paradoxically, looking back, Sceptics did a lot to add credibility to the “not obviously faked” temperatures. Because the public naturally look at what those who are vociferously against something to work out how plausible it is. And when we sceptics were arguing about the nuances of temperature readings and whether an odd station was being tampered with but generally agreeing it had warmed, the public were thinking: “like all groups the ‘experts’ are pushing the scales, but despite all their efforts, the sceptics generally agree on warming”.
But these days, I know the temperatures are so corrupt that I won’t even discuss them.
So I had been thinking: “I know refusing to discuss looks like I have no evidence and it won’t look good – but on principle, I’m not entering a discussion where I know the temperatures are bogus”.
Fortunately, I can’t manufacture my contempt for what the alarmists did as my contempt is instinctive, not calculated. However I can see how my attitude has changed since the bogus temperatures, and I’ve no doubt that the public do see these “vibes”.
Indeed, even when I see alarmists posts these fake graphs, they obviously don’t say so, but the way they don’t pursue us, clearly shows they accept our feelings about the graphs are understandable.

The role of supporters

And I suspect the public also get the same vibes from supporters. Back in the days when they still showed the pause, we sceptics were being viciously attacked by the supporters of the alarmists. Then along came the fake temperature graphs and what did the supporters do? They went wild about plastic. In other words, they stopped attacking sceptics and changed the subject.
They never said they stopped believing the “experts”, but changing subjects is a very strong indicator that they did.

You couldn’t make it up

The alarmists bring out graphs that appear to show unequivocal warming. And what is the response? On the one hand sceptics stopping arguing about temperature, on the other supporters of the alarmists find something new to talk about.
Surely any reasonable person would conclude that the debate really was over?
But far from becoming MORE accepted, concern over global warming plummets. The reason I think is that the public recognise that despite the apparent surface of the “debate” showing the alarmists have won, the reverse is true: the “vibes” show they’ve just made up the warming. It would be impossible to co-ordinate people to behave in a way that drew the public to that conclusion, it is just what they conclude when they see supporters and opponents behaving in this odd way.


After Trump was elected, I stopped being so active on the climate as it seemed only a matter of time before he shut down those producing bogus global climate metrics. Unfortunately, it never occurred to me that Trump, having freed the US from the power of those fake metrics, then saw no reason to release his foreign competitors from their stupidly self imposed submission to US origin fake climate metrics.
However, I have recently seen a rush of news stories suggesting we are now winning the political battle in the US, Germany and now Canada and Australia, and given the reaction of alarmists on twitter who suddenly got extremely grumpy and hostile, they’ve noticed as well. So, it seems that finally, despite the alarmists from an overwhelmingly politicised academia, continuing to produce their fake data and fake papers from their buddy review system, we are winning (won?) the battle.

But as for alarmist academics!!

Whilst not directly related, I have got to express my concern at the appalling standards I have come across with those academics I have engaged with recently on twitter.
They are not only clueless about basic thermodynamics, but they are pretty dim witted and what makes it worse, is that they are so pig headed that it is impossible to teach them anything. So, the chances of them understanding how to correctly deal with natural variation in a system where it is hard to distinguish between natural variation and “things”, is zero. There is no chance in hell that they will ever understand the scientifically correct way to deal with natural variation in the climate. Which is why we now have to win in the political arena and ignore the dunces in climate “science”.
I have really felt like father Ted explaining to Dougal why things far away look smaller:

Father Ted is demonstrating some plastic toy cows to Dougal.
Father Ted: …OK, one last time. These are small… but the ones out there are far away. Small… far away…

The reason why they got global warming so wrong, is because, despite the 4.5billion years of natural variation on earth, they SIMPLY (used in it’s literal sense of simple mindedly) could not conceive that natural variation existed. And because they could not conceive that the climate of the 20th century changed due to natural changes, they wrongly thought the changes they saw must be man-made. And because they only looked at changing CO2 (and not for example changes in pollution levels), they attributed all the natural variation to CO2 and so massively exaggerated the effect of CO2 (by up to MORE THAN an order of magnitude).

Why Trump is not getting rid of the fake "warming" metrics

When Trump got into office and sceptics finally got a say in the government of the US, I made strenuous efforts to try to get them to invest in temperature measurements so that we could finally get a measure of the global temperature, that no one could dispute. That would require at least a polar orbiting satellite to be launched or the wholesale upgrade of land based measurements with for example areas of as much as 1kilometer square being bought to ensure the minimum contamination of data by change in land use.
It clearly did not happen.
Today we still regularly find idiots pushing the NASA fake temperature graph and claiming it is real. Indeed, personally, there’s only one metric I look at which is UAH. And that seems a dangerous position, because at any point, given NASA etc.’s penchant for changing the truth, they could find a way to change the data going into the UAH measure to yet again produce fake warming.
Then a couple of days ago, it finally dawned on me why Trump hasn’t done anything about the fake metrics. The reason is:

they are clearly fake!

And because they are so clearly fake, not even the alarmists believe in them. The result is almost everyone thinks climate alarmism is a joke. And for a president who doesn’t want to spend any money on the climate, that is a very good position.
Because if Trump had spent the $1billion as I would have liked, removing the obvious political bias that infests the global temperature measurement in all but one measure, and he did produce a global temperature that was credible. What then if it did rise or fall? He would then be under pressure to act.
Thus we learn:

that one of the best way to silence opposition, is to allow them to endulge in their fantasies and make claims so totally ridiculous that they are no longer credible and therefore even their valid arguments and concerns are treated as ridiculous.

However, I’m still pissed off with Trump. I would quite like to know what the actual global temperature is doing, and whilst UAH is by far the best measure we have, it still has serious problems, not least the absence of data from the poles.

Good riddance to Google news on

The collects together all the latest changes on blogs and presents them as a single page.  A long time ago, I included the google news feed for climate because at that time it used to include sceptic articles. But as we all know Google, like the BBC became a fake news pusher and whereas the actual news coverage was that sceptical articles had overtaken alarmist fake news – Google decided to totally change the ratio so that alarmist fake news was in the overwhelming majority (4 to 1?)
At that time, I looked for impartial alternative feeds for news, but finding none, I had little alternative than to label them as “alarmist” and treat them like all the other alarmists blogs I also collected news from.
Fortunately, however, today I got, instead of a news article “this feed is deprecated”. So, they’ve stopped supporting that feed. I think if I looked hard I might find an alternative, but to be honest I’m glad to have an excuse to stop putting google fake news onto uClimate.

Tommy Robinson – Scandal

I had a rather sleepness night last night after watching the videos of Tommy Robertson yesterday as they shook me out of my complacency. Everything I thought I knew about him (which I admit was not a lot) was wrong.
So, I started looking for information early this morning, I’ve watched videos puporting to say he’s a nasty guy because he got angry when some idiot was hassling him and I’ve now been to look at the vile hate sites like “HateNotHope” and I can’t find a single substantial accusation against him.
Instead, what I have seen is SECRET TRIALS and SUMMARY JUSTICE, with NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION OR RIGHT TO BE HEARD. Not … as a result of any crime – but because he was reading out a news report from the BBC. It is literally incredible that this can happen. It has totally shaken my faith in the legal system of Britain.
If I lived in the US – I would be going out RIGHT NOW to buy a gun, because from what I’ve just been reading I no longer believe the police or criminal system of this country is in any way benign, they are not there to protect us. It is there to repress us and deny our rights.

Tommy Robertson – must watch video at Oxford Union

It all started when I read that You Tube were going to be putting links to the absurd non-science on Wikipedia on all sceptic videos. So I immediately started looking for alternatives. Through that I then found a short video of Tommy Robertson (ironically on You tube) who had been jailed for reading out a BBC news article … that’s right! He was arrested and jailed for reading a BBC news articles.
At that point I – like most other people getting their news from the media – was thinking he was a Muslim hating extremist. That his views were born out of hatred, etc.
I now realise that I was very wrong. That “Nazi” persona is a TOTAL FABRICATION of the UK press. THEY HAVE LIED TO ME – JUST AS THEY HAVE LIED ON SO MANY ISSUES FROM GLOBAL WARMING TO BREXIT.
Indeed, I will now admit my views were racist – they were ANTI WHITE RACIST. I was literally shocked to find that the people Tommy was defending from extremist Muslim I was prejudiced against him because he was fair skinned, so I had not considered he was defending Africans or even Jews. Such is the brainwashing of our press!

I urge you to watch

Obviously, I have to add the caveat that watching one video which was clearly going to be very pro-Tommy Robertson is in no way thorough research. But even from that one video I can say quite categorically that I have been lied to by the British Press about the English Defence League.

But despite that caveat, this video is the most horrific thing I’ve seen – not for the extremity of the views Tommy Robinson expenses, but because they are so ordinary. But also because the response of the press politicians and police has been so extra-ordinary and almost certainly illegal. How can this happen?

If it happens to him, if his views have been so wholly misreported and his freedom of expression so completely shut down, then it could happen to all of us.

And indeed, this next video, shows intentional clearly wilful mistreatment of him in prison – when I can see no justification whatsoever for him being in jail in the first place.

I’m disgusted by the authorities in the UK.


WTO rules

Right from the beginning when we saw the EU attitude to the timescale for us leaving, it was clear the EU were going to be behaving like a spoilt spouse doing all they can to wreck the future life of their former marriage partner.
So, I thought it was inevitable that we would leave without an agreement. However, everyone else seemed to expect a deal, so I will admit, for a while I wondered if they were right. But after May’s treacherous “out in name only” offer to the EU, I thought they EU would certainly grab it with both hands, because it was the worst of all possible deals for the UK: subject to all the rules and bureaucracy of the EU but without any say at all about those rules. In effect we would become a foreign dominion of the EU.
Fortunately, the expected hatred of the EU to anyone daring to rid themselves of EU control seems to be prevailing … even over the “common sense” that May’s treacherous deal was the worst possible “deal” we could get. The result is that, as people realise the EU has no intention of allowing us to have a deal, more and more people are seriously talking about leaving on WTO rules. Which I think is great! Because there is so much wrong with the EU, that we really need perhaps 5-10 years TOTALLY detached from the EU, to totally reset our relationship with that tyrannical dictatorship and then that will allow us to know what if anything we do want to work with them AS EQUAL PARTNERS in future trade deals.
Obviously, I can’t pretend that situation will be great – because, like the worst empires, it is the practice of the EU to intentionally destroy the economies on its borders in order to give them no choice but to join. That was a severe problem to countries sandwiched between Russia and the EU with one, or other or BOTH easily able to block their trade. So I have the greatest sympathy for them. But fortunately Britain is big enough, with enough international borders to the worlds and stubborn enough to tell the EU to take a high jump.