The lies they tell us

Wednesday/Thursday blog

Whenever we’re given a new supposedly ‘official’ figure by our rulers, it usually is neccessary to do a little detective work to find out if we’re being deliberately lied to.

The EV fires lies

There’s an example of this in my previous blog in which I examined a government spokesperson’s claim that EVs were no more likely to catch fire than petrol and diesel cars. I don’t know what data the government spokesperson used to support their claim. But Googling statistics on car fires, I came across a report from the U.S. that had featured in several publications that hybrids accounted for 3,475 fires per 100,000 vehicles (3.5%), ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) vehicles caught fire substantially less often, at 1,530 incidents per 100,000 vehicles (1.5%) and EV fires were significantly lower than the others, with 25 fires per 100,000 vehicles (0.2%).

Given that there are over 290 million cars in the U.S. these figures would mean that there are more than 2.9 million car fires in the U.S. each year. In fact, the actual figure is around 170,000 car fires in the U.S. each year. So the report suggesting that EV fires were less frequent was complete nonsense. What I believe (though can’t prove) is that the game the people producing the report played was to compare the number of fires by vehicle type with the number of cars of that type sold each year. Given that the population of petrol and diesel cars on America’s roads would be older and therefore more likely to catch fire than EVs, this made it look like EVs were safer. Yet a Freedom of Information request from the London Fire Brigade suggested what many of us suspect is true – EVs are actually much more likely to catch fire than ICE cars.

The ‘97% of scientists’ lies

We see similar tricks being used against us with many of the other numbers used by the climate catastrophists. For example, in my book THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS, I explain how the claim that 97% of scientists agree that Global Warming is caused by human CO2 emissions is complete and utter nonsense.

The ‘since records began’ and ‘most on record’ lies

A common trick used by the catatstrophists is to claim that a day or week or month or whatever is the hottest, wettest, driest, most stormy ‘since records began’. But we’re never told what ‘since records began’ means. Is it millions of years? Or the last 600,000 years according to analysis of Vostok Antarctic ice samples? Or is it since the beginning of the industrial age? Or is it just since the end of the 1970s when space satellites were first used to measure the Earth’s temperature? Who knows? But the ‘since records began’ gives the ‘scientists’ and ‘journalists’ enormous flexibility in choosing their starting point to prove that we are supposedly experiencing a climate emergency/crisis.

A favourite ‘since records began’ game is played with Arctic and Antarctic ice caps. In this case the ‘since records began’ start point is usually 1979. But 1979 was the end of a 20-year cooling period. In fact the cooling in the 1960/1970 period was so bad that even the climate-catastrophist Guardian newspaper predicted a new Ice Age:

So maybe the warming since 1979 is just a return to normality. It’s true that charts starting in 1979 do show shrinkage of the polar ice caps. Here’s a typical chart for the Arctic suggesting we face total catastrophe:

But if you start your chart a bit earlier, you get a more nuanced picture:

There is a decline in the scorching hot 1920s and 1930s, an increase in the cooling 1960s and 1970s and then a decline again since 1990.

As for the Antarctic ice, well you can choose your chart according to what you want to prove. If you take the September figures, it looks like the ice cover is declining:

But if you choose February, the situation looks pretty stable.

Also in my book, I show how the climate catastrophists are careful with their ‘most on record’ starting point in order to convince us we’re heading for a climate apocalypse. Here’s a typical newspaper report:

But when you look at the real data, you see that information showing worse fire acreage being burnt in the scorching hot 1920s and 1930s is being deliberately hidden:

And sometimes, the ‘scientists just deliberately lie. When even the infamously climate-catastrophist IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) admits there is no increase in the rate of sea level rise:

Attention-seeking and grant-hungry scientists spurred on by scientifically-ignorant journalists glibly propagandise impending doom:

It’s a tricky world out there

So, next time you come across a government spokesperson, say-anything-for-research-money scientist or write-anything-for-money journalist quoting any statistics at you in order to cower you into craven obedience to the latest attempt to circumscribe your freedoms and impoverish you, it’s probably wise to cast a cynical eye over their data as it’s likely it’s complete nonsense.