|
|
By  David Craig, on October 7th, 2022 Weekend/Monday blog
(I’ll leave this up for 3 days as it’s rather important)
Fiction becoming fact?
In several blogs, I’ve mentioned a book titled “THE DENIAL” by journalist Ross Clark:
It describes a dystopian future in which everything we buy or do has a carbon (CO2) value and each household or individual has a carbon allowance which is the maximum amount of CO2 they are allowed to use each month. No household or individual is allowed to exceed their CO2 allowance unless they are part of the elites who, of course, have no restrictions on their CO2 use.
THE DENIAL was fiction until 14 September 2022 – that’s just a few weeks ago. On 14 September 2022, Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum issued an article titled: ‘My Carbon’: An approach for inclusive and sustainable cities
The article can be split into three main parts
Part 1 – The elites are amazed how easily we submitted
In the first part, the writers express what could almost be described as amazement at how willingly we submitted to their Project Fear Covid restrictions on our freedom
Here’s the key paragraph:
A huge number of unimaginable restrictions for public health were adopted by billions of citizens across the world. There were numerous examples globally of maintaining social distancing, wearing masks, mass vaccinations and acceptance of contact-tracing applications for public health
The article claims that our acceptance of Covid restrictions: ‘demonstrated the core of individual social responsibility’. But perhaps all it really demonstrated is how bullying authorities using Project Fear backed up by heavy-handed policing coerced us into abject cowering submission.
Part 2 – The Fourth Industrial Revolution
In this part the authors discuss how advances in technology allow our individual carbon emissions to be quantified and tracked
Here’s a section:
Fourth Industrial Revolution technology breakthroughs – Advances in emerging technologies like AI, blockchain and digitization can enable tracking personal carbon emissions.
This section gives an example of a smartphone app which can be used to measure an individual’s carbon emissions:
And explains:
There is a significant number of programs and applications enabling citizens to contribute towards carbon emissions by providing them in-depth awareness on the choices of personal carbon for food, transport, home energy and lifestyle choices.
Part 3 – How our carbon allowances will be controlled
In this part, Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum article gives a model showing how our rulers plan to control our individual carbon usage:
This falls into 3 main approaches:
- Economic Behaviour – our rulers will keep increasing the price of carbon so that ordinary ignorant plebs like us eat less, heat our homes less, buy fewer products and restrict our travel
- Cognitive Awareness – we will have to monitor our personal ‘carbon footprints’ so that we can reduce our carbon usage as part of the transition to ‘a net-zero-carbon society’. As the article explains, reducing our individual carbon footprints will cover most areas of our lives: ‘choices of personal carbon for food, transport, home energy and lifestyle choices’
- Social Norms – we will all be given fixed allowances of ‘acceptable levels’ of personal emissions. These ‘acceptable levels’ will be set by the ruling elites
In case you don’t believe this is coming, here’s a link to Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum article:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/09/my-carbon-an-approach-for-inclusive-and-sustainable-cities/
The carbon-trading billionaires?
There is one part of our wonderful carbon-controlled future the World Economic Forum article doesn’t mention. I suspect that this carbon allowances scheme will also include a ‘carbon trading’ facility. This will allow ordinary people to sell parts of their carbon allowances to carbon-trading companies who will then sell them on to the privileged political, business and media elites. This will ensure that the elites can continue to live a life of unrestricted luxury with unlimited travel, the most expensive foods and other life pleasures while the rest of us huddle in our tiny barely-heated homes eating locally-grown potatoes, cabbage, insects or lab-produced fake meat.
(A cynic might claim that this almost has echoes of Soylent Green)
And those running the carbon-trading companies will all probably become billionaires at our expense.
Perhaps we should all be grateful to Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum for describing so openly the future they are preparing for us?
By David Craig, on October 6th, 2022 Thursday/Friday blog
When giving a speech at the UN in 2018, President Trump warned that Germany was becoming too dependent on Russia for fuel. The German delegation all laughed. They’re not laughing now.
When he was president, Trump repeatedly warned about the need to strengthen control on the US’s southern border. He was lambasted by the Democrats and mainstream media. But since Joe Biden took office, over three million (and possibly over four million) illegal migrants have poured over America’s southern border. The Democrats and mainstream media have been suspiciously silent about this catastrophic loss of control of their country’s southern border which Trump warned about.
When he was president, Trump commissioned a series of reports from scientists explaining in simple terms what was happening with the Earth’s climate:
One of these reports summarised the climate situation as follows:
The word “emergency” means a crisis that threatens immediate harm unless urgent action is taken. “Climate change” refers to long slow variations in key features of our weather, such as 30-year averages of temperature and precipitation. It is only measurable over decades and centuries. Some of the changes can be beneficial and some can be harmful depending on how we adapt. Regardless of whether climate change is natural or human-caused, the words “emergency” and “crisis” do not apply.’
- Global warming over the past 200 years has been slow and manageable while global living standards have risen dramatically.
- The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that the economic impacts of global warming over the next century will continue to be small relative to other changes.
- Most projections of carbon dioxide emissions are now known to be too high, and there is evidence climate models have predicted too much warming.
- Data on extreme weather trends don’t support common claims of a climate crisis
The report concludes:
The global COVID-19 pandemic has showed what a global crisis looks like. By contrast, while climate change is an issue to which we should pay attention and continue to monitor, the evidence shows it is not an “emergency”. Policies that would block global development and economic growth in response to inaccurate rhetoric about climate change would do far more harm than good and should be firmly resisted.
Since becoming president, a climate-catastrophist Joe Biden has warned us: ‘Climate change is the number one issue facing humanity. And it’s the number one issue for me. Unchecked it’s actually going to bake this planet’. (21 March 2021). And in a speech to graduating students at Boston College, Biden’s similarly climate-catastrophist, jet-setting climate envoy John Kerry warned of the ‘crippling consequences’ of climate change and that: ‘ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent’.
It will be interesting to see whether Trump was right about this too.
By David Craig, on October 5th, 2022 Wednesday/Thursday blog
Fauci does it again?
Here’s a story I don’t think you’ll find mentioned on the BBC or C4 News or in the Guardian or in any UK mainstream media.
Maybe you had better dust off your face masks? You might soon need them again.
It seems that the world’s favourite doctor has done it again. On 21 September 2022, the diminutive but adorable Dr. Fauci awarded a grant of $653,392 to Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance:
I, of course, think it’s wonderful that Fauci and Daszak seem to be working so tirelessly to advance medical science. But I have heard that there are ignorant, cynical people who suspect that the Chinese Wuhan plague resulted from a lab leak at the world-respected Wuhan Institute of Virology of a virus created as a result of gain-of-function research funded by previous Fauci grants to Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance which then allegedly funded the gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the filthy, unhygienic, incompetently-managed, lab-leaky Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Anyway, before we jump to unjustified conclusions, let’s look at the project details for the latest Fauci grant to EcoHealth Alliance:
Oooops! It’s for “Analyzing the potential for future bat coronavirus emergence in Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam”.
Of course, we don’t yet know whether this important research will be carried out in the lab-leaky Wuhan Institute of Virology. But seeing this latest Fauci/Daszak initiative, one might be forgiven for feeling just like the person below:
By David Craig, on October 3rd, 2022 Monday/Tuesday blog
As the useless Tory Party tears itself apart over its cretinous decisions to scrap the 45% tax rate and the cap on bankers’ bonuses while many families worry about keeping the heating and lights on, here’s a less serious story.
A Telegraph reader’s letter
At the weekend I came across this letter from a Telegraph reader to the Telegraph’s supposed ‘financial expert’ which made me choke over my Earl Grey tea. The writer describes how she lost £53,000 to a scammer and therefore expected her bank (the Nationwide Building Society) to repay the money she had lost
I have put the letter in blue and my comments in red:
Dear Katie,
I am a 50-year-old widowed single mother with a teenage daughter. I lost my brother to brain cancer in 2019 and then my dear husband to the same cruel disease in the spring of 2020.
I fail to see what her brother’s death (sad as it was for her) has to do with her chucking away £53,000. But like everyone we see or hear about nowadays, she starts with a ‘sob story’ about how life has treated her unfairly.
It was right at the start of the pandemic and I was denied the chance to be with family or friends for support. But I survived and I started to rebuild my life. In the autumn of last year I felt the time was right to find happiness again. I joined a dating site, where I struck up a connection with a man.
We can sympathise with her for the loss of her husband. But she seems to have moved on from her grief as she has joined a dating site. So I can’t see what her sob story has to do with the fact she wasted £53,000.
I had been warned by friends that people sometimes didn’t look like their profile photos, so naturally I was relieved when we video called and he looked just like his. He told me that he had developed feelings for me, as I had for him. He was very caring, checking in on me every day.
How on earth can someone you have never met “develop feelings for you”? Did it really not occur to her that the man might be a scammer?
Around mid-November he told me that his company was sending him on a trip to Frankfurt for a cryptocurrency expansion project for a month, after which we would meet each other. During his time there he told me that he had been promoted to marketing director. He had a probationary task of finding investors, which would be quite challenging, he said.
Cryptocurrency investments? Red flag!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Warning lights flashing!!!!!!
On December 9 he first broached the topic of an investment. I was reluctant at first because I am very cautious financially. I told him I would need some time to think about it. He sent me the company’s website and I was sent emails from the company. I checked if it was legitimate, which it was. The emails were signed off by a director whom I found on LinkedIn.
By now this man had earned my trust completely. He knew he was the first man I had met since losing my husband and he promised he would never hurt me. I agreed to an initial £2,000 investment. Over the course of the following weeks I invested a further £51,000. I realised that something wasn’t right on January 30 this year.
As John McEnroe might say: “you can’t be serious!!!” You invested £53,000 over a period of just a few weeks in a product (cryptocurrencies) you probably didn’t understand encouraged by a man you had never met!!!! Lady, you have taken stupidity to a whole new level in my humble opinion.
He was meant to finally return to the UK but his flight was cancelled, he said. When he didn’t call me I became upset. He didn’t return my texts or calls and he took his picture off WhatsApp.
Some mornings I watch a BBC programme For Love or Money about internet romance scams. This story has all the depressingly predictable aspects of typical internet romance scams. While this lady may not have seen that particular programme, does she never watch TV nor ever read a newspaper?
I immediately called two close friends. When I filled them in about the “investments” they immediately realised I had been scammed.
Losing my husband to brain cancer was devastating, but the effect that this fraud is having on me has been so much harder to cope with. I’ve informed the police and my building society, Nationwide, about the scam, but neither has recouped any of my money.
How are the police meant to recoup her money? And why on earth should other Nationwide customers pay for this lady’s imbecility?
– Anon
The Telegraph financial expert’s answer
And here’s the reply from the Telegraph’s ‘financial expert’. I have put the reply in green and my comments in red:
Dear reader,
I was so very sorry to learn of the death of your husband and then of this wicked scam. Grieving, and still restricted from seeing friends and family because of continuing lockdowns, you were at the time of the fraud a highly vulnerable woman: perfect prey for this callous criminal who deliberately exploited your tragic circumstances.
Was she really “vulnerable”? She had started dating again.
I got in touch with Nationwide and asked what it had done to protect you. It had been notified of your husband’s death in 2020 and so should have been aware of your vulnerability, I felt.
Nationwide is a large company with 17,680 employees. Should every Nationwide employee be expected to know that this dating woman had lost her husband almost 2 years earlier and was therefore ‘vulnerable’? What total nonsense.
You say Nationwide made one phone call to check what one of the transfers was for, but it was not particularly probing, you said.
Good grief! The Nationwide tried to warn her that she was being scammed. But she claims the warning was not “particularly probing”. With someone like this, who blames everyone else for her self-inflicted problems, no doubt if Nationwide had been more “probing”, she would have complained about the Nationwide interfering with her money
You say you were asked to check with your “boyfriend”, who we now know was a fraudster, whether the investment was legitimate. Of course, he reassured you that it was. I also felt the scam was unusually sophisticated in that the fraudster made sure to impersonate a real employee of a legitimate investment company whom he actually looked like, which really had you fooled.
Sorry, but this scam was not sophisticated. Over £100m a year is scammed from people each year using almost exactly the same methods.
It is only now you know that all the emails, which had appeared genuine, were of course also fake. Nationwide said there was no evidence you had fallen for a scam because you had transferred money into a cryptocurrency account held in your own name.
This ignored the fact that this was merely another part of the fraud, and a commonly used one at that. It also said it didn’t always follow that customers were vulnerable following a bereavement.
Around 700,000 people die in the UK each year. Other people manage to cope with these deaths without handing £53,000 to fraudsters. Moreover, these events occurred almost 2 years after this woman’s husband’s death.
It said you should have done more to stop the scam and, even after my involvement, refused to refund a single penny. I felt this was unfair, so I urged you to take your case to the Financial Ombudsman for a second opinion.
I’m pleased to say that, several months later, it found in your favour and asked Nationwide to pay you £53,500 plus 8pc interest.
This is utterly ludicrous. Why should other Nationwide customers pay for this nincompoop’s stupidity? Plus, why should she get 8% interest when the rest of us are lucky to get even 1%?
While there may be things you would do differently if you had your time again, ultimately Nationwide should have done more to protect you from this evil criminal.
I disagree. I believe Nationwide did what it could to alert this clot to the fact she might be involved in a scam.
While you have, at long last, achieved this welcome result, the damage this episode has done to you personally has left you forever changed. Take all the time you need to recover from this trauma and, whatever you do, don’t lose faith that genuine and kind men do exist. You truly deserve to find one, and I hope that one day you will.
Nationwide said: “We intervened when the customer first started to make payments that were out of character and she was shown a tailored warning for this type of scam before each transaction. Based on our pre-emptive actions we do not believe we should be held liable. However, the Financial Ombudsman has ruled in her favour and we accept this decision.”
We’re all victims now
This story seems to encapsulate a lot about people today:
- everybody has a sad ‘sob story’ where life has been unfair to them
- many people seem to have lost what we used to call common sense
- nobody takes responsibility for their own decisions anymore
- everyone sees themselves victims who should be compensated for their own stupidity
- the media are so terrified of a twitterstorm from similarly stupid people, who also don’t take any responsibility for their actions, that the media doesn’t dare tell dopes like this woman to grow up
The only thing I find surprising about this story is that the stupid woman didn’t also claim she was suffering from ‘mental health problems’. After all, is there any celeb in the media nowadays who doesn’t claim they had ‘mental health problems’ and thought of committing suicide?
By David Craig, on October 1st, 2022 weekend blog
Using the Kami-Kwasi excuse
As I predicted in my Friday blog, the trade union bosses have started to use the Kami-Kwasi tax breaks for the rich as justification for their strikes. I saw two trade union leaders on the TV news this morning both saying that if the richest are getting thousands of pounds due to Kami-Kwasi abolishing the 45% top tax rate and scrapping the cap on bankers’ bonuses, then why should their members accept below-inflation pay offers of just a few percent.
You can’t really argue with that
It’s costing you about £500 a year
This year the UK will spend/squander around £14.5bn on foreign aid. Assuming there are around 30 million taxpayers in the UK, that’s just under £500 per taxpayer. And, of course, the more corrupt a country is, the more foreign aid it will get.
Where did the money go?
In Europe, after the Second World War the US-sponsored Marshall Plan is generally credited for helping war-ravaged European countries to rebuild and become prosperous. So some people have demanded a ‘Marshall Plan for Africa’. There’s only one problem with this demand. Africa has already had its Marshall Plan – several times over. In the last fifty years Africa has been given the equivalent of around ten Marshall Plans. In today’s money, the five-year European Marshall Plan saw about $100bn – $20bn a year – being used to rebuild Europe after WWII. In the last fifty years, Africa has received over $1 trillion in aid. So, Africa received about the same every year – $20bn a year – for fifty years that Europe received each year for just five years. Yet there’s little evidence that those countries getting the most aid have benefited from this aid and a quarter of Sub-Saharan countries, including some of the world’s recipients of the most foreign aid, are now poorer than they were 50 years ago.
Where looting is the national sport
We don’t know how much of the aid money we give ever reaches those in need. But there are indications that most aid money is looted by the political and bureaucratic elites in the recipient countries
Millions of dollars were given to South Africa to buy schools textbooks. Hardly a single book was bought as almost all the money was allegedly stolen by people with close links to the ruling ANC Party. The year before the 2014 Ebola outbreak, $60m of EU taxpayers’ money was donated to Liberia to build clinics and train health workers. Of this $60m, only about five per cent ($3m) ever reached the Liberian Ministry of Health. A few months later, Liberia was the African country with the highest death rate from Ebola, partly due to a lack of clinics and lack of trained staff. And following the Asian tsunami in 2004, customs officers in Sri Lanka impounded vehicles and medical supplies we sent to help Sri Lanka’s 516,000 displaced tsunami victims and the families of the country’s 35,000 dead. The corrupt customs officers would reportedly only release the vehicles and aid in return for an immediate payment of around $1m in cash bribes and further payments of another $2m, again in cash.
The stories are almost endless. But we seldom hear them because, if the public knew how much of our money was being pillaged, then we might be rather less inclined to hand over our cash when the next disaster strikes and the next charity comes calling.
Corruption is us
Corruption affects emergency aid and development efforts in two main ways. Firstly, aid money or goods are stolen directly through expropriation by warlords, the military or politicians or else money pours out through bribes, tricks like double invoicing and shoddy (or even non-existent) construction work on roads, schools or hospitals or payments for imaginary children and schools. Britain’s Department for International Development, for example, proudly claimed that £388m given to a programme to support children going to school in India had reduced the number of out-of-school children by five million. But an Indian government report found that at least £70m of this money had been stolen having been allocated to children and schools that didn’t exist.
Secondly, if foreign aid money pays for basic public services such as schools and healthcare for the poor, then local politicians feel little obligation to use the country’s own money to provide these services. Thus generous provision of aid can tempt them into avoiding paying any tax, embezzling their departments’ resources or wasting their country’s wealth on vanity projects like palaces, mansions, fleets of Mercedes or space programmes. In Pakistan, few if any of the many multi-millionaire politicians, their business cronies or top bureaucrats pay any tax, leaving it up to foreign aid donors to hand over more than $2.5bn a year to provide services for the poor in Pakistan in order to make up for rich Pakistanis’ tax avoidance. And now Pakistan’s elites are licking their lips at the massive amount of aid they’ll get following this year’s floods. They’re hoping for about $28bn. We can be sure that, whatever they do manage to squeeze out of us, very little will ever get anywhere near any flood victims
In many countries, the elites loot more than the country receives in aid:
Let’s end this farce
This foreign aid farce has gone on for over fifty years. And it has made many Third-world leaders into billionaires:
And now the most corrupt people on this planet are demanding trillions more from us in supposed ‘climate justice’ reparations for the supposed damage caused by supposed climate change.
Maybe it’s time to end this foreign aid farce?
By David Craig, on September 30th, 2022 Friday blog
It’s not the purpose of this blog to cover stories that have already been exhaustively covered in the mainstream media. But the ghastly incompetence of Kwasi ‘Khazi’ Kwarteng or ‘Kami-Kwasi’ as he is now affectionately known, is just so appalling that it’s probably worth mentioning a couple of the inevitable results.
Firstly, let me admit that in spite of having done an economics course as part of my MBA, I don’t understand why the budget (which was not a budget just as Putin’s ‘Special Military Operation’ was not an invasion) has caused panic in the financial markets, has risked wrecking pension companies, has led to the Bank of England buying up government bonds, where the Bank of England gets the money to buy these bonds, why buying these bonds has supposedly ‘stabilised the market’, why interest rates are about to rise and all that stuff. But two things are clear to me:
- Kwasi’s special fiscal operation (which is not a budget) will provide the grounds for industrial action which will come close to a general strike
- The Tories have given Labour all the arguments Labour need to win the next general election without even having to get out of bed
The coming general strike?
The two greatest stupidities of Kami-Kwasi’s efforts were removing the cap on bankers’ bonuses and giving tax breaks to the highest earners.
When the bankers’ bonus cap was first imposed, most banks got round the problem by giving their senior employees massive pay rises. So there was absolutely no need for Kami-Kwasi to abolish this cap. The bankers were already wallowing in our money.
Then we have the tax cuts for the highest earners:
Seeing energy prices more than double, inflation rising faster than their wages and mortgage costs rocketing, 90%+ of the working population are going to demand that their wages rise to meet the increasing cost of living. And they’re going to justify this by pointing to how the rich are getting richer due to the Tory tax breaks while they are getting poorer. General strike anybody?
Mrs Starmer already choosing the curtains for Downing Street?
If I was Mrs Starmer (which thankfully I’m not), I’d already be choosing the curtains for my move to Number 10 Downing Street. Kami-Kwasi has given Labour all the slogans they need to slaughter the Tories at the next general election:
- The Tories are the party of the bankers and the rich
- The rich are getting richer while you’re getting poorer
- The Tories only care about their rich City friends
- The Tories are ‘the nasty party’
It’s all about the optics
The Kami-Kwasi/Truss budget (which is not a budget) may be a work of economic genius. After all, both Kami-Kwasi and Truss are highly-qualified. But politics/optics are also important. And the budget (which is not a budget) will be seen as an attack on most working families while enriching a favoured few (Tory donors?) at the top of the pile.
There’s no point being an economic genius if you’re a political imbecile. Perhaps one of the Rolls-Royce brains among the Downing Street advisers should have mentioned this to Kami-Kwasi before he launched the Tories’ suicide attack on the British population?
By David Craig, on September 28th, 2022 I posted the blog below yesterday (Wednesday 28 September). It contains an email I received from someone claiming to be Professor Neil Ferguson from Imperial College, London.
Since then I have been in touch with Professor Neil Ferguson and he denies sending the email which appears to come from him. That means either that someone sent the email from Professor Ferguson’s account or else someone hacked into his account to send the email. We are trying to find out who actually sent the email.
Wednesday/Thursday blog
I would like to draw readers’ attention to a comment made by someone claiming to be Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College – perhaps Britain’s most respected academic modeller? For legal reasons I have to be careful what I write today.
Here’s the comment:
Author: Neil Ferguson (IP address: 79.66.5.216, 79-66-5-216.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com)
Comment:
Sea level is not falling around Scandinavia. The land is rising due to post-glacial rebound, which Anders Celsius noted in the 1730s:
I can also see where you got your see-saw bit on the east coast of the USA:
Your article doesn’t have any references. It is also very similar to one that appears to be by you on the Daily Sceptic.
I have seen your book The great university con, and it is clear from this that you are not capable of good research. You include bar charts to compare a couple of numbers – this is the kind of thing that a weak school kid would do for a school project in early secondary school. And bar charts are, sadly, as sophisticated as your “analysis” gets. Most of your references are just media articles. Media articles are not credible references. Many of them are created by bots, for goodness sake.
The point I am making is this: your “work”, whether it is on climate or university, is weak and shoddy and the kind of thing I would expect from a weak early secondary school pupil.
It is true that there is no climate crisis and that university today is a con, but you are not the person to write about these things. You are like a man down the pub who likes to pontificate and hear his own voice. You should stay down the pub, as people will be drunk and won’t remember you making a fool of yourself down the pub. If you wish to do something positive, it should be to encourage other people to write about things like climate and university. That is your greatest possible gift – to try to encourage others to write about the truth, but not to do this yourself, as you clearly lack the tools to do this yourself.
Neil Ferguson,
Imperial College
I don’t think he likes my work
And here’s how I would answer some of the main criticisms made:
Sea level is not falling around Scandinavia. The land is rising due to post-glacial rebound, which Anders Celsius noted in the 1730s:
I know that sea level is not falling around Scandinavia and that is precisely what I explain in my book and recent blog and Daily Sceptic article. So I’m not quite sure what point the gentleman is making.
I have seen your book The great university con, and it is clear from this that you are not capable of good research………….
Almost all of my books have been based on research that I have done myself. However, for my book THE GREAT UNIVERSITY CON I wrote this in collaboration with an expert /experts in UK higher Education. Given the background of my collaborator(s), I can assure Professor Ferguson (if it is genuinely him who has made the comment) that it is highly likely my collaborator(s) know more about UK Higher Education than almost anyone else in Britain and maybe even more than the Professor himself (if it is him commenting). My job with THE GREAT UNIVERSITY CON was mainly cutting down 200,000 words of serious research to make a readable 80,000-word book.
The point I am making is this: your “work”, whether it is on climate or university, is weak and shoddy and the kind of thing I would expect from a weak early secondary school pupil.
As regards my book on climate – I make it very clear at the start of the book that the book is mostly based on the work by Tony Heller of the ‘realclimatescience’ website, not my own research. Moreover, I would humbly suggest to Professor Ferguson (if it is really him commenting) that he looks at the work of a weak early secondary school pupil before comparing my books to that.
You are like a man down the pub who likes to pontificate and hear his own voice. You should stay down the pub, as people will be drunk and won’t remember you making a fool of yourself down the pub. If you wish to do something positive, it should be to encourage other people to write about things like climate and university. That is your greatest possible gift – to try to encourage others to write about the truth, but not to do this yourself, as you clearly lack the tools to do this yourself.
Professor Ferguson (if it is really him making the comment) is, of course, entitled to his opinion of my research and writing abilities. I will refrain from giving my opinion about his modelling abilities. Or about his morality regarding his attitude to lockdown rules which (I believe) were partly based on his world-famous modelling. But in his comment I do detect what I feel is a certain academic arrogance that only certain privileged people should be permitted to write books about serious subjects. Pig-ignorant, uneducated proles like myself with a degree from Cambridge University, a business school MBA and experience of working in almost 100 organisations across fifteen countries, clearly are not qualified to have opinions about anything except for spouting off at the pub.
Comments not allowed
I know that almost everyone in Britain is in trembling awe of Professor Ferguson’s (if it is him commenting) almost Nostradamus-like forecasting abilities. I certainly am a major fan as I’m sure you can imagine. But I also know there may be shallow, cynical people who don’t share my admiration for Professor Ferguson. So, for legal reasons, I won’t be allowing any readers’ comments.
However, in the comment the person claiming to be Professor Ferguson gives what seems to be a genuine email address – neil.ferguson@imperial.ac.uk
By David Craig, on September 26th, 2022 Monday/Tuesday blog
My totally pointless complaint to the BBC
I’ve made a complaint to the BBC about their ludicrous claim that sea levels could rise by up to one metre by the end of this century. Here’s my complaint:
YOUR COMPLAINT:
Inaccurate claims/ lies by the BBC presenter
In a report on coastal castles being destroyed by supposed climate change and erosion, the presenter claimed that sea levels could rise by up to a metre by the end of this century. This is complete and utter nonsense. Since sea levels started being seriously measured in 1890, they have risen by just over 10cms. At this rate, sea levels would take around 1,000 years to rise by the BBC’s claim of one metre. Yet the BBC claims this could happen within just 78 years.
Moreover, the sea-level rise since 1890 has been constant – there has been no acceleration. Even the BBC’s gods – the IPCC – state “there is no convincing evidence of an acceleration in global sea- level rise during the 20th century”.
I expect the BBC to issue a prominent admission that the claim of a one-metre sea-level rise by the end of this century is a load of nonsense, with absolutely no scientific evidence backing it up and I expect the BBC to stop making such irresponsible, false climate-catastrophist claims in future.
No doubt I will be fobbed off and/or told to get stuffed by some pimply, pig-ignorant BBC supposed ‘fact-checker’.
Heavier/lighter monsoon rains – climate catastrophists explain why
I was doing a bit of research to understand what the climate catastrophists were saying about the unusually heavy monsoon rains in Crapistan this year.
I found out that in the years 2010-2015 the monsoon rains on the Indian subcontinent weren’t particularly heavy. Here’s a series of charts showing the percentage of India’s land area affected by drought rising since around the 1950s (the red line on the charts):
 MATLAB Handle Graphics Fortunately, the climate catastrophists were able to explain this worrying phenomenon of lighter Monsoon rains. It was all due to Climate Change warming the Indian Ocean:
Using observations and climate model experiments, we demonstrate that this reduction in rainfall is linked to the rapid warming of the Indian Ocean, especially its western part, during the past century. The Indian Ocean warming, along with a relatively subdued warming of the Indian subcontinent, has played a key role in weakening the land-sea thermal contrast, a major driver of the South Asian monsoon. The weakened land-sea thermal contrast dampens the summer monsoon Hadley circulation, reducing the rainfall over the central Indian subcontinent.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8423
Monsoon rains – climate catastrophists do a reverse ferret
Then came the terrible Pakistan floods of 2022:
Once again, the climate catastrophists were able to explain this worrying phenomenon of heavier monsoon rains. It was all due to Climate Change warming the Indian Ocean:
Climate change likely increased extreme monsoon rainfall, flooding highly vulnerable communities in Pakistan. Global warming is likely to make India’s monsoon season wetter and more dangerous, new research suggests. Scientists have known for years that climate change is disrupting monsoon season. Past research based on computer models has suggested that the global heating caused by greenhouse gases, and the increased moisture in the warmed atmosphere, will result in rainier summer monsoon seasons and unpredictable, extreme rainfall events.
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/climate-change-likely-increased-extreme-monsoon-rainfall-flooding-highly-vulnerable-communities-in-pakistan/
So, now you know – Climate Change warms the Indian Ocean causing both shorter/lighter monsoon rains and longer/heavier monsoon rains.
A cynic might be tempted to suspect that we’re being taken for fools.
More ludicrous claims from our national treasure?
I watched a bit of national treasure, David Attenborough’s Frozen Planet II. It featured polar bears, seals, whales and melting ice – just the same as Frozen Planet I. In the latest version Attenborough portentously warned that “scientists have predicted that the Arctic could be ice-free by 2035”. OMG! OMG! OMG!
But hold on a minute. Would these be the same ‘scientists’ who, the mainstream media informed us, predicted the Arctic could be ice-free by 2008:
And then by 2012:
And then 2013:
And then 2014:
And then 2015:
And then 2016:
And 2017 or 2018:
 .
A cynic might be tempted to suspect that we’re being taken for fools.
By David Craig, on September 23rd, 2022 Friday/weekend blog
Be afraid, be very afraid
There was a report on the BBC Breakfast programme today (Friday 23 September) about the threat of rising sea levels to historic castles on our coast. The BBC bleated that these castles, which had protected Britain’s coasts for hundreds of years, were now being destroyed by rising sea levels due to climate change. The BBC claimed that “scientists have predicted that sea levels could rise by a metre by the end of this century”.
This reminded me of a BBC documentary Earth Under Water made by the BBC in 2010. In this documentary the BBC presented two scenarios – a 2-metre sea-level rise by 2100 and a 5 metre sea-level rise by 2200. Using these two ‘scenarios’ the BBC showed the terrifying consequences for coastal cities and low-lying land from these predicted sea-level rises.
I guess the one positive one can take from the two programmes is that the useless BBC have reduced their prediction of sea-level rise by 2100 from 2 metres to a mere 1 metre.
More BS from The BS Broadcasting Corporation
But let’s test whether a sea-level rise of 2 metres or even 1 metre by 2100 is credible.
Here’s a table of sea-level rises from 1880 to 1980:
(left-click on the table and then left-click again to see wonderfully clearly)
Hopefully you’ll notice at least two things:
- the sea-level is rising somewhere between 10cms and 12cms per hundred years. We have just 78 years till the year 2100. Yet at the current rate, it would take about 1,000 years for the sea level rise by 1 metre and around 2,000 years for the sea level to rise by 2 metres. So the idea that the sea level could rise by 1 metre (or even 2 metres) in the next 78 years is complete nonsense
- the sea level is rising by different rates at different locations and is even apparently falling by 37cms per century around Scandinavia. I realise that climate activists don’t have any common sense and prostitute scientists-for-sale will say anything that the highest payer wants them to say, but hopefully most readers know that, when you take a bath, the water spreads out evenly and cannot rise more in one area of your bath than in another
What’s really happening?
It’s a pity that nobody at the BBC has read my book THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS. If they had, they would know what’s really happening and stop making their wildly-exaggerated, nonsensical claims of impending climate catastrophe. Here’s just a small excerpt from my book about supposed rising sea levels:
The changes, or more accurately apparent changes, in sea levels are also partly due to factors like Tectonic Plate Movement, Glacial Isostatic Adjustment, Post-Glacial Rebound and subsidence due to water abstraction around major cities. Tectonic Plate Movement is, of course, the continual movement of the Earth’s tectonic plates which give us earthquakes and tsunamis. Glacial Isostatic Adjustment has been going on for at least two million years. Massive glaciers grow and then melt, alternately depressing the Earth’s crust and then releasing it again. As we are now in an interglacial, which has led to melting ice, Scandinavia is slowly rising. Hence, the sea level at Stockholm appears to be falling.
The Post-Glacial Rebound, which is causing much of the East Coast of North America to sink, occurs because large areas of Canada and America were weighed down by massive ice sheets in the last Ice Age. When that ice melted between 26,500 and 7,000 years ago, land in the centre of the North American began to rise while land around the periphery sank in what has been described as a ‘sort of sea-saw effect.‘ Hence sea levels at the East Coast of America seem to be rising faster than in many other areas of the world. Meanwhile in California on the U.S. West Coast, around 8 million of the state’s 40 million inhabitants are believed to live in areas where the land is subsiding probably partly due to Tectonic Movements and partly due to subsidence caused by increased water abstraction.
Looking at the table above one of the largest apparent sea level increases has been 30 cms in 100 years at the East Coast of North America where the land has been sinking due to Post-Glacial Rebound. The sea level for Scandinavia has apparently ‘dropped’ by 37 cms in 100 years as the land has risen due to Glacial Isostatic rebound. A National Land Survey of Finland study completed in early 2021 calculated that the South Coast of Sweden was rising by at least 1 mm a year, further north the uplift was 2 mm to 3 mm a year and in central Finland the land uplift might be as much as 8 mm to 9 mm a year.
Jakarta is thought to be subsiding by 25 cm a year largely because of groundwater extraction. Houston is sinking as the oil wells beneath it are depleted. Bangkok’s and Shanghai’s skyscrapers are weighing the two cities down. London is slowly sinking partly due to water abstraction and partly due to Post-Glacial Rebound which is causing Scotland to slowly rise, like Sweden and Finland, after having been weighed down by glaciers during the last ice age.
A report by scientists in 2019 suggested that the real sea level rise due purely to thermal expansion caused by global warming was just 0.7 mm a year: ‘Sea level rise by thermal expansion is likely less than 0.7 mm/year……..Subsidence is main contributor of sea level rise in many areas of the world.’
By David Craig, on September 21st, 2022 Wednesday blog
Are 6 million really severely disabled?
I saw something on the news yesterday that Britain’s 6 million most severely disabled will be getting a £150 payment this week to help them cope with the cost-of-living crisis. As usual, the mainstream media interviewed loads of disabled people and various ‘experts’ all bleating and moaning that the £150 was ‘too little too late’. But in our politically-correct times, nobody dared ask questions like:
- Are there really 6 million severely disabled people in Britain?
- Are almost one in every ten British really severely disabled?
I can understand why nobody would dare ask these questions. To do so would result in a social media hurricane of abuse accusing one of being heartless and uncaring and being an ‘ableist’ and euthanasia-supporting Nazi etc etc. And, of course, it would be certain career suicide.
Britain’s disabled masses?
But these 6 million disabled people are, from what I understand, just those with the most serious disabilities.
According to House of Commons Library statistics, an astonishing (to me) 15 million Brits claim to be disabled. These include just over one in five people of working age.
These supposedly ‘disabled’ masses cost the few people who still work and pay taxes about £47 billion a year – up from around £42.5 billion in the last ten years:
In case you were wondering where all these poor disabled people live, you’ll see that Wales tops the charts in the number of localities with the most disabled:
Of the ten areas with the highest percentage of supposedly ‘disabled’, five are in Wales, three are in England and two are in Scrotland. Of the ten areas with the lowest percentage of supposedly ‘disabled’, none are in Wales and none are in Scrotland.
Are we being taken for fools?
Are one in ten children, one in five people of working age and almost half of pensioners really disabled?
I don’t know. But I rather suspect that taxpayers are being taken for fools by millions of lying freeloaders and parasites.
|
|
