Friday, April 13, 2018

Dr Susan Crockford...Scientist or footballer?

I am taken to a rare update to this old blog, due to the furore surrounding the personal, unprofessional attacks upon a serious scientist, Phd Zoologist Dr Susan Crockford.

Dr Susan Crockford has committed the cardinal sin for a scientist. She did some science.

The science that she did, as all her previous scientific enquiry, was done to her usual professional standard. In fact it was to the standard that all scientists, regardless of their field of expertise, should strive to attain.

Her previous work has met the rigorous standards demanded by science for publication in peer-reviewed journals.  As a zoologist, she is entitled to research any of nature's creatures, and to review and test the work of other zoologists, even to test the findings of published papers by specialists in the research of specific species.  That is what science demands.  Reproducibility and falsifiability are CRITICAL in science. Anyone who claims otherwise is a liar and a fraud.

So when Dr Susan Crockford tested the findings of the the research on polar bears (polar bear survival model (Amstrup et al. 2007)) she found the predictions they made of polar bears decline to be different, or in disagreement with, reality.  (note to any budding scientists out there... that is how you are supposed to do science, but more on that later...) It should have been accepted without fuss, and the scientific community should have reacted as the science demands, to recognise a failing and do more research, improve knowledge and move on...

I remember the original paper being produced in a show of global media publicity, with images of a thin polar bear floating on tiny block of ice in the middle of a vast ocean, doomed to starve to death.

The methodology for coming to the original predicted massive fall in polar bear numbers, was, at best, ridiculous. It was a computer model which merely extrapolated utterly useless and misleading data to reach a politically acceptable conclusion. Nothing more.

They looked at a tiny area of ice and counted the polar bears.  Then they went back later and counted again, noting a big decline in numbers (spoiler alert for polar bear experts... polar bears migrate over huge distances and they were not in the same location anymore) based on that decline in numbers they built a computer model to extrapolate that decline into the future.  It would be the equivalent of me sitting looking out of my office window at the town square at lunchtime and counting people, then returning at 3:00am and counting again, and extrapolating the end of humanity based on the decline in people in the town square.  Yes it was utter rubbish, but it gave the media and the politicians what they wanted to hear. Also, my rubbishing of their methodology, does not mean that their prediction was wrong. Only time itself could tell if the prediction would turn out to be true.

So, if I rubbish their work, so what? I am not a scientist at all, so scientists can label me the utterly false, delusional and extremely sloppy ad hominem "Climate denier" (note, I do not deny there is a climate, and anyone who uses that term at all, in a serious manner, is utterly stupid as NOBODY denies there is a climate) and safely ignore me.

Whatever the validity or otherwise, the paper had been submitted for peer review and passed that process and was published.

Science is not a person. Science is a method, and the heart of that method are rules. One of those rules, which is pertinent here is best described by one of the greatest physicists the world has ever known. Professor Richard P. Feynman

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard P. Feynman
That paper predicted a sharp decline in future population size of polar bears.

So, was the prediction correct? Or was it wrong?

Susan Crockford is a serious scientist, and her work was conducted in accordance with the highest of scientific standards. It was irrefutable. The prediction was wrong! She published that the prediction is wrong. There is no disputing the prediction is wrong and the "scientists" who published the work could not refute her science at all.

So in addition to creating a seriously rubbish paper, based on completely unscientific principles which a first year science student (in school, not college, but school) should be able to dispute, the prediction off the back of that very shoddy science was wrong too and a serious scientist using scientific methods falsified it.

How did the esteemed scientists react? did they act like scientists and refute the findings according to scientific principles? or did they act like a mafia gang of fraudsters  and gang together with other similarly piss poor scientists and use their elevated reputations (being world leaders in their fields) to attack her, and attempt to destroy her character, her reputation and scare anyone else in science from even referencing her work in future?

They did the latter.

They claimed she is not an expert in Polar Bear study. She had never been and tagged Polar Bears, so her "opinions" and "theories" are invalid.

Many other polar bear specialists also piled in to the character assasination, and they brought in other Climate science "stars" to further do damage.

One does not have to be an expert in anything to look at any prediction from an expert in that thing, and compare that prediction with reality.

Now here comes the football.

if David Beckham had made a prediction at the start of the 2017-2018 football season that Manchester United would win this year's Premier League in England.  From April 2018, knowing now that Manchester City have already won the league, I do not have to be a better footballer than him to know his prediction was been wrong. I do not have to be a footballer at all, or even know anything about football to know that he was wrong.  Does that make me saying he was wrong any less valid?

At the start of a season, before a ball is kicked, David Beckham predicting that Manchester United would win the Premier League would carry more weight and validity than my prediction, at that time, that Manchester City would win it, and that is understandable and correct, for David Beckham is much more of an expert on football than I am.  Other people would naturally take David Beckham's word over mine and that is exactly as it should be.  But after the season, when Manchester United did not win the Premier League, and Manchester City did, Then I would be justified in being correct and David Beckham wrong, in that hypothetical situation.

It is the same in the world of science.  World leaders in scientific positions of authority use those elevated positions to give credibility to their work, and understandibly so. Who am I (a non-scientist) to question the work of global leaders in their fields, who have hundreds of peer reviewed papers to their names, and awards coming out of their ears? 

There is a logical fallicy called the appeal to authority.  They are authority figures. They are experts, but that does not mean that they are always correct, or that they are immune from having their work questioned by non-experts. (how are non-experts supposed to learn, if they cannot question experts???)

Science is a method.  It is a group of steps taken to validate or falsify ideas, based on collecting data in a testable and repeatable manner.  ANYBODY can do that.  science is NOT a person, or a personality, or a reputation or a lifetime's body of work by any one individual or group.  Science is a method of discovering truth.

It is like football. It is a thing that one does. The person doing that thing does not make that thing any more or any less of that thing.

Imagine Ronaldo on the pitch as the kick off whistle is blown.  Nobody disputes that Ronaldo is a footballer. He has played for, scored goals for, won games and trophies and cups for the best teams in the world.

But what if Ronaldo, as he heard the whistle blown to start a football match, sat down and had a picnic on the pitch. Would he be playing football?  No. Just because he is amongst the greatest footballers alive, does not mean that everything he does is football. 

Even if he started the game, and then part way through, He went and got a cricket bat and started hitting the ball, would he still be playing football? No.  What if he picked up the ball in his hands and started running with it? Is he still playing football? No.

Likewise, if a fat, 43 year old, unfit man, gets up on a Sunday afternoon, goes down to the park and takes part in a "sunday league" football match, and within the written rules of football, helps score a goal, is that man playing football?  Of course. He does not have to have helped win the Champions League to still be considered as playing football.

I am not a footballer, but if I was by some fluke, (winning a competition for example), allowed to take part in a football match for Liverpool vs Manchester United, and within the rules, I scored a goal, that goal would be just as valid as any scored by any real footballer.

Science is a method of doing something, that ANYBODY can do, and so long as they do that method, then they are doing science properly.

Once they stray from that method, and engage in data tampering, using rubbish data, ommitting data, cherry-picking data, character assasination, bullying other scientists, ad hominem attacks, then it matters not how many advanced degrees  they have, how many fellowships or awards they have, or how world leading they are, they are Ronaldo having a picnic on the pitch! They are not DOING science anymore. ANYBODY who follows the scientific method rigourously, IS doing science.

Those who stray from the scientific method, to keep their papers valid and avoid having to make retractions, are no longer doing science, but are science deniers. They are anti-science. They may as well be creationists.

Monday, April 08, 2013

Baroness Thatcher Rest In Peace.

Today is a very sad day.  I mourn the loss of one of the greatest 20th Century's leaders as Baroness Thatcher passed away.

There will be jokes and hatred spouted all over the internet as those who opposed her politics take delight in the death of a frail woman who had Althiemers.

However, it is also a sign of the freedom for all she embraced that they should be allowed to do so.

I am a very big fan of freedom as it is much better than the alternative.  And so, in appreciation of the freedom she granted to the British People, I shall exercise my freedom to praise and remember the great achievements of her life.  The massive and positive contributions she made and what we have to thank her for.

She was never a feminist. She believed in meritocracy and proved her belief in working hard and breaking barriers.  Those barriers were not broken by any political correct patronising bullshit being charitably given to her owing to her having a vagina, no, she EARNED every achievement.

She shone a beacon of possibility to every woman to show what is possible, without pandering to divisive ideals of feminists who want the same rights as men, but not to do that hard work required to compete equally with men.  Well Thatcher proved, by her indomitable will and massive talents, that woman CAN get to the top without the patronising aid of feminism.

She believed in the freedom and of rights for each individual and on giving individuals the power to achieve whatever they were capable of.  Not of grouping people together into lazy spiteful "victim groups".

She freed council tennants from the yoke of council oppression and allowed them to buy their own homes and empower them as home owners.  It was her belief in property ownership being a widespread right of all, that I am now a property owner myself.

She played a very significant part in the defeat of the Soviets and the ending of the cold war and of defeating communism.

She was the last British Prime Minister to send our troops to fight for and win back and defend British Sovereign Territory as she sent a task force all the way around the world to kick the Argentines off the British Falkland Islands.

And she also invented Mr Whippy Ice cream.

She had a scientist's mind and a dedication to fact based decision making.  A far cry from the focus group, or pressure group politics of today, where decisions are taken for any perceived emotional boost, no on whether anything will actually work in practice or not.

"Bring me the facts" she would demand of her ministers. This was how she could revel in the personal abuse that her detractors and political enemies would throw at her, for to her, personal attacks were what your opponents did, when they had lost the argument. She usually won the arguments, because she dedicated herself to being absolutely sure of her facts before she made a decision.

She was a leader of principle, courage, conviction ideology and vision. Her fact based approach to policy made her the best leader this country has had in over 100 years.

I can only dream that this country will ever get another leader as great as she was.  Nigel Farage is a pale imitation, although he is the closest thing we have. Sadly, Cameron, Clegg and Miliband are nowhere near as impressive, courageous, skilled or determined as she was.

Rest In Peace.  This country is a richer place for having had her exemplary leadership.

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Open Letter to Mr Redwood MP

Mr Redwood, you have not answered my question concerning the practicalities of the EU referendum which your leader proposed.  I am not concerned at this time with the individual powers which he would seek to recover from the EU, as these can be debated at a later, more appropriate time.

I am concerned, however, with a central premise of the actual "deliverability" of such a referenda as proposed by Mr Cameron at all.

A simple 'in-or-out', 'status quo or withdrawal' referenda could be delivered at any time as both options are actually deliverable and obtainable.

We could hold such a plebiscite at any time and if the country voted to stay in the EU, then we would remain as we are today and be inevitably dragged, as demanded by the terms of the ratified treaties of the EU, into full integration in time.

If the country voted for withdrawal, the Government of the sovereign Parliament of the UK could invoke article 50 of Lisbon to withdraw from the EU and repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and we would become a free nation able to obtain our rights under the UN Charter to self-determination and we could have our own Independence Day to celebrate every year.

Currently, the hazy offer which Mr Cameron is using to attempt to trick UKIP voters into voting Conservative (for a party who will now spend 5 years campaigning to remain INSIDE and SUBJECT TO the EU), shows that Mr Cameron has not been entirely honest in revealing the attainability of what we would actually be voting on.

Let me explain my concern.

As I understand it, IF the conservative party wins a majority in the next Parliamentary elections in 2015, then a Cameron led Government would try to renegotiate the terms of our membership of the EU.  Indeed, he even stated that the conservative party would be seeking a mandate at that election specifically to do that.  

So, given that in incoming conservative government were elected to renegotiate Britain's relationship with the EU, then IF he is successful in that renegotiation, and gets everything he wants and we get a deal which would be the equivalent of the "Common Market" which we voted to remain in, back in 1975, what would happen in 2017, at the time of the referendum?

The situation would be one where Cameron has got a deal, BUT that deal would have to be written into a new treaty. That treaty would then have to be ratified by ALL 26 of the other EU member states.

The fact is, Mr Redwood, that you know, as well as I do, that there is no way that such a treaty would be ratified, by all member states, by the time of a British referendum in 2017.

It took 10 years, 3 failed referenda, renegotiation and another referenda  for a constitutional treaty to be ratified as the Lisbon Reform Treaty.

So what will happen in 2017?  Will Cameron indefinitely delay any such referenda UNTIL the amended relationship with the EU is codified in EU law through a fully ratified treaty and THEN give us the referendum?  Because such a treaty may NEVER be ratified and then we would NEVER get the membership referendum, leading to further charges of betrayal and broken promises.

Or will we get a referendum in 2017 on a treaty position which could be rejected by any one of the other EU states, which would render OUR referendum outcome moot,  (should we all vote to stay inside such a renegotiated EU membership)? And what would be the outcome then? Would we then withdraw from the EU? Or would we be dragged into the fully integrated EU as the position currently stands under the terms of Lisbon?

We need to know the answer to this before the next general election, Mr Redwood. Otherwise Mr Cameron's promise of an 'in or out' referendum (on a reformed EU) is grossly dishonest.  IF he cannot actually deliver a reformed EU, will we get a vote or not? Will we remain inside the EU? Or will we withdraw from it?

Mr Redwood, you are one of a very few conservative MP's I have any time or respect for at all.  Please do me the courtesy of a reply with an answer to this central and crucial question which cuts to the heart of any credibility of such a referendum promise by Mr Cameron.

Thank You for your time.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Cameron's sneaky trap!

So there we have it.  Cameron is going to offer us an In or Out referendum on our EU membership is he?

Well no, not exactly.

There are a lot of caveats before we can assume that we are going to get our right, as given by the UN, to self-determination in our once great, free and independent nation.

1, Will Cameron even be Prime Minister in 2017?  Very Unlikely.  So we will most likely end up with Miliband as Prime Minister and so what his position on an EU referendum is more valid at this stage.

2. IF in the incredibly unlikely event that Cameron's promise of a referendum pursuades enough anti-EU non-voters to give him a win in 2015, he then will begin negotiating a new relationship.This new relationship will require 26 other EU member states to ratify this position.  It is next to impossible to imagine that Belgium, or France, Or Greece, or Spain, or Poland, or even Bulgaria will not veto our dream of a much looser EU which will uniquely benefit the UK.  Getting ALL 26 to ratify a treaty beneficial to the UK is simply cloud cuckoo land.

3. IF in the incredibly unlikely event that Cameron's promise of a referendum persuades enough anti-EU non-voters to give him a win in 2015 and IF in the even less likely event that all 26 other member states would agree to ratify a new relationship, there is NO WAY that such an Treaty would be ratified by 2017.

It took 10 years to eventually ratify the much less contentious Constitutional Treaty which became the Lisbon Reform Treaty.  It is an impossibility to have all 26 other member states ratify a new treaty giving a beneficial position in the EU to the UK by 2017. IMPOSSIBLE!

This is why this is a sneaky trap.

Cameron, the BBC, the establishment will attempt to trick the country into the same lie as in 1975, all over again. There will be so much propaganda and lies about losing our trade, losing influence, losing everything, by voting to get out of the EU, and that our renegotiated position is even better than independence. They will lie all over again that we will retain our Sovereignty, our independence and our freedoms. 

Will we fall for those 1975 lies all over again?

They will try to trick the British People into voting for a "common market" all over again, and then, once the British People have voted "IN", they will be trapped in.  Because THEN the other member states will reject our renegotiation and we will be STUCK!

It is a trap!

Cameron has avoided saying what would be the position if the other EU member states either (A) fail to ratify our position by the referendum, or B Reject it after our referendum.

This is why it is a trap.

Monday, April 23, 2012

In Australia there has been a poll to assess the public's impression of Climate Alarm which has been written about on this linked blog.

The categories are as follows:
  • Dismissive
  • Alarmed
  • Doubtful
  • Concerned
  • Cautious
  • Disengaged

I started out 10 years ago as being in the "Concerned" category,  which is why I wanted to know more about "global warming" as it was then called. For the first couple of years, the more I asked, the less I was sure.  I was asking anyone and everyone that I could find back then for papers and studies and hard data of what is actually happening, so I could confirm for myself what is happening, against what is projected to happen.  No I did not trust the media, and in 2003 I trusted the media even less when they were complicit in spreading, rather than tackling, the lies which lead to to the supreme war crime of the Iraq Invasion. I discovered for myself that the media have an agenda, just as much as politicians do, so to have any chance whatsoever of ascertaining truth, I had to investigate things for myself, as best I could.  I started as WHOLLY neutral and open minded and with only the strict adherence to "the scientific method" as a reliable guide, I started to investigate global warming, and climate change.

I found myself very quickly finding the sceptical side of the debate more honest, open and scientifically valid,  but I was still open to the data providing evidence which would convince me of the merits of either side of the debate.

I found that I was getting two different sides of a debate which one side denied was even happening.  The more I investigated, the more alarmed I became... Not at the risk of a catastrophic global climatic hazard, which raw data could not confirm beyond reasonable doubt, but at the tactics of the one side which constantly projected its faults and failings upon the other side, and still claimed the other side did not exist, or was irrelevant and tiny, when pushed into admitting that it did exist.

I was assured that the whole world of science supported one side, with all the scientific bodies and institutions and global governments and world industry supporting the global warming claim against a tiny band of irrelevant kooks, nutters and denialists.  Yet they also tried to convince me that this other "non-existent" side, which was tiny and unrepresentative, was also non-the-less the richest and most powerful enemy which was supported by global corporations and governments and the media and the alarmist side was small and a victim of this global conspiracy which meant that the scientific method could be dispensed with to provide evidence which supports "the cause",  of saving the planet, and all counter evidence could be hidden, denied or dismissed as irrelevant or as invalid and cherry picked by denialists.  Climate Science ceased to be science and instead became a cause.

The more I approached the alarmist's side with honest and friendly, yet sceptical, questions, the more I was convinced that I was not dealing with scientists who were engaged in the honest pursuit of truth.

The only side that presented me with honest answers, AND the possible counter evidence to their own arguments was the sceptical side.  They would say something like, [scientist and scientist et al 2006] state that  blah blah blah which is suggestive of the possible effect of.... however, there is dispute because [scientist 2008] discovered something else whilst looking for something else.  Whilst this may mean (A) it could also mean (B), my preference would be (A) because.... 

As more and more data came in, this side was showing all sides of it, sharing it, debating it and treating it the way scientists do and doing so in the face of a very hostile scientific establishment and media. The alarmist side upheld, or dismissed data, or scientists, or any public announcement solely on whether it furthered "the cause" or not.  The validity of the data and method hardly warranted a mention, and was only looked at from the filter of if it supported the cause. Papers which undermined or countered "catastrophic man-made climate change" would not get published at all, unless they contained some sort of disclaimer stating that "this paper does not reject man made climate change" somewhere in the summary to appease reviewers and give them something to counter "denialists with" when the evidence was debated.  Alarmists would write with religious certainty and only provide "accepted" papers even if those papers had been debunked or were blatantly flawed.

We were told that there would be no more snow as the world heated up and the snows of Kilimanjaro would melt completely and sea level rise would accelerate quickly and polar bears were threatened with extinction as the Arctic ice headed for a tipping point which was almost certainly what happened in 2007...

Then Climategate happened.... then 10:10 and exploding children. Then Plane stupid and polar bears falling from the sky. Then global warming was the reason there was so much more snow Then Climategate 2... then Fakegate and  global average temperatures levelled off and so did sea-level rise and the global ice increased again and many more polar bears have been found and the snows on Kilimanjaro were sublimating, not melting and some of the Himalayan glaciers increased and so on and so on...

As all this non-scientific rhetoric and blatant political propaganda was peddled by the alarmists side in lieu of empirical scientifically valid evidence, and as the actual empirical evidence countered all the previous claims of the alarmists, I could not maintain an impartial neutrality anymore.  How come decreasing ice is evidence of their claim, but increasing ice is not classed by them as counter evidence, but bizarrely as yet more evidence of their claim? How come they have created a hypothesis which is not scientifically falsifiable by empirical observational evidence?

As this has increasingly happened over the last three years I have found myself moving through the Dismissive and Doubtful categories and now I am in a category which is not even listed in the above poll.   I now categorise myself as Downright Hostile.

Why? Because I do not like being lied to, manipulated and being charged for it all in the name of a political cause.

Friday, April 20, 2012

How UKIP can make a breakthrough into Westminster in 2015

The real challenge for each and everyone of us who are now supporting UKIP is to build momentum, spread the truth about UKIP's policies in every area, give out the manifesto and show how all the current top three parliamentary parties are all the same, so if you disagree with what the last or current government did or does, the only option to change it is to vote UKIP.

By so doing we need to keep building support, keep encouraging people to vote FOR the policies they want, instead of reluctantly voting for one set of failed divisive, politically correct, left-liberal, corrupt corporate, big taxing, big spending, climate-changey, high immigration, EU dominated policies, to stop an identical bunch of failed divisive, politically correct, left-liberal, corrupt corporate,
big taxing, big spending, climate-changey, high immigration, EU
dominated policies being implemented, or just as bad, not voting at all, because the labour and coalition parties make voting seem irrelevant.

By so doing we must build massive support leading into the European parliamentary elections so that UKIP can WIN those elections outright in the UK.  That should create enough of a buzz and momentum to start us winning in Westminster too.  Whereas in 2009, few people used twitter, facebook etc... for political campaigning or getting news. The mainstream media managed to downplay the significance of UKIP thrashing liberal democrats and labour and coming second overall in that national election. In that election, UKIP beat the party of government in a national election. 
However conservative voters who lent UKIP their vote, wanted to defeat labour almost as much as they wanted to breathe. SO the vote went back to the tories, and the 3-4% core UKIP support was ignored at the following general election by people like me who held our nose and went back to voting conservative in my local marginal constituency to try to defeat labour.

The challenge for UKIP will be to increase our support nationally in these upcoming local elections to prove we are a growing force.  There is a risk that the 8 - 11% polling numbers we now attract, either will not vote after all, or change back to their tribal habits, once in the voting booth, if they do vote.

The challenge NOW is that we MUST get the UKIP vote out in these May elections.

Then the next challenge is to WIN the European elections in the UK.

Then the next challenge after that is to RETAIN the support of those voters.

This did not work in 2010. However I believe the that there are very powerful reasons that next time will be different. Why? Three main reasons:
  1. Next time, former conservative voters would not be too keen to revert back to the conservatives, because we have seen for ourselves how we still do not get conservative policies, by voting conservative.
  2. If we are destined for labour policies under tory or labour or coalition, then labour may as well win and rightly get the blame for those policies failing, rather than the tories.
  3. There will be a hell of a lot more UKIPPERS  making a hell of a lot more noise about WINNING A NATIONAL ELECTION OUTRIGHT! via all sorts of social and alternative media, so that the BBC and SKY ignoring us will become irrelevant, or even another unique selling point.  "They are ignoring us, because we are the ONLY party that can challenge the establishment's corrupt and incompetent status quo, instead of embracing and endorsing and encouraging it."
IF we can win the European elections outright, then that fact alone should grant UKIP a hell of a big credibility boost and challenge the notion that UKIP are a tiny fringe and protest party, that many busy "mainstream" voters still falsely believe.

If you love this country and want to save it from the damage of foreign and left wing policies, then we all have a LOT of work to do spreading a GREAT message of hope and optimism and opportunity.

Let us all rise to that task.  It is now time to step up, put up and get to work!

Thursday, April 19, 2012

After careful consideration I have decided to vote UKIP!

The following is an old post which I have decided to re-post as it is a very frightening scenario which is still quietly happening below the liberal-left mainstream media radar (for a reason)...

What is planned in the EU for the next two decades:

Multi-regional, single competency administrative bureaucracies. For any given area of policy, there will be regional councils that comprise of pan-national regions. In other words, a region will consist of small parts of several countries. For example, Transmanche would be Southern England (excluding London) , Northern France and part of the Nederlands.

Each region will be small, trans-national and only responsible for one area of political competency. But there will be a myriad of these regions covering everything from crime and punishment, to town twinning.

So for the Environment there will be another European level of competency that is comprised of regions that cross former national boundaries.

BUT, HERE IS THE BEST PART (if you love EU bureaucracy that is) Each area of political competency will have DIFFERENT geographical regions to any other area.

SO for fishing you will live in one region, but for energy it will be a different one, and for environmental concerns, another different one again, for taxes, yet another and so on and so forth.

This is the eventual plan. REMOVE NATION STATES FROM THE MAP ENTIRELY and make it impossible for people to live in ONE single political region.

Geographically they will live in one house in one town, but that town will be represented politically in many different over-lapping regions.

There will be an over arching EU that is responsible for EVERYTHING, but then each area of competency will be devolved into regional centres, SO THAT ALL the things that we USED to have a central Government, with separate departments for, now we have many different regions! The borders of these regions will all be different for each area of competency.

You will effectively live in one country for fishing rights, and another for agriculture and another for education etc etc.

That is how they are destroying the nation state, from the policy areas upwards. Everyone is looking for the EU to create political regions, like county councils, that control everything IN that region. THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

They are setting up thousands of policy areas that are devolved to small-regional centres of operations. For example the European mechanisms for managing town twinning. That is all those regions are responsible for.

This is how the liberal media are accurately and correctly rubbishing the idea that national borders will be immediately replaced with smaller-transnational regions.

We will not notice that our borders have slowly been erased until they are already GONE. All the power that used to reside in Westminster and Whitehall is NOW being devolved to separate quangos that will form the future multi layered administrative regions of the EU. It has been happening for years

How else can I explain this …

Think of a blank map of the EU showing the outline. Then randomly draw borders inside that split it up into 36 regions. These could be the regions for education.

Then get another blank map and split it into 42 different random regions and these would be the regions for energy.

Then do the same again, but with only 12 regions, and that could be the judicial system. And so on and so on.

You will only have ONE physical address in a geographical region, but your life will be controlled and monitored from hundreds of different political regions.

All to make sure that you cannot recover ANY national sovereignty or independence AT ALL. People will not be able to be loyal to their old nation states, because essentially ALL the old nation states will not exist anymore.

The only way to prevent this is to STOP the Lisbon Treaty from allowing the changes that will permit it.

We will NEVER get a referendum on each part,

The only way to stop this now, is to vote UKIP and get the hell out of the EU entirely!

We can't win a general election by moving to the right?

The UK has always had a centre right majority.

Margaret Thatcher won 3 successive elections being unashamedly right wing.  John Major won in 1992 with over 14 million votes, more votes than any prime minister before or since.

Then Blair shifted the veneer and image of labour far over to the right, because the UK has a right wing majority.  Labour won in those years, from having an image of being of the right pushed by the entire media which was consistently pushing the lies of Blair as being gospel truth. Blair was projected as a "compassionate conservative"  by the left wing media, but this was only true in image alone.

Even then, the conservative party won a bigger share of the vote in EVERY National election in the UK from after the 2001 general election onwards except for one national election in 2005 when the result was so close (only 2.8% points) that it should have been a hung Parliament.  (tories had a winning margin of more than 7% points  in 2010 and still failed to get a majority) Labour were rescued by a massive pro-labour bias in the constituency boundaries, which gifted labour over 60 seats for an equal number of votes as the tories. Put it this way, in 1997 when the tories were wiped out, and ever since considered a hated and unelectable party on the verge of extinction,  John Major won 9,600,943 votes.  In 2005 when Blair won a 66 seat Majority, he won only 9,552,436, 48507 fewer votes than the destroyed Major government of 1997 and well over a million votes fewer than Cameron won in 2010.

Who would you say was the more popular leader? Blair in 2005 or Major in 1997?  In truth, John Major was.  That is how massive the pro-labour bias in the seating boundaries is. Because of that constituency boundary bias, (where a tiny inner city area can hold two labour seats and a large suburban area is one conservative seat), the left wing media could ignore the real numbers of right wing voters in this country, and ignore the conservative party winning every national election from after the 2001 general election  (council and European elections) to 2010 (bar the 2005 general election)  and falsely claim that there was a progressive majority who feel that the conservative party was the nasty party.

Once the British public finally and clearly saw through the Blair lies, they were desperate for another clearly and unashamedly right wing government as shown by Cameron having a consistent lead across opinion polls of in excess of more than 20% during 2009, back when Cameron was pretending to be unashamedly right wing and Eurosceptic.

Then something terrible happened.  He unexpectedly lurched over to the left, he created the socialist sounding "big society" manifesto and abandoned conservatism and Euroscepticism and showed his liberal true colours. (Liberal, NOT libertarian). 

After this lurch to the left, his support collapsed into a single figure lead and he ended up relying on Clegg to become PM. 

Many conservatives gave him the benefit of the doubt and hoped his lefty liberalism was faked so he could steal votes from disillusioned labour and Liberal democrat voters, who hoped the opposite, that his liberalism was real.  Even when he did win over some of the left, he failed to win that large majority the polls had been predicting in 2009, (in spite of a monstrous pro-labour bias in seat boundaries)  because he had lost even more votes from the masses of hard working people on the right who have been shafted by labour for over a decade.

In the AV referendum, there was a clear split between the self described "progressive" left and the right wing in this country and the left were absolutely slaughtered.  Out of 450 regions, only 10 returned a majority for the "progressive" policy. This was not a sign of a progressive majority, but of a tiny, almost insignificant minority which has been massively inflated importance by an out-of-touch mainstream media conditioning the public 24/7 to believe a wholly untrue lie. A lie supported by a massive bias in the seat-boundaries and that massive media manipulation and misrepresentation which kept labour in power far longer than it should.

Now the right wing are abandoning our fear of a labour victory, because we see with ever more clarity, that with the conservative leadership courting the same liberal left votes as the labour party, and the hated tiny fringe liberal democrat party, that it makes absolutely no difference which of those three wins. the outcome is something that the majority of people in this country hate.

And if it takes UKIP killing any hope of the tories winning a general election to wake people up to that blatant fact, then so be it.

We will never get the government that MOST people want, until they are woken from the 24/7 conditioning by the metropolitan elite's liberal left wing propaganda and turn out to vote for it, instead of the liberal-left wing agenda that the entire liberal left establishment (comprising three parliamentary political parties, Most all of the mainstream print and TV media, academia, think-tanks, political charities and activist protest groups) are implementing.

Never before have so much of the establishment been so-out of touch with the people of this country.

The left wing media has been selling a lie for almost 20 years now, that you cannot win an election from the right.  The above figures show that to be a lie.  Many on the right have been put off from voting because of that lie.

This is changing.  We need a fully fledged right wing government again to save us from the economic and social insanity of the current establishment.

I believe that UKIP is that government in waiting.

Monday, April 16, 2012

My plea to Lord Tebbit.

I am so sorry that this is long, but it has to be said, Norman.

What the effete metropolitan elite media and political types now call the "centre ground of politics" is what I call far left wing corporatism. This shows how far the great social experiment of Blair and the BBC/Guardian/Times alliance took this nation to the left.

Decent rational and common sense conservative policies are now considered "swivel eyed lunacy", not only by the left wing media, but also, shamefully, by the mainstream politicians of the conservative party leadership.

Norman, I have faithfully and loyally supported the conservative party for 32 years. Since Mrs Thatcher's historic 1979 win. Her devotion to this country and to those who want to be self reliant, decent, responsible, hard working was never in doubt. My solid working class upbringing in this, normally solid labour constituency had me out campaigning for the Conservatives when we were winning this seat under Thatcher. We lost the seat to Blair's new labour but I still campaigned against Blairism for all I was worth.

I was thrown out of pubs for saying Blair was a dangerous control freak and our liberties would be threatened by him. I was ridiculed, abused and assaulted for still supporting "those evil tories" during the late 1990s and early 2000s. I was proven right by Blair's own paranoid totalitarian tendencies.

I do not regret a second that I have devoted over the years of my time and loyalty to the conservative party, because I agreed with conservative values and principles and I agreed with most of their policies.

Now, however, my loyalty counts for nothing. My party has totally abandoned my principles and values and now embraces, promotes and implements the very same Blairism that I fought hard and long against.

I did not give my support, loyalty and service to the conservative party for decades, and spend most of the last 20 years fighting Blairism, only for Cameron to embrace and implement the core values and policies of Blairism. Even worse, it is an undiluted Blairism. Blair has stated that he regretted not being bolder and going further in implementing his Blairite vision. Regretably, Cameron HAS been so bold as to implement an unfettered, unrestrained Blairism. We have a Cameron party which is more "progressive" than new labour and more "New labour" than new labour and the wets running the party call devoted, loyal, hard-working members "swivel eyed lunatics" and wonder why these members are leaving in droves to either not vote at all, or vote UKIP?

Norman, How can you stand to see the hard working loyal and decent members of your party, my former party, so betrayed?

I would love to campaign for the conservative party again. However, how can I possibly campaign for the very same Blairite policies I despise?

Can I campaign and vote for the following?

How can I vote for lower taxes?
How can I vote for smaller, less intrusive government?
How can I vote for real Euroscepticism?
How can I vote for a referendum on EU membership?
How can I vote for real scientifically driven climate change and energy policy and not a communist derived, politically motivated, flawed-model driven policy?
How can I vote for cutting uncontrolled immigration?
How can I vote for an end to divisive contradictory "politically correct" policies of segregation, discrimination and oppression and outlawing the freedom of thought and opinion? Rather than a policy that genuinely treats all people as being of equal value and worth with the same God given rights with freedom of thought, opinion and expression, regardless of colour, race, gender, sexual orientation, or background?
How can I vote for cutting spending in real terms?
How can I vote for ending the ECHR?
How can I vote for stopping the UK being a haven for criminals and terrorists with their rights protected by law, rather than their potential and actual victims?
How can I vote for a party that is economically conservative and one which will not fall back on QE to solve their problems?
How can I vote for an end to merging our military with that of France?
How can I vote for a party that is tough on law and order?
How can I vote for for a party that is tough on welfare and the workshy?
How can I vote for a party whose deficit reduction plan reduces the deficit by significantly more than the <1% difference from labour's Alistair Darling plan?
How can I vote for a party which opposed totalitarian snooping into all our electronic communications?
How can I vote for a party which will re-introduce jury trials for all crown court cases.
How can I vote for a flat level of tax which will close all the tax loop-holes?
How can I vote for a party which supports open, free competition of free market economics, and not corrupt corporatism and the part privatisation of state functions, which stiffs the tax-payer, kills competition and makes some crony rich?
How can I vote for increased democratic accountability through swiss-style local referenda?
How can I vote for a party which rewards hard-work and self-reliance, instead of penalising it with bundles of EU generated and UK-gold plated red tape?

By voting conservative, labour or Liberal democrat, I will be voting against all these issues. The conservative party is on the same side as labour and the liberals, on the wrong side of all the above issues.

I can vote for all those things, IF I vote UKIP.

I see no sign whatsoever that any of the current Parliamentary conservative party is going to change course on ANY of the above list. There is no sign that the conservative party is ever going to even acknowledge the concerns of the grass roots, let alone listen to them, or even (heaven forbid) do anything about them, at all.

Norman, please do the decent thing and join UKIP.

Friday, March 02, 2012

The state of debate

There are two sides in the climate change debate. A debate which one side denied even existed for several recent years.
"The debate is over" - Al Gore.
The debate is clearly not over and it grows bitter and more entrenched by the month.
The two sides of the debate utilise different tactics and both have different agendas.
The advocates and scientists try to close down debate, keep data secret, and prevent open investigation and shut the public out from understanding what is happening. They hate for us to dare to question them, but just want us all to uncritically believe them, which is the opposite of science.
Beyond the sick and offensive dramatics of the advocates, the actual antics of Alarmist scientists themselves go beyond the merely exaggerated, to the unethical and anti-scientific. There have been documented cases of scientists, using very misleading statistics to "prove" their case. Rejecting historical data if it inconveniently contradicts their theories (explorer's finding islands in the Arctic which were not covered by ice in the 1920s, which are only now just being uncovered again by melting ice, suggesting that the current level of moderate ice melt is quite normal), Hiding inconvenient data, switching and applying unrelated data-sets and fraudulently passing them off as the same continuous bit of data (hockey-stick). There are cases of these scientists acting in cohort to incestuously peer-review each other's work, instead of allowing the wider scientific community to do so and hiding and withholding data to prevent independent peer review. Even to the extent of illegally withholding data from lawful Freedom Of Information Act Requests. There are documented cases of Alarmist climate scientists conspiring to bully journal editors and working to threaten journals and have them closed down, if they have the temerity to dare publish properly peer reviewed papers which happen to conclude something which undermines the climate alarmist's own work. We have cases of eminent climate scientists encouraging others to take illegal, criminal activities involving causing criminal damage to property and businesses.
Now we have alarmist climate scientists engaging in criminal activities themselves. ID fraud, Wire fraud, electronic impersonation, forgery and publishing false and malicious falsehoods with the intent to cause harm and loss. Wilfully undermining science and misleading the public is the least of their crimes. All these tactics, from the exaggerated outcomes, through the deceptions and falsehoods, to the actual harmful crimes, are accepted and defended by the Alarmist side of the debate as acceptable and understandable tactics. This side of the debate is funded to the tune of hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars by vested interests and political pressure groups and activists. Everyone from Big-Oil, Big Pharma, Political action committees, through to radical environmental groups to far left political campaign groups and not forgetting governments all over the world, all fund this side of the debate.
On the other side are some brave scientists who put the integrity of the scientific method above that of grant seeking and political expediency. Who believe in seeking truth, no matter where it lays, is more important than being part of the crowd. Who believe that the observation and measurement of reality, and experimentation to reproduce reality and falsify theories where possible, are more important than pushing a theory backed up solely by computer models. Who accept valid data, regardless of what it shows and who doggedly stick to experimentation and valid scientific methods of discovery in the face of constant threats to funding, political intimidation and overt attacks on their reputations. Svensmark springs to mind and I look forward to the publication of his latest work which finally shows the chain of events in cloud formation which demonstrates a far greater effect on climate changes from solar activity, than that of CO2, as is OBSERVED in reality.

This side scrapes by on a relative pittance. Funded by people who still believe in scientific integrity, truth and reality. This side is, remarkably, seeing their results still get through to the public, in spite of having less than 0.01% of the financial resources of the climate alarmist side. This is because of a fundamental truth. T > PPPP. TRUTH wins over piss poor political propaganda every time!
Now which of those two sides should I trust? The side which engages in criminal deception, fraud, forgery, slander and political propaganda using visuals of exploding children and splattered polar bears? Or the real empirical scientists?

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

My switch away from the Conservative Party is complete.

When the EU Referendum vote in the House of Commons, which was triggered by a national petition of the people, was abused by Parliament issuing orders from on high via a three line whip to oppose the referendum, I have seen the hatred and contempt in which democratic sovereignty is held by all three main Parliamentary parties sitting in Parliament.

It is this which finally has persuaded me to utterly abandon the last tiny spec of sympathy I had for the CONservative party in the UK.

I am now a supporter of UKIP Not for the EU stance, or their real promise of a referendum assigning real democratic accountability to a nation choosing to embrace our sovereignty, or relinquish it to a foreign power forever. No, I have looked at their manifesto and I am impressed at the breadth and extent of policies which they propose.

UKIP supporters are going to have to get used to tory charges of UKIP being a "single issue protest party". Sadly, the mentality of these types of tory is that party comes before everything. It comes before policy, insofar as to these people, they will enthusiastically defend any policy the party pursues, but would equally as vehemently oppose the identical policy if it were implemented by another party. It comes before principle, reason or sense. (labour have just as many people with exactly the same mentality).

When we are arguing against such a mentality it is difficult to breakdown the wilful blindness of one who is firmly set upon believing a certain point, regardless of fact or reason. They see UKIP as a threat and will only attack with the easiest lie they can find. They cannot understand that the only way to vote for actual right wing, conservative policies now, is to vote UKIP.

On immigration, crime, defence, environment, economy, tax and spend, education etc.... ONLY UKIP offer conservative policies. The Conservative party only offers labour policies, slightly re-written.

I think that the best line for those is to ask them to actually read the UKIP manifesto and then ask which of UKIP's policies from the following:

The Economy:
Budget & Regulation...
Enterprise & Skills...
Immigration & Asylum...
Law & Order/Crime...
Healthcare & the NHS...
Education & Training....
Welfare & Social Security...
Foreign Affairs & International Trade...
Energy & the Environment...
Housing & Planning...
The Constitution & How We Are Governed...
Culture & Restoring Britishness...
Food, Farming & the Countryside...
And lots of Other Specific Policies...

Is the single issue to which they refer?

If you really want to see single issue policies, you need look no further than conservative, labour or liberals for three parties which share the identical single issue of allowing the EU to decide upon:

Foreign Affairs Economic Affairs
Public Heath Transport
Justice Energy
Employment Environment
Police Farming
Social Affairs Fisheries
Immigration Law Enforcement

The EU is not preparing conservative policies in any of those areas.

Each of their next manifestos should simply read,
"We will do whatever the EU directs us to do!"

The sad fact is, as it currently stands, it is impossible to vote for conservative policies by voting conservative. We get re-worked labour polices. If you are a conservative in the UK, you cannot vote against the implementation of labour policies by voting conservative.

How do I vote for lower taxes? Lower spending? Smaller more responsive government? Less ridiculous, offensive, sexist, racist political correctness? Realistic policies regarding science and climate change? More democratic accountability at every level of government? Better policies supporting those in education who want to work hard and better themselves? Proper law and order policies, real punishment for criminals? and so much more besides?

The ONLY way I can vote for a national party offering me the policies I support, is to vote UKIP.

Friday, August 12, 2011

My response to the looting sprees and violence which exploded across our cities

The initial response was anger. Anger at the pointless and apparent mindlessness of the violence. There was no political cause, nor government oppression which this 'rioting' was in response to.

As the past couple of peaceful day passed, people are thinking more about the underlying root cause.

As they do, I sense a change in anger. It is not just against the feckless, lazy, selfish criminal looters, but it is rising against the entire liberal establishment, including all main political parties and their puppets in the media, especially the BBC. The immorality of the liberal elite in this country is being seen by more and more people as the cause of the riots. The hypocrisy of the elite’s condemnation is sticking in many a craw.

It amuses and saddens me to note that the same people who for many years have stifled legitimate debate about immigration by condescendingly using the derisive phrase “I am not a racist, BUT…” are now claiming, (with a straight face) “I am not condoning this violence, BUT…” and then excusing their part in it all.

So, to all those liberal apologists from all parties and in the media, who undermined marriage, discipline and the morality of sexual equality by having a prolonged and sustained campaign to undermine men in society generally, I ask, does your rank hypocrisy comfort you?

Your old, hackneyed and now utterly disproven arguments and “fashionable progressive theories” about how society should be, have been torched by the very youth you undermined and let down through your fashionable neglect. Instead of seeing where need really lay, you ignored all natural instincts of these youths, millions of years of developmental evolution and imposed your social experiment upon them, believing falsely that your progressive ideals could overcome instinct and cause and effect. The nuclear family is what nature through evolution have over millions of years and all over the world, fine tuned to be the most successful way of raising children. To summarily and arrogantly place your theories that “all kinds of family should have equal merit” regardless of the direct evidence to the contrary and the serious psychological damage that family breakdowns almost always cause, above what has been tried and tested for millennia all over the world was the height of insanity and cruelty on a large scale.

I often hear that “just because some single mothers do a poor job of raising their children, you shouldn’t tar all single mothers with the same brush”. I agree, but equally that works in reverse too. Just because some single mother’s do a remarkably good job of raising well-rounded, honest and responsible children, does not mean that we should use their rare exceptional example as a basis for setting family policy to allow ALL feckless single mothers the same level of respect and freedom earned by a few good ones. To base policy on the exception to an old and time tested rule is insane and doomed to failure.

Single parenthood and pregnancy outside of wedlock was historically frowned upon for many many many generations and this week we discovered painfully, and to our cost, exactly why.

Labour government policy to reward couples financially to split up, rather than pay for relationship counselling and parenting classes, has proven to be a massively expensive mistake. The soft-left liberal media have conditioned the people of this country 24/7 to accept as normal these crazy and abnormal social rule-sets.

Labour in power sought an authoritarian quasi-police state in which all law abiding adults were made more and more to feel like potential suspects who increasingly had to account for themselves and their actions and travels to an overbearing state. Yet the youth and criminal elements were free to cause havoc with relative impunity as children and criminals were granted rights by the bucketful.

Justice ran backwards. Immorality and failure was rewarded by the state. From the elite in banking and politics right down to the poorest council estates, immorality ruled. Greed was good at all levels and the labour dominated country promoted this as much as possible. Heck, you did not even have to earn money. You could borrow mountains of the stuff from the corporations. Lying was something which became normal and to be admired. Even to the extend of lying to Parliament about the need to send OUR brave troops into war and death’s cold final embrace. The something for nothing culture spread throughout Whitehall, over the media and into the nation’s consciousness by 24/7 social conditioning of the BBC dominated media.

This state sanctioned, media propagandised immorality extended through to the workplace, schools, local institutions, and families. This fashionable liberalism was so pervasive and spread by all levels of a quickly increasing and expanding government (national and local) and by the overwhelming majority of the media (which is dominated by the state run BBC), that this weak cruel and negligent liberalism has spread the insanity and illogical poison of the philosophy behind the ‘social experiment’ and its immoral values throughout society to the extent that anyone holding traditional family values, (once thought middle of the road common sense) became thought of as fleck mouthed right wing extremists. This is how far to the liberalised left the labour government and their propaganda outlet, the BBC, have dragged this nation.

People are now jolted free and woken from this social experiment nightmare by the rioting which exploded in our cities this past week.

Please let sanity and morality return.

Thursday, July 14, 2011

A rare update

Whilst I am appalled by the alleged behaviour of a number people who allegedly broke the law to get news stories for News International and I do not in any-way-shape-or-form, condone such activity, I am utterly revolted by labour's hypocritical, cynical, party-political, selfish and lie-filled stance on this whole sickening episode.

From 1994 - 2010 labour policy mirrored News International policy.

ALL the criminality happened on labour's watch.

Labour's own spin and smear machine was in full operation during this time that labour were in bed with Murdoch and when the hacking and blagging was allegedly taking place..

There is far far more shit on labour's hands than on Cameron's over this.

Ed Miliband STILL TO THIS DAY is employing an ex-NI journalist, as his director of communications, who is implicated in an alleged illegal blagging scam. I have not heard one single labour MP question Miliband's judgement on this and so far, in spite of these allegations being raised and passed to police, Miliband has utterly failed to issue any substantive statement on the issue comparable with the allegations he is throwing out against Cameron and Coulson.

This whole episode makes labour look far worse than the tories.

After all it is Cameron who is following the law, and lawful procedure to open up and fully investigate this, under oath and in public.

Labour covered it all up when they were in office, and now in opposition seek to use media spin and allegations to convict, without proper trial, people who have not even been charged with a crime yet, let alone lawfully convicted.

Compared to labour's disgusting and hypocritical, party political, behaviour in this, Cameron's hands are clean. Labour have only looked at this with an eye to narrow party political interest. They have ignored all the cases of hacking, blagging and improper relationships between former Minsters and the left wing media.

Cameron is opening it all up to ALL media, left, right and independent and the relationship between Media and the police and the media and all current and former Ministers.

For Brown to complain about a "criminal underworld" in News International when labour MPs and former Minister's in Brown's cabinet are in prison for their own criminal acts and further when Tom Watson expresses fake outrage and sympathy for the hacking of phones of victims of the September 11th attacks, when his own party thought that September 11th was a "good day to bury bad news!" shows with crystal clarity what is wrong with the labour party's morality.

I look forward to the open, public inquiries exposing more and more labour sleaze, lies and corruption from their disastrous 13 years in office, working for the Murdoch press.

Monday, May 02, 2011

Bin Laden Dead

Of course he is, he died in late 2001 of Kidney Failure.

Well, I am no expert, but it looks to me from the date stamps on this web page like the picture blasted all over Pakistan TV of the 'Osama' that was killed today ...

... might be a photo that was floating around the internet for the last few months!

And it appears to be photoshopped!

Here is the real Osama from about 15 years ago.

Now flip it left to right...

And compare the lower half with today's photo of the dead 'Osama'!

There are other signs of photoshop as well, such as blurred edges on the beard and an obvious difference in sharpness between the eyes and the mouth, It looks like someone took a dead body and pasted the real Obama's mouth onto it to make it look more like him.

Did Obama just fall for a dirty trick by Pakistan's ISI? Inquiring minds want to know! :)

Friday, December 24, 2010

Victory is ours!

With reference to this long post, I am finally delighted and overwhelmingly happy that a long and bitter campaign against an intrusive, totalitarian measure has finally succeeded in the abolition of the ID card scheme.

On the 20th December, the Bill to abolish the ID card scheme received Royal Assent.

Freedom and liberty must always be defended, preferably by peaceful means.

Congratulations to everyone who lifted a finger to help in this scheme. From the brilliant NO2ID campaign all the way down to everyone who wrote letters and emails and commented on blogs and media websites.

Not a single window was smashed, nor business ruined by confused anarchists to achieve this victory.

Thank you all.

We must ever be vigilant against the state becoming too big for its boots and taking too much power from us.

There is still much more to do, but for this one battle, victory is indeed VERY sweet indeed.