Scottish Sceptic

I came across this video by the well known climate alarmist John Cheese:

My advice to John: if you’re going to use a fake Scottish accent, best use one appropriate to the constituency and not one located somewhere between Braveheart and Whisky Galore.

In no particular order here are the issues I think are dividing Scotland and England

1. The manufacture of a false Scottish identity based on the fiction of “Celticness”.
2. EU policies designed to undermine the UK union, so that people could seriously argue that they wanted out of “The Union” – by which they meant “Out of the UK union – but deeper in bed with the even worse European Union”.
3. Public policy designed to benefit those south of the Oxbridge line and particularly London – which unfairly spends UK money pumping up the economy in this area to the serious detriment of the population north of the Oxbridge line and particularly Scotland.
4. All British institutions being located outside Scotland (as far as I know). For example, if politicians were serious about the Union then one in 10 “British” institutions would be moved to Scotland. That would mean for example that something like MI5, MI6 or GCHQ would be moved wholesale to Scotland bringing with it all the jobs and because the head office would be in Scotland, it would massively favour local companies. But Scotland isn’t allowed to get any of these benefits from “British” institutions.
5. A transport network focussed on London. Why e.g. is there no road link from Scotland to Ireland? Why is there no motorway north of Perth? Why is there no dual carriageway up the west coast of Scotland? Why do road taxes so penalise us in Scotland where the population centres are so far from each other? (And please don’t repeat the lie that motorways are a form of local travel getting people into and out of London and are not for long distance transport links)
6. The stupidity of devolution with no fiscal responsibility. The stupidity of politicians who allow Scotland to be turned into a wind-estate for EU anti-science climate policy. The stupidity of giving the English parliament all responsibility for the costs of SNP policy and giving the SNP all the credit.
7. An uncritical Scottish media – and a biased English media who are not trusted in Scotland.

Reality of Scottish Independence

Whilst I don’t support the SNP and certainly not labour, what this election has revealed is blatant English racism in that many in England – or at least many in the chatterarti class – could not tolerate the idea that a Scottish party might be part of a UK government.
This contrasts sharply with the lack of interest in the fact that the “UNIONIST” party of England-in-Scotland (known in England as Tories – but revealed in its true colours in Scotland as the Unionist and conservative party) has effectively run Scotland much of the last century.
So if it’s OK for little Englanders to run Scotland with almost no comment, but apparently it is beyond the pale for little Scotlanders to have even a part in a UK government. This clearly shows that MUCH OF THE ENGLISH ESTABLISHMENT ARE STILL ANTI-SCOTTISH RACISTS. It still seems the attitude in England is that of the English national Anthem says: to repress the rebellious Scots.
Practically, I can’t see the English establishment either caring or wanting to doing anything I think that needs doing to keep Scotland in the Union. That means we in Scotland really have no choice because public opinion will inevitably drift toward independence more by default than intention. So that when the next referendum takes place – and it may well be sooner than later – Scotland will be more or less forced to vote for independence largely because of the English racism this election has highlighted, rather than any benefit to us in Scotland.

I was disenfranchised in this election because there was no party I wanted to vote for. Here’s why:

• SNP are just nutters on wind. They are hypocrites on energy. They are anti the scientific evidence showing no warming in 18 years on climate.
• Labour are everything wrong with the SNP and they would have destroyed the British economy if they had any control over government.
• Tories in Scotland are just union obsessives. They are a mix of a thoughtless anti-Scottish sentiment and the quintessential public school people who are anti-most ordinary people in Scotland whose parents didn’t sleep with some English King to gain their shooting estate.
• Lib Dems are no better than the SNP and run by another Eton twit.
• UKIP are run by English people who have deliberately sought the little English vote by stoking up anti-Scottish feeling and who have no respect for democracy in the Scottish party.

But, since I don’t trust the English media particularly the Biased Broadcasting Company and haven’t discussed the election with people from England, I’ve no idea why England voted Tory.
But I can see why the Scots voted SNP. What the referendum revealed is a general consensus in Scotland that we have done badly out of the Union and that Scotland continues to be treated with contempt by the English media and English politicians. UKIP and much of the Tory sentiment are a prime examples of that. In particular the hatred revealed when it appeared that the SNP might by part of the supposed “UK” government. This shows it’s not a UK government but an “English only” government. That shows why people gathered around the Scottish party [see next article].
But the Tories have also created a party of “Unionist bigots” in Scotland. They are not a pro-business, self-reliance party that anyone on the right of centre wanting good fiscal government would want to vote for. Labour are reckless in the UK – but in Scotland their supposed hold over politics has made them corrupt and reckless – and anti-Scottish and/or they just use Scotland.
As for the LibDems. Let’s put it this way: Jo Swinson my MP ran a campaign of anti-male hatred (aka feminism). She then rejected the evidence of climate, couldn’t care less for the problem of cold and fuel bills in Scotland, couldn’t care less for the 1million extra winter deaths in the UK during this madness and in one interview with Andrew Neil both lambasted everyone else for not being more green and praised the frequent shuttle flights from London city to Glasgow. She was a fantastic marketeer but totally gormless on the issues that matter. But perhaps her biggest problem – was that the public sector, who are largely clueless on the real economy so vote Liberal Democrat – and which was expanded well beyond the ability of the UK to support by Total Blair – bore the brunt of the austerity measures which only went ahead because of Lid Dem support.

Prediction

The Tories look set to get an extremely thin majority. That majority is so thin that realistically there will be always more rebels in the Tories on any important issue than their majority allows.
So, the Tory administration will not practically be able to run without support from those “in” minority parties. Because one key feature is that votes will be won, not so much by party majorities, but by individuals willing for whatever reason to vote with the government.
And more than likely that issue will get worse, because it would appear that the “protest vote” for most by-elections will go to UKIP.

Prediction – Scottish parliament elections

The SNPs may well suffer a humiliating defeat at the Scottish elections. At the very least, compared to the UK election result, it will look like a humiliating defeat. It will certainly attract many former MPs who had a high profile. Also it may well see the first legitimate UKIP politician in Scotland (i.e. one selected by members in Scotland and not foisted on Scotland by England).
 

I had a search today to find out whether those involved in Ringberg had finally come to their senses. Reading Climate Etc and some other blogs I was reminded of this scenario:
Wile is running and suddenly finds himself to have run over a cliff. But in the cartoons he still keeps running as if the ground were still there. That’s where we are with climate sensitivity. The ground is the “2C” limit and they still present the same rubbish they always have as if that “2C” limit were written in stone, except the pause shows that all their knowledge encapsulated in those climate models is wrong. They know nothing – but still they keep pumping out the same rubbish … the legs keep going ….
But whether or not Wile believes it or not, sooner or later physical laws dictate what happens next.
Mother earth aka “God” is a climate sceptic. And mother nature dictates what happens next, not a bunch of useless academics with their failed theories at Ringberg.
This is what sorts out engineer-scientists from academic-scientists. We both use the same physical laws of the universe, the difference is that engineers know that they have to be right because if a bridge falls down, we get sued. In contrast academic-scientists like those at Ringberg are purely academic and if their predictions fail – what happens? They have another all expenses paid by the public purse conference like Ringberg to all get around and discuss why they aren’t complete failures and present such wonderful results as this:
The only actual evidence that one presenter gave after which he said “I’m very very very very very very very confident climate sensitivity is over 2C” (I added a few extra very’s for humour – but it was hilarious even without them).

After I examined global temperatures I made a forecast of around 0.35C cooling by 2030 unfortunately, this trend is embedded it much larger natural variation, so whilst cooling is the best bet, there’s still a significant chance of warming.
However, whilst cooling isn’t inevitable, it is the most likely trend in the next few years so I can’t help taking a peak at the global temperature:-

And so I can’t help noticing that on Roy Spencer’s site, whilst small, the global temperature has seen three successive drops taking it from “on the high side of the pack” to “on the low side” and appearing to head toward “zero”.
However, as it’s now dropped around half of the total added cooling I’m predicting over the next 15 years and the 13month average regularly sees swings greater than the prediction, there’s no way I can claim this is anything to do with long term cooling.
But at least it’s in the right direction!
Just looking by eye, there’s possibly a 1 in 4 chance of a significant down swing before the next set of Scottish and US elections!

My hunch is that the most likely ultimate funder of the global warming scam was the single biggest beneficiary: China.
However, I’ve got an open mind and perhaps Saudi and Russian money were also involved. Russian: because they never really stopped the cold war and causing western economies to rot from the inside due to global warming hysteria was an ideal way to destroy us. Saudi Arabia, because paradoxically, the whole global warming fad has focussed on increasing energy prices – thus increasing profits for oil companies and countries like Saudi rather than reducing use and thereby creating a glut.
However, I think the evidence Saudi and other similar groups are funding anti-fracking protests is beyond doubt. And it is very clear that anti-fracking groups are completely gullible and being led by the nose by their commercial sponsors.
As for feminists – I’m sick and tired of the hypocrisy of feminists. I’ve noticed they are only feminists when the issue is against western men. When any other race is being sexist, even in the most extreme way – they seem to endorse the behaviour even when it occurs in their own country.
And it’s also clear to me men are the true victims as the following stats show:

1. Far more men died in WWI and WWII than women. This was a sexist war and I’ve yet to here any mention of women volunteering to die in the place of men.
2. Men still die earlier than women even in peacetime. As a result, by rights men should receive disproportionately more funding on healthcare, earlier retirement, etc. to compensate. In fact, we don’t really have equality of retirement let alone equitable treatment (earlier retirement) for men yet.
3. Far far more young men die from suicide than women. It’s obvious that we need to address this issue by making a society in which male attributes are valued particularly for younger men.
4. Far more men go to prison than women. Again this is clearly a very sexist attitude of society. And again, we need to understand how to give young men the sense of worth and place in society that means they do not commit crimes.

In other words, because men and women are not the same, what we get with feminist based “equality” is a society which is actually totally and wholly unfair to men. Because “equality” doesn’t act equally: it takes away from men what they value: jobs, career, etc. but fails to give us anything “equal” which women have in child care etc. which we value, and so women get equal access to everything they could want from family to career, but men who tend to have a narrower focus have less of what we value … and to cap it all … we still die earlier, retire later, commit more suicide, have more chance of going to jail and for all this how do women treat us? They call us sexist!

Around 400 people drown each year in the UK, so one might assume that there is a CONSENSUS about how people should treat people who have drowned. And that CONSENSUS is that “an abdominal thrust should be performed only after ventilation has been shown to be ineffective and then only to remove a solid foreign body.”
(Climate sceptics will immediately spot that I’m flagging this as highly suspicious by referring to the “Consensus” – because in climate this usually means scientifically baseless)
However this consensus appears to be in sharp contradiction to the evidence:

“There have been numerous reported cases which state that the Heimlich Maneuver worked when all other lifesaving measures failed. In fact a Patrick Institute study found that in a series of unconscious, non-breathing pulseless drowning victims, 87% survived when the Heimlich Maneuver was performed, whereas only 27% survived when CPR was performed without the Heimlich Maneuver. According to University of Houston Professor John Hunsucker, in a study conducted for the National Pool and Waterparks Association, that in 27 drowning incidents reported by NPWPA trained lifeguards, 24 victims responded by breathing from the Heimlich procedures alone and only three required CPR after the Heimlich was administered.”

So the evidential base (if this is a correct appraisal of that evidence) is very clear: the Heimlich manoeuvre works and the evidence appears to totally contradict the expert CONSENSUS.
So, it is very interesting to read why the “experts” appear to reject the evidence (see The Heimlich Controversy in Near-Drowning Resuscitation). These seem to fall into the following categories: Continue reading →

I was catching up on a few articles and this one really does resonate with my own views:

Claim: Graduates shunning climate studies

from Economic Times of India article:

Why not enough people are working on climate change in India

The claim was that not enough good mathematicians and physicists were going into climate “science” – however who would want to go into a subject that actively shuns real science?
Because what really struck me from what I saw of Ringberg was just how incompetent the those people working in the area seem to be and just how religiously sure they are of their own views despite their manifest incompetence. And just to drive home the point I will show the graph that says everything anyone needs to know about this subject:
And this is the only actual evidence from which someone was able to say “I am very very confident that the feedbacks will give more than 2C” (I paraphrase). They did of course have their models – models that completely fail to predict what the climate actually does … but because of their 97% “consensus”, they don’t need evidence, science, physics, maths.

Doug Brodie send an email “Dear campaigner/blogger, Scottish EET Security of Supply Inquiry The Scottish government’s Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee recently set up a Security of Supply Inquiry, inviting submissions. …”
Unfortunately I was busy but a few hours before the deadline I did manage to pen a very quick submission in about an hour explaining why the basis of the policy was bullshit:
I wish to make a submission regarding the policy goal of a “largely decarbonised electricity system”. This goal is premised on the belief that Carbon Dioxide, known until recently as a beneficial plant food and whose beneficial effects can be seen in increased harvests globally and generally greening of the planet, is somehow “dangerous”.
The reality is that this viewpoint is not supported by science except in so far as calculations based on the HITRAN database of spectral admission and absorption indicate that a doubling of CO2 is expected to warm. I am aware of two estimates for this warming. The first one of 0.6C is based on the HITRAN 2008 data (Hermann Harde) and another of 1.2C which is used by the IPCC is based on out of date data (HITRAN 1998).
This amount of warming is low enough that almost no serious commentators suggest the effects would be harmful. Therefore the science only supports the beneficial effects of CO2 both as a plant food and as modest warming.
In contrast, please note that cold is the most significant threat faced by us in the UK and in Scotland. This is shown by the 37,000 extra winter deaths (Healy) in the UK. This amounts to 1million since the global warming scare started in 1988. Also reports suggest up to a quarter of Scotland’s population died in the colder period of the 1690s leading directly to our loss of independence (Cullen). Even in India more people die in the winter than summer.
Therefore this policy of decarbonising the electricity based is not based on sound science.
Instead, it is based on highly speculative estimates of “Climate sensitivity” or “feedbacks”. Remarkably I was unable to find anyone in the group of experts working on these feedbacks who had any relevant qualification or experience on feedback in temperature systems. Instead, their estimates are based on the unsupported assumption that the warming in the 1970s to 1990s was driven by a coincidental rise in CO2.
But with little information on CO2 levels before 1958, the estimate of climate sensitivity is largely based on just 6.5 decades of measurements. However, of this 5.5 decades, the first decade (1960s-70s) was dominated by what is now referred to as the “Global cooling scare”. The last decade and a half by what has become known as “The Pause” (Haseler) with no significant rise in temperature (none according to RSS and no surface record has warmed at even the lowest predicted trend since 2001). Therefore only 3 out of these 5.5 decades shows the required warming that is necessary to support any positive feedback effect from CO2.
However, despite this appalling lack of evidence, various academics with no professional qualification, experience or skill in the area of “feedbacks” have falsely asserted they are “very confident” that there is massive positive feedbacks and therefore a very high climate sensitivity.
However, not only are these high climate sensitivities unscientific in nature, but they are unscientific in practice as they do not predict the climate as shown by the failure of all models to predict the pause. Therefore, rather than merely accepting the policy goal of “decarbonisation”, I would strongly advise the Scottish government to seek a second opinion.
The world may be the biggest “greenhouse” we experience, but it is nether-the-less, like any other greenhouse: a temperature stabilised system for which there is one group people who are undoubtedly qualified to assess it. These are the engineers who have experience of temperature systems with feedback. I therefore strongly suggest that rather than meekly accepting bad advice, you seek a second opinion from those with credible expertise, experience and skills in the area of feedback systems, temperature control or monitoring.
References

• Cullen, Karen (2010) Famine in Scotland – the ‘Ill Years’ of the 1690s; ISBN: 9780748638871
• Harde, Hermann (2014) Advanced Two-Layer ClimateModel for the Assessment of Global Warming by CO2; Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change, Volume 1, Number 3, pp.1-50, 2014 [Online: http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/papers/846]
• Harde, Hermann (2013) Radiation and Heat Transfer in the Atmosphere: A Comprehensive Approach on a Molecular Basis; International Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 2013 (2013), Article ID 503727, 26 pages [Online: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2013/503727/]
• Haseler, Mike (2009) Memorandum submitted by Mike Haseler (CRU 30) to House of Commons inquiry into Climategate. [Online: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387b/387we32.htm]
• Healy, JD (2002) Excess winter mortality in Europe: a cross country analysis identifying key risk factors; J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57:784-789 doi:10.1136/jech.57.10.784