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

I urge you to watch

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

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

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

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

I’m disgusted by the authorities in the UK.

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

For obvious reasons given my support for Brexit I’ve been monitoring the #Brexit hashtag, then with May’s total betrayal of Brexit I started tweeting and monitoing the hashtag #MayMustGo.
But something strange happened. Suddenly everyone seemed to be against Brexit – or at least I couldn’t see those who were for Brexit. Then the hashtag #MayMustGo changed from having a new hashtag every few seconds to having only 1-3 every hour. I didn’t believe people had stopped using the hashtag, and I was right. As I found this tweet from a climate sceptic:

EU’s fundamental principles prove ‘flexible’ when confronted with a tough negotiator.

But we have Theresa May. Weak as her kitten heels. And lets M. Barnier walk all over her.#MayMustGo https://t.co/11D1Cvf25O
— Latimer Alder (@latimeralder) July 27, 2018

And whilst they have clearly tweeted on the hashtag #MayMustGo – I simply cannot find their message on the list of tweets:
It is very clear that twitter are deliberately blocking the hashtag. It therefore seems almost certain that the reason the brexit hastag is now filled with pro-EU supporters (many of them clearly paid lobbyists) is because they’ve blocked brexit supporters from that hashtag.

Twitter are clearly taking money to push a particular political position.

In retrospect the remoaner May’s plan was cunningly simple: lie to the people of Britain about fulfilling our instruction to leave the EU & leave the EU in nothing but name. Thus leaving us stuck with all the same extremely costly and destructive rules and regulations foisted on us by the EU – the only change being we couldn’t vote even just to register our protest by voting for UKIP MEPs. Then in a few years of sitting on the fence, one leg in, one leg out, with a picket stuck up our back side, remoaner May or the next remoaner PM would announce to all our treacherous MPs backed by the Brainwashing BBC: “leaving has not worked” … and they would all agree that there was no need for any further referendum and tell us we are rejoining the anti-democratic EU.
I’ve already left the Tories which I joined to help them see this plan through. I’m going to give them a short while to see whether they accept that Boris Johnson is right (undoubtedly our best choice for PM), and if the Tories decide to commit political suicide, then I’m rejoining UKIP.
Yes, I realise that means Labour are almost certain to get in at the next election, but so too will a substantial number of UKIP MPs. And that means at the election after that (which given Labour’s shambolic record may not be long), UKIP have a realistic prospect of gaining power and forcing through the Brexit which we voted for, and were told by the lying May that she would deliver.

Quite a few years ago, we started getting articles about plastic being digested by marine creatures. Given that marine creatures swallow inert sand in the same way as they swallow inert plastic, and presumably in a similar way birds swallow stones, there clearly wasn’t any harm.
Aside: If this scam is like the global warming one – sure I’ll be labelled a “plastic denier” for daring to suggest it’s a scam and yes I do object to plastic on the beach, but to be honest, if I’m swimming I much more strongly object to jellyfish and sandflies.
I knew something odd was happening when I heard the idiotic Scottish assembly leader puffing up about “banning straws”. Now, I’ve seen many things on beaches, but straws wasn’t one of them. So this move was totally bizarre and clearly had nothing to do with the problem. And when the proposed eco-nutter action has nothing at all to do with the problem … it’s a very clear sign of another environmental scam.
However, except for pointing out to some people who seem to be unaware, that most plastic in the seas come from Asia, and the rest mostly from Africa (where they dump rubbish in rivers) and that we have almost nothing to do with plastic pollution … I’ve been content to let this latest environmental idiocy slither by.
However … the fact that the media and press and all the other numbskulls are latching onto plastics as the latest fad …. does show that the global warming scare is dead. Indeed, now I come to think about it, no doubt last year’s downturn in google searches for “global warming”, is because dumb gullible pupils are now being told to do their latest eco-nutter projects on “plastics”.
So let’s have a look for “plastic waste” and “plastic pollution”:
As predicted, just as “global warming” dropped last year after being on a ~5yr “pause”, so “plastic pollution/waste” increased. Unfortunately, the comparison isn’t easy as the plastic scam hasn’t yet hit on the same catch all phrase to equate to “global warming”, but clearly the plastic scare took off last year as the global warming scare dropped.
So, it’s clear to me, the rise of the plastic scam is killing the global warming scam. And the plastic scam, like the global warming scam, and the ozone/refrigerant scam, will in turn be driven by pure commercial greed.
That’s not too difficult to work out. Given that straws and cups were early targets, the key driver the commercial driver will be those who have a product they want used instead of the plastic varieties. And that in turn probably means that there’s been a technological revolution in paper straws and cups which although they cost more, and no doubt have no real environmental benefit, someone with the ear of politicians wants to force the public to buy their product through legislation.
My guess, therefore, is that (plasticised) paper cup/straw suppliers have been giving huge sums to eco-nutters to go on endlessly about the harm of plastics in order to create a market for plastic (not) replacements through legislation, and which does nothing at all to “solve” the problem which the eco-nutters are going on about (massive pollution of plastics from Asia and Africa).
The more I understand how these fads are created by pure greed – the more cynical I become that anything the MSM go on about has any morality.

There’s a scene in 1million years BC when the hero caveman has thrown a spear into a dinosaur and it lies on its side and all that is heard is its breathing until it stops.
Likewise, the search volumes for “global warming” go through a regularly yearly cycle with a summer minimum (during the University break). This cycle peaked in 2006/7, dropped down rapidly to 2011/12 where it remained pretty constant “gasping its last” until 2016/17. But this year the search volumes are down sharply to around 2/3 of the 2012-2016 “pause” (difficult to see below as the level was already so low).
Likewise, I searched for recent news concerning “global warming”.  A few years ago there’d be a couple of news stories each hour, today that volume was a similar number a day. Of course, it would be a lot higher if Google didn’t block from their news outlet anyone scientifically sceptical like WUWT.

The key failure of climate academics

And finally. I’ve worked out the reason for this entire debacle. It comes down to a rather obscure misunderstanding of the basics of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics by climate academics (who aren’t the brightest sparks in the box).  It would take a great deal of time to explain. But to put it as simply: they misunderstand heat. That in itself is not a problem many good scientists do, but that means that most (all?) have no proper understanding of statistical mechanics . Which in itself is not a problem, … but unless you have a clear understanding of statistical mechanic, you will never properly understand how to treat noise and natural variation within the climate. And that is where they completely utterly balls up. They went completely arse over tit.
But as I said: they’re not the brightest sparks in the box … and add to that their arrogance and complete failure to admit when they’re so obviously wrong. Well, it’s a bit like trying to explain to someone from a tribe in the remotest part of Amazon how nuclear reactors work. Anyone can learn given time – and given time I’m certain I could get at least some climate academics to understand. But it will just take a lot more time than most and to be frank, just as the general public don’t care about the subject any longer, nor do I.
So let them be clueless.

Last year I was a beekeeper, this year as my queen died over the winter and the population plummeted in the spring before I could get another queen, I was expecting to cease being a beekeeper.
But never one to give up, I got a new queen as early as I could, I’d asked all three local bee associations for help (which none were willing to give), I’d downsized the hive – leaving it where the old one had been, so that returning bees would go to the same place, and given it will be three weeks before new bees from the queen start being productive, I had bought a “micro” hive about the size of a shoebox and was considering downsizing again to something about 1/30 the size of the hive last year.
But things were dire. Bees at this time of year don’t live long, and below a critical threshold, there just aren’t enough bees to look after enough young to sustain the population, it didn’t look promising. I desperately needed to find a way to boost numbers and literally every bee now counted for them to have any chance .
Things were so desperate, I had thought of cunning plans to capture any other bees that were around. I set up a trap, but it only caught TWO bees!! I was literally at the stage of picking up bees that had “got lost” around the hive⁺⁺, when I heard a buzzing sound (a warm day about 4.30pm). Now a buzzing sound around a hive is not unusual. But this was more the intensity of a a helicopter … and looking up what do I see, but the sky is filled with bees. And unlike the only swarm I’ve ever seen, these weren’t going anywhere, instead they were flying around and around above my head.
I had to capture this swarm.
Continue reading →

James IV was the King of Scotland from 1488 till his disastrous defeat at the Battle of Flodden, where he was supposedly killed: the last monarch from all of Great Britain, to be killed in battle. A man with an inquisitive mind, whose experiments were social, scientific and medical, he was a true Renaissance prince with an interest in practical and scientific matters.
James is reported to have conducted a language deprivation experiment, sending two children to be raised by a mute woman alone on the island of Inchkeith, to determine if language was learned or innate. The children were reported to have spoken Hebrew, but historians were sceptical of these claims.
He established an alchemy workshop at Stirling Castle where alchemist John Damian looked for ways to turn base metals into gold. The project consumed quantities of mercury, golden litharge, and tin. Damian also researched aviation and undertook a failed experiment to fly from the battlements of Stirling Castle. He turned Edinburgh Castle into one of Scotland’s foremost gun foundries, and welcomed the establishment of Scotland’s first printing press in 1507.

But there remain many mysteries: where is King James IV’s body? Are the sword, dagger and ring stored in the College of Arms in London really his as many Scots believe – or are they mere copies and should not be returned to Scotland? What about his head? It is said to have been separated from his skeleton centuries ago and used as a football by workmen in Elizabethan times! And did he really die at Flodden?
A friend of mine, Jackie Cosh has recently published a book covering the life of James IV in which these are investigated: The King with the Iron Belt – available in print and as an e-book on Amazon,

If you find yourself on the wrong side of my blocking policy – don’t take it as a personal offence. I apply the exact same policy to everyone.
I don’t issue warning or threats – if you break my policy I block without warning – and I certainly don’t either take offence at being blocked nor take any delight at blocking others.

Blocking Policy

I have a simple policy on twitter. I avoid blocking anyone** unless that person either threatens or does block or mute me. Then irrespective of whether I like the individual, whether I agree/disagree, I take a threat or actual muting/blocking as as a signal that they do no wish further discussion with me and I will block them irrespective of who they are.
If you don’t want a conversation to continue – just say. If you really don’t want to hear me – I don’t want to waste my time on you – so block me – but remember it’s very difficult to talk to someone you’ve blocked, so it’s largely a one way street.
And if you threaten or tell me you will mute me, I always block, It’s that simple.
The reason I don’t mute people and treat a mute as the same as a block, is firstly because when I tried muting one individual they just kept posting on my conversations and so I realised that muting was not the answer – because people take offence and then start making stupid remarks behind your back, and secondly if  someone is muted – no matter if a friend or foe – they have no idea they are muted and can waste a lot of their time responding to tweets. That’s highly disrespectful – if you don’t want a conversation with me – then stop talking or block me. Don’t talk about blocking me, don’t mute me, and certainly don’t threaten to mute me – just ask me to stop, or stop replying to my tweets or if that’s your wish block me.

Unblocking Policy

I’ve never had anyone ask – however, if anyone did ask – I think the answer is yes (except for the very few below**).
As for me asking to be unblocked –  I’ve only tried once, to a certain sceptic many years ago. He never explained why he was blocking me when he blocked me and refused to respond to me in any way through a third party. From that episode I learnt that it was impossible to have a reasonable conversation after a mute/block – so I don’t try.

**There are a few people I actively block:

1. Those like Mann, who are known to block anyone who disagrees with them and others who I know or suspect of telling blatant falsehoods. I don’t want to hear their views and pre-emptively block them.
2. Perhaps as few as four people, who have gone beyond what is acceptable. One for allowing racist comments on their blog and refusing to remove them. Another for effectively stalking me on twitter. Another for repeatedly posting tweets when they were totally clueless about the subject and incapable of responding to any tweets explaining why they were wrong. In each case, the person showed a repeated pattern of unacceptable behaviour over weeks if not months.

Collection of five Surrey Mirror Group Website Articles written by Peter F Gill and posted from about March 2015 to January 2016. They now no longer exist on the Internet unless archived by someone.

Scientists and non-scientists often give Venus as an example of a planet with a runaway greenhouse effect. However, some years ago I came across an analysis with a different conclusion. I shall say more about this later. Firstly, let us look at some vital statistics:

Although the size and density of the two planets are similar, the factor that most people find striking, is the extreme difference between the planets’ surface temperatures. On Venus, the surface temperature is well over the melting pint of lead and some 45⁰C above the melting point of zinc whilst on Earth the average temperature is only 15⁰C above the freezing point of water. Is the difference due to the fact that most of Venus’ atmosphere is composed of carbon dioxide? Well many scientists think not (some examples: H.D Huffman, A. Miatello and D J Cotton). To explain why, I will have to get into a little bit of physics and a little bit of mathematics. Please accept my apologies in advance to those who struggle with these disciplines.

Firstly for reasons that may become obvious a little later let’s look at the temperature at the height in the atmosphere of Venus where its atmospheric pressure is the same as that on Earth at ground level (approximately 1000 millibars). On Venus, the average temperature at that height is about 338.6 degrees Kelvin (about 65.5⁰C) compared with an average of 287.4⁰K just above the earth’s surface (14.3⁰C). Of course, as we have seen from the data above, Venus is closer to the sun than Earth. The amount of solar radiation received depends on the inverse square of the distance of the planet from the sun. So roughly the radiation received by Venus in comparison with Earth is (149.6/108.2)² = 1.911. To convert this difference in radiation received to equilibrium temperatures then according to the Stefan-Boltzman Law we have to take the fourth root of 1.911, which is 1.176. So, if Venus was at the same distance from the sun as Earth it would have a temperature at the pressure altitude of 1000mb of 338.6/1.176 or about 287.9⁰K (about 14.7⁰C). You will notice that, although I have ignored the difference in reflectivity (albedo) for the two planets, the small difference in the planet disc facing the sun, the fact that the Earth’s rotation is fast compared to Venus and some other factors, this simple calculation appears explain the temperature difference without the need to call upon a greenhouse effect!

In case you think that this is all smoke and mirrors let’s take a slightly different approach and only talk about Earth. You may know that generally as one goes higher the atmospheric temperature reduces. The rate at which this proceeds depends on whether the air is dry or contains water vapour. We call this reduction in temperature with height the lapse rate. The simplest lapse rate is the dry adiabatic lapse rate or the DALR. It can be expressed as a rate of change of temperature T with height h as: dT/dh = -g/c_p where g is the acceleration due to gravity and c_p is the specific heat of air in the atmosphere at constant pressure. Although g changes slightly with h and c_p changes slightly with T to a first approximation one can regard both g and c_p as constants. So using integral calculus, we can generate the formula:

T_s –T_h = -g/Cp * (h_s-h)

Where: Ts is the average temperature at the Earth’s surface and T_h is the temperature at height h and h_s is height at sea level which by definition is zero. Now the moist lapse rate has many more terms in it but we are interested only in a rough calculation so I will insert the average moist lapse rate for -g/c_p as -6.5⁰K/km (or C) the equation simplifies to: T_s = T_h+ 6.5*(h). Now let us substitute two numbers for height and temperature at that height. Typically, at say 5km above sea level the air temperature is about 255⁰K. So using this information let us calculate the surface temperature. It is 255+6.5*5, which is 222.5⁰K or 287.5⁰K (about 14.4⁰C). So, again, without using any radiation formulae we have deduced the average surface temperature correct to within less than one degree Kelvin.

This leaves us with the thought that, if there is a greenhouse effect, it is likely to be small. It also follows that, a change in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is not likely to have very much effect on temperature. On the other hand, because the solubility of carbon dioxide in water (and sea water in particular) varies inversely with temperature one expects to see increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere when, for whatever reason, the atmosphere heats up. Interestingly is what we have been seeing since we emerged from the little ice age. Nevertheless, if I was an English Literature graduate I may still be thinking that it is all smoke and mirrors.