Scottish Sceptic

For me Trump represents a long sort after ambition: to know what is really going on with the climate once the biased corrupt upjustments have been removed.
However, I thought today I’d try to work out what is most occupying the oMSM (once mainstream media) now that Trump is coming in to “Clean the swamp”.

Think Progress (link)
You’ve got to hand to them – they really didn’t want Trump and they did all they could to stop him. First thing I notice is the “denier” tag and other insults are being used. This is their oMSM method of keeping politicians in order. It doesn’t work any longer! The next one is the “flip” accusation. Again this simply means “thinking about doing something that is not consented by the oMSM”. A politician who breaks ranks “flips”.

Trump is appointing countless climate science deniers to key positions, which tells you vastly more about what he believes and what he’ll do than his latest semi-coherent ramblings.

Their concerns are who is appointed, what they believe and what they say. Not one word about the science.

But Obama filled his Cabinet with experts like Energy Secretary Steven Chu and EPA Chief Lisa Jackson.

Another classic ploy – built up some people as “experts” (usually without relevant qualifications – but toeing their line) and denigrate everyone else (particularly when more qualified).
New York times (link)
From the start, their first interest is in battles and not science with an opener:

Is the battle to contain global warming now lost? … to many of the shellshocked diplomats gathered in Morocco earlier this month at the first climate summit following the breakthrough agreement in Paris

Again, the focus is on politics, agreements, diplomats. Again we find the same attempts to denigrate Trump with terms like “polluter”. Their interests can be listed:

• Paris agreement
• “Clean” power plan
• Emission reduction strategy
• A new dawn for fossil fuel industry

So basically, their aim is to attack industry through various agreements. And they are outraged that Trump might take the side of industry and tear up those agreements.
There’s nothing I can see about science. They clearly have no real interest at all in the actual science and just publish it as “science-wash” for their political advocacy.
UK independent (a small paper)
Again, they are straight in with the insults “denial”. Again they are talking of “flipping” = dropping their cherished policies. They’re incensed he will Cancel Paris, Clean coal (this is looking ever so much like they’ve all used the same copy-n-paste press release.) Ok, it’s pretty boring reading the same rubbish three times, but I can’t obviously see anything on the science.

Changed search to include “Science”

Guardian (no link as they are vile)

There’s no plan B’: climate change scientists fear consequence of Trump victory

As with all the other oMSM articles – they launch with an insult:

As news of Donald Trump’s victory reached Marrakech on Wednesday, the many thousands … were left in shock and disbelief that the US could elect a climate-change denier as president. Some of the younger activists were in tears.. “My heart is absolutely broken at the election of Trump,” said B.

So, now we’re getting emotional drivel. I eventually found the “science” and it was here:

Trump has consistently denied 40 years of climate science

So even searching for “science” fails to find anything. Again, no real concern for science, just a few figures thrown around as “science-wash” for their politics.
Forbes (link)
This time it doesn’t start with the boring insults, but we again see that it is a conflict between their political views and “industry” – in that we have an Adam and Eve exit from paradise as the start of industry is seen as the cause of the downfall of man:

I accept the consensus among climate scientists that climate change is real, it’s happening now and human activity since the industrial revolution

The article is laid out as a challenge to those who challenge “the existence or extent of climate change”. He then shows a graph of natural sea level rise which has been going on for thousands of years. He’s very keen on “coming up with solutions” … from which I gather that he works in a University ideas department dreaming up “solutions” to a problem he has no idea whether or not it exists. But there’s little actual talk about the science, even in this article supposedly challenging sceptics on the science.
Vox (link)
Finally I found an article in Vox (never heard of them) on NASA  – which is having all the cuts:

A Trump adviser wants to scale back NASA’s ability to study climate change

At this point I’m still not certain they are alarmists. But they set the scene for the end of NASA’s involvement with climate well with:

In the piece, it becomes clear that what Walker really dislikes is NASA’s research on global warming, which he called “heavily politicized” without any real justification.

Now bearing in mind, I’m waiting for even one of these journalists to refer to the implications for the science, the next quote … almost gets there … then diverts:

A move like this, if it actually happened, could be a big deal. Not only would it mean serious changes to US climate research, but it could affect a host of other key NASA programs that provide info on everything from weather to wildfires to drought and much more.

“Science” is just a word to fling about for these guys. It just appears to be a briefing from NASA – trying to protect their funding. Climate seems to be just a pawn – and so long as the funding keeps coming into NASA then they’re content to let it go.
Eventually we get something that seems to reveal their mindset on the actual science:

As part of its Earth studies, NASA also conducts extensive research into global climate change. That includes collecting data on carbon-dioxide emissions, temperatures, ice melt, and more. Perhaps most famously, the agency maintains this historical index of Earth’s average temperature.

To them, all that matters is this “temperature” – they don’t care how they get the required “science-wash” so long as it’s there. But even when they get a quote from the infamous Schmidt, it’s not talking about the science specifically, but instead it refers in nebulous ideas which amount to “how much science”:

Gavin Schmidt, who directs NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, argues here: “Chopping off science just to prevent people from talking about climate change won’t work.

Thus Science here, isn’t being used to mean the information about the universe that we call science. Instead, it is being used for a group of people or even the organisation. And as Schmidt admits, there are two other programs doing the same as NASA – so we still get the real “science”, instead what we don’t have is the people who manufacture the data who the oMSM use to science-wash political views and broadcast them as “science”.
But wait … further down we get to the insults:

Here’s Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), an devoted climate denier, speaking at a Senate hearing in March 2015: “Almost any American would agree that the core function of NASA is to explore space. That’s what inspires little boys and little girls across this country … and you know that I am concerned that NASA in the current environment has lost its full focus on that core mission.”

And it gets to be a total joke when even in this piece presumably done at the request of Schmidt or someone like him, it says:

Other agencies may not be able to replace what NASA does

I’M LAUGHING OUT VERY LOUD!!!

“May not be able” – which really means, that they know full well that NASA is just doing the same work as other organisations, but they have to try to say they’re needed.

I’ve done looking.

Conclusion

I’m quite astonished. Firstly that the main stories on “Climate change” have nothing at all to do with science, and secondly that even when I eventually find an alarmist wittering on about NASA – it’s not the real science they are interested in, but instead “science” is being used to refer to a group of people. A group of people who by their own admission are doing work that can be easily replaced.
What did I expect?
I suppose in my naivety, I expected something akin to: “this high quality research will disappear leaving a massive hole”. At the very least I expected a “this means we won’t know … ” kind of argument.
I can only conclude that the oMSM have no real interest in the science at all. And NASA and all the idiot academics who play the oMSM game – are really just “science-wash” for their political attacks against engineering, industry and even (real) science itself.

Over the years I’ve regularly done a google search on their news reports for “Global warming”. When I started, you could measure the delay in minutes. When I stopped doing regular monitoring it was down to a handful an hour.  Usually the stories from the current day would fill the first page
Tonight, on the spur of the moment, I did another search and as I scanned down the first page, I was surprised because I thought I’d seen the same stories a few days ago. And then I checked, and rather than being all today’s stories as I had assumed, they were up to 8DAYS old.
That’s an eight fold decrease in interest in global warming. Part of that may be a change to “Climate change” (a term which also brings up stories on things such as “economic climate change”). But there is no doubt the level of interest has plummeted (assuming Google haven’t changed their monitoring).

Google Trends

Continue reading →

In the Falkland’s war, we found out that the Argentinians had been using bombs which just went straight through the British aluminium war ships without exploding.
And that is now what it looks like for the alarmists. Take e.g. DeSmugBlog:

Koch-​Funded Former Lobbyist Replaces Koch Lobbyist on Trump’s Energy Trans­ition Team

What they don’t seem to realise, is that Trump couldn’t care less whether the best advisers have or have not had any dealing with Koch. These attacks are totally failing to do any damage whatsoever – because those that hate Trump – still hate him, and those who voted for him, have given up listening to the unfounded insults from the haters.

Indeed, Trump would probably say: “if these guys are attacking me – I must be doing something right”.

This month, we’ve finally seen the large-scale predicted cooling after the El Nino (in the only remaining credible temperature from UAH – all others now being UPjusted).
I’ve been saying that temperatures could well drop before Trump becomes president – although to be absolutely honest – I thought he became president immediately when elected. So, I was predicting this perhaps Aug/Sept.
However, one snowflake doesn’t make global cooling – so I’d want to see 3-4 months at the present level or 2-3months falling further to confirm temperatures are firmly down.
Indeed, we probably need to wait for 6 months so we can see a 12/13 month average and compare 2016 with 1998. That will be the really interesting result.
We should have seen a minimum of 0.14C/decade warming. There’s been 18 years between the El ninos, so it should be 0.25C warmer. I’ve previously said that <0.05C/decade is still “pause”. So if the highest 12/13 month average of 2016 is not 0.1C warmer than 1998, then not only are we clearly still in a pause but I’d also say the theory is well and truly busted. (or is it?)

Is it busted?

In 2001, the IPCC predicting a minimum of  0.14C/decade. The absence of this warming tells us that for the predicted warming to be true natural variation is at least 0.14C/decade. So, the question then becomes: how likely is it that natural variation explains the lack of predicted cooling (bearing in mind the warming should have been much much higher).
One decade without the predicted warming would happen ~50% of the time – that is the supposed warming is wiped out by a random addition that happens to be cooling. Two decades with the right adverse natural cooling to counter supposed warming would happen perhaps ~25% of the time. Three decades perhaps ~12.5% – which is close enough to the 10:1 level that I would definitely call it busted.
So, if we get no net warming for another decade it will be busted as a theory.
But we can bust it earlier. Because if temperatures now cooled an equivalent amount to a decade of cooling (-0.14C) – so that even with the minimum supposed warming it would still be cooler than now, and this happened for a reasonable period, then I think we can likewise say it’s busted.
For the last 18 years temperature has been hovering around 0.3C on the UAH graph. If we assume 0.15C to account for La nina, then basically if 2017 comes out substantially below 0C, then … it’s gone! It’s busted. Allowing time to get out of La Nina – if yearly average doesn’t get up above 0.15C by 2020 – likewise it’s busted.
That really means that if we see temperatures settling below what they are now at anytime beyond 2019 … it’s busted.
Continue reading →

I will admit that when I started on the Brexit campaign, I still hadn’t joined the dots. The main thing I dislike the EU, apart from its obvious undemocratic nature, and the way you’ll never get all these European nations to form a unit where we accept consensus as a means of decision making, is that EU rules have destroyed UK manufacturing.
However, like many people I wasn’t against a “common market” – the problem is that the common market that was, has now been turned into an abyss of rules that are intended to prevent foreign competition.
That may sound a good thing to anyone in the EU, but what it actually has meant is LARGE (not small) EU manufacturers have become reliant on the market where they can tilt the table to favour them, but that also means they are uncompetitive in world markets. And it also means that all the rules are biased for those who have the size and power to lobby at an EU level. So, small scale manufacturers have been shut out of the EU market. In other words, the EU rules are written to serve a few large manufacturers who because of this unfair advantage have stopped caring about the consumer and as a result we consumers end up with more expensive products at worse quality than if we were outside.
So now I am firmly against staying in the single market. The only way Britain is going to get the massive benefits of leaving the EU, is if we can free ourselves from the stifling EU rules and start manufacturing to sell to the world (as we once did).

A compromise

One possible alternative to a complete break from the single market would be this: to allow a phased withdrawal. The reason for this is that it takes perhaps 5-10 years to develop new products, so there are already many products in the pipeline both in the UK and EU which are designed for the present BIASED rules. But why should those manufacturers be penalised?
In contrast, something like the straightness of bananas (a euphemism) can be changed rapidly. So, there is absolutely no reason why the EU should be interfering in standards for fruit and veg within a year.
Therefore, I suggest a phased withdrawal, indeed, I’d like to suggest that we commit where possible to allow any product reaching the required EU standard to sell into the UK (unless there are specific safety or compatibility issues). Thus we commit that future British Standards, will always try to allow EU produced goods to sell.
So, e.g. lets take the stupid EU rules about the size of sand and grit. For obvious reasons, we will be re-introducing rules to suit the UK construction industry and our particularly geology and style of housing. But that does not mean that EU produced product should be prevented from being sold, just because it was different sizes – so long as it is appropriately marked.

Single Markets

But of course, the UK has always been a single market. We are “the single market” and have been for 300 years. This is particularly irksome in Scotland where SNP politicians keep yapping on about “staying in the single market” – as they also demand to “leave the 300 year old single market”.

I saw this exchange which @murdo_fraser MSP retweeted:-

People always forget about Emperor Palpatine that he put an excellent health care system in place.

Sure the Empire controlled some rights, but literacy rates were high.

@Kennyf1283 Defence spending was 98.3% of the budget though.

@jp_murphy They had an economic multiplier effect.

@Kennyf1283 don’t forget the massive investment in planet sized infrastructure projects.

Qui Gon Jinn. Mace Windu. Obi Wan Kenobi. Yoda.

Four Jedi Masters. He outlasted them all.

@Kennyf1283 terrorists, you mean

@Kennyf1283 Jedi master = radicalised religious fanatics

Linked tweets below:-

People always forget about Emperor Palpatine that he put an excellent health care system in place.

— KennyF1283 (@Kennyf1283) November 26, 2016

Sure the Empire controlled some rights, but literacy rates were high. — KennyF1283 (@Kennyf1283) November 26, 2016

@Kennyf1283 Defence spending was 98.3% of the budget though.

— JP Murphy (@jp_murphy) November 26, 2016

@jp_murphy They had an economic multiplier effect. — KennyF1283 (@Kennyf1283) November 26, 2016

Qui Gon Jinn. Mace Windu. Obi Wan Kenobi. Yoda.

Four Jedi Masters. He outlasted them all.
— KennyF1283 (@Kennyf1283) November 26, 2016

@Kennyf1283 don’t forget the massive investment in planet sized infrastructure projects. — Rgirvan (@RobGirvan) November 26, 2016

@Kennyf1283 terrorists, you mean

— Lawrie Morgan-Klein (@LawrieMK) November 26, 2016

@Kennyf1283 Jedi master = radicalised religious fanatics — Michael Ross (@ska_dad) November 26, 2016

In all my deep thoughts about how climate and Trump would come together and we’d have a bonfire of the quangos … I just assumed that when Trump got elected – he’d be president the next day.
For us in Britain, three months is it? … well it seems an incredibly long time in which you’ve voted for a government and the last lot are sitting there smashing up the furniture so to speak.
On the positive side – at least Trump gets time to make an action plan so that he can “hit the floor running”.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating

But what really matters to us sceptics, is not what he says he’s going to do, or even what he says he has done, but what he actually does. If we assume some pretty large changes in climate, it will take time to work these out, so we may not even hear about them until ~1year into his presidency. Then action may take another year – the effects start the next year and almost before we’ve had time to celebrate, it will be into the next presidential election — and he’s not even president yet.
So, we’re going to have to be patient!
Grrrrrrr….

When the Guardian runs an article admitting that Trump is going to scrap NASA climate “research” because it is “politicised science”, when it then mentions of all people, the highly politicised Mann, and when it does not allow any comments – because it knows just what people will say and just doesn’t want to hear the majority any longer.
We know we’ve won.
The battle was never about proving or disproving “global warming”, instead it was about depoliticising “science” so that it was possible to know whether or not the globe is actually warming and by how much and to base public policy on real data and not on the manipulated figures stemming from the vile hate-filled politicised anti-modern-industrial-society journalists & “scientists” .
But in truth, this clear out of the politicised “scientists” should have been done as a result of Climategate. There is no excuse – except that it was politically convenient to have politicised researchers politicising the data and leading us down an anti-science pathway.
And in that way, Trump is arguably the most pro-science president there has ever been – and he’s not even taken office yet.
(I avoid posting links to the Guardian because their climate coverage & the way they treat people who are entirely properly sceptical …  is poisonous).

Many moons ago, I spent my time changing a quality manual to remove references to “he” and “she” to change them to something neutral. There was a long debate between “he or she does …” and “they do …” and because they is neither gender nor number specific, “they” won out.
So, I’m no shrinking violet when it comes to speaking up for equality – because there was no reason why certain jobs should automatically be for women and some for men – even though men did tend to do some jobs and women others.
However, never in my wildest dreams did I ever imagine that someone could try to call themselves “they”. That was enough of a shock – however, if that’s what they want to do, then they are perfectly at liberty to call themselves whatever they want, but by the same rule, everyone else is also perfectly at liberty to call them whatever they want.
Except in Canada – where it seems that the fundamental human right to free speech (and common sense) has been thrown out the window and we now have a state of PC-fascism. The more I see of these fascists, the more I understand what it would be like to live in Nazi Germany.

###

Thanks to Eric Worrall and his piece: “Green Incoherence: Reaching Out to the Deplorables” and everyone who commented in WUWT for triggering me to write this.
Ever since Margaret Thatcher rebranded the west as “democracy”, we in the west have been fed one of the biggest political lies by the political elites: that democracy is being given a once every 4/5 year choice between which members of the elite will lord it over us.
Or as I often put it in my alternative ending to Animal farm (in which the Pigs take over and become the new self-enriching elite akin to communist takeover of soviet Russia):

And the pigs gathered all the animals of animal farm and said: “we have made mistakes, from now on Animal farm will be a democracy and you animals will be free to chose whichever pig you like to run the farm”.

The point, is that in an elected system, with a “mainstream media”, basically the same people are always in charge: those that the press barons (PC BBC) endorse. And in that system we had the notorious Sun headline: “it was the Sun wot won it” after the Sun stopped Neil Kinnock getting into power.
In the old system with a mainstream media and elections, the system was stitched up. The press decided who would get into power and even on which policies the election would be fought. The only real differences allowed to be discussed with the pretty trivial differences between the journalist (who were all fairly alike in many views). So  we had what amounted to a combat between the “left curling tail pigs” and the “right curling tail pigs”. The same basic political animals, overwhelmingly from the same Oxbridge type background, many on both sides from public school, from very similar courses. In other words totally completely different from those “deplorables” who won the Trump election.

Democracy doesn’t mean elected

Continue reading →