I unequivocally support Palestinian human rights They just need to learn to do the same

DEI achieves the opposite of its intended result - it is responsible for the increase in political and racial polarisation of recent years Why anyone would be surprised by this when it specifically makes race and other immutable characteristics in a supposed hierarchy of oppression the most important factor when considering outcomes, is astonishing DEI is fundamentally opposed to the tenets of classic liberalism, which says that individual behaviour is the measure by which we should all be judged, regardless of race, religion or sex, and that laws apply equally to everyone Classical liberalism is what enabled Western democracies to develop, certainly imperfect, but nevertheless the best system by far at promoting human wellbeing and universal human rights, including for minorities When are we going to wake up and reverse this polarisation ?

Unsure about the validity of a scientific argument ? Post the following question into your favourite AI, even for highly complex, technical papers. It will give you the response in seconds Critique and assess this paper’s conclusions using only 1st principles reasoning, logic, observable data (not reconstructed or modelled), and repeatable experiment Summarise in 150 words If it’s highly technical, or complex, tell it to summarise in layman’s terms, or whatever level you’re comfortable with It is quite astonishing - a turbo charger for knowledge

Net Zero policies are based on a logical fallacy and unscientific methods Don’t take my word for it - AIs are now capable of reasoning to Phd level and beyond in pretty much any discipline - so check this with your favourite AI EROI (Energy return on energy invested) does not accurately record the energy used in sourcing, manufacturing, transporting, installing, back up, storage, maintenance, or curtailment, all a fundamental part of the cost When these are included, renewables have a much worse EROI than reliable sources Worse still, when comparing costs between renewables and reliable sources, all these extra costs are included on the reliable side, rather than the renewable, where they belong, so it doubles the perceived advantage in relation to these costs With 85% of global energy fossil fuel powered, the more renewables you add, the more fossil fuels you need - it is mathematically unavoidable, at least in the short and medium term. We are being misled about all of this, need transparency about true cost, and the inevitable fact that more renewables = more fossil fuels. Long term reductions rely on not yet invented technology- ie wishful thinking

What isn’t explained about clean energy is that for every windmill or solar panel added to the grid, you need reliable back up The cost of this is not included in comparisons Neither is the cost of curtailment, when energy companies are paid not to generate, because the grid can’t handle it Neither is the cost of necessary grid upgrades, transmission lines etc The most expensive cheap solution in history, being sold to us with blatant lies

Why do the BBC and other mainstream media use Hamas press releases as if they were credible, reliable sources Instead of reminding the public every time that it is a proscribed terror organisation, with a well documented history of appalling brutality and summary executions of its own ppl, with a political and religious imperative of martyrdom, including for its children ? It appears to be the most basic lack of impartiality Mainstream media have a lot to answer for

Question for net zero zealots During Covid lockdowns, man made Co2 declined by 7 % To put this in perspective, this was the equivalent of the entire EU (27 countries, 500 million pop) shutting down, completely for a year, with zero emissions Meanwhile, the rise is Co2 concentration has not halted or slowed its rise or acceleration at all, as measured at Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii Actual progress towards net zero is negative; now 50 % higher than when targets were set. Those countries that have reduced emissions have done so at a tiny fraction of the rate achieved during Covid, for which there is zero evidence of any impact at all. So when will we see the tangible benefits of the eye wateringly expensive net zero policies that have so far achieved less than nothing ?

If you plot the most intense periods of flooding in the last 500 years in the 10 most significant European flood basins, none of them register in the last 100 years In central Europe the most intense period was 1850-1900, exactly the period climate alarmists want to return to 🤔

At this moment, total primary power in the UK is provided 98% by reliable sources, mostly fossil fuels, and 2% by renewables. See chart below - electricity is only 20% of overall energy need To understand the difference the reliable sources make, just imagine deleting 98% of everything you own and everything you do; possessions, home, clothes, health, education- only possible with reliable energy. You’ll be straight back to the Stone Age. To all Net Zero climate alarmists and @Ed_Miliband The harm your policies are doing is incalculable, and holds back those that need energy most Stop reasoning like toddlers, learn some basic maths and grow the hell up

Net Zero Global Report since Kyoto 1997 Cost 150 Trillion $ (5 x total global GDP) Fossil Fuel use 55% increase & growing Co2 emissions 50% increase & growing FF % of energy 1997 - 86% FF % of energy 2024 - 82% If this is good policy, what does bad policy look like ?

Whatever the truth about global warming, it is very unwise not to have in depth discussions about the best ways to promote human flourishing and look after our environment Attempts to achieve emissions reductions have achieved nothing whatsoever. Global emissions are 50% higher than 20 years ago, still accelerating, and fossil fuels still power 82% of human activity, only a 4% pro rata reduction over 20 years Alarmist predictions are nonsense - deaths from climatic events have dropped by almost 100% over the last 100 years, entirely due to adaptation, the thing humans are best at. And none of the constant stream of doomsday predictions have come true or even move in that direction The eye watering cost of net zero is deindustrialised economic disaster, until renewables can do the same job as dispatchable sources, 24/7, for a comparable cost Of all the possible causes of climate change, Co2 is the only one linked to every aspect of human activity, thereby handing over total political control over everything we are allowed to do - an authoritarian dream The blind rush to net zero has achieved nothing other than; fewer jobs and wealth, deindustrialisation, offshoring of emissions to countries like China who are going at a different pace, weakened economies with higher cost of living, gifted economic and political advantage to countries who do not mean the West well. It is a massive and ill advised mis-allocation of resources

Net Zero explained The little white box you can hardly see in the top right of this picture is the climate control knob If we can keep it at that size, and not allow it to increase at all - even by 2 parts per million per year, we can overcome planetary scale events, ice ages, solar radiation, and control the temperature and save humanity and the planet. I also have an interesting business proposition for you from my cousin in Nigeria - please send bank details

The Chinese have many of the best scientists and engineers in the world, and the unfettered government power to do exactly as they please. If renewables are cheaper and better why does their investment in and use of fossil fuels look like this ? Stupid or very smart ?

The overwhelming consensus of climate scientists and journalists is that 99% agree they want to keep their jobs and funding

Interesting fact about Net Zero wisdom Uk Co2 emissions = 500m tons pa China = 11.4 billion tons pa increasing 5% a year, or 570m tons increase per year, opening 2 coal power stations per week So even if UK emissions were zero, China would replace them in less than 1yr 🤔