Tweets seen today
A sad story, but also not sad. I hope that some time, in some way, they will all meet again.
The “global warming”/”climate change” narrative goes back even further, to at least 1977, when a very alarmist documentary was screened in the UK. I myself missed it, because I was in Rhodesia at the time. Still, I also missed the ridiculous Queen’s Silver Jubilee nonsense, so cannot complain…(#Winning!). I read a paperbook book about the documentary and the ideas and political background behind it (the book was very taken with the “global warming” theory), about a year later.
My view has not changed over the past 20 years when the “climate change” narrative has become a large part of international policy. It is that forms of climate change have occurred (irrespective of human input) since the Earth existed in anything like its present form.
It is known, historically, that is to say in the past few thousand years, that the climate (eg in the UK) has warmed and cooled at times, well before industrialization and also before there was a vast population on the Earth.
I have addressed these issues on previous occasions: see, for example, https://ianrobertmillard.org/2019/01/26/the-tide-is-coming-in-reflections-on-the-possible-end-of-our-present-civilization-and-what-might-follow/.
That is not to say that climate change is not happening. In some areas of the world, it is noticeable even by the public (eg the fact that Eastern Australia is far hotter now than it was when I was there in the late 1960s).
It is unsurprising that young people, anyone under 20 or so certainly, are very taken with the narrative pumped out by those running the narrative, and controlling the likes of Greta Nut. The proven frauds by the IPCC from 10-15 years ago (Himalayan Glaciers disappearing by 2020, Indian rivers drying up, the Kilimanjaro snows etc etc) will have escaped most of those young people.
Causation of climate change is not really known; some seeming causes are doubtful; remedies, if any, more doubtful yet.
In fact, within bounds, and overall, global cooling would be far worse than global warming; the history of past centuries shows that.
The “climate change” narrative as a whole is being used (as is “the global pandemic” story) to force through socio-political changes on a vast scale, in preparation for the next 33-year cycle beginning in 2022.
There should be far fewer people on the Earth. That is true, and will probably be the case before very long. A population of about a quarter or even a tenth of the present would be good, especially if mainly European.
Best idea: not to have sub-Saharans in the UK or any part of Europe.
Don’t forget the part-Jew, part-Levantine chancer currently posing as Prime Minister.
Migration-invasion. The Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan in action, flooding the UK with backward elements.
Interesting and, indeed, alarming, if true.
I remember some of those Jack Hargreaves TV programmes. Early 1970s. Don’t think that they were all children’s TV as such, though.
Despite Hargreaves reminiscing on TV about his modest childhood, he actually attended a fee-paying school; as for his “country old folk” persona on those TV shows, he was also a director of a small TV station and, earlier, editor of magazines, including the once-popular Picture Post. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Hargreaves.
A lucky escape
If those magistrates are interested, I think that I have a London bridge to sell them!
The fact is that, especially in the lower courts, there are sometimes perverse verdicts and/or decisions. I imagine that all barristers will be able to recall some from their own experience. I (wrongfully disbarred in 2016) certainly do recall a few.
However, I am not sure that the above verdict is actually perverse, when looked at more closely.
Disappointingly, the Daily Telegraph account is less informative than that of the Daily Mail. The Mail reports the key factor in the decision of the magistrates, i.e. that, given that the defendant did drink a considerable amount in the hour after the crash, the court was unwilling to infer that she was above the legal limit at the material time.
Frankly, while that verdict might not have been actually “perverse”, in my view it was still wrong. The court had plenty of credible evidence before it to support a “Guilty” verdict, in my view. The victim was “credible“, the defendant “misleading” and her Pakistani friend “incredible“, in the words of the magistrates. She had therefore been drinking while driving.
The details of the crash itself, together with the evidence of the victim, fully support an inference that, beyond any reasonable doubt, the defendant was over the legal limit while driving. A guilty verdict would have been better. She was lucky.
On the wider sociological point, one trembles for Britain when there are so many drunken sluts like her driving around. It goes beyond the simple road safety aspect. Even her friend and (possibly perjuring) witness, presumably a Muslim at least by origin, seems to have had a litre of vodka at hand! Britain. 2021.
9 thoughts on “Diary Blog, 11 October 2021”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/10/10/italian-far-right-mob-raids-union-battle-strict-covid-passes/. Some resistance from Italy!
At least there *are* pockets of resistance…
In the UK, that kind of resistance is rare. We tend to be more “Yes, Sir, No…” or “Yes, repeat No”…passive resistance.
Hello Ian: It is incredible how my instinct NEVER fails me. As I am doing some research into 18th century England I came across the title Master of the Rolls, I looked into it on Wikipedia where I saw a picture of the current Master of the Rolls: Geoffrey Vos. I told myself “He is a 4 x 2”. Yes, I was right! His repulsive face gave him away! (LOL)
look up ‘Climategate’. This relates to the court scientists which were propagating all the alarmist rhetoric. A whistleblower hacked into their e-mails, a number of years ago, which showed these ‘scientists’ manipulating the data and peer review system, even outright lying about the data and laughing about it. Laughing about manipulating the raw data which is being used to change our lifes for the worse and costing us incredible amounts of money!
Thank you. I recall the scandal, a recollection of course barred to those who were still children when it came out.
Over a thousand e-mails sent between the court scientists were put out by a whistle blower
An e-mail from Phil Jones, head ‘scientist at the Climate Research Unit , university of East Anglia to Michael Mann of Pennsylvania state university;
“P.S. I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a freedom of information act!”
These two people were Canadians Ross Mckitrick, a statician and Steve McIntyre an engineer. They were asking Jones for the raw data so they could replicate his findings.
E-mail from Phil Jones;
“ McIntyre and McKitrick have been after the Climatic Research Unit data for years. If they ever hear there is a freedom of information act now in the United Kingdom, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.”
E-mail from Phil Jones February 21st 2005;
“Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
Guess what. McIntyre and McKitrick filed an FOI . Jones replied they had lost most of the data whilst moving office. Uneffingbelievable!
E-mail from Phil Jones;
“Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith regarding the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report? Keith will do likewise.”
E-mail from Phil Jones;
“I’ve just completed Mike’s nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Thus, manipulating the raw data.
E-mail from Michael Mann to Phil Jones;
“So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board”
E-mail from Phil Jones to Mike Mann July 18th 2004
“The other paper by MM is just garbage- as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility aswell by replying to the mad Finn as well- frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow- even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!”
reply from Phil Jones;
“I will be e-mailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.
There we have it, these court scientists were attempting to corrupt the peer review principles.
As you imply, a disgrace. Equally telling, the various pronouncements made over the past 20 years by everyone from Prince Charles to Greta Nut and Bob Geldof etc that “we have [XYZ] years to save the planet” (4, 5, 10 etc).