Blog

Backgrounder by <a data-mce-href="https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1875607218852393428" href="https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1875607218852393428" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CM 05JAN25</a> ".... I used to be a casual believer in the idea that climate change is a huge problem. I accepted blindly the narrative of the day as painted by specific “experts” and the mainstream media throughout middle and high school. I was worried about the weather. Mild winters. Unprecedented hurricanes, or so I foolishly thought. The planet is on fire! I believed it all.When things started to not add up, and I immersed myself in both the data and literature, I began to understand just how much uncertainty there is about all of this. I was admittedly surprised because I had thought “The science is settled.”There is some evidence that there is an anthropogenic element to all of this, although how much has been not been quantified because all coefficients used to “compute” natural versus anthropogenic forcing is done using computer modelling, not measurements. In science, you are required to measure things, but I guess in this case, academics are not subject to that. Their models only reproduce global surface air temperature (SAT) trends because the models are forced to agree with the data through artificial tuning.Some will say semantics doesn’t matter, but it absolutely does. Scientific integrity matters, and if you do not uphold that as a scientist because it might “hurt the cause” for climate action, then you are an activist and should be ignored.&nbsp;That notwithstanding, there is very little, if any empirical evidence to suggest that this warming poses a great deal of harm to the state of human welfare and life on Earth in general. Biodiversity loss is, of course, a concern, but that is largely an artifact of other man-made issues, not a gradual warming that is adaptable to for most species. Claims that we are facing an “existential crisis” are just speculation about the future.Convincing people that 1-2°C or even as much as 4°C of warming is dangerous is going to be an exercise in futility because most people understand that the diurnal temperature variation is several times larger than that. This is why they started to do these “climate attribution studies” to extreme weather events. Because, if you can convince people that all of these bad things are going to happen, then that will raise their eyebrows.&nbsp;But, it turns out that these attribution studies were designed with the intention of using their “findings” as evidence in lawsuits filed against energy companies for pollution. This isn’t science. It’s junk science, activism and political lawfare.🔗 <a data-mce-href="https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/1063730129" href="https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/1063730129" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/1063730129</a>Then, of course, I found out about the Climategate email leaks, which revealed that IPCC lead authors actively colluded to prevent certain papers from getting cited in the United Nations’ “scientific assessment” reports (which synthesize the literature) because they didn’t want their orthodoxy of doom challenged. Who controls the flow of information controls the narrative. What’s more, scientists withheld their data from others who had questioned their methods and findings. The controversy revealed the sausage-making that went into manufacturing the “science.”This, along with the professional bullying of “contrarian” scientists that goes on behind the scenes and on social media and is tolerated by prestigious organizations makes me lose trust in the IPCC drafting process and the position of the United Nations being an authority.I also refuse to blindly trust institutional positions on the issue, as well as stances taken by government agencies such as NASA.I don’t blindly trust academics either.I think for myself, and if more people did that, we’d be far better off. Nailing the issues &nbsp;CM 02JAN25&nbsp; Here’s the deal. 👏From <a data-mce-href="https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX" href="https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">@chrismartz</a> • When “climate scientists” stop flying to attend conferences overseas, • When politicians and celebrities stop flying in private jets to collect environmental stewardship awards, or buying oceanfront properties, and, • When everyone demanding that we the peasants decrease our carbon footprint and decides to go live off-grid with no electricity, no WiFi, no running water and no plumbing, I then, and only then, will be convinced that there is a “climate emergency” that we should be worried about. Demanding that I pay more for gasoline, more for electricity, stop eating red meat and purchasing “carbon credits” will not have any measurable effect on weather conditions 100 years from now. You cannot reach into my wallet, take my money, and promise to use that to set a thermostat on the planet. 💥 Happy New Year everyone!! 🥳

Chris Martz perfectly nails net zero.

David Crabb shows James Schneider how it's done.. https://x.com/DavidCrabbUK/status/1874493466673115503 "... You insufferable hand-wringing relic of the failed Corbynista cult—coming in hot with another intellectual bellyflop. By the end of this, you’ll wish you’d stayed in the shadows of Twitter obscurity where you belong. First off, your opener reeks of reheated student union rhetoric. "Goodwin, Farage, Tommy Robinson &amp; co..." You couldn’t even muster an original jab, could you? Trotting out the usual bogeymen for your virtue-signalling bingo card. Here’s a tip, James: If you're going to name-drop, at least land a punch. Goodwin’s writing circles around you, Farage reshaped British politics, and Robinson, love him or loathe him, has done more to highlight working-class concerns than you’ve ever achieved by waffling from your metropolitan bubble. Now, let’s tackle the meat of your nonsense: "claim to stand up for the working class by blaming migrants." No, James, they do stand up for the working class—by addressing issues that your lot prefer to sweep under the Persian rug of progressive delusion. Mass migration is a real concern for ordinary Brits. It depresses wages, strains housing, and crushes public services. But, of course, you'd rather clutch your Guardian and scream "xenophobia" from the safety of your overpriced&nbsp; flat, wouldn't you? Then comes the pièce de résistance: "It's a sham." Oh, bravo! What a knockout argument. Did you stay up all night crafting that one? Here’s what’s actually a sham, mate: the champagne socialism you embody, where middle-class Marxists like you pontificate about the proletariat while sipping organic lattes and browsing Airbnbs for your next socialist retreat. You wouldn’t recognise the working class if they were building your bloody extension. Your attempt to pin "scams that take from the working class" on those fighting to defend Britain’s borders is peak projection. Who props up the real scams, James? The open-door migration policies your ilk champion, which flood the country with cheap labour to please corporate fat cats while the average Brit can’t afford their rent? The green subsidies that line the pockets of eco-grifters while pensioners freeze? The culture wars that distract us all while your lot quietly shift more power to the global elite you pretend to oppose? You're not fighting the super-rich; you’re their bloody lapdog. Here’s the truth you can’t stomach: the people you’re sneering at—Farage, Robinson, even bloody Goodwin—are actually listening to the concerns of the voiceless, while you play word games for retweets from your equally irrelevant echo chamber. You’re not the voice of the working class, James. You’re the hiss of a punctured bicycle tyre, deflating under the weight of your own irrelevance. Do yourself a favour: put the Twitter down, have a long look in the mirror, and realise that your tired, 2017-era class-war schtick is about as useful as an ice cube in Antartica. Britain’s moved on. Maybe it’s time you did too..."Mike drop...🤗

put down perfection

30DEC24 V0.1Since there is still no proven association between CO2 emissions in car exhaust and harmful climate change, are we due a huge refund on car tax and ULEZ payments..? The UK and probably many other countries charge people a form of annual vehicle excise duty on the basis of the CO2 emission figures.&nbsp; Remember CO2 comprises just 0.042% of the atmosphere. And the UK contributes 1% of that annually. Remember that Photosynthesis stops and plants begin to die at CO₂ concentrations below 150 ppm, which is why commercial greenhouses pump in extra CO2.&nbsp;Now the UK is about to charge an<a data-mce-href="https://www.confused.com/car-insurance/guides/uk-car-tax-bands-explained" href="https://www.confused.com/car-insurance/guides/uk-car-tax-bands-explained" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> insane amount of over £700 a year </a>for owners of quite modest vehicles as part of the crazy net zero insanity. So <a data-mce-href="https://www.parkers.co.uk/car-tax/advice/new-car-tax-rates/" href="https://www.parkers.co.uk/car-tax/advice/new-car-tax-rates/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">nasty surprises for new car</a> owners... There is still no conclusive proof of the speculative anthropogenic climate change hypothesis, it remains subjective conjecture, extrapolation, coincidence, speculation, hyperbole and downright misinformation!!&nbsp; So we must get the UK government in court to justify using the excuse to tax drivers debate the relevance of CO2 to climate change - especially in the context of the UK's 1% contribution to the annual global total and demand that they refund the exorbitant charges they have been making on the basis of no so evidence..?&nbsp;It would be really helpful to settle the main debate once and for all and invite the main contributors to all sides of the debate - and also use this example to start a campaign to introduce the concept of "contempt for the truth" and require politicians an all those pay from&nbsp; public funds to be responsible for their lies - and expose their support for money making hoaxes. And if there is a proven link to CO2 and climate crisis, then the government must take action against the baddies...The countries most responsible for annual anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions are:China - Responsible for a significant portion of global emissions, with recent figures indicating it accounts for around 30% of global CO₂ emissions. United States - Historically a major emitter, currently the second largest contributor to global CO₂ emissions, with emissions around 11-15% of the global total. India - The third largest emitter, with emissions increasing due to economic growth and population, representing approximately 6-7% of global emissions. Russia - Emits around 4-5% of global CO₂, known for its reliance on fossil fuels, especially natural gas and coal. European Union (EU27) - Collectively, the EU countries are significant emitters, though the exact percentage can vary year by year; they are generally responsible for around 7-8% of global emissions. Brazil - While not always in the top echelon for CO₂ emissions, Brazil features prominently when including deforestation, which contributes significantly to its emissions profile. The United Kingdom contributes approximately 1% of global annual CO₂ emissions. So please Watch this post for developments ... and contribute if you can at <a href="https://x.com/WoteUk" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-href="https://x.com/WoteUk">@WoteUk&nbsp;</a>

Is Car tax rated by CO2 fraudulent?

<figure id="figure-dhognptorbm57chfqa" data-full-width="" class=""><iframe id="dhognptorbm57chfqa" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2R8QxCD6ir8" class="w-full bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;" allowfullscreen="" data-url="https://youtu.be/2R8QxCD6ir8" data-corners="default" data-fullwidth="true" data-mce-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2R8QxCD6ir8" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;"></iframe></figure>28DEC24&nbsp; V0.5Ronald Reagan was a pretty good president who was a big fan of legal immigration which he explained well in this last speech as president when he expressed sentiments and compelling ideas that somehow have been forgotten in the entitlement madness.&nbsp; A key point for 2024 is that Reagan was talking about opportunity and self advancement, entitlement; any cash advances should be treated as loans and repaid during and after a period of probation.One fear is that since they come armed with expectations of a land of milk and honey - if they are not molly-coddled from the off, they will help themselves from defenceless retailers.Despite demands for a total ban, there will always have to be a policy on lawful migration, so we must engineer an immigration policy fit for purpose, and keep out all that cannot prove they can contribute directly to the UK - preferably also with sponsors and a probationary period?&nbsp; But this can only make sense if it starts once all illegal migration has been ceased - and all those who have arrived illegally have been processed and returned - as necessary. And all British citizens who have paid into the welfare state over their working lives and are being denied pensions and welfare are being taken care of.

Is this how to position an immigration policy?

27DEC24 V0.1Pete North remains to be impressed... I think it was around March when I began analysing Reform. I've been banging more or less the same drum ever since. Nothing has changed. It's got worse. It still has no philosophical foundation, no grassroots organisation, no subject expertise, and no policy to speak of. The only thing they've professionalised is their media operation.&nbsp;This is still a party that would not know how to usefully wield power. It can win seats on the basis of dissatisfaction with the establishment parties, but the last six months have proved that they don't know what to do with the influence they have. Rupert Lowe is the exception. They know how to do electioneering and gimmicks, but the work of real parliamentarians is beyond their abilities.The clear lesson from the election is that Reform underperformed because it has no ground game, and had they built a grassroots organisation, they could have won more than a dozen seats. They at least had the excuse of being a relatively new organisation with limited resources, but they will head into the next election in a similar state of a disarray, with rarely vetted candidates, no local coordination, no policies, and no idea what to do with power.&nbsp;Responding to such criticisms, they've done the bare minimum to give the outward appearance of professionalisation and democratisation, but as Ben Habib has revealed, it is still essentially the same top-down organisation, and local organisations are left to fend for themselves but are unable to operate as an independent branch.&nbsp;The challenge was always to evolve beyond a personality-led media operation and into a coherent political force - but none of this work has been done, nor will it ever be done. The leadership is satisfied that they're going everything right, because opinion polls and supporter numbers are their sole metric of performance. &nbsp; They are incapable of self-reflection, and in capable of taking on board criticism.&nbsp;At the last election Reform came second in 98 places. A realistic strategy would be to focus energy and resources on these places, with saturation local campaigning, to turn them into seats at the next election. But they won't do that. They won't even have candidates in place until the last minute. The party doesn't do long term planning. Again they will run their campaign from the centre through the media, in the mistaken belief that social media hype equates to votes. &nbsp;Meanwhile, the party will become a life-raft for Tory has-beens and political grifters. Farage will take anyone if they produce a headline or two for a day. Policy will be triangulated for the needs of the moment. That means being all things to all people, contradicting themselves as they go.&nbsp;In that time, half as many who join will become disillusioned with the party. As with Ukip, there will be a large churn of members and activists, and dedicated activists will realise no support, instruction or thanks is coming their way, and that there is no recognition for their efforts. They'll be left to fend for themselves.Having failed to build a fighting force, Reform will enter the next election having to cobble together a campaign at the last minute, same as last time, and though they might very well score a few more Westminster seats, they'll let scores of second places slip through their fingers. They'll call it a victory too.&nbsp;So then by 2029, we have a largely defunct Tory party, probably on its next leader already, flanked by an incoherent populist party of equal size, but with neither capable of dislodging Labour. Neither party will be capable of mobilising those who've lost confidence in the electoral process and Labour will win a majority in much the same basis as 2024.&nbsp;Because Reform will have increased its parliamentary headcount, the right will still persist with the delusion that Reform is likely to achieve something, while still failing to produce anyone capable of replacing Farage. Farage will get bored, Lowe will bow out due to old age or ill health, and they'll be left with Tice as a caretaker, treading water until implosion. Assuming, of course, that Farage doesn't sell out and merge with the Tories (which was always his plan).Ultimately, Reform is a sunk cost fallacy. Perhaps it can drag the Tory party to the right, but neither party is in any shape to fight and win. The Tories can't win under Badenough, but Reform cannot win as a populist top-down supporters club that can't even articulate a coherent immigration policy. Labour will have done nothing to deserve a second term, but the right will have done nothing to deserve power. Anyone who believes Reform will up-end the uniparty is kidding themselves. They are more likely to join it, putting us back at square one.

Is Reform a lazy lightweight?

© P Dawe December 2024&nbsp; &nbsp;V0.1In the interests of equality between students and other recipients of benefits ALL benefits should be treated as loans, with the debt repayable when people have the ability.The benefit paid when at university, when the person is unable to earn, is not only accumulated as a debt, but they also have the cost of their education charged to the same loan account.Yet people who are able to work are given their benefits without the obligation to repay.The genesis of the UK benefit system was <a data-mce-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe">The Tithe.</a> Here everyone contributed a tenth of their income and the pool would pay out if circumstances went bad. This morphed into Mutual Insurance where People would pay into a common pool and if circumstances went bad for a member of the Mutual, the pool would pay out. Later, governments took control of “insurance”, collecting taxes and paying out “benefits” when individual circumstances went bad.&nbsp; Unfortunately, politicians found that by promising to pay out regardless of the bad circumstances and regardless of tax income, they could enjoy the popular vote. This led to the advent of deficit finance, the government could make the pay-outs, even when the taxes did not cover the cost of the pay-outs.&nbsp;Worse, some of the public now see this insurance, not only as a right, when they are in bad circumstances, but expect pay-outs even when the circumstances are self-induced. Some of the public even game the benefit system. Choosing worklessness, rather than doing low prestige work. Thus, we have labour shortages in many low prestige jobs, while having suitable people content to live off benefits.One should similarly argue that all government, and indeed charity, grants, should also be loans, rather than grants. Why do businesses enjoy government hand-outs, with no obligation to repay? Many charitable projects that relied on grants, fail when the grants stop being paid? *WoteFix- is an initiative to highlight discussion topics and subjects that need fixing but are not policy documents (WOTE will not be doing policy, remember?) but deserve to be noted and discussed with politicians who are smart enough to acknowledge and understand the significant bond of trust represented by the Wote Pledge.

The WOTE.uk Federation jan 2025

Blog: the Revolution starts here...

Chris Martz perfectly nails net zero.

put down perfection

Is Car tax rated by CO2 fraudulent?

Is this how to position an immigration policy?

Is Reform a lazy lightweight?

WOTEfix*: Loans not Grants