Pretend scientists model pretend climate in a pretend land..

university bristol mordor climate   Google Search

Telegraph   Error 404   Sorry  the page you have requested is not available




… and by the time I’d fired up WordPress to blog about the fictional nature of climate science, the Telegraph was pretending that there was no such story.

Fictional inputs, fictional result… and a compliant media.

Plus ça change…

Aside | Posted on by | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Insinuational Racism

The Telegraph has a new blog up by the inestimable Brendan O’Neill regarding the equally inestimable Reginald D Hunter falling foul of the fatuous political correctness lobby.

O’Neill’s article accurately skewers the manner in which the self-appointed arbiters of political correctness have effectively shut down debate on subjects such as race by divorcing language from meaning.

Good on the Telegraph for giving the subject an airing but I’m somewhat bemused by the irony of the paper declining to permit comments on the article…

The ever-increasing failure by government, the media and the proliferation of special interest groups to give Britons a voice with regard to their country, their culture and their heritage is just one of many reasons why UKIP will take a lot of votes in tomorrow’s council elections.


Aside | Posted on by | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

One law for some

Daily Mail - 29 July 2011







Ministers have abandoned an inquiry into the rise of secretive Sharia councils that deal in Islamic justice – because the Muslim courts refused to help.

The failure of the Ministry of Justice probe has generated new fears among politicians and pressure groups about the increasing influence of Sharia courts.

They are worried the courts’ decisions may run against the law of the land, particularly in divorce settlements for women.

The scrapping of the inquiry comes in a week when Islamic extremists have launched a campaign to declare ‘Sharia-controlled zones’ across Britain.

By contrast…

Daily Telegraph - 29 July 2011

Regardless of one’s opinion on the Murdoch/NOTW/hacking story, is it not small beer compared to the rise of a parallel and unaccountable system of Islamic justice that is inimical to our own?

Why is it that our politicians expend so much energy over a relatively trivial matter – and even consider themselves at liberty to try by TV non-British citizens such as Rupert Murdoch – but allow resident Muslim citizens to refuse to be questioned at all?

Instead of limply abandoning their investigations of Sharia, shouldn’t our government be fiercely defending the British system of justice? It does, after all, it enshrine the moral values that we are told underpin the Murdoch enquiry.


Posted in Adventures in Time Travel, Big Brother, Justice system, Liberty, Media, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments


Daily Telegraph - 19 July 2011

Speaking on Radio 4’s Today Programme Sir Hugh said: “We routinely accept when we get things wrong, that is one of the great strengths of British policing.”

Sly words given that Cressida Dick – whose incompetence led to the execution of Jean Charles de Menezes – has enjoyed a meteoric rise through the ranks and has now replaced John Yates in charge of counter-terrorism.

Orde is tipped to replace Sir Paul Stephenson as the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. I can’t decide whether its arrogance or stupidity that qualifies him.

Posted in Adventures in Time Travel, Big Brother, Crime, Politics, Terrorism | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

The BBC – actively stifling dissent

Apparently, this story is sourced from the Daily Telegraph but I’m unable to find it online. The Daily Mail’s version doesn’t make too much sense but it does appear to suggest that the long-awaited review of the BBC’s science output is recommending the stifling of any debate against the so-called consensus view.

According to the Daily Telegraph, the report draws heavily on an independent review of BBC coverage by Steve Jones, a professor of genetics at University College London.

Prof Jones is understood to have cleared the BBC of any suggestion of bias in its programming.

That depends on how you define bias, I suppose.  Here’s Peter Sissons’ view:

The BBC’s editorial policy on climate change, however, was spelled out in a report by the BBC Trust — whose job is to oversee the workings of the BBC in the interests of the public — in 2007. This disclosed that the BBC had held ‘a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’.

The error here, of course, was that the BBC never at any stage gave equal space to the opponents of the consensus.

But the Trust continued its pretence that climate change dissenters had been, and still would be, heard on its airwaves. ‘Impartiality,’ it said, ‘always requires a breadth of view, for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space.’

And this is Jeremy Paxman’s view:

I have neither the learning nor the experience to know whether the doomsayers are right about the human causes of climate change. But I am willing to acknowledge that people who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that it is the consequence of our own behaviour.

I assume that this is why the BBC’s coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago.

Straight from the horse’s mouth, we have this from the BBC’s June 2007 report ‘From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel, Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century’;

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.

So how on earth does Professor Jones determine that there is no bias? It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with his sideline as a regular BBC ‘talking head’ could it? (see here for just page 1 of a Google search).

But the main conclusion made by Prof Jones is that in cases where there is a widely held scientific view, such as on GM crops or the MMR jab, the BBC shouldn’t give airtime to critics of the scientific consensus.

Good grief! Who is the arbiter for such a decision? The government? Professor Frankenstein? The Flat Earth Society? Or, perhaps, one of those august public bodies who, as discussed yesterday, no longer appear to have any accountability?

The moment we suppress debate on these issues – and both GM crops and the MMR jab have significant ethical dimensions, remember – we effectively place our faith in the hands of ‘experts’ who may be fools, tyrants or, worse, pushing an agenda.

Climate ceased to be about science long ago: what Jones is doing is recommending the suppression of one whole area of political debate; he is advocating tyranny.

If this report proves to be true, I’ve bought my last TV licence. Join me; we need to starve the beast.

Update When I threw this together through the red mist this morning, I was not aware of a recent paper by Nasif S Nahle which – on the basis of the conclusion – would seem to show that the greenhouse theory is wrong.


Through this controlled experiment, I demonstrate that the warming effect in a real greenhouse is not due to longwave infrared radiation trapped inside the building, but to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the surroundings, as proven by Professor Wood in his 1909 experiment.

From which I gather that the greenhouse effect is a function of the flask in which the CO2 is contained rather than the CO2 itself.

Such is the danger of the consensus controlling the media. You can bet that the BBC will choose not to give you the details of this or any other story that undermines their chosen view.

Posted in Adventures in Time Travel, Big Brother, Climate, Environment, Liberty, Media, Politics, TV | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 55 Comments

The new untouchables

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has issued a report on the failings of Castlebeck’s Winterbourne View Hospital following the exposé broadcast by the BBC’s Panorama programme.

Unsurprisingly, it concludes that there ‘was a “systemic failure to protect people” by the owners of a Bristol hospital’.

I think most of us had worked that out for ourselves, despite not having the benefit of the expensive and pointless exercise in back-covering indulged in by the inept CQC. Even Castlebeck had worked it out: they closed the hospital on 24 June.

CQC criticised Castlebeck for failing to investigate allegations of abuse, a bit rich from an organisation that ignored the complaints of whistleblower Terry Bryan, a senior nurse at the hospital.

They added Castlebeck failed to meet essential standards, required by law, including:

  • The managers did not ensure that major incidents were reported to the Care Quality Commission as required;
  • Planning and delivery of care did not meet people’s individual needs;
  • They did not have robust systems to assess and monitor the quality of services;
  • They did not identify, and manage, risks relating to the health, welfare and safety of patients;
  • They had not responded to or considered complaints and views of people about the service;
  • Investigations into the conduct of staff were not robust and had not safeguarded people;
  • They did not take reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent it before it occurred;
  • They did not respond appropriately to allegations of abuse;
  • They did not have arrangements in place to protect the people against unlawful or excessive use of restraint;
  • They did not operate effective recruitment procedures or take appropriate steps in relation to persons who were not fit to work in care settings;
  • They failed in their responsibilities to provide appropriate training and supervision to staff.

Meanwhile, there are no reports of anybody at the CQC being criticised or losing their handsomely-remunerated jobs despite the body ignoring repeated whistleblowing reports and despite their December 2009 inspection report of Winterbourne View as summarised below (my highlighting):

Number Standard Topic Assessment
C24 Controlled Drugs Almost met
C23 Ordering and Storage of Medicines Almost met
M8 Suicide Prevention Met
M32 Management of Serious/Untoward
Incidents, Adverse Health Events and
Near Misses Met
M34 Patients Absconding Met
M35 Patient Restraint and Physical
Interventions Met

Clinical and cost effectiveness
Number Standard Assessment
C4 Monitoring Quality Met
M4 Clinical Audit Met

Number Standard Assessment
C30 Completion of Health Records Met
M6 Staff Training Almost met
M22 Patient’s Records Met

Patient focus
Number Standard Assessment
C1 Information for Patients Almost met
C14 Complaints Process Met
C15 Information for Patients about
Complaints Met
M10 Resuscitation Procedures Met
M27 Quality of Life for Patients Met
Care environment and amenities
Number Standard Topic Assessment
A9 Health and Safety Almost met

Summary data courtesy of Paul Williams here

These events have remarkable parallels with the recent Baby P case in which Ofsted produced a glowing report of the Social Services department involved, 17 weeks after Baby P’s death (there was an interesting coda to this case when Ofsted ‘overlooked’  the provision of their original findings to the Shoesmith tribunal – Sharon Shoesmith being the person who carried the can – and was subsequently exonerated).

Both of these cases – as well as the Clare Ward case I wrote about yesterday – are symptomatic of the growing divide between the state and ourselves as well as the increasing tendency to palm the blame to the little people.

Honour and accountability in public office has all but disappeared. But unlike the mote that was the News of the World, our politicians show absolutely no interest in the planks of the public sector.

Posted in Adventures in Time Travel, Big Brother, Justice system, Liberty, Over-regulation, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , | 7 Comments

21st Century Love Story

Your eyes meet across the crowded room. You turn away.

Moments pass – you glance again.

She smiles.

Love’s dance has begun.

“I have to go.”

“Can I give you a lift?”

You pull up outside her block. There’s an awkwardness before she leans over and kisses you on the cheek.

She pulls back and you sit looking at each other, silently. She seems reluctant to get out of the car and your heart is pounding as you sense the question forming in her mind.

Finally, after what seems an eternity;

“Would you like..”

“Yes!” your thoughts are screaming.

“.. to write down your full name, address and NI number so that I can check you out on the Domestic Violence Register?”

Result! You’ve pulled.

© William Mcgonagall – Bills & Moon – 2011


The girlies are getting together again, determined to introduce another law to protect themselves from we nasty, nasty men.

Based on a recommendation from a (female) Coroner, Hazel Blears and Louise Casey, the Government’s Victims Commissioner (good grief) together with two token men from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) – great minds, all – claim that it will empower women. It’s a strange sort of empowerment that encourages somebody to rely on the wayward infallibility of the state rather than their own senses of intuition and judgement – but there you go.

The proposal is being called Clare’s Law in reference to Clare Wood, who was murdered in 2009. Ms Wood met George Appleton, her killer, via Facebook without being aware of his record of domestic violence against previous partners.

Appleton murdered her and set her body on fire before hanging himself.

The proposal, which is backed by Ms Wood’s father Michael Brown, comes amid concern that women are increasingly meeting men via the internet with little or no knowledge of their pasts.

Ahh.. that horrible internet again. Because, of course, we all know about the pasts of people we meet face-to-face..

I abhor violence and I particularly abhor violence to women; I deplore what happened to Clare Wood. But I fail to understand how this proposed law would have made her safer; I fail to understand how it has any relevance to the circumstances of her death. Clare had broken off the relationship with her killer – which would suggest that it was her discovery of his real nature and her subsequent rebuff of him that had precipitated her murder. Why would an earlier discovery have changed the outcome?

The involvement of ACPO in this proposal is telling – it’s another exercise in diversion.

Because Clare Wood was empowered. She took the decision to break off the relationship with her killer but he sought revenge.

The 36-year-old victim, who had a 10-year-old daughter, was strangled and set on fire by George Appleton, 40, after she broke off their relationship.

Police watchdogs concluded Ms Wood had been badly let down by ‘individual and systemic’ failures by Greater Manchester Police (GMP).

In the months before her murder she had repeatedly contacted GMP alleging Appleton had caused criminal damage, harassed her, threatened to kill her and tried to rape her.

Appleton, from Adelphi Court, had a history of violence towards women and was known to prowl online dating websites including Facebook, in search of partners.

(Manchester Evening News May 23 2011)

So the police let her down. She did all she could to protect herself but our police ‘service’ failed to properly assist her against a known thug.

Ms Wood was found dead at her home in Blackfriars on Friday. Police are hunting suspect George Appleton, 40.

A man had previously been arrested and bailed over the alleged assault.

(BBC Online February 11 2009)

A man (with a record of violence against women was arrested as a result of Clare Wood’s serious allegations… and then they bailed him??

Here’s how the pathetic Blears spins it in the Telegraph:

”Women in Clare’s situation are often unaware of their partner’s previous relationships and this can mean they start a relationship with someone with no idea if they have a violent past.

”Clare’s tragic death shows how vulnerable women aren’t always protected under the current law, and until women are given the right to know if their partner has a history of serial domestic abuse, they can’t be sure of the risk that they face.

”By changing the law we can empower women so that they can take informed action about their relationship and give them the chance to protect themselves and prevent domestic abuse from happening before it begins.”

RIP, Clare. If you’re ever memorialised in law, I hope that its more appropriately directed at those whose failings led to your death instead of this proposed exercise in diverting attention away from them. Real empowerment would involve holding the state to account…

Posted in Adventures in Time Travel, Big Brother, Justice system, Liberty, Over-regulation, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments