Brexit news (2)

The Spectator Coffee House has hit form again. At a time when Dave and friends’ Doomsday assertions re the possibility of Brexit acquire the genuine comic value inherent in seeing highly educated and intelligent people knowingly talk drivel, Coffee House has two excellent posts.

Firstly, various ‘names’ give their views. Setting aside Bob Geldof (Remain) and Joey Essex (Undecided), the best bit is by one of Scotland’s genuine stars, the composer Sir James MacMillan**. He doesn’t take a position, so much as ask questions. They are absolutely relevant. Here they are:

  1. After 1989 why have the European elites failed to denounce the immorality of Communism? 
  2. Why have the same elites supported the likes of Yasser Arafat and the Iranian governments?
  3. Why are extremist parties well supported and why is anti-Americanism on the rise in Europe?
  4. Is it true that productivity is declining in mainland Europe?
  5. Why is EU-style democracy not good enough?
  6. Why is their bureaucracy so unwieldy?
  7. Why do the European elites hate Christianity?
  8. Why is anti-semitism on the rise on the European Left?
  9. Why is Europe committing demographic suicide, failing to reproduce its populations to sustain their expensive welfare, health and pension systems?
  10. Why does Europe look like it has given up hope in its future?’

Forget the Tory internecine wars, which are a childish EU referendum-induced distraction but loved by the media, these loaded questions are not even remotely being addressed by the Inners.

On the same day, brainiac Noel Malcolm, fellow of All Souls writes an elegant and comprehensive piece on sovereignty and leaving. If only the standard of debate from the government was this high. A key selection:

For me, the most important issue is the one that flows directly from these problems: the loss of democracy. This huge artificial structure would indeed be paralysed if all decisions required unanimity. But once our laws and policies are made by EU majority voting, we begin to sacrifice the most precious thing of all: the principle that those who make our laws and rule us are chosen by us, and can be removed by us. European elections, and tinkering with the so-called democratic deficit in Brussels, are entirely beside the point here, as the EU is not, for any of its member populations, the primary political community, the ‘demos’ on which genuine democracy is based.

Most advocates of a Remain vote simply ignore this issue. Some contrive to suggest that it is just a matter of accepting technical regulations for the single market — whereas the range of EU law-making does in fact go much further than that. And some like to imply that if people do not want to put themselves under a supranational government, they must be harking back to a nostalgic (and probably right-wing) concept of ‘sovereignty’ which has no validity in the modern world.

Sovereignty is not in fact outmoded. But the term has become so misunderstood that it is probably better to put it aside, in this debate, and just talk about democratic self-government instead. I have yet to hear any leading Remainer explain why this valuable thing — which should be equally precious to both left and right — is worth sacrificing for the benefits, whether geopolitical or economic, that they think we shall get from staying in the EU.

In fact the array of opinion leading to a Brexit conclusion is pretty impressive and from right across the spectrum: Larry Elliott, Alex Brummer (1,2), St Augustine, scourge of the Clintons  Ambrose Evans-Pritchard among others. Not only are these well made arguments, the quality and fun content of the journalism is much higher than that from the Remain camp, who are embarrassedly shackled to whatever nonsense Dave/the IMF/CBI/Treasury/Obama/Juncker etc etc are coming out with today.

It’s not that there aren’t cogent and persuasive reasons for being a Remainer, there are, but rather like in the Scottish Referendum, the separatists there (oddly allying with the Remainers now) failed to make a decent argument about sovereignty and belief, but rather opted for a pack of lies about the economy  which has of course subsequently blown up in their face.

I can live with whatever outcome we get from next month’s poll, but it’s already clear that the intellectual weight and the necessary comprehension of history lie with the Brexit camp.

europe
I don’t want to go this far back, actually

**author of probably the finest eulogy that I’ve ever read

Advertisements

“Experts”

This blog has always hosted a tremendous quote by living legend, economics professor and all round fount of wisdom, Thomas Sowell. Anything written by the Great Man is worth reading. Here it is:

“There is usually only a limited amount of damage that can be done by dull or stupid people. For creating a truly monumental disaster, you need people with high IQs.”

Charles Moore, writing about tax havens, reminds us of the classic example – economists v Thatcher:

I am no tax expert, but when 300 economists, particularly if led by Jeffrey Sachs and Thomas Piketty, all agree about something — as 364 did that Mrs Thatcher, in 1981, was messing things up — one can be confident they are mistaken. 

And here is Dan Hannan, today, musing on the snobbery of the ‘elite’, many of whom of course propel themselves into politics:

Experts often get things hideously wrong. When the entire Establishment coalesces around a fashionable idea, ordinary people are right to become suspicious. Everyone knew that it was wise to appease the Nazis in the 1930s, to nationalise industry in the 1940s, to have a planned economy in the 1950s, comprehensive education in the 1960s, prices and incomes policies in the 1970s. Everyone knew that it was sensible to back the ERM in the 1980s, the euro in the 1990s, the bailouts in the 2000s. Everyone, that is, except the general population.

So, given this year’s twin challenges of the US election* and the EU referendum, beware of received wisdom. Time to place bets.**

ts2
another zinger

 

*for the record, Sowell can’t stand either candidate

**this “Lunch with the FT” piece, with Philip Tetlock , author of Superforecasting, is fascinating and highly relevant

We all need a (working) bullshit detector

Iran/Belgium fashion week
Iran/Belgium fashion week

Men who wear bow ties, cravats, and/or glasses on a string. People who join MENSA. Middle class people who go on a bit too long about ‘their’ football team.

All these categories may be victims of blind prejudice, or alternatively they may simply be stimulating a fully functioning bullshit detector, which is an essential piece of one’s armamentarium these days.

In medicine, beware of the patient loudly proclaiming they have a ‘high pain threshold’ – they will squeal like a pig as soon as you examine them. Junior surgeons who boast of their huge list of operations, personally undertaken are often the most callow and ineffective, prone to panic and misjudgement. Patients who enthusiastically medicalise their every feeling, for whom new diagnoses with arcane names such as fibromyalgia are the gift that keeps on giving. Doctors who are anxious to tell you how busy they are always have all their holidays booked, know their exact leave allowance, and go to silly meetings and get out of clinical duties more than any of their quieter colleagues.

So when I first saw Camila Batmanghelidjh, now of Kids’ Company notoriety, I think on Question Time a few years ago, I assumed she was of Nigerian heritage, or something similar. Why would she dress like that otherwise? The bullshit detector should have kicked in. Her exotic Belgian/Iranian gene pool doesn’t suggest an immediate affinity for sub-Saharan Africa.

Of course it now seems evident that at best she was naive and bad at running things, but today’s revelation that she had an expensive chauffeur, because she didn’t like walking or getting public transport, suggests a more calculating persona, perhaps.

Normally I’d be indifferent to this sort of nonsense, were it not for the fact that her organisation seems to have hoovered up literally millions of taxpayers’ cash, with, as it happens, not much to show for it beyond a few anecdotes. Dave’s own involvement suggests he needs a new bullshit detector. Worrying in a prime minister.

Most people reasonably assume charities compete for money that the public may or may not choose to give away, not just sign up with the government for enormous handouts. If you did want to spend all that public money on the disadvantaged, you’d be far better handing it out in the street a la helicopter money, rather than funnelling it through some loosely structured inefficient fiefdom like Kids’ Company appears to be.

So, I have to add to the above list, which is far from exhaustive anyway, a proclivity for dressing flamboyantly in a manner suggesting a different ethnic group. There are parallels here with the defiantly white black activist Rachel Dolezal, and indeed former candidate for the Democratic nomination, 1/32 Cherokee Elizabeth Warren.

Douglas Murray’s neat discussion of the ‘halo effect’ is as good an explanation as any of how previously well functioning bullshit detectors can be disabled:

It has often occurred to me that if you wanted to perform any great con trick these days you could do no better than to have a hard to pronounce name, wear achingly ethnic clothing and cultivate a sort of ‘mother earth’ persona. The search for authenticity is such that before long every culturally embarrassed media and political creep would beat a path to your door, sit at your feet and hug you like a tree. In reality you would never need to do anything much because you’ve already ticked all the culturally correct boxes.

Those of us who feel this way could be accused of being wise after the event, but once you’ve identified, well in advance of their current diminished popularity, Tony Blair, Bono, Richard Branson, Alex Salmond and many others, I feel one is entitled to claim a degree of authority in this emerging discipline.

Knifonomics (part 36): Scotland v the UK

This post is a bit of a double header. The first part is to bring to the attention of anyone interested a quite remarkable bit of presentation and exposition by Scottish businessman Kevin Hague (AKA @kevverage on Twitter). Hague has been a major thorn in the side for the numerous SNP fantasists who are either too thick, deluded or malign to admit that the entire Nationalist economic ‘strategy’ went up in smoke a long time ago – the main reason they lost the referendum, as the public aren’t daft. He seems to do this stuff in his spare time, and it is quite brilliant in both content and execution. His Chokkablog is great reading. Any teacher or lecturer could learn from the clarity of his thinking and his use of evidence. The video is worth 8 minutes of anyone’s time, particularly if you live in Scotland. See what I mean:

You could probably rename that video ‘why Scottish independence is dead in the water, whatever you may hear to the contrary’. The point is that besides Hague’s narrative and logic skills, he is a genuine practising economist, ie: a succesful businessman who sinks or swims according to his decisions. This is compared to current Finance Minister John Swinney – nice guy but a politics graduate who has always lurked in the public sector – Alex Salmond, who bafflingly claims to be an economics guru because he worked for RBS aeons ago, despite his lies/ramblings over the years, and Nicola Sturgeon, a lawyer who has only worked briefly in that area, then the public sector. In fact the SNP have still not provided any factual and coherent assessment of the Scottish economy. Who would you trust with your dosh?

Cross the border and head today for Westminster, where (history graduate) George Osborne knocks out a budget that is economically cautious and safe, but politically astute. No Eck-like lies or wild claims. The initial reception is remarkably good, both from fans and enemies – as the Guardian says: a dish of Conservative and Labour ingredients seasoned with the promise of economic competence. Both Osborne and Hague frame their message around evidence freely available to the public. Plausibility and pragmatism.

The Knife, as an interested observer, makes no claim to economic expertise, but I’m happy to pay  homage to Hague. The standard of debate in Scotland has been so poor at times, he stands out like a beacon of common sense and reasonableness. When it comes to Osborne however, four years ago when the Osborne hatred and the cliched omnishambles claim were really building up, I invented PWUGO (People Who Underestimate George Osborne), in response to the now utterly defunct DUEMA (I lifted Iain Martin’s witty joke). PWUGO appears to have a rapidly declining membership now.

The point is that Osborne always struck me as having genuinely thought things out carefully, developed a long term plan accordingly, and stuck to it. This was greatly helped by Cameron’s refusal to sack him, despite a clamour which reached a peak in 2012, aided and abetted by Ed Balls and serious political commentators alike**. Nobody knows anything, as the saying goes.

My conclusion: you don’t have to be likeable (Osborne struggles) to make it. You do have to be serious, plausible and authentic. Both Kevin Hague and Osborne in their different ways demonstrate this. Salmond and his cronies, along with the two Eds, have proved that the alternative approach always ends in failure. Deservedly.

There, but for the grace of God, go I
There, but for the grace of God, go I

**It’s amusing to read Peter Oborne, one of the guilty parties, drooling a bit over Osborne now

The Boris Johnson/left wing cabal is still with us

Bizarrely, it seems that Boris Johnson, the bien pensant left from various parties and the Scots Nats all share the same political philosophy. To quote Boris:

“My policy on cake is pro having it and pro eating it.”

I see this all the time, because I’m a standard middle class professional, who pays a huge whack in taxes, and I work in the public sector, where I’m fairly well paid. The thing is, I’m not complaining.

I have various colleagues – not as many as you might think, as NHS surgeons tend to be realists, not fantasists – who bang on about Thatcher (stepped down twenty five years ago), Tories (I am not one, by the way) and ‘unfairness’. Oddly enough none of them actually claim the NHS is being privatised, because it’s manifestly not.

All these people, and many many more, including some of my relatives, rant on about Michael Gove (the most polite bogeyman ever), Osborne and Cameron as if they’re devils incarnate. Strangely, rich middle class politicians like the politically late Vince Cable, Ed Balls, even the monstrous hypocrite Alex Salmond, get a free pass. Same for hacks like the ridiculous and wealthy Polly Toynbee, Will Hutton, James Naughtie and the rest of the BBC cosa nostra.

My theory is that in the privacy of the polling booth, quite a few of these people probably voted Tory. There was an interesting breaking of lefty ranks when the mansion tax absurdity looked like it might become reality, and various dopey showbiz types realised that Ed Balls actually did intend to rob their bank accounts, if given the chance. I’m pretty sure that the Guardian editorial conference finds someone like Dave far more congenial than they would ever admit to in print. However, none of these people would ever relinquish their right to complain in public but benefit in private.

You have to be nearly my age to remember the benefits that Thatcher provided for all of us, not just Tory voters. No-one would ever go back. The Guardian and the Mirror rapidly copied Murdoch’s new production techniques that lead to the famous Wapping strike. Everyone takes easy access to communications for granted – phone, post offices etc – believe me, it wasn’t like that in the 70’s. There are hundreds of practical, everyday examples.

The SNP are possibly the most hypocritical of them all. Here is the incisive Iain Martin, who understands the Nat psyche far better than most of the other London based hacks, on ‘Full Fiscal Autonomy‘:

If the Nationalists complained about getting such a deal, with full fiscal autonomy, because the collapse in the oil price will leave a massive black-hole in Scotland’s finances, there would then be the beautiful spectacle of the SNP complaining about the Westminster Tory-led government wanting to give the Scottish parliament too much power. In such circumstances, God help Scottish taxpayers.

It goes further. At every election/referendum there are always a few public figures so far up their own backsides that they issue proclamations about leaving the country if they don’t like the outcome. The most delicious of these is naturally Paul O’Grady.

This is a professional Scouser of limited talent, who made a fortune by playing a professional Scouser drag queen whilst tapping into the anti-Thatcher zeitgeist from 1978 onwards. He now doesn’t wear a dress, but the act is the same, and naturally, given he’s on the BBC a lot, he’s a publicly funded multimillionaire. As Paul said:

“I can’t live under this bloody Government any more. I am going to get a house on the Lido in Venice. I have paid a fortune in tax and I will say ‘you can have that mate’. What I am going to do in a house on the Lido in Venice when I can’t speak Italian and hate pasta, God only knows. But I can’t live under this Conservative Government, this Coalition. That is why we have to vote Labour, we have to get Ed in, we have to make changes.”

At the time of writing, he seems to still be here.

Similarly, as everyone knows, if you genuinely want to pay more tax, as opposed to lofty declarations about the desirability of such a course of action,  then HMRC will gladly accept your cheque. I’m making enquiries, but it seems that the anticipated flow of money from North London to the Treasury has yet to start.

Really, all these idiots should publicly thank all the voters who stopped Miliband et al getting in, because  they are the major beneficiaries. And in their heart of hearts, they know it.

O'Grady
O’Grady…
...and an airport.
…and an airport.

#indyref: Catalonia v Caledonia

In the Battle for Scotland, Prof Adam Tomkins of Glasgow University is one of the finest writers and campaigners. His latest post contains 5 reasons for not voting Yes and 5 reasons for voting No. I can see plenty of reasons for voting No, but I remain baffled as to why anyone would vote Yes, I mean, where is the great injustice driving the independence movement?

The renowned journalist Bryan Appleyard, on Twitter (@BryanAppleyard) today asks the old question , given the tightening of the polls:

If Scotland goes, can Catalunya be far behind?

Well The Knife has just been in Catalunya (or Catalonia), and not for the first time. Its history and culture are nicely summarised in Robert Hughes book on Barcelona, which I had with me. The Catalan independence movement is undoubtedly interested in the Scottish referendum, and there is the very big stumbling block of a Spanish veto on Scotland entering the EU, should Yes be the outcome. One of the many things that Eck and his mates routinely ignore.

Here is my comparison of the two:

*
*

I honestly don’t get it. There is no intellectual justification for Scottish independence. Oppression has never happened. The emotional hype is the thing that’s driving all this, and that’s based on an unpromising mixture of myth and chippy resentfulness. The idea that Scotland is a victim of injustice is laughable, particularly when you review the still working Barnett Formula  (yet another thing for which Eck has no answer). As someone with an intimate knowledge of the not-at-risk NHS, I can tell you that the Scottish government continues to spend money hand over fist on clinically unnecessary schemes, mainly because of the Barnett uplift, and completely contrary to what Eck is claiming. In all this, my main argument is about the principle, not the associated staggeringly important question of whether the SNP could govern competently without their safety net.

All their lives the current SNP lot have known only relative prosperity in Scotland, though it won’t be portrayed as that. A Catalan of today might have had an uncle or grandfather or brother killed by Franco, a Scot will only have known civil peace, or had a comrade in arms from elsewhere in the UK in the various conflicts of the last 80 years.

So, Catalonia I get, and I well remember the outbreak of freedom after the death of the Soviet Union. Independence movements do often have a noble history.

This one doesn’t.

My homage to Catalonia ~ Montserrat (click to enlarge)
My homage to Catalonia ~ Montserrat (click to enlarge)

ISIS/IS/ISIL: revenge of the nerds

This one's a Saudi, but you get the picture
This one’s a Saudi, but you get the picture

If there are really 500 IS jihadis of British origin roaming around Iraq being supertough, then I think I’ve met some of the prototypes.

More than three years ago I did a post highlighting the problems women can face in the Islamic world ( nothing too original, beyond the still incredible fact that Jack Straw was correct for once in his political career). It included the lines:

The Muslim lads, mostly Pakistani, but not exclusively so, all tended to hang around together. Very few had girlfriends, and conversation – without the excuse of booze – would often revolve around women. The discussions would have rapidly turned Polly Toynbee and Germaine Greer to violence.

Women were routinely referred to as ‘slags’ and the like, with their main function being sexual.  Insight into female psychology was absent, and was often along the lines of  “she’s gagging for it” etc etc. The men very rarely had friendly chat with women, it just didn’t happen. When I asked a muslim friend why they all went on like this, he candidly explained that they were all expecting arranged marriages, dating was frowned upon, and because they were medics, they knew that they’d be offered physically attractive intelligent wives. They couldn’t be bothered getting to know the women as friends, and  it was all “a bit of fun”.

Porn was popular though. One of The Knife’s acquaintances worked in Quetta, Pakistan in a Red Cross hospital in the nineties. He routinely treated badly injured Taliban from Afghanistan civil conflicts. Many of them, young lads, who’d been closing down girls schools etc the week before, would head into the bazaar as soon as they could,  to catch up on hardcore porn. Once they had fully recovered, off they went on their religious mission.

That was true then, and I suspect it’s true now, though shaking off the shackles of a culture** which intentionally separates men and women is one of the ways forward in our multicultural society.

Similarly, I had a Libyan colleague who made disastrous attempts, in his mid thirties, to talk to women staff in a romantic way. One week he went off to Libya and secretly got married. It lasted a week (divorce being relatively easy in that society), and the bride’s family declared their intention to kill him for the dishonour. When he reappeared he became a wannabe jihadi, assuring me of Bin Laden’s greatness, and in a typically confused way, conceded that the victims of 9/11 were innocent, but still deserved to die “because they were Americans”. As is usually the case, he wanted to stay here, Libya wasn’t for him.

The hopelessly crap Glasgow Airport medical bombers were cut from the same cloth. So is this guy (worth reading as it pretty much backs up the above).

So, when you’ve been brought up in this stifling misogynistic way, when you’re a bit hormonal, when the groomers at the mosque begin to turn their attention to you, a possibly one way trip to Syria and Iraq is your ticket to being a man.

Holding a severed head is not too difficult – I’ve done it a few times myself – but sawing it off a struggling victim requires a previously unplumbed depth of amorality and a deliberate suppression of humanity that is what makes these idiots dangerous. They have little physical prowess, their martial feats are based on the fact that they have thus far encountered almost no resistance, and normal people in any society find the thought of being beheaded, stoned and crucified terrifying.

All this will change if the confused wimpiness of Obama and Dave begins to coalesce into something more than ASBO’s, as it will. No doubt there is a huge amount of intelligence, planning and so on going on right now, but it frequently seems that certain journalists are way ahead of politicians in this sphere. I quoted in full Brendan O’Neill’s magnificent overview  of the problem of Islamic terrorism last year, and that was before the rise of the current ISIS lot. O’Neill, and his colleague at Spiked, Frank Furedi, continue to provide a lot of sensible analysis on these issues.

In the meantime, no-one should think of these British jihadis as tough, fearless or principled.

They are the Islamic Inbetweeners gone wrong.

 

**One of the finest and funniest journalists ever, Mark Steyn, offers this complementary take

 

Planet Ed

Terry
Terry

Damian Thompson recently compared Ed Miliband to Smiffy, from the Bash Street Kids. I have to say that it is uncanny how he meets the Beano’s own description of Smiffy (“not exactly the brightest kid around”).

I quote their website:

Smiffy’s as bright as a coalmine at midnight

Smiffy sees things in his own unique way and that means sometimes people think he gets things wrong….that’s because he really does get things wrong. Quite a lot!

But he’s happy in his own little world! ‘Planet Smiffy’ is probably a strange (but nice) place to live!

Sadly it rings true, despite Ed’s plaintive request to be considered ‘more intellectually confident’ than Dave.  That didn’t work out.

Ed
Ed

However, back in 2010 The Knife identified Ed more closely with another comic character, Viz’s Terry F***witt.

Consider this:

(His) regrettable flaw is that he continuously mistakes situations, objects and people for things they are not. He is cross-eyed and has wirey black hair in a style resembling dreadlocks, and wears outdated 70s platform shoes. …. He lives with his parents, both of whom despair at his stupidity, and often make unsuccessful attempts to get rid of him. In one strip he responds to an employment advert that states, “C*** Wanted”. Upon realising that he has done something stupid, Terrence usually exclaims, correctly, that he has “shit for brains”.

To be fair, Ed doesn’t have dreadlocks.

Smiffy: I'm sure of this one
Smiffy, I’m sure of this one

 

 

 

Why are these thieving thieves trying to thieve from me?

This article, by Andrew Lilico, is so good it should be a mandatory read for any school pupil studying economics, philosophy, history, politics, sociology, psychology, the lot. It cuts to the very heart of nearly all political debate and manoeuvring in the UK (and elsewhere).

It’s not a long piece, and I’ve just pinched the first couple of paragraphs for an accurate taste of Lilico’s clear-sighted argument:

It appears to be all the rage to have opinions about how wealth is distributed, debating for example whether billionaires should ‘get to keep’ their money. I consider that impertinent, offensive and sinister.

Your wealth (and note carefully that I am discussing wealth, not income here – the issues with income are slightly different) is your property. Property is private. Your house, your car, your TV, your share portfolio – they are yours, just as much as your hair or your intelligence or your skill at tennis are yours. Suppose someone said: “I believe the distribution of hair is unfair, so we are going to take some of your hair away.’ You would think that a monstrous violation of your personal liberty, of your privacy. But would it really be any different if someone said: ‘The distribution of toys is unfair, so we are taking some of your children’s toys away’ or ‘The distribution of televisions is unfair, so we are confiscating yours’?

This is not really party political, as they all get this fundamental issue wrong at times, but clearly Ed Miliband’s entire economic policy, if you can call it that, is based on taking other people’s wealth, and the Lib Dem’s ludicrous ‘mansion tax’ is another fine example.

Where do we get these people from?

They used to hang you for robbery in this country
They used to hang you for robbery in this country

Climate change: “the science is settled” (1)

...ahem
…ahem

Doctors don’t always make good scientists, but we all receive training in scientific methodology. We can all critique a published paper, we understand peer review and why it matters.

So, here’s a scenario for a study.

We have to have a hypothesis. It’s that prawn cocktail crisps kill you.

We have to have a clearly identifiable and important outcome. In this case it’s easy: death

We set ourselves a timescale, say 5 years, and measure all the crisps eaten by our study population.

Then we wait for them to die.

However, after 5 years, there are no deaths, despite gorging on crisps. What must we reasonably conclude?

The obvious answer is that there’s no problem with the crisps. It’s possible, though highly unlikely, that we didn’t study for long enough, but we can extend the trial, no problem.

What we cannot sensibly conclude, is that the crisps are indeed dangerous, but in ways that we can’t explain or justify. We  likewise cannot mount a campaign to ban these tasty snacks on the basis of our study. Remember that it was us who selected both the hypothesis and the outcome measure, no-one forced them upon us. If we did continue to claim that the crisps were a lethal problem, then we would be widely – and rightly – derided and mocked. Our credibility would be shot.

This slightly silly scenario has just unfolded before us in another guise. No prizes for guessing that it’s climate change.

The chosen outcomes have been no snow, or melted ice caps, though there are lots of others to choose from. At least those two are easy to observe. It was Al “crazed sex poodle” Gore (and many others) who predicted the melted ice caps, within 5 years (5 years ago), and the fantastically hubristic Dr David Viner of the entirely dodgy (on many levels) University of East Anglia famously claimed  ‘within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is’.

Neither of these clowns felt the need to say that ‘climate is not the same as weather’, so sure were they.

So, when Dave emerges  with no proof whatsoever, and:

The prime minister told MPs that there were more “abnormal” weather events occurring and he “suspected” they were linked to global temperature changes.

…and when the leader of the bad climate science brigade turns obsessively litigious, and Arctic and Antarctic ice fail to melt, and in fact increase, and when countries don’t disappear due to non-existent rising sea levels…..

…then we’re all entitled to look at the lack of evidence, and the absurd obfuscations and inventions that inevitably follow it, from the climate changers, and draw our own conclusions.

As good scientists should.

The Maldives: stubbornly dry
The Maldives: stubbornly dry