Funky Munky

POLITICALLY HOMELESS AGAIN!
Here for truth and reality
Keep women's sport/spaces for FEMALES only
Don't tell me your pronouns AIDGAS

[Funky Munky @FunkyMunky29491]

OK I've had enough. If you think "chemtrails" are real PLEASE do not follow me. If you think we are being "sprayed" and I have followed you, my apologies, please unfollow me and block me as I really cannot take any more of this insanity.

[Funky Munky @FunkyMunky29491]

@JamesP728 Weirdly better off. Currently pay £2604. House value £380k so would be paying £1920.
Still think the idea sucks as it doesn't take account of house price variance, doesn't represent actual council service usage and bears no relationship to ability to pay.

[Funky Munky @FunkyMunky29491]

RIP Kevin Keegan, how I will remember you, from my childhood.

[Funky Munky @FunkyMunky29491]

@Artemisfornow The argument that someone else is paying for it does not hold water. You went to a school paid for by someone else. You drive on roads paid for by someone else. A better economic plan, like drastically cutting spending and reducing taxes would allow us to pay for it now.

[Funky Munky @FunkyMunky29491]

@Artemisfornow I've not asked everyone in the country so I cannot affirm their economic literacy level, but there is enough money to fund those essential things and for those who cannot work past 65 due to manually intensive jobs deserve a pension they have paid into.

[Funky Munky @FunkyMunky29491]

@LesTwigg @afneil They now add them all into one big spreadsheet, https://t.co/fPdWOKj0HM Mar 2026 was the last dump.

[Funky Munky @FunkyMunky29491]

@FamersDog The guy is a no nothing retard. He spouts bull💩 as if it were truth and sad, lonely, brain dead people believe him.

[Funky Munky @FunkyMunky29491]

@MikeTappTweets More misinformation from this Labour Government.
Mike doesn't understand maths, like all the commie retards in Liebour.

[Funky Munky @FunkyMunky29491]

Another retard post from Restore, I'm losing faith with you guys. You know the UK law means they are legally obliged to provide translations in written format so how much of this is that? Do you think attacking Reform will get you their supporters? I like Rupert, but just stop.

[Restore Britain @RestoreBritain]

Lancashire County Council, controlled by Reform.

How much are they spending on foreign language translation?

A Restore Britain investigation has revealed the answer...

A LOT.

In 25/26, the Reform council spent £401,356 on 'interpretation and translation expenditure'.

That's up from £260,618 spent in 21/22.

Not only that, but £194,597 spent through the delivery of the Refugee Resettlement Commitment.

The top ten most-translated languages in 25/26 by the Reform council were as follows:

Arabic
Urdu
Dari
Polish
Punjabi
Pashtu
Kurdish / Kurdish Sorani
Romanian
Somali
Bengali

There is no legal obligation to do any of this.

A Written Ministerial Statement to Parliament stated the following about the Equalities Act...

'this is not a legal duty to translate documents into foreign languages.'

A Restore Britain Government would scrap ALL foreign language translation/interpretation.

You live in England, you speak English.

[Justin T. Haskins @JustinTHaskins]

The weather is getting warmer and climate alarmists are once again starting to scream about how climate change is causing heat waves to become more frequent and extreme.

But what does the data show? Facts are stubborn things.

[Funky Munky @FunkyMunky29491]

@psyberdog32096 @JoanneEne The ONLY chance for a Restore win is to attack the left and get out those people who no longer vote, as they see it as pointless. Then if you have half a chance Reform voters may hold their nose and lend you their vote.

[Funky Munky @FunkyMunky29491]

@psyberdog32096 @JoanneEne Yep, the ONLY way to get a right of centre Government is to tactically vote. Like the left do, re Makerfield. The "vote for the one you believe in" will bring more shit raining down on us. Restore attacking reform voters means they won't ever vote for you and you'll never win.

[Funky Munky @FunkyMunky29491]

@psyberdog32096 @JoanneEne Read my post FFS and answer the question.

[Funky Munky @FunkyMunky29491]

@psyberdog32096 @JoanneEne Tell me when I've had an opportunity to vote Restore? I don't live in Makerfield. So if you are on the right the ONLY option has been Reform. Retard posts like this put me off voting for Restore.
Joanna I may not agree with all your post but it does resonate hard.

[Funky Munky @FunkyMunky29491]

@VigilantFox This guy is NOT a scientist but a journalist. He states there is no evidence Vit D supplementation works yet there is. Jamie should have fact checked him much more.
https://t.co/cw69dN5XMe

[Funky Munky @FunkyMunky29491]

@LozzaFox "Vote for who you want".
As I see it there are 3 options:
1. Vote for the shit sandwich we are currently being forced to eat.
2. Vote for an Ice cream, and you'll likely get it.
3. Vote for the Ice cream with sprinkles and sauce and you'll get the shit sandwich.

[Funky Munky @FunkyMunky29491]

@virtusnobilitas @ambrosecarol2 @UpdatingOnRome Dude stick to French your English is shit. You obviously now fuck all about history, your own country is named after German tribes your DNA will be cat. Now do one.

[Funky Munky @FunkyMunky29491]

@virtusnobilitas @ambrosecarol2 @UpdatingOnRome

[Funky Munky @FunkyMunky29491]

Bravo.👏👏👏 Someone actually "doing" science for a change.

[Alan @A1an_M]

I spent a large part of yesterday trying to explain to people who supposedly are proponents of science what a "confounding variable" is.

Rather than say the same thing again today to about 100 people in about 100 different replies, I'm going to write it all in one place, here.

When scientists do science, in the form of an experiment or study, they will ultimately write it up in a standard report format containing the same sections:

Abstract
Introduction
Method
Results
Discussion
References

One of the most important aspects of the Discussion is a critical analysis of what was done. What went well, what could have been done better, what should be done next time. In particular, the authors attempt to identify if there are any "confounders" which may have influenced the results and rendered them invalid.

Let's take the example of a medicine in a clinical trial. We might, if we are ethical scientists, want to study whether a particular medicine causes adverse effects to those taking it before letting it loose in the wild. So we might recruit some people for a trial, and divide them into two groups. The first receives the actual medicine, the second receives a placebo. We might then monitor the recruits for a few months (or, preferably, a much longer period) on a daily basis and note any illnesses suffered in both groups.

We would then do a statistical analysis on the results from the two groups. If the results of that analysis showed that there was no statistical difference in the levels and types of illness suffered in the two groups, we might then conclude that no adverse effects were caused by the medicine. If, on the other hand, there was a significant difference between the two groups, that would point towards the need for further study and might lead us to conclude that the medicine was the cause of the difference.

The key thing here with our experimental design is that we want to make sure that the two groups in the study - the experimental group who receive the medicine and the control group who do not - are, in every other way, identical. Because if they're not, those differences might have caused the effect we observed, rather than the differences we created in our experiment.

What factors might make these two groups different?

1. Age differences. If one group was older, we might expect they might suffer more illness than the younger group.
2. Gender. Dependent on the medicine, males or females might be more affected. If the groups weren't balanced for gender, this might distort the reported illness results.
3. Health differences. If one group had poorer general health than the other at the beginning of the trial, we might expect them to report more illness during the trial.

These are all examples of "confounding variables". Factors which we did not control but which might influence the outcome and render our results invalid.

So in our experimental design we would want to make sure the experimental group and the control group are closely matched for age, gender and health status.

Which brings me onto climate change.

Climate scientists contend that Carbon Dioxide created by human activity in the industrial age is causing global atmospheric temperatures to increase.

As evidence, they point to an increase in global atmospheric temperatures over the last 200 years or so.

So far so good. Temperatures have, broadly, risen during that time. There are plenty of other things to criticise about this hypothesis and about climate "science" in general but that is for another time.

Yesterday we saw, all over the media, headlines about new record May temperatures of 35 degrees at Kew and Heathrow, and below the headlines was text saying that experts were saying this was another example of evidence of how the climate is warming.

Now I don't deny that it's been hot the last couple of days - where I am it has been around 32 degrees - so I don't doubt that the May record may have been broken somewhere in the country.

But the specific problem I have is with the temperatures at Heathrow and Kew, or indeed anywhere close to London or a big urban area being used as the evidence that the May record has been broken,or that they are evidence of atmospheric warming.

Why? Because of a confounding variable.

When we say a temperature record has been broken, we need to make sure we are comparing apples with apples. So not only do we need to compare temperatures that were measured in the same site using the same type of equipment in both instances - we need to make sure that the sites themselves have not changed.

We know that modern urban areas create a "heat island" effect. The expanses of heat-retaining materials like concrete, asphalt and cement retain heat during the day and release it slowly overnight, leading to higher daytime and nighttime temperatures. Added to which are the many buildings and vehicles in urban areas generating their own heat. All of this means that temperatures in, or close to, an urban area are typically several degrees warmer than in countryside some distance away.

Given the expansion and urbanisation of London over the last century, this effect will only have grown over time.

Arup measured this effect in London and concluded that temperatures there are often 4.5 degrees hotter than in the surrounding countryside (see first comment for link).

This effect obviously varies between different parts of London, as shown on the heat map, and reduces as you move away from central London, but even at Kew, the effect is estimated to cause temperatures to be 0.9 degrees higher than would be the case if Kew was sited in the countryside.

And Heathrow clearly creates its own heat island effect given the scale of the airport and the big expanses of heat absorbing materials there.

So if we are going to use temperatures measured in, or close to, London as evidence of atmospheric warming, we have a problem. We have a significant confounding variable. The warming caused by the heat island effect is going to add to any warming in the atmosphere, and give us an exaggerated result.

You can perhaps forgive tabloid newspapers for running headlines about this, just quoting the raw temperatures measured. They want to make money and it being very hot outside is a great news story. And urban areas becoming increasingly hot in summer is an issue in its own right.

But what is unforgiveable is people who claim to be scientists using these measurements as evidence of atmospheric warming, when there's such a glaring confounding variable influencing the data.

How would a proper scientist deal with this confounder?

Well, they might say "from now on, we will only use temperatures from rural weather stations which are not subject to urban heat island effects, and we will only declare records on the basis of those measurements"

And they might say "we will not use temperature measurements from areas subject to urban heat island effects as evidence of atmospheric warming".

But the Met Office and the climate science people aren't saying that. They're going with the artificially inflated temperatures. Because they have an agenda to push, a vast Net Zero industry to sustain, research grants to chase, and any evidence, however shonky, which backs up the global warming narrative is welcome.

This isn't science!

[Funky Munky @FunkyMunky29491]

@labourpress Awesome, thanks for doing their PR.
Plus can you define FREE for me please, marxists like you seem to have a strange definition.

[Funky Munky @FunkyMunky29491]

@TorstenBell Ok Bellend, if you're so sure you're in the majority, resign your seat and call an election.