AnthonyM

general sceptic, atheist, and capitalist

[AnthonyM @anthonymca]

@Lordflashh3art @angelma6644 @campbellclaret Try The Oriental Club (London) curries. Tip top. End shitty Ruby misery 😋

[AnthonyM @anthonymca]

@Lordflashh3art Your eloquent and effusive promotion of the British Sunday roast, inspires all carnivores and rightly shames vegans. We strive to perfect this magnificent and deceptively complex dish. Salute!

[Hugh Osmond @hughosmond]

The historic planetary records show unequivocally that the earth's climate has fluctuated throughout its history. Sometimes this has been slow - a few degrees over thousands of years, sometimes very fast - 10° or more over a few decades.

There is little or no evidence that any of the major climate fluctuations over hundreds of millions of years have been driven by changes in CO2 levels.

There is of course absolutely no evidence that past climate fluctuations were driven by humans.

So, to be crystal clear, there is no evidence in the planetary records that support the current CO2 warming hypothesis.

So this is where the facts end and the theories and guesswork start.

Well-understood physical principles do suggest that, if there were no other variables, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 250 parts per million to 500 ppm would lead to roughly a 1° rise in average temperatures, which is not very serious for anything. A further doubling to 1,000 ppm would at most lead to a further 1° change, probably less. CO2 increases on their own are therefore no cause for concern.

The climate models therefore depend, not primarily on the effect of CO2 on its own, but on secondary effects that amplify the warming . Principal amongst these is the proposal that a warmer atmosphere means higher water vapour content and that water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas (generating so called positive feedback).

The problem with this proposal is that it is pure lab-based theory with absolutely zero supporting evidence.

First, there is no evidence in planetary records that when CO2 has been much higher than today, it has led to this feedback loop and resulting runaway warming.

Secondly, there is no evidence in recent times of any of the changes in the hydrological cycle that would be observed if the theory is correct.

Thirdly, a major factor that is currently completely incapable of accurate modelling is cloud behaviour. Clouds, depending on type, location, timing etc., can result in substantial warming or cooling, but, overall, normally cooling. So while water vapour as a gas can be warming, condensed water droplets are generally cooling.

Net net, there is no evidence that the warming amplification by H2O and resulting feedback actually happens.

Finally, as mentioned at the start, the entire theory of CO2 driven climate change assumes that no other important and highly variable climate drivers actually vary, such as

- incoming solar energy
- the natural carbon cycle (which pumps around 30x human CO2 emissions into the atmosphere every year)
- volcanic activity and other geological changes
- non-CO2 driven changes to the hydrological cycle
- poorly understood changes in ocean currents and flows
- human generated and other aerosols

Each of these factors on its own can potentially have much bigger impact than a doubling of CO2 and historically have regularly done so.

In summary, CO2 driven climate change of the magnitude being forecast is a wholly unsubstantiated theory that is not consistent with any factual evidence.

[Hugh Osmond @hughosmond]

If climate change were science, the link between current climate behaviour and man-made CO2 would be tested on the null-hypothesis basis. I.e that there is no link unless proved otherwise. So:

Q: based on the last billion years or so of sediment and other planetary records, is it certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that recent climate trends are so different from previous climate behaviour, that they can only be explained by man-made CO2?

A: obviously not. The climate has varied massively over past periods before humans existed. So no it cannot be certain.

Q: is it certain beyond reasonable doubt that human emissions of CO2 are responsible for the increase in its percentage in the atmosphere from 0.03 to 0.04?

A: obviously not. Humans are only responsible for a small fraction of total planetary CO2 emissions and historically the CO2 percentage has often been far higher, again before humans existed. So no it cannot be certain.

Q: is it certain beyond reasonable doubt that an increase of CO2 of 0.01% has had significant effect on global temperatures?

A: obviously not. Historically temperatures have often been lower when CO2 has been higher and higher when it has been lower. Plus CO2 is a far less important greenhouse gas than H2O (both as gas and droplets). So no, it cannot be certain.

Q: in summary, is it certain beyond reasonable doubt that there are there no other factors apart from human CO2 emissions that can explain recent climate behaviour

A: obviously not, there are dozens of other important factors that affect climate and anyway, the recent climate has not been unusual by long term historical standards. So no it cannot be certain.

Null hypothesis stands.

[Ben Habib @benhabib6]

Over 5 million migrants (8% of our population) have come to the UK over the last 5 years.

No economy or culture could survive such a dramatic rate of change.

Economically, culturally and constitutionally the UK is being extinguished

👇🏼👇🏼👇🏼 https://t.co/0JtcuUJQc3

[AnthonyM @anthonymca]

@JuliaHB1 Unequivocally yes. Journalists are free to interview whoever they want whether we agree with the journalist or interviewee. Light and air all the time.

[Konstantin Kisin @KonstantinKisin]

If politicians put half the energy they've devoted to suiciding our economy through the ritual sacrifice they call "net zero" into securing the border and removing foreign criminals, we might not be the acid attack capital of the world.

Anyway, back to appeasing little Greta.

[Douglas Murray @DouglasKMurray]

To all the morons and Hamas-niks on the streets of London today. Hamas has been offered a ceasefire and has rejected it. So if you want to call for a ceasefire, tell your terrorist friends to accept one. And to hand back the hostages. Simples.

[Konstantin Kisin @KonstantinKisin]

I don't think it's possible to sum up the state of Britain better than the fact that an MP has decided to leave politics because of death threats from Islamist extremists and his colleagues' reaction is to ignore it and instead claim "MPs must be nicer to each other", while an illegal immigrant who commits sex offences in the UK is given asylum after two failed applications (why wasn't he removed after the first two and/or after his conviction?) and goes to on brutally assault a mother and her young daughter with acid and the reaction from "feminists" is go on TV to talk about microaggressions.

I try very hard not to harbour hate in my heart for anyone but I truly and deeply HATE these people.

I hate the lying cowards who watched their colleague, Sir David Amess, be murdered by an Islamist extremist and responded by talking about "online hate" as if he'd been murdered by a tweet.

I hate the people who allow our country to be taken advantage of by violent scum who should never have been here.

I hate the people who are too weak and too soft to protect their fellow citizens after being elected to do so.

Truth be told, I hate them even more than I hate the terrorists, extremists and foreign criminals who take advantage of them and (because of them) of us.

Because the terrorists, extremists and terrorists are what they are. But these people know what's going on and are just too pathetic and cowardly to do anything about it.

A plague on all their houses.

[AnthonyM @anthonymca]

@leeharris @Madz_Grant Was he playing Chopsticks?

[AnthonyM @anthonymca]

@LanceForman The best smoked salmon, looking forward to receiving my order

[AnthonyM @anthonymca]

@LanceForman No greater privilege than being with a parent at the end. Comforting for both. Condolences

[Alan @A1an_M]

Thinking back to the beginning of the lockdowns in 2020 and the desperate days where it felt like I might be the only person in the world who thought it was all nonsense, there were a few people who I encountered online who were instrumental in sharing sceptical information and flying the flag for actual science.
🏅@toadmeister for setting up https://t.co/Ch4ULDN6x2, one of the few places where sceptics could gather online, share information, debate, and get organised.
🏅Mike Yeadon, scientist with unimpeachable credentials, who is sadly not on Twitter but was a key contributor to LockdownSceptics and outspoken in his criticism of the lockdowns and latterly the vaccines
🏅@FatEmperor whose ruthless focus on the data provided the context and reality check the mainstream media failed to do
🏅@carlheneghan whose Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine was quick to spot some of the statistical trickery being employed by the government to exaggerate the seriousness of the "pandemic"
🏅@TheConWom from the early stages published sceptical articles and continues to do so
As time went on there were numerous others, but these five were probably instrumental in keeping my hope alive in the early days and helping me realise that I wasn't going mad: the government, media and public health "experts" were.
Who were the key people for you in early 2020?

[June Slater @juneslater17]

There is a way out of the parliamentary strangle hold.

Switzerland rules with direct democracy. Each quarter the main topics of legislation are voted on by the public in referendum style.
People tend to associate referendums with huge costs, but that's because we've only had them on huge issues, like Brexit and Scottish Independence, not everyday legislation like THE Energy Bill.
We THE PEOPLE are the employer of these arrogant MPs who are all in the starting blocks to take more instruction from The WEF, than the people. Starmer even said so in an interview.
Because you can get things done, that's what he said..The problem for him is Westminster, because it involves, or should involve the will of the people. We are what gets in the way! We should do!
Referendums here were handled much like General Elections, The Brexit Bus, Cameron spending 10 million on a Remainer leaflet drop, but it doesn't have to be that way.
It isn't that way in Switzerland. It's just a normal quarterly activity, where the electorate is fully engaged.
Imagine a UGove Referendum on The Energy Bill, it would fail !
Imagine a public referendums on ULEZ..it would fail and it would have been held BEFORE the expense of the cameras.
This is the way out of this appalling blind deaf dumb parliament that isn't even listening anymore
@hughosmond

[Hugh Osmond @hughosmond]

Sweden's no lockdown policy was a success; the Maldives are not underwater; UK GDP and £ have not plummeted after Brexit; unvaccinated communities did not all die of Covid. The fear-mongers have consistently been wrong.

[AnthonyM @anthonymca]

@LeAdderNoire @GBNEWS @SkyNews Scorchio scorchio 🤣

[AnthonyM @anthonymca]

@LeAdderNoire He could have asked him where they buried Shergar?

[Latimer Alder @latimeralder]

'Nobody wants to confront the truth about LockDown'

I do

It was a Self-inflicted Catastrophe

An educational, societal, economic and medical disaster

Made by 'leaders' who just panicked in face of some dodgy TV pictures

And I said so at the time

https://t.co/SENnKEnUP8

[Richard Taylor Coracle maker🌸 @Richard50336211]

@latimeralder Tomorrow marks three years since lockdown began. In commemoration of the event I am going to build a bog roll fort, bang some pots and pans whilst wearing a surgical mask and go for a walk of Curbar Edge in the hope of being chased by police drones.

[Lord of Adders Black @LeAdderNoire]

This is totally brilliant. Worth your time.