Rob Witten

Chief procrastinator at #home

[Rob Witten @robwitten]

@WeAreZizzi lovely food, however I won’t be using your restaurants until you start accepting cash, not accepting legal tender in my view should itself be illegal. Thanks but no thanks.

[Rupert Lowe MP @RupertLowe10]

I have tabled a motion in Parliament calling on the Government to urgently release all relevant information about the arrested Sudanese man.

Immigration history. Religion. Asylum status. Criminal record. All MPs have been invited to sign.

Tell the British people the truth.

[Andrew Bridgen @ABridgen]

Watch this clip to see why Governments insisted you were classed ‘unvaccinated’ for 14 days after the Covid shot.
This lady’s son was initially classed as an ‘unvaccinated death’ as were 98% of the immediate deaths from the ‘safe and effective vaccines’
They knew they would kill

[John Cleese @JohnCleese]

Criticising Islam is within the British tradition of people
discussing the merits of religions, and I can scarcely believe that some faceless authoritarian should be allowed to punish a person for doing so

Should I expect to be punished for Life of Brian ?

Absolutely disgraceful

[Bernie @Artemisfornow]

If you think 18,000 supermarket job losses is bad, you aren’t paying attention

Since Labour came to power in 2024
▪️400,000 payroll jobs have gone
▪️155,000 fewer jobs vacant
▪️163,000 jobs to be lost in 2026
▪️1.7 MILLION now unemployed
▪️8.3 MILLION on UC

And rising 🔥

[Andrew Bridgen @ABridgen]

This is a major signal.

The United Nations has scrapped its “worst‑case” climate scenario.

The climate hoax is officially dead.

Our children are still being indoctrinated with this damaging nonsense in school - it’s a form of child abuse.
Please watch and share

[Save Europe Act @SaveEuropeAct]

30.000 signatures for the Save Europe Act! We are coming closer to our goal within hours!

Thanks to everyone for signing and sharing the intitaive.

[Andrew Bridgen @ABridgen]

Even the UN has now admitted its dire climate predictions were false.The Climate alarmists should be held to account. Ed Miliband’s ludicrous Net Zero plans are ruining our economy and making people poorer, colder and less free. Our children are still be indoctrinated in school !

[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!

[Ricardo @Ric_RTP]

Microsoft just banned its own engineers from using AI.

The tool was literally costing MORE than the humans it was supposed to replace.

They lied to you about AI adoption and now the whole narrative is blowing up:

Microsoft gave thousands of engineers access to Claude Code six months ago and encouraged them to use it.

Engineers loved it and adoption exploded. But then the invoices arrived.

Token-based pricing means every query, every code review, every debugging session costs money. At scale across 100,000 engineers, the numbers became so large that Microsoft issued an internal order to cancel nearly all Claude Code licenses by end of June and force everyone onto their own cheaper tool instead.

The company that invested $5 billion in Anthropic just told its own people to stop using Anthropic's product because it costs too much.

Uber's story is even worse...

Their CTO Praveen Neppalli Naga told The Information that the budget he planned for the full year was "blown away already" by April.

Uber had rolled out Claude Code in December 2025. By March, 84% of their 5,000 engineers were using it with 70% of all committed code coming from AI systems.

Heavy users were burning $500 to $2,000 per month each. Naga himself spent $1,200 in a single two-hour demo session.

The company had even built internal leaderboards ranking engineers by how much AI they used. They literally gamified the spending and then ran out of money.

Now look at what Nvidia's own VP of applied deep learning Bryan Catanzaro said to Axios last month. Direct quote:

"For my team, the cost of compute is far beyond the costs of the employees."

This is a VP at the company that SELLS the chips saying that using AI is more expensive than paying humans.

Think about what this means for the entire AI narrative.

Every CEO on every earnings call for the past two years has said the same thing:

AI will make us more efficient, reduce headcount, and cut costs.

The stock market rewarded every company that said it.

Fired workers, stock goes up. Announced AI adoption, stock goes up.

But the actual companies deploying AI at scale are discovering the math doesn't work. The MORE employees use AI, the HIGHER the bill.

Goldman Sachs forecasts a 24x increase in token consumption by 2030 as companies adopt AI agents. Gartner just published a report showing that even though individual token prices will drop 90% by 2030, total enterprise AI costs will go UP because agents consume exponentially more tokens per task than basic tools.

Meta built an internal dashboard called "Claudeonomics" to track which employees use the most AI. Amazon started pushing engineers to "tokenmaxx," their internal term for consuming as many AI tokens as possible.

Both companies are spending hundreds of billions on AI infrastructure this year alone.

And Microsoft, the company that bet its entire future on AI, just told 100,000 engineers to stop using the tool they liked best because the per-token bills got out of control.

The companies building AI are telling investors it saves money. The companies using AI are finding out it costs more than the humans it was supposed to replace. And even the company that makes the chips just admitted it through its own VP.

This is the gap nobody on Wall Street is pricing in.

$725 billion in AI infrastructure spending this year across Big Tech. And the first companies to actually deploy these tools at scale are already pulling back because the economics don't work.

What do you think?

[Liz Gunn @LizGunnNZ]

"Through freedom of information (FOI), they've actually found out that there was an order, a diktat from Westminster, given out to all the police forces in the UK 🇬🇧 that NO police investigations were to be carried out into any allegations of crimes committed by the state doctors or anybody else during Covid.

I mean, murdering someone during the pandemic and saying it was to do with Covid would be a brilliant cover because the police were banned from investigating it!

It's against the police oath, the policing code of conduct and oath, when a member of the public comes in and says: "I want to report a crime" - for them NOT to investigate it.

That's a deviation from their duties...

Now, if there really was, you know, no crimes committed by the state against the people during Covid, why wouldn't you let the police investigate it and find there's nothing to answer rather than banning them from investigating? 🤔

The only reason you needed to ban them from investigating is because there was something to answer, wasn't there?"

– Andrew Bridgen @ABridgen

[Rob Witten @robwitten]

@taraheritage @Artemisfornow I like it, but this is AI generated in my view. Still correct.

[Liz Gunn @LizGunnNZ]

The most vaccinated place in the world is in Ireland.

It's a place called Waterford.

They had the highest vaccination rate in the world.

Then they suffered the highest Covid rate in Ireland.

And then they had the highest excess deaths.

The local health authority got an award from the World Health Organisation for the way they handled the pandemic.

They had the highest death rate, having had the highest vaccination rate. 85% excess deaths at one stage they were on.

– Andrew Bridgen @ABridgen

[Tommy Robinson 🇬🇧 @TRobinsonNewEra]

Imagine paying £10,000 a year to send your children to Oxford University and this is their lecturer.

Not even joking.

This is an actual lecturer at Oxford University in "Modern England".

[Andrew Zywiec, M.D. @AndrewZywiecMD]

There is no science that shows vaccines cause Autism ...except in these published studies which show vaccines cause Autism:

▪️ https://t.co/9PBis1NeN0

▪️ https://t.co/BnGp3LHpNY

▪️ https://t.co/GZg2u91uyH

▪️ https://t.co/HxyJhJ9eTU

▪️ https://t.co/UxGxKAQhcJ

▪️ https://t.co/pMF2i9yH4L

▪️ https://t.co/0gN0fSNtKK

▪️ https://t.co/d3fELVQ3bO

▪️ https://t.co/nerRN2PiFm

▪️ https://t.co/z3Jr3j1L4T

▪️ https://t.co/dfXwUj6L37

▪️ https://t.co/rsAb6yiTp6

▪️ https://t.co/T7FGd5W39O

▪️ https://t.co/WB7eA9gfwb

▪️ https://t.co/CIApYvYcxV

▪️ https://t.co/gVt803ebzu

▪️ https://t.co/8aif6nRsWz

▪️ https://t.co/g8R2I7z9Rb

▪️ https://t.co/Ou4Op0TVgP

Causal relationship between vaccine induced immunity and autism
▪️ https://t.co/cm2GtMLmYG

... and autism being listed in the inserts....