Steve Jay

Engineer.
Retweet etc ≠ endorsement.
I mute (and sometimes block) people who reply with ad hominems.

[Steve Jay @sxjay2]

“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.”

Richard Feynman

[Steve Jay @sxjay2]

@SVPhillimore And gender reassignment needs to be removed from the Equality Act.

[Steve Jay @sxjay2]

@GoreItsi98191 @Dailymeoww1 Mæw in Thai.

[Steve Jay @sxjay2]

@zatzi The same is true of the 2010-24 Conservatives.

[Gerald Posner @geraldposner]

You have not kept up with what has happened inside British policing in the wake of George Floyd. The Telegraph, GB News, and Spectator, among others, have explored in detail the “anti-racism,” unconscious bias, and DEI-style training that has flooded UK forces. Officers are drilled to “believe minorities,” avoid any perception of racism against ethnic groups (Sikhs in this case), and treat white victims as potential aggressors by default. Visible evidence — a knife attack, dying kid, attacker’s family hiding the weapon — took a back seat to the racism narrative from the “brown man.”

The facts of what happened that night are not contested: 18-year-old Henry Nowak was stabbed five times by 23-year-old Vickrum Digwa with a 21cm ceremonial knife. Nowak was bleeding out, had a blood trail showing he tried to flee, and repeatedly told arriving officers: “I’ve been stabbed… I can’t breathe” (said it 9 times).

Instead of immediate aid, officers — responding to a 999 call about a stabbing — handcuffed the dying teenager, treated him as the aggressor, and dismissed his pleas with lines like “I don’t think you have, mate.” They only gave proper first aid after he lost consciousness. Henry died at the scene from internal bleeding.

Digwa claimed Nowak had racially abused him, punched him, and knocked off his turban. That “wicked lie” was rejected at trial where Digwa was convicted of murder and given a life sentence with a minimum of 21 years.

This is the nightmare scenario of two-tier policing: training that inverts instincts and delays basic duties like first aid and scene assessment to protect institutional optics.

The Nowak family and public are now demanding answers. The Independent Office for Police Conduct is investigating, and police have apologized. But they still refuse to release the bodycam footage despite massive calls from MPs, ex-officers, and petitions.

Why the secrecy? Ongoing inquiry is the official excuse — but many suspect the video would expose exactly how DEI conditioning overrode common sense and basic humanity, creating a “George Floyd in reverse.”

A young man drowned in his own blood while officers prioritized narrative over evidence.

[Steve Jay @sxjay2]

@TheGhostSleepi1 Women can be front line police if they are armed.

[Steve Jay @sxjay2]

@thinkdefence I would put turboprop patrol/light attack aircraft to back up the P8s and for counter UAV ahead of GCAP.

[Steve Jay @sxjay2]

@thinkdefence 1. Base and critical infrastructure security (air and ground threats).
2. Nuclear deterence.
3. EEZ security.

[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!

[Steve Jay @sxjay2]

@thinkdefence As I read it, the $68M is for a lot more than 8 shelters.

c. 10% of the value of the aircraft for hardened facilities sounds reasonable.

[Steve Jay @sxjay2]

@BurnsideWasTosh @reformparty_uk And Dorries.

[Steve Jay @sxjay2]

@MCCCANM https://t.co/ovprPrgvqq

[The Spectator Index @spectatorindex]

Government debt as share of GDP

2000

🇩🇪 Germany: 59%
🇷🇺 Russia: 56%
🇺🇸 US: 54%
🇹🇷 Turkey: 51%
🇬🇧 UK: 37%

2026

🇺🇸 US: 126%
🇬🇧 UK: 103%
🇩🇪 Germany: 64%
🇹🇷 Turkey: 25%
🇷🇺 Russia: 19%

[Steve Jay @sxjay2]

@RobertJenrick Stupid gimmick. What is needed is a massive simplification of the tax code.

[Dan Burmawi @DanBurmawy]

Christians in Lebanon must separate and create their own state. Druze in Syria must separate and create their own state.

Southern Yemenis who do not want to be ruled by Islam must separate and create a new state. Somalilanders should do the same.

Jews in Israel did nothing wrong; they simply separated and created their own state, where they rule sovereignly.

[Migration Watch @MigrationWatch]

We commissioned independent pollsters JL Partners to survey 1,520 British adults on migration. What came back was one of the clearest statements of public opinion we have ever seen. Here is what the public told us 👇

[Burnside @BurnsideWasTosh]

If Labour want to show they're serious about rejoining the EU they can drop VAT from school fees and bring borrowing down below 3% of GDP.

[Steve Jay @sxjay2]

@canedeeman Manufacturing.

[Steve Jay @sxjay2]

@DailyMail Anybody who has ever made the slightest error on their tax return knew this.

[Liam Halligan @LiamHalligan]

It is reality - the reality this country is enduring due to governments of all colours borrowing far too much, egged on by a political and media class that thinks the answer to every problem is "more government spending"

So now, we are at the mercy of our creditors ... and we have no-one to blame but ourselves.

Beyond the rabble-rousing words, what are you actually proposing, Richard?

That we "abolish the bond markets"? Default on all our debts?

How would that work? How would that help provide better living standards? Or enhance our democracy?

[Steve Jay @sxjay2]

@NotFarLeftAtAll Johnson was an awful PM. Only Blair and Starmer are above him on my 'worst PMs of my lifetime' list.