Best interests of children and improving society one tweet at a time! Unite The Right! MBGA MAGA! 2+2=4. Reposting an article does not mean I agree with it.
Clacton Cambridge and Imperial
Joined March 2009
- Tweets26.9K
- Following9.3K
- Followers10.6K
- Likes3.9K
Pinned Tweet
And yet people keep voting for the Labour Party who caused the inflation rate to rise with absurd increases in government expenditure to redistribute to their mates overseas rather than investing in the UK. Disaster!
I now know that Yougov is overwhelmingly filled with loony lefties prejudicing the results of their surveys. In answer to how you feel about the USA mid-term election results - most people were 'Delighted'. God help America and the rest of the free world, they know not what they are doing.
Today's Yougov poll about poppies and Remembrance Day. Interesting so few people see this as a political issue.
I am🇬🇧 Retired Anti-Discrimination Lawyer retweeted
The chief benefit from rising atmospheric CO₂ levels is an undeniable increase in planetary green leaf cover, now clearly visible from space.
This fresh greening covers an area twice the size of the continental United States - yet it remains ignored by the institutional forces driving a narrative of climate emergency, and largely overlooked in the mainstream media.
Data from NASA’s MODIS satellite instruments tells the real story. Rather than triggering global collapse, the rise in CO₂ sparked a massive expansion in the green canopy, stimulating agricultural yields (some cereal crops up by 280%) and natural ecosystems alike. This 'CO₂ fertilisation effect' occurs as plants perform photosynthesis more efficiently while losing less water through their stomata.
Meanwhile, the global economy has been severely disrupted by a 40-year campaign built on forecasts of environmental doom from anthropogenic CO₂. This trace gas is not a climate control knob. It is the fundamental driver of biological photosynthesis and oxygen production.
These campaigns, led by UN activism, demand a rapid, forced transition away from hydrocarbon energy. Yet wind and solar cannot supply the dense baseload power required for steel production and heavy industry. Hydrocarbon fuels still provide 82% of global primary power.
This entire transition is justified under the warning that CO₂ emissions are leading the planet to the brink of catastrophe - with the total cost of this pointless pivot estimated at a staggering $275 trillion.
Earth's geological history, paired with empirical satellite data, reveal a completely different reality: CO₂ is a powerful agent of biological enrichment. Its capacity to drive runaway global warming faces steep, immovable physical limitations.
A critical pillar of atmospheric physics is how the warming effect of CO₂ continually reduces along a sliding logarithmic curve. The first 100 ppm of CO₂ exert the greatest impact on capturing outgoing infrared radiation. But as concentrations rise, absorption bands rapidly saturate. Each subsequent doubling of CO₂ yields an ever-smaller increment of radiative warmth.
The concept of a runaway warming feedback loop loses its theoretical foundation under actual atmospheric conditions, where the 'rate of warming' diminishes progressively. Yet this debunked narrative is routinely recycled to fuel panic.
Annual COP climate summits over the past thirty years also endlessly amplify this agenda of fear, functioning largely as high-end junkets for global elites.
In geological terms, atmospheric CO₂ is in long-term decline - a fact carefully airbrushed from IPCC worst-case scenarios. During the Cambrian period, atmospheric CO₂ peaked as high as 7,000 ppm. Even with those immense concentrations, there was no global boiling; instead, it marked the greatest explosion of biological diversity in Earth's history.
During the Last Glacial Maximum (26,000 to 19,000 years ago), CO₂ levels plummeted to roughly 180 ppm - dangerously close to the 150 ppm threshold below which most C3 plant life starves and dies. From a long-term evolutionary perspective, modern levels hovering above 420 ppm represent a vital, partial recovery from a geologically recent carbon drought, rather than a precursor to apocalypse.
Today’s global average temperature sits at approximately 15°C. In the context of the history of complex life on land, this is remarkably cold. Earth’s baseline historical temperature average was closer to 24°C, characterised by ice-free poles and expansive, highly productive ecosystems. Our current global average actually reflects a colder-than-average ice age regime.
Global climates are not controlled by trace gases. They are driven by massive, slow-moving astronomical, oceanic, and tectonic forces - such as Milankovitch orbital cycles or the shifting configuration of continents blocking equatorial ocean currents.
I am🇬🇧 Retired Anti-Discrimination Lawyer retweeted
This is a British village that refuses to allow Halal takeaway shops or anything foreign to open up.
They want to preserve their village and its history and heritage and I think that is brilliant and I wish more towns and villages would do the same as this one.
I am🇬🇧 Retired Anti-Discrimination Lawyer retweeted
My biggest concern is that if there is a clean sweep by Democrats of the House, Senate and Presidency in 2028, they will:
1. Make DC and Puerto Rico states to gain a strong majority in the Senate.
2. Open the borders and legalize everyone living in America illegally to cement a permanent majority.
3. Increase the size of the Supreme Court to gain an immediate majority.
This would result in America becoming a permanent one-party state and the end of democracy in any meaningful sense of the word.
All that is needed to ensure this doesn’t happen is 51 Republican senators in 2029. That is why you should vote for Republican senators this election. Other reasons are irrelevant compared to this one.
Glad to see that half of people refuse to have anything to do with Halloween.
As Christians, we should NOT be condoning activity attempting to glorify witchcraft.
Plus bad role model for kids to encourage them to threaten people to give them stuff.
I am🇬🇧 Retired Anti-Discrimination Lawyer retweeted
Dramatic predictions of a 5.5°C rise by 2100 are now dismissed as 'implausible' - and planet Earth is not even remotely facing runaway warming.
The United Nations warming scenario is now widely acknowledged by scientists as implausible. We also live within a cooler ice age regime that has lasted tens of millions of years. Global temperatures remain a full 9°C colder than the 24°C average spanning the past 485 million years (Judd et al., Science 2024).
Also, world temperatures have only changed by up to 1.4°C over the roughly 250 years since the start of the Industrial Revolution. This is not sufficient justification for a crisis.
First introduced in 2011 to guide policy, this extreme scenario - known as RCP8.5 (and later SSP5-8.5) - served as the primary engine for the terrifying headlines for over a decade. With the retirement of the extreme 5.5°C baseline ahead of the 7th Assessment Report (AR7), the ceiling for high-emissions temperature projections has been dropped.
The IPCC's high-end baselines have been downgraded toward a maximum around 3.3°C, and even this is likely to be just as implausible. Perhaps this is why the latest AR7 committee hearings have just been suspended.
Changes in CO₂ concentrations do not automatically trigger runaway temperatures. The world is too complex, and too many other factors have been left out. Any analysis of past climate reveals the world does not have a single temperature or a single climate; these are computerised composites, designed to maximise existential dread.
A lift in CO₂ has already delivered measurable green leaf expansion across the world, as captured by NASA satellite data. Some cereal crop yields have jumped by 280%.
CO₂ is a trace atmospheric gas - around 420 parts per million - which is among the lowest concentrations in all geological history, while the atmosphere is over 99% nitrogen, oxygen, and argon, with water vapor exceeding CO₂ many times over.
This deceptive original scenario - promoted heavily through the UN and the media - galvanised Net Zero and unleashed global hysteria. It forced the premature decline of reliable energy systems across the West and deindustrialised heavy industry.
The West's arch competitor, China, inherited the title of the world's greatest manufacturing nation in history. Now Beijing provides around 90% of the world's turbines, solar panels and components. Its industrial power is built on the world's greatest volume of coal-fired power stations.
It is also the world's largest annual emitter of carbon dioxide, producing roughly 30% to 33% of global carbon dioxide emissions annually - releasing over 13 billion tons per year.
This is the greatest transfer of wealth in history - without a shot fired in anger.
Reflecting on Burn'em's first three months, Yougov asked whether we expected him to do well or badly and whether he had done as expected. Needless to say I voted that I expected him to do badly and he has done badly - 23% agreed with me, but the results are spread evenly. Interested in your comments as to whether you agree?
Labour are hypocrites. Not surprising. Persecuting electricity users with ridiculous green taxes then allowing the Jackdaw gas field to go ahead. I am a member of Yougov and were able to vote on today's question of the day and 43% agree with me and "strongly support" further licences for the North Sea -Drill, Baby, Drill!
Looking at increasing my influence across social media and wondering whether other platforms may provide increased views now that x.com punishes right wing accounts by minimising their reach.
I have accounts on Substack:
substack.com/@comptussto3963…
and Wordpress - discovered my last regular posts were in 2008!
bubblyian.wordpress.com/2026…
Please let me know if you prefer to see my posts on there or on here. Which do you use the most?
I used to believe in dialogue as a way to resolve differences in politics. Communication between left and right could resolve the issues by agreeing on the facts and evidence. Not any more.
I had my 45th College reunion at the weekend with former classmates and fellow engineers. I would have thought that a group of intelligent and successful people, albeit newly retired, would have realised what was happening in the west. Nope. All utterly loony left and attacking me for my pro-Trump views. No polite conversation, just a succession of false accusations against Trump which they wouldn't let me explain before launching the next attack. No opportunity to look at the disastrous democrat alternative, just one attack after another. I suspect I will not be attending the 46th reunion next year.
Just cancelled my x.com subscription and they asked why, so said the following: "As a verified subscriber I expected to have some visibility boost on my posts, but I do not. I have 10,600 followers but rarely get more than 3-400 views. I have 30% verified followers yet my progress towards your new payment threshold is impossibly slow as you do not count replies to posts only original posts which nobody is seeing. plus I am a right-wing account according to your algorithm so massively limited in visibility except when I attack other right-wing accounts. I get no benefits for the extra costs and have zero chance of ever reaching your new monetisation threshold so have quit." Do other people agree? A)Impossible for small and right-wing accounts to get to monetisation or B) I should keep trying.
I am🇬🇧 Retired Anti-Discrimination Lawyer retweeted
Whitehall Inside the BBC: Who Really Shapes the News?
For years the BBC has insisted that its journalism is independent of government. Now we learn that serving civil servants have been working inside its newsroom, helping shape coverage of politically sensitive issues in Britain. Migration, crime, elections, Covid and public spending. A woman seconded from the Welsh government during the pandemic acknowledged that her advice had led to BBC news lines being changed and new stories being told. That raises the question: how far should serving government officials be involved in shaping the editorial output of a broadcaster whose independence from the state is supposed to be sacrosanct?
Another secondee drafted material on migration and crime statistics. Officials from Defra and other departments helped prepare coverage of Budgets and government figures. These are subjects on which Whitehall has its own institutional interests, preferred explanations and its reputation to protect. Yet civil servants were helping the national broadcaster decide how the numbers should be understood and presented to millions of viewers.
The recruitment advert for the 2027 intake sought candidates able to influence decision-making. That wording alone does not prove political interference, but it makes the BBC's blanket assurances deserving of scrutiny. Government statisticians have described helping journalists select figures, develop explanations and shape reports. Some have been credited under BBC News or BBC Verify bylines without their civil service positions being sufficiently clear. The public was entitled to know who was contributing to these stories. Instead, the BBC has promised to amend bylines only after The Telegraph began asking questions.
The financial arrangement deepens the concern. The secondees remain on salaries paid by their government departments while working inside the BBC. Taxpayers therefore fund officials who help produce coverage of policies, statistics and controversies involving the institutions employing them. Nobody needs to allege secret instructions from ministers to recognise the conflict this creates. The permanent state is capable of shaping public debate through shared assumptions, professional habits and institutional loyalties. When those responsible for producing official figures also help shape how the national broadcaster explains them, the separation between government and journalism becomes dangerously blurred.
Professor Carl Heneghan, director of Oxford University's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, has questioned whether officials with competing interests can remain impartial. His concern goes to the heart of the matter. A civil servant may act conscientiously, correct genuine errors and still approach a controversy through the assumptions of the institution in which their career has been formed. The BBC argues that statistical expertise improves accuracy and that its journalists retain final editorial control. That defence deserves examination, not automatic acceptance. Who checked the secondees' contributions? Who decided which interpretations were challenged? And how often did advice from Whitehall change the story that reached the public?
Thirty-nine civil servants have passed through this scheme in eight years. The BBC now promises greater disclosure while maintaining that editorial independence was never compromised. But independence requires more than an assurance from the institution whose conduct is being questioned. It requires visible safeguards, honest attribution and scrutiny of how stories are produced. As ministers consider extending compulsory BBC funding to streaming households, the public discovers that serving officials have been helping shape its news. The corporation asks Britain to trust its independence. It must now explain why serving officials from Whitehall were helping shape its journalism, and why the public was not clearly told who they were.
I am🇬🇧 Retired Anti-Discrimination Lawyer retweeted
FRANCE 2026 ☠️ 🇫🇷
It’s no longer just the major cities, they are destroying & burning down everything across France.
This is Marxism/ Communism + Multiculturalism/ Islam.
The Marxist Globalist French Government radicalised & weaponised the youth & brought millions of 3rd world majority Muslim migrants into the country.
This is the result.
Reform rejected my application to be a candidate last year because I had posted support for a ban on circumcision in one of my posts, which apparently was not one of their policies. I searched my 8000 posts and discovered 22 that mentioned circumcision and deleted them.
I reapplied this year in January and recently received a rejection because of my comments on muslims and reposted videos showing violence by muslims against British people. I am also following @RupertLowe10 . I asked grok to analyse my posts to compare with Reform policy and grok confirmed I had a number of posts criticising islam and proposing banning muslims from positions of power in the UK. Needless to say I now have no chance of being a Reform MP. What should I do next?
I suspect the electricity company were embarrassed by their failure to actually visit the property and take a genuine meter reading for more than 3 years so want to hide their incompetence by shutting down my complaint and allowing him to transfer to another energy company. Maybe my business partner knew that particular electricity company did not do meter readings very often and so the scam was possible.
I am🇬🇧 Retired Anti-Discrimination Lawyer retweeted
550 Baptised! Go on Merlin!! The largest in UK's HISTORY!!!
