What Elon Musk and the transgender ideology have in common

 

Just because technology allows you to do something, it doesn't mean that you should.

Unfortunately, our response to technology is just this.  It is if we can now do something that we were once never able to do, then we should do it.  Not only that, but we should throw all morals values out the window just like a person who opposes Putin is similarly thrown out of a window.   Not only should we do the new thing, but we should celebrate it. To ensure we do, we should be subjected to endless propaganda and lies, and force if we don't, just as in the most shameless dictatorships.

Surgery and medical technology have developed far beyond anything that we could have imagined at the start of the last century, when simple infections would kill a healthy adult, minor breaks would result in amputations and infant mortality was common. These horrors have largely been relegated to the past.

Instead, we can now synthesise hormones and mass produce them and deliver them to children at a cost that is well within the budget imposed on them by their pocket money.

We can remove the penis and testicles from a male and create a pseudo virginal opening. We can do the opposite and remove skin from the arm of a female and create a pseudo penis, through which a lady can urinate whilst standing up. We can do this while ignoring the inevitable medical complications, such as incontinence and sexual dysfunction.

We can support all this with marketing and funding channels. Companies like Gender GP sprung up to supply the hormones, and the NHS in the UK and insurance companies in the USA funded the operations.

Economies of scale make all this possible. This meant schools had to be enlisted to guarantee a strong stream of new customers. They welcomed their role in this by being able to compete against their rivals for the privilege of being the most diverse and they were encouraged by Ofsted to do so, in what would could be called a pissing contest. Competition did not create a virtuous upward spiral in educational outcomes as was intended, but a race to the bottom as they funneled the children in their care to the charlatans of transgenderism. To avoid any blockage to the newly formed stream of customers, dissenters were drowned out by compulsory Pride celebrations and then threatened with legal action under the Equality Act for objecting.

Dystopia was delivered on plate, and everyone was forced to pray to the god of medical technology.  All political parties supported this descent into moral oblivion and, until recently, no one was able to exercise any restraint at the ballot box.

So, what’s this got to do with Elon Musk and what can he learn from it?

Elon Musk is an outstanding entrepreneur and technologist.  Probably, the best the world has ever seen. He can now enable things that were once impossible, and the most staggering thing he has enabled is a technically feasible way of getting significant numbers of people to Mars, though he has not yet demonstrated he can get them safely back.

But just because he can, should he and should we, as a society, not be actively attempting to stop him before he does any more damage in trying?  In so doing would we be learning from the disaster of the silence on the transgender movement by again being blinded by the outstanding technology that was in front of us?

So, what can possibly go wrong? Well, everything, and working backwards from Mars illustrates.

So, let’s pretend that there is an Elon Musk based outpost of humanity on Mars. Would it pass the toilet paper test. That is can this outpost of humanity cope without toilet paper and replace any shortages of toilet paper with locally produced alternatives?  

For those who have looked in awe at the artist renderings of prospective human habitations on Mars, they may have noticed the lack of trees. That’s because there are none and nor is there any prospect of trees, even though the atmosphere is CO₂ rich. There won’t ever be trees because the radiation will kill them, and there is no water for them to grow. At best there may be some shrubs growing in greenhouses which may just about provide a subsistence level of food for a small population, but trees with long fiber cells growing at sufficient volume for a plentiful supply of toilet paper will not exist.

So, no tress, means no wood to produce pulp, and even if by some miracle there were trees, then there would no spare energy to run a pulping machine and no materials to build one, and likewise with the paper machine. So, the prospective Martians will have to find a substitute – what about soap to support a lifetime commitment to cleaning one’s anus by washing it?  Well, soap needs fat or oils, and in the absence of available fat or oil, that needs cannibalism, and the prospect of being killed by your peers to make bars of soap is likely to dissuade even the most ardent supporters of Musk’s project from signing up.

What about doing without toilet paper and soap? Again, I would not want to risk my life in the journey to Mars only to find I would have continuous dirty backside and no water to wash it, and that the problem may be aggravated by the inevitable diarrhoea from radiation sickness.

What about waiting for the next delivery from a Starship? Well that somewhat defeats the object of the exercise. The whole point of which was to provide a base for humans to survive on in the event of life being wiped out on Earth. So, the citizens of Mars would be desperately at mercy of the good people on Earth and they will have to hope that the Earthlings remain benevolent enough to both build and launch Starships and pack them with toilet paper despite the inevitable challenges they will be facing to feed themselves in near future.

So, if something as simple as toilet paper provides an insurmountable problem, what about the myriad of other problems associated with all the high technology devices and foods that will be needed for survival in an environment that does not have oxygen to breath or water to drink.  

Working back further from the people about to kill themselves on Mars over toilet paper, what about the building and funding on the Spaceships on Earth and the problems that this causes.

Elon Musk is keen on telling us that technology is going to create a world which is no longer zero-sum because technology will grow goods and services to the benefit of everyone and a rosy future beckons for us all. But the raison d'etre of the Mars colony is that civilisation on Earth is likely to collapse. Perhaps only really intelligent people like Musk can hold two such conflicting views in their mind at the same time, because I certainly can’t.

If Musk doesn’t understand that a zero-sum game model is a relevant model for future, he could do no worse than reading the news, on X or elsewhere, of the crisis in Ukraine or the many other war zones in the world.  The estimated $5billion cost associated with his Starship project could easily have led to victory for the Ukrainians in their war with Russian invaders. Instead, the debate in the USA is why they should keep funding the Ukrainians when their own cities are in at a point of collapse. That sounds very much like a zero-sum game problem to me, were resources are constrained, and everyone must fight amongst themselves for their fair share.

These wars are not going to stop, they are going to continue spreading and the resource shortages that start them will continue to intensify.  Is it really the right response to this for the world to focus on diverting so much of its scare resources to build a Starship for a few people who will not even pass the toilet paper test.

Then there is the climate change impact of this madness. Each flight will require 4,600 tonnes of methane. This sounds a lot, but most likely far bigger is the carbon budget associated with building the Starships and funding them. Against this, how can any government be expected to persuade its citizens to cut their emissions when they see everyone worshipping the technology in a development like this.

It is therefore hardly surprising that Elon Musk’s X is littered with nonsense comments that climate change is not happening, or that high CO₂ is good because it is a plant food, or that it is all a scam. The reality is that never in the history of the planet has CO₂ increased so rapidly and there is now a zero percent change of avoiding catastrophic change. We actually have a paradox before our eyes; the worse climate change becomes the more we will disbelieve it.

So, Elon Musk now must do what everyone else would think impossible. He must deny climate change or significantly down play it, even though it is unquestionably the biggest threat facing humanity and all other higher level life forms on the planet, because he needs the economy to keep grow as fast as it can to support his project, while at the same time telling everyone that humanity needs a second home on Mars because life on Earth will come to an end.  At least achieving the first will make the second a necessity, even though it will fail as quickly as it will run out of toilet paper.

None of us mere mortals would be able to do this, because we cannot get the rest of the world to worship at the feet of our technology, but Elon Musk can, just in the same way as the beneficiaries of the transgender ideology, such as Martine Rothblatt, were able to do.

He must therefore replicate the strategy of the transgender ideologues, the very people who has committed to destroy.  That strategy is to treat technology as a religion, even though it can be every bit as dangerous as radical Islam. In so doing, you must embrace lies and conflicting positions and silence dissent to support it. 

         

The collective schizophrenic madness

In 2012 I wrote the Vortex of Violence and why we are losing the war on climate change.

In it I warned that as climate change worsened, the collective response would be for everyone to work harder to deny, rather than to mitigate it. That is what is happening today, and it will only get worse. As part of this dynamic, I also warned that we would go collectively schizophrenically mad by having to do the things that we know we must not do. 

I believe the outbreak of transgender madness across the education systems of the West is a manifestation of this dynamic. 

In my case, I raised two safeguarding concerns at New College Swindon, one was for a student who wanted to present with an opposite sex persona and the other was for a teacher who wanted to encourage students to do so.  This set in motion a sequence of events that was to see me accused of safeguarding, and referred to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) and put on the Children's Barred List (CBL). The reasons given by the DBS for putting me on the CBL was because I was against the transitioning of children and for teaching scientific facts.

There is no doubt in my mind that we are firmly in the age of collective schizophrenic madness. The mistakes I made in the book not anticipating it happening so quickly and not thinking it would so directly affect me. 

So below is an update on my actions against the DBS:

The DBS were given to 12:00 noon,  24th Oct 2024, to remove me from the CBL but did not do so. I  therefore released all documentation. The minded to retain letter is at this link:

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AgVeu7kxoXyfh98liaAqsHBTCtdIMA?e=b3uLFs

My response is 250 pages of evidence addressing all the accusations the DBS and New College Swindon made against me to justify putting me on the CBL and retaining me on it.

The response is at this link:  Submission to the DBS on the 21st Oct rev 3.pdf

 A statement is at this link: https://1drv.ms/b/s!AgVeu7kxoXyfh-FdAfk_r30kiDJvXQ?e=HhU74W

 My response demonstrates:

1. Evidence of the untrue nature of the claims Peta Fry (HR Director of New College Swindon) made to the DBS and which were accepted by the DBS as evidence that I had caused significant harm to a child.
   
   
2. Evidence of Carole Kitching (previous New College Swindon principal) making an untrue claim in a personal capacity to the DBS that I was risk to children.
   
   
3. Evidence of omissions that Peta Fry made in her referral to the DBS with the intent of making the referral untrue, and that the DBS ignored these when they were pointed out.
   
   
4. The speculative nature of all accusations against me and the lack of any evidence of harm.
   
   
5. The absence of any attempt by New College Swindon to ascertain the wishes and feelings of Student A when it was feasible to collect these.
   
   
6. The systemic nature of imposing the transgender ideology into UK education policy on the instructions of a minority group over the legitimate interests of the majority, and how this overrode safeguarding and how New College Swindon used this to avoid its own safeguarding obligations.
   
   
7. The safeguarding team at New College Swindon taking an adversarial approach to me by making me the central point of their investigations so they could enforce their interpretation of EDI, instead of keeping Student A as the central point.
   
   
8. New College Swindon’s violations of the Education Act 1996, s406 and s407 by enforcing ideological indoctrination, with the complicity of the Department for Education.

I will be instigating proceeding against those who made untrue claims to the DBS or supported others to do so.

The information is made available in the interests of Student A:

1. I have no idea how far she did or did not progress along the pathway towards adopting a male persona, but it is clear from the evidence that she was not given the safeguarding protection she deserved, and as a consequence of me raising my safeguarding concerns it became almost impossible for her to find an off-ramp.
   
   
2. The intent of making this information public is to give her the earliest access to the fullest evidence of the events should she want to seek damages for any harm she is now enduring. I will support her and her family in any way I can if they choose to do this and that will always be my main priority.

Transgenderism - it happened because it is so evil nobody believed it could happen

 

I have been caught in the vortex of the transgender nightmare for nearly three years. I was a teacher at New College Swindon and after a female student in my class told me she wanted to be referred to with a male name, I raised safeguarding concerns. They were never properly answered and instead it led to my dismissal on safeguarding grounds, and a referral to the government’s Disclosure and Barring service which then put me on the barred list. I now face a lifetime of social ostracisation and rather than assumed innocent until proven guilty, I was assumed guilty with no chance to prove innocence. 

My legal battle against this is an ongoing drain on my life. The irony is not lost on me that my preliminary hearing to the employment appeal tribunal will be on the 100^th year anniversary of the Scopes trial, or the Monkey trial as it is more commonly known. In this trial a teacher had to fight for his liberty because he had the temerity to teach that man evolved from apes rather than being created by God. That case and mine tightly interlock around state attempts to ban the teaching of science to children in favour of ideologically based beliefs, and this is despite the 100-year time difference.

If there is any consolation for me, it is that transgenderism is coming to an end, just as the mandated teaching of creationism finally did. We may soon be able to breathe a sigh of relief, as almost all thinking people have realised that something that looks absurd actually is.  

The transgender movement is now on life support. It is being beaten in the courts, government guidance is beating it out of the education system, the Cass Review is beating it out of the medical profession and the media is beating credibility out of it. Just like a dying person being surrounded by frantic doctors doing all in their power to stop an irreversible transition from life to death, then so it is with the transgender ideology. A small cadre of diehards who are committed to reviving the dying transgender fantasy are doing everything in their power to breathe life back into their soon to be corpse on the forlorn hope that they can triumphantly return it to the centre stage where it was once so firmly anchored. 

The motivations of this extremist cadre are many and none should be underestimated. Some are parents motivated by the guilt they carry after damaging their children for life; some are teachers and schools whose motivation comes from being coerced into EDI races and being too foolish to realise their folly; some are politically motivated and spurred on by the need to demonstrate their commitment to the most extreme manifestation of their beliefs; some are sexual deviants motivated by the easy access to children that the trans movement has enabled. And then finally, there are those whose motivation is good old money and power such as the charities, medical practitioners, and lobbyists who feasted like swarms of cockroaches on vulnerable children and young adults. 

A freedom of information request showed Mermaids, the Tavistock Centre, and transgender lobbyists from the Lib Dem party swarming together with civil servants from the Department of Education to get the transgender ideology mandated into schools, even though they admitted at the time that there was no evidence to support their dangerous enterprise. All these instigators benefited financially, and the Lib Dem’s receipt of £1.5million at the same time from Ferring Pharmaceuticals who manufacture puberty blockers is an egregious conflict of interest that is completely indefensible. 

The fallout from this dystopian manipulation is thousands of children damaged for life, good families destroyed, bad families exploited, the education system undermined, the medical profession perverted, the justice system corrupted, and trust in the institutions of state shattered. At best, a demoralised nation will require a generation to recover from the pain and injury it has suffered.  

As part of that recovery, a fundamental question must be answered; why did this happen in the nations with the most advanced education systems and most advanced concepts of free speech and the rule of law in the world?

This is a complex question that nobody can truly answer it, and my attempt to do so is simply a reflection from my own experience. I am not an expert in this field as there is no knowledge to build expertise upon as our society has never faced such a profound challenge before or anything analogous to it. So, others will no doubt disagree with my answer or offer a different set of answers, but the same caveat applies; they aren’t experts either.

The starting point in framing my answer is that the success of the transgender ideologues is because their ideology is so extremely evil and it was deployed on such a vast scale that it was beyond the understanding of all normal, rational people who rely on the cooperation and the goodwill of others to survive day to day.

To put this in perspective, the first hideous attempts to convert children from one sex to the other were conducted by Dr. Josef Mengele in Auschwitz on children who were forced into his laboratories. His terrors were reliably documented by Eva Mozes Kor who suffered terribly at his hands. Needless to say, there were few survivors to testify on his appalling experimental programme. There was no science then to justify his psychopathic torture, and eighty years later when the Cass Review was finally published there was still none to justify the coercion of children into the modern-day version of his experiments. Yet, in the intervening time this extreme and barbaric experiment escaped from Auschwitz to become mainstream in the most developed nations on the planet.

The nations where this terrible Auschwitz escapee found its safest home were those that had fought in unison to stop the evil of the Nazis and at a terrible cost. Such a noble history of success and perseverance against the odds breeds complacency and the misplaced belief that the democratic foundations and systems of governance that delivered victory over totalitarianism are unshakable. But they are not. They are terribly fragile, especially in this time of growing uncertainty driven by frightening technological change and the ever looming threat of an existential outcome from climate change which we are powerless to stop.  

The resulting complacency and uncertainty was exploited by the transgender ideologues who presented their rainbow unicorns as an antidote to the darkness of climate change, and they were supported by governments around the world to do so, because all governments would rather have young people marching on the streets for Pride rather than blockading them in the name of climate change. With that support transgender ideologues attacked the values that Western democracies were built upon with a modern-day version of Mengele’s evil experiment on a scale that dwarfed anything he or his Nazi sponsors could ever have envisioned.

Their attack was audacious in the extreme. They simultaneously corrupted all the democratic, legal, and intellectual systems in a powerful surprise attack.  It was a modern-day Pearl Harbour, and almost nobody believed it was happening, even when it was obvious it was.  Like Pearl Harbour, it was well planned and funded. Its preliminary moves were to change the legal system through the Equality Act in the UK and similar elsewhere, to silence dissent with EDI programmes, to target anyone by manipulating language, to deprive dissenters access to justice, to destroy free speech and to finally replace free thought with thought control.  My case testifies to all of these. 

During this attack, it was easier for the average men and women to accept defeat and justify the madness with acceptance of the ideology in whatever form was demanded of them, even when the ideology demanded their children as raw material for its industrial complex.

This is an appalling observation, but put simply and bluntly, the greater the evil the greater the chance that the collective response is to disbelieve it, because to accept great evil is to undermine the faith we all need in humanity. Furthermore, as things get worse our hunger for faith in humanity increases and the more likely we are to dismiss the evidence of great evil. 

The spectrum of human experience offers many such examples of extreme irrational responses to unexpected and great evil. One close parallel to the transgender disaster is that of Dr. David Southall. He was an eminent and highly thought of paediatrician who introduced to the world the concept of Fabricated and Induced Illnesses where parents, usually mothers, deliberately injure or kill their children in acts of total evil. In so doing he saved the lives of many vulnerable children. His reward was to be hounded out of the medical profession as no one at the time wanted to believe the evidence that he had so carefully collected and presented could be true. Even now, after his exoneration, no one wants to link Fabricated and Induced Illness with the parents who encouraged their children to present as the opposite sex, and when I raised this in my defence it was used against me as evidence of transphobia and lack of contrition. 

So what do we learn and how do we stop anything like this from happening again?

We learn that the great institutions of state can easily be perverted by ideologues to act against the people they are supposed to serve, especially in times of stress. We learn that great evil is always present, and we should always be ready to resist it. We learn that education systems, on their own, are no defence against extremism and instead can be used to enable it. We learn that instead of living in robust democracies, we live in fragile states that can slide easily into dystopian dictatorships.  Finally, we should understand that if an ideology as absurd as transgenderism, which has as its basis the proposition that children can and should change sex, then any evil ideology can take hold.

Transgender teaching replaces sustainablity teaching in schools

I authored a submission to the UN in 2018 which was written in conjunction with leading climate change scientists.  The analysis it contained demonstrated the safe global temperature rise had to be less than 0.5degC. This was passed in1980. It is far lower than the politically set 1.5degC target the world has been using and which is soon to be passed. Since 1980, cumulative CO2 emissions have more than doubled. It is impossible to overstate how seriously catastrophic the climate crisis now is.

Young people looking to the future know they will have to inherent the mess the boomer generation created, and know when they get there, they will be contrasting the ruins they have inherited with the utopia the boomers had.  They don’t need to be experts on climate change to know this any more than steering class passengers on the Titanic didn’t need to be Naval Architects to be the first to know the ship was sinking when the water went over their feet. 

In response to the first wave of global climate change protests from 2005-2010, sustainability was introduced into school curriculums.  This was to be evaluated by Ofstead for compliance.  No one knew what it was and or what it meant, and anything to do with sustainability ultimately led to depressing discussions on the curtailment of personal liberties and collective doom. Sustainability has now been quietly removed and I have not seen a single Ofstead report criticise a school for lack of sustainability teaching. I don’t even talk to my students about climate change, unless specifically asked.  That space has been filled with gender ideology. It’s easier to talk about, it’s less divisive than climate change, and everyone can feel good about themselves either by partaking or supporting someone that is.

Teaching transgenderism in schools contrasts positively with teaching about sustainability and climate change doom.  Transgenderism presents a future of multicolours and personal liberty. Sustainability presents a black future and curtailment of liberties.  Transgenederism capitalises on a false equivalence with diversity. The diversity that it presents is an easier diversity for society to accept than that which is needed to accommodate the billions of people who are soon to flood over nation-state borders to escape climate change disasters. Transgenderism allows society to tick difficult boxes without doing the hard work associated with them.

Past civilisations share the common trait of sacrificing children to their chosen gods when faced with collapse. Today, transgenderism is society's way of sacrificing young people to the gods of medical technology and market forces in the face of collapse. It is working, in some schools 1 in 15 girls are presenting as transgender and there is virtually no worthwhile sustainability teaching on any curriculum. 

Comments on the IPCC Special Report on 1.5degC

The IPCC report is available here http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/ and the comments in the list below are not meant as an exhaustive and definitive list, but simply follow from a first reading. Others may decide there are other omissions or may disagree with those that we have made, in which case I welcome your comments.

1.       There is no estimate of an equilibrium sea level rise at 1.5 degC. This is a serious omission when paleoclimate records demonstrate that the last time we had 400ppm the sea level was 23 meters higher than today.

2.       There is no evidence that a 10 billion global population can be sustained if the temperature rises to 1.5degC. The observed crisis we have seen this year when the temperatures breached 1.16degC above baseline suggests that long term temperature rises of 1.5degC above baseline is inherently incompatible with sustaining a 10 billion population.

3.       The report assumes that if the temperature overshoots the 1.5degC target, it can be reversed, but this takes no account of irreversibility and hysteresis in the climate system due to such factors as sea ice loss, methane releases and increasing ocean heat content and is counter to the warning of irreversibility in AR5.

4.       The report gives little analysis on persistent upward pressure of CO2 emissions, yet its recommendation to avoid runaway climate change is to get to zero carbon by 2040. To put this in perspective, Schlumberger are currently expecting oil production to rise from 96 million barrels/day to 120 million barrels/day by 2020 and are gearing up accordingly.

5.       The best odds the report offers to avoid 1.5 degC in the event of obtaining zero carbon is only 66%. For something of such seriousness, a probability of 95% should be used.

6.       To have the best chance of limiting temperatures to 1.5degC, the report assumes methane emissions go to zero, but these are increasing exponentially in the critical Arctic regions.

7.       A key assumption in the report is that BECCS will reduce atmospheric CO2, but the report does not consider the thermal efficiency of BECCS power plants and simple calculations show that this can be no more than 7% once the energy for gas compression is included, and it will most likely be negative once the energy for separation is included, so it more likely that BECSS will add CO2 to the environment rather than remove it.

8.       There appears to be no consideration in the report of the rapid global temperature increases that have occurred over the last 12 months. 

9.       In the text of Chapter 2 of the report it states that “SSP-based modelling studies of mitigation pathways have identified high challenges to mitigation for worlds with a focus on domestic issues and regional security,” but the need for proactive security management has not made it into the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) and is not being considered in policy responses.

10.   There does not seem to be any acknowledgment or consideration in the report that the extreme events of this year could be indicative of the climate now entering a condition of rapid and self-reinforcing transition from the habitable Holocene to uninhabitable Hot-house conditions.  If the concerns on the danger of interacting feedbacks mechanisms and a tendency towards super exponential change are valid, then the temperature spike of the last year cannot be dismissed as a short term anomaly and instead it should be considered as potentially strong evidence that rapid change is now underway.

11.   The implications of the logarithmic relationship between radiative forcing and CO2 concentration has not been considered in determining policy needed to stablise temperatures at 1.5degC. The effect of this relationship means that a 50ppm increase from 280 to 330 ppm increases radiative forcing by 0.88, but a 50ppm reduction from 450 to 400ppm reduces radiative forcing by only 0.68, thus once the initial warming has triggered amplification mechanisms then future hypothetical reductions in CO2 will be unable to provide an adequate cooling effect to offset the thermal inertia that will have built up.

12.   Despite Chapter 4 of the report indicating Solar Radiation Management (SRM) can be a useful contribution to climate change, the SPM rejects SRM and instead suggests that policy should be focused on carbon reduction and carbon removal even though all the available evidence strongly suggests that this cannot be done anywhere near fast enough to avoid initiating interacting climate change feedback mechanisms.

Submission to the UN Talanoa Dialogue

Through the UN Talanoa Dialogue, all countries and other stakeholders, including business, investors, cities, regions and civil society, are invited to make submissions into the Talanoa Dialogue around three central questions: Where are we? Where do we want to go? How do we get there?

​

Countries and non-Party stakeholders will be contributing ideas, recommendations and information that can assist the world in taking climate action to the next level in order to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement and support the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

 

Submission is here:

The role for an integrated climate restoration strategy; the setting of targets and timescales; the methodologies and funding options (Submitted, 1st April)

In summary:

• Atmospheric CO2 is already at unsurvivable levels which will lead to sea level rises of up to 30m and catastrophic temperature rises, yet it is still increasing at a rate that is faster than exponential.

​

• There is an unspoken paradox with climate change; as climate change intensifies then the increasing competitive rivalries between nations that it causes prevents the co-operation needed to agree to the mutual sacrifices needed for a zero carbon economy.

​

• The coal reefs stated dying and the Arctic polar ice cap started melting in 1980 when CO2 was 336ppm, thus the world then was already well on the way to disaster. So, planning for a 1.5 degC temperature rise is a suicide note; this target needs to be replaced with a new target, which is that the maximum temperate rises should not exceed 0.5deg C over the pre-industrial baseline.

​

• ANY temperature rise will lead to catastrophic heating due to the interacting nature of the amplifying effects such as methane, sea ice melt and increased water vapour content, so if the temperature increases to 1.5degC (which is where we most likely are today) it will lead to unstoppable temperature increases. It also means that even the more radical 0.5degC target that we propose could be too high.

​

• NO measurable levels of CO2 have been sequestered by natural processes since the start of the industrial revolution and natural processes will take approximately 250,000 years to return the planet to an upper CO2 threshold of stability (approx 300ppm), and even at this level of CO2, then sea levels would be at least 10 meters higher than today. So even the emergence of a zero-carbon economy tomorrow would not help due to the persistence of legacy CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans.

​

• There is a very high level of hysteresis (irreversibility) in the climate system caused by ocean heat content and ice albedo loss, but in particular due to the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and radiative forcing. The implications of this have been completely ignored by policy makers.

​

• Proposed methods for CO2 removal from the atmosphere that the COP temperature projections are based on, such as BECCS and DAC are so fundamentally flawed, they are likely to add more CO2 to the atmosphere than they will take out.

​

• The only way of removing CO2 is through bio enhancement, such as increasing carbon content in soils and biomass in the oceans, but natural limits means this will most likely take thousands of years to remove sufficient CO2 for a return to stability.

​

• To survive we must immediately start a solar radiation management program, and marine cloud brightening is probably the only option, in as much that it is scalable, controllable and sustainable over long periods. The scale of the cooling needed will increase at least exponentially with delay, and as we will soon be at the point where the climatic changes under way will be irreversible then there is a moral imperative to make an immediate start.

​

• The techniques that we develop now for climate restoration (cooling and bio enabled CO2 sequestration) must be capable of continued operation by future societies that have become dysfunctional due to the pressures imposed on them by climate change.

​

• There is no evidence that a carbon tax will be agreed by governments to either curtail emissions or raise funds for a climate restoration program that can either be guaranteed in the long term or done in time. We thus propose that this issue is handed to the insurance and reinsurance markets, whereby a climate change premium is imposed on fossil fuel extraction and can be set by normal actuarial processes

Tearing things down

What happens when you get to the end and come to the realisation that hope exists no more?

Do you play like the band on the deck of the Titanic, or fight for the last life boat knowing that there are not enough seats, or smash what is left of the Titanic and kill its officers in a fit of rage for their stupidity?

For too long the environmental movement and the left played the story that the most critical issue of our time, climate change, could be managed by a capricious transition to renewal power driven by the enlightened desire of all to co-operate to avoid an evident mutual annihilation. They told us that all we had to do was to destroy capitalism, or raise our ambition, or invest more in renewable power and all would be well.

It was a mind numbingly poor position to put forward. Simply hoping for the best, no matter how hard you hope is not going to bring it about.

Destroying capitalism meant having a rationing economy and not one prominent leader of the populist left pressed this politically sensitive debate.  Thus we still have destructive capitalism.

Meanwhile too many people crowded the debate on climate change with absurd projections and mistruths. They told the world it could continue to have economic growth with a renewable economy and all that was stopping the roll out of electric cars was conspiratorial behaviour by the car manufactures. Furthermore, in a bid to attract votes the various Green parties around the world told of a positive image of the future if we could only embrace the policies that they couldn't prove.

Like many often repeated mistruths, people started to believe them and even the people spouting out such nonsense also started to believe them. It is into this vacuum of truth that has been sucked the real liars whose only objective was self-satisfaction through nihilism.  

And that is what we have today, almost everywhere. Thus, our collective solution to our sinking ship is to smash it and kill the officers in a fit of rage that will accelerate our demise. So everywhere that matters is now following the paths to nihilism.....

Just when we thought that no organisation could be as bad as Al Qaeda, along came ISIS with its absolute commitment to destruction and the darkest recesses of the human mind and its allure to the disposed of the industrial societies with the most un-provable promise of virgins in heaven.

The optimistic birth of a democratic Russia from a dysfunctional communist dictatorship was been hijacked by a MAFIA government whose guiding principles and philosophy were lifted straight from Mario Puzio’s Godfather trilogy.

The great European experiment in co-operation that was the EU has been torn apart on a bed of lies and mistruths. Those lies ignored its painful birth in response to the blood shed by millions and the destruction of centuries of heritage in a bid to ensure the evils of nationalism never triumph the disciplines of co-operation.

And now, for all its faults, the nation that once aspired to the highest ideals has in Donald Trump elected a despotic leader so ignorant in world affairs as to believe that the climate change is a fraud perpetrated by the Chinese.  His nihilistic response to the most fundamental crisis of our times will surely exceed all the destruction that ISIS can even muster and it will firmly place Donald Trump in the position of the world’s worst and most dangerous leader ever.

Even Hitler was not able to destroy the world and Stalin backed away from its prospect, but Donald Trump embraces it. His adherence to nihilism is the flip side of the ISIS coin.