Author: Jaime Jessop

I became a legend in my own (brief) lunchtime on 'right wing' Twitter and by writing blog articles sceptical of the consensus narrative on global warming aka climate change aka the climate crisis (much more scary). Twitter took down my account because I said nasty things about very nasty people, but mainly because I had an awful habit of telling the truth. I now tweet as @JaneDryden4. Nowadays, I mainly focus on being sceptical of the rigidly enforced government narrative on Covid and of the absurd and immensely damaging 'non pharmaceutical interventions' imposed upon us to supposedly control a 'pandemic', restrictions originally inspired not by science, but by Communist China (where the virus was probably made). Covid and climate change are intimately connected I believe. Now not merely sceptical of these twin consensus narratives I am genuinely terrified by the direction in which we appear to be headed. Will speak out for as long as I can, and reject being experimented upon with lethal 'gene therapies' until the day I die (which might be sooner than I planned courtesy of globalist fascists). Born and grew up in London, on a council estate. Proud of my traditional working class background. University educated. Strong science background but not an 'expert' in anything. Keen on communicating science. Fiercely independent minded and (almost) immune to group-think, hence horrified by the mass brainwashing exercise that has been so spectacularly successful since March 2020. I love dogs, especially German Shepherds and have rescued them for years. Passionate opponent of all forms of cruelty to innocent animals. Vegetarian long before it became 'woke', simply because I did not want to contribute in any way to the abuses I saw happening in the commercial meat industry. Now firmly opposed to the 'become vegan to save the planet' BS ideological narrative, in fact all things 'Green'.

Convid Mass ‘Vaccination’ Scam – Summary of Latest Debunking Courtesy of the Science and Truth Commission.

It’s the Hare and the Tortoise race. The Hare (propaganda, fear and lies based on pseudoscience) took off at great speed and crossed the globe before the Tortoise of Truth had even got his boots laced up. Massive collateral damage (ongoing) – economic, social, psychological, medical, environmental is the result. A public health catastrophe is looming and probably unavoidable now. Likewise, economic catastrophe as a result of insane government spending. But the Truth Tortoise is about to cross the finishing line ahead of lying Hare and the Hare is busy making up excuses for why he lost the race.

So let’s just blast quickly through the unmasking of the lies shall we, aka the revelation of extremely inconvenient truths and scientific facts.

First, a study from Oxford University which reveals that the jabbed have 251 times the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 (Delta variant) in their nostrils compared to those (unjabbed) who caught Covid much earlier in the epidemic. The study furthermore demonstrates that the Delta variant passed very easily among those fully jabbed persons, the majority of whom were young and who experienced mild to moderate symptoms.

We studied Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine breakthrough infections associated with SARS255 CoV-2 Delta variant among healthcare workers of a major hospital for infectious diseases in HCMC, Vietnam between 11th and 25th June 2021 (week 7 and 8 after the second dose). 62/69 infected cases participated in the clinical study.

Between 11th–25th June 2021 (week 7–8 after dose 2), 69 healthcare workers were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. 62 participated in the clinical study. 49 were (pre)symptomatic with one requiring oxygen supplementation. All recovered uneventfully. 23 complete-genome sequences were obtained. They all belonged to the Delta variant, and were phylogenetically distinct from the contemporary Delta variant sequences obtained from community transmission cases, suggestive of ongoing transmission between the workers. Viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020. Time from diagnosis to PCR negative was 8–33 days (median: 21). Neutralizing antibody levels after vaccination and at diagnosis of the cases were lower than those in the matched uninfected controls. There was no correlation between vaccine-induced neutralizing antibody levels and viral loads or the development of symptoms.

So, in essence, what this preprint non peer reviewed study suggests is that so called ‘breakthrough’ Delta variant infections are occurring in fully vaccinated individuals, with much higher viral loads than those recorded previously for other earlier variants, a majority of those infected are getting ill but they are spreading the disease very quickly prior to developing symptoms. This is nothing but catastrophic for the mass vaccination program, proving that it is worse than useless, that it is in fact a public health menace, especially in healthcare settings, where workers are jabbed and easily passing the disease onto other patients (vaccinated or not) and their co-workers.

As Dr. Peter McCullough points out:

Thus, we have a key piece to the puzzle explaining why the Delta outbreak is so formidable — fully vaccinated are participating as COVID-19 patients and acting as powerful Typhoid Mary-style super-spreaders of the infection. 

Vaccinated individuals are blasting out concentrated viral explosions into their communities and fueling new COVID surges. Vaccinated healthcare workers are almost certainly infecting their coworkers and patients, causing horrendous collateral damage. 

Continued vaccination will only make this problem worse, particularly among frontline doctors and nurses workers who are caring for vulnerable patients. 

Health systems should drop vaccine mandates immediately, take stock of COVID-19 recovered workers who are robustly immune to Delta and consider the ramifications of their current vaccinated healthcare workers as potential threats to high risk patients and coworkers.

‘But, but, surely, the jab must be better than not being jabbed at all,’ I hear the pro-jabbers crying, ‘even if it’s not perfect.’ Well, for a start, it is very very far from perfect, so far in fact that it’s a menace to society and secondly, innate immunity to all variants (including the Delta variant, in fact especially the Delta variant, which has probably predominated in response to mass jabbing) is far superior to that acquired via ‘vaccination’.

The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label. The newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19.

Oh dear. You got jabbed to go to the pub, go on holiday, virtue-signal your dedication to doing what’s right for the common good, or simply because you switched off all logical and rational processing units in your brain and did what the government told you to do. What a shame, never mind. The booster will work – for a few more months at least. If it doesn’t kill you that is. This is what the Israeli PM recommends, after all. You can definitely trust him. He signed the contract with Pfizer. He’s a good egg.

The Israeli study is no small affair, involving just a handful of subjects:

The study, conducted in one of the most highly COVID-19–vaccinated countries in the world, examined medical records of tens of thousands of Israelis, charting their infections, symptoms, and hospitalizations between 1 June and 14 August, when the Delta variant predominated in Israel. It’s the largest real-world observational study so far to compare natural and vaccine-induced immunity to SARS-CoV-2, according to its leaders.

Though a word of caution in that the actual numbers of infected were small:

The new analysis relies on the database of Maccabi Healthcare Services, which enrolls about 2.5 million Israelis. The study, led by Tal Patalon and Sivan Gazit at KSM, the system’s research and innovation arm, found in two analyses that people who were vaccinated in January and February were, in June, July, and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who were previously infected with the coronavirus. In one analysis, comparing more than 32,000 people in the health system, the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher.

“The differences are huge,” says Thålin, although she cautions that the numbers for infections and other events analyzed for the comparisons were “small.” For instance, the higher hospitalization rate in the 32,000-person analysis was based on just eight hospitalizations in a vaccinated group and one in a previously infected group. And the 13-fold increased risk of infection in the same analysis was based on just 238 infections in the vaccinated population, less than 1.5% of the more than 16,000 people, versus 19 reinfections among a similar number of people who once had SARS-CoV-2.

Nevertheless, it does appear that post infection innate immunity is actually superior to that offered by the ‘vaccines’, far safer (given the huge and unprecedented number of severe adverse reactions and deaths) and much longer lasting.

Nussenzweig’s group has published data showing people who recover from a SARS-CoV-2 infection continue to develop increasing numbers and types of coronavirus-targeting antibodies for up to 1 year. By contrast, he says, twice-vaccinated people stop seeing increases “in the potency or breadth of the overall memory antibody compartment” a few months after their second dose.

For many infectious diseases, naturally acquired immunity is known to be more powerful than vaccine-induced immunity and it often lasts a lifetime. Other coronaviruses that cause the serious human diseases severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome trigger robust and persistent immune responses. At the same time, several other human coronaviruses, which usually cause little more than colds, are known to reinfect people regularly.

More Warnings From GVDB and Why Vaccinating Kids is a Very Bad Idea

In light of the UK government’s insane, ludicrous, extremely provocative pronouncement that 12-15 year olds will be jabbed without parental or informed consent once they go back to school, and in light of the now demonstrated ineffectiveness of the ‘vaccines’ against the Delta variant, it would be instructive to consider the recent comments of Geert Vanden Bossche.

Conducting mass vaccination campaigns on a background of high infection rates generates optimal conditions for breeding even more infectious Sars-CoV-2 variants. The combination of massive, spike-directed immune pressure combined with high infectious pressure rapidly allows these variants to reproduce more effectively such as to outcompete previously circulating variants/ strains. Mass vaccination, therefore, promotes viral evolution towards more infectious variants. The resulting enhancement of viral infectious pressure makes it more likely for everyone, including healthy, unvaccinated people to come in contact with the virus, especially in times where infection prevention measures are loosened. To the extent that high infection rates cause people to become re-exposed shortly after a previous asymptomatic infection, their innate Sars-CoV-binding antibodies (Abs) will be suppressed by short-lived, poorly functional anti-spike Abs, known to not be responsible for preventing the infection from becoming symptomatic. It is precisely the suppression of these broadly protective innate Abs that makes previously asymptomatically infected individuals more susceptible to disease.

I’ve pointed out GVDB’s warnings before, especially highlighting the extremely worrying possibility that the ‘vaccines’ may actually suppress innate immunity.

Extending mass vaccination campaigns to these younger age groups is the most irresponsible public health proposal (decision?) ever as

1. it results in turning a huge cohort of naturally protected people into subjects who will soon become much more vulnerable because the virus is now becoming increasingly resistant to vaccinal Abs (which, despite poor functionality, are still able to suppress broadly protective innate Abs).

2. it further augments pressure on viral infectiousness (i.e., on spike protein, which happens to be the target of all C-19 vaccines!) and, therefore, will only contribute to expediting viral evolution towards enhanced infectiousness (and eventually full resistance to anti-S Abs). As already mentioned, the higher viral infectivity rates grow, the more the incredibly precious innate immune capacity of the population gets eroded and the faster vaccine-mediated protection will wane as a result of enhanced evolution of the virus towards S-Ab-directed resistance. In the meantime – and for as long the C-19 vaccines protect against disease – mass vaccination is turning healthy people into asymptomatic breeding grounds and spreaders of evolving, more infectious variants, which is quite the opposite effect of what mass vaccination was supposed to do (i.e., to generate herd immunity). We only begin to see the early consequences of waning vaccine protection, erosion of innate immunity and fulminant expansion of steadily evolving, more infectious variants.

The Delta variant – which may only have taken advantage of the mass vaccination campaign, having previously evolved naturally – may just be the start of this process. More contagious and more virulent strains may evolve directly in response to the mass vaccination of the population, especially children. Dishing out boosters in response to the Delta and jabbing kids will probably only make things much worse. Getting jabbed, allowing your kids to be jabbed, is just about the most socially irresponsible thing you can do at the moment, given the current state of knowledge. Don’t do it! If you’ve been jabbed twice, admit that you were conned and are lucky so far if you’ve not suffered any ill effects. Do not get suckered into getting a third ‘booster’ jab. I guarantee that you will regret it and that ultimately we will all regret your personal decision.

Lambs to the Slaughter – 24 Thousand Kids in New South Wales to be packed into a Jabbatoir. No Parents Allowed.

Australia is seemingly intent on becoming the Antipodean answer to full blown Covid-flavoured Nazism. Melbourne is locked down and under strict curfew because of a handful of ‘cases’. Queensland has decreed that the Unjabbed cannot enter or leave its borders. Now the New South Wales government is talking about getting 24,000 children into a sports arena to jab them without their parents being present and they’re calling it an ‘opportunity’. Terrfifying. What the hell happened in Australia? Who would ever have expected Down Under to become an actual Hell on earth? I used to think it might be the nearest place to heaven. If this is repeated across the Anglosphere, then God help us all.

On ‘Freedom’ Day The British Prime Minister Announces Effective Mandatory Participation in Lethal Human Experimentation For All

Well here we are. The Endgame, or at least the Beginning of the End Game. On so called ‘Freedom’ Day, when, after 16 months of punishing psychological torture occasioned via the application of relentless fear-based propaganda and accompanied by soul-destroying restrictions upon our social life and our freedom of movement, we were all looking forward to a break. But now we’re told that in two months time, full blown medical apartheid is coming to the UK.

You won’t be permitted entry into any large crowded venue unless you have been jabbed twice with a gene-based ‘therapy’ which makes your body produce a known cytotoxin, currently implicated in the deaths of many thousands of people and the serious injury of many thousands more, according to the official data (VAERS, Yellow Card & EMA), which are themselves probably a gross underestimate of actual fatalities and injuries. This includes of course young people for whom a social life is a virtual necessity, who are NOT vulnerable to Covid, but who are probably at even greater risk of serious ‘vaccine’ injury precisely because of their robust natural immunity.

Science is dead. Logic is dead. Medical ethics are dead. Soon many people will be dead, totally unnecessarily, because the government mandated that they risk their lives in order to enjoy the ‘privileges’ of a miserable half-life in a fascist medical apartheid state. If they get away with this, freedom will be lost forever and nobody will be able to participate in society, not even buy food and other essentials, unless they have submitted to injection of toxic cocktails of substances created by the pharmaceutical industry ‘for the greater good’.

We jumped aboard the cattle trucks when we let these evil bastards lock us up in our homes, restrict our right to breathe fresh air, and then even violate our own sacred bodily temples for a mess of pottage. The destination where we are headed is now horrifyingly clear. Vaccination will set you free:

Impfung Macht Frei

Delingpole:

Right now, across the United Kingdom, distraught parents worried about the potential side effects of new vaccines are now confronted with equally distraught children understandably terrified that if they don’t get themselves jabbed (for a disease that poses almost zero risk to their health, as the UK’s scientific establishment readily admits) their social life will be over.

Never in my life have I hated any government quite so much as I loathe this despicable, bullying, mendacious, devious, dishonest, corrupt, fascistic regime

Whereas 12 months ago, Dellers was an outlier and a ‘conspiracy theorist’, he is now definitely not alone in his anger and dismay. We are headed into a very dark period in human history.

20,000 Views in 2021

A big thank you to all the people who have visited this site so far this year. I’m on target to reach 20,000 views in total today since January 1st. This far exceeds the aggregate viewings of the previous seven years, so I must be doing something right.

These encouraging viewing figures furthermore justify my decision to go solo as a blogger.

Thank you once again! Hopefully I can continue to keep people entertained and above all, informed, in these dark times of media censorship.

Jaime

NW Pacific Heatwave Attribution – Multiple Climate Model Failure

The authors describe the models used thus:

Model simulations from the 6th Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6; Eyring et al., 2016) are assessed. We combine the historical simulations (1850 to 2015) with the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) projections (O’Neill et al., 2016) for the years 2016 to 2100. Here, we only use data from SSP5-8.5, although the pathways are very similar to each other over the period 2015–2021. Models are excluded if they do not provide the relevant variables, do not run from 1850 to 2100, or include duplicate time steps or missing time steps. All available ensemble members are used. A total of 18 models (88 ensemble members), which fulfill these criteria and passed the validation tests (Section 4), are used.

SSP5-8.5 means Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 5 combined with RCP8.5, leading to 8.5W/m2 GHG forcing at the earth’s surface by 2100. It is a very extreme worst case emissions/atmospheric GHG concentration scenario, not at all realistic but, for the 5 years from 2016-2021, when it is used in the models, it doesn’t make that much difference from other more realistic scenarios. Where it does make a great deal of difference is in the assessment of how much more frequent such extreme heatwaves will be over the coming century, which the authors rely on to make the alarming claim that such events will happen every 5-10 years by 2100.

The authors used other models as well for simulating the historical period:

In addition to the CMIP6 simulations, the ensemble of extended historical simulations from the IPSL-CM6A-LR model is used (see Boucher et al., 2020 for a description of the model). It is composed of 32 members, following the CMIP6 protocol (Eyring et al., 2016) over the historical period (1850-2014) and extended until 2029 using all forcings from the SSP2-4.5 scenario, except for the ozone concentration which has been kept constant at its 2014 climatology (as it was not available at the time of performing the extensions). This ensemble is used to explore the influence of internal variability.

We also examine five ensemble members of the AMIP experiment (1871-2019) from the GFDL-AM2.5C360 (Yang et al. 2021, Chan et al. 2021), which consists of the atmosphere and land components of the FLOR model but with horizontal resolution doubled to 25 km for a potentially better representation of extreme events.

They describe the basic attribution procedure as follows:

As discussed in section 1.2, we analyse the annual maximum of daily maximum temperatures (TXx) averaged over 45°N-52°N, 119°W-123°W. Initially, we analyse reanalysis data and station data from sites with long records. Next, we analyse climate model output for the same metric. We follow the steps outlined in the WWA protocol for event attribution. The analysis steps include: (i) trend calculation from observations; (ii) model validation; (iii) multi-method multi-model attribution and (iv) synthesis of the attribution statement.

The first stage of the process above is known as ‘detection’, i.e. the detection of the event from observations. Observations are then compared to models to arrive at an attribution. Here is what the authors say about the detection:

The detection results, i.e., the comparison of the fit for 2021 and for a pre-industrial climate, show an increase in intensity of TXx of ΔT = 3.1 ºC (95% CI: 1.1 to 4.7 ºC) and a probability ratio PR of 350 (3.2 to ∞).

They then introduce the section on the multi-model attribution:

5 Multi-method multi-model attribution

This section shows probability ratios and change in intensity ΔT for models that pass the validation tests and also includes the values calculated from the fits to observations (Table 2). Results are given both for changes in current climate (1.2°C) compared to the past (pre-industrial conditions) and, when available, for a climate at +2˚C of global warming above pre-industrial climate compared with current climate. The results are visualized in Section 6.

Here are the results:

Note that the observed change intensity of the heatwave in the study area is 3.1C, according to observations (ERA5). The best estimate modelled change in intensity is anywhere between 0.22C and 2.6C, i.e. none of the models actually capture the observed change in intensity. The mean best estimate change in intensity of all the models is 1.77C, which is just 57% of the actual observed change. Thus, the models don’t come close to simulating actual reality. But again, this does not deter the authors from going ahead with an attribution anyway. They call it a hazard synthesis. I call it a hazardous synthesis!

6 Hazard synthesis


We calculate the probability ratio as well as the change in magnitude of the event in the observations and the models. We synthesise the models with the observations to give an overarching attribution statement (please see e.g. Kew et al. (2021) for details on the synthesis technique including how weighting is calculated for observations and for models).

Results for current vs past climate, i.e. for 1.2°C of global warming vs pre-industrial conditions (1850-1900), indicate an increase in intensity of about 2.0 ˚C (1.2 ˚C to 2.8 ˚C) and a PR of at least 150. Model results for additional future changes if global warming reaches 2°C indicate another increase in intensity of about 1.3 ˚C (0.8 ˚C to 1.7 ˚C) and a PR of at least 3, with a best estimate of 175. This means that an event like the current one, that is currently estimated to occur only once every 1000 years, would occur roughly every 5 to 10 years in that future world with 2°C of global warming.

So there you are. A highly dubious statistical analysis combined with an observation/model synthesis using models which all fail to capture the observed intensity of the actual event, which mysteriously translates into the statement that the NW Pacific heatwave would be ‘virtually impossible without climate change’ and furthermore that we can expect such intense heatwaves every 5 to 10 years by the end of the century if we don’t urgently reduce emissions. What a farce and an insult to proper science, but it did its job, i.e. generated alarming, but highly misleading headlines around the world re. the supposed irrefutable connection with this extreme weather event and man-made climate change.

Unraveling ‘Attribution’ Pseudoscience – No, the NW Pacific Heatwave Would NOT Have Been ‘Virtually Impossible’ Without Global Warming

This is what the media is claiming, this is what ‘scientists’ are claiming. This is what Matt McGrath at the BBC is claiming:

The searing heat that scorched western Canada and the US at the end of June was “virtually impossible” without climate change, say scientists.

In their study, the team of researchers says that the deadly heatwave was a one-in-a-1,000-year event.

But we can expect extreme events such as this to become more common as the world heats up due to climate change.

If humans hadn’t influenced the climate to the extent that they have, the event would have been 150 times less likely.

Scientists worry that global heating, largely as a result of burning fossil fuels, is now driving up temperatures faster than models predict.

I’m claiming BS, so let’s get straight to it. First of all, this analysis was not an analysis of a heatwave in the technical sense. According to the UK Met Office:

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has drafted guidelines on the definition and monitoring of extreme weather and climate events (WMO, 2018). The recommended definition of a heatwave is:

‘A period of marked unusual hot weather over a region persisting for at least three consecutive days during the warm period of the year based on local climatological conditions, with thermal conditions recorded above given thresholds.’In addition, the characterisation of events should consider the following aspects:

Magnitude: The departure from normal, reflecting the climatological extremity of the event.

Duration: Measuring the duration of elevated temperatures.

Extent: The geographical extent of the heatwave.

Severity: Indicating potential damages and impacts of the event.

The NW Pacific heatwave might (just) have qualified on this basis as it occurred over a large region from the 27th to 29th June, but the authors of the WWA attribution analysis have chosen instead to concentrate not on the 3-day consecutive temperatures (including the all important minimum overnight temperatures) but just on the maximum daily one day annual temperature:

Note the highlighted text. In order to get the attribution out fast (whilst the event was still fresh in the minds of the public and presumably to get maximum media attention), they chose to concentrate only on the headline maximum temperatures, which gained most attention in the press. It would have been a more complex and lengthy analysis to concentrate on 3-day temperatures consistent with the actual WMO definition of a heatwave. Also, they deliberately limited their analysis to urban areas, excluding those wild regions where the daily maximum temperatures might not have been expected to be so extreme on account of the well documented and studied urban heat island effect. Indeed, two of their chosen station locations were situated at airports serving large cities; you know, those great slabs of concrete and tarmac, flat as a pancake, where huge jets with big engines are taking off and landing daily.

Temperature observations were collected to directly assess the probability ratios and return periods associated with the event for the three major cities in the study area; Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver. Observing sites were chosen that had long homogenized historical records and were representative of the severity of the event by avoiding exposure to nearby large water bodies. Sites were also chosen to be representative of the populous areas of each city to better illuminate impact on inhabitants. For Portland, the Portland International Airport National Weather Service station was used, which has continuous observations over 1938–2021. The airport is located close to the city centre, adjacent to the Columbia River. The river’s influence is thought to be small and the water temperature is warm by June. For Seattle, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport was chosen, which has almost continuous observations 1948–2021, among the longest records in the Seattle area.

It’s odd, is it not, how they are at pains to avoid large bodies of water which might have a cooling effect, but they’re OK with choosing stations located in the middle of bloody great stretches of heat absorbing concrete and tarmac! Here’s what the cartoonist Josh has to say about that:

I’ve pointed out recently how the choice of event definition can affect the outcome of the attribution, by WWA’s own admission:

Addendum: Event definition

WWA have an article entitled ‘Pathways and Pitfalls in extreme event attribution’. They point out that the definition of the extreme event is very important in determining the result of the attribution. Defining the event is very much a choice of the people doing the analysis.

It’s almost certain that WWA will choose to define this extreme event only with reference to extreme daytime temperatures in the regional Pacific Northwest.

Was I right?

Here is the area studied:

To get an idea of just how extreme the departures were from the long term average in this study area, just look at this graph produced by the authors:

The red line is the maximum recorded temperature in any given year. The green line is the running 10 year average. Note that the series only covers from the period from 1950 (71 years). The green line is representative of the generalised warming in the study region with reference to maximum summer temperatures. As you can see, it’s of the order of 2 or 3 degrees C over the 70 year period to 2020, with annual departures from the trend line (positive or negative) amounting to no more than 4 degrees, the largest departures being negative values in the 1960s and 1970s. Then we get to 2021 and the red line jumps up 6 or even 7 degrees above the baseline! That’s huge. It just cannot be related to the observed slightly increasing long term trend. It can’t. Something else has to be in play, be it a ‘black swan’ extremely low probability event generated randomly or be it due to some very specific meteorological set up (perhaps amplified by other factors, e.g. land use, previous drought conditions), unique in the observed period.

But this does not stop the intrepid team at WWA from torturing the data to fit an extremely dubious statistical distribution. Yes, they actually squeeze this glaringly unusual and extreme departure from normal into a new statistical time series and by so doing they arrive at a highly improbable estimation of the return time for such an extreme event purportedly based upon this statistical time series. I’m actually gobsmacked. They own up to their sins in the paper, which is at least honest, but of course the media coverage (with the assent and cooperation of the authors themselves) is exceptionally dishonest, conveying the impression that this ‘scientific’ study revealed a strong link between this event and global warming.

So, as opposed to simply excluding the anomalous 2021 from the statistical analysis, they decided to try and provisionally include it, using an alternative approach, but this still didn’t give the ‘right’ answer because it implied that the event was either a ‘black swan’ with a return time of 10,000 years, even in the current climate, or that it was due to non-linear (i.e. dynamical/meteorological) effects which are not fully understood. Having to wait 10,000 years for another similar event is just not scary enough! So, the authors did this instead:

They deliberately chose an area where the heat was particularly extreme and they shoe-horned this extreme event to fit a highly improbably statistical series to arrive at a highly improbable estimate of a return time. Now, even a thousand years doesn’t sound that scary, but with projected global warming of another two degrees in 20 years time, which ‘could happen’, we could then be seeing a heatwave like this every 5 or 10 years. Friederike Otto, one of the paper’s authors, explains:

Co-author Dr Friederike Otto, from the University of Oxford, explained what the researchers meant when they said the extreme heat was “virtually impossible” without climate change.

“Without the additional greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, in the statistics that we have available with our models, and also the statistical models based on observations, such an event just does not occur,” she explained.

“Or if an event like this occurs, it occurs once in a million times, which is the statistical equivalent of never,” she told a news briefing.

This type of research, which seeks to determine the contribution of human-induced climate change to extreme weather events, is known as an attribution study.

According to the analysis, if the world warms by 2C, which could happen in about 20 years’ time, then the chances of having a heatwave similar to last week’s drop from around once every 1,000 years to roughly once every 5-10 years.

OMG, hit the panic button! We’re all gonna fry in 45C plus heatwaves if we don’t stop driving cars and get rid of our gas boilers and pay 10 times what we pay now for electricity which is produced exclusively by sustainable ‘sea breezes’ and food-crop-destroying arrays of solar panels. You see we don’t really need to travel, heat or eat, cheaply; what we do need to do is to save the damned planet from Thermageddon – and fast!

I was going to go through the entire paper in one go, exposing the bad science, bit by excruciating bit, but this is enough for now. I’ll write another post (or two) in the next day (or two)

VAERS And Yellow Card Covid ‘Vaccine’ Deaths vs. Deaths From All Other Vaccines

Here is the data, in graph form.

VAERS Deaths From All Vaccines 2000- June 2021

The cumulative total deaths for 20 years prior to 2021 for all vaccines in VAERS is less than the total for just 6 months from the Covid ‘vaccines’ in 2021: 3192 vs. 4826. It’s now nearly 6000 deaths reported in VAERS.

UK Yellow Card Reported Fatalities All Other Vaccines 2011-20 vs. Covid Vaccines to June 2021

Thanks to Joel Smalley for submitting a FOI request to get this data.

Some people might be tempted to argue that the number of people ‘vaccinated’ against Covid is much greater than the number injected yearly with all other vaccines, so this is an unfair comparison. But that’s not true. In the winter season 2018/19, roughly 14 million people received the ‘flu vaccine in the UK. This is just ‘flu. How many millions received vaccines to protect against other diseases? Roughly 30 million people in the UK had received two jabs against Covid in June 2021, so the numbers vaccinated against Covid vs. all other vaccines are going to be comparable – in the multiple millions. This means that the reported death rate from the Covid ‘vaccines’ is MANY times higher than that from all other vaccines, in the US and in the UK. An unprecedented fatality rate in fact, yet still our government is pushing us to get jabbed, using extreme coercive measures combined with threats and propaganda which would not be out of place in 1930s Germany. Our government rushed these jabs through without due caution and now they are pushing like crazy for the entire populace – including children – to get jabbed. Why? Not for public health reasons that’s for sure. Here’s what Robert Malone has to say:

‘In a conventional vaccine you can precisely calculate how much protein goes into your shoulder because it’s fixed and predictable, but in the case of these genetic vaccines you can’t,’ he warned.  

‘You can’t calculate how long it produces this protein and how much protein it makes and exactly what cells in your body the protein goes into. Conventional vaccines go around your cell, but for these gene therapy-based vaccines the target is your cell.’ 

When I asked whether he thought the UK (which was the first country in the world to approve the Pfizer vaccine on December 2, 2020) rushed through their approval of it, Dr Malone quickly responded: ‘I wouldn’t say maybe, I would say they did. You can’t take a process that normally takes a decade and push it down into nine months and not cut corners.’  

Children are at very low risk of hospitalisation and death from Covid-19, Dr Malone confirmed. In their age group, the risks overwhelmingly outweigh the benefits from the vaccine.  

The risks are the cardiotoxicity events (pericarditis and myocarditis) being recorded in the adverse event databases coming out of Israel, Norway and the Netherlands, to name but a few.  

Given that the MHRA and FDA have approved the Pfizer vaccine for 12 to 15-year-olds and have been actively encouraging the use of it across multiple age groups, Dr Malone likened this application to the situation where ‘if you give a three-year-old a hammer, everything becomes a nail’. 

Update 12th July 2021

Joel has updated the VAERS data. It now looks like this:

Robert Dingwall Lets Loose On Masks

Here is a series of tweets from Robert Dingwall, who is a member of SAGE:

This is great. However, our detestable government and its new Health Secretary, Savid Jabid, who insists he will still wear a mask after July 19th, have made it legal for shops and businesses to impose their own mask mandates, effectively meaning nothing much will change if, as I suspect, many shops and businesses continue to insist that masks are worn on their premises. I believe the government knows this. I believe the government is actually encouraging this stance by big business. The fear-based control freakery and the anti-human, anti-science, anti-society ‘new normal’ will continue over summer until masks are probably once again made mandatory during autumn and winter. The naked human face is set to become taboo if we cannot summon the courage and determination to resist en masse, as a society, this continuing outrage, which is in fact an assault upon science, society, rationality, humanity and basic human freedom.

#Rep 4 – One Day Heatwave at Cambridge Botanical Gardens Made 20 Times More Likely By Climate Change, Experts Say

Posted on  by Jaime JessopIn UK Met OfficeUncategorized9 Minutes Read

I’ve already covered the attribution study recently rushed out by scientists with regard to the very hot spell of weather in June. Now most of those same scientists have published a second attribution study which focuses on the 3 or 4 very hot days in northern France and Europe and the one very hot day in the UK on July 25th. Are we going to get a ‘It was climate change wot dunnit’ attribution study every time it gets hot in summer now? Looks like it.

As usual, the global media have given maximum coverage to this additional study which supposedly demonstrates that man-made global warming had its grubby fingerprints all over the second record breaking heatwave in Europe this summer. It’s as bad as, if not worse, than the original study and of course the headline claims that climate change made Europe’s July heat wave up to 3 degrees Celsius hotter, that the heat in France and Holland was made up to 100 times more likely and that in Cambridge up to 20 times more likely is pure hype.

Atmospheric blocking caused the July heatwave, just as in June

The authors say:

In a relatively similar way to the June case, the July heat wave occurred due to a ridge across western Europe (highly amplified Rossby wave), together with a low-pressure system developing offshore the Iberian peninsula, as shown in Figure 2. This weather pattern induced intense advection of hot air from North Western Africa across Spain to France (Figure 3) and then Germany and the Benelux, eventually reaching Scandinavia a few days later. In contrast to the June heatwave, this July heatwave was accompanied by severe drought conditions in areas such as France (a majority of French territory was under drought regulation measures), which might have been a confounding factor given that dry soils are suspected to cause an additional temperature increase at regional scales due to land-atmosphere feedbacks (Seneviratne et al., 2010).

So, once again, atmospheric dynamics play a significant role in directly causing the intense heat, just as we have seen they did in 2003 and 1947, although for summer 2019, the ‘heatwaves’ have been of very much shorter duration and I can find no reports of fatalities due to heat exhaustion for that very reason.

The attribution analysis was not done for Europe: it was done using average data from France only plus five individual weather stations in France, Holland, UK and Germany

Despite headline claims that this attribution study was about heatwaves in Europe and how they have been made much more likely by man-made climate change, it was not. The claim is incorrect and highly misleading. The results of this attribution apply strictly to just five individual weather stations, plus to metropolitan France in general but, as we will see the models were pretty useless for diagnosing trends throughout France and only moderately acceptable as diagnostic tools for the individual weather stations. But it gets worse, and worse again. Firstly, here is a list of the locations:

The only country wide data, which is for France only, is the France Metropolitan Average, which only goes back as far as 1950. Therefore it doesn’t even include data from the 1947 heatwave, not to mention any other heatwaves which might have occurred in the early part of the 20th century or even further back in the 19th century. So they’re doing an attribution analysis for France based on data from the modern period only using models which are biased to produce strong warming in the modern period and amazingly they find that man-made climate change had a significant impact! Only in climate science could this be justified. Any other field and it would be laughed out of the lab.

Only in climate science would scientists select five individual locations (weather stations each encompassing a microclimate of no more than a few hundreds of square meters) and perform a supposedly ‘rigorous’ attribution analysis, then plug their findings in the media as being somehow representative of the climate of an entire continent! It gets worse though; they didn’t just pick the stations, they cherry-picked them – outrageously cherry-picked them!

The rest of the analysis is based on a set of 5 individual weather stations. We selected the stations based on the availability of data, their series length (at least starting in 1951) and avoidance of urban heat island (UHI) and Irrigation Cooling Effects (ICE), which result in non-climatic trends. The locations considered all witnessed a historical record both in daily maximum and in 3-day mean temperature (apart from Oxford and Weilerswist-Lommersum where only daily maximum temperatures set a record).

The weather stations were deliberately selected because they set record high maximum temperatures, three of them also in 3 day mean temperature, which period was coincidentally also the basis for the event attribution, seeing as the ‘heatwave’ was so damned short it was over before it almost began! The choice of Cambridge Botanical gardens is even more hilarious because, as we have seen, the UK failed to live up to the Met Office’s hype and break the national all time temperature record of 38.5C. Then Cambridge University popped up and said that their botanical gardens managed 38.7C, so the Met office jumped at the opportunity to save face and they subsequently legitimised the ‘new record’ by ‘rigorously checking it for quality control’. LOL.

This was only a few days ago. The study’s authors must have then immediately leapt at the opportunity to include Cambridge Botanical Gardens in their ‘European Heatwave Attribution Study’ and stayed up all night presumably number-crunching the data from the station to ‘prove’ beyond all doubt that climate change must have come to Cambridge BG that day! I suspect this might be why there are two stations included in the study from the UK. But it gets even worse! They chose the station simply because the Met Office belatedly declared it as setting a new national maximum temperature record – despite its apparent unsuitability as pointed out by Paul Homewood. They also chose it knowing full well that the historic data was – shall we say – less than reliable:

The Cambridge Botanical Gardens (BG) station that observed the UK record temperature of 38.7 ºC has a sizeable fraction of missing dataOn 23 July there were battery issues, this value has been estimated by the UK Met Office on the basis of their interpolation routine. For earlier years we used the values of the nearby Cambridge NIAB station with a linear bias regression T(BG) = (1+A) T(NIAB) + B, with A about 5% in summer and B -0.6 ºC in July, -0.9 ºC in August.

Can I believe what I just read? On one of the days specifically included in their event definition (July 23rd), the thermometer batteries were on the blink so the Met Office had to estimate the data for that day and the authors used a nearby station to fill in the gaps for the large chunks of historic data (going back to 1911) missing from the station! All this, just so they could include the Botanical Gardens in their study, simply because it was the site of a decidedly dodgy UK all-time maximum temperature record! If that is not an ideologically driven choice by supposedly diligent, cautious, rational, and above all unbiased scientists, I don’t know what is. But there’s more! This is the study which just keeps giving.

Like the June study, the models are crap but in this case not crap enough – simply because of the choice of locations

Figure 5 compares the GEV distribution parameters between model ensembles and observations. In general, the same conclusions hold regarding models skill as in our analysis of the June heatwave [i.e. the models are crap at simulating the actual observations]. Models have a too high variability and hence overestimate the sigma parameter, sometimes by a large amount (factor 1.5 to 2.5). This is particularly marked for the France average. However, HadGEM3-A, EC-EARTH, IPSL-CM6-LR and CNRM-CM6.1 appear to have a reasonable departure from observations. For the other models the 95% confidence intervals on the scale parameter does not overlap with the confidence interval on the scale parameter from the observations, which is our criterion for inclusion of the models in the attribution.

Note that the models perform worse when it comes to the whole of France observations, i.e. the data over a much wider area. For the individual cherry-picked stations, they perform OK (just).

For individual stations studied here shape parameters are well simulated. The discrepancy for the scale parameter is also reduced except for weather@home where variability remains too high. The difference in behavior between the France average and the stations could arise from several reasons and remains to be investigated.

The issue requires an in-depth investigation, but probable reasons may be in a difficulty of models to correctly simulate land-atmosphere interactions, resulting in a deficit of skill for the simulation of heatwaves especially in regions where evapotranspiration regimes undergo transitions from energy-limited to soil-moisture limited regimes. Preliminary investigations into the deficits of weather@home have shown that an insufficient cloud cover in the model leads to unrealistically high hot extremes and low cold extremes. Another possible cause is dynamical as France may occasionally be influenced by episodic advection of hot and dry air from Spain and North Africa leading to large excursions of temperature which models might not capture well.

Yep, blah, blah, blah, etc. etc. Finally they get to the probable real reason why there’s a difference in model performance between individual stations and whole regions – a flipping great plume of hot air from Africa caused the heatwave and made it much more likely that very hot temperatures would be experienced on said days of the heatwave! They already bloody said this is what caused the extreme temperatures!

The source of the unusual heat was North Africa, scientists say, drawn up to Europe because of high pressure to the east of the UK.

[https://thefinancialanalyst.net/2019/08/02/climate-change-made-europes-2019-record-heatwave-up-to-100-times-more-likely/]

It’s one reason why it got very hot, up to 3.5C hotter than when it last got very hot, in 2003 and 1947. Other reasons include land use, urbanisation, station siting and yes, a general long term warming trend observed in the average temperatures of European summers. But what do our intrepid ‘scientists’ do? They use models which barely fit observations and they hype their own findings by falsely informing the public that the whole of the increase in record daily max temperatures can be attributed to man-made climate change. They also tell us that man-made climate change has made it up 100 times more likely that these extremes will occur!

Geert Jan van Oldenborgh (KNMI), one of the study’s authors admits all this to Carbon Brief, but the alarmist headlines remain and none of the scientists involved seem concerned in the least about the impression given to the public, even reinforcing that impression themselves in their press interviews.

As part of the analysis, the authors also looked at how extreme the temperatures seen during the July heatwave were in comparison to those seen in the past.

The authors find that the temperatures seen during this heatwave were around 3C higher than they would have been in 1900.

This is double the heatwave temperature increase expected by climate models – which are used to make projections about future climate change, van Oldernborgh says:

The models only predict that heatwaves get warmer at about 1.5C per degree of global warming. So for every degree of global warming, they predict that heatwaves get 1.5C hotter – a little bit faster but not really exceptional.”

The world has seen around 1C of global warming so far – meaning that the models would expect heatwaves to be around 1.5C hotter today than in pre-industrial times. However, temperatures during this heatwave were actually around 3C warmer, he says:

“We really need to do a lot more serious research than we can do within one week to look at why there is such a big discrepancy between the observed trends and the modelled trends. [No. Shit. Sherlock]

“But heatwaves are very special. A lot of things come together for a heatwave – heat from the Sahara, local heating due to sunshine, the reaction of vegetation due to very hot conditions – and all these things have to be modelled right. I’m just afraid that these models that have been designed to project the average climate correctly cannot handle these very extreme situations very well.”

So what have we learnt? We’ve learned that models are rubbish at analysing the human fingerprint in extreme weather events, but that scientists still use them and express over-confidently their opinions about how climate change has significantly altered the frequency and intensity of extreme heatwaves, using those models, combined with sparse data, poor data and unsuitable data. These opinions then get relayed to the media as ‘fact’ and idiot climate activists, Greens and lefty politicians double down on ‘climate crisis deniers’ as these ‘facts’ accumulate in the public arena.

The Queen Shows Her “Heartfelt Appreciation” To The NHS For Slapping A DNR Order On The Dragon

Her Majesty the Queen has bestowed the George Cross upon the entire NHS.

Blanket DNRs on the elderly, vulnerable and disabled suffering Covid infection is not the only ‘courageous and compassionate’ thing the NHS has done this year of course. We should also recognise their unerring dedication to harass, coerce and misinform millions of healthy people to get a dangerous, toxic experimental ‘vaccine’ licensed for emergency use only in violation of the Nuremberg Code principles of informed consent when there is demonstrably no ’emergency’. Not forgetting also their willful refusal to treat millions of people suffering serious and life threatening non-Covid conditions over the past 15 months, the effective termination of in person GP services and the absolutely disgusting and callous refusal to allow relatives to be with their dying loved ones in hospital.

Poor Mike Yardley is going to be extra fuming when he learns of this news, after having been injected with AZ by the NHS when he specifically made a point of informing them of his clotting history at the time of the injection, a history which they should already have been aware of anyway. The nurse waived away his concerns of course and jabbed him anyway, ignoring his pleas for a scan for a clot for 3 months afterwards. Now he’s permanently disabled. The kind of ‘service’ worthy of the George Cross in Pol Pot Belly’s FUBAR Britain, it would seem.