Atticus Fox

Unsatisfactory Communications with a Politician

At the start of 2025, the Climate and Nature Bill was working its way through the British Parliamentary Process.

The objective of the Bill was to save the planet. To do so, the Bill outlined a series of open-ended, ill-defined measures that the government could co-opt in order to do whatever it (the govt) deemed necessary to save the planet.

Suffice it to say, the Bill was primarily focused on drastically reducing the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. This made me concerned what this would mean for the UK’s ability to produce enough energy to support the economy.
My MP, AAA, who likes to think of herself as a ‘Good Person’ and wants others to see her as a ‘Good Person’, obviously supported this Bill. As such, I had no choice but to contact her, by email, in an effort to prompt her into some critical thinking.

Spoiler alert: I didn’t make any progress!

Below, I document my email exchanges with AAA. There are 5 messages: 3 from me with 2 responses from AAA.

1st email from Atticus Fox to AAA, dated 11 January 2025.

‘Dear Ms. AAA,

Can you explain why you support the Climate and Nature Bill?

Can you include in your answer details on the effects you believe the Bill will have on British industry and construction?

What effects do you think this Bill will have on British living standards?

What effects do you think this Bill will have on domestic energy consumption?

What effects do you think this Bill will have on food production and food import?

What effect do you think this Bill will have on Global temperatures?

Your sincerely,

Atticus

Atticus: I dashed off the email above without much thought. I hadn’t even read the Bill at this stage. I expected that AAA would respond with a pre-scripted boilerplate response so I didn’t want to invest a lot of time and effort.

First response from AAA to Atticus Fox on 17th Jan, 2025:

‘Dear Atticus,
Thank you for your kind email regarding the Climate and Nature Bill.
Climate change is an existential threat. Soaring temperatures leading to wildfires, floods, droughts and rising sea levels are affecting millions of people directly, and billions more through falling food production and rising prices. Urgent action is needed – in the UK and around the world – to achieve net zero and avert catastrophe.
At the same time, sky-high energy bills are hurting families and businesses, fuelling the cost-of-living crisis. Russia’s assault on Ukraine has reinforced the need to significantly reduce the UK’s dependence on fossil fuels and invest in renewables – both to cut energy bills and to deliver energy security.
I be (Sic) in attendance of the second reading [AF: 2nd reading of the Bill scheduled for 24th Jan] – it’s already in my diary. I look forward to encouraging its progress in Parliament.
Many thanks for your correspondence.
Kind regards,
AAA MP
Member of Parliament for XXX’

Atticus: As expected, pure boilerplate. No engagement with any of my questions. In the meantime, I had read the CAN Bill. I had also read an interesting analysis on Substack, by Richard Lyon, that laid out the relationship between a country’s energy use and its economy. I decided to respond to AAA using the Lyon piece as a sub-structure.

2nd email from Atticus Fox to AAA on 22nd Jan, 2025:
‘Dear AAA,
Thank you for your response.
By way of rejoinder, I would like to point out an economic truth: the debt-based economy of the UK is wholly dependent on growing the economy each year by an amount sufficient to generate enough tax receipts to keep funding the expanding commitments of the UK government. That economic growth is entirely driven by the UK’s energy production. Net Zero will result in government bankruptcy.
Let me explain.
The UK economy – any country’s economy – is a pyramid whereby energy and resources comprise the bottom layer of the pyramid that supports the rest of the economy.
Thus, there is a direct relationship between the quantity of energy and the size of the economy. For example, a low energy country cannot support a car industry (nor any other kind of industry for that matter). Nor could such a country build 1.5m homes in the next 4 years. Mud huts, maybe.
Hence why there are no rich ‘low energy’ countries. A ‘rich’ country that decimates its energy levels will become a poor country very quickly. And that economic shrinkage will not happen in a calm and tidy manner. We are talking about hyperinflation as the value of money becomes worthless because there is not enough energy to support the goods and services that make a country rich. (Lots of money tokens chasing far fewer good and services). Pensions would be wiped out.
People would freeze to death through not being able to heat their homes. (Cold weather kills 15 times more people than hot weather). Money would flee the country, ports and airports would shut due to lack of traffic, cars would disappear from the roads and even local travel would become difficult.
Starvation would ensue. Starvation is always a risk in a country that only produces half of the food that it needs. However, without the fertiliser derived from hydrocarbons, even less food would be produced in the UK. The CAN Bill indicates that the carbon emissions of imports will be included in calculations suggesting that food imports would drastically reduce (not that a country undergoing hyper-inflation would be able to afford imports).
There would be no power to run sewage treatment plants or hydrocarbon-based chemicals to clean the water.
(The irony is that wind turbines are made from hydrocarbons, further impacting on the ‘debit’ side of our carbon emissions ledger. The energy needed to make both turbines and solar panels can only come from fossil fuels. Wind power and solar energy does not have the energy density necessary to manufacture these items, hence the loss of industry referred to above – the energy produced by a windmill cannot build a windmill).
The CAN Bill is all about significantly reducing the amount of high density energy the UK produces in a short space of time. The only possible outcome of de-industrialising Britain is to take Britain’s economy back to pre-industrial levels. 200 years of progress in health and living standards would be undone in less than 20 years under conditions of extreme social turmoil.
In this email I have only focused on the economic consequences of CAN as these consequences alone are more than enough to contest this Bill. As this email is already longer than intended I shall ignore the egregious assaults on property rights and personal autonomy that are also built into the Bill. The subject of a subsequent email, perhaps.
Net Zero will eventually collapse under the weight of its own monumental scientific and economic illiteracy. I beseech you to understand the consequences of this Bill before too much irreparable harm is done.
This email is my evidence that I tried to warn you. The CAN Bill will do more damage to the well-being of this country than Climate Change ever will.
If you have evidence that contradicts the narrative I have outlined above, I would welcome the opportunity to review it.
Best regards,
Atticus’

2nd email from AAA on 27th Jan:

Dear Atticus,

Thank you for your email regarding the Climate and Nature Bill. I appreciate you sharing your concerns, and I’d like to take this opportunity to explain my position and hopefully address any doubts you may have.

As you noted, I have been a supporter of the Climate and Nature Bill and supported it during its second reading in Parliament on 24th January. My support for this bill is driven by the urgent need to tackle climate change, which I, along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues, consider to be an existential threat.

We are already seeing the devastating impacts of climate change: soaring temperatures, wildfires, floods, droughts, and rising sea levels are directly affecting millions of people. Additionally, billions more are feeling the indirect effects through disrupted food production and rising costs. It is clear that urgent action is required, both here in the UK and globally, if we are to meet our net-zero targets and avert further catastrophe.

Furthermore, the current energy crisis, exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has underscored the need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Rising energy bills are putting immense strain on families and businesses, deepening the cost-of-living crisis. The transition to renewable energy not only helps address climate change, but it also enhances our energy security and helps lower energy costs.

The Climate and Nature Bill is a key step towards achieving these goals. It would require the UK to meet ambitious climate and nature targets and place a duty on the Secretary of State to implement a strategy to achieve them. The bill would also establish a Climate and Nature Assembly to advise the Secretary of State, ensuring that decisions are informed by expert opinion. Additionally, it would assign important roles to bodies such as the Committee on Climate Change and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee in overseeing the progress towards these targets.

Given the imminent risks posed by climate change and the growing global volatility, I believe it is both necessary and right that we take action now to protect our planet and secure our energy future.

However, you may have seen that the Government has now made concessions in relation to this Bill, so while the Bill is very unlikely to proceed any further in Parliament, it has encouraged the Government to do more than it had planned in fighting both the climate and nature crises. I am pleased to see this and very proud of the work done by my Liberal Democrat colleagues and other campaigners to bring this about.

Thank you again for reaching out. I hope this explanation helps to clarify my support for the bill.

Yours sincerely,
AAA MP

Atticus: Again, AAA did not engage with any of my points. Her 2nd response is simply a longer duplicate of her first response. She did not present a single fact, it’s all just emotional tropes. The CAN Bill was dead in the water by this point. However, in light of AAA’s refusal to engage with my points, I felt an obligation to engage with her points so I decided to send another email…

3rd email from Atticus Fox to AAA MP, dated 3rd Feb 2025

Dear AAA,
I am shocked that you believe that Climate Change (CC) is an existential threat. This is an extreme view held by only a very small number of climate cultists. What is your source for such an extremist view? Can you qualify and quantify what you mean by ‘existential threat’? Do you see CC as a threat to all life on earth? In what timeframe do you feel such an extinction will take place? 10 years? 1000 years?
The IPCC certainly does not support such an extremist view. It concerns me that you, the MP for XXX, would hold such an extreme minority opinion? Have you ever researched CC? By that I mean, researched the views of climate sceptical scientists? The strictures of critical thinking demand that one should be familiar with all sides of an argument before forming an opinion. In these days of social media algorithms, many people are only directed to material that agrees with their preconceived ideas.
My concern with your extreme position is that if you genuinely believe that all life on earth is in danger of dying out, you could justify any cost of ‘saving the planet’ as being ‘for the greater good’. Is that why you didn’t quibble with my previous references to ‘de-industrialisation’ and ‘civil unrest’ (because you feel that such regressive impacts are a small price to pay ‘for the greater good’)?
The philosophy of ‘For the greater good’ allows any number of Malthusian policies to be enacted if the leader feels that the alternative would be worse.
Tell me, what is your view on the global population? Do you feel it needs to be lower….?

I have studied Climate change in more detail than most and I can tell you that the impacts you list – ‘soaring temperatures, wildfires, floods, droughts, and rising sea levels are directly affecting millions of people’ – are all totally false. Temps are not soaring. Wildfires are due to poor forestry mgt and arson. How can both floods and droughts be attributable to CC? ‘Rising sea levels’? Sea levels have risen 400 feet over the last 20,000 years, yet now it’s humanity’s fault? The Maldives are building a huge international airport so clearly neither they, nor their investors, believe that CC is an existential threat.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has NOT underscored the need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. What it has underscored is the need to be self-sufficient in energy. Yet you want to prevent this by stopping the exploration and extraction of our own fossil fuels in favour of energy sources that require huge subsidies because they are very expensive. (We paid £2.4b on renewables subsidies in 2024). [AF: this was incorrect, it was more like £13billion]. On this subject, Net Zero is not going to bring down energy costs. Not only are renewables expensive but NESO has stated in their ‘Clean Energy 2030’ report that the existing gas infrastructure would have to remain operational as a backup for those periods when there is no wind or sun. This means we will have to support 2 energy systems – the gas system and the renewables system. Prices will not be coming down.

Please do some research. I believe that putting climate change in its correct perspective will also be better for your mental health. People internalise the stress that they feel about climate change.
I know that when my research led me to the truth about CC in 2019, I felt elated for weeks. I felt like a burden had been lifted from me.

One last question: would you support a referendum on Net Zero? Why not?

Yours sincerely,

Atticus

Atticus: I never heard from AAA again. Ho hum.

CDC Makes Surprising Admission

CDC: ‘Studies supporting a link [between vaccines and autism] have been ignored by health authorities’.

Yes, they have been ignored, particularly by the CDC.

If you have a baby, or you plan to have one in the future, do not consent to infant vaccinations until you are have researched the dangers (and the benefits). You will never forgive yourself if you don’t and your baby is one of the unlucky ones to suffer a major side effect, unnecessarily.

There is no other issue for which it is more important to be a critical thinker than infant vaccinations.

A good book on this subject is ‘Turtles All The Way Down’ but there are others that deliver the facts rather than the propaganda.

I’m very glad to see signs that debate on this issue might finally be possible in the near future.

Remember: not being allowed to debate something is a sure sign that you are being lied to.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about/autism.html

Fascism Comes Very Slowly, Then All of a Sudden

The move towards fascism has been building in the UK for a while but almost too slowly too notice. Yet, all of sudden, the reality is crashing all around us. For some reason it hasn’t had the pushback it deserves. Why is that? Well, a big part of the reason is that most people don’t know what fascism is. They think fascism is nationalists in military formation. They don’t realise that fascism is a bit more subtle than that.

Let’s remind ourselves what fascism is. This is fascism defined by Benito Mussolini, who invented it:

‘The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State – a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values – interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.’ (p. 14)

‘Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere.’ (p. 32)

‘The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State.‘ (p. 41).

Benito Mussolini, 1935, The Doctrine of Fascism, Firenze: Vallecchi Editore.

‘The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.‘

Benito Mussolini, 1935, Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions, Rome: ‘Ardita’ Publishers.

After reading these extracts from Benito that you will agree with me that the evidence of emergent fascism reveals itself with every passing day. If you are not quite at that level of understanding yet, cast your mind back to covid lockdowns and vaccine mandates. Also, please read up on ESG scores; stakeholder capitalism and Public-private partnerships.

People in Europe 90 years ago can be forgiven for not knowing what fascism meant in practise. We don’t have that excuse any more. So why are people supporting the growth of fascism? They support it because they don’t recognise it as fascism. We, in the West, are constantly told we live in Liberal Democracies.

“Is it not yet clear to the left that the political face of “breakdown capitalism” is fascism, albeit articulated in new and more sophisticated (progressive!) forms of violence and repression?” Fabio Vighi

However, we didn’t see it because it was all being built in the shadows. Only when covid emerged and we saw the tyranny take control did we realise that The Establishment are a LOT more organised than us. They have most of their pieces in places whereas we are a disorganised rag-tag assortment of people without any voice.

A lot of credit must go to the MSM (mainstream media). The media have been becoming increasingly politicised for years. I have long realised that this would be a problem at some point but i thought the problem would come when there was a Left wing government. It turns out there is no longer any difference between so called Left and Right wing governments.

A big factor in this subversive fascism that has crept on us is how cleverly it has been disguised. Fascism has been cloaked in the language of Progressivism. As such, the Left have been fully on board because they have been fooled into thinking the anti-capitalists paradise they have always fever-dreamed about is finally being delivered.

For all their virtue-signalling about how anti-fascist they are the left are very drawn to virtually all aspects of fascism: they like the state control of production because that appeals to their anti-capitalist instincts. They like Big Government because they think governments are there to help them and give them things. They like censorship because they’ve grown up in a world where Progressives are never censored. In short, Leftists like any and all restrictions of their freedoms that are implemented for the sake of a Progressive cause.

The only bits of traditional fascism that the Left don’t like are concentration camps and the persecution of minorities. Two more reasons that they haven’t twigged that the Public Private Partnerships springing up all around us are just a rebranding of what Mussolini called ‘Corporatism’.

As such, the authorities have been very careful to cloak their fascist objectives in progressive clothing:

• We need to protect the vulnerable (lockdown policies and vaccine policies; quarantine camps in Australia);

• We need to protect the planet (15 minute cities; Net zero; ESG scores; Removal of efficient energy sources);

• We need to help the oppressed and the vulnerable (digital ids; online censorship);

• We need to make finance more inclusive (CBDC’s).

Leftists are so stupid they cannot see the prison being built around them. Around all of us. They do not recognise it as fascism because they think fascism is right wing. As such, they have a massive blind spot when it comes to fascists spouting Progressive buzzwords like ‘sustainability’ and ‘inclusivity’ and ‘green’ and ‘our communities’ and ‘vulnerable people’ and ‘no more hate-speech’. This shows just how little leftists understand fascism. As far as Leftists are concerned fascists are people they disagree with. They have no idea that fascists are people very much like themselves because it was people very much like themselves that were fascists 90 years ago.

For me the lurch towards fascism has been very sudden but I can see that the Power Structures have been moving towards this for a long time. For them it has been very slow.

Can modern fascism be resisted? I don’t know. We are so divided, how can we possibly mount a united defence?

Different Levels of Success Were Achieved

The Taliban banned opium production in Afghanistan in 2000. Over the following year, production levels fell to almost zero.

In October 2001 the US invaded Afghanistan for reasons that weren’t exactly clear. Over the next 20 years opium production ballooned, far exceeding the levels prior to the Taliban’s ban.

This despite repeated statements from the US that one of their objectives in Afghanistan was to end opium production.

The US departed from the country in 2021. Thereafter, the Taliban took control and opium production once again collapsed.

How weird. What are we to make of such a paradox?
#AirAmerica

“What is truth? For the multitude, that which it continually reads and hears.” ~ Oswald Spengler

https://unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2024/unisnar1492.html

The Pussy Pass

We are told it’s a man’s world. We are told that women are oppressed by the patriarchy. We are told that women are still fighting to achieve equality with men.

Here are some details that indicate men do not have things all their own way:

• Boys perform worse at every stage of education than girls.

• Men are 97% of the prison population, get harsher sentences for the same crimes, and are more likely to be jailed.

• Men are 84% of the homeless.

• Prostate cancer kills more men than breast cancer kills women – but gets half the funding and a fraction of the attention.

• One in three domestic-violence victims are men, yet there are no shelters and almost zero support.

• Men die five years earlier and receive worse healthcare.

• Men work, on average, six hours more per week – 24 hours per month, or two extra months per year (ONS).

• Ninety-nine percent of military deaths are men.

• Ninety-six percent of workplace deaths are men.

• Ninety-nine percent of outdoor manual work is done by men.

• Around 75% of suicides in the UK are men – and it’s the leading cause of death for men under 50.

• Men are more likely to die from substance abuse.

• Men are more likely to be victims of violent crime

Every week sees stories emerge in which the rights of women are placed above those of men. As I write this piece, 2 stories have caught my eye:

One story informs us that Transgirls will no longer be able to join the Girl Guides as the Girl Guides is an organisation that is only open to biological girls. Fair enough, you think. However, the organisation formerly known as the ‘Boy Scouts’ was forced to allow girls to join in 2007 and, consequently, is now known simply as the ‘Scouts’. In the modern patriarchy, girls and women are allowed to have single gender organisations but men are not afforded the same rights.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz7n921wyzvo

The second story concerns the killing of women in Italy. This crime is so egregious that a special law is being rushed through that impose harsher penalties on ‘Femicide’ than on those common-all-garden murders of men:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1dzp050yn2o

To state there are double standards would be an understatement. The women’s movement has pushed for equality over the last 100 years and, having achieved it, pushed on to gain themselves an advantage. I’m reminded of the following adage:

‘A feminist is a woman that wants the power of a man, the privileges of a woman, but the responsibility of neither.’

Here is a powerful article on the employment headwinds that young whire men now face in Western countries:

https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-lost-generation/

Let us remind ourselves that women can dress and behave provocatively around men but if this provokes a reaction from a man who is not attractive to the provocateur, then she can claim she has been objectified.

And what about the world of psychology:

‘Seager argued that psychology suffers from “gender blindness”, in that the profession is reluctant to consider the possibility that men have specific needs. Indeed, Seager argued, we are reluctant to think of men as a gender in their own right at all, thanks to the increasing prevalence of pop-feminism and a widely held and false notion that all men are inherently privileged, regardless of their socio-economic circumstances.’

https://www.tes.com/news/boys-underperform-schools-because-we-look-after-their-wellbeing-less

Let’s see how criminal punishments are handed out…

Spot the difference…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9127045/Florist-22-avoids-jail-luring-ex-trap-new-lover-beat-baseball-bat.html

Jury Trials: The Last Check on Authoritarian Power

The fact that the government intend to maintain jury trials only for murder, manslaughter and rape shows us that the government doesn’t care about these crimes.

No, the government agenda is much more insidious: they want control over what we say and think. They want control over who is punished and who is not.

The government is no longer prepared to allow the populace to decide which laws are fair and which should be ignored. No, the government wants to mark its own homework: to pass and enforce any legislation they choose. The objective of dictators throughout the ages is now being grasped.

Once governments have banned jury trials, they will have free reign to bring in any legislation they like, safe in the knowledge that no jury will be able will be able override it in court.
Legislation will become more authoritarian, more anti-citizen in its nature. It’s an inevitable consequence once the shackles of checks and balances have been removed.

Let’s take a look at who else banned jury trials…

• Vladimir Lenin: 1917-1922
• Benito Mussolini: 1931
• Adolf Hitler: 1934
• Francisco Franco: 1939
• Mao Zedong: 1949
• Fidel Castro: 1959
• Pol Pot: 1975
• Idi Amin: 1971-1972
• Saddam Hussein: 1970s
• Muammar Gaddafi: 1973
• Ayatollah Khomeini: 1979
• Hugo Chávez: 1999 onward (intensified under Maduro)
• Hafez al-Assad: 1970s
• Keir Starmer: 2025

‘The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule’ – Samuel Adams

The Margins of Error That Lead To Record Temperatures

The Met Office captures temperature data from over 300 Climate Stations located across the UK. From this data, the Met Office produces climate summaries for each year and other metrics such as average annual temperatures for the UK plus long-term averages. From this data it is also possible to glean the highest temperature recorded in each UK country during each year.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/weather/learn-about/uk-past-events/summaries/seasonal-assessment—summer-25.pdf

https://catalogue.ceda.ac.uk/uuid/9244f715ecfd4e74b0b6200de55e1b1a/

The period of 10 years between 2016 and 2025 is, therefore, covered by 40 annual high temps (10 for each country). These 40 annual high temps – have come from just 20 Climate Stations.

The Met Office uses the CIMO classifications, from 1 to 5, for each Climate Station where a Class 1 site would indicate an ideally exposed station that produces reliable temperature information. However, at the other end of the scale, a Class 5 site is blighted by factors that might affect the temperature recorded by up to 5°C and a Class 4 site has location effects up to 2°C. Class 3 locations could lead to inaccuracies of up to 1°C. The class ratings penalise sites that are near any artificial heat sources such as buildings and concrete surfaces.

Of the 20 UK sites that have recorded annual record temps over the last 10 years, 16 (80%) are comprised of Classes 4 & 5. Here is the classification breakdown for all 20 sites:

• 7 are class 5 sites (Aviemore, RAF Northolt, Cambridge Botanical Gardens, Santon Downham, Bute Park Cardiff, Motherwell, Castlederg).

• 8 are class 4 sites (Faversham, Goggerdan, Hawarden Airport, Charterhall, Aboyne, Edinburgh, Glasgow Bishopton, Balliwatticock)

• 4 are class 3 sites (Heathrow Airport, RAF Coningsby, Charlwood (Gatwick), Magilligan)

• 1 is class 1 (Cambridge).

This means that 95% (19/20) of annual record temperatures come from stations that are known to be subject to man-made heat sources.

Eagle-eyed readers will have noticed that 5 (25%) of the 20 sites are associated with aeroplane runways where the man-made heat sources are jet engines (2 RAF bases and 3 airports).

In the UK as a whole:

Class 1 comprises just 6.3% of sites while Class 2 comprises 7.4% of the total.

Class 3 stations form 8.4% of the total.

Class 4 comprises a massive 48.7% of the total 380 stations while 29.2% U.K. Met Office temperature measuring stations are Class 5.

77.9% of UK Climate Stations are ‘Junk’ status

Thus, 86.3% of stations that the Met Office uses to compile UK temp information are known to be sited in locations that produce inaccurate readings. This compares to a 95% figure for stations that have recorded a record temperature over the last 10 years.

Here is a Daily Sceptic article highlighting the inappropriate locations for the vast majority of temperature recording stations:

https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/01/exclusive-a-third-of-u-k-met-office-temperature-stations-may-be-wrong-by-up-to-5c-foi-reveals/

Despite these levels of inaccuracy, the Met Office produces annual ‘average’ UK temperatures to 2 decimal places. This infers a level of accuracy to one hundredth of a degree which is simply not a reflection of reality.

The Met Office is responsible for setting the classifications for its own weather stations.

Ray Sanders, a citizen journalist, has visited most Climate Stations in the UK and produced reports describing his observations.

Heathrow Airport (Class 3):

The map shows that the Heathrow station is at the junction of the M4 and the North runway.

Ray Sanders’ analysis on the suitability of Heathrow’s weather station:

https://wp.me/pi4G5-jyU

If Heathrow is class 3, imagine how unsuitable class 4 and class 5 stations are.

RAF Coningsby (Class 3): Another station located next to a runway hosting jet engines. Coningsby set a new English temp record in 2022 at 40.3°C, beating the previous record by 1.6°C as a result of a temperature spike that lasted less than 1 minute. The Met Office refuses to divulge whether this minute coincided with Typhoon Jets taking off or landing.

Here is Ray’s analysis:

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2025/01/29/coningsby-wmo-03391-an-internationally-agreed-distance-from-the-runway-record-holder-and-a-deniers-tale/

And here is an article about this ‘record’ from the Daily Sceptic:

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/12/04/doubts-remain-about-40-3c-record-at-u-k-airbase-after-met-office-fails-to-respond-to-questions/

Charlwood (Class 3): Charlwood happens to be next to Gatwick airport and the weather station is located in direct flight path line of the runway. Independent assessors of this station have judged it to be better suited to Class 5 than Class 3.

Ray’s analysis:

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2025/05/02/charlwood-wmo-03769-a-k-a-gatwick-dodgy-platforms-wire-windbreaks-and-distorted-readings-plus-what-manston-tells-us/

Magilligan (Class 2 or 3) Another site that researchers believe should be classed as Class 5).

Analysis from Ray Sanders:

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2025/08/26/magilligan-no-2-wmo-03907-why-the-met-office-has-become-unfit-for-purpose-record-chasing-is-now-their-prime-motivation/

Cambridge (Class 1): possible proximity to electrical sub-station. The MO covertly moved this station in 2009 and, thereafter, spliced data from the original and current locations. Since the move, the Cambridge station is consistently recording hotter temps.

Ray’s analysis:

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2024/12/18/cambridge-niab-dcnn-3254-a-class-1-site-sometimes-with-yet-another-creative-history/

Furthermore, these junk sites, with known errors of up to 5°C feed into the Met’s calculation of average UK temps, they also feed into long term temp averages.

Sanders had made several inquiries to the weather authority to obtain more detailed information about the weather stations. He reported:

‘Of the 302 locations mentioned, over a third (103) do NOT exist. The Met Office refused to tell me exactly how or where the alleged ‘data’ for these 103 non-existent sites came from.”

https://dailysceptic.org/2025/05/12/the-met-office-is-unable-to-name-the -sites-providing-estimated-temperature-data-for-its-103-non-existent-stations/

The Met Office has hundreds of ‘Climate Stations’ dotted around the country the role of which is to record metrics associated with the weather (mainly temperature and rainfall). How many Climate Stations exist is a matter for debate since the Met Office have admitted to a Freedom of Information request that over 100 Stations don’t exist, yet still contribute to weather records. The Met Office estimates temperatures for these ‘zombie’ sites from other sites in the area that the Met Office feels are ‘correlated’. Yet the Met Office refuses to reveal how they calculate such estimates.

9/11 Insider Trading

On September 12, 2001, the SEC opened an investigation into whether an unknown group of equities traders had made millions of dollars betting against the companies involved in the attacks.

For example, on Thursday, Sep 6, two thousand contracts betting that United Airlines’ stock would go down were purchased. Ninety times more in one day than in three weeks of normal trading. The price of these contracts soared after the attacks.

Many other companies were similarly affected.

There was also a six-fold increase in ‘call’ options on Raytheon, the defence contractor.

The SEC investigation examined 9.5 million securities transactions across 103 different companies trading in seven markets across 32 exchange traded funds while working in co-ordination with the FBI among other agencies.

The SEC’s conclusion of its investigation into suspicious option trading activity just prior to 9/11 was as follows:

‘We have not developed any evidence suggesting that those who had advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks traded on the basis of that information.’

This is an oddly worded statement. This is not saying that the SEC found no evidence of insider trading only that ‘those who had advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks’ did not engage in insider trading.

This suggests that the SEC was able to identify those who had advance knowledge of the attacks.

9/11 researcher Kevin Ryan has uncovered details of a particular suspicious trade that was investigated by the FBI: 56,000 shares of Stratesec were purchased in the days immediately prior to 9/11. Strategic provided security systems to airports. The Stratesec trade traced back to Mr and Mrs Wirt Walker. Wirt is a distant relative of the Bush family and a business partner of Marvin Bush, brother of George W. Wirt and his wife Sally were not interviewed by the FBI because the FBI’s investigation into the couple ‘revealed no ties to terrorism or other negative information’.

Evidence for Informed Trading on the Attacks of September 11

However, as Ryan notes, this isn’t true: ‘Walker hired a number of Stratesec employees away from a subsidiary of The Carlyle Group called BDM International which ran secret projects for government agencies. The Carlyle Group was partly financed by members of the Bin Laden family’

Furthermore, Walker has multiple connections to the CIA:

‘Mr Walker ran a number of suspicious companies that went bankrupt, including Stratesec, some of which were underwritten by a company run by a 1st cousin of former CIA Director (and President) George H W Bush. Additionally, Walker was the son of a CIA employer and his first job was at an investment firm run by former US intelligence guru James Forgan where he worked with another former CIA director, William Casey.

There are many similar stories involving connected non-al Qaeda actors suggesting foreknowledge of events. None of which were never followed up by intelligence services.

As James Corbett has commented in his book ‘Reportage’:

‘If those with foreknowledge of the attacks weren’t connected to al-Qaeda, what does that say about the identity of the real 9/11 perpetrators?’

The Future of Food – The Short Version

I wrote this very short overview of Sainsbury’s ‘Future of Food report in order to post on LinkedIn. However, some might prefer it to the very long overview that I published on WordPress a couple of days ago…

In 2019, Sainsbury’s commissioned a ‘Future of Food’ report that predicted how food systems may evolve over the next 150 years.

Here is the report so you can read for yourself:

http://www.department22.uk/uploads/2/2/2/7/22275778/future-of-food.pdf

It’s worth taking a close look at this report to see what the powers-that-be have in mind for our food in the future

• The report hits all of the right Globalist touchpoints. Hence, there are lots of references to diet changes being required to prevent Climate Change. Transhumanism is touched upon as are high-profile ‘Degrowth’ policies.

• There are lots of references to what exciting things are happening in the non-meat alternative protein market right now. Spoiler alert: it’s fake meat and insects.

• The reports calls for increases in the diversity and reduction in the uniformity of the vegetables we eat (which is exactly the opposite of Supermarkets’ practises of the last 60 years).

• Our vegetables could be grown in tunnels lit by LED lights fed by inorganic chemical compounds.

• All ‘marine stock’ in the future could be farmed.

• The report discusses the importance of ‘food as medicine’. However, the report also states that: ‘It’s likely that we’ll be consuming our key nutrients through implants. While nutrition patches and drips could replace our day-to-day intake.’ So it seems we will take processed health supplements to accompany nutritionally-dead food.

• We are told several times that food consumers of the future will choose food based on its carbon footprint or calorfic content or the chemicals used in its production. Not once does the report mention ‘taste’ or ‘cost’ in relation to future food.

• There are multiple references to ‘investors’ throughout the report as in: ‘Mushroom-based products, algae milk, seaweed caviar and insects are just some of the increasingly sophisticated options whetting investor appetite.’. It is clear that consumers will not have what they want but what the investors want them to have.

• Sainsbury’s want you to believe that fake meat production in 2050 will take place in ‘artisan’ factories – complete with ‘vats’ and ‘robots’ – owned by small businesses where customers can watch their meat being assembled and printed. As if food production will be a cottage industry rather than in the control of conglomerates.

• There are multiple references to the need to change consumer’s perceptions of food so that consumers can accept the radical changes that investors have lined up for them. For example, the report states that consumers must be convinced that growing meat in a lab is no different to brewing beer.

• ‘Waste wasn’t just eliminated, it is a word no longer in use.’ No packaging? No bottles? Sainsbury’s does not explain how that will work.

• Sainsbury’s suggests ‘that traditional social moments – such as birthdays or weddings –
could be bigger and better than ever before, with the pleasures of food strengthening the bonds of community.’ No explanation is provided to support this theory.

• The report makes repeated references to sustainability. However, what is sustainable about entirely artificial food systems – hydroponics, fake meat and farmed fish – that are entirely disconnected from age-old farming and fishing practices and entirely dependent on technology and energy for their existence? If your food system cannot survive an energy crisis or a cyber-attack, in what way is it sustainable?

• In summary, the report is basically saying that the only natural foods we have today – meat, fish and vegetables – are going to be made unnatural and that is going to make us, and the planet, healthier. And if we don’t embrace these changes, the govt taxation stick will nudge us in the right direction.