Alexander Kokkinoftas is the Reform UK Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for North Somerset. We spoke with Alexander about his decision to stand.
“I watched the government implode after Brexit, desperately switching leaders and straying further from what they stood for. Not delivering on their own promises and failing the very people who trusted them with their votes”
Can you briefly introduce yourself to our readers
My name is Alexander Kokkinoftas and I have lived in Clevedon, North Somerset since 2018. I was born in Cyprus but moved to the UK due to the enormous amount of educational and employment opportunities. We have always lived by the sea and we chose Clevedon for its magnificent coastline, historical landmarks and the surrounding busy towns and quaint villages. This area is also accessible to major cities in the country. My family comes from Plymouth and Cyprus and we are all staunch patriots when it comes to Great Britain. I am fascinated by my own English heritage, our rich history, landmarks, politics and people and there is no greater joy than to be a part of it all. History was my favourite subject at school and from this my passion for politics was ignited.
What made you decide to stand for Reform UK?
As a potential Conservative voter, I watched the government implode after Brexit, desperately switching leaders and straying further from what they stood for. Not delivering on their own promises and failing the very people who trusted them with their votes. Being the first election I will ever vote in, I decided their policies did not benefit the country, whereas Reform UK offered hope that there was a party that had the policies which could help change our country for the better. For example, Cheaper energy, lower taxes, NHS reform, net zero immigration and overall common sense. The parties strong, committed leaders impressed me with their vision for Great Britain’s future convincing me to join. As there was no candidate for North Somerset, I decided, if there is no-one to give your vote to then you must become that person.
“The biggest concerns are access to healthcare, dental and doctors’ appointments, emergency and out of hours treatment”
You’re the spokesperson for North Somerset, what’s made you decide to represent this area?
North Somerset is my home and a beautiful county. I want to ensure it stays that way. I have always been a strong believer that any change that occurs within an area must be positive for everyone, not just a select few. That’s what Reform is – positive change. Recently, negative, unnecessary changes and disastrous decisions have been made by those who put personal political issues above local issues at huge expense to the taxpayers’. This cannot be tolerated, and I have a strong desire to stand up and support the community.
What do you see as the big concerns for the constituency and what issues do you hope to champion?
The biggest concerns are access to healthcare, dental and doctors’ appointments, emergency and out of hours treatment. Housing affordability, people going through financial hardships require help. Local businesses and transport services are the lifeline of small communities and need investment. Cutting financial wastage squandering of taxpayers’ money and reducing taxes.
“For all those who share the same vision of a Greater Britain I encourage them to stand up, take part and get involved”
For those eager to help, how can they get involved in the campaign?
For all those who share the same vision of a Greater Britain I encourage them to stand up, take part and get involved in making this country Great. Together we can work to get the word out that this party is going to fix the country’s problems. Volunteers are vital in getting our message out there and are greatly appreciated. Anyone wishing to help can contact me via email – [email protected] and all my social media platforms, Facebook – Alexander Kokkinoftas, Instagram – AlexReformUK, Twitter –@AlexReformUK.
Reginald Chester-Sterne is the Reform UK Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for New Forest West. We spoke with Reginald about his decision to stand.
“I’ve owned several local businesses and still run 2 de-pasture pedigree English Longhorn cattle on the Forest”
Can you briefly introduce yourself to our readers?
Born in The New Forest and lived here all my life. I’ve owned several local businesses and still run 2 de-pasture pedigree English Longhorn cattle on the Forest. An Engineer by profession, I have worked overseas in 17 different countries managing large projects and diverse workforces.
What made you decide to stand for Reform UK?
Alienated one too many times by the Conservatives. This country needs a change to honest politics and politicians that work for the country and its people, not themselves and their friends. I am willing to spend time and effort changing this country so it is a fit place to live again.
You’re the Spokesman for New Forest Westwhat’s made you decide to represent this area?
I’ve lived here all my life and running businesses here know the trials and tribulations faced by people. Committed to the area and its protection. Breadth and width of life experience can be brought to bear to solve the myriad problems we currently face.
“This country needs a change to honest politics and politicians that work for the country and its people”
What do you see as the big concerns for the constituency and what issues do you hope to champion?
We have a multi layer multi agency management structure for the Forest that does not always work in tandem or in a joined up way. The spread of Southampton’s port could become a problem.
For those eager to help, how can they get involved in the campaign?
Catherine Becker is the Reform UK Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Hampstead and Highgate. We spoke with Catherine about her decision to stand.
“I have become increasingly frustrated at the poor running of government both by Labour at the local and London-wide level and by Conservatives at national level”
What made you decide to stand for Reform UK?
I have a successful business background rather than being a career politician. However, I have become increasingly frustrated at the poor running of government both by Labour at the local and London-wide level and by Conservatives at national level. I saw Reform policies and the sensible and well thought through solutions to crime, the economy and across the board and was delighted that there was a credible alternative.
You’re the Spokesman for Hampstead and Highgate what’s made you decide to represent this area?
Hampstead and Highgate have the third worst crime in the whole of London. There are only 2 policeman per ward (who are on shifts and if on holiday/sick not replaced) and there is little funding or operational efficiency to support them. In addition, labour have been running the area for over 25 years and there has been a rise in wasted expenditure, poor amenities and pushing through irresponsible policies. I have real solutions and policies to turn this round without bankrupting the area.
“having more front line police is key, but it’s not just about funding (which Reform will increase by 28%) but also about creating a safe culture in which the police operate”
What do you see as the big concerns for the constituency and what issues do you hope to champion?
a. Crime – is one of the biggest – having more front line police is key, but it’s not just about funding (which Reform will increase by 28%) but also about creating a safe culture in which the police operate. Many have left the force as a result, and having run a business I know about keeping a culture in our organisations so they thrive and stay.
b. Transport – The 20 miles an hour restriction is important near schools and small roads, but along the finchley road and other key main roads is too restrictive and can be more dangerous. The safer streets again is important but has been rushed through and in many cases means the elderly cannot get essential visits or deliveries and is certainly not making our streets cleaner.
c. Housing – we need more affordable housing, but without being rushed through by labour without the necessary increases in tubes, GPs, hospitals, schools and infrastructure. This needs to happen alongside which it currently is not.
“There should be proper tenders for all government expenditure not the chumocracy we have at present. And we want to make it better for workers and local business owners too by taxing less and delivering growth”
d. Economy – The expenditure and deficit in H&H is poorly handled by Labour, I am a business person and used to getting the best value out of our budgets. There should be proper tenders for all government expenditure not the chumocracy we have at present. And we want to make it better for workers and local business owners too by taxing less and delivering growth in the area.
e. Students and young people – many people think labour is the party for young people but our policies of not taxing the first £20k of income (as opposed to £12.5k now), no interest on student loans and better crime prevention and amenities show that Reform have the best policies to provide support.
For those eager to help, how can they get involved in the campaign?
Hilary Salt is the SDP prospective candidate for Wythenshawe and Sale East, in Manchester. We spoke with Hilary about her decision to stand.
“I joined forces with a small group of actuaries to establish a pensions consultancy with five offices across the country. I set up our Manchester office and we now employ 90 people in the North West”
Can you briefly introduce yourself to our readers?
I live in Sale with my dog, Friday. I’m an actuary, which means that I work with numbers. In 2004, I joined forces with a small group of actuaries to establish a pensions consultancy with five offices across the country. I set up our Manchester office and we now employ 90 people in the North West.
I raised two sons in Sale. They’re both grown up now. One is a carpenter, living and working locally. The other, an engineer, couldn’t resist the bright lights of London.
I spend my spare time with family and friends in Manchester. I love football and music. In quieter moments, I like pottering in the garden and spending weekends away with the dog in my VW campervan.
Having dedicated more than 40 years of my life to pensions work, I am now stepping away to stand in the general election.
“our biggest challenge is to revitalise productivity in Britain. The SDP’s policies on re-industrialisation, investment in infrastructure and energy, and rethinking how we train people, all address this priority”
What made you decide to stand for the SDP?
I joined the SDP three years ago, having become disillusioned with the left, which is what I still think of as my natural political home. I didn’t think I’d find a party that reflected the concerns I have about this country and the world around us. But when I came across the SPD and explored their policies, I found that they really spoke to me.
I think our biggest challenge is to revitalise productivity in Britain. The SDP’s policies on re-industrialisation, investment in infrastructure and energy, and rethinking how we train people, all address this priority.
The SDP policies are practical and grounded – we know what a woman is, we recognise the need to pause mass immigration, and we’re determined to build houses that are fit for our citizens.
I was already an active local member of the SDP North West branch when the Tories decided to bring back David Cameron. At this point, I became so frustrated that I knew I had to do something to offer local people an alternative to our broken two-party system.
You’re the spokesperson for Wythenshawe & Sale East. What’s made you decide to represent this area?
There’s an easy answer to this – it’s where I live. My son and lots of my friends also live in the constituency. So I can definitely count on local support for my campaign.
“there are some wider principles I want to champion – including free speech, defending women’s sex-based rights, and driving innovation and business productivity”
What do you see as the big concerns for the constituency, and what issues do you hope to champion?
It’s an interesting constituency with lots of different areas and communities, so I expect to face a wide range of local issues.
Many hardworking tradespeople in Wythenshawe are still concerned about Manchester’s paused Clean Air Zone. And across the constituency, people worry whether sufficient resources are in place to support the new residents we have welcomed, including those from Hong Kong.
We’ve seen some success with the regeneration of our high streets, but in some areas this is stuttering to a halt and people want to see more renewal. And as in many areas, crime remains a central anxiety both for families and businesses.
I’m keen to support local people with all these bread and butter issues. But at the same time, there are some wider principles I want to champion – including free speech, defending women’s sex-based rights, and driving innovation and business productivity.
For those eager to help, how can they get involved in the campaign?
The most helpful thing people can do is to tell their friends and relatives about the SDP. Whenever we run a meeting or a street stall, lots of people tell us that they didn’t know about us and are amazed to find that we’re exactly what they were looking for. If you want to help my campaign, get in touch with me at [email protected]. Connect with me at facebook.com/hilary.salt. or follow me on X/Twitter at @RedActuary.
Bromley Council has recently passed a policy to enshrine free speech in its procedures, code of conduct and constitution. We spoke with the Chairman of the Executive, Resources and Contracts Committee at Bromley Council, Councillor Simon Fawthrop.
“We have seen multiple court cases where employees have been unduly penalised, or Council’s have supressed free speech”
Could you briefly introduce Bromley Council and the borough to our readers?
Bromley Council is the largest borough in Greater London, a mainly suburban borough in the south and east around Chislehurst, Orpington and Biggin Hill and more urban in the North towards Crystal Palace. The Borough has the longest road network in greater London and is about 50% greenbelt land. It is run by the Conservatives and currently solvent!
“Roy Chubby Brown isn’t to everyone’s tastes, for instance, but did the residents of Lancaster really need their council to save them from smutty humour”
Why did Bromley decided to become a Free Speech Council?
Essentially for two reasons, the initial reason was to protect employees from being persecuted for speaking freely, to allow them to whistle-blow without repercussions. We have seen multiple court cases where employees have been unduly penalised, or Council’s have supressed free speech, examples highlighted by the Free Speech Union (FSU) groan with examples of short-sighted intolerance and outright legal error.
Blue comedian Roy Chubby Brown isn’t to everyone’s tastes, for instance, but did the residents of Lancaster really need their council to save them from smutty humour by cancelling his show?
What of Basingstoke and Deane, which investigated an elected councillor under its code of conduct for use of the term ‘year zero’? (It’s allegedly offensive to the victims of Pol Pot, in case you were wondering.)
Was it really wise of Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council to support its employee’s injunction against citizen journalist Julian Saunders, only for a High Court judge to throw the case out with a reminder that, in this part of the world, journalists are free to speak and write?
And think again about visiting the Yorkshire town of Calderdale if you’re a broad reader – its library squirreled away books by gender-critical authors in a bid to suppress the fashionable heresy that men are men, and women are women.
“it will ultimately allow us to challenge other organisation to have the same high stands that we have when it comes to free speech”
The second reason is that political speech is under increasing pressure to only follow orthodox lines. Original and critical thinking, left field views and challenge are often frowned upon and subject to peer pressure to conform to the orthodoxy. The changes we have and are making, give additional protection to Councillors, recognising that we are representatives of our electorate and that codes of conduct in an HR style put unwarranted constraints on free speech. Why would residents elect someone who is not able to speak up for them? These changes reaffirm those extra freedoms and protect elected representatives, but it goes further, it will ultimately allow us to challenge other organisation to have the same high stands that we have when it comes to free speech.
“allowing employees to whistle-blow and speak freely is important to good governance”
Aren’t councils about potholes, bins, schools, and social services. What makes this something for the council to get involved in?
Yes, Councils are about all of those things and more, but Councils can be innovative and set a good example. Having a policy on licensing or planning or how a Council looks after their employees doesn’t prevent them doing all those other things. More importantly having a policy helps them do those things, allowing employees to whistle-blow and speak freely is important to good governance.
If other authorities want to become Free Speech Councils, where do they start?
If they want, they can contact me and I can give them the Bromley policy to copy, alternatively they can contact the Free Speech Union (FSU) and see if they can be of any assistance. The FSU were tremendous help to Bromley Council in progressing this policy and we couldn’t have done it without their help and guidance. For assistance below are links to copies of our policy and my comments when I introduced the policy at committee.
Malcolm Cupis is the Reform UK Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Melksham and Devizes. We spoke with Malcolm about his decision to stand.
“I grew up in Melksham and went to school at Aloeric Primary School and George Ward Comprehensive… and live in Keevil with my wife Caroline, two dogs and a cat.
Can you briefly introduce yourself to our readers?
I grew up in Melksham and went to school at Aloeric Primary School and George Ward Comprehensive before emigrating to South Africa with my family when I was 15 years old in 1983.
I returned to this country in 1989 and became Editor of the Melksham News and founder Editor of White Horse News in 1990. This was followed by a career in public relations which included living in London, the Middle East, and extended periods of time in various parts of Africa, and the Far East. I returned to this area in 2019 and live in Keevil with my wife Caroline, two dogs and a cat.
“The Party stands strongly for the classically liberal values of low taxation, personal responsibility, small government, empowered individualism”
What made you decide to stand for Reform UK?
I was an active member of the Conservative Party for 25 years before resigning last year. The farce over the leadership contest was absolutely the final straw for me. The Conservative Party has moved further and further away from core conservative values in the last 20 years and I no longer felt able to support it. It is absolutely clear to me that those values have been embraced by Reform UK.
The Party stands strongly for the classically liberal values of low taxation, personal responsibility, small government, empowered individualism, properly policed borders, free market economics, law and order and, above all, common sense. It is resistant to conformity, statism, bureaucracy and authoritarianism.
One of the biggest problems we have in politics now is that Parliament is chocked full of identikit career politicians who get parachuted into constituencies that they have no real affiliation to, having previously gone to the ‘right’ school and Oxbridge. They often have no real-life experience. They exist to impose centralised policies on their constituents, regardless of their opinions, needs and aspirations. I’ve done things the hard way. I haven’t been parachuted in from London or Cheshire with the financial support of a big political party.
“villages throughout the constituency, have seen largescale housebuilding in the last few years with little or no commensurate investment in associated infrastructure”
What do you see as the big concerns for the constituency and what issues do you hope to champion?
My main areas of focus are:
1. Campaign for no more housebuilding without investment in infrastructure
Melksham and Devizes in particular, but also other town and villages throughout the constituency, have seen largescale housebuilding in the last few years with little or no commensurate investment in associated infrastructure.
By this I mean roads, schools, healthcare facilities, retail leisure facilities and dedicated commercial areas. The result of this has been that living standards have dropped markedly as pressure has increased on all these things.
I will campaign vigorously to not just bring the infrastructure up to an appropriate level for the housebuilding that has taken place, but also to insist that it must be further appropriately developed before future housebuilding takes place. No infrastructure – no more housebuilding.
2. We need our own hospital
This follows on closely from the first point. With the great increase in the number of people living in the area it is iniquitous that people in the West of the constituency are dependent on the Royal United Hospital in Bath and people in the East have to travel to either Swindon, Salisbury or Bath. We shouldn’t have to travel 25 miles in an emergency for life saving treatment, or for cancer treatment or to see other specialists for long term healthcare.
Bath in particular is now very difficult to get to quickly and cost effectively due to the transport policies of the Council there. All three hospitals have terrible backlogs for appointments and operate way beyond demand levels that they were designed for.
I will campaign that we should have our own hospital in the constituency, with increased capacity for General Practitioners and dentists operating alongside it.
3. Support our farmers
This remains very much a rural constituency with very many people employed directly or indirectly in agribusiness and food production. Our farmers are under terrible pressure with supermarkets forcing prices down to maximise their profits and buying food in from other countries where farmers are more heavily subsidised. As a result many farmers are going out of business or giving up fields for subsidised solar farms or housebuilding. We cannot be reliant on importing our food from other countries. We must ensure that we grow our own food. We must support our farmers.
“Rural people deserve equal law enforcement and I am committed to campaigning for more visibility and better service from the Police throughout the constituency”
4. Prioritise the needs of local people
All across the country migrants are being prioritised for housing and healthcare, even if they have travelled here illegally. This must stop. I want to make sure that local people have priority for housing and healthcare, especially homeless ex service men and women and I will fight to make this happen.
5. Combat rural crime
Police numbers have been greatly reduced and what officers we have are hampered by endless bureaucracy. As a result the majority of their focus is on urban centres, where the majority of crime takes place and it increasingly feels as if rural areas are overlooked and forgotten. Criminals are aware of this and can see rural areas as soft targets. Rural people deserve equal law enforcement and I am committed to campaigning for more visibility and better service from the Police throughout the constituency, not just in urban and suburban areas.
For those eager to help, how can they get involved in the campaign?
Kabeer Kher is the Reform UK Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Mid Norfolk. We spoke with Kabeer about his decision to stand.
“I was born in Northern Ireland where I grew up above the family pub. I went to University in Glasgow to study international business”
Can you briefly introduce yourself to our readers?
My name is Kabeer Kher. I was born in Northern Ireland where I grew up above the family pub. I went to University in Glasgow to study international business. After graduating I worked for BT, ran a business for several years, followed by a career in financial services. I settled in Norfolk in 2015 where I live with my wife and 2 children.
“I decided to join Reform UK when our genius Prime Minister decided to ban UK Shale Gas in the middle of the worst energy crisis since 1973”
What made you decide to stand for Reform UK?
I decided to join Reform UK when our genius Prime Minister decided to ban UK Shale Gas in the middle of the worst energy crisis since 1973. I realised in that moment that the Conservative Party has absolutely no idea how to look after the interests of the people in this country. When I read the policies for Reform UK, I felt like I had found my people and that it was time for me to step forward and do something to change this country.
You’re the Spokesman for Mid Norfolk what’s made you decide to represent this area?
Mid-Norfolk is where I have lived for the last 9 years. My wife’s family are from here and my parents and siblings have since moved here with their family.
“The most pressing concern for Mid-Norfolk is flooding…. The government’s decision to stop dredging rivers is exacerbating the issue”
What do you see as the big concerns for the constituency and what issues do you hope to champion?
The most pressing concern for Mid-Norfolk is flooding. My parents have been directly affected by the flooding in Attleborough in 2023 as a result of house building on flood plains. The government’s decision to stop dredging rivers is exacerbating the issue. I would like to see a ban on building houses on flood plains, and a part nationalisation of the water companies to end the profiteering at the expense of local people. I would also like to see much more investment in nuclear energy so we achieve energy self-sufficiency instead of wasting billions on wind farms and solar farms which only work intermittently and do not last anywhere near as long as nuclear power plants.
For those eager to help, how can they get involved in the campaign?
Join us on Wednesday 17th April for our drinks and discussion on the topic: Is it time for England to dissolve the union?
St Patrick’s Day is a Bank Holiday in Northern Ireland, St Andrew’s Day is a Bank Holiday in Scotland, with the overlooked St George’s Day rapidly approaching we ask: Is it time for England to dissolve the union?
The Barnet formula ensures public spending is higher in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland than England. The SNP are in power in Scotland, Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland, and the new Welsh First Minster in his acceptance speech talked of “unprecedented hostility towards democratic Welsh devolution from a UK government determined to undermine, frustrate and bypass the Welsh government and this Senedd…. As well as leaving Wales with less say over less money, it is deeply corrosive, wasteful, and undemocratic.”
The UK has been the most successful democratic union of nations in world history. It is responsible for the Industrial Revolution and defending Europe from tyranny. For all the problems of the world’s largest ever Empire, it heads the Commonwealth of Nations.
The Union has majority support in the United Kingdom, but devolution has dissolved the strength of support. Approaching the 23rd April, we invoke the Spirit of St George and ask: Is it time for England to dissolve the union?
What do you think? Come along Wednesday 17th April at 7pm for our discussion.
We want your input come along with your ideas and thoughts.
This is part of our #ThirdWednesday drinks and events, we hold these in association with Dick Delingpole’s #ThirdWednesday Libertarian drinks club, and POLITICS in PUBS a group of people from across the political spectrum who value the freedom to question and to speak openly.
“Why are the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green and SNP parties and many civil servants so keen to destroy the UK economy, knowing that net zero is unachievable”
SUMMARY
This note aims to expose the fallacy of net zero and how the current main UK political parties are all promoting the myth. It will examine how certain factors have contributed to this situation by comparing the effect of CO2 on global temperature and the UK’s contribution. In all the hype of human activities supposedly increasing global temperatures and the claimed deleterious effect on the earth’s climate, the actual effect of achieving net zero on the earth’s temperature is rarely mentioned, because it is insignificant.
This statement can be seen to be supported by two graphs of the effect of CO2 on global temperatures which are presented and discussed. These graphs produced by the IPCC and eminent professors Dr William Happer, of Princeton University and Dr van Wijngaarden, of York University, Canada, are referred to as (H&vW) and IPCC in the discussion that follows.
The H&vW graph indicates that the current solution to the so-called global warming to reduce global human CO2 to pre-industrial emissions by all the countries in the world may only reduce the global temperature increase by:
0.0036 of 1°C or 3,600 ppm of 1°C
So the UK should only reduce the global temperature after reducing its CO2 output to preindustrial levels by a derisory:
0.000036 of 1°C or 36 ppm of 1°C
It must be noted that the results presented in this note are estimated values interpreted from Figures 1 and 2 rather than absolute values. However, I believe that the results obtained are of the right order.
In addition, it should be noted that the results presented in this note obtained from the IPCC graph have been ignored as there is ample evidence, referred to in the text and in the Appendix, which show that the IPCC reports are unreliable as they are intended to vigorously promote the global warming fallacy at all costs and to avoid giving any impression of alternative views.
So the question is:
Why are the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green and SNP parties and many civil servants so keen to destroy the UK economy, knowing that net zero is unachievable and is already ruining the lives and livelihoods of many UK citizens and taxpayers? They are ignoring the best interests of the UK and are complying with the globalist agenda of the WEF, UN, EU and IPCC. If you agree then the remedy is in your hands, so:
NEVER, EVER VOTE CONSERVATIVE, LABOUR, LIB DEM, GREEN OR SNP AGAIN!
“Carbon Dioxide, (CO2) is a trace gas, currently accounting for about 420 parts/million (ppm) or 0.04% of the atmosphere. It is an essential part of our life”
Introduction
Carbon Dioxide, (CO2) is a trace gas, currently accounting for about 420 parts/million (ppm) or 0.04% of the atmosphere. It is an essential part of our life, as if it falls below about 150 ppm all vegetation will die and all life on earth with it. (See “Inconvenient Facts” by Gregory Wrightstone.) Satellite images have shown that higher levels of CO2 have increased global greening, which increases life preserving global oxygen levels. Commercial growers also pump CO2 into their greenhouses to vastly increase plant growth.
Unfortunately, CO2 is also a “greenhouse” gas, as it does affect the earth’s global temperature. It is this aspect of its attributes that has been picked on by the climate alarmists to use, quite wrongly, as a cause of concern by blaming increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere caused by human sources for excessive global warming. This is called Anthropogenic Global Warming, (AGW), which the climate alarmists claim causes serious weather extremes and will melt the polar ice caps and flood vast areas of low-lying land, killing billions of people as a result.
But the earth produces CO2 naturally and over the past centuries CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today. (Wrightstone, “Inconvenient Facts, quotes a CO2 level of 2,500 ppm, 140 million years ago.) Hence their misguided aim to reduce CO2 to preindustrial levels at any and all cost, despite the fact that the IPCC states that anthropogenic CO2 is only about 3% of the annual total. In addition, water vapour, over which man has no control whatsoever, is by far the largest and most effective greenhouse gas.
The effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global warming and the earth’s surface temperature is discussed below as the hype on AGW is strangely reluctant to quote the temperature changes involved. This is likely because the temperature changes caused by AGW are so small that they would have no impact on the public and would also illustrate what a monumental scam was being played upon them.
Global Warming
Figure 1 is copied from a lecture given by Dr Tom Sheahan. For the full lecture view at:
“increasing global CO2 by 140 ppm has an imperceptible effect on increasing earth’s temperature. In fact, higher levels of CO2 have even less effect on increasing global temperature”
The figure, compiled by Prof Happer, and Dr van Wijngaarden, clearly defines the effect on global warming due to increasing levels of CO2. This shows that increasing levels of CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm (parts per million) to the warming effect at today’s level of about 420 ppm is practically indiscernible. This shows beyond any doubt that increasing global CO2 by 140 ppm has an imperceptible effect on increasing earth’s temperature. In fact, higher levels of CO2 have even less effect on increasing global temperature. The graph is referred to as (H&vW) in the discussion below.
FIGURE 1
H&vW GRAPH
FIGURE 2, below is based on IPCC published information defining the effect on global temperature with increasing CO2. This graph is copied from Gregory Wrightstone’s excellent book, “Inconvenient Facts The science Al Gore does not want you to know”, It also confirms the shape of the H&vW graph above.
FIGURE 2
IPCC GRAPH
The implications from Figures 1 and 2 are presented in Table 1 below, which shows the total temperature change (ΔT) as CO2 rises from zero to 800 ppm. (NB The results have been scaled from Figures 1 and 2, so should be regarded as estimates rather than totally accurate values. However, the trend is clear regardless of the values presented. See the Appendix for additional information justifying FIG 1 and for ignoring FIG 2).
TABLE 1
TEMP RISE ΔT AGAINST CO2 ppm INCREASE: FROM FIGURES 1 AND 2
The main points to note are that:
The absolute minimum level of 150 ppm required for all vegetation and therefore all life on earth means a temperature increase, from zero ΔT at zero CO2, of 4.15 0C from H&vW and 1.81 0C from the IPCC.
The graphs have a fairly large difference of 2.66 0C at 100 ppm but they gradually converge at much higher concentrations.
The global temp increase at the 1830 pre-industrial level of about 280 ppm produced a total temp increase of 4.58 0C according to H&vW and a 2.85 0C increase according to the IPCC.
The current, (say 2024) level is about 420 ppm, an increase of 140 ppm over 194 years, or 0.72 ppm/annum.
The total temp increase due to the rise in CO2 to 420 ppm is approximately 4.7 0C (H&vW) and 3.5 0C (IPCC). This means that the global temp increase due to increasing CO2 from 1830 to 2024 is 0.12 0C (H&vW) or 0.65 0C (IPCC).
“As the UK only contributes 1% of the global human CO2 this means that the UK will only reduce the global temperature after reducing its CO2 output to pre-industrial levels”
BUT, the human contribution to this global increase, according to the IPCC, is 3% of the total. Hence, the current solution to the so-called global warming to reduce global human CO2 to pre-industrial emissions will only reduce the global temperature increase by:
0.0036 0C (H&vW) or 3,600 ppm of 1°C
Or
0.02 0C (IPCC) or 20,000 ppm of 1°C
As the UK only contributes 1% of the global human CO2 this means that the UK will only reduce the global temperature after reducing its CO2 output to pre-industrial levels by:
0.000036 0C (H&vW) or 36 ppm of 1°C
Or
0.0002 0C (IPCC) or 200 ppm of 1°C
So to produce this derisory 36 ppm, or 200 ppm of 1 0C effect on the global warming “crisis” the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green and SNP parliamentary parties are allegedly all intent on ruining the UK economy and are making the UK citizens lives a misery.
Also, it must be noted that increasing the current global CO2 level from 420 ppm to 600 ppm is 4.82 – 4.7, (H&vW) and 4.06 – 3.5 0C, (IPCC) or 0.12 0C (H&vW) or 0.56 0C (IPCC)
Hence, increasing the global CO2 by nearly 50% to 600 ppm from the current level of 420 ppm has a minimal effect on global warming. The global human contribution to that would only be:
0.0036 0C or 3,600 ppm of 10C (H&vW)
Or
0.0170C or 17,000 ppm of 10C (IPCC)
of which the UK contribution would be:
36 ppm of 1 0C (H&vW)
Or
0.00017 0C or 170 ppm of 1 0C (IPCC).
It should be noted the huge benefits to food production resulting from the increased CO2 which promotes world plant growth and agriculture. Higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases food production and more life sustaining oxygen for all living creatures on earth.
The total global rise in CO2 from 1980, (335 ppm) to 2022 (420 ppm) was 85 ppm or 2.02 ppm/annum over the last 42 years. Hence, it will take the earth nearly 90 years to increase the global CO2 level to 600 ppm at that rate. This will only increase global temp by 0.12 0C (H&vW) or 0.56 0C (IPCC) at that level.
Assuming human emissions were 3% of the annual total of 2.02 ppm gives a global increase of 0.0606 ppm/annum. The UK share of that at 1% gives an annual UK emission figure of 0.000606 ppm/annum as the UK’s increase in CO2 over the last few years.
This means that it will take approximately 1,650 years for the UK to add just 1 ppm of CO2 to the global total.
The results derived from the IPCC graph are considered to be unreliable and are therefore being ignored. There is ample evidence that the IPCC’s reports and procedures are littered with examples of questionable practice, including many examples where the IPCC has ignored and supressed evidence that does not support their net zero agenda. Numerous publications, listed in the Appendix, describe in detail the many examples of the IPCC failings.
“the drive to net zero is totally unrealistic, totally unachievable and is going to cost the UK trillions of pounds to de-carbonise the grid together with all the other mandatory costs involved”
CONCLUSION
The current hysteria over the “so called” effect of rising CO2 levels causing disastrous increases in global warming, thereby causing melting of polar ice-caps, more extreme weather conditions etc., etc. is entirely unnecessary.
The current rise in global temperature of 4.7 0C, (H&vW), or 3.5 0C (IPCC), due to the current CO2 level of 420 ppm has already happened and the world is still carrying on as normal.
Increasing global CO2 level to 600 ppm will only add 0.12 0C or 0.56 0C to the global total and it will take nearly 90 years to reach that level at the current rate of increase.
This misguided rush to reduce global warming by reducing CO2 to pre-industrial levels is ruining the UK economy, its residents’ livelihoods, living standards and freedom of movement.
In addition, the drive to net zero is totally unrealistic, totally unachievable and is going to cost the UK trillions of pounds to de-carbonise the grid together with all the other mandatory costs involved.
Net zero is however, fully supported by the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green and SNP parties. as they are ignoring some basic evidence on the limited effect of CO2 on global warming which is described above.
So, why are the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green and SNP parties and many civil servants so keen to destroy the UK economy and the UK as an independent sovereign country?
For example, the drive to net zero has recently resulted in stopping steel production in the UK. Steel was invented in the UK and is an essential strategic commodity. Yet the government, supported by the other parties in parliament, are allegedly quite happy to abolish UK production of this essential material by closing all UK coal powered generating stations.
This is clearly ridiculous as 1,893 new coal powered generating stations are being built in the world. The total number in operation will then then increase from 3,743 to 5.636. Of these the EU has 465 existing plants and is adding 25 giving a total of 490 plants. The UK has only one plant still operating and that is being closed soon.
So, do you really agree that it is in the best interests of the UK to abolish steel making and throw thousands of skilled craftsmen out of work for the sake of saving 36 ppm of 1°C? The Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green, SNP parties and many civil servants allegedly do! They are clearly adopting the diktats of unelected international bodies whose aim is to 7 impose their policies on the world. The 5 UK political parties listed above are therefore completely ignoring what is best for the UK ‘s citizens who have voted them into office. They are all therefore totally unfit to be represented in parliament, let alone governing the country in any shape or form.
If you agree that these parties are not representing our best interests the solution is in our hands. So,
NEVER, NEVER VOTE CONSERVATIVE, LABOUR, LIB DEM, GREEN, OR SNP AGAIN!
It is also incumbent on the PM, the government and all the climate change fanatics to explain how the UK’s 0.000165 0C (0.55 x 3% x1%) maximum extra contribution to global temperature over 194 years, or on average:
0.0000008 0C/annum
has endangered the earth so much that it justifies the net zero legislation and all the trauma that goes with it. In addition, it makes Rishi Sunak’s donation of £1.6 billion of taxpayer’s money to the UN’s Climate Change Fund a grossly stupid and irrelevant payment.
In addition, the Cabinet Office confirmed they had no record of ANY data whatsoever to support this payment. In other words, it was apparently an impromptu payment to impress other delegates and make Sunak look big in the eyes of the delegates at a COP meeting. Hence, he should be made to reimburse the UK taxpayers out of his own pocket for that amount of taxpayer’s money he threw away.
APPENDIX
THE ACCURACY AND FEASABILITY OF THE H&vW and IPCC GRAPHS
The two graphs presented in Figures 1 and 2 of the note are similar in shape but show different results. It is therefore necessary to examine which graph is more meaningful and accurate.
The Happer & van Wijngaarden results in Fig 1 can be justified by means of the following graphs which show excellent co-relation with measured results:
With regard to the IPCC results, Andrew Montford’s excellent books “The Hockey Stick Illusion” and “Hiding the Decline”, which details the history of the “Climategate Affair” show how the IPCC operates. These and other books, (see list below) are essential reading to understand the workings and methods employed by the IPCC. These clearly show that the IPCC, and the authors of IPCC reports are quite willing to edit information and ignore results that do not fit in with their intention to promote global warming at every opportunity.
In addition, the graph below, copied from David Craigs excellent book “There is no Climate Crisis”, shows the results of IPCC estimates of global temperature increase over time This clearly shows the IPCC results are well over actual results.
Hence, in view of the above and more evidence of IPCC failings to represent real values it can be assumed that the IPCC results are not reliable and should be ignored.
References
Christopher Booker, “The Real Global Warming Disaster”, Continuum, 2009.
A.W. Montford, “The Hockey Stick Illusion”, Stacey International, 2010
A.W. Montford, “Hiding the Decline”, Anglosphere Books, 2012
Gregory Wrightstone, “Inconvenient Facts”, The science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know, Silver Crown Productions Ltd., LLC, 2017
Bruce C Bunker, PhD, “The Mythology Of Global Warming”, Climate Change Fiction vs. Scientific Facts, Moonshine Cove Publishing LLC, 2018
M J Sangster,PhD, “The Real Inconvenient Truth”, Amazon, 2018
David Craig, “There Is No Climate Disaster”, Original Book Company, 2021
Ian Plimer, “Green Murder”, A life sentence of Net Zero With No Parole, Connor Court Pty Ltd., 2021
Dr Niall Mccrae, RMN, MSc, PhD, “Green in Tooth and Claw”, The Misanthropic Mission of Climate Alarm, The Bruges Group, 2023
I recommend you also watch Climate: The Movie. The film that lifts the lid on the climate alarm, and the dark forces behind the climate consensus.
The weekend of Saturday 23rd and Sunday 24th March 2024, saw the second Margaret Thatcher Centre Freedom Festival held at the University of Buckingham.
Following on from the inaugural event last year the two days consisted of a series of keynote addresses, panel discussions and a gala dinner with Jacob Rees-Mogg speaking.
As one might expect given current polling there was a somewhat sedated attitude among attendees and delegates. Whilst the festival was non-partisan it was attended by a handful of MPs and many panellists were affiliated to the Conservative Party. Most bemoaned the lack of achievement of 14 years of Conservative led government. The two achievements referenced on multiple occasions were the PISA rankings in Reading, and of course achieving Brexit. In the case of Brexit this has not been delivered for Northern Ireland, and what was delivered was despite rather than because of the Conservative Party’s corporate position. Talk was often of reform, both of the Conservative party, especially in the case of candidate selection, and the party Reform, who many attendees would be voting for. In a room at the Margaret Thatcher Centre, hosting an event named after Margaret Thatcher, for the most part the Conservative Party had lost the room.
Among the weekends highlights was Lord Frost’s keynote address in which he described what might be coined as Frost’s Four Freedoms:
National Freedom – the right to run your own country. The idea that a country has the right to be self-governing and that a country has a national demos.
Free Speech – In a free country you must have the right to free speech.
Economic Freedom – This is perhaps best described in a quote from Margaret Thatcher: “A man’s right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to own property, and to have the state as servant and not as master — they are the essence of a free economy. And on that freedom all our other freedoms depend.”
Freedom to Transmit – A freedom to hand on our culture to the next generation. Our belief that every individual is special, our cultural Christianity, the beliefs that allowed us to build western civilisation. A freedom to build, own and hand on.
On Economic Freedom it was pointed out this compares to the current government who have just introduced a Football Regulator. After 14 years of Conservative led government, the state often sees itself as the master, and the people and their businesses as it’s servants.
In later discussions, we felt The Freedom to Transmit really is the freedom that encourages a culture that plants a tree in the knowledge that future generations will be there to see it grow, a culture that writes an ‘Established date’ sign on a business believing it will prosper for many years to come.
Tim Montgomerie the founder of Conservative Home and UnHerd.com spoke of what went wrong in the 14 years of Conservative government, and summarised what the Right needs to do in 5 areas:
Get rid of a lot of people who are currently Conservative MPs. Too many Conservative MPs are simply in no way conservative.
We need to be more gracious towards each other. This may seem like it contradicts the first task, but once you have a conservative movement, you have to agree on basic principles, but not every last detail, and most importantly you need to work together.
We often talk of ‘the State’ and ‘the Market’ but don’t talk about ‘Society’. We live in communities, and in families. Conservatism doesn’t spend enough time talking about our society.
Cut the demand side of government. We all know that the government is too big, but we always look at cutting the supply side of government the size of departments, spending etc. We need to instead look at cutting the demand for government. One way is to build a lot more houses, another is to rebuild the family.
We need to do less politics. Elections are too important, politicians have too much power. We should all go to church, join clubs and get out more.
Some other general points made on the day were that we (the Right) need to get more people onto public appointments and quangos. Conservative Home regularly publishes opportunities at https://conservativehome.com/public-appointments/.
Conor Burns MP made some suggestions of what the Conservatives should do in their remaining time in office. This included continuing to sign the US State level ‘Memoranda of Understanding’, like that recently signed with Texas. They also should focus on what the Conservative Party wants from a leader, rather than who they want as a leader.
The point was also made that we need to make the case for Free Markets, specifically:
Profit is a good thing. Profit provides the dividends for our pensions.
Capitalism helps people live longer. It is responsible for improving the lives of billions.
