News Round-Up

If you have any tips for inclusion in the round-up, email us here.

Subscribe
Notify of

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

39 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mogwai
2 years ago

Absolutely bloody mental. Just have a read. Now promoting self-defense is a crime in France.

”After a migrant allegedly raped a French woman so brutally with a broomstick that she was forced into a month-long coma, two dozen right-wing protestors marched outside his home in Cherbourg, France. However, they are now facing criminal prosecution and up to five years in prison for an “unauthorized gathering” and for “promoting self-defense” despite the French government’s glaring inability to protect its own citizens.

The demonstration, which took place on Sept. 9, 2023, in the Provinces district, was on behalf of 29-year-old Mégane, who awoke from her coma but remains between life and death. The French government may have special reason to pursue Argos, the right-wing group that organized the protest, as the group is the direct heir to the French group Génération identitaire, which was banned by the government in 2021. Génération identitaire became a thorn in the government’s side after it ran a series of civil disobedience protests against the state of demographic transformation in France and the government’s failures to control illegal immigration.”

https://rmx.news/france/self-defense-a-crime-french-activists-face-up-to-5-years-in-prison-for-protesting-outside-house-of-migrant-accused-of-raping-29-year-old-megane-until-she-entered-a-coma/

DickieA
DickieA
2 years ago
Reply to  Mogwai

madness

huxleypiggles
2 years ago
Reply to  Mogwai

Familiar echoes of the brutality dished out by the Met following the women’s protest at the murder of Sarah Everhardt (?) although the implications are frighteningly unjust.

At what point do citizens have the right to stand up for their rights given government failures?

soundofreason
soundofreason
2 years ago

Ofgem chief warns over ‘reality’ of high energy bills this winter” – Brits have been warned that they face the “reality” of energy bills being as high or “worse” this winter than last year, reports the Mail.

Were we in the UK not told last year that our energy bills were being capped and subsidised by government, and would have been higher without the subsidy?

Welcome to the price of clean, renewable solar and wind power (and gas).

Nuclear power, now!

AethelredTheReadier
AethelredTheReadier
2 years ago
Reply to  soundofreason

The planned impoverishment of the British people. Nothing this effing government – not the one that is waiting in the wings – does is for our benefit. They send money and arms to Ukraine for an unwinnable war, house migrants at great expense, spend billions on pointless vanity projects such as HS2 but help subsidise people’s energy bills because of the criminally high energy prices? Not a chance. Let the old people shiver in their homes, let single parents go without while trying to feed their children and keep them warm, ignore the thousands of homeless people locked into cycles of drugs and despair and more. As Orwell rightly predicted – ‘If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.’

huxleypiggles
2 years ago

Spot on Aethelred.

EppingBlogger
2 years ago

Does anyone know why compact nukes are taking so long to get to first pyre-production version. What is being developed is surely a version of the submarine power plant that is well understood.

we need dozens soonest with a delivery rate if one a month.

ebygum
2 years ago

Is the ‘Covid vaccine in pill form’ developed by Japan called Ivermectin??
LOL!

ebygum
2 years ago
Reply to  ebygum

Got ‘nonced’ again…..and unable to post until now!

Morning all!!

Mogwai
2 years ago
Reply to  ebygum

Thought we’d have a nonce-free day for a change. Invalid or able-bodied, nonces are not welcome around here! 😮

ebygum
2 years ago
Reply to  Mogwai

Still finding it difficult even now!! Posts just won’t upload!!

Brett_McS
2 years ago

I can assure Prof Roger Watson that Australia will not be voting “yes” in the ridiculous “Voice” referendum. We had a referendum to eliminate race as a factor in full citizenship (ie to give Aborigines the vote) – one of only three referenda that got up – so we will not be voting to re-introduce racism. Besides which the “yes” campaign is totally under-water and sinking fast. It won’t be close.

Mogwai
2 years ago

What on earth does it take to get these proven dangerous migrants deported? They shouldn’t be Europe’s problem. And heads should completely roll for whoever was responsible for this catastrophic incident with a tragic outcome. Can you imagine if the victim was your loved one? Horrendous. What the hell are we allowing into our countries? ”After an African migrant escaped from a psychiatric hospital in the German city of Wiesloch and killed a 30-year-old saleswoman, he will again avoid jail time. Instead, he is being sent back to the same psychiatric clinic he just escaped from, and the Green party is now being blamed for the incident The 33-year-old suspect, Ahmad M., who came to Germany as an asylum seeker, was attending a “work therapy” session, which is offered by the Nordbaden Psychiatric Center. Despite his violent history, he was permitted to work at an unspecified location due to “progress” doctors said he had made in his psychiatric condition. While working there, he escaped the location and ran into downtown Wiesloch. Although accompanied by psychiatric staff, they lost sight of the man, who then proceeded to find a target he picked at random. At 1:00 p.m., he stabbed Lisa S.… Read more »

Claphamanian
Claphamanian
2 years ago
Reply to  Mogwai

There was a similar incident in a park in Bolton in March 2020. The victim was a little girl riding her bicycle. The details can be read in a Wikipedia article called the Killing of Emily Jones.

soundofreason
soundofreason
2 years ago

Germany’s Lindner blasts EU over ‘enormously dangerous’ green plans” – Germany’s Finance Minister has criticised Brussels politicians for proposing stricter clean energy building rules, cautioning that they could provoke a voter backlash and bolster the far right, reports Politico.

We find that among other things Christian Lindner is concerned that policies his party has pushed into law may be fuelling the popularity of AfD. In other words he’s concerned about losing his position of power, not the impact of the policies on people.

We also find that

[Olaf] Scholz said last week that he wants to work together with France to draft proposals for reducing EU bureaucracy and achieving “faster decision-making in Brussels.” A German government policy paper published in August says that Berlin will propose a “package of measures” to tackle “bureaucratic obstacles at EU level in the area of ecological transformation,” without providing specifics.

In other words he wants the power to impose his own restrictions on the German people without interference from the EU. Faster bad decision-making in Brussels is not a good thing.

Chris P
Chris P
2 years ago

Some good news. Use of cash has increased: –

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66796263#comments

This has happened despite banks closing branches, which reduces the number of cash points and places for businesses to deposit cash.

NeilofWatford
2 years ago

Every Sceptic should memorise these figures from Alan Jones.
Those who argue against greenism because of cost, inconvenience, lack of tech etc miss the mark when the whole cornerstone is flawed.
Do it now, keep it handy …
CO2 as % of atmosphere = 0.04
Man made CO2 (excludes volcanoes, cows, the sea) = 3% of the 0.04.
UKs contribution is 1% of the 3% of the 0.04
Ie if my maths is correct 0.000012%

psychedelia smith
2 years ago

“Researchers in Japan have developed a Covid vaccine in pill form which, when given to monkeys, saw them produce the necessary antibodies to protect against Covid without visible side effects, reports the Mail.”

Yes it’s called Ivermectin, isn’t it?

huxleypiggles
2 years ago

😀😀😀

huxleypiggles
2 years ago

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12512507/Tony-Blair-says-tax-junk-food-expensive-poor-obesity.html

Bliar “said ministers needed to help ‘create the circumstances’ in which poorer families choose healthy food, and likened the situation to the fight against smoking when he was in No10 – which included a ban on publicly lighting up indoors.”

I am sure Bliar did an enormous amount of work to assist our farming industry when he spent those 10 years in Downing St, well apart from slaughtering 11 million cattle and driving many farmers to suicide. And I am sure Bliar updated the school curriculum to ensure that by age 16 every child could cook at least two weeks worth of meals from scratch. Didn’t he? And I am sure that the undermining of traditional Britain and family values had nothing to do with eliminating family cooking skills.

So, as usual Tone, STFU and get back in to your coffin you treasonous, evil POS.

ebygum
2 years ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

…how about making healthier food and organic food cheaper and more available?

Is that too difficult? Not enough power, control and money in that?

MichaelM
2 years ago

“CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere, and human beings are responsible for 3% of that 0.04%”
 
This may be technically true, but it is disingenuous and does our side no favours. If, over a period of 100 years, human beings emit 3 units of CO2 and nature (volcanoes and oceans, say) emits 97 units, we are 3%. But if, over the same period, nature (plants, say) absorbs 97 units of CO2, we constitute 100% of net emissions.
 
We can win the argument on the strength of our case without resorting to such duplicity.

RichardTechnik
RichardTechnik
2 years ago
Reply to  MichaelM

I see no ‘duplicity’ in NeilofWatford’s figures from Alan Jones. The duplicity lies in the alarmist argument MichaelM has repeated. The earth’s current atmospheric CO2 concentration is said to be 410-420ppm ( 0.04%) although a gas that is 62% denser than air is not uniformly distributed throughout the atmosphere and this concentration varies by location and elevation. Furthermore there are much larger quantities of that gas dissolved ( again in non-homogenous concentrations) throughout the planetary water masses as well as CO2 sequestrated as hydrocarbons and carbonates amongst other organic materials. The earth has always been in a dynamic equilibrium with far greater concentrations of atmospheric CO2 proven in core samples from the past. No-one can say how many chemical reactions any of the CO2 that makes up current average atmospheric concentration has been through, which source was it’s alleged to have been emitted from. CO2 is CO2 – that is it . As an assessment of current atmospheric CO2 percentage emitted by human activities it is entirely reasonable to represent an estimate of the current anthropogenic contribution in the atmosphere to be 3%.

huxleypiggles
2 years ago
Reply to  RichardTechnik

Thank you for an excellent put down of the Michael M nonsense.

ebygum
2 years ago
Reply to  MichaelM

Maybe I don’t understand your point entirely, but what is disingenuous about him saying, truthfully, that these morons are upending life as we know it for something which humans are 99.9+ not responsible for? And, thus, pretty much unable to alter?

huxleypiggles
2 years ago
Reply to  ebygum

Seconded.

EppingBlogger
2 years ago
Reply to  ebygum

His hypothesis seems to be that CO2 molecules are different according to their origin. Ones produced by nature are reabsorbed by nature, he thinks, whereas one’s said to originate from ma’s activities are distinguishable and remain in the atmosphere for ever.

MichaelM
2 years ago
Reply to  EppingBlogger

Man’s CO2 emissions are not distinguishable, but they are incremental to the net emissions produced by natural causes. If man did not burn fossil fuels, the CO2 in the atmosphere would be significantly lower (by much more than 3%) than it currently is.

RichardTechnik
RichardTechnik
2 years ago
Reply to  MichaelM

The disagreement seems to be over the margin of error of the 3%. See previous reply. But for information, in 1991 I worked with a marine scientist on other research. He was seconded to a certain UN committees dealing with climate. Together we agreed a calculation of the anthropogenic addition as 4.5 % +/- 1% in what I recall as a 380ppm average concentration, not greatly different from the 3% figure mentioned

MichaelM
2 years ago
Reply to  ebygum

My argument is simply that we should not assert something which is demonstrably false, since that will undermine our credibility. For Richard (seconded by HP) to assert that, of the 420 ppm of the atmosphere that is CO2, only 3% (or 12 ppm) is due to fossil fuel emissions is just not credible on any level. Our emissions can be measured and do go out into the atmosphere.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not buy the man-made catastrophic climate change narrative at all. In particular, I don’t buy the greenhouse effect and the role of CO2 in it, which is the point we should argue. Likewise, even if the greenhouse effect does apply to CO2, there is a strong argument that further CO2 increases (from the current level of 410-420 ppm) will have little effect due to wave-length saturation.

RichardTechnik
RichardTechnik
2 years ago
Reply to  MichaelM

MichaelM – you will have to do somewhat better than your continued assertion that ” of the 420 ppm of the atmosphere that is CO2, only 3% (or 12 ppm) is due to fossil fuel emissions is just not credible on any level” You first repeated an assertion that All of the atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic by virtue of the fact that the much larger emissions (32.3 x) from natural sources “nature (volcanoes and oceans, say) ” are or could be exactly balanced sequestration by” nature (plants, say)” leaving a curious small residue of 3.09% entirely due to anthropogenic sources. That argument fails on a number of counts. Principally, were that correct.and were humans to cease emissions activity due to some catastrophe, possibly due to a successful push to net zero (although other measures would be needed for the real emitters such as India and China) then the atmospheric CO2 concentration would tend to zero % CO2, It has been estimated that at concentrations below 180-150ppm plant life would start to die and some new cyclic equilibrium would be achieved where the decomposition of dead plants by bacteria would start to add to atmospheric concentration. But as I said before,… Read more »

MichaelM
2 years ago
Reply to  RichardTechnik

“You first repeated an assertion that All of the atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic”

I wasn’t asserting anything of the kind. I was simply making the point that it is disingenuous of our side to argue that humans represent only 3% of CO2 emissions. This is because nature is both an emitter and an absorber of CO2, whereas humans are just an emitter.

And my argument does not imply that CO2 in the atmosphere would fall to zero if humans ceased to exist. After all atmospheric CO2 varied between around 200ppm and 6000 ppm (or more) prior to industrial times. What it does imply is that, of the increase from 280ppm in 1850 (pre-industrial times) to 410ppm now, humans’ contribution is likely to be much more than 3%. This is simply the logical deduction that if humans are 3% of total emissions we are of tautologically more than 3% of net emissions (ie after deducting CO2 absorptions by plants etc).

huxleypiggles
2 years ago
Reply to  MichaelM

Are you seriously stating that Co2 has got anything to do with seasonal weather?

Do you actually believe in man-made climate change?

If your answers to the above are yes then how on earth does 3% of 0.04% affect climate?

MichaelM
2 years ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

HP – my point is that we should not be disingenuously arguing a point which can be easily refuted. It’s just not a good debating strategy, especially when we have much better (ie valid) points to support our case. Man’s contribution to the CO2 in the atmosphere is much more than 3%, however much you wish to assert otherwise.

No, I do not believe in man-made climate change – and there are strong arguments in support of that position. Of which, an assertion that man’s contribution is 3% of 0.04% is not one, in my opinion.

ebygum
2 years ago

From Alex Berenson

Again from the @CDC’s own data…..

1 million mRNA Covid shots for teens will prevent..

0-1 Covid deaths

and CAUSE

100.000-200.000 severe side-effects

Yes, you read that right!

ebygum
2 years ago

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fda-approves-new-covid-vaccines-infants-minimal-data-testing/

Unconscionable’: FDA Approves New COVID Vaccines — Even for Infants as Young as 6 Months — Based on Minimal Data or TestingThe U.S. Food and Drug Administration said the new vaccines are “formulated to more closely target currently circulating variants and to provide better protection against serious consequences of COVID-19, including hospitalization and death.” However, the vaccines target the XBB.1.5 variant, which “is declining in the U.S.,” according to CNBC.

The view from Children’s Health Defense…..
I feel we need to keep this in the news….as it is so demonstrably wrong (evil!)

ebygum
2 years ago

As I keep saying..…..what’s not to see and understand?

Rustler @TheRustler83

305,000 ‘COVID’ deaths in America before the vaccine roll-out in December 2020

1,150,000 ‘COVID’ deaths in America to September 2023

845,000 ‘COVID’ deaths AFTER 677 Million doses of the COVID-vaccine

Source: CDC
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home

Philip Neal
Philip Neal
2 years ago

Test.