Press TV – January 19, 2024
Yemen’s Ansarullah movement has condemned in the strongest terms the “unjustified” US airstrikes on the Yemeni territory, saying they’re aimed at “guarding Israel, not the world.”
Mohammed Abdulsalam, the Ansarullah spokesman, made the comment in an interview with Reuters.
The United States and Britain launched airstrikes on Yemen on January 12 in what they called an intervention to protect international shipping in the Red Sea.
“What the Yemeni people did, in the beginning, was to target Israeli ships heading to Israel without causing any human or even significant material losses, just preventing ships from passing as a natural right,” Abdulsalam said.
“We imposed rules of engagement in which not a single drop of blood was shed or major material losses.”
“It represented pressure on Israel only, it did not represent pressure on any country in the world.”
The Yemeni official said the US intervention has further escalated the situation and that the movement will continue to respond to the US attacks.
“Now, when America joined in and escalated the situation further, there is no doubt that Yemen will respond.”
“The strikes on Yemen, from our perspective, are a blatant violation of Yemen’s sovereignty and a serious aggression against the Yemeni people,” Abdulsalam said.
Yemen, he added, does not intend to expand the attacks on shipping in and around the Red Sea beyond their stated aim of blockading Israel and retaliating against the United States and Britain for airstrikes.
“We do not want the conflict to expand in the region, and we are still working on non-escalation, but the decision is up to the Americans, as long as they continue to attack.”
The Yemeni official said the decision to target Israeli-linked ships was a response to popular demands. “It came after great popular pressure not only in Yemen but in the region, demanding that the governments of the region and their leaders take a position towards the Palestinians facing a genocidal campaign.”
Referring to the Persian Gulf’s Arab countries, the Yemeni official said Ansarullah calls on them “to reject the militarization of the Red Sea or the presence of military forces inside the region.”
Abdulsalam said the Yemenis have made their own decisions in the conflict and do not take orders from Tehran, though they maintain a close relationship.
Sputnik – 19.01.2024
Late last year it was revealed the United Kingdom was supplying Israel with weapons from a base in Cyprus. Now new evidence is emerging of the lengths the country has gone to assist Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his Gaza military campaign.
British Defense Minister Grant Shapps had previously admitted the UK was providing “surveillance support to Israel,” although he couched the assistance in terms of “preventing the transfer of weapons to terrorist groups.” Shapps later claimed the surveillance flights were intended to locate two British captives being held in Gaza.
But now it has emerged that the British Armed Forces have flown 50 surveillance flights over the besieged enclave since December alone. The flights departed from RAF Akrotiri, the UK’s air force base in Cyprus.
The revelation is likely to prove controversial as the UK has been rocked by demonstrations protesting Israel’s deadly military operation in Gaza, which has killed nearly 25,000 people in the territory. Thousands of Britons have taken to the streets even as the country’s government has provoked free speech concerns by attempting to ban pro-Palestine protest chants. In France and Germany, authorities have banned some pro-Palestine demonstrations entirely.
The UK’s embattled defense minister was recently widely ridiculed for a speech warning that the UK was at risk of attack from China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. Shapps was mocked for an address where he declared “the era of the peace dividend is over” – the United Kingdom has been perhaps the strongest supporter of US military interventions throughout the world.
By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | January 15, 2024
At any given moment in the course of human events, not everyone can be the leader. And thus can the world only have a small number of “climate leaders” to light us the way to the Great Green Energy Nirvana of the future.
Among that select group of “climate leaders,” New York is definitely one. We know that because New York enacted its Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act in 2018, announcing its “climate leadership” to the world for all to envy.
But there are a handful of jurisdictions out there that are not to be outdone in the competition for the title of “climate leader.” One of those is the UK. Ten years before New York even entered the competition, the UK had enacted its Climate Change Act of 2008, setting an initial round of legally-binding emissions reduction targets (80% below 1990 levels by 2050). Then, in 2019 the UK upped the ante, committing by statute to “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions for its entire economy by 2050.
We know from my last post how things are going with this “climate leadership” thing in New York: five years into the competition, New York’s greenhouse gas emissions have actually increased substantially, as two large new natural gas power plants have replaced electricity generation from two prematurely-closed emissions-free nuclear facilities, while generation of electricity from wind and solar has barely budged.
Has the UK been any more successful? Rupert Darwall, writing under the auspices of the Real Clear Foundation, has produced a comprehensive update, with a date of December 2023. The title tells you all you need to know: “The Folly of Climate Leadership: Net zero and Britain’s Disastrous Energy Policies.”
The short summary of Darwall’s Report is that there is nothing but bad news for Britain. By contrast to New York, the UK has actually moved forward with massive construction of “renewable” facilities to generate electricity, mostly in the form of wind turbines. What it has gotten for its efforts is far more nameplate capacity of facilities for generation, but far less electricity actually generated. Costs that were predicted by advocates to decrease substantially have instead increased steadily. The percent of electricity generated from the “renewables” has gotten to around 35%, but has stalled out at that level, and the latest round of offers of acreage for offshore wind development attracted no bidders even at prices a multiple of what additional natural gas facilities would cost. In short, the UK appears stuck, with its consumers paying higher costs for power indefinitely, but with no path forward from here to the promised net zero utopia.
Darwall compares trends in electricity prices charged to commercial and industrial business in the UK and U.S. over the period from 2004 to 2022. The UK prices have steadily pulled away as the percent of electricity generation from “renewables” has increased. Here is Darwall’s chart from page 51 of his Report:
Darwall attributes the growing divergence in prices mostly to divergence in fossil fuel production. In the UK, fracking for natural gas has been completely blocked by environmental regulations. Meanwhile, in the U.S., Darwall writes:
By 2009, natural gas output had increased by 14.3 percent from its trough, reaching its highest level since 1974. In the next 10 years, US natural gas output surged a staggering 64.4 percent, to 33,899 billion cubic feet (bcf), 56.0 percent higher than its previous peak of 21,731 bcf in 1973.
In return for greatly increased electricity generation from wind and solar, the UK has dug itself into the perverse situation of ever-increasing nameplate generation capacity, but simultaneously falling output of electricity. Darwall:
Between 2009 and 2020, . . . a 15.5 percent increase in nameplate generating capacity produced 21.6 percent less electricity. In 2009, 1 MW of capacity produced 4,312 MWh of electricity. In 2020, 1 MW of capacity generated 3,094 MWh, a decline of 28.3 percent.
Has the UK at least made some progress in “saving the planet”? Here is my favorite chart from the Report, found on page 28:
The UK has gone a long way toward destroying its industrial base, but its emissions reductions are so small as to be barely noticeable in the overall world picture, and totally swamped by increases elsewhere, mostly from China. The rest of the world is getting a good laugh at Britain’s expense. As Darwall states, “The metric of leadership success is followship.” By that metric, as well as every other, Britain’s “climate leadership” is a total disaster.
Sputnik – 17.01.2024
The United Kingdom’s Defense Secretary Grant Shapps warned of potential war with Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea within the next five years in a widely mocked speech in London this week.
Shapps delivered the address to promote greater investment in military spending in the UK and its European allies.
“The era of the peace dividend is over,” said Shapps in remarks he also shared on his profile on the X social media platform. The so-called “peace dividend” was a proposed reinvestment of government finances toward domestic concerns after the end of the Cold War.
The comment may leave many Britons wondering when exactly they enjoyed a peace dividend, as the British government has imposed a policy of economic austerity for a number of years. The UK was also perhaps the US’ strongest ally in the so-called “War on Terror,” which led to the deaths of more than 4.5 million people across the Middle East according to some estimates.
The comments come as European media is reporting on supposed “leaked documents” that allege Russian President Vladimir Putin is planning to launch an attack on Germany and other NATO members in the near future. The claims were dismissed as “fake news” by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.
Britons greeted Shapps’ remarks with ridicule, with multiple posts by the defense minister being “ratioed” on the X platform, meaning they received more comments than likes as users piled on to jeer the jingoistic speech.
“Obviously, the best way to deter enemies and lead allies is by pouring billions of pounds into the military industrial complex,” responded one user sarcastically.
“You do know we were involved in bloody and unsuccessful wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?” added another. “Can you explain how British soldiers killed in Helmand or in Basra were at all beneficiaries of this so-called era of the peace dividend?”
“The people need to prepare for a new era of conflict with you bastards,” wrote user John Wight, expressing widespread antipathy towards governing elites in the West. “Wars happen when the government tells you who your enemy is. Revolution happens when you work it out for yourself.”
By Binoy Kampmark | MEMO | January 16, 2024
There is something distinctly revolting and authoritarian about the royal prerogative. It reeks of clandestine assumption, unwarranted self-confidence and, most of all, a blithe indifference to accountability before elected representatives. That prerogative, in other words, is the last reminder of divine right, the fiction that a ruler can have powers vested by an unsubstantiated deity, the invisible God, and a punishing force beyond the reach of human control. And that such powers can in turn be vested in the government of the day. It is anathema to democracy, a stain on republican models of government, a joke on any political system that has some claim on representing what might be called the broader citizenry.
The UK government, in league with the US and with support from a number of other countries, attacked Houthi positions in Yemen on 11 January. The decision was made without recourse to parliament and was justified by reference to Article 51 of the UN Charter as “limited, necessary and proportionate in self-defence”.
In his statement on the attacks, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak pointed to the Houthi’s role in staging “a series of dangerous and destabilising attacks against commercial shipping in the Red Sea, threatening UK and other international ships, causing major disruption to a vital trade route and driving up commodity prices.” He made no mention of the Houthis’ own justification for the attacks as necessary measures to disrupt Israeli shipping and interests in response to their systematic, bloodcurdling razing of the Gaza Strip.
Lip service has been paid by the executive within Westminster to parliament’s importance in deciding whether the country commits to military action or not.
The stark problem is that the action is always decided upon in advance, and no dissent among parliamentarians will necessarily sway the issue. Motions can be proposed and rejected but remain non-binding on the executive emboldened by the royal prerogative.
The British decision to commit to the egregious invasion of Iraq in 2003 was already a foregone conclusion, despite preliminary debates in the House of Commons and huge public protests against the measure. On 18 March, 2011, the then British Prime Minister David Cameron informed the Commons of his intention to attack Libya, leading to a government motion on 21 March that the chamber “supports Her Majesty’s Government… in the taking of all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-protected measures.”
That same year, the then Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government in the UK acknowledged that a convention had crystallised in parliament that the House of Commons should be availed of “an opportunity to debate the matter [of committing troops] and said that it proposed to observe that convention except when there was an emergency and such action would not be appropriate.”
The broadly worded nature of the caveats – in cases of emergency or when it would not be appropriate – have made something of a nonsense of the convention. In April 2016, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon made much of the “exception”, arguing that it was “important to ensure that this and future Governments can use their judgment about how best to protect the security and interests of the UK.”
Parliament, in short, should be put in its place when necessary. Governments, it is reasoned, know best when it comes to matters of national security; parliamentarians less so. “In observing the Convention,” Fallon goes on to explain, “we must ensure that the ability of our Armed Forces is to act quickly and decisively, and to maintain the security of their operations, is not compromised.” In such cases, matters could be dealt with retrospectively, with the government of the day subsequently informing parliament after the fact.
An example of this absurd policy was played out in the decision by the UK government in April 2018 to target the Assad regime’s chemical weapons facilities in Syria. Hiding behind the weasel claim of humanitarianism, the explanation for avoiding parliament was shoddy and leaden. “It was necessary,” came the explanation from the PM’s office, “to strike with speed so we could allow our Armed Forces to act decisively, maintain the vital security of their operations, and protect the security and interests of the UK.”
The Yemen strikes eschew humanitarianism (the humanitarian justifications advanced by the Houthis in protecting Palestinian civilians has been rejected), but, in any case, shipping interests take priority. Armed Forces Minister James Heappey, apparently, was satisfied that an exception to the convention to consult parliament had presented itself. “The prime minister,” the minister parroted, “needs to make decisions such as these based on the military, strategic and operational requirements. That led to the timing.”
With the horse having bolted merrily out of the stable, Heappey remarked with all due condescension that parliament would, in time, be able to respond to the decision to strike Yemen. An “opportunity” would be made available “when parliament returns for these things to be fully discussed and debated.” The sheer redundancy of parliament’s role in matters of state, and that of MPs, could thereby be affirmed.
Much agitated by this state of affairs, former Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell opined that no military action should take place without parliament’s approval. “If we have learnt anything in recent years it’s that military intervention in the Middle East always has dangerous and often unforeseen consequences,” said McDonnell. “There is a risk of setting the region alight.”
Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs spokesperson Layla Moran was of the view that parliament should not be bypassed in matters of war, yet opted for the rather fatuous formula arising out of the 2011 convention. “Rishi Sunak must announce a retrospective vote in the House of Commons on these strikes, and recall parliament this weekend,” she said.
The use of the royal prerogative in authorising military action remains one of those British perversions that makes for good common room conversation but offends the sensibilities of the democratically minded elector. A far better practice would be to make the PM of the day accountable to that most essential body of all: parliament. That same principle would be extended to other constitutional monarchies, which are similarly weighed down by the all too liberal use of the prerogative when shedding blood. If a country’s citizens are to go to war to kill and be killed, surely their elected representatives should have a say in that most vital of decisions?
Press TV – January 16, 2024
Iran’s foreign minister has strongly slammed the recent attacks on the Yemeni territory by the United States and the UK as illegal and a strategic mistake.
Hossein Amir-Abdollahian made the remarks in an early Tuesday phone call with Secretary General of the United Nations Antonio Guterres, during which the two sides discussed the latest developments related to the Gaza Strip and the Red Sea.
During the conversation, Iran’s top diplomat stressed the Islamic Republic’s principled stance on protecting and maintaining security of shipping and navigation.
“By stopping ships that are bound for the occupied [Palestinian] territories, Yemen seeks to put a halt to the Zionist regime’s crimes and genocide against civilians in Gaza,” Amir-Abdollahian said.
He added that “illegal measures taken by the United States and the UK in attacking Yemen” amounted to a strategic mistake that would lead to further escalation of tensions in the region.
Since the start of the Israeli military aggression on Gaza in early October 2023, the United States and its Western allies have been providing financial and logistical support to the occupying regime in its ceaseless bombardment campaign against Palestinians in the besieged territory.
As part of their support for Palestinians, Yemen’s Armed Forces and popular Ansarullah resistance movement have over the past month targeted several ships owned by Israel or bound for ports in the occupied territories in the strategic Red Sea after multiple warnings.
Elsewhere in his remarks, Iran’s foreign minister expressed concern about the complicated humanitarian situation in the besieged Gaza Strip, reiterating Iran’s readiness to send humanitarian aid for the Palestinian people in the territory.
The Israeli genocide in Gaza has so far claimed the lives of more than 24,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, leaving thousands of others wounded and millions homeless. According to the UN, about 85 percent of the territory’s population has been displaced and forced into crowded shelters.
The regime has been also enforcing an all-out siege against Gaza that has prevented the flow of food, water, fuel, and medicine into the territory.
The UN chief, for his part, expressed concern about further spread of conflicts across the region, saying the world body is trying to stop the war and alleviate the suffering of the regional people.
He once again condemned the ongoing military aggression against Gaza, stressing the need for stopping it and sending humanitarian aid to Palestinians there.
Guterres also lauded the role played by the Islamic Republic in bolstering peace and stability in the region.
RT | January 15, 2024
Former US President Donald Trump’s potential reelection could be “problematic” for British national security due to his stance on NATO, former head of the MI6 intelligence service has warned.
Richard Dearlove, who led MI6 from 1999 to 2004, was discussing potential threats to the UK in 2024 in an interview with Sky News on Sunday, during which he pointed to the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the “long-term behavior of China,” before moving to the US presidential race.
“You have to add a political threat, which I am worried about, which is Trump’s reelection… which I think for the UK’s national security is problematic,” Dearlove said. If Trump, given his critical attitude towards NATO, “acts hastily and damages the Atlantic alliance, that is a big deal for the UK,” he warned.
“We’ve put all our eggs in defense terms in the NATO basket. If Trump really is serious about, as it were, changing the balance, I mean the American nuclear umbrella for Europe is, in my view, essential to Europe’s security and defense,” the former spymaster said.
During his time in the White House, Trump disparaged NATO, calling it “obsolete,” and questioned the bloc’s relevance in the modern world. He also cast doubt on Washington’s commitment to defend its allies and argued that other NATO members were not contributing enough.
“Look, NATO has taken advantage of our country. The European countries took advantage,” the former president recently told Fox News, adding that his attitude towards NATO depends on whether “they treat us properly.”
Despite several court cases against him, Trump remains the frontrunner for the Republican Party nomination as presidential candidate. A recent Morning Consult poll indicates that he is leading with 69% support, while the nearest rival is trailing far behind.
By Iain Davis | OffGuardian | January 14, 2024
According to the UK Met Office, 2023 was the second hottest year in the UK since 1884.
Quite obviously, this is complete nonsense. Unless they are troglodytes that never venture out in daylight, why would anyone in the UK believe such absurd drivel?
The Met Office states:
2023 is provisionally the second warmest year for the UK according to mean temperature. [. . .] 2023’s provisional mean temperature of 9.97°C puts it just behind 2022’s figure of 10.03°C and ahead of 2014’s 9.88°C.
Right, it’s “provisional” drivel.
The UK summer of 2023—where I live—was a thoroughly miserable affair. We had a few weeks of decent sunshine in the spring and a couple of hot weeks of Indian summer. That was it!
The rest of it was cold, wet and comprehensively devoid of anything we might traditionally call “summer.” The winter preceding and following it wasn’t particularly cold, but nor was it unusually warm.
I’m knocking on a bit and can remember about 50 years of my life. I know, for a fact, that I have lived through many warmer years. Sure, this is anecdotal, but I haven’t completely taken leave of my senses and I still have a functioning memory. No way am I unquestioningly buying the Met Office’s silly claim.
Neither do I believe any of the legacy media reports trying to convince me that the Met Office’s preposterous assertion is evidence of an alleged climate crisis. It simply isn’t true, so it is not “evidence” of anything at all. Although it does suggest deception.
The Met Office—obviously unreliably—tells us “UK mean temperatures have been shifting over the decades as a result of human-induced climate change. [. . .] 2023’s provisional mean temperature of 9.97°C puts it just behind 2022’s figure of 10.03°C.”
For a start, “human induced climate change,” or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), is a questionable and unproven scientific theory, not scientific fact. This too is just another claim from the Met Office which it wrongly asserts as fact.
The Met Office also tells us that “sunshine was near-average for much of the UK.” If we have got this right, the Met Office is claiming that, with average hours of UK sunshine in 2023—which also seems pretty dubious to me—somehow, since 1884, the only year that has been “hotter” was 2022. Which doesn’t ring true either.
What’s going on?
What does the Met Office mean—pardon the pun—by “mean temperature”? It reports that its 2023 alleged “provisional mean temperature of 9.97°C” had been obtained via the HadUK-Grid data set. The Met Office also cites its 2023 rapid attribution study. It is from this that we can—eventually—glean how the “UK mean temperature” is calculated by the Met Office.
In its rapid attribution study, the Met Office states:
Observed values of the UK annual mean temperature are obtained from the HadUK-Grid dataset v1.2.0.0. The time series spans 1884 – 2023, with the 2023 values being provisional as of 2nd January 2024.
“Observed,” that’s what we want to hear. So what observations are reported in the HadUK-Grid dataset? The Met Office claims:
HadUK-Grid is a collection of gridded climate variables derived from the network of UK land surface observations.
If we look at the HadUK-Grid methodology, the Met Office adds:
The gridded data sets are based on the archive of UK weather observations held at the Met Office.
So far so good. The HadUK-Grid reportedly records real data, such as sunshine hours, rainfall and even temperature. We live in hope. Unfortunately, there are some caveats. The Met Office continues:
The methods used to generate the daily grids are described in more detail in [this] report.
OK. So beyond just recording real-world data, what are the “methods” outlined in said report?
[. . .] the Met Office climate data archive [. . .] contains a simplified version of the raw observations generated according to well-defined rules. [. . .] Mean temperature [. . .] is the average of the maximum and minimum temperatures.
At last we have a definition of the “mean temperature” the Met Office claims to be the second highest since 1884. Apparently, it is “generated according to well-defined rules.”
In Met Office speak “mean temperature” isn’t the actual arithmetic mean of daily temperatures but rather the “average” of minimum and maximum temperatures recorded between 09:00 and 21:00 on any given day. Begging the question how are the minimum and maximum UK temperatures “observed”?
Although the data ha[s] undergone some quality checking, the extent and effectiveness of this has changed through time since the 1960’s. [. . .] NCIC climate data analysis software was again used to create the gridded data. [. . .] The station data were normalised with respect to the monthly 1km x 1km gridded 1961-1990 climate normals described by Perry and Hollis (2005a).
So the minimum and maximum allegedly “observed” 2023 “mean UK temperature” wasn’t actually observed at all. It was calculated from normalised data using computers running software based upon the “climate normals” defined in Perry and Hollis (2005).
The related paper considered how to calculate long term averages (LTAs) and suggested a methodology by which “mean” temperatures could be calculated:
For air temperature, 1490 stations reported at some point between 1961 and 2000 but only an average of 560 of these were open at any one time. This gives an array which is 38% complete. [. . .] [T]he solution is to fill in the gaps using an appropriate estimation technique. [. . .] Once the gaps in the array have been filled, long term averages for the periods 1961-1990, 1971-2000 and 1991-2000 can be calculated for each station from the complete array. [. . .] The regression model parameters provide an estimation of [. . .] the UK climate, explaining between 29% and 94% of the variance in the data depending on the climate variable.
Potentially, up to 62% of the data forming the Met Office’s “Mean UK temperature” is “generated” by “fill[ing] in the gaps.” This is based upon an “estimation technique” which supposedly explains between “29% and 94% of the variance in the data depending on the climate variable.” This doesn’t mean that the estimated fill-ins are inaccurate but they cannot be called “observations” either.
We seem to be moving further away from empirical science. Surely the Met Office isn’t claiming that it knows what the average UK “provisional” mean temperature was in 2023 based upon such limited observations? With regard to how it interprets the HadUK-Grid dataset the Met Office states:
The HadUK-Grid dataset is produced on a 1km x 1km grid resolution on the Ordnance Survey’s National Grid. To facilitate comparison of the observational dataset with the UKCP18 climate projections [. . .]. All the gridded datasets use the same grid projection. The re-gridding is conducted through averaging of all 1km grid points that fall within each of the coarser resolution grid cells.
Whoa there! We already know that the “observational dataset” is created by “fill[ing] in the gaps”—around a 60% gap apparently—with computer modelled estimates. Now we are told some sort of “re-gridding” is necessary to “facilitate comparison” with UKCP18 climate projections. Why is that necessary?
The UK Met Office adds:
Area averages are also produced based on averaging the 1km grid [data] across a set of geographical regions to provide spatial statistics for country, administrative regions and river basins. The details of these areas can be found in the UKCP18 guidance notes.
Now we’ve got “spacial statistics,” instead of empirical measurements, based upon “area averages” that facilitate, for some unknown reason, comparison with “UKCP18 climate projections.” OK, so how are the “area averages” constructed in accordance with the UKCP18 guidance notes:
Before using [UKCP18 guidance notes], it is important to understand the assumptions made, the caveats and limitations and the appropriate use of the results.
Assumptions made, caveats and limitations! What bloody assumptions, caveats and limitations? Just measure the temperature and calculate some sort of meaningful average for crying out loud!
Let’s look at the caveats and limitations:
Our understanding and ability to simulate the climate is advancing all the time but our climate models are not able to represent all of the features seen in the present day real climate and there are still limitations in our ability to project 21st century weather and climate.
Why are the Met Office “generating” temperature datasets to “facilitate comparison” with climate models if those models “are not able to represent all of the features seen in the present day real climate.” Surely the models should be based upon the empirically observed and measured features of the “real climate,” as opposed to creating “area averages” containing “spacial statistics” to fit in with the models?
Almost unbelievably, this is evidently what the UK Met Office is doing:
The relative probabilities indicate how strongly the evidence from models and observations, taken together in our methodology, support alternative future climate outcomes. [. . .] The probabilities are conditioned on methodological choices and expert judgement. The results may change if a different methodology is used.
In essence, the Met Office uses a tortuous and unnecessarily convoluted methodology to make up the bulk of its UK “temperature” data. While the Met Office claims that the provisional UK mean temperature was for 2023 was 9.97°C it also states that its results might change “if a different methodology” was used.
What’s more, the data it uses is normalised, based upon a wide gamut of climate assumptions, in order to fit in with its own climate models. Again, it admits its so-called observations, of things like mean temperature, are “taken together in [its] methodology” expressly in order to “simulate the climate.”
Most of these modelling shenanigans are utterly superfluous if your objective is to calculate the arithmetic mean annual UK temperature. Of course anomalies, such as heat islands, need to be normalised in the data but the rest of the Met Office’s “methodology,” which doesn’t even attempt to calculate an arithmetic mean temperature anyway, is about as far removed from empirical science as it is possible to venture.
Inevitably, it produces completely meaningless pap. The problem with such allegedly “scientific” rubbish is that, rather than being laughed off, it is then taken seriously by millions—thanks the unquestioning propaganda reports of the legacy media—and used to advance policy agendas, such as Net Zero.
Apart from the fact that it is blatantly obvious, to anyone who has lived in the UK from more that a couple of decades, that 2023 was not a warm year, there are other notable reasons not to automatically trust the Met Office’s makey-uppy “climate science.” Its entire claim is reliant upon the HadUK-Grid dataset which is a project funded by the UK government. As is the Met Office itself.
Apparently, the UK government is irreversibly committed to UN Sustainable Development and the associated UK Net Zero policies. The Met Office’s alleged scientific “observations” suffer from an enormous financial conflict of interest. Providing any evidence that contradicts the notion of “unprecedented global warming” couldn’t be further removed from the Met Office’s and the UK government’s own declared interests.
There is absolutely no reason to believe any of it. As “science” goes, it’s complete junk. I’ve read comics with more credibility that the Met Office’s claim that 2023 was the second warmest year in the UK since 1884.
Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it.
RT | January 15, 2024
The UK is set to deploy around 20,000 service members – as well as modern warships and fighter jets – to Europe to take part in a major NATO exercise amid rising tensions with Russia, the Defence Ministry has announced.
In a statement on Monday, the ministry, citing excerpts from a speech to be delivered by Defence Secretary Grant Shapps, said that some 16,000 army troops – along with tanks, artillery, and helicopters – will join other bloc members on the continent to participate in Exercise Steadfast Defender 24, scheduled to take place in the first half of this year.
The effort will be supported by eight warships and submarines, as well as 2,000 Royal Navy sailors. The UK will also deploy a number of aircraft, including F35B Lightning fighters and Poseidon P8 surveillance aircraft, the ministry said.
Meanwhile, Shapps is expected to call the drill “one of NATO’s largest deployments since the end of the Cold War,” adding that the UK and its allies have found themselves “in a new era” and “must be prepared to deter our enemies,” according to the statement. The statement specifically referred to the threat from the Russian “menace.”
NATO began reinforcing its military footprint in Europe first after a Western-backed coup in Kiev triggered hostilities in Donbass, which is now part of Russia. However, the most drastic build-up occurred after Russia launched its military campaign against Ukraine in February 2022. In June of the same year, the US-led military bloc agreed to put 300,000 troops on high alert, up from 40,000, to deter Moscow.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has previously said that Moscow has no plans to attack NATO, arguing that there was “no geopolitical, economic … or military interest” in waging war against the bloc. Still, Moscow has also repeatedly warned that the alliance’s military activities close to its border warrant additional security measures. Putin has also said that Ukraine’s desire to join NATO was one of the key reasons for the current conflict.
By Russell Bentley – Sputnik – 14.01.2024
Dr. Michael Parenti once said, “Economic violence is physical violence in slow motion.” The economic sanctions against Iraq in the 1990’s led directly to the deaths of half a million Iraqi children. Economic sanctions can be a weapon as deadly as any artillery shell or cruise missile.
The Houthis might at first appear to be vastly outmatched by the US/UK armada that has struck Yemen, but militarily and economically, the US and Europe are actually much more vulnerable than the Houthis. To put it simply, in both economic and military terms, the US, UK and Europe, and Israel, have a lot more to lose.
The Houthis are not alone – Hezbollah, considered to be one of the most effective fighting forces in the world today, has an estimated 100,000 highly trained and motivated and very well armed soldiers in Lebanon, and is already at (undeclared, but de facto) war with Israel, and will probably escalate in the next few days. In October, 1983, Hezbollah was able to kill 305 US and French occupation soldiers at a cost of only 2 KIA on the Hezbollah side.
Of the US and French soldiers, 220 were US Marines, the greatest single loss in one day of US Marines since the Battle of Iwo Jima in 1945. In the 2006 Hezbollah-Israeli War, in which Israel invaded southern Lebanon, Hezbollah was able to inflict “unacceptable casualties” on Israeli forces, which resulted in the withdrawal of IDF forces and the signing of UNSC1701. While the Lebanese casualties were significantly higher than Israeli, the conflict is generally seen as a tactical and strategic defeat for Israel. Israel and their US/EU allies would do well to remember both of these battles before continuing to escalate an already extremely volatile situation beyond the point of no return.
Escalation between Hezbollah and the IDF on Lebanon’s southern border will not only expand the current area of conflict into the eastern Mediterranean, it can quickly become a serious threat to the Israeli city of Haifa, only 20 miles from the Lebanese border. Haifa is Israel’s 3rd largest city, with a population of around 300,000. The Port of Haifa is Israel’s second largest by cargo tonnage, and the Haifa oil refinery (the largest, and one of only two in Israel) processes more than 66 million barrels of crude oil per year, more than a million barrels per week. The port, and especially the refinery would be prime targets, and significant damage to either, especially the refinery, would have serious repercussions for the Israeli economy.
The “massive attack” by US/UK naval forces against the Houthis involved airstrikes, as well as approximately 100 cruise missiles, at a cost of more than $1 million each. According to reports published by the Houthi military command and Western media, the attack killed five Houthis. Now, do the math. The US and UK just spent a collective $100 million to kill 5 Houthis and escalate and exacerbate an already volatile situation. Based on assurances from the Houthi government that only Israeli-connected shipping was under threat, the majority of Red Sea shipping traffic had actually continued the Red Sea unhindered.
This is no longer the case. As of January 13th, after the US/UK attacks and their possible continuation, the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (Intertanko), which represents almost 70 per cent of all internationally traded oil, gas and chemical tankers, said in an advisory to members to “stay well away” from the Bab al Mendab strait, and for vessels travelling south via the Suez Canal to pause north of Yemen. This major disruption of tanker traffic may well have an upward influence on oil prices, coming as it does right on the heels of Saudi Aramco’s announcement of a $2 per barrel discount beginning in February.
The Huthis don’t even have to shoot at any more ships – just the threat of the possibility of Houthi or coalition missiles being fired has been enough to disrupt Red Sea shipping traffic, which carries 12% of all global trade goods, and a staggering 30% of all container goods. It is actually the US/UK “coalition” that has escalated the situation to dangerous levels that now interfere with much more shipping, including tanker traffic.
teleSUR – January 13, 2024
The Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yvan Gil, strongly condemned the USA, United Kingdom and other countries’ attacks on Yemen, through a formal statement on his X account.
Gil emphasized that those are an illegal action that violates International Law and that only contributes to generating greater destabilization in the region.
“Venezuela insists that the only way to guarantee peace and stability in the Middle East is through the cessation of the genocide in the Gaza Strip, carried out by Israel,” reads the communique.
As well, Venezuela asks the immediate compliance with all United Nations resolutions for the establishment of a free and sovereign Palestinian State.
The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela join to the countries that urges the international community to exert all necessary pressure measures to reestablish international legality and justice in the area, avoiding an escalation of the conflict caused by Israeli barbarity in Palestine.
Other FMs, like the Russian and the Cuban, also condemned the military attacks by the US & NATO allies in Yemen. They considered that such acts encourage genocide in Gaza and reiterated their call for an immediate cease-fire in the Palestinian enclave.
MEMO | January 13, 2024
On this day in 2004, British photography student Tom Hurndall died in a hospital in London, having never regained consciousness after being shot in the head by an Israeli sniper nine months earlier while volunteering with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) in the Gaza Strip.
What: Death of Tom Hurndall
Where: London
When: 13 January, 2004
Who was Tom Hurndall?
Born on 27 November 1981, in London, Tom Hurndall was a photography student at Manchester Metropolitan University, ISM volunteer and an activist against the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. His photographs and journal entries capture the often distressing and occasionally inspiring moments he witnessed and lived through while staying with local families in Iraq, in a Jordanian refugee camp, and in the Gaza Strip.
In early 2003, Hurndall joined the anti-war movement against the Iraq invasion, relocating there before moving to Jordan to contribute to medical aid for Iraqi refugees. It was during this time that he discovered the ISM, an organisation advocating non-violent protest against the Israeli military in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.
What happened?
On 6 April, 2003, Tom moved to Rafah in the Gaza Strip, hoping to document the oppressive living conditions of the Palestinians. His journals reflect a dramatic change in tone upon his arrival in Palestine as he began emailing images of the Israel Defence Forces and Palestinians back to his family. “No one could say I wasn’t seeing what needs to be seen now,” he wrote.
He even noted the death of 23-year-old Rachel Corrie, who had been crushed to death on 16 March 2003 by an Israeli armoured bulldozer while trying to stop a Palestinian home from being destroyed. “I wonder how few or many people heard it on the news and just counted it as another death, just another number…”
On 11 April, Hurndall, along with fellow ISM activists, aimed to set up a peace tent on a road in Rafah to impede IDF tank patrols. It was then that Israeli snipers began shooting. As they sought cover, the young man noticed a group of children in the line of the fire. Some had run for cover, but three children stood paralysed with fear.
“He sprinted to where the children were, picked one up and carried her to safety. When he went to collect a second child, he was shot in the head by an IDF soldier, Taysir Al-Hayb.”
Bleeding on the ground, less than a week after his move to Palestine, Tom Hurndall was unarmed when he was shot, wearing a bright orange jacket identifying him as an international volunteer (as was Rachel Corrie when she was killed), and was plainly visible to Israeli sniper towers. According to other ISM activists, “There was no shooting or resistance coming from the Palestinian side at all.”
It was reported that an ambulance came very quickly to where Hurndall lay, about two minutes after the shooting. However, it was then delayed by the Israelis for up to two hours.
What happened next?
Hurndall was taken to a hospital in Rafah, where he was declared to be clinically dead. Transferred by the IDF to a hospital in Beersheba, he was kept on a ventilator and operated on. From there he was flown six weeks later to the Royal Hospital for Neuro-disability in London. The brain damage was irreversible and, after nine months in a persistent vegetative state, he died on 13 January, 2004. He was 22 years old.
Meanwhile, the IDF’s initial “routine internal inquiry” claimed that Hurndall was “accidentally shot in the crossfire” and implied that his ISM group served as “human shields”. However, this account was contested by witnesses, who insisted that he was struck by a rifle bullet while attempting to protect Palestinian children, rather than being caught in any crossfire.
The Hurndall family applied pressure on the Israeli and British governments, prompting the then British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to order an additional investigation in October 2003.
Eventually, in 2005, sniper Al-Hayb was convicted of manslaughter by an Israeli court and sentenced to eight years in prison, of which he served six and a half years, it being declared that he “no longer poses any danger.” During his trial, the soldier claimed that a policy of shooting unarmed civilians was in place at the time.
“On the very street where Tom was shot, two children had been shot just days before,” said human rights activist Raphael Cohen, who was with Tom Hurndall on the day that he was shot. “This is why he and the rest of the group went to that spot, to protest against the shooting of children as they played outside their homes. There has never been any investigation into the shootings of those children.” Indeed, the killing of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers and police, and illegal settlers, rarely leads to convictions.
According to the Telegraph, Hurndall’s sister Sophie said that her family wasn’t informed by the Israeli authorities about Al-Hayb’s release. Instead, the news was delivered by the British foreign office.
“We have not had time to regroup or work out what is going on. We have barely had time to process the news and we all feel angry and shocked,” she said, adding that they had long feared such a thing would happen. “We have had to deal with cover ups and lies and a total lack of accountability throughout – and this is in line with that. It’s symptomatic.”
She added that the family was not so much angry about Hayb’s actions, but rather the IDF’s and Israeli authorities’ casual attitude when it comes to harming Palestinian civilians. “To be honest, it’s about the system. Not the man himself. This man who shot Tom was the same age as him. He is both the victim and the killer. He is part of a system that proactively encourages soldiers to target [Palestinian] civilians.”
The soldier’s early release, she added, sent a message to Israeli soldiers that they can act with impunity. “So many innocent people were killed in so many horrific ways. They just don’t seem to care about anyone.”
Tom Hurndall’s sister expressed her anger at and disappointment in her own government and Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair. “It’s incredibly sad. One of the things that happened to me since my brother was killed is that I have lost faith in humanity. I cannot believe that people can do such things, and that my own government can sit by and keep quiet.”
The Hurndall family, especially Tom’s mother Jocelyn and Sophie, continue to be active in the Palestine solidarity movement, along with his close friends. His contribution to the cause has been honoured through conferences, a film and a book.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Lisa Pease | Consortium News | September 16, 2013
More than a half century ago, just after midnight on Sept. 18, 1961, the plane carrying UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and 15 others went down in a plane crash over Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). All 16 died, but the facts of the crash were provocatively mysterious. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 