Monday, 6 April 2026

The digital ID scam

A very wise man – his name was Brian Micklethwait – once said to me: “Don’t try to talk to your enemies. Talk about them.” Having been asked to respond to yet another government consultation on digital ID, I have decided, on this occasion, to act on his sage advice. Rather than just pour my arguments against digital ID into the deaf ears of government, I decided to write on the issue for the interested public. I have given up on trying to talk to the cabal of enemies of humanity, that masquerades as a government. Instead, I will talk about them.

Now, I am active in the civil liberties organization Together, as well as being campaign manager for my local branch of Reform UK. I was also a member of NO2ID two decades ago. About seven months ago, I responded to a “Call for Evidence” on Labour’s digital ID project. That response is here: [[1]]. A week ago, Together announced that on Saturday April 25th they would be holding simultaneous rallies against digital ID in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. Just three days ago, I was reminded that the digital ID project had reached the formal “consultation” stage: [[2]]. And all this despite a parliamentary petition against digital ID, which last autumn garnered almost three million signatures.

Summary of my first response

Here is the summary section of my response to the call for evidence.

“I am strongly opposed to any plan for any form of compulsory digital ID. It would violate the human rights to dignity and privacy. And it goes against the values of British culture – the culture which sparked the Enlightenment, and nurtured the Industrial Revolution.

I will list six specific issues I identified:

·       The idea, that data in computer systems can be “a single source of truth,” which can override evidence from the real world, is fundamentally flawed. The whole idea of digital ID checking, therefore, is also fundamentally flawed.

·       The Home Office, and government in general as at present constituted, are untrustworthy, and should not be allowed the kind of power that any new digital ID system would bring.

·       If use of a mobile phone is to be a necessary part of a digital ID system, some individuals, particularly disabled and older people, will be unable to prove who they are.

·       There are serious risks to human rights and freedoms in any digital ID system. These include inaccuracy, overreach, wastefulness, intrusiveness, violations of privacy and dignity rights, and failing to act in the interests of, and with the consent of, the people.

·       Digital ID systems could far too easily lead towards an Orwellian system of total surveillance and control.

·       The call for evidence is asking the wrong questions. Instead of what new digital ID systems should be developed, it should be asking whether attempts at digital ID systems in the UK have gone too far, and should be scaled back or even scrapped.”

The parliamentary petition

The petition can be found here: [[3]]. It garnered 2,984,192 signatures from the public. It specifically opposed introduction of a digital ID card; but most of those who signed it were opposed to all forms of digital ID.

But the response from government proved its deafness to the views of millions of the people it is supposed to serve. “We will introduce a digital ID within this Parliament to help tackle illegal migration, make accessing government services easier, and enable wider efficiencies. We will consult on details soon.”

The more detailed response to the petition stated that the new national digital ID would be “not a card but a new digital identity.” Clever, that – and devious. Give way on one detail, but continue as if nothing had happened. Typical bad faith from government.

Going digital

I think I see a pattern in the way government is trying to force us to “go digital” in everything. We have had “making tax digital,” and refusal of government to accept tax payments by tried and trusted methods. (I myself was exposed to attempted fraud by someone in the Post Office, because HMRC stopped accepting cheques for corporation tax payments). In the “private” sector, companies wanting people to go “paper free,” and banks closing branches, are other aspects of this. It is as if they want us to live our entire lives digitally, not in the real world.

But I, as an evidence-based person who does not trust anything I am told unless I see real-world evidence for it, have – despite being myself a technologist – moved increasingly away from using on-line services. Something you do on-line is, in a sense, not real. Even if it has real-world consequences. Without an audit trail, you can never be sure of what happened. And an electronic audit trail can be lost if your computer dies.

The Internet is great for information, and useful to do things like booking appointments. But for actually doing transactions, personal contact and traditional methods of commerce are best. Unlike on-line transactions, they are also private between you and the other party.

This “consultation”

In responding to several government consultations in different subject areas, I have become increasingly cynical about the value of the “consultation” process. In every case, I found that the “consultation” was a complete sham, because the result had already been decided. And the voices of those who are opposed in principle to whatever scheme is being put forward are completely ignored.

What about this particular one? It is very clear, from the way the subject matter is presented, that it is no exception to this rule. The decision to go ahead with the digital ID project has been made. Damn the people who don’t want it, and damn the consequences to them! The whole exercise is no more than box-ticking.

Of the issues I identified in my earlier response, only one – difficulties in using a mobile phone – is even mentioned. Even there, the problems have been over-simplified or glossed over.

Moreover, there is no mention in the consultation document of the human right to dignity – to be treated as a human being. And the many potentials for violations of human rights, that are inherent in any digital ID system, aren’t addressed at all. The problems in treating a fallible database as a “single source of truth” – as shown so clearly by the Post Office scandal – aren’t acknowledged. Nor is there any acknowledgement of previous government failures to secure individuals’ data, nor any plan to prevent such failures in the future. My expressed concerns have been totally ignored.

Further, as Big Brother Watch have put it: “The government argues that digital ID is more privacy-friendly than traditional forms of identification because it allows selective data sharing. However, this completely overlooks the critical issue of what is recorded and shared in the background. Even if only limited information is shared in a given interaction, sensitive data about when, where and how the ID was used could still be collected and stored.”

What is digital ID for?

Digital ID is touted as a foundation for “a new digital state – that will be there for you when you need it most.” Yeah, right. The political philosopher in me knows, without any doubt, that the political state is an existential problem for the people it rules over, not a solution to anything. Beyond receiving services I have already paid for, such as a pension and the health care I need, I don’t want to have anything to do with the state at all.

I certainly don’t want to have to prove, at the state’s slightest whim, who I am. That way lies tyranny. For what happens if the system fails me, even once? By malfunction, by hacking, or perhaps by a decision of some state functionary that has taken a dislike to me? “The computer says No!” Does that not violate my right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?

Digital ID is for everyone?

Then I see, said of the scheme: “It must be for everyone.” Revealing words, which give the lie to any idea that it will be optional. Even if they were not meant to be read so.

And it will “come together in the GOV.UK App on your phone.” Useless, and by implication dangerous, for those of us who are not dexterous enough to use a mobile phone effectively.

Public interest

Then there is: “We know there’s been a significant level of public interest in the digital ID system, which is why we’re launching this national conversation, so you can have your say on how it is built.” But the “significant level of public interest” has been coming mainly from those millions of people who, like me, don’t want the damned thing at all.

Scrap it, and you’ll save both your time and our money. Which could far better be spent on things we do want and need, like auditing government to ensure it is always honest towards the people it is supposed to serve. And thereby making sure that government never again uses taxpayers’ money on any scheme, that goes against the interests of those taxpayers.

Legal obligation

“There will be no legal obligation for people to have or present the digital ID.” Well, that does seem to be a concession – at least, for this month. But don’t these goons understand that many, many people have totally lost all trust in government and everything it does?

We have been lied to or misled so often, and promises have been broken so many times, that we have come to expect what government tells us to be misleading, deceptive or a downright lie. And almost everything government does to us, it does in bad faith. Like its response to the petition: dropping the “card” from “digital ID card,” but keeping the “digital ID” part.

Why do this at all?

And then: “Above all, the digital ID will be useful. It will help people to prove who they are and things about themselves, like their age, in the public and private sectors.” But why the hell should I have to prove who I am? Or my age?

I know who I am! Anyone, whom I want to know who I am, already knows who I am. And when I introduce myself to someone new, people who know me will vouch for who I am. I have already made arrangements for those situations where something more formal is necessary, such as bank cards. Why, then, should having to prove who I am ever be necessary in anything but the most exceptional circumstances?

As I recall, the first time I ever had to prove my identity, except for passing through a national border, was when opening a business bank account in 1993. I even bought my home in 1986 without needing to have any ID checked. Since then, governments have mushroomed the occasions on which people need to prove who they are. They are pushing digital ID as a “solution” to a problem they themselves brought on us.

That leads me to ask: did they create this problem in order to force digital ID on us? With the follow-up: once a digital ID is in place, won’t they want to use it to mushroom the situations in which we are required to prove our identity? And so, to collect a more and more detailed picture of everything we do? Every financial transaction, every journey anywhere, every item bought in the supermarket, every drink bought in the pub, for example? A picture that can then be policed, perhaps by AI bots looking for patterns of behaviour different from the desired norms du jour? Such a system smacks of the tyranny of George Orwell’s “1984.”

As to proving age, it is insulting to ask anyone over about 25 – particularly women – their age. “Adult” is perfectly sufficient. And I’ve been officially an adult for more than half a century. Once an adult, always an adult.

The “People’s Panel”

The document proposes a “People’s Panel for Digital ID.” This is horribly reminiscent of the “UK Climate Assembly” of 2019, which was lectured by biased “experts,” then produced an extremist report. Extremist in favour of the establishment-desired policy of “net zero,” of course. That was a complete travesty of “democracy” and “consulting the people.” So, no doubt, will this be.

Digital Driving Licence

Does the upcoming introduction of a Digital Driving Licence imply that people will no longer be able to renew their driving licence by post? This will create serious problems for people over 70 who need to renew their licence every three years, and may force people over 70 into getting a digital ID just for this one application. Would this not invalidate the statement that “Across all uses, the digital ID will be optional?”

Revocation of ID

Section 2.2 gives government power to revoke an individual’s digital ID. This will be “governed by robust processes,” whatever that means.

As Big Brother Watch puts it: “I do not want to live in a society where your ability to exist and be recognised as a citizen with rights is dependent on a digital ID check.” And “If the digital ID becomes a requirement for everyday life, then this sets a dangerous precedent, by which people can be locked out of accessing basic services.” Just like the “unpersoning” of Syme in George Orwell’s “1984.” Or the instant “de-banking” of people who are unable to provide “know your customer” data on request, as the banks are threatening.

“Transformative” nature

Part 3 says: “The national digital ID will be transformative for government services and sectors across the economy.” This word “transformative” has an extremely unpleasant ring, sounding like the verbiage used by the United Nations and the WEF. Government should be serving us, not trying to “transform” us or itself.

Universal unique identifier

“We are considering developing a universal unique identifier (or similar approach) tied to the digital ID and GOV.UK One Login, to enable consistent reference across government services.” Won’t having a single reference, which can be shared with third parties, encourage those parties to collect as much data as they can on individuals and link them to the reference, so they can pester people with personalised ads and the like? And does this not negate all the protections put forward in the section on “Privacy by design and default?”

Big Brother Watch have identified the same pitfalls within government as well. “Rather than empowering me to choose what information I share with specific departments, this proposal risks linking all my records behind the scenes, removing meaningful control over my data.” Indeed so. “I am not a number” may be a cliché, but that does not make it any less true.

Biometric data

A digital ID will require “a current, high-resolution biometric facial image that meets specified requirements.”

I cannot respond better to this than to quote Big Brother Watch: “If the government’s databases are breached, which is highly possible, information which uniquely identifies me through a deeply personal identifying feature will be compromised – and unlike changing a password, I cannot simply change my face. Concerningly, the consultation also highlights that my photo could be repurposed as a mugshot used by the police in a digital line-up for facial recognition searches. I completely oppose this.”

Buying alcohol

Section 3.3 says: “The Home Office will update the alcohol mandatory licensing conditions to allow for age verification using registered DVS [digital verification services] when buying alcohol.”

Does this mean that people who don’t have a digital ID won’t be allowed to buy alcohol, even though they are obviously older than 18?

Does it also mean that whenever someone with a digital ID buys alcohol, this information will be logged on a database in a way that is accessible to government or to third parties?

Right to work

The section “How right to work checks could change” is rather vague and confusing. Does it imply that someone with a valid UK passport but no digital ID would be refused the right to work? What if the passport has expired?

The price

As Big Brother Watch puts it: “A digital ID will not help my life… There are much simpler ways to inform me and help me to access public services; indeed, if the digital ID system is voluntary, as promised, these other methods will have to continue to take place in any event.” And: “Building a multibillion-pound digital ID system is not a sensible use of public funds at this time and I wholly oppose it.” I concur heartily with all these statements.

To sum up

Not only does this project bring to the people of the UK no benefits whatsoever. But it also lays us open to Orwellian treatment – or even worse – at the hands of the state. And it will cost us billions in the process.

It is clear that those driving this project within government have no concern at all for the people they are supposed to serve. They do not care about our rights and freedoms, or what we think, or what we want.

The Nolan Principles

It is also clear that those driving this project are violating the Nolan Principles of Public Life, to which everyone in government should be bound by the terms of their employment contracts. These principles include:

·       Selflessness: everyone in government must act solely in the interests of the governed, and never against those interests.

·       Openness: acting and taking decisions in an open and transparent manner.

·       Honesty and truthfulness.

·       And treating the people they are supposed to serve with the respect and dignity due to us as human beings.

Are those pushing the digital ID project on us behaving in these ways? I leave you to answer.

In conclusion

The entire digital ID project is a scam against the people. It must be scrapped. Now.

Posted by No comments:

Saturday, 4 April 2026

The May 7th 2026 West Surrey Local Elections

 

Image credit: Unsplash

I am writing to inform Reform UK supporters and potential supporters in our constituency of Godalming and Ash about the background to the May 7th elections for the new West Surrey unitary authority.

If you are not already a Reform UK member or supporter, I say to you, welcome. If you feel you want to join or to donate to Reform UK, you can do so via our donations page here: https://donate.reformparty.uk/godalming-ash.

Management Summary

On May 7th, you will be able to vote for councillors to form a new local council called West Surrey Unitary Authority. Who gets elected will have repercussions. On your local services, your roads, your freedom to drive, your green spaces and your council tax bill.

Context

·       West Surrey is a newly created council.

·       The councillors you elect on May 7th will not take on their powers until April 2027.

·       Until then, the current councillors will continue to run Surrey County Council (SCC) and the borough councils.

·       West Surrey will begin life with a huge debt, estimated at around £8,000 per elector.

·       The number of councillors in Surrey will be reduced from more than 450 in SCC and the boroughs to just 162. Of these, 90 will be from West Surrey.

The facts

The Tories, since 2021, have managed Surrey County Council in a way that does not represent the interests of people in the more rural parts of Surrey. Particularly in transport policy, where they have been consistently hostile to drivers of private cars and vans.

Without a very significant Reform UK presence in the new West Surrey unitary authority, the erosion of the freedoms of the people of Surrey will inevitably continue.

The vision that Tories, Labour, Lib Dems and Greens all have for Surrey’s future is a “woke” and green one. They see “environmental responsibilities” and “equality, diversity and inclusion” as more important than serving the people of Surrey.

The local government changes, that have brought West Surrey into existence, are touted as devolution, but they are not. Labour are seeking to centralize power into mega-councils. And the Tories have eagerly co-operated with the Labour plans.

The huge debt that West Surrey will inherit is the result of Tory councils, particularly in Woking, making unwise investments. It is unjust that people in Waverley and Guildford should be expected to pay off other councils’ debts.

There is a longer-term plan for a “Mayor of Surrey,” with wide and sweeping powers. This is likely to result, as it has in London, in top-down control and zero concern for the needs and desires of local residents.

House building targets have been set, which amount to an increase in the population of more than 50% in Waverley borough and 30% in Guildford borough over the 20 years to 2043.

All this is likely to lead to:

·       Less local representation.

·       Increasing pressure on roads and council services.

·       Increasing pressure to build on green belt land, and to sell off green spaces for building.

·       Ongoing council tax increases.

Why vote Reform UK?

Reform UK will be prudent and responsible with how we use your money. Reform-run councils have already saved £325 million in council spending in 2025/6.

Reform UK are the only party who are against net zero, and against anti-car policies such as blanket 20mph speed limits, chicanes and speed bumps (many of them broken). Reform will stand up for the rights of safe drivers to get around West Surrey unimpeded.

We have so many road works and road closures at the moment, that it’s often really difficult to get from A to B. Reform UK will push for highway contractors to co-ordinate and expedite their works better.

Our streets are riddled with potholes, that keep on coming back because repairs are done on the cheap. Reform UK will demand higher standards, and push for getting the job done right the first time.

Labour, like the Tories before them, want to cram more and more people into our part of Surrey. Reform UK will push back against unrealistic house-building targets.

If you care about the people of Surrey rather than about woke and green policies, Reform UK is your only voting option on May 7th. Even if – particularly if – you have never voted in a local election before, or the last time you did was many years ago.

Woking, Spelthorne and Runnymede

Since around 2015, there has been increasing pressure on local authorities’ finances, at both county and borough levels. And there is, rightly, a limit to how fast they can raise council tax. This led a number of councils to take financial risks in an effort to cover the deficits.

One of these was Woking Borough Council. It was Tory controlled for almost all of the period 2007 to 2019. The Tories lost control to the Lib Dems at the 2022 elections, and it was not long before the problem of Woking’s debt became public knowledge. The debt, of more than £18,000 per resident, came about because the Tories had used borrowed money to make unwise investments in large-scale building projects.

By 2024, Woking had a debt of about £2 billion. Spelthorne had £1 billion, and there was £2.5 billion of total debt at the other councils, including Surrey County Council. Woking and Spelthorne had the two highest council debts in the whole country, and Runnymede was fifth.

Surrey County Council’s ambitious plans

All this took place at the same time as Tory-controlled Surrey County Council (SCC) reached peak green mania. In the name of Boris Johnson’s pursuit of net zero and other projects, that the Tories thought were “strategic.”

They wanted a Surrey where “Everyone lives healthy, active and fulfilling lives, and makes good choices about their wellbeing.” Where “Residents live in clean, safe and green communities, where people and organisations embrace their environmental responsibilities.” With “No one left behind.” “Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI).” “Growing a sustainable economy. Tackling health inequality. Enabling a greener future. Empowering communities.” They even went so far as to join UK100, “a network of local leaders who have pledged to lead a rapid transition to Net Zero with Clean Air in their communities ahead of the government’s legal target.”

Well, I don’t know about you, but myself, I am opposed to just about everything there. That’s a big reason I support Reform UK. The party is pledged to scrapping net zero. And I agree. Not just because we can’t afford it, but because CO2 doesn’t cause any real problems, so net zero wouldn’t bring any benefits at all!

Reform is also against the ban on new petrol and diesel cars. And against anti-car policies more generally, such as ULEZ style schemes, low traffic neighbourhoods and blanket 20mph speed limits. As a safe driver of 55 years’ standing, who knows, without any doubt, that the health risks from air pollution are grossly overstated, I too am against all these things.

As to “equality, diversity and inclusion,” I take the view that such schemes are morally wrong, since they discriminate between people, not on the basis of their behaviour, but by skin colour or other characteristics outside their control.

And don’t think that the Lib Dems or Greens are any less zealots for the woke, green religion than the Tories have been. Lib Dem controlled Godalming Town Council want to: “Support and promote Equality, Diversity and Inclusion.” “Promote at least 10% Biodiversity Net Gain on private land and ensure it on land that we own.” “Promote an understanding of the climate and ecological crisis amongst our community and work together on strategies for reduction of individual carbon footprint.” And “Support divestment in fossil fuels and oppose development of new sources for fossil fuels through ‘fracking,’ ‘acidisation,’ drilling and other unsustainable approaches.” Madness.

What have we actually got for our money?

What have SCC actually delivered for us in their term of office? That started in 2021 under Tory control, but as residents have vented their anger at successive by-elections, the Lib Dems have been the beneficiaries. The council is now under no overall control.

The Tories have set a transport policy in Surrey that is aggressively anti-car. But Lib Dems and Greens have a similar mind-set, too. They do not seem to understand that the remoter parts of Surrey, including ours, are rural areas. In which public transport, away from the major train corridors, is very limited. For anyone who lives, or needs to go, outside these corridors, a car is all but essential. Drivers pay council tax too, and they deserve service, not persecution.

In recent years, potholes have been the biggest problem on Surrey’s roads. This winter, they have been worse than ever. But right now, the profusion of road works and road closures, often over long periods, is an even bigger issue. Road blockages seem to spring up without warning; sometimes two on the same route at the same time, as recently in Farncombe and Binscombe. SCC is treating the road users it is supposed to be serving with disdain.

Meanwhile, we already have 20mph speed limits in Shalford, Shackleford and Puttenham. There are draconian “traffic calming” proposals for Compton, which lies on a strategic through road. And proposals for junction narrowing, raised tables and speed bumps, and 20mph limits on just about every road within a mile of Farncombe centre (including two steep hills), have just finished the second round of “consultation.”

Moreover, council tax goes up every year, by as near 5% as they can make it. And some parts of it (like Godalming Town Council’s) go up even more. My next year’s bill is £2,000, as near as damn it. And that’s with the single person discount.

Influence of the WHO

There is also a “Vision Zero” road safety scheme, particularly pushed by the Lib Dem caucus. This is a project of the UN, originating with its World Health Organization (WHO). You may recall the WHO’s support for China and for lockdowns during COVID, and its desire to take total world-wide control of responses to future pandemics. This is not an organization I, for one, want to have any say at all in how I live my life.

Indeed, the WHO has also been the driver of UK policy on what the government call “clean air,” which you and I know as “air pollution.” And the UK Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollution (COMEAP), have tried, in ways I consider dishonest, to make out that air pollution today is a far bigger problem that it is in reality.

Local government re-organization

Before about 1965, the organization of local government in the UK was two-tier, with more than 1,000 county, district and town councils. In the late 1960s, Labour sought to consolidate the structure, to one that was single-tier over most of the country. But the Tory victory in the 1970 general election meant that the two-tier system was retained. This produced the existing county and borough structure, which came into effect in 1974.

The recent change, which has resulted in the creation of West Surrey, is being sold under the banner of “devolution.” Devolution ought to mean bringing government closer to home, making smaller units that are more flexible to local needs and desires. But what Labour are doing is precisely the opposite.

SCC had signed up to a “devolution” agreement with the Tory government early in 2024, which gave SCC itself new powers. But in September 2024, the incoming Labour government published a plan. This identified the likely option for places like Surrey as: “non-mayoral devolution or division into two or more unitary councils.”

Labour’s “devolution” white paper in December went much further. It said: “Our goal is simple. Universal coverage in England of Strategic Authorities – which should be a number of councils working together, covering areas that people recognise and work in.” And: “these reforms should be treated as stepping stones towards more ambitious settlements within the next few years, in line with our detailed regional recommendations.”

As to the longer term: “A potential alternative path to deeper devolution would be for Surrey to unitarise the county… The next step could be the establishment of a mayoral combined authority at the county scale, with the several unitaries as constituent members.” That does, indeed, seem to be the direction in which Labour are heading with regard to Surrey’s future.

Mayoral Strategic Authorities

Labour’s attitude is that “the benefits of devolution are best achieved through the establishment of combined institutions with a directly elected mayor.” In time, they want to impose mayoral systems everywhere. Even in areas which have never before had mayors above the level of individual towns. Again, this is centralizing power, not devolving it.

Mayoral Strategic Authorities can include “constituent authorities,” defined as “local authorities where a strategic authority exists.” In Surrey, the unitary authorities would eventually be constituents of a giant strategic authority, likely run by a “Mayor of Surrey.”

Mayors will have considerable powers, both formal and less so. How the unitary councillors are to represent local people in the face of a mayor is, to say the least, unclear. But we know already that unitary councils will not be able to overrule a mayor’s transport plan. And as we know from the ULEZ expansion, even local MPs are powerless against an activist mayor. Labour’s vision of “devolution” is one of top-down command and control, not one that allows local people to do things in the ways that are best for them.

And what will a “mayoral strategic authority” do, beyond what local councils do at the moment? It will have: “Ability to introduce mayoral precepting on council tax.” “Active Travel England support for constituent authority capability.” “A duty to produce a Spatial Development Strategy.” “Ability to raise a Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy.” “Heat network zoning co-ordination role.” “Green jobs and skills co-ordination role.” “A strategic role on net zero in collaboration with government.” “Responsibility for co-ordinating delivery and monitoring of Local Nature Recovery Strategies.” “A bespoke statutory health improvement and health inequalities duty.” Yeah, right. Lots of stuff we don’t need or want, and nothing that we do.

All this is in the future, and the dates are unclear. But without a very significant Reform UK presence in the new West Surrey unitary, the erosion of the freedoms of the people of Surrey will inevitably continue.

The cancellation of the 2025 elections

In December 2024, the minister for local government wrote to the leaders of two-tier councils, including SCC, warning that they would be required to supply proposals very soon for re-organization into unitary authorities. SCC Tories responded eagerly, requesting postponement of the elections scheduled for May 2025. Which was granted.

With hindsight, those elections weren’t postponed; they were cancelled. Voters lost all chance to change the direction SCC was going in. And the next time they had a chance to vote, it would be for a new system they hadn’t even been consulted on. Meanwhile, the Tories got themselves two extra years in power, for which they had no democratic mandate.

Most of the borough and district councils in Surrey (understandably) disagreed with SCC’s desire to postpone the May 2025 elections. But they were ignored. Instead, a “final plan” for re-organization was prepared, and rammed through SCC by the Tories, over the protestations of the other parties. This plan offered us a false “choice” between two setups, one where Surrey was split into two unitary authorities, and one where it was split into three. The sanest option, of sorting out the financial issues first and then deciding, slowly, what was the best way forward for the people, was never even considered.

There was a “consultation” over the summer, allowing us to choose between the two. Within this restricted choice, the Lib Dems favoured the three-unitary option, and so did our local Reform UK branch. But as usual, the consultation was a sham; the result had already been decided. The two-unitary setup won.

A tale of two unitaries

So, we are now taking the first steps of a re-organization that Labour and the Tories wanted, and just about no-one else.

Eleven borough councils, eight of which were reasonably functional, together with SCC itself, will be abolished in April 2027. They will be replaced by two Unitary Authority mega-councils, West Surrey and East Surrey. In the process, the more than 450 councillors on the county and borough councils will be replaced by just 162. This is devolution? This is bringing local government closer to home? Pull the other one.

Meanwhile, the current councillors continue to run the show, without any democratic mandate. The establishment parties continue to impose on us their pet virtue-signalling projects, like cycle greenways and 20mph speed limits, that are negatives to many of us. And, because the newly elected councillors will not take on their powers until April 2027, the incumbents have carte blanche to continue doing these things to us for another year!

West Surrey is born

West Surrey will be formed in April 2027 from six former boroughs: Waverley, Guildford, Surrey Heath, Woking, Runnymede and Spelthorne.

All three of the boroughs in big financial trouble have been placed in West Surrey. This is bound to cause big problems for people in our constituency, which spans part of Guildford borough and part of Waverley. The debt West Surrey will have when it starts is estimated at £4 billion. Spread across a population of around 685,000, this is just under £6,000 per resident, or £8,000 per elector.

And who will be expected to pay off that debt? Council tax payers. Not just in Woking, Spelthorne and Runnymede, but in Waverley, Guildford and Surrey Heath too.

House building targets

A major issue in local politics, about which few people seem to be aware, is house building targets. The population of the UK is increasing, mostly through immigration. Those people have to go somewhere. And both the Tories and Labour seem to have singled out our part of Surrey for a particularly large population increase.

They have set (mandatory) house building targets for Waverley, which amount to an increase of more than 50% in the population in the 20 years to 2043. And this is in an area 80% of which is protected, either as Green Belt or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Waverley Borough Council are, rightly, objecting to the target as unachievable. Meanwhile, Guildford’s target is not much lower, amounting to a population increase of more than 30%. There is no doubt that the character of our beautiful area, and our green spaces, are under serious threat.

Reform UK support development only on “brownfield” sites, that have previously been developed. We oppose large scale development on green belt land, and it is important to us that local people must give their consent to development proposals.

In conclusion

If you have read this far, thank you. I hope you will agree that, for anyone who cares about the people of Surrey rather than about woke and green policies, Reform UK is the only voting option on May 7th.

I will end as I began: If you feel you want to join or to donate to Reform UK, you can do so via our donations page here: https://donate.reformparty.uk/godalming-ash.

Neil Lock is campaign manager for Reform UK Godalming and Ash branch.

Posted by No comments:

Tuesday, 3 March 2026

The Case of the Missing Cost-Benefit Analysis

Sherlock Holmes, I’m told, solved the case of “the missing three-quarter.” Today, I’m going to try to emulate him. What is missing, this time, is not a rugby player; it is a cost-benefit analysis for “net zero.” And a lot more than three-quarters of it is missing.

This essay is a re-work and update of a detailed offering from 2023, here: [[1]].

Externalities and social cost

First, I must introduce an economists’ word: “externalities.” An externality occurs “when producing or consuming a good causes an impact on third parties not directly related to the transaction.” The impact might be negative (a cost), or more rarely positive (a benefit).

It is unreasonable that innocent parties should suffer disbenefits from side-effects of others’ activities. At the least, once the externalities are proven and quantified, those who benefit from the activities ought to pay compensation to those negatively affected by them. If these effects are sufficiently large compared to the benefits from the activities to those who indulge in them, there is a case to be considered for restricting or even banning them.

The effects are measured in terms of “social cost.” The social cost of an externality is defined as the aggregate cost, to all those affected, of that externality.

Cost-benefit analysis

Government, as I’ve said many times before, is supposed to be a nett benefit to the governed. If not, we should get rid of it. So, if government identifies a problem that it thinks may need fixing, then before taking any action, it ought to check that the gains to the people from fixing the problem will outweigh the costs the fix imposes on them.

Fortunately, we have a technique we can use to do this. It’s called cost-benefit analysis. And in principle, it’s simple.

Social cost of the externality

You start out by understanding the problem. The first step is to calculate the social cost of the externality, now and in the future. This gives you an idea of what the costs resulting from the externality would be, if you did nothing at all to control it in any way.

Costs of possible solutions

The second step is to look at possible solutions. Approaches proposed generally divide into mitigation (taking pre-emptive action to reduce the costs of the externality) or adaptation (only taking action to resolve problems as and when they are apparent). It is also possible to have solutions which are combinations of the two.

Each proposed solution will have its own profile of reductions over time in costs resulting from the externality. It will also have its own profile of costs, which must be incurred in order to mitigate, or to adapt to the effects of, the externality.

Costs versus benefits

The third step is to analyze costs versus benefits. In essence, to compare the costs of each solution – including doing nothing, which has zero direct cost – with the benefits obtained through the reductions in costs from the externality. You can then decide which is the best option.

Complexities

Of course, in practice, to do such a cost-benefit analysis is very complicated. There will be uncertainties in the costs for the case where no political action at all is taken over the matter. There will be a range of possible combinations of mitigation and adaptation, all of which must be taken into account. And there will be uncertainties in all their costs.

Uncertainty

Further, as any mathematician or businessman knows, if you subtract one uncertain number from another uncertain number, particularly if the two are close together, the uncertainty can easily become so large that no objective cost-benefit decision can be made.

In this case, the true precautionary principle, “Look before you leap,” ought to apply. You should not attempt any mitigation, but should simply let the externality run its course. While being prepared to fix any problems that may arise as they come up. Such an uncertainty, in effect, disqualifies mitigation approaches as solutions to the externality, and means that adaptation is the only sane approach.

After all, people benefit from the activity that causes the externality. And those benefits must not be taken away from them if the cost-benefit case against the activity is unclear. As in criminal law, people should be assumed innocent, and not punished, until proven guilty.

The nub of the problem as I see it

In the claimed problem to which “net zero” has been put forward as a solution, the externality is seen in terms of effects on the climate of emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from human activities such as energy generation, energy use, and transport. It is measured by the “social cost of carbon” (SCC), a misnomer since it is really the social cost of CO2 emissions. In the words of Nobel Prize winning economist William Nordhaus, “This term represents the economic cost caused by an additional ton of carbon dioxide emissions … or its equivalent.”

Now, I do not propose to look at the second and third steps in cost-benefit analysis, which I described above. It is the first step, in this case the calculation of the costs resulting from given amounts of CO2 emissions, independently of any climate policies, on which I focus. For in a sane world, this calculation should have been done before any “solutions” were even considered. And any “solution” more costly than what, according to the SCC, would have been saved by eliminating the emissions, should have been rejected.

But my contention is that the UK government has not published any objective calculations of these costs for the UK. Indeed, it has gone out of its way to prevent any such calculations being made! And thus, no proper cost-benefit analysis for “net zero” has ever been done.

Integrated Assessment Models

The tools used in estimating the “social cost of carbon” are called Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs). IAMs, in effect, take the outputs of a climate model, then estimate the economic consequences, and from those they calculate values for the SCC over time.

An overview of IAMs is here: [[2]]. It separates them into two classes. Cost-benefit IAMs, that “fully integrate a stylised socio-economic model with a reduced-form climate model to simultaneously account for the costs of mitigation and the damages of global warming.” And process-based IAMs, which focus on (harrumph) “the analysis of transformation processes depending on a broad set of activities that induce emissions as side effects.”

I shall consider only the first class of IAMs, as only they can do cost-benefit analysis. They were also the only IAMs available at the time these calculations ought to have been done.

DICE, FUND and PAGE

Three cost-benefit IAMs were available in 2006, when Nicholas Stern conducted his review. These are DICE, FUND and PAGE. As far as I know, they are the only cost-benefit IAMs still used today.

Historically, DICE was the first of the three. Its genesis goes back at least to the 1980s, and its developer was William Nordhaus. FUND comes from Richard Tol of the University of Sussex and his colleague David Anthoff. And PAGE is the model produced by Chris Hope of the Judge Business School in Cambridge.

In general, FUND seems to produce the most optimistic results, because it includes positive side-effects of CO2, such as on plant growth. PAGE is the most pessimistic, because it tries to make allowance for unknown “tipping points.” And DICE is in the middle.

Some issues with IAMs

In an earlier essay at [[3]], I noted the lack of testing of the predictions of climate models against real-world data. IAMs seem to have the same problem, in spades. Particularly given that they either include climate models, or work off their outputs.

Moreover, of the three, DICE and PAGE calculate damage using a “damage function” which is essentially arbitrary. FUND’s damage calculations are based on empirical figures from studies done in the 1990s; but even these may only be valid within a narrow temperature range.

Some history

I shall now dive into the sorry history of the missing cost-benefit analysis.

The Stern Review

In 2006, economist Nicholas Stern and his team published the Stern Review. This was an (apparent) attempt to provide a cost-benefit analysis for policy action or inaction on reducing CO2 emissions. It did, at least, use the SCC approach. But of the IAMs Stern had available to him, he chose the one, PAGE, which gave by far the most pessimistic estimate of the social cost of CO2 emissions.

On top of this, Stern made other assumptions, such as a low discount rate, that resulted in a grossly exaggerated estimate of the costs of not taking any action. That Stern had to fiddle the figures in order to create anything like a cost-benefit case for action, ought to have been a big red flag for all involved. But it was ignored. With hindsight, it is obvious that PM Tony Blair didn’t want Stern to do an honest, objective cost-benefit analysis. What Blair wanted was something he could use to “justify” an alarmist call to action.

Besides, Stern was – and is – not exactly a neutral in the climate alarmism debate. Today, Stern is a professor at the Grantham Institute of the London School of Economics: [[4]]. Funded by Jeremy Grantham, billionaire crusader against climate change. Stern’s latest book is entitled: “The growth story of the 21st century: the economics and opportunity of climate action.” “Opportunity,” for Stern, seems to mean denial of opportunity to ordinary people.

The Climate Change Act 2008

Next, to the 2008 UK climate change bill. They did make a token attempt at a cost benefit analysis. The numbers were based on the Stern review. Not only were these numbers dubious for reasons outlined above, but they had a huge range of uncertainty too.

I actually downloaded and read the 200 or so pages of supporting data. If I recall right, there was a factor of 7 uncertainty in the costs, and a factor of 12 uncertainty in the “benefits,” of taking action to reduce CO2 emissions in order to mitigate climate change. If we could believe the figures in the first place!

Such numbers are useless for making any kind of objective decisions. These estimates were not fit for purpose. Yet, the politicians went ahead regardless.

To their credit, five brave Tory MPs had the gumption to stand up for the people they were supposed to represent, and oppose the bill. The rest of them, more than 450, voted to subject us to Soviet-style “five-year carbon budgets,” as well as all manner of taxes, and caps on emissions of other greenhouse gases too. They acted shamefully and recklessly in making costly commitments, on behalf of the people they were supposed to represent, without rigorous justification. They acted as traitors to our civilization.

The social cost of carbon (SCC)

At the beginning, the UK did use the SCC approach for valuing the effects of CO2 emissions when considering policies. There is a “carbon valuations” page here [[5]], giving some history. The interesting parts are near the bottom, so in essence you need to read the page backwards.

The shadow price of carbon (SPC)

The carbon valuations page also says: “Following the publication of the ‘Stern review on the economics of climate change’, and work commissioned by the Inter-departmental Group on the Social Cost of Carbon, the methodological approach was changed to incorporate use of the shadow price of carbon.” Compared with the SCC, the SPC “takes more account of uncertainty, and is based on a stabilisation trajectory.”

Reviews by economists

This page [[6]] links to the documentation on the change to using the SPC. One key difference, as the page admits, is that the SPC can be set by government. Whereas the SCC is calculated independently of any political policies or aspirations.

The page also links to reviews on that change by several economists. One, Paul Ekins, said: “The issue is how to arrive at such a price in a way that is both defensible and supports the Government’s climate change policy.” So, the climate change policy required a pricing mechanism that wasn’t easily defensible? That’s a bit of a revelation. And an extremely worrying one. Are we, perhaps, looking at a case of fraud against UK taxpayers?

A further review was instituted in 2009. The original page about that review is still available, here: [[7]]. I will quote the details from the bottom of that page.

“The old approach based on estimates of the social cost of carbon should be replaced with a target-consistent approach, based on estimates of the abatement costs that will need to be incurred to meet specific emissions reduction targets. The change will have the effect of helping to ensure that the policies the government develops are consistent with the emissions reductions targets that the UK has adopted through carbon budgets, and also at an EU and UN level.”

This was supported by a review from economist Paul Johnson: “given a target, the consistent approach is to value carbon in such a way as to ensure we hit the target.”

So, let’s get this straight. Instead of doing a proper cost-benefit analysis, they changed the rules to make it look as if whatever “targets” government decided to pick were going to be met. This was not evidence-based policy. This was policy-based fiddling with the “evidence.” Moreover, it made it impossible to do a proper, objective cost-benefit analysis on “net zero.”

A cost-benefit analysis at last?

Fast forward to 2019, when the ideas of “net zero” and “decarbonisation” raised their ugly heads to the general public. There was, obviously, still resistance to going ahead without any kind of cost-benefit justification. The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) was asked, at last, to do a cost-benefit analysis for “net zero!” This was the result: [[8]].

You can note that the chairman of the group that produced this report, Paul Ekins, was the economist who drove the decision to move away from the use of the social cost of carbon. And that one of the eight members of the CCC was an economist called Paul Johnson.

You can see in action the “MAC” approach which replaced use of the SCC, and you can marvel at how obscure and counter-intuitive it seems. You can also marvel at the lack of monetary numbers in the report for the costs of climate change!

You can also see that “Even though the macroeconomic change from ‘net zero’ is likely to be small, the required structural change to the UK economy would be very great.” And “It is clear that getting to ‘net zero’ will require transformative social and economic changes in practically every aspect of society.” And all this was being put forward behind closed doors, without ever once consulting us, the people whom government is supposed to be serving!

You may well conclude, as I did, that whatever this report was, it was not an unbiased, quantitative cost-benefit analysis. It was a recipe for tyranny and economic collapse.

The 2020 Green Book change

The “Green Book” is a set of procedures, meant to guide cost-benefit analyses carried out by the UK government. Here is an overview: [[9]]. The Green Book was first issued in 2003, and radically updated in 2013.

In 2020, there was an update to the Green Book, described here: [[10]]. It says: “In March 2020, the Government announced a review of the approach, to improve how the Green Book supports strategic priorities such as its ‘levelling up’ agenda and the transition to net zero greenhouse gas emissions.” Further: “The 2020 review of the Green Book concluded that it failed to support the Government’s objectives … because the process relied too heavily on cost-benefit analysis.” And there was “insufficient weight given to whether the proposed project addressed strategic policy priorities.”

This seems to imply that policies politicians deem to be “strategic,” including “net zero,” are to be exempt from cost-benefit analysis! No matter how damaging the effects of those policies will be on the people the government is supposed to be serving. Let that sink in.

I’ll also point out that, while it was Gordon Brown and Labour that abandoned the use of the social cost of carbon, this amazingly dishonest turn-about was the work of Boris Johnson and the Tories. And specifically of then-new chancellor Rishi Sunak. Both the main political parties have been caught fiddling the books on this one.

What is the UK’s recent “shadow price of carbon?”

A 2022 independent report, [[11]], revealed that the number the UK government then used to calculate the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions by a tonne (£255.40) was more than five times the sterling equivalent of the US government’s published SCC per tonne (£48.54).

This means that the UK government’s estimated cost of CO2 emissions per tonne has gone up by a factor of more than 5 due to the abandonment of the SCC approach. I call foul on that.

Where we are today

The costs of the “net zero” project are now recognized, by more and more people, to be spiralling out of control. There are many people who understand the energy supply side of the ledger. One I can recommend, if you can tolerate numbers, is David Turver and his “Eigen Values” substack: [[12]]. Government is throwing plenty of misinformation at us there.

But fewer people have looked at the other side of the ledger – at whether or not it actually makes any sense to be doing any this stuff at all. That is the province of people like me. And I can tell you, without any doubt, that if government had any concern at all for the people it is supposed to serve, the “net zero” caboodle would never have been begun.

The political blob have been defrauding us for decades. It’s time to fight back. And as campaign manager for my local branch of Reform UK, I’m going to be doing everything I can in the run up to the May 7th local elections.

To sum up

What happened with the Stern Review was bad enough. Economists took it apart, yet it was still used to “justify” the Climate Change Bill 2008.

The numbers submitted for the Climate Change Bill 2008 were far worse than merely bad. Yet almost all MPs waved it through, against the interests of the people they were supposed to “represent.”

It is even more troubling that in 2009, the UK government chose to make it, in effect, impossible to do proper cost-benefit analysis on anything involving CO2 emissions. Stern had failed to convince people that the problem was big enough for draconian action. So, they made sure no-one could try to show he was wrong.

Then in 2019, they issued a report about costs and benefits of “net zero,” which was not a cost-benefit analysis. And in 2020, they decided to exempt “strategic” projects such as “net zero” from any requirement to analyze costs and benefits at all.

UK governments of all parties have, in my view, committed very serious fraud over the “net zero” issue against the people they are supposed to serve. And they have behaved, over decades, with extreme bad faith towards us. We do, indeed, have a crisis on our hands. But it is not a “climate crisis,” or anything like it. This is a crisis of legitimacy of government.

Posted by No comments:

Friday, 27 February 2026

The Corruption of Science

Image credit: rawpixel.com, freepik

If asked to describe science in one sentence, I would call it a more or less formalized method for finding objective knowledge. Yet, what passes for “science” today – climate science, air pollution, species extinctions, epidemiology, medical statistics and more – seems to be geared up to produce, not knowledge, but propaganda that supports dubious political narratives.

This is, in part, a re-work of an article I published in 2018: [[i]]. But I will also look at how well several areas of “science” today measure up to the standards of science as it should be. And end with some – very good – news from across the pond.

What is science?

Oxford Languages defines science as “the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.” This, I think, is basically a good definition; although it does, perhaps, miss the possibility of using science to study human behaviours. Most important, though, is the final component of the methodology: testing ideas against evidence.

The scientific method

Science, as we know it, began in the late 16th and 17th centuries; between the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The work of people like Galileo and Francis Bacon led to changes in how we examined the reality around us. Which, in turn, led to a great increase in the level of our knowledge about our surroundings and about ourselves.

Properly done, science is conducted according to a procedure known as the scientific method. The details may vary a little from one discipline to another; but the basic scheme is the same. Here’s a brief outline of the steps within the scientific method:

1)     Pose a question, to which you want to find an answer.

2)     Do background research on that question.

3)     Construct a hypothesis. This is a statement, giving a possible answer to your question. In some circumstances, you may want to take someone else’s hypothesis for re-testing.

4)     Develop testable predictions of your hypothesis. For example: “If my hypothesis is true, then when X happens, Y will happen more often than it does when X doesn’t happen.”

5)     For each prediction, formulate an appropriate null hypothesis, against which you will test your prediction. For example: “Whether X happens doesn’t influence whether or not Y happens.”

6)     Test the predictions against their null hypotheses by experiment or observation. If you need to use someone else’s data as part of this, you must first check the validity of their data.

7)     If the test does not support the predictions of your hypothesis, you must consider this as a victory for the null hypothesis.

8)     Collect your results, and check they make sense. If not, troubleshoot.

9)     Analyze your results and draw conclusions. This may require the use of statistical techniques.

10) Repeat for each of the predictions of your hypothesis.

11) If the results wholly or partially negate your hypothesis, modify your hypothesis and repeat. In extreme cases, you may need to modify the original question, too.

12) If the results back up your hypothesis, that strengthens your hypothesis.

13) If negative results falsify your hypothesis, that weakens or destroys the hypothesis.

Key steps within the scientific method are: The construction of the right hypothesis, and of the null against which it is tested. The making of testable predictions of the hypothesis, and their testing. And the feedback loop, which – using the results found – strengthens, weakens or modifies your hypothesis.

I see the construction of the null hypothesis, to be upheld when a prediction fails, as one of the most important steps in this procedure. I think of the null hypothesis in science as like the presumption of innocence in criminal law! As a scientist, you should always be trying to catch yourself out – so you don’t make a mistake that might have serious consequences.

Rules for the conduct of science

It’s very easy to get science wrong. There’s always a possibility of error in your measurements, statistics, or deductions. Or of insufficiently rigorous testing or sampling. Or of bias, whether conscious or unconscious.

To minimize the chances of getting science wrong, and to enable others to build on its results, there are a number of rules of conduct which scientists are expected to follow. Here is a list of some of them:

1)     Any hypothesis that is put forward must be falsifiable. If there’s no way to disprove a hypothesis, it isn’t a scientific one.

2)     Data must not be doctored. Any necessary adjustments to raw data, and the reasoning behind them, must be fully and clearly documented.

3)     Data must not be cherry picked to achieve a result. Data that is valid, but goes against a desired result, must not be dropped.

4)     Graphs or similar devices must not be used to obfuscate or to mislead.

5)     Enough information must be supplied to enable others to replicate the work if they wish.

6)     Scientists must be willing to share their data. And code, too, when code is involved.

7)     Supplementary information, such as raw data, must be fully and promptly archived.

8)     To identify and quantify the error bars on results is important. (For example, by stating the range within which there’s a 95% chance that a value being measured lies.)

9)     Uncertainties are important, too. They must be clearly identified and, if possible, estimated.

10) Above all, the conduct of science must be honest and unbiased. In a nutshell: If it isn’t honest, it isn’t science. It’s nonscience (rhymes with conscience).

A failure to obey one or more of these rules of conduct doesn’t necessarily mean the science is bad. However, it does raise a red flag; particularly if there may be a suspicion of bias or dishonesty. And if a sufficiently skilled person, with sufficient time to spare, doesn’t have enough information to check the validity of a scientific paper, or to attempt to replicate the work it describes, there’s a very good chance the science in it is bad.

To sum up

When done properly, science is, as I said earlier, a more or less formalized method for finding objective knowledge. But if science is to be done properly, it must be done with total honesty. Activities that look like science, yet do not follow the scientific method honestly, or do not give sufficient detail to let others seek to replicate the work, are not science. They are nonscience.

Evidence for corruption of science

Today, though, we frequently see “scientists” publishing results that seem to support a political narrative, rather than contributing – as science should – to the furthering of objective human knowledge. We see reports being collated by bodies that obviously have a political agenda, in an attempt to abet the making of policies that further that agenda. We see political bodies seeking to suppress information, that might lead people to question official narratives. And we see scientists, who try to apply real science in areas affected by such fixing, being wrongly denied publication or funding, or even having to leave the scientific area altogether.

I will give you just five examples of these syndromes.

Climate “science”

I have already published a brief de-bunk of the “climate crisis” meme, here: [[ii]]. And I have documented the history of the climate agenda, and the green agenda as a whole, in a series of three articles: [[iii]], [[iv]], [[v]]. I told how the United Nations and its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has co-opted many scientists into lending their weight to the scares about climate change. They have, in effect, misused the authority of science to mislead people into believing that there is more truth to the climate scares than there really is.

I did not mention there that the primary mechanism, by which climate “scientists” influence public perceptions, is through the outputs of their computer models, called AOGCMs (Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models). Now, computer models can be useful tools, particularly for exploring “what-if” situations. But their outputs are not data. And they should never be treated as if they were data. Moreover, before any model can be used to explore new situations, it must be thoroughly tested, to find out how well its predictions match up with the reality when it eventuates.

Yet there is an astonishing lack of published material on the results of testing AOGCMs against measured data. They may, indeed, have been tested by “hindcasting,” using past climate data. But the crucial test, of model predictions against measurements made at the times the modellers expected their predictions to be fulfilled, seems to be rarely carried out. And very rarely reported.

Indeed, I have only been able to find one recent example of such a test: [[vi]]. Now, this is not a peer-reviewed paper, only a scientist’s blog post. But Dr Roy Spencer, the meteorologist author, is a world expert on satellite temperature measurements. His statement that “all 39 climate models exhibit larger warming trends than all three classes of observational data” does, therefore, carry weight. And his graph shows that more than half the models predict trends greater by 50% or more than those observed.

You would have expected that such tests of climate models would be routinely carried out, and published in prestigious scientific journals for all to see. But not so. It is hard not to suspect that this is an example of corruption of science in service of political agendas.

Air pollution toxicology

I have written on the history of air pollution toxicology in the UK, here: [[vii]]. I told of COMEAP’s (the Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollution’s) 2009 report, which after skating all around the real problem, came down on the side of numbers provided by the UN’s World Health Organization (WHO). Of their 2018 report on nitrogen dioxide (NO2), in which the views of three dissenting experts, who maintained (correctly, in my view) that there was insufficient evidence on which to give a figure for the toxicity of NO2, were ignored. And of political interference by a deputy mayor of London with a 2018 study that concluded there was “no evidence of a reduction in the proportion of children with small lungs” over the period of the study.

Again, I cannot escape the feeling that in these instances, there was corruption of science in the service of politics. In this case, the agenda is to progressively force out of our cars those of us who drive older cars, and cannot afford either to upgrade them or to pay ULEZ fees or equivalent.

Species extinctions

The UN has its own counterpart to the IPCC in this area. This is IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). IPBES issued a 2019 report claiming that impacts of human activities were threatening a million species with extinction. Yet I myself have several times asked environmentalists to name one species to whose extinction I have contributed, and to say what I did, and roughly when, towards that extinction. I’ve never received any answer.

But just recently, the Royal Society has published a new report: [[viii]]. Its abstract tells us that: “Extinction rates have increased over the last five centuries, but generally declined in the last 100 years. Recent extinctions were predominantly on islands, whereas the majority of non-island extinctions were in freshwater.” And their graph (Figure 2(b)) shows extinctions peaking at about 50 per decade in the 1870s, 1930s and 1970s/80s, but dropping rapidly off since then. It seems, then, that the hype about a million species being threatened with extinction, whatever it was based on, certainly wasn’t founded on science.

Epidemiology

The science of epidemiology will forever be scarred by the antics of “Professor Lockdown,” Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London. In October 2020, I wrote an essay about SAGE, the UK’s “Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies,” which was heavily involved in lobbying for draconian COVID lockdowns. It is here: [[ix]]. I think it is worth repeating what I said there about Professor Ferguson’s past statements.

“The British response [the first lockdown], Ferguson said on March 25th, makes him ‘reasonably confident’ that total deaths in the United Kingdom will be held below 20,000.” October 15th, cumulative deaths: 43,293 and counting. On August 17th, he was “‘optimistic’ Europe won’t see very large numbers of new COVID-19 cases this year.” October 15th, daily new case count: 18,980. That’s 2.4 times the peak of 7,860 on April 10th. Then, on September 22nd, we had this headline in the Sun: “Professor Lockdown doubles down on 500k UK coronavirus deaths forecast [from March] – and claims it was ‘underestimate’.”

Far be it from me to be kind to climate “scientists,” but it is fair to say that the equations of epidemiology are orders of magnitude simpler than the equations of climate science.

Medical statistics

And then there’s the infamous “excess deaths” saga, involving the Office for National Statistics (ONS). I wrote about this at [[x]]. Here are some quotes.

“They [the ONS] re-defined the way in which excess deaths are to be calculated. In a way that seems to have greatly reduced the resulting numbers, and thus the apparent size of the ongoing ‘excess deaths’ problem. While breaking the link between their figures and hard evidence from the real world.” Further: “The reactions which Andrew Bridgen received when he first brought up the subject in parliament suggest that someone, or some group, in a very high position does NOT want the full truth about excess deaths in the UK since 2020 brought out into the open.” And I ended with: “The dog has eaten my data. It looks as if the entire world may have stopped providing any excess mortality figures which are founded on real-world evidence! Cynical me does not think this is a co-incidence.”

I strongly suspect that the heavy hand of the WHO has been in here, too.

Why has science become corrupted?

So, why do not only many individual scientists, but also the entire process of science in many fields highly relevant to policy decisions affecting all of us, seem to have become corrupted?

The answer is not far to seek. It is an old proverb: “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” One of the side-effects of ever-increasing government control over education is ever-increasing control by the establishment of funding for universities and their academics. This leads to funds being directed where they will produce most benefit, not for the people whom government is supposed to serve, but for the agendas of the vested interests that are pulling the strings. It is not helped by billionaires, that fund academic groups including key alarmist figures at places like Imperial College.

The scientific establishment in the UK needs, and richly deserves, a major shake-up. All the corrupted heads must roll.

Some good news from across the pond

For a change, there is some good news. It comes from the USA. In May 2025, Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Restoring Gold Standard Science.” [[xi]]. Here are two quotes.

“My Administration is committed to restoring a gold standard for science to ensure that federally funded research is transparent, rigorous, and impactful, and that Federal decisions are informed by the most credible, reliable, and impartial scientific evidence available.  We must restore the American people’s faith in the scientific enterprise and institutions that create and apply scientific knowledge in service of the public good.  Reproducibility, rigor, and unbiased peer review must be maintained. This order … ensures that agencies practice data transparency, acknowledge relevant scientific uncertainties, are transparent about the assumptions and likelihood of scenarios used, approach scientific findings objectively, and communicate scientific data accurately.”

“For the purposes of this order, Gold Standard Science means science conducted in a manner that is:

       i.          reproducible;

     ii.          transparent;

   iii.          communicative of error and uncertainty;

   iv.          collaborative and interdisciplinary;

     v.          skeptical of its findings and assumptions;

   vi.          structured for falsifiability of hypotheses;

  vii.          subject to unbiased peer review;

viii.          accepting of negative results as positive outcomes; and

   ix.          without conflicts of interest.”

Amen!

You can say bad things about some of what Donald Trump does. But in this instance, he is absolutely, squarely, right on the money. We need similar changes to happen here. I hope Nigel Farage is listening!


Posted by No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)