CIS

CIS: A word invented in the late 1990s initially to describe a concept known as “Heteronormative” but now used by bigots primarily within the #LGBT+ community to describe people who didn’t share one of the LGBT+ approved paraphilias.

To clarify the above the LGBT+ community is just like any other and contains folks of all outlooks, personalities, political persuasions, the helpful, the obstructive and sadly just as with the population as a whole that includes arseholes.

Back to the word CIS, nowadays it’s used in the same way as offensive terms such as “Faggot” once were and the use of #CIS is considered offensive by those who do not care for identity politics. Sadly the use of the word has now spread to some parts of the #Woke community who are unaware of the offence they cause by pandering to fashion.

“We’re all in a minority of one, treat all people as you’d like to be treated yourself and don’t impose your hang-ups on others.”

The Dormouse, many many moons ago.
Spread the love

Cobalt and the Green Revolution

Three cheers for the #green revolution no more #petroleum products, no #gas and no #coal. We’re all going to have unlimited #electricity the air we breath will be clear, little furry animals will scamper through the long grass and the planet will be saved.

France to double number of wind turbines

Great, free electricity.

But, each one of these turbines requires between 2500 and 500 tons of concrete to make. At best this means between 3135Mw and 627Mw just to produce. To which we add transportation costs, 90 tons of metal at 3753Mw (if inexpensive recycled steel used) and 287Mw for the plastics … and those are the “at least” costs, offshore #turbines and those on mountaintops can cost exponentially more.

Lets pretend that we have a 10Mw turbine and it runs at 50% average efficiency it will be over 930 days, near 3 years before it begins to generate more energy than it uses.

And those ladies and gents are conservative figures using the least expensive #cement costs and an exceptionally high efficiency figure. In the real world wind turbines work at 15 to 30% efficiency. Lets look again at the figures.

Low cement costHigh cement cost
15% Efficiency3,110 (8.5 years)4,780 (13 years)
30% Efficiency 1,555 (4.25 years)2,390 (6.5 years)
Days taken for a wind turbine to break even in terms of energy consumed in production compared to energy produced (figures rounded).
(These figures take no account of the energy costs in transporting and erecting the turbine)

The typical life expectancy of a wind turbine is around 20 years. With that in mind wind power is not yet energy efficient.

But that’s not the point of this little missive. Today we’re going to consider where all that not at all this free electricity goes. Well it goes into the massive server farms mining #BitCoin (7GW a day, the same as the whole of Swaziland), it powers the internet taking maybe maybe 10% of all the electricity produced on a daily basis world wide and then some of what’s left over is employed for useful stuff …

… but that aside where does it go when it’s not being used? It goes into batteries, bright new shiny Lithium-Ion ones. Lithium-Ion the breakthrough of the generation. Rapidly charging, high capacity and robust Li-ion powers the modern electrical revolution. Cordless tools, mobile phones and devices and of course electric cars. It’s been reported that by 2030 the UK government alone wants to stop the sale of all non electric (or hybrid) cars in the UK. That’s great news for the environment and in turn great news for the people of the world. But is it …

Lithium Mining Delivers BIG for WA, Increased Spodumene Production |  iSeekplant

This is a Lithium mine.

Not a particularly big one but as we can see it has a very positive impact on the local environment.

Glencore′s closure of Congolese cobalt mine ′could backfire′ | Business|  Economy and finance news from a German perspective | DW | 20.08.2019

And this is a Cobalt Mine

Why are we showing this? Very simply, Li-ion batteries only work because they are full of #cobalt and simply won’t work without it. If you want Li-ion batteries you need cobalt.

Another very positive impact on the local environment.

These ladies and gents are just the holes in the ground, the waste from the mine is dumped locally to the mines. Tis waste destroys the land it’s dumped on and very often in less well regulated areas of the world the land for miles around is also poisoned off the waste in the rain.

Li-ion batteries store electricity and will run electric cars; electric cars will save the environment so what we see above is inconsequential. This is an argument that is used repeatedly to justify the “local” damage caused by the mines. Really, just listen to your local Green Party candidates, your woke friends and the non stop social media propaganda. The message is always the same, everything electric good, everything not electric bad.

So far we’ve only shown you the damage to the physical environment. This damage isn’t the only cost though. There is the human cost. These photographs are all taken from inside Cobalt mines. We won’t caption them, we couldn’t do so adequately if we tried.

5 tech giants sued over use of child labour in Congolese cobalt mines -  Industry Europe
Five tech giants link to 'cruel and brutal use of children' in Congo mines  | New York Amsterdam News: The new Black view
Congo, child labour and your electric car | Financial Times
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is congo_child_miners.jpg.size-custom-crop.1086x0.jpg
Four-year-olds Mining Cobalt for Phones
Child labor in the mines of the Democratic Republic of Congo - Humanium

This is the true cost of your new Apple phone, your Samsung Galaxy, your new electric scooter and most of all your new electric car. So stand up and cheer and give a big hurrah for the stalwart cobalt miners that keep us in luxury. When asked #BLM had no comment to make …

Spread the love

Refuted

Refuted: To disprove an allegation or argument of any type by proving it to be false and to do so on the basis of observable evidence.

Currently used by morons, the easily influenced and pretentious idiots to mean that an argument is denied. As in, “I refute that allegation”.

The correct response to such a claim is of course to ask, “Well go on then, how do you refute it?”.

Spread the love

Existential

#Existentialism

The philosophy that focuses on the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent who determines their own development through the active action of the will.

The Dormouse is grateful to the #Daily_Mail for this little gem and wonders which one of #Khan’s battalion of press officers came out with this.

Indeed The Dormouse is equally keen to learn if Khan understand the language he uses.

Just another example of a politician trying to impress the proles by using impressive sounding language he doesn’t understand.

Spread the love

British Police just who do they serve?

Over the summer we’ve seen UK #police forces (services!) facilitate rioting by #racist mobs. We’ve even seen the various forces grovelling on their knees or running away from the self same mobs. Later we’ve seen peaceful protesters beaten to the ground for merely challenging the national lock-downs.

This has lead to a certain degree of navel gazing. Who makes up todays police forces, who commands and directs them, who sets policy and who on earth tells them that it’s OK to drag a middle aged woman of a chair and apparently punch her to the ground?

Attacked from behind by one of London’s finest and then shoulder barged (or punched) to the ground. Compare and contrast to the image below.

An absolute disgrace from start to finish but to date no announcement of the officer being arrested for assault, placed under investigation for discipline matters or even an apology.

Police grovelling to a violent BLM mob
This lot fights back, best we get on our knees.

OK so it’s a big question and the answer is to long for a single blog post so what we’ll do today is just get the ball rolling and see what it is our police officers actually promise to do when they sign on the dotted line.

The current oath

’I………………..of………………..do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human #rights and according equal #respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.’”

Police Reform Act 2002

The 1996 oath

I, … … … … of … … … … do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve Our Sovereign Lady the Queen in the office of constable, without favour or affection, malice or ill will; and that I will to the best of my power cause the peace to be kept and preserved, and prevent all offences against the persons and properties of Her Majesty’s subjects; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.

Police Act 1996 Which just happens to be the same as the historical one.

The 1964 oath

Police Act 1964

The 1964/96 oaths are straightforward enough, must treat everyone fairly, mustn’t play favourites, don’t pick on folks, do the best job they can and of course acknowledge that they are serving “Our Sovereign Lady the Queen”. Great, long live Queen Liz the absolute fountainhead head of law and justice in the UK.

And then we come to the 2002 version. The first thing to note is that Queen Liz, ‘gor bless her is no longer “Sovereign”, she’s still a Queen but she’s no longer the top dog. Niether are we in Britain no longer her subjects. A little worrying is that there’s no mention of who actually is sovereign nor is there any mention of who UK citizens are subject to. As it happens we know that this change came about as a result of the Treaty of #Maastricht 1992 and in preparation for the #EU constitution, later the Treaty of #Lisbon 2007. It had been assumed by a series of pro-EU governments that the UK would at become fully subject to EU law. It will be interesting to see if the words “Sovereign” and “Her Majesty’s subjects” return to the oath in 2021.

What else can we take away from the 2002 oath. At first glance it looks very much to be a rerun of the earlier oaths converted to “Woke-speak”. This in itself is no big deal, we all have to move with the times. There are though two very worrying elements to this new oath (not including Liz’s demotion).

The first is this, “upholding fundamental human rights” nonsense and then this “according equal respect to all people”. The sound good don’t they but here’s the thing:

“Upholding Fundamental Human Rights”

Consider the above and ask yourself just what are “fundamental human rights”? Focus for a moment on the “fundamental”. Where are these fundamental rights defined, who enforces them, who defines them? Does such a collection even exist? No.

All unanswered. Our modern day plods are swearing to uphold something that is both undefined and non-existent.

“According equal respect to all people”

That’s great to see, at last the victims of crime will be afforded the same respect given to Billy the Burglar and Robby the Robber.

Not what it means? Well here’s the thing, not all people are deserving of equal respect. Being treated fairly in accordance with law? Of course, absolutely. But equal respect? Gods no! Respect is earned.

So our modern day plods are also required to “respect” offenders and those who harm society.

No wonder modern plod doesn’t know his arse from his elbow.

Spread the love

Mike Yeadon speaks

So who’s Mike #Yeadon and why should you care? He’s a top rank #virologist, he’s also a previous vice-president of #Pfizer, holds a first class honours degree and relevant doctorate. Pfizer is one of the companies producing a #Covd19 vaccine. What he’s not is some lone wolf, conspiracy theory fruitloop living in his parent’s attic.

Dr Yeadon like a great many scientists is critical of the SAGE advice to the UK government and also believes that the the UK government is significantly mishandling its response to the Covid19 virus

There’s nothing unusual about this. For instance we can turn to the #Great_Barrington_Declaration signed by thousands of real scientists, many of whom are world leaders in their fields and who have been saying fundamentally the same thing from the international perspective for some time now. Many of you dear readers though won’t have heard of these people, this is because there is a process by which some social media companies are actively removing content.

Here’s what a rather alarmed but well known journalist had to say on #Twitter.

We say that it’s not the role of Social Media companies to edit what we as adults (and rather good looking rodents) can and cannot read. It’s bad enough when the subject of the censorship is the aforementioned roof dwelling conspiracy fruitloop but when social media companies decide what is and what is not good science the outcome for us all takes a turn for the worse.

Dr Yeadon’s censored video can now be seen here … https://www.bitchute.com/video/J0JWur5LNePt/

Dr Yeadon spouting wrongthink … you decide, it’s OK, unlike YouTube and HMG we trust you.

Today in the UK we are living under unprecedented restrictions. As a society we’re currently accepting these restrictions because we’re told by our government that the restrictions will prevent more deaths than they will cause. They base this advice on the advice of SAGE and SAGE alone. A group of advisors that we now know went to #wikipedia for information – yes, really! We know that the current government imposed restrictions on the people of the UK are causing deaths, causing poverty and are causing long term social and economic harm. Some political groups and organisations such as the UK #Labour Party and the #SNP are calling for even tighter restrictions despite the harm these will cause.

If these restrictions are genuinely saving more lives than they’re costing then so be it. The UK’s survived much worse. But what if these restrictions are doing the opposite and killing more than they’re saving? This is the question we and government need to answer and before doing so we need the very best advice, from the very best people whether than advice plays to our preconceptions or challenges them.

This means that we have to listen to real scientists on both sides of the debate, if we don’t then it’s axiomatic any policy decisions made are going to be flawed. For this reason we have to say no to #YouTube and the other Social Media companies censoring what we say and read and view. Social media companies are our clients, that make money out of their users and as such they they are our servants, not our masters.

Dr Mike Yeadon's letter to the UK  health secretary debunking government claims about the safety of the new Covid viruses being known and concluding that he does not trust the Health Secretary Mr Hancock.
Spread the love

More on “that” report.

Now published we can see that #Sir_Alex_Allan’s report on Mrs Patel’s alleged behaviour claims that she did indeed cross the line when dealing with civil servants within her department

How horrific, whilst considering this earth shaking conclusion the following should be borne in mind …

  • Sir Alex Allan was a top flight civil servant appointed by John Major
  • The ministerial code is written by civil servants
  • This behaviour came about when Mrs Patel asked civil servants to do what they are paid to do after she believed than to be underperforming
  • And the “bullying” is that this tiny woman shouted and swore at top flight civil servants when they consistently under performed

Personally The Dormouse’s sympathies lie with Mrs #Patel. If top flight civil servants can’t stand up for themselves then The Dormouse has to ask whether or not they are up to the task of sitting at the apex of the pyramid. He also believes that if the author of this report really believes that the behaviour described amounts to bullying then he needs to spend some time in the real world,

Spread the love

BBC propagandising for the civil service

Today the #BBC went into overdrive in an attempt to smear the UK Home Secretary Priti Patel. For those who don’t know she’s Indian and thus the wrong sort of Black for the BLM movement, BBC and other loonies who hate her for being successful and being reasonably good at her job. Worse than that she’s successful by dint of her own hard work and not because she’s received any special favours.

This of course also undermines a key claim by the modern hard left that non-white folks can only succeed if given special treatment. As an aside how’s that for patronising racism?

Again for folks who don’t know, when Mrs #Patel was appointed to government she committed that most unforgivable of crimes. She asked senior civil servants to work! When they baulked at this most unreasonable demand apparently she shouted at them and even went so far as to suggest that they either do the jobs they’re paid for of bugger off. The complains from the civil servants concerned have have swollen into a full scale enquiry. It boils down to an allegation that this tiny little Indian lady has allegedly bullied whole swathes of publicly schooled rugby playing civil servants. Even more humorously is that while Mrs Patel was already a target for a hate campaign orchestrated by the left for being successful she is now in the position of being attacked again by the same left wing of British politics for trying to get value for money out of the public school boys who run the British establishment.

So we have the hard left attacking a hard working Indian lady on behalf of public school toffs. If that isn’t ironic what is But then again, as #Labour is full of the rich and privileged perhaps it’s not so ironic after all.

And the BBC? Well, here’s the thing here they are commenting on the report before it’s actually been published. By doing so they’re betraying their own political leanings by being caught salting the earth before the truth is known.

Spread the love

Covid and the great Chinese fib

Health and wellbeing

Here’s what we’re being told. That the virus originated in the wild, that a bat was probably the host animal for the virus and that it was transmitted to humans via the scally anteater known as a #pangolin. From there folks in #Wuhan, #China were infected and from them the virus spread to the world.

This might have happened.

Speculating though is both fun and sometimes rewarding and with that in mind we’ll have a little look at some basic figures and see if that explanation makes sense.

Pangolin in the wild
A pangolin, an endangered species gobbled up by some Chinese people as a delicacy.

In Wuhan is a French built #laboratory that was set up to investigate the very family of viruses Covid19 is a part of. Now for numbers, many scientists now believe that the incubation period of #Covid19 is about 5 days, others remain of the view that that it could be up to 11. The actual “R” (reproduction) rate of the virus is unknown. This is because many people, around 20% with Covid are asymptomatic, that is they have no symptoms of the disease. Another group, approximately 80% of those with symptoms have symptoms so mild they don’t require treatment and in some cases remain unaware that they are infected.

When an outbreak takes place local governments act to reduce the spread of the virus. When they do this R quickly drops to around 1.5, once the population begins to actively cooperate with the local government it drops further and begins to die out. In a population that is unaware of the threat and is taking no precautions R is much higher. For the reasons given above there is currently no accurate value for R in a “virgin” population. Scientists suggest values in the range between 4 and 12. For today’s exercise we’ll set an upper limit of 8.

What we’re attempting to estimate is when the Chinese government would have been aware of the initial virus outbreak and when would they have commenced actions to deal with it. For the purpose of this we’ll assume an average of four days between infection and symptoms manifesting themselves sufficiently to require medical attention. So this is how it works we compare R with the incubation period to estimate how many infections take place before significant numbers of patients became hospitalised/require treatment. Once people start to require treatment we can assume that the Chinese government would have been in a position to act.

R = 1.5R = 4R = 8
4 days8102532,769
11 days13916,777,21668,719,476,737
4 (8) days+39262,145134,217,729
11 (15) days+6554,294,967,297To high to be meaningful
Numbers initially infected with Covid19 with incubation values of 4 and 11 days and R values of 1.5, 4 and 8. Last two rows assume four days between infection and symptoms manifesting sufficiently for hospital admission (all figures rounded down)

When we do this we see ridiculously high figures. Assuming that the Chinese authorities acted divisively and effectively after only 11 days from the very first infection and assuming a R of only 4 we see that there are already sixteen million potential infections. Of course one person can be infected multiple times from different sources and not everyone will infect 4 others but all the same the figure has to be reasonably accurate.

And now we’re getting to the nub of the problem. China says that it’s only had 86,000 infections. Even if they’re only counting people with symptoms requiring hospitalisation this number is far to low to be credible, that’s their numbers for over a year.

So we’re left with the inescapable conclusion that China has fibbed. Either they’re not telling the truth about numbers, which is possible, they may be looking to stop a mad panic and promote the great never failing story that is China under communism or they’re fibbing about the source.

If China was fibbing about the source and they knew the source then they may have been able to intervene at a much earlier stage. Numbers of infections could be limited and the effects abroad would be as we see them today. How could China have acted at an earlier stage though if symptoms hadn’t had the chance to become manifest?

Coronavirus the laboratories in Wuhan built by the French
The Wuhan virus factory built by the French

The answer is that if the Virus came not from that bat doing naughty things with a pangolin but instead came from the Wuhan virus factory then we can only assume that the Chinese authorities would well have been aware of the escape; and being aware act at a this very early stage intervene and limit infections to those we’ve seen. Such an explanation even more than any other explains why the Chinese tried to hide details about the virus from the world and the efforts they put into persuading the WHO from taking steps to investigate the matter.

The Dormouse would be the first to agree that there’s a lot of speculation in the above but he’s also surprised that no one else has raised the subject.

Spread the love