i hate science, evidently, because i’m woke to the manifest truth about what the leftist elite currently calls “climate change." it is the second most staggering fraud ever perpetrated upon the american people after the media’s promotion of the unstoppable candidacy of beto (who is a furry). like some suckers still do, i once believed that “science” was a rigorous process where you tested theories and revised those theories in response to objective evidence. but in today’s shabby practice, “science” is just a package of self-serving lies buttressing the transnational liberal elite’s preferred narrative. our alleged betters hope that labeling their propaganda “science” will science-shame you into silence about what everyone knows is a scam. nah. “climate change” is a hoax. come arrest me for felony denial. understand that the term “climate change” does not refer to actual meteorological phenomena but, rather, to the sordid rat-king of lies, scams and power grabs that we are commanded to accept as pagan gospel lest we burn to a crisp or drown or suffer...whatever the armageddon du jour is. when you say “climate change is a grift,” and you should as often as possible, you are pointing out that this green-on-the-outside/red-on-the-inside fake frenzy is really just a set of intertwined grifts transparently designed to separate you from your freedom and your property in the name of somehow adjusting the weather. observing that “climate change” is steaming garbage served in a dirty ashtray is not disputing that the climate changes. that the climate is not static, and never could be static, is one of the myriad reasons that this whole idea is ridiculous. the planet gets hotter, it gets colder, sometimes quickly, sometimes over eons, and there are a bunch of reasons why, like the sun and volcanos. human-produced carbon might be one of the factors, but there’s simply no evidence that it is a significant one. of course, if they really cared about carbon, they would be up in arms about china and india, which are upping their output while we are slashing ours. yet the object of their ire is your new york strip. gosh, does that seem consistent with 1) someone truly concerned about atmospheric carbon, or 2) someone who trembles with joy at the notion of bossing around you rubes out in gun/jesusland? the underlying premise of their claims seems to be that there is a “right” temperature for the earth; watch them sputter when you enquire about that perfect setting for earth’s thermostat. remember, if you ask questions you hate “science.” if they did stop telling you how you hate “science” long enough to respond, they might explain that of course there’s no perfect temperature – it’s not like la, where it’s always 72 degrees. but then, what are they comparing the present climate to in order to declare that our climate is “getting worse?” if you establish a climate baseline, then you can compare what’s actually happening to the baseline and that might demonstrate that the whole thing is baloney. that would be awkward. it happened after katrina. oh, katrina’s proof positive that gaia is really ticked off and…and…and…then we had a bunch of years without much hurricane action at all. you might think that this would be evidence that maybe the climate wasn’t in chaos, and that they would be happy to be proven wrong, but no, it doesn’t work that way. every time the weather fits the narrative, you see, it’s proof that the climate kooks are right, and every time the weather fails to fit the narrative, well, weather’s not climate. at least until the next heat wave or storm; then weather will totally be climate again. heads, you must give us all your freedom and money, and also tails, you must give us all your freedom and money. now, we’re being told that we’re all going to die in…i guess we’re down to what? about 11.5 years this go ‘round? of course, we’ve been told many times that we’re doomed and the deadlines have come and gone with the doomsdayers not missing a beat. they’re like old timey elmer gantrys promising the apocalypse over and over again, with their hardcore true believers regularly showing up for the rapture over and over again no matter how many times the four horseman fail to turn up. we haven’t even seen one horseman. back in the 70s, i remember we were promised an ice age if we didn’t give liberals our money and freedom. then in the 80s, we were promised death by ozone hole if we didn’t give liberals our money and freedom, and then doom by acid rain if we didn’t give liberals our money and freedom. by the time they started promising that we were all gonna die from global warming if we didn’t give liberals our money and freedom, i was still wanting my ice age. it would be nice to have a white christmas in la. so, where’s my damn ice age? oh right, only a climate denier – climate, i deny thee! – might wonder why we should hand over one, ten, a hundred trillion bucks to people who have never once been right about their predictions. you evidently hate “science” if you expect the “science” people to be correct at least one time in a half-century. and they’re not even good at short-term prognostication. heck, for several days hurricane dorian was supposed to slam head on into florida and then…it didn’t. the obamas just bought a $15 million pad on the beach – what’s that say about their faith in “science?” but don’t worry, the guys batting .000 so far will definitely get the temperature in 2119 right if we only just write them a huge check and transform ourselves from citizens to serfs. that’s another big red flag – have you noticed how “science” always tells us that the only possible response to the climate hullabaloo is to give liberals exactly what they always wanted anyway? how lucky are the leftists to have had an existential problem drop in their laps where the only solution is to give them everything they could not otherwise convince us to give them? what a remarkable coincidence! and what’s also weird is how nothing that we must do right now no time to debate it’s a crisis think o’ the children in any way inconveniences or calls for sacrifices from our climate crisis-pushing elite. boy, they really scored with climate change – if they were going to manufacture a crisis in order to get the power and money they craved, how would they do it any differently? now, they might claim that they too will have to sacrifice to the angry weather demon, but it’s unclear how. i suppose they might stop flying across the globe to climate finger-wagging festivals in private jets, but call me jaded for thinking that if it’s such a crisis today and they have not stopped doing it yet, they won’t stop jetting about down the road. oh, but you will. you most definitely will stop flying and driving the vehicles you choose and eating cheeseburgers and using straws that don’t disintegrate into gummy sludge in your dr. pepper. but them? pete buttigieg explained away his zipping around in gulfstreams as necessary because it is important for him to be pestering people in des moines. bet you that pretty much everything our betters want to do will turn out to be “important.” and i’ll bet that nothing what you peasants want to do will. one might think that if stopping carbon was important, you might want to explore nuclear power. but you would think wrong. after all, if there’s plenty of electrical power, the elite loses the political power that comes from divvying up a scarce resource. if they control the power, they control you. cheap, plentiful power makes you freer, which is a bug, not a feature. oh, and those many millions of people in middle america who directly or indirectly rely on fracking and the rest of the fossil fuel industry? even bloody-eyed, gaffe-atronic joe 3000 wants to shaft you. better learn to code or something, because your good job is history. weird how all the sacrifice once again falls on those out in the hinterlands and not on the blue coastal city swells, huh? but you’ll be able to rest easy knowing that our moral superiors in brooklyn and alexandria and santa monica enjoyed showing you sweaty rubes who’s really the boss by impoverishing you. because that, and not the weather in a century, is and always has been what the “climate change” hoax is really all about. if you want to read a vivid account of what happens if the democrats succeed and manage to enslave us through weather inquisitions or disarming those of us who don’t commit crimes or however, check out my action-packed yet hilarious novels, people's republic, indian country and wildfire. people you despise for being cruise-shilling grifter dweebs called these tomes “appalling.” can there be a greater endorsement?
the liberal democrats have devoted a great deal of time at their party conference to attacking my predecessor as witney mp, david cameron, over his decision to call the eu referendum. these attacks are an attempt to sanitise their own role in campaigning for – and to airbrush their contribution to securing – that very referendum.









let’s get some of the basics clear first. the conservative manifesto promise to hold an in/out referendum was endorsed by the british people in 2015, being crucial to the party’s majority at that year’s general election. the very fact that the british public voted to leave a year later demonstrates how wide and deep was discontent in britain at the country’s eu membership, at least without fundamental reform. ever since the advent of the euro, and the further integration required to sustain it, britain and the eu were on different paths requiring at the very least a fundamentally reformed relationship. cameron is correct that a referendum was, at some point, probably inevitable in any event.









we should not forget: the referendum was not called by cameron alone. even as prime minister, he did not have the authority to simply call the referendum. that required an act of parliament, which passed by an overwhelming majority with 544 mps in favour and just 53 against at second reading. as it happened, seven of the lib dems’ then eight mps voted for the eu referendum bill in 2015.









but the lib dems’ hypocrisy does not end there. for all the vitriol they pour on cameron for holding the referendum, the lib dems neglect to mention that they were calling for an in/out referendum on the eu many years before the conservative party. indeed, we have all seen the infamous 2008 lib dem campaign leaflet circulating on twitter – very familiar to those of us who were conservative activists at the time – featuring a fresh-faced nick clegg demanding “a real referendum on britain’s membership of the european union.” the leaflet observed that:









“it’s been over thirty years since the british people last had a vote on britain’s membership of the european union. that’s why the liberal democrats want a real referendum on europe. only a real referendum on britain’s membership of the eu will let the people decide our country’s future.”









2008 was also the year that clegg infamously stormed out of the house of commons when the then speaker, michael martin, refused to call a lib dem amendment in his name demanding an in/out eu referendum.









following ed davey’s expulsion from the chamber, clegg said:









“i share the dismay of [ed davey]. what guidance can [the deputy speaker] give me on how we can secure – if not today, at some point during the remaining stages of the bill – the opportunity to debate the issue that many members want debated and many members of the public want debated: our future membership of the eu?”









davey (then the lib dems’ foreign affairs spokesman) had struck an even more forceful tone, remarking:









“will the chair reconsider the decision not to select the liberal democrat amendment for a referendum on britain’s membership of the eu? that is the question that goes to the heart of the debate before the house. that is the debate that people want to hear. we are being gagged, sir.”









the current lib dem leader, jo swinson, also contributed to this debate, and her speech is fascinating when compared with the comments she made at the weekend. swinson repeated that:









“the liberal democrats would like to have a referendum on the major issue of whether we are in or out of europe.”









on an in/out eu referendum, she noted:









“we support such a referendum; we will continue to campaign for it and hope that it will find favour in this house.”









furthermore, she described being denied a vote on clegg’s referendum amendment as “incredibly disappointing” and something she felt “very passionately” about.









swinson’s eurosceptic side – mysteriously neglected of late – was also on display, as she noted:









“for too long, power in the eu has been concentrated among those who are appointed, not elected. the structures of the eu have often proved cumbersome to say the least, at times even making this house look modern and streamlined by comparison.”









the lib dems remained proponents of an in/out referendum at the 2010 general election which saw them enter into a coalition government with the conservatives, with a carefully caveated manifesto promise to hold a referendum “the next time a british government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the uk and the eu”.









the fact that the lib dems long advocated giving the british people a say on our membership of the eu, and indeed were the first mainstream party to call for an in/out referendum on the matter, makes their new pledge to cancel brexit without even a second referendum all the more extraordinary. and that, itself, being an evolution from a position that a second referendum result would only be respected if it resulted in a remain vote.









seemingly without a hint of self-awareness, lib dem party policy is now to ignore the result of a referendum for which they themselves were the first to call. this wildly divisive policy shows the lib dems to be utterly disinterested in bringing the country together, their uncompromising approach only serving to fuel further discord and division. there is nothing inherently wrong with regretting a referendum result, but it is deluded to think that pretending it didn’t happen is going to lead to anything other than bitter polarisation.









it is therefore no surprise that lib dem grandee sir norman lamb has warned that the party is “playing with fire”, describing the new policy as “a threat to the social contract” that risks dividing an already fractured country further.









let’s be clear: nullifying a referendum for which the lib dems were the first to call, which was overwhelmingly endorsed by parliament and which was the largest democratic exercise in our nation’s history, is not a moderate position. neither liberal, nor democrats, this party has become the truly extremist force in british politics.