About the Author

Oomeen Basing: credentials and experience

1940s/50s

Born at the start of the 1946-1976 'cooling-trend' period and state educated.

1960s:

After getting a B.Sc. in Chemistry, I went on to work for a Ph.D. in Spectroscopy studying the absorption (and reflection, refraction and transmission) of far-infrared and microwave radiation by polar molecules. This mechanism of heating has similarities to Greenhouse gas absorption of infrared radiation. My expertise in computer modelling started during this study, with variance-minimising multi-variate analysis fitting to observed data (and verified by error analysis).

1970s:

I briefly qualified and worked as an accountant but combined this with part-time study for a B.Sc. in astrophysics and numerical analysis before starting a career in the heavy chemical industry.

In 1973 I voluntarily swapped Northern England with its 9⁰C average temperature for Southern hemisphere sub-tropical heat averaging 21⁰C. This 12⁰C self-imposed warming of my personal environment I found most beneficial!

Before leaving the North of England, I had lived in a cooling trend world for all my life. Experiencing snow and the freezing of local rivers meant I was inclined to go along with the theory ‘another ice-age is coming’.

Although discounted nowadays, the threat seemed real to those of us (rather egocentrically, I admit) experiencing 1940s to1970s Northern hemisphere cooling.

I was in the Southern hemisphere when the Northern Hemisphere experienced the paradigm shifting hot summer of 1976. Therefore, I did not experience first-hand the anthropocentric Damascene conversion from 'another ice age is coming' to 'we're killing the planet by Global Warming'.

1980s:

During my time in heavy industry, my mathematical modelling skills were honed to a level where my model's output benefitted my employing company to the tune of millions of dollars a week.

I pioneered the practical optimising linkage of Linear Programming to Empirical Parameter Simulation Modelling during these years.

From the mid 1970s and the 1980s, I travelled widely in Central and Southern Africa experiencing environments varying from lush tropical forests to deserts. Talking to locals in all these locations I found that everyone considered the current hot / cold / wet / dry weather to be ‘unusual’.

This generalisation of personal (anecdotal) views usually ended with "the climate is not like it was when I (or my parent) was young".

This perception that 'climate is changing' is a natural outcome of human's egocentrism. This perception of change was, until the 1970s, mainly accepted as either 'natural' or something to do with the 'Gods'

Nowadays, this egocentric phenomenon has been taken up by the modern media into an unabated stream of climate hysteria blaming 'Climate Change' on humans who are encouraged (indoctrinated) to accept the causation guilt.

Percieved changes in climate have become solely an issue of 'Human caused Climate Change'.

'The Gods' have been let off blame completely and natural causation relegated to a bit-part in the unfolding drama.

It may well be that climate is changing - particularly when viewed on a personal, local or regional basis. On a global basis it is harder to asses without many decades of data.

As the blame is no longer believed to be 'The Gods', the finger now points to human industrialising civilisations.

Climate, undoubtedly has contributions from human ativity.

Humans have come to dominate the Earth. Over 95% of the biomass of mammals is humans and our domestic animals. This dominance and particularly widespread agriculture, may exacerbate any natural climate variations.

Along with many others in the 1980s, I believed that 'Global Warming' through increased greenhouse gas levels was a major contributor. After all I have a Ph.D. in the very discipline of absorption (& reflection and transmission) of electromagnetic radiation by molecules.

I knew how the Greenhouse effect fundamentally worked and I believed that infrared absorption by elevated levels of those gases was responsible for the warming claimed to be attributed to them.

Later in the 1980s, my employing company returned me to the Northern Hemisphere – the jolt of a drop of 10⁰C to 'mild' Southern England I found a less than pleasant experience.

1990s:

Finding a London job personally unsuitable, after a spell pursuing a rural outdoors career, I returned to my area of expertise of fuels, heating and mathematical modelling.

Still believing, at the time, that carbon dioxide emissions cause Global Warming, I became expert in lifetime emissions calculations that underpin the choice of alternative fuels such as bio-fuels, hydrogen and electricity (which is an energy-vector and not a fuel).

Like many at the time – including Margaret Thatcher - knowing how the mechanism of the Greenhouse effect worked we went along with the exageratied claims of the Global Warming (Greenhouse) threat.

In the event this ‘knowledge’ proved to be misleading, blinding me like many chemists, physicists and other scientist into believing, as true, the Global Warming propaganda which had now graduated to 'Climate Change'.

2000s:

Continuing to work in low-carbon alternative fuels projects, methanol (for non-chemists, methanol is very different to the more familiar alcohol - ethanol) was highlighted as a fuel that was (and is) considerably superior to bio-fuels, hydrogen and electricity.

I joined a small team in a Government-sponsored 10-year study into the practicalities and benefits of introducing methanol as a road fuel into the UK.

During this time there was frequent contact with UK Government departments and energy-oriented quangos. This proved to be a very salutary experience. We didn't know it at the time but we had come up close and personal with the group I would later call 'The Anointed'.

Almost all the ‘officials’ (with a few notable exceptions) could only find reasons to stop this UK-led methanol-fuel initiative from happening - including an HSE objection 'it burns!' which is not that unusual for a fuel.

I also came to bitterly realise the magnitude of deference shown by UK bureaucrats to the EU.

It became clear that the UK was not in control of its energy policy and would unthinkingly accept an EU-rules system where the formulation of rules had been appropriated.by European eco-socialist oriented bureaucrats.

(As a side-note, the current 2026 'EU-Reset' is about to return us to that regime although UK energy policy currently seems to be in the remit of home-grown eco-Zealot extremists).

In any case, Electric Vehicles had already been chosen as the solution to be expensively rammed down the throats of increasingly intractable ‘masses’.

The formation of UK energy policy by undemocratic globalist quangos using indoctrinated zealots as agents (most younger civil servants) has become a feature of the decline of post-modern Britain.

Ed Milliband is just one of a host of virtue-signalling zealots who do not have the UK's best interests at heart.

2010s:

By the middle of the decade, it was clear the methanol project was going nowhere - we were wasting our time pushing a UK-centred initiative. I retired from my energy-oriented career that had spanned over 45 years since the early 1970s.

2020s:

The decade began with Covid and Lockdown.

The egregious use by the UK Government of ‘models’ and constant cry of ‘following the science’ spurred me back into action.

My repeated communication to my MP (also a junior-minister in the Tory government) criticising the Covid models and their extreme alarming projections being used to justify freedom-restricting lockdown was met by a typical anodyne response I have come to expect from the Anointed:

“We know best. You can rely on is to do 'what is right'. We will 'follow the science'."

These communications also came with a warning: "Just keep your opinions to yourself as they are not congruent with Government policy.”

At the time, I did not know that many scientists held similar lockdown-critical views.

Many epidemiologists and experts on modelling were critical of the Governments ‘house arrest-like” rules. I subsequently discovered that dissenting views (like mine) were officially suppressed. Very much in a 1984-like manner. A fine example of 'Cancellation of the Dissenters'.

The crimes of this Covid pandemic, pseudo-science following group obsessed with lockdown continues to the present (2025/26). The Covid enquiry used the same discredited and deeply-flawed models to justify the enquiry’s preliminary conclusion that: “we should have locked down sooner and harder”.

However, the Covid debacle sensitised me to deliberate political misuse of (pseudo?) science and the use of scare-tactics to push through unpopular policies.

Lockdown also gave me the time to study reports about anthropogenic emissions, the 'Climate Emergency' and the anticipation of ‘Climate-Breakdown’.

These reports were becoming ever more hysterical and analysis of them revealed that the 'scare' phenomenon that characterised Covid-lockdown justification was being used to justify de-carbonisation policies such as 'Net Zero' following Ed Milliband's 2008 Climate Change Act.

As the science underlying Climate Change alarmism is much less transparent to laypersons than the pseudo-science supporting lockdown, I was motivated to research the topic.

Was my ‘informed’ knowledge of Global Warming well founded?

Was the enhancement of the Greenhouse effect real?

Was adding more CO2 to the atmosphere certain to lead to ‘Apocalyptic Climate Breakdown'.

The hysteria itself indicated that alarmism was politically motivated - not dissimilar to Covid's 'Project Fear'.

Like lockdowns, the policies arising from this ‘Climate Change Project Fear’ were economy-destroying.

Extreme fear was the only way the political class could foist these immiseration policies on the ‘masses’.

My academic background, practical experience of modelling put me in a unique position to research the issue.

The five years of research and model-building led me to epiphany: Climate Change dogma is not based on proper science it is a cynical eco-socialist belief system designed to break the economies of the ‘Global North’.

This website and my books try to provide my reasoning and the scientific fundamentals for this conclusion.

“Natural and Anthropogenic Climate Variability" (published End-2025)

Following criticism of my earlier book “Just Stop the Insanity” for being ‘too technical' and 'containing too many numbers and graphs', I re-wrote my findings in two volumes. Some issues have been researched more deeply but I wrote Volume One to be more accessible to laypersons. It is 125 pages long with a minimum of numbers, no graphs and simplified explanations for laypersons.

The 450 pages of Volume Two is for anyone interested in the detail. As best as is possible for a scientist, the language and content of Volume Two has been 'de-teched' to be more accessible to the layperson. Volume Two contains many numbers, graphs and a few equations. The more technical content is relegated to a 50-page appendix.

I have recently updated my website to include 'The ‘Emissions-Temp Model’.

The outcomes of this newly developed model have only firmed my views on Climate Change and in particular the conclusion that the Arrhenius logarithmic greenhouse effect model is inappropriate for the real observable world.

The empirically derived hyperbolic tangent description remains my best interpretation of the real siruation.