Thursday, December 27, 2007

Benazir Bhutto RIP

Today the world lost an angel of peace. A brave woman who never faltered from her beliefs and fought for peace and modernity. Evil forces have taken her from us and this is a terrible step towards regional chaos. Who benefits? Who benefits from a civil war in Pakistan?

Let us remain calm and realise that we are love, an energy force condensed into a slow vibration. If we give in to hate, we become hate.

All peaceful Pakistanis must pick up and personify her fallen torch of peace and progress.

Thursday, December 20, 2007

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007


Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate. ......

More ...

Friday, December 14, 2007

Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

Dec. 13, 2007

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon

Secretary-General, United Nations

New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line

by ­government ­representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,

[List of signatories]

I guess that shows that the so-called scientific consensus on man-made climate change is total bollocks too.

Friday, December 07, 2007

FUCK the MAINSTREAM MEDIA! The Polls are fixed!

So that explains why Ron Paul is more popular than all the other candidates combined and cannot get above 7% in so-called "scientific" mainstream polls. The polls are Grade A first class bullshit!

Thursday, December 06, 2007

A message from Dr Ron Paul.

Message from Ron (12/3/07)

Want to know a secret? There were two moments I especially enjoyed at the CNN/YouTube debate -- despite my frustration at some of the questions, and the maldistribution of time.

First, I was pleased at John McCain's attack, which he clearly had planned. Not because that sort of stream-of-consciousness nonsense about Hitler and WWII -- when the neocons openly want what they call WW IV! Are we to forget that the first war crime charged at Nuremberg was waging aggressive war?

I mean this: mainstream politicians NEVER attack an opponent they think is far behind. The McCain campaign, we've heard, is worried sick about New Hampshire, and they thought a slam at me would help. Ha! Of course, it only strengthened our forces.

Then, after the debate, Rudy Giuliani walked up to me and said, "Oooh, you sure have a LOT of supporters." It’s only the beginning, I told him.

Indeed, he could have told that by the crowd outside after the debate. Mitt Romney had a few people, but no one else did. We, on the other hand, had about 500 enthusiastic revolutionaries, plus a boat, a trolley, and two planes towing lighted signs. As I looked out at the crowd, I thought: the establishment has no idea of what they are facing. We have an army of freedom, prosperity, and peace. As the LA Times political blog noted the other day, the British also thought they had no problem with the Americans--until Yorktown.

But we have an astoundingly short time before the first contests. The Iowa caucuses are on January 3, the New Hampshire primary is on January 8, and Nevada and South Carolina are both on January 19. We have only 30 days to stake our claim to the nomination, and to the new America that restores the ideals of the founders, and leads the world through free enterprise, a sound dollar, the rule of law, and peaceful example. Not through inflation and bombs.

Help me surprise the neocons and all the establishment with our success. Help me build the foundation for the America we all want. Send your most generous contribution: The military-industrial complex, the biased media, the big banks, the Fed, the waterboarders, and the IRS don’t like what we’re doing. But every good American is applauding us, and daring to hope for a better future.

Please, help me give it to them, to us, to all Americans to come. Keep this revolution growing and winning:



Happy Christmas to you all

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Is an Israeli attack on Iran MORE likely now?

As the US has been forced onto the back foot over Iran by the news that their own intelligence agencies have taken a pre-emptive strike against the administration and made it very clear to the whole world that they do NOT believe that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, (or nucular* weapons for that matter). It seems to me that they are still pissed at being blamed for 9/11 and Iraq and are preventing the same lies working against them again.

However, with the USA being moved slightly further away from any justification for an attack on Iran, does this mean that Israel will be more likely to go it alone? And thus forcing the USA into a possible nuclear war?

So it looks like the direct attack by the USA on Iran has been cancelled, WW3 called off? or has it been merely subcontracted to Israel?

However as an aside, I am wondering how long it will be before Benjamin Fulford takes credit for this 'intelligence forced' US climbdown?

*Is this President Bush's way of admitting that they are trying to prevent global warming? He keeps talking about new cooler weapons after all?