Thursday, March 27, 2008

Ice Sheet hanging on by a thread!!!

so I guess this is proof of man-made global warming then?

Well, no actually. And I shall now explain why:

  1. This is happening at the end of summer. The ice has been weakened by the normal, every year event called summertime.
  2. The scientists failed to mention the large earthquake that happened in the pacific-Antarctic Ridge. This is what may have provided the energy required to break the ice in such a straight uniform crack. A crack that is NOT typical of ice-sheet cracks observed in the past.
  3. There is evidence that there has been significant volcanic activity in the region:
  4. This ice-shelf may have been stable for a hundred years, but that is nothing in geological terms, The South Pole had no ice whatsoever only 14000 years ago. These ice shelves have melted many times in the past.
  5. even IF this was helped by global warming, there is still NO scientific consensus that the warming of the 20th century was caused by man's CO2 emissions. The 400 scientists who had the time, capability and courage to attend the 2008 climate change conference in New York proved that.

There has actually been NO warming for a decade. I am still waiting for the BBC or any other mainstream media outlet to admit this inconvenient truth.

The single most pointless phrase in use today has to be, "Tackling Climate Change"!

The climate has ALWAYS changed. Often at rates and amounts far far greater than it is currently. This tackling climate change phrase makes as much sense as saying we must tackle the earth orbiting the sun!

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

What my Evolution mission is all about. This MUST SEE video.

The purpose of this blog is to present information that allows people to see how they are manipulated by a shadow into giving up their innate power, and to submit to being a tiny, insignificant fraction of who and what they really are. This is in the hope that people will realise who and what they really are and then that they might go on to discover for themselves how to evolve from what they have limited themselves to be, into what they really are. An expression of infinite consciousness that is infinite Love.

The 2 hour video below, explains better than I, what the purpose of this, and thousands of other similar blogs, are actually about.

Monday, March 24, 2008

2 more must read articles on climate change.

Climate facts to warm to

Christopher Pearson | March 22, 2008 in The Australian

CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.
Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Continues ...


Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong

Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, March 24, 2008

They drift along in the worlds' oceans at a depth of 2,000 metres -- more than a mile deep -- constantly monitoring the temperature, salinity, pressure and velocity of the upper oceans.

Then, about once every 10 days, a bladder on the outside of these buoys inflates and raises them slowly to the surface gathering data about each strata of seawater they pass through. After an upward journey of nearly six hours, the Argo monitors bob on the waves while an onboard transmitter sends their information to a satellite that in turn retransmits it to several land-based research computers where it may be accessed by anyone who wishes to see it.

These 3,000 yellow sentinels --about the size and shape of a large fence post -- free-float the world's oceans, season in and season out, surfacing between 30 and 40 times a year, disgorging their findings, then submerging again for another fact-finding voyage.

It's fascinating to watch their progress online. (The URLs are too complex to reproduce here, but Google "Argo Buoy Movement" or "Argo Float Animation," and you will be directed to the links.)

When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before. No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors.

So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys' findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters' hypotheses, must be wrong.

In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.

Continues ...

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

2 Must read Articles on Climate Change...

My Nobel Moment

I've had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC participants, I don't think I will add "0.0001 Nobel Laureate" to my resume.

The other half of the prize was awarded to former Vice President Al Gore, whose carbon footprint would stomp my neighborhood flat. But that's another story.

Continues ...


IPCC too blinkered and corrupt to save

Vincent Gray has begun a second career as a climate-change activist. His motivation springs from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body that combats global warming by advocating the reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Dr. Gray has worked relentlessly for the IPCC as an expert reviewer since the early 1990s.

But Dr. Gray isn't an activist in the cause of enforcing the Kyoto Protocol and realizing the other goals of the worldwide IPCC process. To the contrary, Dr. Gray's mission, in his new role as cofounder of The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, is to stop the IPCC from spreading climate-change propaganda that undermines the integrity of science.

Continued ...

Monday, March 17, 2008

In light of the cheap takeover of Bear Stearns ...

Bear Stearns was taken over for a grand price of $2.00 per share. JP Morgan carried on their tradition of swallowing up banks for cents on the dollar, and managed to have the Federal reserve take on all the risk. WHAT A DEAL!!! They just got a major mortgagor for cents on the dollar, a knock down, bargain bucket price.

That means that they now own the mortgages that Bear Stearns owned, that means they now own all those properties and have bought  them for a tiny fraction of their market value AND, I remind you, Got the Federal Reserve to take on ALL the risk!

Well lets take a look at what these elite are really thinking:

These people belong to the elite clubs. George Carlin describes them perfectly:

Meanwhile everyday, blue collar, white collar, working and middle class Americans are being royally fucked over and left to live in tent cities:

All this happening whilst JP Morgan gets to own their homes for pennies and dump the risk on the Federal Reserve, who are funded entirely by governments income tax receipts!!!

So that is the taxpayer picking up the tab!


If Only ......

Albert Burgess follows on about how Ted Heath committed Treason and how the EEC was set up.


It is a real shame that Albert Burgess does not understand the law, or realise that the offences he quotes are no longer on the statute book and even if they were, there is a time limit applied with the statute of limitations, that the offence must be reported within 3 years.

Sadly he does not appear to have a legal leg to stand on.

for more information:

Oh Well, let's try and persuade the Irish to vote against the Lisbon Treaty.


What a race and what a result. Awesome!!!

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Congratulations Lewis Hamilton

Lewis Hamilton scored a fine pole position for the opening round of the 2008 FIA Formula 1 world championship. A superb start to the new season.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

More ranting about the man-made global warming hoax

Well, self censorship sometimes pays off.

I have had one of my comments published within a speech bubble on the BBC news website. I thought long and hard about what I was going to say about today's Budget Speech.

Then I changed my mind and wrote what was published:

I was going to say that this budget is dressing up the fiscally disasterous economy in the cloak of competence in the same way as a whore dresses up to look like a nun.

But then I thought that they would not publish that.

It’s About Freedom, Not Climatology

When Vaclav Klaus, who has just won reelection as President of the Czech Republic, states that he has comparative advantage over other speakers on the issue of Climate Change, he is trenchantly correct. Klaus lived under the last large central planning scheme – communism. He rejects the offer to live under the even more draconian central plan of our time – climate alarmism and environmentalism.

Klaus explained his déjà vu vantage point to over five hundred participants at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change assembled at Times Square New York City on March 2–4. Stressing his personally acquired wisdom, Klaus said, "Future dangers will not come from the same source [communism]. The ideology will be different. Its essence [environmentalism and climate alarmism] will, nevertheless, be identical – the attractive, pathetic, at first sight noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of common good, and the enormous self-confidence on the side of its proponents about their right to sacrifice the man and his freedom in order to make this idea a reality."

"What I see in Europe and the U.S.," Klaus cautioned, "is a powerful combination of irresponsibility, of wishful thinking, of implicit believing in some form of Malthusianism, of a cynical approach of those who are themselves sufficiently well-off, together with the strong belief in the possibility of changing the economic nature of things through a radical political project."


Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Conspiracy theorists are nutters

Paranoid? Don't Worry; It's All Under Control

By Peter Carlson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 19, 2008;

Have you seen the latest issue of Paranoia magazine?

No? Well, that's not surprising, is it? There's a very good reason why you haven't seen it: They don't want you to see it. They know that Paranoia exposes them and their secret conspiracies to control every aspect of human life......

It continues in this sad predictable and ignorant vein.

My response to Peter Carlson...

Ha ha ha ha ha ha, Those whacky tin-hat conspiracy theorists will believe anything. I mean, let's take a serious look at what a conspiracy ACTUALLY is:

con·spir·a·cy /kənˈspɪrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-spir-uh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies.
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

Let's look at definition 4. Agreement by 2 or more persons to commit a crime, fraud or OTHER wrongful act. That is conspiracy.

No Government would ever do that, clearly.

OK now some people would foolishly believe that the US or UK Government leaders themselves would be willing to partake in such nonsense.

I mean, you would have to have the leader of the USA and the UK actually have secret meetings to plot to commit a wrongful or fraudulent or illegal act for that to be true.

I mean, it would mean that, Oh, I don't know, Bush and Blair would have meetings, the minutes of which would be kept secret, and at this meeting they would discuss how to arrange for the public to be deceived into supporting, what? a war perhaps? Against whom? Perhaps against a country that bore no threat? But that's OK, these so-called conspirators could lie and invent a threat and even invent actual evidence, like yellowcake uranium. They could easily fake, or have the intelligence services of their own, or an ally nation, fake a report to that effect. Even if that did not work and was uncovered, they could publicly ruin the reputation of those that uncovered the great lie.

I mean the very idea of it? It is preposterous.

OK let's take the most ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy, that 19 cave dwellers from Afghanistan could infiltrate and overcome the most sophisticated air defence system in the world and defeat it, without any inside help whatsoever, and then NOBODY in control that day would face any punishment whatsoever for this incredible security failure that cost the lives of well over 3000 people to date (accounting for the other conspiracy that the New York authorities and the EPA told the population that the air was safe to breathe even though they KNEW FOR A FACT that it was not) and that some of those responsible for, and failed in, keeping the country safe on that day were actually promoted instead?

Why that is a conspiracy so crazy that even the joint chairs of the official 9/11 commission even refuse to stand by their own findings, citing too much interference and obstruction from the administration. The same administration, that is, that was in charge that day and rewarded people who failed in their duty, even to the point of being guilty of gross criminal negligence, with promotions and medals of honour.

No you are right, conspiracies are something only other countries leaderships partake in. Shadowy, undemocratic regimes that do not value freedom undertake plots and conspiracies, not the United States. Underhand rogue states that do not allow people the freedom to go about their day without their emails, and telephone calls being intercepted and listened to. Regimes that can break into a persons house without a search warrant just because they feel like it. Regimes that kidnap people and fly them around the world and treat them harshly to extract fake confessions to prop up fake policies. They would detain people for years without charge or trial at secret prisons or even military bases. Regimes that increasingly keep things secret from their ever more fearful populations, whilst expecting the populations to offer up more and more personal details so that these shadowy rogue governments can track and ultimately control their serf populations.

Those are the kind of Rogue States that may stoop to underhand conspiracies and plots, not the great and free USA, THE Land of Freedom.

You are right, conspiracy theorists are nutters!

Democrats WAKE THE HELL UP part II

And according to sources in "The Clinton Chronicles" Hillary's law firm helped launder the drugs money.

Sunday, March 09, 2008

Please, Democrats, WAKE UP!!!

Wake the hell up. These are fronts for the SAME PEOPLE in power. Clinton does NOT represent change. Watch the Clinton chronicles for more info...

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Michelle Malkin and the puppy conspiracy.

There has been a video flying around the internet that past few days showing a US Marine hurling a puppy off a cliff. I shall not post the vid for 2 reasons.
  1. It is sick and I will not link to such mindlessly cruel deliberate acts of inhuman cruelty
  2. It is available on hundreds of other websites
The point is this, it is a video of a trained marine committing a cruel, inhumane act. What surprises me is the outcry. There are 2 main responses to this video:
  1. Oh my god! how cruel and shocking, I cannot believe a fine patriotic American Marine could do such a barbaric thing.
  2. How in the world is this worse than killing tens of thousands of innocent people in a war based on lies?
My reaction is, well duh! The Marines are very carefully and intensively trained in such a way as to remove their normal human compassion so that they may turn any area into a kill zone and exterminate everything in that area, man, woman, child, animal (cute puppies and all) without compassion, or question, in order to achieve a strategic or tactical objective. That is their job, hell, that is their entire reason for existing. That is EXACTLY what Americans pay their tax dollars for.

And, I would add, Be very very very grateful that you have such a leviathan force there for your defence against any would be toss-pot dictator. The Marines are, sadly-but-realistically, essential in this day and age. They keep you safe from foreign aggression.

However, I also add that I seriously wish that they had been exclusively deployed in Afhghanistan to eliminate all traces of Al Queda (CIA, MOSSAD, MI6 and otherwise) instead of being deployed in a illegal, immoral, un-necessary, avoidable war of chosen aggression in Iraq, based on blatant and exposed lies at the time.

It is a testimony to the depth of the mind control training (aka brainwashing) performed on the Marines that they would willingly support an undemocratic, unelected court appointed President (at the time of the invasion) in an illegal war and travel half way around the world to kill hundreds of thousands of people, innocent of any charge of WMD or Terrorist support or collusion in 9/11, and do so without question or compassion or guilt.

So why are people surprised that they could kill a puppy? or take pleasure in the act? Or is it the shock of the moral equivalence between the marine and the "reported" murderers of this other puppy?
(the puppy used to convince a sceptical America that Saddam WAS still developing chemical weapons after all, the Americans could never be so cruel as to kill a puppy, could they? Well obviously yes, and not for research this time either, but purely for fun.)

Whatever, the theme of this article is Michelle Malkin, the right-wing vapid and mindless supporter of neo-con madness and lunacy.

She wrote the following:

Watch the clip closely. The puppy doesn’t move. It’s clear to me that it’s either dead or a stuffed toy. The sound effects of a dog yapping seem to have been dubbed in.

OK, I have watched it closely and it is ALIVE and hanging still because of the in-built reflex all puppies (and kittens) have to go limp when grasped at the scruff of the neck, so that their parents can pick them up and move them from danger. It is natural.

For Michelle Malkin to come up with such dire and frankly, amateurish nonsense as the only way to be able to show unwavering support (regardless of the act) of her hired psychotic killers, shows a clear lack of understanding, reason, moral centre and blatant tin-hat style tendencies to elaborate anything into crazy and impossible hypothesis in order to prevent having to accept any possibility that she may be wrong.

The very same charge she accuses truth seekers in relation to what really happened on 9/11 of. Except the main difference is, 9/11 truthers base their information on the actual evidence and the analysis of the world's leading scientists and experts in the fields of engineering, construction, architecture, international security, secret intelligence services, secret government, air traffic control, military, air-defence, industry, politics, and whistle blowers form the CIA, FBI, Politics, etc etc...

She bases her mindless support of this indefensible act on a wild and incorrect theory. I suggest that if anyone ever has the unfortunate experience of actually having to communicate with this empty woman, in relation to anything truthful at all, then they should remind her of her utterly lunatic response to this Marine's cruelty.

She adds:

"Have those expressing outrage over the dubious YouTube video expressed the same outrage at jihadists planting IEDS in sheep and dogs to kill American soldiers?"

Well I agree that those jihadists planting IEDS in sheep and dogs to kill American soldiers are not doing a nice thing, BUT
  • Two wrongs do not make a right and
  • They are not just jihadists planting IEDS inside the dead carcasses of sheep and dogs to kill American soldiers, they are primarily Iraqi people who are defending THEIR homeland against foreign invaders who went to war on a blatant LIE!
Michelle Malkin, do the world a favour and retire your blog. It is a waste of electricity.

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

Open Letter of Complaint to the BBC.

I would like to know why the BBC has completely failed to cover the The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York. (March 2-4 2008)

Given that the BBC has given exhaustive coverage to the Bali Conference and many other conferences that have been dedicated to promoting the theory of man-made CO2 driven Global Warming and given that the recent Global Cooling (as scientifically verified by all four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS)) stands in stark contrast to the Global Warming "Hysteria" falsely reported as scientific consensus, and given that the BBC is supposed to be politically neutral and report reasonable facts and opinion on all sides of science, politics and the human condition in general, Why has there been no coverage of the New York conference at all? I could find no reference to it at all on the BBC news website.

Uniquely, The New York Conference has been convened in order to definitively demonstrate to the wider world that there is no scientific consensus whatsoever on the theory of man-made global warming, or even on global warming as a definitive direction or outcome of on-going permanent climate change.

The opening remarks of the conference,delivered Sunday, March 2, 2008, include the following:

"Welcome to the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change.

This is a truly historic event, the first international conference devoted to answering questions overlooked by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We’re asking questions such as:

* how reliable are the data used to document the recent warming trend?

* how much of the modern warming is natural, and how much is likely the result of human activities?

* how reliable are the computer models used to forecast future climate conditions? and

* is reducing emissions the best or only response to possible climate change?

Obviously, these are important questions. Yet the IPCC pays little attention to them or hides the large amount of doubt and uncertainty surrounding them.

Are the scientists and economists who ask these questions just a fringe group, outside the scientific mainstream? Not at all. A 2003 survey of 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, conducted by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch at the GKSS Institute of Coastal Research in Germany, found

* 82 percent said global warming is happening, but only

* 56 percent said it’s mostly the result of human causes, and only

* 35 percent said models can accurately predict future climate conditions.

Only 27 percent believed “the current state of scientific knowledge is able to provide reasonable predictions of climate variability on time scales of 100 years.”

That’s a long ways from “consensus.” It’s actually pretty close to what the American public told pollsters for the Pew Trust in 2006:

* 70 percent thought global warming is happening,

* only 41 percent thought it was due to human causes,

* and only 19 percent thought it was a high-priority issue.

The alarmists think it’s a “paradox” that the more people learn about climate change, the less likely they are to consider it a serious problem. But as John Tierney with The New York Times points out in a blog posted just a day ago, maybe, just maybe, it’s because people are smart rather than stupid."
CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE LINK (please take the time to read all of the opening statement. It is simply awesome).

Is it not newsworthy to show that the very basis upon which major serious global political and economic decisions (that are being forced upon the entire global population) is, in actual fact, completely, totally and absolutely wrong? Namely that the science of AGW is settled and there is global scientific and political consensus demanding that severe global action to tackle climate change be taken immediately?

Hundreds of the world's top scientists and other experts on climate change, [from Australia, Canada, England, France, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden, and of course the United States including from the University of Alabama, Arizona State, Carleton, Central Queensland, Delaware, Durham, and Florida State University, George Mason, Harvard, The Institute Pasteur in Paris, James Cook, John Moores, Johns Hopkins, and the London School of Economics, The University of Mississippi, Monash, Nottingham, Ohio State, Oregon State, Oslo, Ottawa, Rochester, Rockefeller, and the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, the Russian Academy of Sciences, Suffolk University, the University of Virginia, Westminster School of Business (in London), and the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and others] are meeting in New York and presenting cold, hard scientific data that not only contradicts AGW and shows that man is NOT responsible for climate change, (and never has been) but that we may already be entering a prolonged period of dramatic global cooling. There has been no global warming at all for a decade and solar activity points towards much more cooling to come. Some of the scientists and experts attending disagree and say that the earth is generally warming still but mankind is not the cause, others claim mankind may be having a tiny almost negligible effect, but that is the point, there is NO scientific consensus. These scientists are arguing on the scientific principle in analysing the raw data and extrapolating accurate, genuine peer reviewed hard, honest and reliable scientific information. Many of these eminent and world leading scientists include people who actually contributed to the IPCC research (that was subsequently ignored in the summary and final reports due to their scientific conclusions being contradictory to the political outcome of the summary, eg they contradict the theory that man is to blame for the moderate and temporary warming of the last 150 years).

This is a serious and newsworthy conference and to omit it from news coverage, that has been radically supporting climatological news, leaves the BBC open to charges of blatant political bias.

That the BBC will continue to broadcast news that assumes that man-made climate change is a reality and this assumption will be broadcast as if it is actual conclusive proven fact is a given, regardless of the fact that man-made global warming is, in reality, a poor and debatable theory at best.

The BBC, as a public service broadcaster, surely has a duty to inform the British public that this conference is taking place and what this conference is covering and to what purpose.

I am extremely angry and disappointed in the BBC for this blatant omission from the scientific news.