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 ...
And
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 ...
Monday, March 24, 2008
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 ...
AND
IPCC too blinkered and corrupt to save
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 ...
AND
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.
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!
How much more are you going to take before you STOP GIVING YOUR POWER TO THESE 'NEW WORLD ORDER' ELITISTS WHO CONTINUALLY PISS ON YOUR BOOTS AND TELL YOU IT'S RAINING???
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:
http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/european-union/47623-treason-3.html
Oh Well, let's try and persuade the Irish to vote against the Lisbon Treaty.
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
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.
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!
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.
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:
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
Michelle Malkin, do the world a favour and retire your blog. It is a waste of electricity.
- It is sick and I will not link to such mindlessly cruel deliberate acts of inhuman cruelty
- It is available on hundreds of other websites
- Oh my god! how cruel and shocking, I cannot believe a fine patriotic American Marine could do such a barbaric thing.
- How in the world is this worse than killing tens of thousands of innocent people in a war based on lies?
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
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:
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.
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.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Where is the outrage?
As reported on Reuters:
Instead we see them turning into a rogue state. A rogue state that has significant stocks of WMD. They have chemical, biological AND NUCLEAR weaponry and delivery systems and they are threatening a holocaust. Is this NOT a blatant breach of international law?
I am sure that decent, honourable Jews the world over will be deeply ashamed of Israel today and going forward. The Israeli Government has brought shame upon all Jews and they MUST be stopped.
"Deputy Israeli Defence Minister Matan Vilnai said on Friday the Palestinians would bring on themselves what he called a "bigger holocaust" by stepping up rocket attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip."Holocaust" is a term rarely used in Israel outside discussions of the Nazi genocide during World War Two. Many Israelis are loathe to countenance using the word to describe other contemporary events."
How can the world allow this to continue? Where are the UN resolutions? When the Zionist media misinterpreted Iran's Prime Minister in a quote that the media wrongly interpreted as "Wiping Israel from the map" there was international outrage.
Whenever anyone else mentions holocaust, they have to be very careful to Not upset the "Jews" and be labeled anti-semites. Yet here we have the Israeli Government themselves warning that they will CAUSE a holocaust?Our western leaders MUST act. There MUST be sanctions IMMEDIATELY placed on the Israeli Government. They MUST be stopped.
Is it time to consider that the Israeli experiment has failed? Giving the Israelis a country was the right thing to do, BUT the Israeli's themselves MUST behave as a fit and responsible nation. They MUST recognise international law.Instead we see them turning into a rogue state. A rogue state that has significant stocks of WMD. They have chemical, biological AND NUCLEAR weaponry and delivery systems and they are threatening a holocaust. Is this NOT a blatant breach of international law?
I am sure that decent, honourable Jews the world over will be deeply ashamed of Israel today and going forward. The Israeli Government has brought shame upon all Jews and they MUST be stopped.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Global warming has ended.
OK it could warm more, in the future, or it could get colder, but we see from this that we have NOT seen any warming for the last 10 years. The period in which AGW the hysteria has been at it's greatest level. The Global warming cultist's computer models did not predict this. Even looking at the averages over time, rather than the peaks and troughs, there has been NO average increase for 10 years now.Here's the article that this graph comes from:
"Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously."
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age
Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.
The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average."
Monday, February 25, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
If there was one lecture I could give to the world, I would love it to be this one...
I am sorry. It is easy to get caught up in the 'things people do'. To complain, moan, and bitch. Even when some of those things are trying to destroy the freedom and liberty we enjoy as free human beings.
This Video is amazingly humbling and speaks the truth to what we all should aspire to. If we all lived to these lessons, WOW! the world would ONLY be a magnificent, inspiring, loving and beautiful place.
If there is only one video you watch online, make sure it is this one.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
If you are innocent, then you have nothing to fear???
As background to the linked article: "Arrested, caged and DNA tested - for using MP3"
The Government could not get permission to have a DNA database of everyone, but people did not object to criminals being recorded. That, we were promised, was so very useful. And so it is, BUT that does not get us all recorded in their database, SO the government decided to amend the laws in two subtle ways.
From dropping litter, to shouting in the street, to any other 'made up on the spur of the moment' charge then became an arrestable offence. All the police would have to do is arrest you on "any" charge, take you to the station, get your DNA, then spend hours filling in a load of paperwork showing that this offence fits in some target crime category, including why the suspect is now being released because the crime has been solved, to make their statistics look better, (so that the Chief Constable can "earn" his £15,000 ($30,000) bonus), then let you go.
You are totally innocent, but have acquired a police record of being arrested for some "crime" and the state have legally added you to their DNA database.
So much for being innocent and having nothing to fear, eh? The way the system has been changed, nobody is considered innocent anymore, we are ALL becoming suspects.
The Government could not get permission to have a DNA database of everyone, but people did not object to criminals being recorded. That, we were promised, was so very useful. And so it is, BUT that does not get us all recorded in their database, SO the government decided to amend the laws in two subtle ways.
- The taking of DNA (which used to be only permitted when a criminal was convicted), was then to be allowed at the time of arrest.
- Every crime, no matter how minor, was changed to become an arrestable offence.
From dropping litter, to shouting in the street, to any other 'made up on the spur of the moment' charge then became an arrestable offence. All the police would have to do is arrest you on "any" charge, take you to the station, get your DNA, then spend hours filling in a load of paperwork showing that this offence fits in some target crime category, including why the suspect is now being released because the crime has been solved, to make their statistics look better, (so that the Chief Constable can "earn" his £15,000 ($30,000) bonus), then let you go.
You are totally innocent, but have acquired a police record of being arrested for some "crime" and the state have legally added you to their DNA database.
So much for being innocent and having nothing to fear, eh? The way the system has been changed, nobody is considered innocent anymore, we are ALL becoming suspects.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
General Strike against the IRS!
Whilst I do not believe that a one day strike will achieve the ends hoped by some. I support the notion of any direct and peaceful action that raises awareness of the fraudulent monetary system in the USA (and globally).
As a simple guide, this is how it works: The Government is lent money by the Federal Reserve. That money is created out of thin air at the click of a mouse. It cost the Federal reserve nothing to create it. The amount of money owed in interest was never ever created or lent into circulation. The loan to the Government is secured against the income tax of ordinary American taxpayers. That is ALL your income tax is for. Not for schools, Hospitals, Libraries, civic ammenaties, police or any other stuff. Your income tax is solely used to repay the fed for what it cost them NOTHING to not-create. As what they did not create in the first place is the interest on the loan.
Basically, income tax is an un-constitutional theft of your labor and income. The Government are stealing from you to pay off the banking gangsters. They are stealing your hard earned money to subsidise trillionaire bankers.
Ron Paul understands this and wants to bring it to an end. Support his March to Washington.
BE THERE IN NUMBERS SO LARGE, NO MEDIA IN THE WORLD COULD IGNORE IT!!!
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Ron Paul For President.
- Art by David Dees
- Deesillustration.com - Dees Archive
Vote for Dr. Ron Paul. He was right on the Iraq war and he is right about the Federal Reserve.
Monday, January 28, 2008
With kind permission from David Icke. STOP WARMAN!
Copyright David Icke, 2008. All Rights Reserved.
HEY, 'FREE' CANADA ...
... GET OFF YOUR BLOODY KNEES
Hello all ...
You may have noticed the postings on my website this week about a man called Richard Warman. His attacks on free speech - including my own - in league with government agencies and Jewish organisations like B'nai B'rith, the Anti-Defamation League (whose job is to defame people) and the Canadian Jewish Congress need urgently to be exposed to the wider world.
This is not just a story about Canada - it is the blueprint for the end of free expression that is unfolding across the planet under the guise of Orwellian terms like 'Political Correctness' and 'Hate Speech'.
I first came across Richard Warman, a 'lawyer' working for the Canadian government, when he campaigned with the above organisations to have my public talks in Canada and elsewhere banned because I was a 'racist'. This is invariably the insult hurled at anyone who gets close to the truth. Even people demanding the truth about 9/11 or those questioning the official version of global warming have been dubbed as akin to 'Holocaust Deniers' and if you question any aspect of the official version of the Nazi concentration camps you can now be jailed by the Thought Police.
Ernst Zundel, an elderly pacifist, was illegally abducted from his home in the United States, thrown in a Canadian jail and eventually extradited to Germany to be jailed again for the maximum five years by a kangaroo court masquerading (barely) as the arbiter of 'justice'.
What was Zundel's 'crime'? Differing from the official history of what happened in the Nazi camps. He was, in other words, jailed for this thoughts, his views.
Even his lawyer, Sylvia Stolz, has now been jailed for three-and-a-half years, and banned from practising law for five years, for having the same thoughts and views as her client.
All this in 'free' Germany.
What happens in fascist states is that the verdict and the sentence are agreed before the trial or the evidence. That is what happened with Zundel and that is what happens in the 'justice' and 'human rights' system in Canada, as we shall see.
What we need to understand before all freedom is extinguished is that you don't have to agree with what someone says to defend their right to say it. Indeed, you are defending your right to say and think what you choose because unless everyone has free speech and free thought then no-one does. You can't be free to think and say what you believe if someone is deciding what you can think and say.
That is not freedom of speech or thought - it is the freedom to agree with what the Big Brother state allows you to think and say.
As Voltaire is claimed to have said: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'
Why? Because your freedom is my freedom.
So what is happening in Canada and elsewhere is an attack on the freedom of everyone and what is happening is truly, truly, staggering in what is claimed - hilariously - to be a 'free society'.
Warman pulls down a David Icke talk poster
Richard Warman was a member of the Canadian Green Party when I first came across him in the 1990s and he went on to be an 'investigator' for the Canadian Government's 'Human Rights' Commission (which is like George Orwell calling his propaganda ministry the 'Ministry of Truth').
Warman would find out where I was speaking and then contact the venue to say that I was an 'anti-Semite' who was going to blame Jews for everything in my presentation. Most of the spineless idiots at these venues - with honourable exceptions - would then ban the event without any further investigation.
You can see him at work trying to stop my talk in Vancouver in a British Channel 4 television documentary from 2001. The link is at the end of this article.
It got so ridiculous at one point that Warman, writing from Canada, almost had me banned from speaking at the little local theatre a few miles from my home in England where I had spoken with no problem many times before.
In the end, the local council insisted on having an 'observer' at the event to ensure that I did not break 'racism laws'. What did she find? Nothing, of course not. But truth is irrelevant - so long as the mud sticks it's job done.
This is what Richard Warman really believes about 'human rights' and free expression. He was asked about his attempts to ban my public events by the London Independent on Sunday magazine. This was his reply:
'He has taken all the conspiracy theories that ever existed and melded them together to create an even greater conspiracy of his own. His writings may be the work of a madman, or of a genuine racist. Either way they are very dangerous ...
... 'If he's unstable then so are his followers, who hang on his every word. What benefit can there be in allowing him to speak?'
That's right, a self-styled 'human rights' campaigner actually said: 'What benefit can there be in allowing him to speak?'
This is the mentality we are dealing with here from a Canadian government lawyer who specialises in targeting people who supposedly breach human rights!! You couldn't make it up.
As a result of the campaign against me by Warman, B'nai B'rith, the Anti Defamation League and the Canadian Jewish Congress, I am stopped, searched and questioned without fail every time I pass through a Canadian airport because I am on a computer 'stop' list. What do they find? Nothing. But what happens the next time I go there? The same.
On one occasion I was held for six hours into the night at Ottawa airport and then again the next morning when all I am saying is that we need to love each other, forget our manufactured differences and unite behind freedom for all, no matter what your colour, creed or religion.
In a speech in Toronto on July 6th 2005, Warman described his modus operandi as a technique of 'Maximum Disruption':
'I've come to the conclusion that I can be most effective by using what I like to describe as a 'maximum disruption' approach. ... If I think that they've violated the Canadian Human Rights Act, then I'll look at all of the potential targets and file complaints against them starting on a 'worst offender' basis, although sometimes if I just find people to be particularly annoying this may move them up the list a bit.'
Warman continues:
'The "maximum disruption" part comes in because wherever I think it will be most helpful, or even if I just feel it will be the most fun, I strongly believe in hitting the neo-nazis on as many of these fronts as possible either at the same time or one after the other. I say this because it keeps them off-balance and forces them to respond to things that focus their energies on defending themselves ...'
(My emphasis).
Warman, still an employee of the Canadian government the last I heard, is always strongly supported by B'nai B'rith (Rothschilds), the Anti-Defamation League (Rothschilds) and the Canadian Jewish Congress or 'CJC' (Bronfman family, connected to the Rothschilds).
So much so that the CJC gave him its Saul Hayes Human Rights Award for 'distinguished service to the cause of human rights' (no, that's not a joke) and a report by the Canadian 'Human Rights' Commission said that Warman 'has recently written a detailed report on Internet hate in Canada for the national Jewish group B'nai B'rith's Annual Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents'.
Canadian Jewish Congress: 'Congratulations Richard Warman, you are doing a wonderful job.'
What is the extent of the connection between Warman and B'nai Brith, the Anti-Defamation League and the Canadian Jewish Congress? Can anyone help?
It gets even more outrageous when you consider that Richard Warman has been using aliases, including one called Mary Dufford, to post racist comments on the very websites that he and the Canadian 'Human Rights' Commission then target for being racist.
Senator Cools
One rant posted on a forum called Freedomsite on September 5th 2003 can be seen below. Apologies for the language, but we are adults and this is what was posted about a black Canadian Senator called Anne Cools.
'Not only is Canadian Senator Anne Cools a Negro, she is also an immigrant!
And she is also one helluva preachy c*nt.
She does NOT belong in my Canada. My Anglo-Germanic people were here before
there was a Canada and her kind have jumped in, polluted our race, and forced
their bullshit down our throats.
Time to go back to when the women nigger imports knew their place...
And that place was NOT in public!'
This was posted by a user name called '90sAREover' and it was following this that a Warman 'investigation' began into racist postings on the Freedomsite. So who was the poster of this vicious, stomach-turning racism on a site then targeted by Richard Warman for prosecution by the Canadian 'Human Rights' Commission?
Well, well, well.
The owner of the Freedomsite and the target of Warman's subsequent 'investigation' is a man called Marc Lemire, a computer 'nerd' and technical expert who traced the posting to the same computer (IP address = 66.185.84.204) from which was posted another user name called 'Lucy'.
Who was 'Lucy', by his own admission under oath? Richard Warman.
Another computer expert, Bernard Klatt, did his own investigation into the origin of this sick and despicable attack on Anne Cools and this was his verdict in an affidavit submitted as evidence to a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on February 8th 2007:
'Based on the information provided in this affidavit, in my expert opinion, I concluded that the Freedomsite message board user accounts "90sAREover" and "lucy" are those of Richard Warman and that Richard Warman was the poster of the message headed "Cools don't belong in our Senate" posted September 5, 2003.'
Don't bother pinching yourself, I've tried. It was also admitted by the 'Human Rights' Commission that its 'senior human rights investigator', Dean Steacy, posts on the 'White Pride' Stormfront website using the name 'Jadewarr'. The game is simple: get an anonymous account to post racist comments on a website and then charge the website owners with posting racist comments.
Richard Warman is saying of David Icke at this point in the TV documentary: 'I think we can release the hounds now'.
Canadian author and journalist, Mark Steyn, summed it up very well this week when he wrote:
'As I said previously, this isn't entrapment; it's manufacturing the crime. Mr Warman posted these words on a website and then used them as part of his complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. That is Scandal #1.
Furthermore, when the defendant then made plain that he wished to subpoena the records of the ISP to uncover the author of the above post, the Canadian Human Rights Commission mysteriously dropped it from the case. This suggests an explicit collusion between the CHRC investigators and their former colleague, Mr Warman. That is Scandal #2.
For posting these words on the website and then taking said website to the Human Rights Commission, Mr Warman has been substantially enriched by the Canadian state. That is Scandal #3.'
What has happened to Richard Warman as a result of these extraordinary revelations in the 'free' country of Canada where 'everyone is treated equally'? Nothing. As Mark Steyn wrote:
'If this is correct, I don't see how it's possible to regard the Canadian Human Rights Commission as anything other than a racket for one of its former employees. Why should Richard Warman collect five-figure sums from suing websites for "crimes" in which he has himself participated?'
So why is Warman Teflon Man? Why does nothing ever stick or prompt further official investigation?
Warman has been awarded tens of thousands of dollars by the 'Human Rights' Commission that he used to work for and invariably his targets are those without the resources to defend themselves nor pay the fine and money to him without extreme hardship.
Warman brings his cases under something called Section 13 of the Canadian 'Human Rights' Act which is simply a vehicle for blatant censorship. It makes it a 'discriminatory practice' for 'a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate ... any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt ...' This includes areas like race, religion, sex and a long list of others. Who decides what is 'likely'? The government agency.
Read that again and you'll see that this could be applied to almost any criticism or contrary opinion. It is a censorship charter and the Canadian 'Human Rights' Commission has said that the truth of any statement is no defence. The head Internet investigator for the CHRC, Dean Steacy, the Stormfront poster 'Jadewarr', said: 'Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value'.
For violating Section 13 (or rather when the 'Human Rights' Commission has decreed that you have) you can be subject to a lifetime ban on your opinions registered with the Federal Court, a fine of up to $50,000 and up to five years in jail.
Now ... are you ready for this ...? Journalist Mark Steyn writes:
'In its entire history, over half of all cases have been brought by a sole "complainant," one Richard Warman. Indeed, Mr. Warman has been a plaintiff on every single Section XIII case before the federal "human rights" star chamber since 2002 — and he's won every one. That would suggest that no man in any free society anywhere on the planet has been so comprehensively deprived of his human rights. Well, no. Mr. Warman doesn't have to demonstrate that he's been deprived of his human rights, only that it's "likely" (i.e. "highly un-") that someone somewhere will be deprived of some right sometime.'
Some more outrageous statistics:
- 100% of cases have white people as respondents
- 98% of cases have poor or working class respondents
- 90.7% of respondents are not represented by lawyers
- So far, $93,000 has been awarded in fines and special compensation since 2003.
- 35 respondents have lifetime speech bans (Cease and Desist) orders and if not followed the victims could face up to 5 years in prison.
- 72.4% of complaints specifically identify 'Jews' as victims.
As the grip tightens on human freedom this censorship is now targeting even mainstream media outlets like Macleans Magazine and what you are reading here is what is planned for everyone all over the world - that's the 'Totalitarian Tiptoe' with regard to Political Correctness. That's the agenda behind it all. It is not about 'protecting minorities', it is about controlling everyone - including the 'minorities'.
It is actually playing 'minorities' off against each other. If a black person says something a gay person doesn't like he can be prosecuted by the Thought Police. But if the gay person says something the black person doesn't like he can be prosecuted by the Thought Police.
It is classic and blatant divide and rule under the guise of 'protecting minorities'.
Another 'modus' of Richard Warman is to launch libel actions against those who defend themselves from his attacks on their character or give their opinion of him and his agenda. He has had one running against me now for nearly six years on the book, Children of the Matrix, which was published seven years ago.
Among the ludicrous alleged 'libels' is that, sit down and take a breath, I called him a 'censor' and an enemy of free speech.
Children of the Matrix was published in 2001 and Warman was at my event in Montreal, Canada (which he had worked so hard to ban) when that book was on sale for the first time. In other words, he read what I wrote about him in the summer of 2001.
So did he contact me or the publisher to make a complaint and discuss it? Oh no. Without contacting me in any way, he began writing to bookstores and distributors telling them that he was taking a libel action against me and if they did not stop handling the book they would be included.
Most of these sad and spineless people allowed themselves to be intimidated and the book lost massive potential sales, for which I shall be seeking compensation. Given that Warman was in the Canadian Green Party at the time, a British Green Party member called Justin Walker contacted him and offered to arrange a meeting with me at which his problem could be discussed and resolved. Warman just scoffed at the idea and dismissed it.
Instead he waited almost a year after he had first read the book before issuing me with a libel writ - just before his deadline for doing so ran out. When he threatened the biggest British book distributor, W H Smith, with being included in the action they looked at his behaviour and described it to me as 'bizarre'.
Six years later the case is still rolling on and in the meantime he has continued to behave with regard to freedom of expression in precisely the way I describe in my book - I mean, see above.
Still, at least a full blown court hearing will reveal to the public and the worldwide Internet community the extraordinary story of Richard Warman and the true identity of '90sAREover' and the Anne Cools posting that Warman has denied on oath was him even though the 'IP' (computer) address is the same as the one he used for 'Lucy'.
Today eyes are now opening ever-wider in Canada to what has been going on and Mark Steyn wrote an excellent article for Macleans Magazine headed 'Why should Richard Warman be the only citizen to have his own personal inquisition?' See the links at the end of this text. In another exposé of Warman's weapon-of-choice, Section 13, Steyn says:
'At this point, the Minister of Justice needs to step in. The administration of Section XIII is a public disgrace. I agree with Pundita that it is, in fact, a criminal act in itself. The Minister should order a judicial inquiry into the systemic corruption of Section XIII. Furthermore, in the interim, Agent Dean Steacy should be removed from all "hate" cases, all current cases suspended, and the judgments in those cases brought by Richard The Anglo-German Warman vacated. The mountain of phoney-baloney "jurisprudence" based on the Warman racket should be tossed in the trash.
In the end, Maclean's and I might prevail over this thug racket. But why should we have to spend significant six-figure sums doing so given the prima facie evidence above? Section XIII is misbegotten in theory and a shakedown racket in practice. It's time to end it.'
I repeat, this is not just about Canada or Macleans Magazine or me. It is about all of us. Different sections of society are being picked off while the rest look the other way because they think it does not affect them. Oh, but it does.
The words of Pastor Martin Niemöller come to mind. He was talking about the emergence of the Nazis in Germany, but it is relevant today across the gathering Orwellian world:
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Unless we say 'enough!' now, we have seen nothing yet. We have a choice: a line in the sand now or a global fascist dictatorship ruled by the Thought Police.
It's our call and we'd better make it quick.
.......................................................................................................
PLEASE NOTE: These newsletters are copyrighted for subscribers only, but the information included here is so important that on this occasion please feel free to circulate this in the coming days and weeks - along with the TV documentary and other links below - to anyone and everyone you think ought to read or see them.
Let us remove the power to suppress provided by lack of public awareness.
Thank-you.
.......................................................................................................
Richard Warman: 'Lucy' and '90sAREover'
No, I don't post on websites that I target.
Er, oh, you can prove it?
Oh yeah, I remember now, I do.
Here is the interchange between Richard Warman and Barbara Kulaszka, the counsel of one of his targets, Marc Lemire, when he was questioned about the screen names 'Lucy' and '90sAREover' at a Canadian Human Rights' Tribunal on February 1st, 2007.
.......................................................................................................
David Icke and Richard Warman
Here is a documentary on David Icke and featuring Warman in 2001 (not all that is said in the reporter's commentary about David Icke is correct).
.......................................................................................................
Who is Richard Warman?
Click here for more background ...
.......................................................................................................
Why should Richard Warman be the only citizen to have his own personal inquisition?
From Macleans Magazine
.......................................................................................................
Richard Warman: 'Human rights' for me but not for thee
By Mark Steyn
Read more ...
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
I told you so....
It gives me no pleasure at all to state that I was right and the mainstream media was consistently and appallingly wrong in the face of mountains of ignored evidence to the contrary regarding the USA and Britain's rush to war in Iraq. The news article below shows 935 times that the Bush administration alone deliberately mislead the public about the WMD and links to terrorism in Iraq.
Don't let them get away with it.
"WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks. ...The media is using the same kind of false, misinformation, disinformation and lies on a daily basis to further the neo-(con/lib) agenda. From leaving Ron Paul out of opinion polling and results, to lying about Iran's nuclear ambitions vis-a-vis nuclear weapony, the mainstream media take the public for fools and they are lying their collective asses off daily.The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.
"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."
Don't let them get away with it.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Fred Thompson Campaign, RIP.
Fred Thompson's campaign for President of the USA is finished. Does this mean that Fox, New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, et al will only show three front runners plus Rudy in their pictures from now on?
After all, after leading the "polls" for most of 2007 and being constantly promoted in the media as the frontrunner and America's Choice and America's Mayor etc etc.... He still cannot beat Ron Paul in the Caucuses and Primaries.
What does that tell you about how the public view the mainstream media?
The media needs to answer this question:
IF Rudy is still considered a front runner and a viable candidate worthy of kind of media attention that is due to a serious candidate, then why can he not beat Ron Paul???? Come on media, if you claim to exclude Ron Paul because he is "fringe", what is your excuse for blanket coverage of the maverick extremist (who wants to pre-emptively nuke Iran) who has even less support from real voters than Ron Paul?
After all, after leading the "polls" for most of 2007 and being constantly promoted in the media as the frontrunner and America's Choice and America's Mayor etc etc.... He still cannot beat Ron Paul in the Caucuses and Primaries.
What does that tell you about how the public view the mainstream media?
The media needs to answer this question:
IF Rudy is still considered a front runner and a viable candidate worthy of kind of media attention that is due to a serious candidate, then why can he not beat Ron Paul???? Come on media, if you claim to exclude Ron Paul because he is "fringe", what is your excuse for blanket coverage of the maverick extremist (who wants to pre-emptively nuke Iran) who has even less support from real voters than Ron Paul?
Sunday, January 20, 2008
God Bless this soldier! See, they can be smart sometimes.
This is a true AMERICAN HERO.
Spread this far and wide.
My open letter to corporate whore Justin Webb from the BBC
Justin, surely a political journalist like yourself cannot be so utterly wrong about the Nevada Caucus? The vote was nothing more than a meaningless straw poll (despite this, the media darlings of Huckabee and Mcain were BOTH beaten by Ron Paul) but, as Mitt Romney said before the vote, Nevada is about delegates, hence why he (and Ron Paul) was in Nevada instead of South Carolina. Nevada sends more delegates to the GOP convention in September therefore winning the biggest number of delegates is what actually matters here.
Unmentioned by you, and therefore mentioned by me, because you seem to be incapable of following your own rules of reportage and even mentioning in a non-biased way the results of the Caucus. You have failed to do your job, so I am reporting that Romney won the straw poll and Ron Paul came in second ahead of McCain, Huckabee and Rudy. (important note here, Ron Paul has beaten the "supposed" leading candidature of Rudy in every poll bar one. That's REAL votes NOT spammers. The Paul campaign also has raised more funds than Rudy, again from real voters not corporate backers or spammers.) Ron Paul's support is large enough for him to be included in the media in a reasonable light as a front runner. He is now clearly inside the top 4 and rising.
But the MOST important aspect is the fact that in Nevada, Ron Paul has secured far more delegates than Mitt Romney and so has actually won Nevada where it actually counts.
I am sick of seeing the mainstream media news blatantly and deliberately distort and misrepresent results, in both imagery and text, to actively censor reportage of Ron Paul. When Fox and CNN and the BBC and others show the two images those from the top 3 or 3 from the top 4 or 4 from the top 5 candidates omitting one of them from the lineup, they always omit Ron Paul.
Typically there have been pictures of the top 4 showing first, third and fourth but missing out second, because we can not have people actually realising that Ron Paul's message is popular and resonates with the American Ideal? Freedom, liberty, prosperity and the pursuit of happiness?
So where, Justin, is your dedication to your words from November last year when you wrote:
"To me he is a wonderful reminder of the intellectual freedom that persists in American politics in spite of the deadening effect of money. I have written before about the need for those of us with claims to impartiality to treat those the parties regard as fringe candidates seriously; it is not for us to attack or defend, but to report and analyse."
WHERE IS YOUR REPORT OR ANALYSIS OF RON PAUL'S SUCCESS??? He is NOT even a fringe candidate anymore, that label more accurately describes Rudy or Fred Thompson. Paul has secured all-time Record donations and NOT from corporate backers buying the candidate and influence, but all raised from tiny spontaneous donations averaging $100.00??? This is the solution to the party funding crisis in the UK. If the candidate actually supports what the nation wants, and is dedicated, honest and has a record of selfless genuine public service in the mould of Ron Paul, then money comes flooding in.
Justin, you act like a bought and paid for pawn of the CFR corporate elite, not a journalist. Your reportage of this election campaign is third rate rubbish.
YOU (and the other mainstream "propaganda merchants") are the reason why the mainstream is losing massive market share to the blogs. You cannot tell all the truth and have to distort and omit and sometimes blatantly lie to keep with the agenda. We know blatant BS when we see it and we are getting a big dump from you.
All Ron Paul supporters want is fair and honest and accurate reporting, then the message will take care of itself.
Unmentioned by you, and therefore mentioned by me, because you seem to be incapable of following your own rules of reportage and even mentioning in a non-biased way the results of the Caucus. You have failed to do your job, so I am reporting that Romney won the straw poll and Ron Paul came in second ahead of McCain, Huckabee and Rudy. (important note here, Ron Paul has beaten the "supposed" leading candidature of Rudy in every poll bar one. That's REAL votes NOT spammers. The Paul campaign also has raised more funds than Rudy, again from real voters not corporate backers or spammers.) Ron Paul's support is large enough for him to be included in the media in a reasonable light as a front runner. He is now clearly inside the top 4 and rising.
But the MOST important aspect is the fact that in Nevada, Ron Paul has secured far more delegates than Mitt Romney and so has actually won Nevada where it actually counts.
I am sick of seeing the mainstream media news blatantly and deliberately distort and misrepresent results, in both imagery and text, to actively censor reportage of Ron Paul. When Fox and CNN and the BBC and others show the two images those from the top 3 or 3 from the top 4 or 4 from the top 5 candidates omitting one of them from the lineup, they always omit Ron Paul.
Typically there have been pictures of the top 4 showing first, third and fourth but missing out second, because we can not have people actually realising that Ron Paul's message is popular and resonates with the American Ideal? Freedom, liberty, prosperity and the pursuit of happiness?
So where, Justin, is your dedication to your words from November last year when you wrote:
"To me he is a wonderful reminder of the intellectual freedom that persists in American politics in spite of the deadening effect of money. I have written before about the need for those of us with claims to impartiality to treat those the parties regard as fringe candidates seriously; it is not for us to attack or defend, but to report and analyse."
WHERE IS YOUR REPORT OR ANALYSIS OF RON PAUL'S SUCCESS??? He is NOT even a fringe candidate anymore, that label more accurately describes Rudy or Fred Thompson. Paul has secured all-time Record donations and NOT from corporate backers buying the candidate and influence, but all raised from tiny spontaneous donations averaging $100.00??? This is the solution to the party funding crisis in the UK. If the candidate actually supports what the nation wants, and is dedicated, honest and has a record of selfless genuine public service in the mould of Ron Paul, then money comes flooding in.
Justin, you act like a bought and paid for pawn of the CFR corporate elite, not a journalist. Your reportage of this election campaign is third rate rubbish.
YOU (and the other mainstream "propaganda merchants") are the reason why the mainstream is losing massive market share to the blogs. You cannot tell all the truth and have to distort and omit and sometimes blatantly lie to keep with the agenda. We know blatant BS when we see it and we are getting a big dump from you.
All Ron Paul supporters want is fair and honest and accurate reporting, then the message will take care of itself.
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
INTRODUCTION:
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. ......
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 http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) 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,
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: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate. 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: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate.
Sincerely,
Ron
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?
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?
Friday, November 30, 2007
$10,000,000
$10,000,000 in two months.ALL from spontaneous small individual donations, not corporate largesse.
Congratulations Ron Paul.
Do not forget the teaparty 07 Let's break all records that day!
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
How many more torpedos can this dedebunked theory take before it finally dies?
EXCELLENT MUCH WATCH VIDEOS!!!
Either click the links below:
Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4
OR
Watch each part below:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
This blows apart the foundations upon which the great global warming scandal is based. There is a lot of excellent science that is unfortunately founded on badly incorrect and unsound empirical data. If the raw data is incorrect, the conclusions drawn from the raw data is unreliable.
There are errors in the accepted science, and good contradictory evidence that is ignored.
The IPCC is a pure political office with an agenda and a huge budget and prestige. They will never let the truth get in the way of their budget or global population control and 3rd world slavery agenda!
We should be cleaning up the pollution and stop the deforestation and get ready for catastrophic global cooling. A warm climate provides FAR more bio-diversity than an ice-based climate. I dearly wish that we were heading for an even warmer climate. My heating bills are astronomical from Autumn to Spring. I only have the heating off for most of the summer. Bio diversity would increase and there would be millions of hectares of arable farming land opened up for crops in Greenland and Siberia if long-term human induced global warming was real. Unfortunately, the earth will get a LOT colder. That IS the natural state of climate over the last few MILLION years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)