How UKIP can make a breakthrough into Westminster in 2015

The real challenge for each and everyone of us who are now supporting UKIP is to build momentum, spread the truth about UKIP's policies in every area, give out the manifesto and show how all the current top three parliamentary parties are all the same, so if you disagree with what the last or current government did or does, the only option to change it is to vote UKIP.

By so doing we need to keep building support, keep encouraging people to vote FOR the policies they want, instead of reluctantly voting for one set of failed divisive, politically correct, left-liberal, corrupt corporate, big taxing, big spending, climate-changey, high immigration, EU dominated policies, to stop an identical bunch of failed divisive, politically correct, left-liberal, corrupt corporate,
big taxing, big spending, climate-changey, high immigration, EU
dominated policies being implemented, or just as bad, not voting at all, because the labour and coalition parties make voting seem irrelevant.

By so doing we must build massive support leading into the European parliamentary elections so that UKIP can WIN those elections outright in the UK.  That should create enough of a buzz and momentum to start us winning in Westminster too.  Whereas in 2009, few people used twitter, facebook etc... for political campaigning or getting news. The mainstream media managed to downplay the significance of UKIP thrashing liberal democrats and labour and coming second overall in that national election. In that election, UKIP beat the party of government in a national election. 
However conservative voters who lent UKIP their vote, wanted to defeat labour almost as much as they wanted to breathe. SO the vote went back to the tories, and the 3-4% core UKIP support was ignored at the following general election by people like me who held our nose and went back to voting conservative in my local marginal constituency to try to defeat labour.

The challenge for UKIP will be to increase our support nationally in these upcoming local elections to prove we are a growing force.  There is a risk that the 8 - 11% polling numbers we now attract, either will not vote after all, or change back to their tribal habits, once in the voting booth, if they do vote.

The challenge NOW is that we MUST get the UKIP vote out in these May elections.

Then the next challenge is to WIN the European elections in the UK.

Then the next challenge after that is to RETAIN the support of those voters.

This did not work in 2010. However I believe the that there are very powerful reasons that next time will be different. Why? Three main reasons:

1. Next time, former conservative voters would not be too keen to revert back to the conservatives, because we have seen for ourselves how we still do not get conservative policies, by voting conservative.
2. If we are destined for labour policies under tory or labour or coalition, then labour may as well win and rightly get the blame for those policies failing, rather than the tories.
3. There will be a hell of a lot more UKIPPERS  making a hell of a lot more noise about WINNING A NATIONAL ELECTION OUTRIGHT! via all sorts of social and alternative media, so that the BBC and SKY ignoring us will become irrelevant, or even another unique selling point.  "They are ignoring us, because we are the ONLY party that can challenge the establishment's corrupt and incompetent status quo, instead of embracing and endorsing and encouraging it."

IF we can win the European elections outright, then that fact alone should grant UKIP a hell of a big credibility boost and challenge the notion that UKIP are a tiny fringe and protest party, that many busy "mainstream" voters still falsely believe.

If you love this country and want to save it from the damage of foreign and left wing policies, then we all have a LOT of work to do spreading a GREAT message of hope and optimism and opportunity.

Let us all rise to that task.  It is now time to step up, put up and get to work!

After careful consideration I have decided to vote UKIP!

The following is an old post which I have decided to re-post as it is a very frightening scenario which is still quietly happening below the liberal-left mainstream media radar (for a reason)...

 ------------------------------------------------
What is planned in the EU for the next two decades:

Multi-regional, single competency administrative bureaucracies. For any given area of policy, there will be regional councils that comprise of pan-national regions. In other words, a region will consist of small parts of several countries. For example, Transmanche would be Southern England (excluding London) , Northern France and part of the Nederlands.

Each region will be small, trans-national and only responsible for one area of political competency. But there will be a myriad of these regions covering everything from crime and punishment, to town twinning.

So for the Environment there will be another European level of competency that is comprised of regions that cross former national boundaries.

BUT, HERE IS THE BEST PART (if you love EU bureaucracy that is) Each area of political competency will have DIFFERENT geographical regions to any other area.

SO for fishing you will live in one region, but for energy it will be a different one, and for environmental concerns, another different one again, for taxes, yet another and so on and so forth.

This is the eventual plan. REMOVE NATION STATES FROM THE MAP ENTIRELY and make it impossible for people to live in ONE single political region.

Geographically they will live in one house in one town, but that town will be represented politically in many different over-lapping regions.

There will be an over arching EU that is responsible for EVERYTHING, but then each area of competency will be devolved into regional centres, SO THAT ALL the things that we USED to have a central Government, with separate departments for, now we have many different regions! The borders of these regions will all be different for each area of competency.

You will effectively live in one country for fishing rights, and another for agriculture and another for education etc etc.

That is how they are destroying the nation state, from the policy areas upwards. Everyone is looking for the EU to create political regions, like county councils, that control everything IN that region. THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

They are setting up thousands of policy areas that are devolved to small-regional centres of operations. For example the European mechanisms for managing town twinning. That is all those regions are responsible for.

This is how the liberal media are accurately and correctly rubbishing the idea that national borders will be immediately replaced with smaller-transnational regions.

We will not notice that our borders have slowly been erased until they are already GONE. All the power that used to reside in Westminster and Whitehall is NOW being devolved to separate quangos that will form the future multi layered administrative regions of the EU. It has been happening for years

How else can I explain this …

Think of a blank map of the EU showing the outline. Then randomly draw borders inside that split it up into 36 regions. These could be the regions for education.

Then get another blank map and split it into 42 different random regions and these would be the regions for energy.

Then do the same again, but with only 12 regions, and that could be the judicial system. And so on and so on.

You will only have ONE physical address in a geographical region, but your life will be controlled and monitored from hundreds of different political regions.

All to make sure that you cannot recover ANY national sovereignty or independence AT ALL. People will not be able to be loyal to their old nation states, because essentially ALL the old nation states will not exist anymore.

The only way to prevent this is to STOP the Lisbon Treaty from allowing the changes that will permit it.

We will NEVER get a referendum on each part,

The only way to stop this now, is to vote UKIP and get the hell out of the EU entirely!

We can't win a general election by moving to the right?

The UK has always had a centre right majority.

Margaret Thatcher won 3 successive elections being unashamedly right wing.  John Major won in 1992 with over 14 million votes, more votes than any prime minister before or since.

Then Blair shifted the veneer and image of labour far over to the right, because the UK has a right wing majority.  Labour won in those years, from having an image of being of the right pushed by the entire media which was consistently pushing the lies of Blair as being gospel truth. Blair was projected as a "compassionate conservative"  by the left wing media, but this was only true in image alone.

Even then, the conservative party won a bigger share of the vote in EVERY National election in the UK from after the 2001 general election onwards except for one national election in 2005 when the result was so close (only 2.8% points) that it should have been a hung Parliament.  (tories had a winning margin of more than 7% points  in 2010 and still failed to get a majority) Labour were rescued by a massive pro-labour bias in the constituency boundaries, which gifted labour over 60 seats for an equal number of votes as the tories. Put it this way, in 1997 when the tories were wiped out, and ever since considered a hated and unelectable party on the verge of extinction,  John Major won 9,600,943 votes.  In 2005 when Blair won a 66 seat Majority, he won only 9,552,436, 48507 fewer votes than the destroyed Major government of 1997 and well over a million votes fewer than Cameron won in 2010.

Who would you say was the more popular leader? Blair in 2005 or Major in 1997?  In truth, John Major was.  That is how massive the pro-labour bias in the seating boundaries is. Because of that constituency boundary bias, (where a tiny inner city area can hold two labour seats and a large suburban area is one conservative seat), the left wing media could ignore the real numbers of right wing voters in this country, and ignore the conservative party winning every national election from after the 2001 general election  (council and European elections) to 2010 (bar the 2005 general election)  and falsely claim that there was a progressive majority who feel that the conservative party was the nasty party.

Once the British public finally and clearly saw through the Blair lies, they were desperate for another clearly and unashamedly right wing government as shown by Cameron having a consistent lead across opinion polls of in excess of more than 20% during 2009, back when Cameron was pretending to be unashamedly right wing and Eurosceptic.

Then something terrible happened.  He unexpectedly lurched over to the left, he created the socialist sounding "big society" manifesto and abandoned conservatism and Euroscepticism and showed his liberal true colours. (Liberal, NOT libertarian). 

After this lurch to the left, his support collapsed into a single figure lead and he ended up relying on Clegg to become PM. 

Many conservatives gave him the benefit of the doubt and hoped his lefty liberalism was faked so he could steal votes from disillusioned labour and Liberal democrat voters, who hoped the opposite, that his liberalism was real.  Even when he did win over some of the left, he failed to win that large majority the polls had been predicting in 2009, (in spite of a monstrous pro-labour bias in seat boundaries)  because he had lost even more votes from the masses of hard working people on the right who have been shafted by labour for over a decade.

In the AV referendum, there was a clear split between the self described "progressive" left and the right wing in this country and the left were absolutely slaughtered.  Out of 450 regions, only 10 returned a majority for the "progressive" policy. This was not a sign of a progressive majority, but of a tiny, almost insignificant minority which has been massively inflated importance by an out-of-touch mainstream media conditioning the public 24/7 to believe a wholly untrue lie. A lie supported by a massive bias in the seat-boundaries and that massive media manipulation and misrepresentation which kept labour in power far longer than it should.

Now the right wing are abandoning our fear of a labour victory, because we see with ever more clarity, that with the conservative leadership courting the same liberal left votes as the labour party, and the hated tiny fringe liberal democrat party, that it makes absolutely no difference which of those three wins. the outcome is something that the majority of people in this country hate.

And if it takes UKIP killing any hope of the tories winning a general election to wake people up to that blatant fact, then so be it.

We will never get the government that MOST people want, until they are woken from the 24/7 conditioning by the metropolitan elite's liberal left wing propaganda and turn out to vote for it, instead of the liberal-left wing agenda that the entire liberal left establishment (comprising three parliamentary political parties, Most all of the mainstream print and TV media, academia, think-tanks, political charities and activist protest groups) are implementing.

Never before have so much of the establishment been so-out of touch with the people of this country.

The left wing media has been selling a lie for almost 20 years now, that you cannot win an election from the right.  The above figures show that to be a lie.  Many on the right have been put off from voting because of that lie.

This is changing.  We need a fully fledged right wing government again to save us from the economic and social insanity of the current establishment.

I believe that UKIP is that government in waiting.

My plea to Lord Tebbit.

I am so sorry that this is long, but it has to be said, Norman.

What the effete metropolitan elite media and political types now call the "centre ground of politics" is what I call far left wing corporatism. This shows how far the great social experiment of Blair and the BBC/Guardian/Times alliance took this nation to the left.

Decent rational and common sense conservative policies are now considered "swivel eyed lunacy", not only by the left wing media, but also, shamefully, by the mainstream politicians of the conservative party leadership.

Norman, I have faithfully and loyally supported the conservative party for 32 years. Since Mrs Thatcher's historic 1979 win. Her devotion to this country and to those who want to be self reliant, decent, responsible, hard working was never in doubt. My solid working class upbringing in this, normally solid labour constituency had me out campaigning for the Conservatives when we were winning this seat under Thatcher. We lost the seat to Blair's new labour but I still campaigned against Blairism for all I was worth.

I was thrown out of pubs for saying Blair was a dangerous control freak and our liberties would be threatened by him. I was ridiculed, abused and assaulted for still supporting "those evil tories" during the late 1990s and early 2000s. I was proven right by Blair's own paranoid totalitarian tendencies.

I do not regret a second that I have devoted over the years of my time and loyalty to the conservative party, because I agreed with conservative values and principles and I agreed with most of their policies.

Now, however, my loyalty counts for nothing. My party has totally abandoned my principles and values and now embraces, promotes and implements the very same Blairism that I fought hard and long against.

I did not give my support, loyalty and service to the conservative party for decades, and spend most of the last 20 years fighting Blairism, only for Cameron to embrace and implement the core values and policies of Blairism. Even worse, it is an undiluted Blairism. Blair has stated that he regretted not being bolder and going further in implementing his Blairite vision. Regretably, Cameron HAS been so bold as to implement an unfettered, unrestrained Blairism. We have a Cameron party which is more "progressive" than new labour and more "New labour" than new labour and the wets running the party call devoted, loyal, hard-working members "swivel eyed lunatics" and wonder why these members are leaving in droves to either not vote at all, or vote UKIP?

Norman, How can you stand to see the hard working loyal and decent members of your party, my former party, so betrayed?

I would love to campaign for the conservative party again. However, how can I possibly campaign for the very same Blairite policies I despise?

Can I campaign and vote for the following?

How can I vote for lower taxes?
How can I vote for smaller, less intrusive government?
How can I vote for real Euroscepticism?
How can I vote for a referendum on EU membership?
How can I vote for real scientifically driven climate change and energy policy and not a communist derived, politically motivated, flawed-model driven policy?
How can I vote for cutting uncontrolled immigration?
How can I vote for an end to divisive contradictory "politically correct" policies of segregation, discrimination and oppression and outlawing the freedom of thought and opinion? Rather than a policy that genuinely treats all people as being of equal value and worth with the same God given rights with freedom of thought, opinion and expression, regardless of colour, race, gender, sexual orientation, or background?
How can I vote for cutting spending in real terms?
How can I vote for ending the ECHR?
How can I vote for stopping the UK being a haven for criminals and terrorists with their rights protected by law, rather than their potential and actual victims?
How can I vote for a party that is economically conservative and one which will not fall back on QE to solve their problems?
How can I vote for an end to merging our military with that of France?
How can I vote for a party that is tough on law and order?
How can I vote for for a party that is tough on welfare and the workshy?
How can I vote for a party whose deficit reduction plan reduces the deficit by significantly more than the <1% difference from labour's Alistair Darling plan?
How can I vote for a party which opposed totalitarian snooping into all our electronic communications?
How can I vote for a party which will re-introduce jury trials for all crown court cases.
How can I vote for a flat level of tax which will close all the tax loop-holes?
How can I vote for a party which supports open, free competition of free market economics, and not corrupt corporatism and the part privatisation of state functions, which stiffs the tax-payer, kills competition and makes some crony rich?
How can I vote for increased democratic accountability through swiss-style local referenda?
How can I vote for a party which rewards hard-work and self-reliance, instead of penalising it with bundles of EU generated and UK-gold plated red tape?

By voting conservative, labour or Liberal democrat, I will be voting against all these issues. The conservative party is on the same side as labour and the liberals, on the wrong side of all the above issues.

I can vote for all those things, IF I vote UKIP.

I see no sign whatsoever that any of the current Parliamentary conservative party is going to change course on ANY of the above list. There is no sign that the conservative party is ever going to even acknowledge the concerns of the grass roots, let alone listen to them, or even (heaven forbid) do anything about them, at all.

Norman, please do the decent thing and join UKIP.

The state of debate

There are two sides in the climate change debate. A debate which one side denied even existed for several recent years.

"The debate is over" - Al Gore.

The debate is clearly not over and it grows bitter and more entrenched by the month.

The two sides of the debate utilise different tactics and both have different agendas.

One side utilises emotive and upsetting and offensive propaganda. From videos showing Polar bears falling from the skies and landing in bloody impacts onto buildings and cars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxis7Y1ikIQ ); to videos showing emotionless, graphic acts of bloody exploding children who may "doubt" the theory, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5CH-Xc0co ); and the constant bombardment of adverts and other climate propaganda on television and in classrooms showing cataclysmic end of world scenarios aimed at children which have caused deep emotional trauma and induced nightmares and now they call for houses of people who are sceptical of extreme claims, to have their houses burned to the ground

The advocates and scientists try to close down debate, keep data secret, and prevent open investigation and shut the public out from understanding what is happening. They hate for us to dare to question them, but just want us all to uncritically believe them, which is the opposite of science.

Beyond the sick and offensive dramatics of the advocates, the actual antics of Alarmist scientists themselves go beyond the merely exaggerated, to the unethical and anti-scientific. There have been documented cases of scientists, using very misleading statistics to "prove" their case. Rejecting historical data if it inconveniently contradicts their theories (explorer's finding islands in the Arctic which were not covered by ice in the 1920s, which are only now just being uncovered again by melting ice, suggesting that the current level of moderate ice melt is quite normal), Hiding inconvenient data, switching and applying unrelated data-sets and fraudulently passing them off as the same continuous bit of data (hockey-stick). There are cases of these scientists acting in cohort to incestuously peer-review each other's work, instead of allowing the wider scientific community to do so and hiding and withholding data to prevent independent peer review. Even to the extent of illegally withholding data from lawful Freedom Of Information Act Requests. There are documented cases of Alarmist climate scientists conspiring to bully journal editors and working to threaten journals and have them closed down, if they have the temerity to dare publish properly peer reviewed papers which happen to conclude something which undermines the climate alarmist's own work. We have cases of eminent climate scientists encouraging others to take illegal, criminal activities involving causing criminal damage to property and businesses.

Now we have alarmist climate scientists engaging in criminal activities themselves. ID fraud, Wire fraud, electronic impersonation, forgery and publishing false and malicious falsehoods with the intent to cause harm and loss. Wilfully undermining science and misleading the public is the least of their crimes. All these tactics, from the exaggerated outcomes, through the deceptions and falsehoods, to the actual harmful crimes, are accepted and defended by the Alarmist side of the debate as acceptable and understandable tactics. This side of the debate is funded to the tune of hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars by vested interests and political pressure groups and activists. Everyone from Big-Oil, Big Pharma, Political action committees, through to radical environmental groups to far left political campaign groups and not forgetting governments all over the world, all fund this side of the debate.

On the other side are some brave scientists who put the integrity of the scientific method above that of grant seeking and political expediency. Who believe in seeking truth, no matter where it lays, is more important than being part of the crowd. Who believe that the observation and measurement of reality, and experimentation to reproduce reality and falsify theories where possible, are more important than pushing a theory backed up solely by computer models. Who accept valid data, regardless of what it shows and who doggedly stick to experimentation and valid scientific methods of discovery in the face of constant threats to funding, political intimidation and overt attacks on their reputations. Svensmark springs to mind and I look forward to the publication of his latest work which finally shows the chain of events in cloud formation which demonstrates a far greater effect on climate changes from solar activity, than that of CO2, as is OBSERVED in reality.

This side scrapes by on a relative pittance. Funded by people who still believe in scientific integrity, truth and reality. This side is, remarkably, seeing their results still get through to the public, in spite of having less than 0.01% of the financial resources of the climate alarmist side. This is because of a fundamental truth. T > PPPP. TRUTH wins over piss poor political propaganda every time!

Now which of those two sides should I trust? The side which engages in criminal deception, fraud, forgery, slander and political propaganda using visuals of exploding children and splattered polar bears? Or the real empirical scientists?

My switch away from the Conservative Party is complete.

When the EU Referendum vote in the House of Commons, which was triggered by a national petition of the people, was abused by Parliament issuing orders from on high via a three line whip to oppose the referendum, I have seen the hatred and contempt in which democratic sovereignty is held by all three main Parliamentary parties sitting in Parliament.

It is this which finally has persuaded me to utterly abandon the last tiny spec of sympathy I had for the CONservative party in the UK.

I am now a supporter of UKIP Not for the EU stance, or their real promise of a referendum assigning real democratic accountability to a nation choosing to embrace our sovereignty, or relinquish it to a foreign power forever. No, I have looked at their manifesto and I am impressed at the breadth and extent of policies which they propose.

UKIP supporters are going to have to get used to tory charges of UKIP being a "single issue protest party". Sadly, the mentality of these types of tory is that party comes before everything. It comes before policy, insofar as to these people, they will enthusiastically defend any policy the party pursues, but would equally as vehemently oppose the identical policy if it were implemented by another party. It comes before principle, reason or sense. (labour have just as many people with exactly the same mentality).

When we are arguing against such a mentality it is difficult to breakdown the wilful blindness of one who is firmly set upon believing a certain point, regardless of fact or reason. They see UKIP as a threat and will only attack with the easiest lie they can find. They cannot understand that the only way to vote for actual right wing, conservative policies now, is to vote UKIP.

On immigration, crime, defence, environment, economy, tax and spend, education etc.... ONLY UKIP offer conservative policies. The Conservative party only offers labour policies, slightly re-written.

I think that the best line for those is to ask them to actually read the UKIP manifesto and then ask which of UKIP's policies from the following:

The Economy:
Tax...
Budget & Regulation...
Jobs...
Enterprise & Skills...
Immigration & Asylum...
Law & Order/Crime...
Defence...
Healthcare & the NHS...
Education & Training....
Pensions...
Welfare & Social Security...
Foreign Affairs & International Trade...
Energy & the Environment...
Transport...
Housing & Planning...
The Constitution & How We Are Governed...
Culture & Restoring Britishness...
Food, Farming & the Countryside...
Fishing...
And lots of Other Specific Policies...

Is the single issue to which they refer?

If you really want to see single issue policies, you need look no further than conservative, labour or liberals for three parties which share the identical single issue of allowing the EU to decide upon:

Foreign Affairs Economic Affairs
Public Heath Transport
Justice Energy
Employment Environment
Police Farming
Social Affairs Fisheries
Immigration Law Enforcement

The EU is not preparing conservative policies in any of those areas.

Each of their next manifestos should simply read,
"We will do whatever the EU directs us to do!"

The sad fact is, as it currently stands, it is impossible to vote for conservative policies by voting conservative. We get re-worked labour polices. If you are a conservative in the UK, you cannot vote against the implementation of labour policies by voting conservative.

How do I vote for lower taxes? Lower spending? Smaller more responsive government? Less ridiculous, offensive, sexist, racist political correctness? Realistic policies regarding science and climate change? More democratic accountability at every level of government? Better policies supporting those in education who want to work hard and better themselves? Proper law and order policies, real punishment for criminals? and so much more besides?

The ONLY way I can vote for a national party offering me the policies I support, is to vote UKIP.

My response to the looting sprees and violence which exploded across our cities

The initial response was anger. Anger at the pointless and apparent mindlessness of the violence. There was no political cause, nor government oppression which this 'rioting' was in response to.

As the past couple of peaceful day passed, people are thinking more about the underlying root cause.

As they do, I sense a change in anger. It is not just against the feckless, lazy, selfish criminal looters, but it is rising against the entire liberal establishment, including all main political parties and their puppets in the media, especially the BBC. The immorality of the liberal elite in this country is being seen by more and more people as the cause of the riots. The hypocrisy of the elite’s condemnation is sticking in many a craw.

It amuses and saddens me to note that the same people who for many years have stifled legitimate debate about immigration by condescendingly using the derisive phrase “I am not a racist, BUT…” are now claiming, (with a straight face) “I am not condoning this violence, BUT…” and then excusing their part in it all.

So, to all those liberal apologists from all parties and in the media, who undermined marriage, discipline and the morality of sexual equality by having a prolonged and sustained campaign to undermine men in society generally, I ask, does your rank hypocrisy comfort you?

Your old, hackneyed and now utterly disproven arguments and “fashionable progressive theories” about how society should be, have been torched by the very youth you undermined and let down through your fashionable neglect. Instead of seeing where need really lay, you ignored all natural instincts of these youths, millions of years of developmental evolution and imposed your social experiment upon them, believing falsely that your progressive ideals could overcome instinct and cause and effect. The nuclear family is what nature through evolution have over millions of years and all over the world, fine tuned to be the most successful way of raising children. To summarily and arrogantly place your theories that “all kinds of family should have equal merit” regardless of the direct evidence to the contrary and the serious psychological damage that family breakdowns almost always cause, above what has been tried and tested for millennia all over the world was the height of insanity and cruelty on a large scale.

I often hear that “just because some single mothers do a poor job of raising their children, you shouldn’t tar all single mothers with the same brush”. I agree, but equally that works in reverse too. Just because some single mother’s do a remarkably good job of raising well-rounded, honest and responsible children, does not mean that we should use their rare exceptional example as a basis for setting family policy to allow ALL feckless single mothers the same level of respect and freedom earned by a few good ones. To base policy on the exception to an old and time tested rule is insane and doomed to failure.

Single parenthood and pregnancy outside of wedlock was historically frowned upon for many many many generations and this week we discovered painfully, and to our cost, exactly why.

Labour government policy to reward couples financially to split up, rather than pay for relationship counselling and parenting classes, has proven to be a massively expensive mistake. The soft-left liberal media have conditioned the people of this country 24/7 to accept as normal these crazy and abnormal social rule-sets.

Labour in power sought an authoritarian quasi-police state in which all law abiding adults were made more and more to feel like potential suspects who increasingly had to account for themselves and their actions and travels to an overbearing state. Yet the youth and criminal elements were free to cause havoc with relative impunity as children and criminals were granted rights by the bucketful.

Justice ran backwards. Immorality and failure was rewarded by the state. From the elite in banking and politics right down to the poorest council estates, immorality ruled. Greed was good at all levels and the labour dominated country promoted this as much as possible. Heck, you did not even have to earn money. You could borrow mountains of the stuff from the corporations. Lying was something which became normal and to be admired. Even to the extend of lying to Parliament about the need to send OUR brave troops into war and death’s cold final embrace. The something for nothing culture spread throughout Whitehall, over the media and into the nation’s consciousness by 24/7 social conditioning of the BBC dominated media.

This state sanctioned, media propagandised immorality extended through to the workplace, schools, local institutions, and families. This fashionable liberalism was so pervasive and spread by all levels of a quickly increasing and expanding government (national and local) and by the overwhelming majority of the media (which is dominated by the state run BBC), that this weak cruel and negligent liberalism has spread the insanity and illogical poison of the philosophy behind the ‘social experiment’ and its immoral values throughout society to the extent that anyone holding traditional family values, (once thought middle of the road common sense) became thought of as fleck mouthed right wing extremists. This is how far to the liberalised left the labour government and their propaganda outlet, the BBC, have dragged this nation.

People are now jolted free and woken from this social experiment nightmare by the rioting which exploded in our cities this past week.

Please let sanity and morality return.

A rare update

Whilst I am appalled by the alleged behaviour of a number people who allegedly broke the law to get news stories for News International and I do not in any-way-shape-or-form, condone such activity, I am utterly revolted by labour's hypocritical, cynical, party-political, selfish and lie-filled stance on this whole sickening episode.

From 1994 - 2010 labour policy mirrored News International policy.

ALL the criminality happened on labour's watch.

Labour's own spin and smear machine was in full operation during this time that labour were in bed with Murdoch and when the hacking and blagging was allegedly taking place..

There is far far more shit on labour's hands than on Cameron's over this.

Ed Miliband STILL TO THIS DAY is employing an ex-NI journalist, as his director of communications, who is implicated in an alleged illegal blagging scam. I have not heard one single labour MP question Miliband's judgement on this and so far, in spite of these allegations being raised and passed to police, Miliband has utterly failed to issue any substantive statement on the issue comparable with the allegations he is throwing out against Cameron and Coulson.

This whole episode makes labour look far worse than the tories.

After all it is Cameron who is following the law, and lawful procedure to open up and fully investigate this, under oath and in public.

Labour covered it all up when they were in office, and now in opposition seek to use media spin and allegations to convict, without proper trial, people who have not even been charged with a crime yet, let alone lawfully convicted.

Compared to labour's disgusting and hypocritical, party political, behaviour in this, Cameron's hands are clean. Labour have only looked at this with an eye to narrow party political interest. They have ignored all the cases of hacking, blagging and improper relationships between former Minsters and the left wing media.

Cameron is opening it all up to ALL media, left, right and independent and the relationship between Media and the police and the media and all current and former Ministers.

For Brown to complain about a "criminal underworld" in News International when labour MPs and former Minister's in Brown's cabinet are in prison for their own criminal acts and further when Tom Watson expresses fake outrage and sympathy for the hacking of phones of victims of the September 11th attacks, when his own party thought that September 11th was a "good day to bury bad news!" shows with crystal clarity what is wrong with the labour party's morality.

I look forward to the open, public inquiries exposing more and more labour sleaze, lies and corruption from their disastrous 13 years in office, working for the Murdoch press.

Bin Laden Dead

Of course he is, he died in late 2001 of Kidney Failure.

Well, I am no expert, but it looks to me from the date stamps on this web page like the picture blasted all over Pakistan TV of the 'Osama' that was killed today ...

... might be a photo that was floating around the internet for the last few months!

And it appears to be photoshopped!

Here is the real Osama from about 15 years ago.

Now flip it left to right...

And compare the lower half with today's photo of the dead 'Osama'!

There are other signs of photoshop as well, such as blurred edges on the beard and an obvious difference in sharpness between the eyes and the mouth, It looks like someone took a dead body and pasted the real Obama's mouth onto it to make it look more like him.

Did Obama just fall for a dirty trick by Pakistan's ISI? Inquiring minds want to know! :)

Victory is ours!

With reference to this long post, I am finally delighted and overwhelmingly happy that a long and bitter campaign against an intrusive, totalitarian measure has finally succeeded in the abolition of the ID card scheme.

On the 20th December, the Bill to abolish the ID card scheme received Royal Assent.

Freedom and liberty must always be defended, preferably by peaceful means.

Congratulations to everyone who lifted a finger to help in this scheme. From the brilliant NO2ID campaign all the way down to everyone who wrote letters and emails and commented on blogs and media websites.

Not a single window was smashed, nor business ruined by confused anarchists to achieve this victory.

Thank you all.

We must ever be vigilant against the state becoming too big for its boots and taking too much power from us.

There is still much more to do, but for this one battle, victory is indeed VERY sweet indeed.

So what are the temperatures actually?

Take this image:


Note the scale for the colours? I thought it strange that it only shows anomalies from the normal sea temperature (according to their baseline).

I thought it odd that there would be no place on earth that would have "normal" temps, so I decided to change the -0.5 to +0.5 degrees to a light green, as this colour is in between the warm and cool colours.

I used the colour replcer tool in PSP to select the two closest colours to 0 and replaced them with a light green.

It barely changed anything. So I decided to spread it out and select the next 2 closest colours to 0 and change them too. Again almost no change.

I then selected every single colour in turn on the scale using the colour replacer tool in PSP, and then swiped the entire image with 100% opacity step 1, density 100% to get every pixel of every colour in the scale and replace it with a light green.

I only replaced the colours in the scale by an exact match on an RGB basis.

I swiped the scale with each pass and it did replace the colour that they use in their scale.

I noticed that it did NOT replace all the colours in the map. Far from it! It hardly replaced any of them.

I deduce from this that it is an intentionally misleading map and scale.

This is what I ended up with:

Click to enlarge.

Climate models that need an extra something...

I could not adequately describe what image I had in my head when I read of climate scientists who say,

"We could only get the climate models to accurately reflect recent rises in temperature by adding an anthropological forcing."

So I drew it instead.

Please feel free to copy this image and use as you wish. (positively or negatively)

Yes Stephen it is ....and it is YOUR fault!

From the BBC...

Stephen Fry criticises 'childish' British TV

Broadcaster Stephen Fry has criticised British TV saying it is "shocking" how "infantilised" adult programmes have become.

"I'm not saying TV should be pompous and academic, but it should surprise and astonish," he said.

The QI host said BBC shows Merlin and Doctor Who, were "wonderfully written" but "not for adults".

The comedian and writer was speaking at the annual Bafta Television Lecture in London.

Fry said: "The only drama the BBC will boast about are Merlin and Doctor Who, which are fine but they're children's programmes. They're not for adults.

"And they're very good children's programmes, don't get me wrong, they're wonderfully written... but they are not for adults.

"They are like a chicken nugget. Every now and again we all like it. Every now and again."

He added: "If you are an adult you want something surprising, savoury, sharp, unusual, cosmopolitan, alien, challenging, complex, ambiguous, possibly even slightly disturbing and wrong," he said.

"You want to try those things, because that's what being adult means.

"It's children's television, it's entirely infantilised. It's not grown up."

Why is this Stephen? It could not possibly be because you and your Twatterati homosexual army of politically correct guardspeople, a self-selected and profoundly anti-democratic gang of guardians of the airways, immediately jump upon and viciously attack anything that your neo-fascistic group do not find "acceptable" is it?

The TV broadcasters are terrified of offending people because of people like YOU Stephen.

You cannot wield this twitter monster to censor anything and everything you find offensive and then have the bare faced gall to complain that TV is infantalised!!! Thanks to you and your self serving army of censors, TV producers can only produce things that are suitable for children, for then they know that they will be safe and inoffensive.

You Bloody hypocrite, charlatan and pillock!

That pesky scientific method

My response to: Scientists study shifting attitude to climate change

"DAVID MARK: Could it be then that scientists are too focused on the facts; constrained by the scientific method and perhaps not passionate enough to have their message heard through the static of modern media?"

Oh damn that pesky scientific method! When scientists are "constrained" by the scientific method and only say the things that they are certain of, then they cannot be alarmist as they cannot back alarmist predictions up with definitive empirical evidence which unambiguously and definitively places CO2 as the sole cause and driver of global climate change.

Without that certainty, they have to "dress-up penguins in sun hats and factor 50 suncream!"

"Constrained by the scientific method" OMG! if that phrase right there does not cut to the heart of the weakness in the CAGW theorem, I don't know what does!

It makes me think of Scooby Doo. "The mystery machine stopped and Fred, Velma, Shaggy, Scooby and Daphne get out to confront the evil Catastrophic Anthropological Global Warming monster. Fred pulls off the CAGW's mask and underneath there was nothing!!! All they could hear was a distant voice proclaim, "I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for that pesky scientific method"

Climate change is real. Yeah, it always has been!

In my experience, most climate-sceptics want responsible consumption, want to reduce real pollution, want to stop the eradication of natural habitats. (I am appalled and outraged that our closest natural cousin, the Orang-utan is on the verge of extinction, because their habitat is being destroyed to be replaced by "green" plant-oil plantations!) We SHOULD be stopping ALL deforestation. We SHOULD be stopping hundreds of un-natural, man made chemical pollutants, but this crazy over-hype about CO2 is getting in the way and preventing urgent action!

What sceptics want, is PROOF, that the CO2 added by man to the atmosphere has stopped behaving like natural CO2 and instead of having a logarithmic increase in radiative absorption, that prevents the earth from dangerously overheating (as there isn't enough carbon based fuel on the planet to do so), but now seems to have an exponential heating effect.

I know the theory about heating causing methane release, but this did not happen over the warmer, preceding 10,000 years.

We want to SEE the original raw data that CRU and NASA Giss used and their method for reconstructing temperature. Because if they used the same GHCN "raw data", which I have, then much of the rural data does NOT show rising temperatures and the urban increases are, well, urban, as in UHI. The methods used by CRU and NASA Giss, to homogenise their data through adjustments creates a large amount of warming in the record. How can we trust their data and methods if they are not fully published?

IF the CO2 scare was real, WHY are so many of the delegates to Copenhagen chartering private jets to get there? If the delegates themselves cannot take this seriously, WHY THE HELL SHOULD I?

Further and most importantly, when my own significant personal reduction in my carbon footprint over the last five years (not flying at all, changing from a large car, to a very efficient, small diesel car, getting rid of many of my aquariums (my personal passion) and changing my personal energy usage), when all these reductions have been cancelled out by just ONE of these gulf-stream jet journeys by a scientist, or celebrity, or politician, or bureaucrat jetting into Copenhagen to lecture me on the need to not fly, then I really get pissed off!

I am incandescent with rage at these lying hypocrites! When I see them screaming at the danger of CO2 and the "end of the world" scenarios that they paint, then I see them flying all over the place, investing in sea-front property (in spite of claiming that seas will rise by 20 feet), and rejecting clean technologies, then it would appear that these people do not want clean, renewable energy, or a solution to the Carbon problem at all. They want control over us, and they want our taxes and they want billions of the world's "useless eaters" dead!

I am reminded of the following quotes:

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
- Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
- Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
- Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

Man made climate change sceptics, are on the whole NOT funded by "big oil" but a lot of alarmists are. I love the email where Professor Jones admits to being funded by "big oil" but not to tell anybody!

We catastrophic AGW sceptics are NOT wanting to destroy the earth, we just want TRUTH.

• Truth about polar bears, whose population is increasing rapidly.
• Truth about the plight of the Orang-utan, whose existence is threatened by well-meaning environmentalist idiots in search of the "green dollar".
  
• Truth about ice extent, which is now increasing rapidly and that it has increased and decreased naturally by far more than it has over the last insignificant 30 year satellite record in the past.
  
• Truth about temperatures, which have NOT been recorded accurately by surface stations until very recently and no longer show average temperatures rising.
  
• Truth about the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the majority of this interglacial which has been WARMER than this current decade.
  
• The truth that over the last 10,000 year timescale, over which timescale, the earth has been cooling.
  
• The truth that whether the earth is warming, or cooling, depends ENTIRELY on which arbitrary dates are used to start the measurements and end the measurements.
  
• The Truth that any recent warming is completely in line with normal variability and the KNOWN logarithmic increase in CO2, which means that for a further doubling of CO2, there will only be a 0.3 degree rise over the next century, which could be completely off-set by natural variability.
  
• The Truth that climate models cannot predict future climate change IF the people programming them do not understand clouds, do not understand all the ways that the sun interacts with the earth and the oceans, do not even know how many hundreds of undersea volcanoes there are, let alone how much extra heat they may be putting into the oceans at any one time and do not have a clue about so many processes that effect climate far more immediately and radically than CO2 does.
  
• The Truth that without this knowledge and without a system that can predict chaotic, non-linear systems, that climate models are useless as a predictive tool.
• The Truth that models are only good as a way of modelling a hypothesis to test that hypothesis against reality and if the reality does not confirm the hypothesis, then it is the hypothesis that should change, and NOT THE REAL DATA.
  
• The Truth that climate scientists HAVE adjusted the data to fit the hypothesis instead of admit openly that the hypothesis and the models have failed to match reality!
  

There IS still a huge amount of unknowns, and yet we are expected to believe, based on nothing more than blind faith, that the scientists in charge of compiling the IPCC temperature record are doing so accurately, honestly and without ANY bias whatsoever, when we also know that they are totally committed, with a religious zeal, to a political agenda that is 100% dependent upon them finding accelerating warming. [sarc] So no conflict of interest there! [/sarc]

Then when they refuse freedom of information act requests to supply THEIR data and methodology for independent review, we are supposed to trust them? When the leaked CRU emails show prima facie evidence of rigging data, of bullying other scientists, of bullying publications, of bullying editors, of perverting the peer-review process and turning it into a quasi-incestuous "in-group" of co-religionists. All of which are a perversion and debasement of science. These are actions of advocates, NOT of scientists.

Well after these revelations, which DO stand up to close scrutiny (despite what the mainstream media states, with their "nothing to see here" (for God's sake PLEASE do not look for yourself) style coverage), after these revelations, and the appalling stench of hypocrisy from private jets and gas gussling limos in Copenhagen, I am committed to the following reasoned and utterly reasonable position.

I hereby commit to the following:

I shall NOT reduce my carbon emissions unless and until the following two things are done.

1) That all the delegates to the Copenhagen conference, and ALL the politicians, scientists, celebrities and bureaucrats who believe in, and promote policies based on, man-made climate change must lead by example and STOP ALL jet travel, and instead video conference and, only when necessary, travel by wooden sailing ship (made from wood from sustainable resources)

and

2) That ALL the data from CRU and NASA Giss is opened up, fully audited and independently analysed in public and all issues arising from this are publicly dealt with according to the sound fundamentals of the proper scientific method and that the resulting consensus (if any) shows that the earth is warming at a dangerous rate caused solely by CO2 and that we can actually do something about it.

Until then, I refuse to help suffocate any more trees for the lying bastards in Copenhagen!

It is far worse than we thought!!!

The Climategate, meaning the "leaked" CRU emails, are damning enough. However, even if you accept the good, well meaning and eminent and world renowned scientists at CRU and their explanations for their use of words that obviously mean one thing, even though they claim that they meant the complete opposite, (which demonstrates a blatant inability to communicate with clarity) then the simple task of looking at the comments in the "leaked" raw code (and the code itself) shows clearly that the temperature reconstructions that all the "peer reviewed consensus" is based upon is absolutely shot to hell! It is rubbish. The whole temperature reconstruction is fixed! It is a classic example of the data being fixed to match the theory. That is not science, it is naked propaganda and it is, according to better informed people than myself, a fraud.

Whatever else this may mean for other areas of climate science, from ocean levels to ice extent and thickness, one thing is for sure, and that is the fact that the Hockey stick is dead, in spite of the staff at CRU tying string around the corpse's arms and flailing it about like an electrocuted puppet. It is DEAD!

Without the Hockey stick, there is NO empirical evidence showing anything unnatural or out of the ordinary about today's temperatures in relation to historical temperatures. The Medieval Warm period can come back and the Roman warm period as well as any other warmer periods in the last 12,000 years. We can also say a frosty hello to the little ice age with its ice fairs on the frozen river Thames.

I guess the warming from the mid 1800s can be attributed to all those executives of the East India Company flying first class in massive jets to conduct their imperial business then? Oh, silly me, we did not have Jet travel back then, did we?

The former Chancellor, Nigel Lawson is entirely correct in calling for a full and independent inquiry into the use of science and programming and data retention and everything that has happened at CRU.

As for the alleged "hack" to release this data? as one commenter put it on a Daily Mail story,

"So would you rather take the word of respected scientists or bunch of criminals who have stolen confidential mail and published it out of context?"

Does that apply to Dr Hansen? A man who has encouraged global law-breaking to cause criminal damage to power stations? A man whose own hysterical alarmism brands life giving coal trains (without whom millions of elderly and sick and infants would freeze to death every winter) "death trains!"

Well, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Given that this propaganda for AGW was happening, surely an insider blowing the whistle to prevent the crime of mass-murder in the form of global depopulation would be a small crime to prevent a larger crime.

Surely the climate alarmists would not be so hypocritical as to be against such a thing when they have used this in their own defence in court! That to commit a smaller crime in order to prevent a greater crime, is not only acceptable, but one's duty if all other legal means are prevented.

To explain. The long established agenda of the climate alarmist movement, according to their own leadership, is massive global depopulation as my post,

"When Hitler killed millions he was labelled a monster ...
When the Climate Alarmists want to kill off BILLIONS of people through mass depopulation, they are given the Nobel Peace Prize."

conclusively demonstrates.

Mass Murder, or the alarmist's 'final solution', if you will, is their primary goal to save GAIA from evil humans. Though they would publicly DENY this in spite of all the documentary evidence for it, we know what a bunch of deniers they all are. Well they deny natural climate change, even though that has been the default state of climate for ever. They deny a lack of consensus, in spite of spending more and more time arguing with other climate scientists, they deny fraudulently fixing the data around the theory, in spite of the emails, documents and raw code comments that prove otherwise. They are the deniers.

So we have evidence of fraud, of hiding declining temperature data, of breaching FOI law, of intimidating scientific publications and interfering with and gerrymandering the "peer review" process to the extent that they hand-picked their own reviewers who they knew in advance would accept their already dodgy, conclusion lead papers as the data had already been fixed to support the conclusions. We have evidence of the attempt to ostracise and blacklist other eminent scientists who wanted to follow the evidence to see IF the theory stood up to testing. Whenever any part of the theory failed, the sceptical scientists were rejected, their data was rejected and anything that contradicted the theory was rejected and called silly childish names. That they did all this to propagandise for a (failing) theory that is to be used as a reason to cause mass murder shows evil intent. Leaking this data was a small crime by comparison.

Well, the Hockey stick is still dead, and I welcome back the MWP, the RWP and the LIA.

I hope that this shit-storm gets bigger and bigger. Humanity may end up depending upon it. The Emails are the small stuff in this, a mere smoking BB gun. The raw data is the mushroom cloud and long may it grow.

Climate Alarmist Hypocrisy

So some of the people who wrote emails that have been leaked, following the disclosure of hundreds of megs of data from the CRU servers, are claiming that it is terrible that an illegal act has been used to pursue a political goal.

EX FUCKING SCUSE ME???

SO the criminal damage that alarmists partake in to further their aims is OK? Shutting coal powered power plants is fine. After all committing a crime to prevent what you perceive to be a greater crime is OK is it not?

Well that is all that happened here. It appears that someone committed the crime of stealing computer data (much of which SHOULD have been made public under FOI act requests anyway, and which the tax-payer has paid for in some cases) to publish in order to discredit the Alarmist's political arguments which may be used to support policies of mass murder in the form of massive depopulation.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The metamorphosis of remembrance

They went with songs to the battle, they were young.

Straight of limb, true of eyes, steady and aglow.

They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted,

They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning,

We will remember them.

Lest we forget.

We are witnessing this day, Remembrance Sunday, a metamorphosis of the mission and reason for remembrance.

I sit here today in abject horror at what is unfolding. This is a slow and deliberate misrepresentation of what Remembrance Sunday is all about.

As I recall from the past, remembrance was all about remembering the sacrifice of our troops to defend our sovereignty and all that our sovereignty protects. That is fundementally important.

Now rememberence is having the sovereignty erased. It is changing into a propaganda agent of current mis-directed, and piss-poorly directed wars.

We are seeing the message change from remember what they fought for, OUR sovereignty and independence from foreign oppression into support of our current misadventures and invasions and occupations of foreign lands.

Watching the Remembrance Sunday Parades, I never heard the word Sovereignty mentioned once, but there was lots of references to supporting our current missions.

It was sickening to watch our Prime Minister and leader of the opposition lay wreaths to the fallen, whilst they simultaneously gave away the same sovereignty that the troops had died to defend.

What Happened to what happened to global warming?

There is much fuss and bru-ha-ha over this particular BBC article titled "What happened to global warming?"

I was going to write an article that was broadly sceptical of claims that the BBC has had any kind of change of heart. I could not believe that the BBC really had invested all that time, money and energy to blatantly come down in favour of the AGW alarmism, in direct contravention of it's charter, terms and rules just to pull the biggest U turn in media history. It is NOT credible.

I may be more open to that possibility if the BBC had announced clearly, unambiguously and with authority across all of its news channels that that the pro AGW science was NOT settled, but it did not. It was a minor correspondent putting the feelers out on his blog, nothing more.

Now it would seem that my scepticism was justified.

From the amount of hype building in both the blogosphere and the mainstream media about this apparent "U turn", this BBC story was propelled to the top of the BBC "MOST POPULAR STORIES NOW" list. This has had mainstream correspondents in the "dead tree press" salivating at the prospect of exposing the BBC's discomfort at being exposed so widely.

However, as I checked the "MOST POPULAR STORIES NOW" to write this article, the "What happened to global warming" story has vanished from the list!

Is this credible? With the world waking this morning to the biggest BBC U-turn in decades being reported ever wider throughout the world's mainstream media, (with accompanying links) one would logically reason that this would INCREASE the number of hits to that BBC page? But NO! Alas, the hits for that page have stopped! Apparently more people are interested in reading about a letter that the once legendary double act Morecambe and Wise showed that Ernie Wise wanted to break the act up in the early days.

More people are apparently interested in an obscure story about "Worthing's birdman contest"

REALLY? or has the BBC succumbed to PRESSURE FROM THE ALARMIST LOBBY AGAIN???

I do NOT believe that the BBC has done a U turn at all. It was only a sop to it's charter to prove impartiality. They have to run a "sceptical" article every now and then even though they later amend, or contradict it completely.

When the BBC news announces an official change, THEN I would believe that they have changed and change they must.

However, unlike many, I do not believe that they should become climate sceptics either. The BBC should remain impartial. This means that they should merely acknowledge the glaring fact that the science is far from settled, there is NO scientific consensus on the total causes of climate change, or the amount of change caused by any particular mechanism. Then report accurately on the science of BOTH SIDES, until such a natural consensus can be found, if ever.

What is the case is that there is a terrific amount of good, sound, in-depth scientific theory that suggests that man's carbon emissions are causing our climate to change. There is also a lot of very VERY well-funded advocacy dressed up as science supporting AGW and a lot of incorrect, false and possibly deliberately fraudulent data used to support AGW.

On the other side there is a terrific amount of science and empirical evidence that supports several counter views. All views from 'there has not been ANY noticeable or scientifically significant warming' (as the historic measurements cannot be relied upon to show that the whole earth was so much cooler earlier during the last millennium). Right through to 'yes man's CO2 emissions are causing some, moderate or mild warming, but there is no sign whatever of any catastrophic warming at all'.

All these views are supported by scientific research by eminent and published scientists from across valid scientific disciplines INCLUDING climatology on ALL sides. What is LACKING is CONSENSUS!

Claiming that the science is settled, because there is consensus amongst pro-AGW supporting scientists, is NOT proof that the science is settled. No more than saying that Jesus IS the physical embodiment of God, because there is consensus amongst devout Catholics, is proof that Jesus is the actual physical embodiment of God.

And do not even get me started on the 'so-called' scientific impartiality of the peer-review publishing process which has undoubtedly prevented many sceptical scientific papers from being published without valid scientific reason.

Funeral for a hockey stick and the exposure of the 21st century's greatest hoax!

I was going to write my own response to the Yamal Implosion and the work that Steve McIntyre has done to expose what appears to be deliberate and wilful fraud in the science behind the infamous "hockey stick" and to write what that means.

However, a commenter on the excellent wattsupwiththat blog (science blog of the year) has already written this in far better terms than I could. So with full attribution to wattsupwithtthat.com and to the poster of the comment, I paste his comment here:
------------------------------------------

Richard (02:41:50) :

This is what I gather is the larger implication of the Yamal hockey stick saga:

Ross McKitrick: “Here’s a re-cap of this saga that should make clear the stunning importance of what Steve has found… the Schweingruber data completely contradicts the CRU series… Combining the CRU and Schweingruber data yields .. a medieval era warmer than the present…”

All the spaghetti graphs of the temperature in the IPCC report breakdown.

The IPCC says, based on these spaghetti graphs utilising Briffa’s cherry picked Yamal data, – “Palaeoclimatic information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years.”

Now suddenly this is not so. The medieval warm period, when all the Yamal data is used, without cherry picking, shows up clearly as warmer than the present. There is nothing unusual in the warmth of the last half century.

The IPCC also says that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.” Why?

Because “Observed patterns of warming and their changes [in the last 50 years] are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcings.”

If the models couldn’t simulate the changes of the last 50 years without including “anthropogenic forcings”, which are due to “the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations”, they could not possibly simulate the warmer medieval era either, without these “anthropogenic forcings”.

This is enigmatic. There were no “anthropogenic forcings” in the medieval era.
Could it then possibly be there is something commonly wrong in all these climate models?

Also if there is nothing unusual in the warmth of the last half century, then where is the cause for alarm? Why are we spending billions of dollars trying to alleviate or avoid a problem that doesnt exist? Why must we shut down our power plants, curtail our manufacturing and production, reduce our gross national products and legislate global poverty as a solution to a threat that doesnt exist?

We are spending billions of dollars frantically trying to button up the Emperors new coat only to discover he has no clothes.
-------------------------------------------

Couldn't have put it better myself, which is why I nicked it!

And please do go to the webpage it was posted on to see much much more ...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/29/leading-uk-climate-scientists-must-explain-or-resign/