Friday, August 12, 2011

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.

Thursday, July 14, 2011

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.

Monday, May 02, 2011

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! :)

Friday, December 24, 2010

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.

Wednesday, August 04, 2010

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.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

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)

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

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

From the BBC...

Stephen Fry criticises 'childish' British TV


Stephen Fry

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"

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

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!

Monday, November 23, 2009

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.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

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.

Sunday, November 08, 2009

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.

Monday, October 12, 2009

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.

Thursday, October 01, 2009

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/

Friday, September 25, 2009

So, what did happen on 9/11?

I am not supporting ANY wild and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about 9/11. I am sick of having bollocks about 9/11 shoved down my throat.

We are in a situation of multiple theatre wars over 9/11, we have had our liberties severely restricted and our traditional way of life altered somewhat.

So what did happen? Well, NOBODY can officially tell me. NOBODY! The official 9/11 commission report has been comprehensively debunked and disowned by none other than the lead council for the commission itself! Chairman Thomas Kean had already publicly stated that the commission had been prevented from obtaining the truth, had been hampered and obstructed by the Bush administration and that both co-chairs of the commission did not consider the report to be the whole truth.

Now when people talk of "tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories", I shall ask them what they believe the truth is, as the official 9/11 commission report is one of the worst of these tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories, as admitted by their own commission members including the co-chairpersons and their chief legal council. And where they can point to a conclusive and rational and consistent version that not only satisfies what is known on public record, but also is supported by the laws of physics.

Besides? what is wrong with wanting to know the truth? So called "Truthers" are vilified in the media, yet all we want is to know what really happened, who knew what, when did they know it and why was this plot not foiled by the known and established Standard Operational Procedures that were NOT put into effect that fateful day.

So where can I find the definitive proof of what happened that day and who was behind it all?

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september112009/911_truth_9-11-09.php

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Where are the ice age articles?

When the unusually low minimum Arctic ice level was reached in late September 2007, the world's media and climate alarmists went nuts. Some extrapolated that the arctic would be ice free in only 5 years.

Well since then the minimum ice extent has increased by over 10% per year. Extrapolate this amount in the same way as the alarmists extrapolated the melting and Britain will be in an ice age, covered by glaciers in only 200 years!

Where is the balance in reporting guys?


-- Posted from my iPhone

Monday, July 27, 2009

Compulsory parent contracts?

So the state is relying on the ignorance of parents to attempt to enforce their state control, 'big government knows best' attitude in law. They expect us to simply comply to an unlawful enforcement of invalid contracts. There is no such thing in the legal world as a compulsory contract. A contract is defined by two or more 'persons' consenting to terms and conditions for one 'person' to provide goods or service of an agreed value to the other 'person'.

The key word in all that is 'consent'.

They cannot enforce a 'compulsory' contract as the mere attempt to make the contract compulsory renders the contract null and void.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

No party in Parliament has the answer to the staggering level of Debt

Government debt: That’ll be £2.2 trillion, please
The amount of money owed by the Government is huge and rising, says Eamonn Butler, so why aren’t we pursuing simple, effective ways to reduce the burden? read more ...



=================================

My response:

Sure, labour have borrowed excessively and handled the economy in an appalling and incompetent way. They inherited a golden legacy and wasted it.

They gave a huge amount of control to the banks on day one of coming to power, by allowing the Bank of England to handle interest rates. They also removed the oversight of the city from the Bank of England and gave it to a toothless quango.

But having done all that, labour then sat back and let the banks do what they are solely in existence to do; CREATE DEBT!

At first when these monster-sized debts were being run up, the extra spending boosted the economy massively. Of course, this was ALWAYS going to be unsustainable.

This is not realisation with the benefit of hindsight either. I was writing warning of this 8 years ago, when every one else was praising a chancellor for being prudent and overseeing a boom, when in reality all he was doing was encouraging profligate lending and his only, sole action in managing the economy was by the gross overtaxing of the resulting boom, to waste the proceeds building a client state of pen-pushers and layabouts. That was ALL he did! This was the imposition of the remedial version of the old socialist classical labour economic rulebook. Page1 states Overtax and page 2 states spend badly. So I am NOT removing the blame for the terrifying amount of borrowing from labour at all.

However, by so giving so much power to the banks to create uncontrolled excessive debt, and by those banks doing what banks are solely in existence to do, of course the current mess is the Banks' fault. Or more precisely, the fault of the banking system.

Think about it. IF we have the power to create money out of thin air (and we DO. After all money is NOT backed by anything of value today) Then why is there any debt? We can create enough money to pay off the debt and have an instant full economic recovery.

The problem is, the current system of fractional reserve banking of fiat currencies makes it impossible to do. Every single pound created is created with a debt of interest already attached. That interest is NEVER created and so can never be repaid except by the creation of more interest bearing debt. Every new pound created INCREASES the amount of debt.

Unfortunately, none of the current Parliamentary parties are proposing to do anything about it either. Labour, Tories and the Liberals ALL are in collusion with the global banking establishment to keep that system in place to the bitter and totalitarian end. ALL those parties put the banking elite before the needs of the people. They are all traitors.

We need the political will to remove the power to create money from the banks and assign it to elected officials. Money should be created interest free and be based on a resource of real value.

That and ONLY that, will solve the economic problems we have and have the added benefit of returning money to being our servant, a useful tool, and stop being our master and enslaver.

Monday, June 08, 2009

Interesting result for the BNP

Bear with me on this and read it all....

After listening to all the candidates that spoke on the media last night, I would rather see Nick Griffin as PM than any Labour member. This is NOT an endorsement of Nick as my choice of candidate, just that I would rather he were PM than any Labour party apparatchik.

What Nick said (I am only talking about his WORDS here, bear with me on this) What he said last night was entirely reasonable, measured and common sense in terms of he was ACTUALLY CLAIMING to be in support of was a form of multiculturalism which INCLUDES the British. Labour believe multiculturalism and Britishness are mutually exclusive to the extent that Britishness is often referred to as racist and offensive to minorities. Nick Griffin NEVER Excluded any racial or religious group from participation in British life.

People do not have a problem with supporting the indigenous peoples of Australia in Oz, or the Native Americans in North America. The difference between the BNP and the others is that they are supporting the indigenous people (Celts, Norman, Anglo-Saxon) of these islands before we are made a minority and our historic and cultural lands are taken from us.

I do have sympathy with that argument. Like what Nick said last night, I to do NOT want to see people who contribute to this nation, who work and pay taxes, to be excluded from the benefits of being British Nationals, regardless of their skin colour, religion or background.

I agree with him that the excesses of extremist versions of Islam (or any extreme religion or group) should be prevented, like the arranged marriages, the deep disrespect for and restriction of women's rights and the punishment beatings and killings of women who choose to marry outside their arranged marriages. Let alone the activitieas associated with Jihad against us. The cruelty inherent in Halaal meat should also be banned.

Such accommodations should not be made, just for political correctness sake. These practices are profoundly wrong and this country should not allow them. IF people wish to practise such things, then they are free to leave and practice them elsewhere, just as anyone is free to leave and practice any activity or belief or ritual that is illegal here, but legal in other nations, Like target shooting with hand-guns for example, or Smoking Canibis (A Rastafarian practice).

I vehemently disagree that people should be excluded on the grounds of their skin colour or religion alone, unless that religion demands adherents to it to cause harm, injury or loss to others.

I also agree with him on protecting British Jobs from being given to foreign people on substantialy below minimum wages here. An EU ruling meant that Employers can source labour from the cheapest countries and undercut the wages in any other member state legally paying substantially less than the minimum wage in that state.

LABOUR in the UK allow this practice and have never issued a peep against it, for to do so would be to go against their precious EU oligarchy.

We have a minimum wage here and it should be either enforced equally for ALL employers, OR scrapped entirely. At the moment it forces employers to discriminate against British workers as it is illegal to pay below minimum wage to British workers, but not to migrant workers from a member state that has no minimum wage. that is an INSANE, ANTI-BRITISH situation that labour have allowed and encouraged in this country.

Now I know I cannot take Nick Griffin solely on his word. I mean, I could barely refute much of what Tony Blair said, (again his words were sound, but his deeds?) I agreed with many of his words and they were all about ending discrimination and promoting peace, but that did not stop him lying to get into a war that killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims and people of dark skin. The BNP have NO such stain upon them.

That said, UKIP are a dedicated NON RACIST party who also want to take us out of the EU, so that is why I voted UKIP. That and to help them to defeat the real fascists in the Labour party. Congratulations to the UKIP for the marvellous entertainment of seeing Labour BEATEN by a fringe party!!! FANTASTIC!

I know most people still want to be 'in Europe but not run by Europe' and that is my personal preference, but that will NOT be an option soon. Post Lisbon, there will be a choice (if we are LUCKY) and that will either be between (1) a full and complete integration and break up into into separate regions under a new anti-democratic, oligarchical country called the EU, and (2) complete withdrawal from the EU.

There are no plans for, nor will there be any accommodation made for the "stay where we are, this far and no further" option. The EU commission will not allow it. The Council of Ministers will not allow it and the roadmap of the EU is showing the destination to be ONE country run by an unelected oligarchy with all the classic hallmarks of fascist nationalism. Corporacratic institutions run in secret like the 3,500 secret working groups that research and develop policy for the Commission. Rampant Nationalism with the nation's flag everywhere. Rampant militarism will come in the final stages, restrictions in rights and democratic accountability or self determination also at this stage.

If we are lucky we will be granted a choice between being broken up into EU regions and controlled 100% by an anti-democratic oligarchy in Brussels, and withdrawal to independence.

Though the chances are that we will not. We will be marched in without a say to the point at which anti-EU political parties, demonstrations and organisation will be outlawed as seditious and treasonous against the country and leadership of the EU.

Then we will be in a heart of a fascist superstate. A real fourth Reich, and I want NO PART of anything that could become a fully fledged fascist state.

That is why I applaud the BNP in getting their seats and using the opportunity to seek out and expose evidence of REAL Fascism in the heart of both the EU and OUR MAINSTREAM PARTIES!

WOW! How Ironic that the BNP could now expose the real fascists for what they are.

I watch with great interest what will ensue.