3 Dec 2009

Sex,Lies and Climategate

When Jon Stewart of Comedy Central gets involved, you know things are starting to unravel. Despite efforts by the unofficial party organs CBS, NBC and ABC together with the New York Times, BBC and Washington Post to ignore or bury "Climategate", Stewart, an ardent leftist and (former?) warming believer, has joined in mocking the "science" and the attempted cover-ups.

Stewart, as a comedian, is more respected (and watched) than our so-called "serious" media who are nothing more than operatives for the centre-left and long ago ceased to be news organizations, save for the Pravda type. The American people know who the real jokers are.

But how do climate alarmists and professional global warming "experts" react to the explosive posting on the internet of clear evidence of collusion, data twisting and fraud by the world's leading climnate alarmists, stretching back a decade or more in "Climategate"?

We are also talking in the UK case of possible criminal activity in scientists destroying information that was requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

The University of East Anglia's "data" (all the source data has been destroyed, leaving only the "massaged" U of EA findings - how convenient) was the chief source of the nototrious UN IGPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) that is universally relied upon by global warming alarmists to try and convice you, Mr. Working Taxpayer, to cough up trillions upon trillions of dollars and accept a lowered life standard for yourself and your children. All the while making global climate alarmists and allied politicians very much richer and more powerful.

Stephen Jones, one of the world's top "alarmists" and head of the University of East Anglias Climate Research Unit has honourably resigned.

Dr.Rajendra Pachauri, the promoted railway enginner who runs the massive UN IGPCC ( for those who do not know the UN, putting a railway enginner in charge of climate matters is far from abnormal) the real problem, he explained, was that climate change alarmists have to be more "discreet" in future with their emails and comments. He wondered why those who hacked the U of EA emails and posted them on the internet might not be criminally investigated.

Dr. Pachauri famously wanted w to ban ice in drinks to help stop global warming.

Over in the USA, Senator Barabara Boxer from California,the only place on earth where environmentalism is a religion and economics a superstition, has called for "ciminal probes" against the hackers who have exposed the lies,fraud and collusion by the world's top warming alarmists.

Unbelievable - those who have exposed the huge scientific fraud with perhaps the biggest implications for the world's economy of all time, should face criminal probles. The lying scientists who broke the law destroying data should be more "discreet". That tells you more that enough of what you need to know about the entire global warming "industry", QED Barbara and Rajendra.

22 Oct 2009

Notes On Global Warming

The following headline gave me the muse to jot these notes down to a dear friend and ardent global warming believer. He wonders why the Arctic is breaking up.

'Germany breaks record for 'lowest ever October temperature'

Of course that the Arctic has less ice could be due to global temperature distribution i.e. some colder parts getting warmer, some warmer parts getting colder etc.

In the Antarctic for example, one side of the continent has ice increasing, whilst the other side has ice shelves breaking up. However, there is no difference at all in the total quantity of ice

Or it could be, as in the Medieval Warming, we are going through a post-Little Ice Age uptake. There is evidence of that.

The Arctic cannot be ice free in 2010 be due to global warming. There is no global warming in the past decade. The sum total of world temperatures has stayed the same. Some areas have decreased. Some have increased. That is empirical data.

All the global warming scenario is computer modeling on future projections or past interpretations, lacking more than fragmentary data. For example, scientists can see via Greenland ice drilling exactly when the world heated and cooled ( often rapidly) back to 100,000 years. But they have no incontrovertible data of to why - we can be sure man made CO2 cannot be the cause.

In the case of these global cooling and heating cycles, the temperatures of the oceans and especially the distribution of deep hot and cold spots that shift ( and many of which are barely discovered) may turn out to be the greater influence.. It could be solar related. There are numerous hypotheses. Politicians will go for the one that gives them power,money and control, via fear.

There is no status quo of the world's climate, never has been and never will be.

To imagine that the pet scientists (90% of whose hypotheses are traditionally wrong and discarded or superseded) of politicians, who wish to tax and control us, and a United Nations desperate for a source of legitimacy for transnational power grabs, have the single answer is laughable. Rather than sleep walk to disaster as you put it by ignoring global warming, I would call it "nose led".

People are blown up every day, but politicians tell us there is no real Muslim terrorists. We are meant to believe them. The world gets cooler and warmer every age naturally or mysteriously, and we are not meant to believe it.That's not very relevant but I would imagine despotism, wars, bad governance, mad economics and mass cultural shifts will be far more responsible for people dying in the next hundred years that 2.5 degrees Celsius. Why can we imagine the Israelis surviving global warming easily, but not the Arabs? The answer lies outside the clouds and winds, my friend.

We should accept global warming (but not pollution or no dirty energy replacements) as basically inevitable and divert the many trillions of dollars (one estimate, the cost of both World Wars x 5) that are going to be vainly and corruptly spent by politicians trying to avert the unavoidable, into directly improving the lives, defenses and education of the poor - who will then take care of their own warming in their own national consensuses.

13 Oct 2009

Ping Pyong Diplomacy

Today's announcement by Kenyan Foreign Minister Moses Wetungula of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Kenya and North Korea, via a branch of the Norks full diplomatic mission in Kampala has raised a few eyebrows.

The Norks "embassies" are famous for dealing in drugs ( where they will find many of Kenya's elite to network with) and illicit wildlife products - hardly the stuff to put us on the tourist recovery path. Indeed the North Koreans routinely fund their foreign missions via crime, using the diplomatic pouch as their bagman.

Wetungula mentioned that Kenya was interested in nuclear power for electricity generation but could get that from a number of nations, not just North Korea. That would be a strange place to look for electricity technology since nearly all of the moonbat nation's nuclear effort goes into bombs and proliferation.

The Norks are flat broke and have nothing to sell Kenya. We have nothing they want either: our movie industry is not of the quality to attract Kim Il Jong. We lack uranium. Norks do not eat white maize and we are in a famine ourselves. Our local cognac is so vile it cannot be used for veterinary surgical spirit- so what gives?

As with recent visits to Kenya of similar thugs like Ahmoudinejead and a recent story that Kenya may get a "special" crude oil deal from Hugo Chavez, the North Korean announcement is perhaps a sign of the desperation felt by Kenyan leaders under extreme Western pressure over reform, crimes against humanity and an inability to stop stealing voter's and donor's money.

The Kenyan leadership perhaps hopes to fire a few shots across Western bows with a "look, we can be nice to your nasties" brand of diplomacy. Knowing that Iran, Venezuela and North Korea can do nothing at all for Kenya except cause it to garner isolation, it is likely the Western powers are not disturbed by Wetungula's bluster.

16 Sep 2009

Obama, Health Care & Lies.

This BBC story by US Editor Mark Mardell is seriously uninformative. Mardell tells us thatRep. Joe Wilson (R) Wilson is a racist, that criticism of Obama is likewise and on the substantive issue of health care for illegal aliens, that "all experts" agree it is impossible in Obama's legislation.

It is true that Rep. Joe Wildon broke parliamentary decorum by shouting "You Lie" during an Obama health care speech but Mr. Mardell could have told us such indecorous behavior, including prolonged jeering, shouting and cat calling, happened from many Democratic party representatives when former President Bush spoke to Congress.

Secondly, Mr. Mardell picks up the "charge" (with no evidence), that Rep. Wilson can only have made such an outburst due to “racism”. Indeed Mardell highlights "mutterings" that are now "out there in the open" - opposition to President Obama at meetings and rallies across America is motivated by "racism". How convenient for Obama -to criticize his policy is to be racist. So we can ignore everything the protesters actually say, and get on with agreeing with his policies.

This is the exact line the Democrats are pushing in news dumps and PR releases - a cub reporter with a news nose might have noted accusations, getting shriller each day Obama sinks lower in polls, deflect attention away from issues. Vague charges of "racism" stifle debate – which helps the Democrats. That's what they want. Mr. Mardell delivers for them - but not to his readers.

The attribution of these "out in the open mutterings"? That vigorous endorser in 2007/8 of then Senator President Obama's campaign, The Washington Post.

Mr. Mardell says the Democratic congressmen vigorously voted to condemn Rep. Joe Wilson (R) for his t two word outburst, but not their refusal to censor Rep. Pete Stark (D) who called Bush a liar during a congressional speech , adding that Bush was sending US soldiers "to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

Lastly, the story ends by stating (unnamed) experts “all (my emphasis) concur that under the terms of Mr Obama's reform package undocumented immigrants would not be able to claim health care subsidies." Oh, that’s the end of that then.

One must conclude then Rep. Joe Wilson (R) is a clueless, manner-less, racist boor who unprecedentedly interrupted a President speaking to Congress. And this on an issue where all the 'experts’ agree Wilson is utterly wrong and Obama wholly right.

Yet Mr. Mardell does not tell us Democratic party drafters rejected the Republican "Heller amendment" to enforce non-provision of Obama health care to illegal immigrants, via the simple use of mandatory verification as already exists for many federal programs -the Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE)/ Mr. Mardell’s “experts” strangely can’t Google.

It is plain to any fool that without verification, illegals will obtain citizen-funded "free" insurance or health care without limit.

Joe Wilson may be a boor and President Obama may be a liar. We will never know from reading Mr. Mardell. He shields us from knowing the true issues or facts. His story ends up another page in the daily media praise-singing litany for Mr. Obama. The Ministry of Truth needs journalists. Mr. Mardell should apply.

10 Jul 2009

The Coackroaches and the Flashlight

Kofi Annan has been characterized as a well meaning but weak Unocrat. This has been more so since he brokered the 2008 Kenyan election accord that restored peace amongst ethnic riots and tribal cleansing that almost plunged the country into civil war.

Annan was presented in mid-2008 with the Waki Report into the tribal violence that has never been made public and certainly implicates some of Kenya's highest politicians. Part of the peace deal was that unless kenya successfully prosecuted in open court the named suspects, Annan would hand the list over to the International Criminal Court for action. It seemed he never would as Annan patiently accepted one Kenyan delaying tactic after another.

Naturally neither President Kibanki nor Prime Minister Odinga ever had, along with the entire ruling elite, the least intention of prosecuting anyone, as both their political parties' high rankers are undoubtedly involved.

Absurd delaying suggestions emanated from Kenya's rulers over the last year, as they failed again and again to set up any prosecution mechanism. The best was a suggestion to Annan that the suspects would never be publicly named, even if prosecuted, until proven guilty in secret courts - an event as likely as wildebeeste in the famed Mara game reserve growing wings. The Kenyans bickered,prevaricated, visited Annan over and again in Geneva and tried every trick in their ingenious battery of cover up, learned through 40 years of post-independence impunity.. All to no avail.

Yesterday, Annan dropped a bombshell. In a letter made public, he literally told Kenya's ethnic leaders he was "calling your bluff" and handed the envelope containing the Waki list of names to the ICC's chief prosecutor. The absolute panic in the ranks of the Kenyan polical elite has since been akin to the scurry of cockroaches when the lights are switched on.

27 Apr 2009

Torture,Bush and the Facts


It turns out that thousands of US military members and NATO soldiers have been routinely waterboarded, kept in cramped conditions, subjected to sleep deprivation, kept in the cold, played loud music to endlessly and every other technique now widely being trumpeted in the world media is "torture", admittedly inflicted during Bush's time on some top Al Qaeda members, like 911 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, by the CIA in 2001-2006.


The reason is that all the methods that are so-called "Bush torture" are actually used to train US and NATO troops to resist interrogation when captured.

In light of these facts, should NATO and US officers, including many generals and others, who devised and ordered waterboarding and more of their own soldiers for the past 30 years, be investigated and tried for "torture"?

After all, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And if they should not be investigated, why should Bush or any of his officials be subject to retrospective prosecution for the same techniques applied to confessed terrorists and mass murderers- including those who killed the Kenyans in the 1998 embassy bombings?

If US and NATO officers are not to be prosecuted en masse for "waterborading", "sleep depriving" and so on thousands of troops, it can only be because (a) we would hold such techniques are not "real" torture but merely harshness (b) the techniques the US used on it's own soldiers really are torture, but were used in training for a "good end" -- i.e.not to cause pain for pain's sake.

If we argue (a): the techniques are "harmless" or merely "harsh interrogation", why is it called 'torture' when US citizens do it to non-Americans but not, as in the NATO/US Army training, to each other?

If hold to (b): why was the CIA "waterboarding" of Sheik Khalid Mohammed, which had him confessing to a plot to bomb Los Angeles and the arrest of the attack cell, not a "good end"?

21 Apr 2009

Welcome To Hotel California


It sure is an odd place. Miss California, who was leading the Miss USA contest, lost last night because of a "controversial" (according to all the big media), "shocking" etc answer to a question. A pro gay activist and judge asked her what she thought of gay marriage. Her dignified answer was that some people believed in same sex and others opposite sex and whilst she meant no offense she believed in opposite sex marriage and that is how she was raised.

The gay activist judge later called her a "bitch" and a "c*nt" in public and said her remark cost her the title.

The fact that a judge at the contest is not considered "controversial" for ruining Miss California's title chances due to her polite remarks and calling her a "bitch" and "c*nt" after the TV programme is interesting.

The eventual winner was Miss North Carolina who was asked about the US financial bailouts for her question. She said she was opposed to the bailouts and the Federal and Presidential policy of bailout financially, even in a time of crisis. The media neither called this "controversial" nor remarked at all on it.

Most voters in California just rejected gay marriage in a referendum, most Americans do not approve it and neither (piblicly) does President Obama. Wheras most Americans voted for Democrats in the last election and for President Obama and he, the Senate and Congress have called financial bailouts vital and neccessery.

When you can figure out what Miss California said about gay marriage that was "controversial" or "shocking" and what Miss North Carolina said about bailouts that the media found non-controversial, you may figure out the immense bitterness social conservatives or the religious feel towards the big media in the USA that supposedly represents "unbiased" news.

7 Apr 2009

America, Through A Glass, Darkly

Peggy Noonan's commentary in the Wall Street Journal on Obama's Domestic Agenda provoked much opinion and my reply was published in the Opinion letters, where it received many positive comments. Noonan seems surprised at the 'grandiosity' of what Obama is undertaking. Herewith what I wrote:


"The directions Obama's domestic agenda takes, and his grandiose ideas to fundamentally alter the American relation between citizen and government from a quasi-libertarian ( "classical liberal") to a European ( "social democratic") one, have always been crystal clear for many years to anyone who bothered to look beyond the celebrity style superficiality of his attractive persona. Or to those who delved behind Obama's disarming happy-talk during the primary and presidential campaigns.

Obama-ism is a simple three legged stool comprising Alternative Energy, Education and Healthcare. There is nothing to suggest he will abandon the first, even were a new Ice Age to emerge (as it might) because it is the revenue generator. By loading America with the omniscient tax-and-expense of costly, unproven alternative energy, Obama pays in large measure for the other two prongs of his plan.

The most basic lesson of economics, that it is wasteful to subsidize one thing to be cheap by making another dear, is something Obama, an otherwise attractive and clever man, shows no sign of swallowing.

In all of this new American social construction, the government will be the lumber provider, carpenter, store owner and salesman. In other words, energy, education and health are to be nationalized, in essence and de facto. That none of this is shown to work any better, or indeed worse in the long run, than risk-reward private enterprise seems not important to Obama.

For Obama is a social egalitarian. and was largely raised in the international anti-American gruppenthink of the extpatriate intelligensia. The collective "fairness" to all Americans (perhaps even non-Americans) and of groups and classes of citizens real of contrived, is more important to him than the classical rights of individuals - rights upon which the nation was found ed.

Did the American people want this? Probably not - but with a supine applauding media and a mood of economic despair to exploit, there is every chance they will get it. Obama seems unworried that his grandiosity will saddle Americans with more public debt in a few years than the Republic has accumulated since 1776. To be indebted to your government to Obama's mind one begins to darkly glimpse, is perhaps desirable.

That the opposite intention was in the minds of those who framed the Constitution is an inconvenience not to be discussed.

To the obvious calculation that Medicare and Social Security will be bankrupted in Obama's daughters prime or there will no money left to fund the Healthcare and Federal education without raising taxation to European levels, the President seems equally unruffled.

For Euramericans like Obama, the new social contract is basically this: the private person must be indebted, financially and morally, to government. Government's prime obligation in return to the citizen is continued displays of public virtue via engineered "egalitarianism". The debt is real, the egalitarianism is fake - but the public, like in 1984, never figure out this simple trick. Thus the Democrats are fated to slowly become Jacobins - indeed some already are.

Though China will be the world Superpower perhaps in 2050, as predicted, Obama-ism merely hastens America along the declining European path of "soft" power, with soft citizens taking neither risk nor reward nor responsibility.

It is hardly what the Founding fathers had in mind, but with a citizenry addicted to easiness and pleasure, all of de Tocqueville's warnings about the consequences of "beneficial" government may sadly come true."

6 Apr 2009

Pissing About with Pirates

Despite hugely increased naval presence in the area, the Somali pirates continue to make a mockery of the world's sea powers as see today's BBC story.

Nothing will change until Obama takes the very unlikely step ( for him) of doing a "Barbary pirates" on the Somalis. In US history, when north African pirates caused havoc to US and other shipping around 1820, the navy invaded and sacked the home ports of the pirates. That shut down the notorious Barbary pirates pretty quick and one suspects it is the only medicine the Somalis will ever understand. Besides, it is the only sound military tactic - hit them at home.

Somali pirates seize more vessels

File photo of assailants who attacked a cruise ship off the coast of Somalia in 2005
More than 130 pirates attacks were reported in 2008

Somali pirates have seized a British-owned cargo ship and a Taiwanese ship, maritime officials say, after capturing three other vessels over the weekend.


Obama the Obsequious


Are the people surrounding President Obama clueless, or could -not -care -less? Who is in charge of Obama's protocol? It would seem on his recent trip to Europe, Obama became the first American President in memory to bow to a potentate ,when he stooped before the autocrat, King Abdalla, despite it is a rigorous rule of protocol that American Presidents never bow to Kings or Queens.

When Obama met the far more important Queen Elizabeth, a democratic monarch, he did not bow.

One could also not fail to note that Obama never missed an opportunity to "apologize" for America's imagined wrongs as a preface to nearly every meeting he had on his recent European trip. In this he is following up his first TV interview after the Presidency, when he apologized to the Iranian theocrats on Al-Arabiya TV.

Even when proposing the elimination of nuclear weapons in Prague, Obama had to apologize for America being the "only nation to have used" them, something which imposed a "moral duty "on the USA to lead in their elimination, he said. Did he know the historical facts?

True, the US used two atomic bombs to end Word War 2. Yet recent historical research shows that Japan had prepared submarines with aircraft on board, and was awaiting from Germany the clandestine transfer of nuclear material (the Nazi submarine carrying it surrendered en route to Japan in May, but the Japanese never knew this) so that a "dirty bomb" attack could be conducted on San Francisco. The proposed date was just a few days after Japan actually surrendered!

This is besides the fact the US and allies never knew the correct position of Germany's wartime research into atomic weapons, which Hitler fully intended to acquire. Therefore, as they saw it, they were in a deadly race, with the fate of the world in the balance - as indeed it was. Hitler already possessed in the V2 the means to deliver atomic weapons on London, and was working on the V4 ICBM which could have reached New York - again with a "dirty bomb" plutonium weapon. Had the war run another 6 months, the outcome might well have been ghastly.

It is a wonder that the USA grasped the full need to develop atomic weapons rapidly in the face of deadly enemies who were looking for the same, and to use them to end the war with far less human loss of life (on both sides) than a mainland invasion of Japan. This also had the intended purpose of halting Stalin from annexing much of Northern China and possible Stalinist ground offensives in Europe.

Obama has nothing to apologize for and his obsequiousness is unbecoming. However, reading his books, it is obvious Obama was an early and strong believer in 'conventional wisdom' anti-Americanism and blaming many of the ills of the world on the US. To the lesser extent that may be true Obama could be refreshingly honest, but it is not the way it's seen by the myriad of loathsome enemies the West faces.

28 Jan 2009

Barack's Baptism

Today Barack Obama is going to receive his first full secret briefing from US intelligence agencies on the threats his administration faces, as ABC News notes here. Many have said that within days of these briefings, past Presidents seem to have aged quite a few years.

President Obama is going to painfully discover that no matter even when the US has been right,just,fair and generous, there still exist a myriad of vicious enemies of freedom trying to destroy the USA.

The reaction from Iran today to his TV offer of "extending a hand" was calumny, bile, anger and insolent demands the US "apologise" for "past crimes", just one component of the hatred some regimes perpetually have for the USA - which Obama will find all his sweet words and charisma cannot change.

Obama will wake up to the painful realization that the USA cannot just be "liked", it also needs to be respected and fear of power is one ( vital) component of respect that he has never acknowledged.

Speak softly and carry a big stick, Barry as a former US President once said. You are going need it sooner rather than later.

After this briefing, Obama will change a lot of his mind about George W Bush, if he acknowledges it or not.