Sunday, 31 January 2010
The following article comes from the Indian website Open
The Hottest Hoax in the World
It was presented as fact. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, led by India’s very own RK Pachauri, even announced a consensus on it. The world was heating up and humans were to blame. A pack of lies, it turns out.
If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrarywise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see? —Alice in Wonderland
The climate change fraud that is now unravelling is unprecedented in its deceit, unmatched in scope - and for the liberal elite, akin to 9 on the Richter scale.
Never have so few fooled so many for so long, ever. The entire world was being asked to change the way it lives on the basis of pure hyperbole. Propriety, probity and transparency were routinely sacrificed.
The truth is: the world is not heating up in any significant way. Neither are the Himalayan glaciers going to melt as claimed by 2035. Nor is there any link at all between natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and global warming. All that was pure nonsense, or if you like, ‘no-science’!
The climate change mafia, led by Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), almost pulled off the heist of the century through fraudulent data and suppression of procedure. All the while, they were cornering millions of dollars in research grants that heaped one convenient untruth upon another. And as if the money wasn’t enough, the Nobel Committee decided they should have the coveted Peace Prize.
But let’s begin at the beginning. Mr Pachauri has no training whatsoever in climate science. This was known all the time, yet he heads the pontification panel which proliferates the new gospel of a hotter world. How come? Why did the United Nations not choose someone who was competent? After all, this man is presumably incapable of differentiating between ocean sediments and coral terrestrial deposits, nor can he go about analysing tree ring records and so on. That’s not jargon; these are essential elements of a syllabus in any basic course on climatology.
You cannot blame him. His degree and training is in railroad engineering. You read it right. This man was educated to make railroads from point A to point B.
THE GATHERING STORM
There are many casualties in this sad story of greed and hubris. The big victim is the scientific method. This was pointed out in great detail by John P Costella of the Virginia-based Science and Public Policy Institute. Science is based on three fundamental pillars. The first is fallibility. The fact that you can be wrong, and if so proven by experimental input, any hypothesis can be - indeed, must be - corrected.
This was systematically stymied as early as 2004 by the scientist in-charge of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Change Unit. This university was at the epicentre of the ‘research’ on global warming. It is here that Professor Phil Jones kept inconvenient details that contradicted climate change claims out of reports.
The second pillar of science is that by its very nature, science is impersonal. There is no ‘us’, there is no ‘them’. There is only the quest. However, in the entire murky non-scientific global warming episode, if anyone was a sceptic he was labelled as one of ‘them’. At the very apex, before his humiliating retraction, Pachauri had dismissed a report by Indian scientists on glaciers as “voodoo science”.
The third pillar of science is peer group assessment. This allows for validation of your thesis by fellow scientists and is usually done in confidence. However, the entire process was set aside by the IPCC while preparing the report. Thus, it has zero scientific value.
The fact that there was dissent within the climate science teams, that some people objected to the very basis of the grand claims of global warming, did not come out through the due process. It came to light when emails at the Climate Research Centre at East Anglia were hacked in November 2009. It is from the hacked conversations that a pattern of conspiracy and deceit emerge. It is a peek into the world of global warming scaremongering—amplify the impact of CO2, stick to dramatic timelines on destruction of forests, and never ask for a referral or raise a contrary point. You were either a believer in a hotter world or not welcome in this ‘scientific fold’.
HOUSE OF CARDS AND COLOUR OF CASH
So we have the fact that a non-expert heads the IPCC. We have the fact that glaciers are not melting by 2035; this major scaremongering is now being defended as a minor error (it was originally meant to be 2350, some have clarified). The date was spouted first by Syed Hasnain, an Indian glacier expert, in an interview to a magazine. It had no scientific validity, and, as Hasnain has himself said, was speculative.
On the basis of that assertion, The Energy and Resources Institute (Teri) that Pachauri heads and where Hasnain works in the glaciology team, got two massive chunks of funding. The first was estimated to be a $300,000 grant from Carnegie Corporation and the second was a part of the $2 million funding from the European Union. So you write a report that is false on glaciers melting and get millions to study the impact of a meltdown which will not be happening in the first place. Now if this is not a neat one, what is?
The same goes for dire predictions on Amazon rain forests. The IPCC maintained that there would be a huge depletion in Amazon rain forests because of lack of precipitation. Needless to add, no Amazon rain forest expert could be trusted to back this claim. They depended on a report by a freelance journalist and activist, instead, and now it has blown up in their faces.
There’s plenty more in this sordid tale. For one thing, there is no scientific consensus at all that man-made CO2 emissions cause global warming, as claimed by the IPCC. In a recent paper, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, who has worked extensively on climate change models, argues: ‘There is no scientific consensus on how much the world has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps—if any—we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we should take any steps at all.’
An investigation by Dr Benny Peiser, director, Global Warming Policy Foundation, has revealed that only 13 of the 1,117, or a mere 1 per cent of the scientific papers crosschecked by him, explicitly endorse the consensus as defined by the IPCC. Thus the very basis of the claim of consensus on global warming is false. And so deeply entrenched is the global warming lobby, the prestigious journal Science did not publish a letter that Dr Peiser wrote pointing out the lack of consensus.
Speaking to Open, says Dr Peiser, “The IPCC process by which it arrives at its conclusions lacks balance, transparency and due diligence. It is controlled by a tightly knit group of individuals who are completely convinced that they are right. As a result, conflicting data and evidence, even if published in peer-reviewed journals, are regularly ignored, while exaggerated claims, even if contentious or not peer-reviewed, are often highlighted in IPCC reports. Not surprisingly, the IPCC has lost a lot of credibility in recent years. It is also losing the trust of more and more governments who are no longer following its advice. Until it agrees to undergo a root and branch reform, it will continue to haemorrhage credibility and trust. The time has come for a complete overhaul of its structure and workings.”
Another fraud is in the very chart central to Pachauri’s speech at the Copenhagen summit. As Lord Monckton has pointed out, ‘The graph is bogus not only because it relies on made-up data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, but also because it is overlain by four separate trendlines, each with a start-date carefully selected to give the entirely false impression that the rate of warming over the past 150 years has itself been accelerating, especially between 1975 and 1998. The truth, however—neatly obscured by an ingenious rescaling of the graph and the superimposition of the four bogus trend lines on it—is that from 1860 to 1880 and again from 1910 to 1940 the warming rate was exactly the same as the warming rate from 1975 to 1998.’
PACHAURI’S WRONG NUMBERS
This chart, tracking mean global temperature over the past 150 years, was central to the presentation that IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri made at the Copenhagen environment summit. Many scientists believe that the graph is fraudulent. First, there are strong allegations that the data, collected from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, is a tissue of lies. Plus, as British climate change expert Lord Christopher Monckton puts it: “(The main graph, in darker blue) is overlain by four separate lines, each carefully selected to give the entirely false impression that the rate of warming over the past 150 years has itself been accelerating, especially between 1975 and 1998. The truth, however... is that from 1860 to 1880 and again from 1910 to 1940, the warming rate was exactly the same as the warming rate from 1975 to 1998.” In other words, the graph has been drawn with a motive to prove one’s point, and not to show the truth.
Thus the earth has warmed at this rate at least twice in the last 100 years and no major catastrophe has occurred. What is more, the earth has cooled after that warming. Why is the IPCC not willing to explore this startling point?
Another total lie has been that the Sunderbans in Bangladesh are sinking on account of the rise in sea level. The IPCC claimed that one-fifth of Bangladesh will be under water by 2050. Well, it turns out this is an absurd, unscientific and outrageous claim. According to scientists at the Centre for Environmental and Geographical Information Services (Cegis) in Dhaka, its surface area appears to be growing by 20 sq km annually. Cegis has based its results on more than 30 years of satellite imagery. IPCC has not retracted this claim. As far as they are concerned, Bangladesh is a goner by 2050, submerged forever in the Bay of Bengal.
THE COOKIE CRUMBLES
The fallout of Climategate is slowly but surely unfolding right where it hurts a large number of special interests—in the field of business. Yes, the carbon trading business is now in the line of fire. Under a cap-and-trade system, a government authority first sets a limit on emissions, deciding how much pollution will be allowed in all. Next, companies are issued credits, essentially licences to pollute, based on how large they are, and what industries they work in. If a company comes in below its cap, it has extra credits which it may trade with other companies, globally.
Post Climategate, this worldwide trade, estimated at about $30 billion in 2006, is finding few takers. It is under attack following the renewed uncertainty over the role of human-generated CO2 in global warming. In the US, which never adopted any of this to begin with, there is a serious move now to finish off the cap-and-trade regime globally. It’s a revolt of sorts. Six leading Democrats in the US Congress have joined hands with many Republicans to urge the Obama Administration to back off from the regime.
The collapse of the international market for carbon credits, a direct fallout of Climategate, has already sent shudders down many spines in parts of the world that were looking forward to making gains from it. It was big business, after all, and Indian businesses were eyeing it as well. In fact, Indian firms were expected to trade some $1 billion worth of carbon credits this year, and with the market going poof, they stand to lose quite some money (notional or otherwise).
Besides the commercial aspect, there is also the issue of wider public credibility. There have been signs of scepticism all along. In a 2009 Gallup poll, a record number of people—41 per cent—elected to say that global warming was an exaggerated threat. This slackening of public support is in sync with a coordinated political movement that is seeking to re-examine the entire issue of global warming from scratch. The movement is led by increasingly vocal Republicans in the US Senate and packs considerable political power.
Pachauri’s position is also becoming increasingly untenable with demands for his resignation becoming louder by the day. In an interview to Open, Pat Michaels of the Cato Institute, a noted US think-tank, who has followed the debate for years, says, “Dr Pachauri should resign because he has a consistent record of mixing his political views with climate science, because of his intolerance of legitimate scientific views that he does not agree with, because of his disparagement of India’s glacier scientists as practising ‘voodoo science’, and because of his incomprehension of the serious nature of what was in the East Anglia emails.
Richard North, the professor who brought to light the financial irregularities in a write-up co-authored with Christopher Booker, has also said in a TV interview that, “If Dr Pachauri does not resign voluntarily, he will be forced to do so.”
GLOBAL STORMING AHEAD
The world awaits answers, based not on writings of sundry freelance journalists and non-experts, but on actual verifiable data on whether the globe is warming at all, and if so by how much. Only then can policy options be calibrated. As things stand, there is little doubt that the IPCC will need to be reconstituted with a limited mandate. This mess needs investigation and questions need to be answered as to why absurd claims were taken as gospel truth. The future of everything we know as ‘normal’ depends on this. The real danger is that the general public is now weary of the whole thing, a little tired of the debate, and may not really care for the truth, convenient or otherwise.
Saturday, 30 January 2010
Friday, 29 January 2010
DEBT CRISIS BLOW FOR BROWN
|A. F. UCKINGTWAT|
GORDON Brown’s attempt to provide an economic recovery was dealt a shattering blow last night when fresh alarm was raised over the Government’s ballooning debt crisis.
Leading international credit rating agency Standard & Poor warned that Britain’s banking industry was no longer stable and that the country’s return to growth was “weak”.
Last night, the report was being seen at Westminster as a further sign that the huge deficit crisis could leave the Treasury on the brink of bankruptcy. And it came amid new warnings of a Bank of England interest rate rise.
A risk-assessment statement from Standard & Poor said: “We no longer classify the United Kingdom among the most stable and low-risk banking systems globally.” The scathing assessment follows official confirmation that Britain has emerged from the worst recession in more than 50 years.
Earlier yesterday, Andrew Sentance, a member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee warned that inflation could be running out of control.
How many times has
Prudence Incompetence Brown been told by those who know much better than him? How many times does the useless, stupid, arrogant, communist cunt have to be told?
How much more money that Britain doesn't have is the destructive moron going to throw at other countries when we are in dire need of his grandstanding pledges of charity to begin at home?
How much more damage is he planning to cause out of pure spite before we get to boot him and his rotten, control-freak government into oblivion?
Who in the corrupt shitheap that is Westminster has the balls to stand up to the headstrong, bad-tempered, duplicitous, bullying, boorish oaf and say "enough is enough", before he has totally succeeded in his quest to destroy us as a sovereign nation and annihilate everything that being British means to us?
How many more PMQ's will he try to avoid by arranging convenient trips between now and the election and when will Call me Dave and William Hague stop pulling their punches at aforementioned PMQ's?
Why are we still waiting for an election that is desperately needed right now, to purge Westminster of the Far-Left corruption of Brown and his predecessor and their whole stinking party?
The list seems endless and I could go on, but what is the fucking point?
Until we are rid of Labour, nothing can ever change for the better!
Thursday, 28 January 2010
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
Cross-posted from IanPJ on Politics
The Albion Alliance has again been writing to MPs and Candidates who will be standing in the forthcoming general election.
This time, it is to highlight the fact that they have been made aware by a number of candidates of the pressure that they have been put under not to talk or deal with the Albion Alliance, not to make any moves to sign up to the pledge, nor to campaign negatively with regards to the EU, under threat of deselection as a candidate.
In order to counter this move by the Central Offices of a few political parties, The Albion Alliance have made it possible for candidates to make their pledge to the electorate, but to have publication of that held back until the election is called and the nominations have officially closed, thereby putting their party pressures into abeyance for the intervening period.
In other words, the Albion Alliance have offered to allow Candidates to pledge in secret, until the election is called and candidates are officially on the ballot.
This is the text of the letter sent to candidates on 26/1/10:
An open letter to all PPCs standing in the 2010 General Election.
We have over the past weeks received a good deal of support for the aims and objectives of the Albion Alliance, and whilst that support has not always turned into a pledge sign up, the feedback from many candidates has been in the affirmative for the Albion Alliance and our attempts to address the democratic deficit by campaigning for a referendum on the UK's relationship with the EU, by appealing to prospective parliamentary candidates directly.
Here at Albion Alliance we are aware that some of you have been threatened by Party Central Office’s, and in one case by a local selection committee, that should you publicly agree to sign the Albion Alliance pledge to work for such a referendum, or to campaign against the EU during the election period, then you will be deselected.Whilst we understand your concerns, we still feel that PPCs should show the courage of their convictions and publicly sign the pledge but also understand that for many supportive PPCs deselection would defeat the object of the exercise.So how do we counter these duplicitous behind the scene moves by Party Central Offices.
Albion Alliance have decided that we would be willing to run a secret database for those PPCs who wish to sign the pledge, but do not wish this to be made public at this time.We will hold your pledges until such time as the election nomination process is formally closed, and publish them at that stage, a time we believe that is too late for any party to publicly deselect any candidate, but still gives you, the candidate, time to let your electorate know that you will support their democratic right to be heard on this issue.
Let your voters know that you are willing to represent them in Parliament rather than being a representative of Party or State.
James Higham, Ian Parker-Joseph, David Phipp
The Albion Alliance
Looking through the correspondence on the database, they have seen some fairly curt responses, but Peter Bottomley’s has to be the shortest reply so far. He in fact decided to use a single word. “Absurd”, although he did put his name to it.
I don’t particularly like to make assumptions, so am unsure whether the very well educated Mr Bottomley is referring to the Albion Alliance campaign as being absurd, whether the allegations of pressure from parties on their candidates is absurd, or whether Mr Bottomley regards the entire process of campaigning for the democratic rights of the public as being absurd.
If however I read his Wikipedia page:
Peter James Bottomley (born 30 July 1944) is a British politician. He is the Conservative Member of Parliament for Worthing West. A globalist, Bottomley is Treasurer of the All-Party Group for World Government.
I could assume it is the latter of the suggestions above, which must surely put him in conflict with many of his obligations as an MP to represent his constituents over and above Party or State ambitions, and in my view being a member of the All Party Group for World Government does not really represent the basic foundations of sovereign democratic government, which he is sworn to uphold.
Nor for that matter even the Conservative party policy of localism, unless of course that policy is merely a divide and rule strategy within a 277 region United States of Europe.
If any MP is promoting localism to his or her constituents to garner votes yet acting to enable a one world government when in Westminster, I may be induced to consider such actions as being not only Absurd but also anti democratic, and think that Peter Bottomley needs to be asked some pretty searching questions by his constituents on where his primary loyalty lies..
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
Monday, 25 January 2010
On the subject of Andrew Gatward, I am reproducing the following page from Lancaster Unity, a Labour website, unusual for me, I know, but this post, although long, (apologies), is most revealing about the crazed, maniacal world he has created for himself in his own tiny, twisted mind. The man is a complete paradox, contradicting himself at every turn, an extremely twisted individual who should really be incarcerated in a secure mental institution for his own, (and everyone else's), safety. At this point, as he is so fond of publishing other people's addresses online, I am now going to post his - it's only right and fair to do so.
(Born - Anthony Cooper)
27, West End, Ingham,
(Born - Anthony Cooper)
27, West End, Ingham,
"Incontrovertible evidence", says "Richard", Oh, FFS!(And the name "Richard" doesn't even follow the curvature of the card)
(It may even be a very old picture of Gatward)
Same guy - only younger - or his son, perhaps?
(bear in mind that the picture on the left is taken with flash)
The masking tape, "NOT ANDREW", is obviously stuck onto the photo!
And what about that "incontrovertible" ID?
And now, the page from Lancaster Unity.
Well, there you have it, folks, I am by no means alone in my conclusions that this "man" is a danger to himself and society! He needs to be locked up for his own good, and ours! He is a rather pathetic creature who deserves as much pity as he does hatred - he is very ill - he should not be at liberty to vent his bile and threats on the general public.
He needs professional help - consisting of tough love and psychiatric treatment in a secure environment.
He needs professional help - consisting of tough love and psychiatric treatment in a secure environment.