Jacob's Soap Box

22 February, 2009

Whilst the bushfires in Victoria are still burning, the worst ever in Australia, judging by, at least, the human casualties, and whilst firelighters from all other Australian states, New Zealand, Canada and the USA are here to help, out of ashes THEY come, they, the greenie loony eco-whacko, global warming scare mongers, pointing long fingers at us and saying: Yep! Definitely! Global warming! … I told you so! … [verbal diarrhoea continues].

By now we are used to the idea that, according to the eco-whackos, global warming is the source of all evils from natural disasters such as bushfires and floods to ingrown toenails.

True, southeast Australia suffered a sever scorcher at the time, one of the worst since recording started in Australia 122 year ago. Remember, when we say record we are talking about a record of the last 122 years, not the billion years history of the planet. Less so when we are talking about satellite data we talking about record going back to 1979, And in any event these recent scorchers were not record temperatures.

It was hot but as I understand it, summer temperatures usually are.

What is also true is that bushfires NEVER erupt unless the weather is hot and dry, surprise surprise, thus please cut out the crap about global warming. We know that there are no bushfire during snow storms.

However, the ferocity of these particular set of bushfires that took about 200 lives, destroyed more then 1,800 homes, left some 7,000 people homeless and wiped off a number settlements do have a “green” connection. You see, it was the green policies adopted by all level of government, federal, state and local, that paved the way and created the “ideal” conditions for such human, social and environmental destruction.

The problem is that FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS, with the sole exception of the state of Western Australia (capital Perth), environmental policies prevented bushfire hazard reduction such as clearing of trees near houses, clearing fallen branches, trees and other debris from the forest floor, trimming grass either mechanically or by allowing cattle and sheep to graze on it, in national parks and near houses.

(Hey Charley, get your cows off that grass, it is native vegetation.)

To bushfire it all means one thing, FUEL. The heat generated from the fire feeding on such environmentally friendly policies created such heat that firelighters could not get within 100 meter (about 300ft) from the fire to fight it, their protecting gear notwithstanding.

This time these bushfires were culmination of at least 30 years of dereliction of duty of care by the authorities in favour of electoral “care”, i.e. votes. Successive governments submitted to the Greens and their propaganda and put the environment above people’s safety. In fact the destruction to environment that was caused but the bushfires is a monument that such measures are not even eco- friendly.

For 30 years now, fire-fighting authorities could not obtain permits to back-burn during winter to reduce the fuel on the forests floor. They were also prevented from clearing fire trails and maintaining fire barriers. Even average Joe was not allowed to collect fallen branches from the floor of the forest as firewood or just to clear the area adjacent to his property because it disturbs the bio-diversity of a sustainable eco-system under the leaves. Save the planet! Aren’t you getting emotional yet?

Permits to build a houses are contingent on replacing the trees that are taken down in enable construction with species, number and location dictated by the greenocrats, IRRESPECTIVE OF FIRE HAZARD they pause.

Meaningless words such as sustainability, bio-diversity, eco-system, biosphere ruled the corridors of Greenophila. Grrenophiles talk about protecting all species of fauna and flora EXCEPT the most important specie on earth; we HUMANS are pests to the environment. Save the planet! Don’t you feel warm on the inside?

* * * * *

Liam Sheahan a resident of Reedy Creek, Victoria, has his house still standing despite the fact that no other house within a radius of 2 km ( 1.25 mile) survived the fire that engulfed the area. The reason is that in 2002 Mr. Sheahan disregarded the Council’s environmental protection laws and bulldozed 250 trees off his hilltop property as a fire protection safety measure. All hell broke loose.

The Council took him to court, Liam was fined $50,000 (and paid additional similar amount in legal costs) but his property is now still standing as a vindication for his action.

Says Mr. Sheahan:

The house is safe because we did all that ,… We have got proof right here. We are the only house standing in a two kilometre area.

Although we are yet to see the outcome of the foreshadowed inquiry or royal commission, you can already hear the sprouts of the spins yet to come about the government’s dereliction in duty of care as if the actual damage would have occurred in any event even had they exercised fire hazards reduction measures.

Bull dust! The truth of the matter is simple, had there been fire hazard reduction in place, the fire would have NEVER reached the temperatures it did.

Bushfire, or any fire for that matter, has tree elements in it, ignition, oxygen and fuel, otherwise known as the fire triangle. In a case of bushfire, the ignition may be deliberate (arson) or accidental, we cannot do much about either of the ignition types. Nor can we do anything about oxygen in the atmosphere which leaves fuel as the variable on which we have peridial control.

The fuel includes the trees, shrubs, grass, the undergrowth and the forest debris (branches leaves etc). We cannot eliminate the fuel altogether but we can reduce it. Reduced fuel means reduced fire temperatures thus giving the fire-fighters much better chances of control it and control it earlier, meaning less damage.

There is nothing new about it and for nearly 30 years post-bushfires inquiry after inquiry came up with similar findings. Piers Akerman writes in the (Sydney) Daily Telegraph of 16 February 2009 that:

Start with Judge Leonard Stretton’s 1939 inquiry into the Black Friday fires, fast forward to the 1984 review of the Ash Wednesday fires the previous year, the report on fire prevention by the Auditor-General in 1992, the CSIRO fire management paper prepared by Phil Cheney in 1994, the Victorian inquiry and the federal inquiry – A Nation Charred – in 2003 [in Canberra], and you will find that the principal problem constantly identified over the span of your life as a determinant in the ferocity of the fires is the level of fuel available.

Note that Pierce Akerman is talking only about the state of Victoria and the ACT, There were similar outcomes from inquiries in all other states of which Western Australia is the only one exercising an effective fire hazard reduction schems. He continues:

Each of the inquiries I have mentioned made note of the fuel levels with your predecessor, Judge Stretton, noting: “The amount of (controlled) burning which was done was ridiculously inadequate,” in 1984, the level of reduction burning was found to be “too low”, in 1992, the “failure” of the Victorian Department of Conservation and Environment to meet its fuel-reduction targets was found to have made the forests “more susceptible” to fires, and this story is repeated in various forms right through 2003 and, without pre-empting your findings, remains the case today.

The Victorian Government, and local councils, have ignored all the warnings.

Alan Mull is a former farmer and a former fire brigade captain and an environmental activist who knows the bush. In the same Telegraph’s article Mr Mull summarises the history:

Aborigines used to start fires on the ridge lines as they came down after feasting on bogong moths every year …

When the forests were commercially logged and under the control of the old Forestry Commission, the forestry workers did the same thing.

But the [Victorian] state government since the days of (former Labor premiers) John Cain and Joan Kirner have allowed green ideologues to take over. The forests have been locked up, the fire trails have been closed, they are full of weeds and feral animals. The state has failed in its duty of care. Our national parks and reserves are now national disasters, whether burnt or not.’

[Square brackets, emphasis & highlight provided]

Hardly rocket science.

* * * * *

Suppose a group of terrorist of a certain Abrahamic Religion (Shshshsh, Victoria has anti defamation laws) entered Australia, murdered 200 people with countless injuries and blow up 1800 house, can you imagine the outcries?

Further suppose that the perpetrators of such massacre are caught. We can all apply out innovative skills as what punishment we would inflict on such terrorists. I can just hear the calls for retrospective application of the death penalty, how crude.

My question is simple, what is the difference between people who pull triggers or blow fuses that kill 200 innocent victims and those who caused these people to be incinerated by bushfire? No difference, they are all murderers!

The fires were not predictable, they were predicted. David Packham, himself a veteran academic on the issue writes in The Australian of 10 February, 2009 that:

Every objective analysis of the dynamics of fuel and fire concludes that unless the fuels are maintained at near the levels that our indigenous stewards of the land achieved, then we will have unhealthy and unsafe forests that from time to time will generate disasters such as the one that erupted on Saturday.

It has been a difficult lesson for me to accept that despite the severe damage to our forests and even a fatal fire in our nation’s capital [Canberra in 2003], the political decision has been to do nothing that will change the extreme threat to which our forests and rural lands are exposed.

The decision to ignore the threat has been encouraged by some shocking pseudo-science from a few academics who use arguments that may have a place in political discourse but should have no place in managing our environment and protecting it and us from the bushfire threat.

Does anyone out here still really believes that environmentalism is about the environment? It is not! It is not about the environment and it is not about people, in fact theses morons, the eco-whacko, could not care less if we human, the cause of all evil, burn to ashes in bushfires or freeze to death for lack of power to heat our homes. With humans the planet is a better place to their way of thinking

It is not accident the green movement as a whole rose out of the ruins of the Soviet communism. Also, it is not accident that all the liberals are environmentalists and all environmentalists are liberals. Therefore the two are interchangeable. I often say that the Greenies are like watermelon, green on the outside and red on the inside.

(Note: The term “liberal” does not include or denote supporters of the Australian Liberal Party who are, in essence, conservatives. Confusing, I know.)

Total control is a pre-requisite to a successful socialism and environmentalism is the tool to achieve control.

Environmentalism is not about green trees, clean air, clean water or pretty flowers, environmentalism is all about social engineering, it is all about control, controlling us all.

It is also all about power and money, not about welfare, or about social justice or the poor the sick or the weak. Social engineering is about setting unattainable goals to ensure perpetual source for power and money as the goal is never achieved.

Rather then target air and water pollution, that are achievable, socialists talk about global warming. We as humans have as much hope as changing the climate as to stop the earth rotating by turning our back sides eastward and release our bodily gases in unison.

Whilst the northern hemisphere experience one its coldest winter in generations, and down under we have the mildest summer in years, the recent heat waves notwithstanding, the eco-whackos scare campaign about global warming ratchet up as temperatures outside plummet.

If you wish to question the science behind global warming the climate alarmists will tell you that the science has settled, nothing to discuss further. Excuse me sir, but if the science is settled why are we still spending obscene amounts of money on “climate change research?”

Just look at the “stimulus”, yes yours, whichever country you are in, your government allocated vast sums to “climate change”, talking about spending money on something we can have for free! We sure can use that money for …for what? … I know! How about teaching kids to read and write instead of watching Al Gore’s docoganda?

Still Al Gore, Kevin 747 and, as we speak, Hillary Clinton circle the globe in private jets (Charley, is there a hybrid version for 747?) trooping world stages for “talks” about this that and the other AND climate change. Couldn’t they just give exchange Skype ID’s and “talk” till their heart content. These guys and goyls could not arrange a piss-up in a pub yet they pretend that they can rearrange the climate on earth.

Hey Charley, how much carbon dioxide was released into the atmosphere during the recent bushfires? How about using lawn mowers engines in lawn mowers that cut down of “native grass” instead of putting them into cars?

* * * * *

We will have yet another bushfire inquiry in which those who perpetrated the disaster will appears with a solicitor on one side a box of Kleenex on the other, swearing that public safety is paramount on their mind. Nothing is furthest from the truth, once more the arsonist turns up as a firemen.

12 February, 2009.

When I wrote the original Thank God There Is A Global Economic Crisis about two and a half months ago, I did not expect my cynicism to materialise, or at leat not so soon.

It was a mere two weeks after another self-proclaimed fiscal conservative Barack Obama joined the host of fiscal conservatives world leaders, including our own hollow man, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

Fiscal policy is about government active involvement (or not) in the economy through government revenues (taxes) and expenditures (services such as the law and order, security, social security etc.), fiscal conservativism is keeping the government books balanced.

The collapse of the American Sub-Prime market had little direct affect on Australia, thank to the pervious conservative government who had paid off all of its successive Labor governments debts and left office with nice cushion of budget surpluses, shovel ready for new socialist government to put to waste.

Despite its love affair with globalism, The Howard government ensured that Australian banks were regulated sufficiently to shield them from the effect of the collapse sub-prime market as act of prudence, long before the ugly sub-prime raised its head.

This is not to say that we have not been affected by the economic downturn that followed the financial meltdown on Wall Street, but to spell out that our state of affairs is a lot different from that of the US and Europe by a country mile.

* * * * *

However, being in a better situation does not suit our illustrious hollow man Kevin 747 who wants to be like the big boys on world stage so he can play with them. He wants to appear doing something BIG, anything, thus stimulus out of all proportion to our size is the way to go.

We are going to get it, whether we need it or not, just because Kevin 747 wants to grand stand on world stage as if he is a decisive statesman.

The new buzz word is stimulus. It is a code word that describe how YOUR MONEY and mine is wasted by our governments without any accountability on social agendas, supposedly to create economic activity.

The idea is that a dollar that is spent by our government on building a bridge, as an example, may circulate a number of times and create economic momentum through what economists call the multiplier.

Say, the government build a bridge. They hire workers, buy cement, steel and other components and put it together. To have cement, there must be a cement factories that convert mined limestone, soda ash and other chemical and energy into cement.

To have still, we must have steel mills that need iron ore, coal, scrap and other trace metals and energy to make steel and they also all need ships trains and trucks to move raw materials and bridge components.

The workers on the bridge, the cement factories, the still mills, the ships, trains and trucks get paid and buy food, clothing, cars and plasma TV which in turn need more factories, shops and transport.

In other words, a dollar spent on, say, building a bridge, is spent a number of times through the economy depending on the multiplier of building bridges. This is the theory anyway.

This theory was developed by an English mathematician, turned economist and INVESTOR, John Maynard Keynes and what later became known as Keynesian Economics. Keynes believed that government should make the most of its economic powers and use it to achieve socio-economic goals.

On the other side of the scale is Milton Friedman was an economists who believes in the exact opposites, in free market with minimal government interference in the economy, also known as Friedmanism.

Whilst there is no decisive evidence that Keynes himself was communist or a communist sympathiser, nevertheless, Keynes is the darling of communism, socialism, liberalism and all other social engineering isms. Keynes has given them the left side of politics “scientific” all the excuses to interfere with the economy they need and, as we see, they use.

Here we have two diametrically opposing theories that beg the question “which is the correct one?” The simple answer is: none!. There are many conceptual contradictions and “cherry picking” of “facts” in both theories.

Economics is not a science, it is a set of theories based on empirical studies using (selective) quantitative and non-quantitative observations. Unlike science, economic theories are not results of proven hypotheses, they are just that, theories!

Some say that economics is the science that explains why its last prediction did not maderised.

Some goes as far as describing the economy as a power station and the people in charge of it as engineers who open and close valves, turn dials, switch pumps on and off, whereas the valves, dials and pumps are interest rates, taxation rates, government spending, surplus or deficit and so on – absolute crap!!!

In many case one cannot predict with certainty the outcome of a particular economic measure. Increase in official interest rate may be inflationary or deflationary, there are recent historical example to both. The same goes for other deliberate measures.

Just before Christmas Kevin747 use a stimulus of $ 14 billons and paid Australian age and disable pensioners a one off bonus. The idea was that because government pensioners are one of the poorest people in the land their propensity to spend is high thus most that money will be spent.

Wrong, whilst I had no objection to the bonus as such, stimulus it was not.

As it turned out , although there was improvement is Christmas retail sales, it was a oncer. Much of the money that was spent on Christmas presents ended up in China where it was only a drop in the ocean in tern of stimulating anything but Kevin’s standing in the opinion polls.

* * * * *

I cannot recall so much identical rhetorical hard sell of policies in so many countries, although the circumstances in each vary dramatically. Do you really believe that there is the one, and only the one, medicine that cures all economic ailments? Come-on!

Stimulus will “kick-start” your country’s economy, create employment, unfreeze credit, eliminate toxic assets, get rid of inflation, improve your country’s terms of trades, balance of payments etc. etc. etc. If you believe in it, I have bridge across Sydney Harbour and a fancy looking opera house to sell you.

Although Keynesian economics was dead and buried for many years in many countries, its flame kept burning in the corridors of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), after all John Keynes was one of its founding father. Together with global socialism, which is now in control the governments of most developed nations, they all got this dead theory out of its grave, polished it, resuscitated it so it can be reused and push the socialist agenda once more.

Indeed the IMF has been used as a fig leaf for the socialisation of the western democracies . The IMF, the bastion of globalisation, an organisations with no electoral accountability or allegiance to anyone but itself, is cited by our politicians as the economic authority for enslave us, our children and grandchildren in gigantic debt.

Just look at the proposed “stimulus” of your country and you will quickly realise that it is no more then a badge social engineering agenda. Most, if not all, of the proposed expenditures covers IDENTICAL ITEMS of socialist agendas and common budgetary expenditure that belong in a regular budgetary process. Much like it all came from one place, well it has, the IMF.

Repairs to infrastructure, particularly bridges, “investments” in schools, Internet infrastructure, buildings insulation, alternative energy are no doubt familiar to you from debates about the so-called stimulus in your own country. BUT you may not realise that the actual items that make the stimuli in all countries (that have one) are identical.

So is the rhetoric about the “urgency” to adopt the stimulus measures. Our very basis of democracy, the parliament is being portray as obstruction, that may bring a “catastrophe” upon us, only because it wants to do what houses of parliaments do in democracy. Cesar does not like it when the senate asks question.

Incidentally, if you listen carefully, you will quickly notice the similarity between the scare mongering of the stimulus and that of global warming. The connection is self evident, both are spins of a socialist agenda.

Would you buy a car when the salesman pushes you to hurry up and sign on the dotted line, not ask too many question because you would loose this unique, one in hundred years, opportunity?

Remember these are the very people who want you to live in a dark and have cold showers to save the planet from a looming global warming.

By and large the global financial crisis and the subsequent global economic downturn is a direct consequence of globalism. It is the free market that enabled the toxic assets to freely move across borders among countries as contagious disease would spread across an hospital without an isolation ward.

Now that we have nearly all the hospital’s patients and staff infected, the cure, we are told, is to give them all the same medicine BUT NOT isolate them because they must all get well together, or not at all. This is what globalism is all about.

* * * * *

One of the few idea that made any sense to me in the American stimulus proposal was that stimulus money must be spent on American made goods. After all the idea is that the steel and cement used to construct a bridge should come from home production and generate employment.

The idea that American money (I use America as an example, the same is true to any contry), borrowed by the American people, which the American taxpayer would need to repay back is used to create American Jobs by using it to purchase American goods horrified the globalists who opened a scare campaign about “trade wars”.

Suppose that you may fall on hard times and may consider to severely curtail this year’s Christmas presents for your kids, but the government tells you: “Oh no! don’t even think about as much as symbolic cut in the level of presents you have been giving to your neighbours kids, if you do we’ll call you protectionist or, God forbid, isolationist” – this is in fact what the IMF saying to every country these days. We don’t care what you do to your own people but you must continue and protect other people.

In a recent speech to the governors of the South East Asian Central Banks (SEACEN) the Managing Director of the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Khan said (inter-alia):

Some countries are trying to make government support of banks conditional on their giving priority to domestic borrowers, to the detriment of financing across borders. This will hurt emerging economies, whose growth depends on access to foreign bank financing. It is protectionism in the financial markets, and its consequences could be as damaging and dangerous as the trade protectionism of the 1930s.

Bull dust!

What got America out of the great depression of the 1930’s was not globalism, but the American manufacturing industry production efforts for the war AND the fact that by the end of WWII American industry was the only one standing. Beside, traditionally America always knew how to protect its own interest.

For years American aid was contingent on the fact that the recipients of such aid must use it, as much as practicable, to purchase American goods. For years, at least 50% of American aid MUST be carried on American flags ships, although freight on American flag ships were twice as dear as other flags – those were the rules.

Anyone who tell you that you can stimulate your economy and remain globalist at the same time is a liar, a fool or both. Throughout history you will not find a single instant of economy developing into world class without actively pursuing protection.

Britain of the industrial revolution until 1846 when they repealed the Corn Act, the USA from 1860 to 1914, Germany from 1870 to 1914, Japan, Korea, and India of after WWII and of course China of today all pursue protectionists policies. As a matter of interests all four American presidents carved out in Mount Rushmore, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt were protectionists.

In the face of “cheap” imports from the USA and Continental Europe, even the darling of the stimuluphiles, John Keynes, advocated tariffs barriers in 1930 to protect British industry.

As you see, stimulus is not about kick-starting the economy, it is not about job creation and protection, it is all about IDEOLOGY.

* * * * *

Yet we the people can only watch in horror how our elected representives allow our governments condemn us and our descendants to generations of economic turmoil of debt, high interest, high taxation and inflation. Is this the planet we suppose to save from global warming?

When all those obscene amounts of money be wasted, nothing much will change except we each have national debt of colossal proportion. The so-called stimulus will not work because it cannot work. If you want to rebuild our economy, rebuild our own productive capacity first.

We cannot have economy without a strong manufacturing, construction and agricultural industries. Serving each others’ drinks and making each others’ bed is not an economy.

16 January, 2009

Here is math question for fifth grade:

There are about 900 people in the neighbourhood, half of them went to watch a football game. The number of kids watching the game represents one third of the total neighbourhood and the number of women and kids represent 40% that neighbourhood.

Question: How many of each men, women and children are at the game?

Answer: 90 men, 60 women and 300 children (all about)

What that got to do with anything?

If you have listen carefully to the Hamas propaganda parroted by the UN and the media you will learn over a number of bulletins that: Total casualties is 900 (as of Monday 12 January, 2009) half are civilians, one third are children and 40% are women and children.

In solving this simple arithmetic problem we learn that, according to the Hamas, the ratio of children fatality is two dead children for each non combatant adult fatality or four dead women and children for every man. Can some please offer an explanation for such disproportion?

If you believe the Hamath numbers please tell us why are there two dead children to each adult? what are there four dean women and children for every man? Where are the parents of those kids? and where are the husbands and fathers of those woman and children? why aren’t these disproportionate victims not in bomb shelters? There are many such question but don’t expect the media to ask them.

The media main concern is that Israeli casualties are not higher, plain and simple.

Unless anyone under the age 50 is defined as “child” the number of kids that were hurt are highly exaggerated or kids are being pushed forward to front the Israeli troops to achieve Hamas’s propaganda targets. The true facts of this conflict will come out eventually, as they did nearly seven years ago when Israel invaded the West bank town of Jenin.

* * * * *

In April 2002 after a spates of suicide bombing, Israel invaded the town of Jenin in the West Bank in an attempt to clean it out. The international hysteria that followed included “eyewitness” accounts of Israeli atrocity including 500 dead citizens, mass graves etc. etc. At the same time Israel said that according to reports by the IDF (Israel Defence Forces) the number is about 50, most of which are Hamas and other terror organisation fighters.

On April 18, in an article titled Jenin ‘Massacre Evidence Growing’ the BBC quoted , Prof Derrick Pounder of Dundee University, who they described as “A British forensic expert” saying:

I must say that the evidence before us at the moment doesn’t lead us to believe that the allegations are anything other than truthful and that therefore there are large numbers of civilian dead underneath these bulldozed and bombed ruins that we see

You would think that four months later, the true might finally come out, yet as late as 1 August 2002 the UN General Secretary issue a press statement SG2077 headed REPORT OF SECRETARY-GENERAL ON RECENT EVENTS IN JENIN, OTHER PALESTINIAN CITIES which, among other things, says that:

— Death toll: Four hundred ninety-seven Palestinians were killed and 1,447 wounded in the course of the IDF reoccupation of Palestinian areas from 1 March through 7 May 2002 and in the immediate aftermath. Most accounts estimate that between 70 and 80 Palestinians, including approximately 50 civilians, were killed in Nablus.

Eventually independent investigation has proven that the number of confirmed Palestinian casualties were 54, most of whom (40+) were terrorist. Even a weekly like the Time magazine, not exactly a pro-Israel publication, published the result for its investigation, it concluded that:

… there was no wanton massacre in Jenin, no deliberate slaughter of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers. But the 12 days of fighting took a severe toll on the camp. According to the U.N., 54 Palestinians are confirmed dead. An additional 49 are missing; it is unclear how many of them perished in the fighting and how many either fled or were captured by Israeli troops

[Emphasis provided]

* * * * *

The lesson from Jenin is clear; Palestinians exaggerate their casualties and the media is keen to cooperate spread any information that makes Israel look bad, what else is new?

You may have noticed, that this time there are no calls for investigation of “war crimes” by Israel as was the case during the Jenin operation, the loons have learned that investigation may prove, as it did in Jenin, no Israel wrong doing, which defeat their purpose.

All the reports from Gaza come from local “journalists”. Since the BBC’s Alan Johnston was kidnapped (and released) in Gaza, no foreign journalist is stationed in Gaza (or Ramallah for that matter), journalists seem to prefer the somewhat more secure environment of the Dan Hotel in Tel Aviv, the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and slum Israel from as far away from the Hamas as possible.

This is hilarious, although they parrot Hamas’s propaganda they still prefer to do it from the safety (and comfort) of Israel.

Israel has learnt from their misjudgment of the foreign press in the Lebanon War of 2006 and now bans the foreign press from Gaza area that has been declared a close military zone by the IDF. The bans were not apply to the Israeli press.

An appeal by the organisation of foreign journalists in Israel to the High Court failed on a ground that the Israeli law does not automatically provides equal rights to non-citizen, and the IDF has the legal power to decide who can enter a close military zone. You see, support for the Hamas is not regarded as a “human right” in Israel.

* * * * *

The Palestinian casualties allegedly come from hospital casualty records. It would be a matter of time before the number itself can be verified, particularly of the alleged disproportion of children victims.

However, hospitals can certify death from injury caused by a bullets, shrapnel, falling debris or explosion but they cannot determined if the bullet is from an Israeli gun or a Hamas purge act. Shrapnel can also come from Hamas rocket exploding during production or launching (so-called industrial accident), accidental trigger of Hamas’s mine or booby traps intended for the Israeli troops, and there are plenty of them around.

Here is a Palestinian school in Gaza that had been booby trapped from a neighbouring zoo. Although, the IDF disabled this particular booby trap, there are many other all over Gaza , as indeed was the case in Jenin.

Hamas Booby Trap a School And a Zoo

Why would the Hamas booby trap a whole school? Did they expect IDF using the class rooms for pottery lessons? or were the Hamas waiting for the schools to fill up with kids before they, the Hamas, detonate the charges and claim “Israeli bombing of schools”?

There is of course the possibility that the Hamas simply inflate the number of casualties and the proportion of children fatalities, I have no doubt that this is the case but as the Hamas, the TV networks and the UN all insist that I am wrong how about they explain why are children casualties are disproportionate to adult casualties?

If you accept the Hamath, why are there two dead kids for every adult or why are there four dead women and children for every man? Apparently, the UN who parrots that information on behalf of the Hamas has seen noting unusual about it. they are too busy demonising Israel.

1 January, 2009

As expected the peace loving world did not disappoint. If you watch the BBC in recent days you quickly realise that unlike its rude American cousins, auntie, has class, and more important a genuine concern over the lack more Israeli casualties

How else would you interpret BBC anchormen and woman, mostly with distinct multicultural names and look to go with it (Charley, are you sure it is a British channel you put on? Looks a bit … Pakistani … or something) persistently question Israeli spokesmen and women about the “vast gap” in casualties between Israeli civilian that were killed by the Hamas rockets and those who were killed by Israel response.

You see? If only Israel could allow more civilian casualties on its side, that would make the war in Gaza more … appropriate?

How about bricking in all the bomb shelters In Shderot (except one reserved to BBC camera crews) and advise all its citizens that from now on, when the sirens are sounded in Shderot it is a call for all kids to get out of their homes, run down the street to the nearest civil defence post to collect their free lollies. Don’t worry about explosions, they are just rehearsals for New year celebrations.

Whilst the Israeli cabinet consider the BBC proposal, the world has been united, well, nearly, in its peace seeking mission. I think that we ought to examine them some of the criticism level on Israel to see if they have merits

The United Nation

As we know the Korean Secretary General of the UN, Ban-Ki Moon Issued a statement in which he said:

The secretary general is deeply alarmed by today’s heavy violence and bloodshed in Gaza, and the continuation of violence in southern Israel.

“[He] appeals for an immediate halt to all violence [and reiterates] previous calls for humanitarian supplies to be allowed into Gaza to aid the distressed civilian population.”

I think that Israel must learn from the secretary’s home country experience when South Korea was attacked. The way to handle the dispute is to get the US Army to acquire some UN flags and come to fight the Hamas – indeed, why waste your own ammunition if you can get the American to do it for you?

And don’t forget the royalties from MASH II.

Britain

The British Foreign Office issued as strong statement as follow:

The only way to achieve lasting peace in Gaza is through peaceful means. Whilst we understand the Israeli government’s obligation to protect its population we urge maximum restraint to avoid further civilian casualties.

Yes, the Brits have raised a number of good points, especially when they talk about “peaceful means” and “maximum restrain”.

Israel should follow the British example when they, the Brits experienced rockets attacks falling on London. If you are not sure what was that British “peaceful means” and “restraints” perhaps you care to check with the people of Dresden, Berlin Hamburg and some other German cities.

Russia

The Russian foreign Ministry:

Moscow considers it necessary to stop large-scale military action against Gaza, which has already led to major casualties and suffering among the civilian Palestinian population.

Israel could learn a thing or two from the Russians about how they avoid large-scales military actions in Georgia when provoked and how they put a superior military power to good use. If I remember correctly the Russian Army was helping with seasonal fruit picking in South Ossetia.

You are right Komrad Putin, when it come to dealing with Muslim extremists, Israel should definitely follow the Russian example of never to inflicting “major casualties and suffering”.

Israel is hereby undertakes that the scale of its military action, Hamas’s major casualties and suffering in Gaza shall never exceed those that were experienced by the Chechens. Da?

France

Good old France just called for a “pause” in the fighting to allow the Hamas to restock and regroup.

Does anyone recall France requesting a “pause” in rocket being launch into day case centres in Shderot? Anyone? Anyone? No, I can see no hands.

Be that as it may, Israel should take note and quickly study France’s Algerian War with the FLN (the Algerian Front de Libération Nationale) to see whether the is a lesson to be learnt.

Well, the FLN’s casualties were six times the French ones (approx 150,000 to 25,000) a definite case of … wala! a use of “disproportionate force”!!!

France is not alone! Vive le France!

The Arab League

Amr Moussa, the Arab League Secretary General said:

We are facing a continuing spectacle which has been carefully planned. So we have to expect that there will be many casualties. We face a major humanitarian catastrophe.”

Mr. Moussa, who incidentally is an Egyptian, represents a find organisation, with human right record from Egypt using Chemicals on Yemenite rebels, to Syrian wiping the town of Hama in Syria off the face of the earth in 1982. Israel does not use chemical weapons but wiping Gaza of the face of the earth? Well if you insist.

If you wish to cite more recent Arab human rights achievements how about Darfur, Mr Moussa? Sorry, As much as Israel wish to aspire to your organisation height of human right achievement, it pass.

Kleenex anyone?

28 December, 2008

Beliefnet: Are Churches that don’t agree with your politics or religious belief not really churches?

Ann Coulter: Correct: They’re called “mosques”

— Interview, Beliefnet, 7-27-06

[Ann Coulter: If Democrats Had any Brains They’d Be Republicans, Page 55]

My friend Mila publish has a blog on MySpace, She logged on MYSPACE for the last time on Dec 27, 2007. in which she raised awareness of honour killing as it applied in America to two sisters who were murdered by their father.

Amongst most of the comments expressing horror and repugnance about a father that murdered his own daughters, you would not be disappointed if you expected a certain quota of useful idiots who tried and move the attention to side issues whilst other put the blame at … yes you got it …you us, and everybody else from the Crusaders to George Bush, anybody but Islam.

And what about them Jews who bomb the Palestinians daily? Asked one useful idiot; you see, as long as the Jews Bomb the Palestinians it is OK to for a Muslim father to murder his two daughters, I wander would it still be OK if the Jews reduce their Bombing to every other day?

Where from do these guys get their logic from? There is no logic. When you spend 12 years in school whose curricula is control by the Teachers Union and the NSW Branch of the Labour Party (our version of the Democratic party) you learn about critical thinking (meaning how criticise conservative government or opposition, as the case may be), global warming, the invasion and occupation of Australia by the English and multiculturalism , where the emphasis is always on emotion, don’t expect logic too – sorry we out of time fore that one, got to go and save a planet now.

Oh yes, the good old multiculturalism, diversity, reaching-out and if Islam is our topic, tolerance all that suppose to make us all feel wet and warm on the inside (but not too warm as not to cause the planet to overheat). If only we have been more understanding, or had made friends with the father of those two girls, as another comment suggested, all that would have never happen. I wander if this idea was taken from Bill Clinton’s last edition of his book Guide to Abstinence .

If its not for our ignorance, those two girls would be alive and well today. Those bleeding hearts really know how to make us feel guilty. Wait a minute, but ignorance is not a crime, is it? So maybe the whole thing is a misunderstanding, our misunderstanding.

And there is Islam is a religion of peace crap. No, idiot, Islam is not called so after the Arabic word salaam, meaning peace, Islam is after the word aslama, meaning submission, total submission. Islam is not just a religion, it is a way of life that required to total subjugation of every part of you life, including (but not limited to) which leg you put in first when step into the dunny, and out.

* * * * *

You can call me Islamophobic or racist if you wish, even though I remind you that Islam is not a race but who says that to support Islam you have to be logical too? You will not hear from me saying one of my best friends is a Muslim because it reminds me of one of the most idiotic reaction I sometime get revealing that I was born in Israel and that is: one of my best friends is a Jew, so what? What am I to do with such useless information.

My friends are my friends, first last and in between, not Muslims Christians, Jews or Callithumpians. Under cross examination with extreme coercion I may confess that I have never observed any of my female friends dressed in burkah, come to think about it, male friends neither.

Having said that I recognise that there are millions upon millions decent people who were born into the Muslim faith who go about their day providing for their family and striving for peaceful life like I do – these Muslims are not my target, in fact I do not target Muslims, my target is firstly Islam and secondly those who use Islam as excuse for their evil behaviour, big difference.

I often talk about the concept of cause and effect. How can you tell which is which, not always easy, but in essence if you take away the suspect cause and the suspect effect remain unaffected, you can safely conclude that such particular cause and effect, as pair, is bunked.

95% of people die whilst laying in bad. Making all people sleep on the floor would not extend life expectancy by a single micro-second because laying in bad is not a cause of death.

Now experiment time; rebirth that father killer as a Jew or Christian and let him otherwise live identical life. Would you say that those two girls would be alive today? Of course they would. I rest my case (on this issue).

* * * * *

Our lack of cultural sensitivity, sense of social justice, refusal to reach-out and see the splendour of cultural diversity are all the root causes, not only to honour killing and genital mutilation but also to beheading, bombing of trains and discothèques and flying into skyscrapers (except those performed by the CIA in cooperation with the Mossad and MI-5, of course) .

By now you would recognised the Marxist Leninist Stalinist Maoist Socialist Fabian Leftist Liberal (please select one) bleeding hearts terminology which raises the question:

What does a philosophy that was written down in the nineteenth century by two Prussians in a dark room in Brussels, tried for 70 years and failed (but survived by those who never lived its principles), has in common with a religion that started in the deserts of Arabia some 1300 years ago and changed very little since?

Answer: very little, except that they both hate ….. (please insert your own country’s name) meaning they follow the principle of

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Why would those who claim the high moral grounds on human rights (women in particular), gay rights, freedom of (or from) religion, sanctity of life and all that stuff support a group of people that believe in the exact opposite?

Just look at Eeron (you see I can pronounce a country name like a pro 🙂 in 1979. Their enlightened “progressive” professors and their clueless students invaded the streets of Teheron (another PRO-nunciation 🙂 in their thousands, kick out the Shah and brought back the Ayatollahs from exile just to find their high esteem dangling off mobile cranes in Town’s Square of Teheron, renamed “Muhammad Square” or such like.

Here in the West, the Islamic revolution is different. We don’t have Ayatollahs in waiting in France. Instead we have youths, They rampage the streets of Paris burnings shops and cars, youths!, the rampage the streets of Sydney reshaping the looks of parked cars with baseball bats, youth!, they blow up a train or two in London, youths!, Allah Akhbar? I did not hear that. Did you?

It is as if the words Islam and Muslim are too inappropriate to appear on the sold-out media. Just after 911 Associated Press (AP) published a photo of Osama Bin Laden with a caption: Exiled Saudi Dissident Osama bin Laden, that sounds like a freedom fighter against the Saudi Royal Family, the only missing bit was the instructions for sending donations to assist in freeing the enslaved freedom seeking Saudi people.

Just listen to what the Deputy Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police, Brian Paddick, had to say, he must know what he is talking about; right after the London 7/7 bombing ,on the day, he said:

As far as I am concerned, Islam and terrorist are two words that don’t go together

[Melanie Philips: Londonistan page 53, quoting the Independent]

Perhaps we should add those two words to the list of asterisk and bleeped out words in the media.

There you have it, the very people who suppose to protect us against free trade jihad pussyfooting around. They suck the oxygen out of the room, don’t they?

Muslims who tell you outright, that in a few years time your country and mine will turn into the Islamic United States of America, the Islamic Dominion Of Canada, The Islamic European Union, (Eurabia), the United Islamic Kingdom of Britanistan, the Islamic Commonwealth Of Australia (Austarbia) etc. all living in peace under Sharia law – they are serious and you better believe it.

Lets look at some numbers shall we, take one man, Osama Bin Laden, in her book Because They Hate Brigitte Gabriel writes:

He [Osama Bin Laden] is one of fifty-three children. He himself has twenty-seven children. Father and son have sired eighty children.

[Paperback edition page 16]

Do you get my drift? Sure not every Muslim has four wives and umpteen impregnated maids, but still, it is all in demography stupid says Mark Steyn in his book America Alone, (OK the stupid was my addition).

With the exception of USA and New Zealand with fertility rates of 2.11 and 2.01 live births per women (respectively, 2005 figures) the rest of us are going backward in term of population. Great news for the ecophiles who thinks that there are too many of us. In 25 years, not only there will be less of us in Europe, Canada and Australia but a greater proportion of those of us who are still here will be depended on ever growing demand for social security with decreasing resources to pay for it. Who is going to support this Ponzi Scheme? But I am digressing.

* * * * *

Your local loons want you to be nice to Muslims because they are part of the misery industry, poor and helpless, and really, we ought to do the right thing by them as human being (Hey Charley, can you get me the box of Kleenex please).

Just Look how quickly Muslims have adopted to intricate rules of multiculturalism, how have they excelled in learning our immigration and welfare laws, particularly the loopholes. How about their ability to master all the legal technicalities of what constitute an asylum seeker, job seeker, disability pensioner, unmarried mother (This is for wives 2,3 and 4), terms that do not even exist in their mother tongues.

It is gratifying to watch how seamlessly Muslims have assimilated into a vibrant, robust complex, caring, socio-economic, cultural diversified countries of ours with out being able to speak one world in or the language of their host country. Wow!

(OK the welfare in America is not something to write home about but by the look of things the Democrats are working on it, you ain’t seen anything yet my friends.)

Here is another example that these “helpless people” are anything but; For years potential illegal immigrants knew that there was no point trying to reach Australia by boat because if they were caught they would be sent to some islands in the Pacific, which had been excised from the Australian immigration law by the previous (conservative) government, for “processing” leaving them without free “Legal-Aid” , “Human Rights” lawyers and such like interruption to deportations – too risky they concluded and proceeded to another undocumented friendly country.

However as soon as we, in Australia, elected a Labour government, our version of Democratic Party, Kevin747, our Obama08, decided that processing illegal immigrant in Nauru Island is as “inhuman” as processing terrorists in Guantanamo Bay is cruel, and closed it down. As Kevin likes to say “guess what?”, Yes Kev, you be please to know they are back! More voters for the compassionate party.

Our “poor” asylum seekers boats are back! and you want to tell me that those people are not sophisticated? Let me tell you, they know the Australian immigration law better than any of the Department’s bureaucrat and better than you know the laws in your own country, I kid you not.

They may not be able to read and write but they still get invites to participate in “seminars”. Seminars that will remind you of those that are run by investment funds, shared holidays flats salesmen, or retirement home “advisors” with lectern, whiteboard and audio-visual overhead projectors, with signing up session at the end of the conference. Such seminars take place in locations in Kabul, Islamabad, Karachi, Dacca, Beirut and now also in East Africa. They (the seminars) are designed prepare you with your resettling needs and with up to date information about immigration and welfare law in Australia.

An investment of a mere $10,000, payable in advance, will get you an airline ticket and a transit visa for Indonesia (bribe included), a place on a boat to Australia and “technical support” such as at what point you destroy your travel documents, how to lie to immigration investigators in order to gain status of “asylum seeker” and tell you about the special support group waiting to assist you with your quick assimilation into the welfare system of your newly chosen country. This wonderful “beeble” are called the Australian Labour Party .

Unfortunately duty free is extra, but your “human right” lawyer, curtesy of the Australian tax payer, may be able to get you a refund by suing the government for “emotional distress” they inflicted on you by making you come on a boat, instead of a direct flight, placing you in detention and applying “targeted persuasion” in an attempt to establish your true identity.

And I have not touched on their adaptation to human rights, perhaps some other time.

19 December, 2008.

Not quite a Tennessee Williams but here is a small play:

Charlie is my conscious, he always tells me things and stuff, sort of keeping me on a straight and narrow, Charlie’s moralising do not stop me from doing anything I want, only from enjoying it.

Scene 1: Sometime In mid-1980

Charlie: Hey Jacob, the scientists have found a hole in the ozone layer, they recon it is because of you using your spray shaving cream and stuff and your car’s aircon.

Me: Hmm that bad heh? Should I stop shaving and turn off the aircon?

Charlie: Oh no, they found another gas that you can use, it will cost you more but it will close the hole in ozone layer.

Me: OK (to myself: We all must pay a price to save our planet)

(Curtain – intermission)

 

Scene 2: Year 2008

Me: Hey Charlie, remember that hole in the ozone layer we talked about 25 year ago? I did everything you told me to do but I see now that the hole is still getting bigger, what did I do wrong? (you see according to Charlie, everything is my fault)

Charlie: Don’t worry Jacob, it took more then 50 years for all those gases to reach the hole and open it up, so it will take another 50 years for it to close, just be patient.

Me: (thinking for a while and then saying) Hey Charlie, I remember that they found the hole in the 1970’s, right? 50 years earlier were the 1920’s, they did not have spray cans, air conditioners and staff in the 1920’d, did they?

Charlie: You are a bloody skeptic and denier, Jacob, shame on you, how dare you question scientific consensus?

(Curtain – The End)

 

* * * * *

You see? Like many other people, I once accepted that science is fact and if scientists decree it, it must be true. But unfortunately, the greatest liars in history (in terms of affect on people) have sought, with some success, to use science to give credence to their lies, more so, enlist corrupt scientists for their cause.

So we get science that does not require proof, history that reflect made up facts to support an agenda, unprovable theories that are suffixed science or not (such as Political Science, Behavioural Science, economics) and a myriad of studies that sprung in recent years, I guess that we call them Politically Correct Sciences. I refer to subject such as Cultural Studies, Peace Studies, Race Studies, Social Justice Studies,

All these so-called studies have one common goal and that is making hatred of your country and America a science, just look at the products (graduates and writings) of such “studies” and you will see what I mean. In countries where the regime is less tolerant to criticism from academe , the hatred is directed at Israel instead whilst the freedom to hate America is always maintained.

Lying is wilfully describing facts as they are not. This includes presenting opinions as facts.

There has been an increase in global temperature between 1975 and 1998, it is a fact. There has been an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the atmosphere during the same time, that is a fact too. The carbon dioxide is the cause for the increase, this has never been proven therefore it is an opinion. Human activity is cause for the increase in concentration of carbon dioxide, an opinion; 2,500 scientists think so, 2,500 opinions.

* * * * *

I don’t do celebrities, nor am I belong to the fans club of Nicole Kidman. She is an Aussie, good looking, a good actress and, from a distance appears to be, a decent woman too, that’s about sums up my relations with Ms. Kidman.

However, I was taken back the other day when I heard that the Aboriginal Branch of the Misery Industry lunched an savage attack (hey Charlie, can I say “savage” in here? Ok let’s settle on “very angry”) for playing, or rather attempting to play, the didgeridoo on German TV. Didgeri what?

Didgeridoo is a traditional Aboriginal musical wind instrument that is made from a limb or a trunk of a tree hollowed by termites (white ants). If you wish to have the Stradivarius of didgeridoos, otherwise you will have to be happy with the Bamboo or plastic made in China version.

Watch On YouTube

Poor Nicole, she did not know what hit her; “Nicole Kidman deeply offended …”, “blunder”, ” .. angered Aboriginal groups ..” shouted the headline of newspaper and websites around the world .. shock horror!

The Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian version of the New York Times was quick to enclose the word horrified in an inverted commas citing Nicole’s reaction to the news claiming that she was not aware that the didgeridoo is taboo for women and that playing it offend our indigenous people.

I did not know it either. One can buy a didgeridoo in any one of the hundred souvenir shops around Australia complete with quick instruction how to play it by a female saleswoman, some of whom are definitely with Aboriginal blood in their veins.

I bet you that the bleeding hearts journalists who criticised Nicole, were not aware of such taboo, ley alone the enlightened Lefties of media outside Australia, who have had never heard the word didgeridoo and nearly cause DOS (denial of service) to the Wikipedia quickly learning the meaning of this strange word so they can appear knowledgeable to their readers, lister and viewers.

How come no one knew about the taboo? You may ask, Simple, because it ain’t true! The social engineers and the PC brigade have made it up as they went, a definite lie. Bear in mind that the didgeridoo is part of the Aboriginal culture only in northern Australia.

Needless to say the claim for taboo was not made by Aborigines themselves, but by white Anglo-Saxon European lefty loons PC brigade, the very same people who think that Australia is an evil country and that marry Christmas is offensive.

These are the very same people who tell the Aboriginal people that we, wicked white fellas, forcefully removed some 100,000 Aboriginal children from their parents, dobbing them (the children) the Stolen Generation. This is a lie! Intended to portray Australia as evil country. You may wish to read my essay So You Want Me To say “Sorry” of 6 February, 2008 for further details.

These people went after Nicole for sometime now because she is a proud Australian who advance the cause of Australia on every opportunity, something that those loons distaste.

And then there is Nicole’s cardinal sin; No, Nicole did not undress in front of the Pope, nor did she bring a pork sandwich to the Great Synagogue in Sydney or has a 14 years old lover. She has not stolen any Aboriginal kid and to best of my knowledge, she has never use the “N” word, but this an opinion only.

Her ultimate sin is that Nicole Kidman smokes, oy vei, and she did it on camera in front of million impressionable kids (all of whom took up smoking the same day) and if that is not bad enough, she had the audacity to tell PC brigade to nick off, or unmentionable words to that affect.

* * * * *

This brings me to another established set of lies, smoking.

I do not claim that smoking is good for you, this is not my intend, my aim to demonstrate how self interested social engineers lie to us and how the “establish truth” is far from established.

We are all aware of the lies perpetrated by the tobacco industry in the 1970’s in their battle with the anti smoking lobby, particularly in the USA. What many of us are not aware of are the lies that are perpetrated by the anti smoking lobby ever since. Apparently the anti smoking lobby had learnt the tricks from its opponents and greatly improved in their contribution to the science of lying.

Let us look at an example of an Australian anti smoking TV commercial.

Watch on YouTube

Pretty bad, isn’t it? But … what you see is not what you get. If you feel pitty for the lady in the ad, you can relax, the lady is fine, as soon as the shooting of this commercial completed, the woman return to her make-up table and removed her “cancer”. Yes it was all make-up!

The Australian Cancer Council, who is responsible to this ad, confirmed the fact that they used an actress and that that it was just make-up but excused the stunt with “the end justifies the means” (or words to that affect).

Let me see, the Cancer Council want me to believe in their true message by lying to me? Surely if smoking really cause mouth cancer, the Cancer Council should have no trouble locating a real case.

(Please note that I am a financial contributor to the Australian Cancer Council, they do a magnificent job in may other aspects, but unfortunately the were wrong on this occasion).

The anti-smoking lobby won their case against the tobacco industry lock stock and barrel. In fact they were so successful in achieving their goals, that they just about did themselves out of a cause, their self preservation instinct kicked in

The anti-smoking lobby needed a issue that enables them to continue with their cause (cause=fame + funding), such cause needs to be related to the old cause but ideally it should have objectives that can never be achieved (or takes long time to attain) to ensure the continuity and viability of the cause. Passive smoking was born.

The passive smoking cause rely on the fact that as long as smoking is not criminalised, there will be smokers meaning there will be a cause. Anti smoking lobby do not want smoking criminalised, because if it did, it would become a law enforcement issue not a cause.

Passive smoking has also marked a new era in the war over our minds. It was the first time (to my knowledge) that science was used heavily in the rhetoric when there was no science behind it at all. More so, when science was used, it was fraudulent.

Let explain that, science is observations of events, definition possible explanation (or theories), hypotheses and testing such hypotheses. If an hypothesis is proven a scientific rule is created, otherwise the hypothesis remain unproven.

Being unable to prove a claim does not prove a claim to the opposite. In other words, being unable to prove that passive smoking is harmful, is not a proof that it is not harmful.

Last March I wrote an assay Is Smoking A Sexually Transmitted Disease? In which I explained how the concept of cause and effect has been abused to provide “scientific” proof that passive smoking is harmful. I let you read it in your own time but basically I show that statistical relation (correlation) by itself does not prove a thing, least a proof of cause and effect.

In my essay I explain the concept:

Let me explain this, 95% death of people occurs in whilst they are laying in bed, you cannot get a much stronger (prima facie) statistical relation than that. Does that mean that we can extend our life expectancy by sleeping on the floor? Of course not, because laying in bed is not a cause of death, the real causes of death, illness, injury, frailness etc, also cause people to lay in bed, this is the real link.

[bold highlighting in the original ]

In the same essay I showed how reverse research is was used and how cause an effect and (statically) biased sample have been manipulated to prove the desired results.

No Charlie, Doctors are well aware of the concept of cause and effect – just ask your doctor about research that have shown that smokers are less likely to suffer from Parkinson and Alzheimer Diseases and you will get a chapter and verse lecture about … cause and effect. They would correctly point out that there might be other factors that create such correlation.

Apparently the same concept does not exist when it comes to passive smoking.

* * * * *

Whilst the anti-smoking social engineers were busy banning smokers from airplanes, scientist discovered a hole in ozone layer in the atmosphere above Australia. As chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) gas is known to interact with ozone gas in a lab, the eco-whacko ecoholics decided that somehow, our antiperspirants, shaving gels and aircon are responsible for that hole.

Theories upon theories were expunged as to why the offending gas decided to come all the way from the northern hemisphere where its was mainly used, and end up on top of the most sparsely populated continent.

The explanation about the hole in the ozone layer, as later with the global warming “science” THE basic law of climate was fraudulently ignored. I say fraudulently because the most basic law of Meteorology – it is the Law of Coriolis.

The Law of Coriolis is that (because of the earth rotation) in the northern hemisphere, winds around barometric high pressure (and sea currents) rotates in a clockwise direction whilst winds around barometric low pressure rotates in anti-clockwise direction. In the southern hemisphere it is the exact opposite.

Further, barometric high or low pressure systems (including tropical storms) never cross the equator. This means that there little “leakage” of air and ocean currents between the two hemispheres.

Yet, as basic as it is, no one ever explained, let alone proved, how the CFC gases ended up on top of Australia.

Unfortunately for the cause, technology quickly replaced CFC gas, planet save! Or has it?

In a very similar process of cause creating as passive smoking, global warming was born.

* * * * *

From its inception, global warming has proven a social engineering goer. Unlike its predecessors, (real) pollution and the hole in the ozone layer, global warming was constructed correctly to ensure emotional wide appeal, cross disciplines and most important, continuity into the 22^nd century (it started in the 20^th century).

The eco whackos like it because, unlike real air and water pollution which, with, can be resolved, removing carbon dioxide from the Atmosphere is impossible meaning a continuity to the cause.

What a megalomaniac moron thinks that man has the power change the climate? What is next? Stopping earth rotating around the sun? or maybe “just” reversing the direction.

Global warming has nothing to do with the environment and all to do with social engineering. The quicker you recognise this the quicker yo recognised the magnitude of deception it is.

The fact that is “global” makes it attractive to politicians, global problems (oops, challenge) requires robust global solutions meaning more conventions in exotic place, more UN protocols, more declarations, more treaties, more accords, more agreements … more Champaign?

In order to make global warming more acceptable to the masses, it was made threatening with forecast of rising oceans, sinking islands, bleached coral reefs, melting ice, floods, droughts, storms and any other meteorological event are upon us … help!! Save the planet! – mix in emotion, about all those disappearing cute species forgetting the most important one on earth, humans. There

nothing like a bit of fear to get the folks focusing on the planet instead of on incompetent politicians and bureaucrats.

Back to melting ice. Yes I did. Did you watch Al Gore’s docoganda An Inconvenient Truth? Did you see those melting ice caps? If you did (or not) here is something for you:

Again, what you see is not what you get. Although the woman from the (sci-fi movie) The Day After Tomorrow appears unconcerned about Al Gore’s graphic plagiarism, she also seems to be previously unaware of it. The great Caesar of global warming, and a Nobel Price winner could not only produce a real shot melting ice but surreptitiously used someone else’s computer graphics to support his lies.

Al Gore lies? Is that possible? Well, at a day which for Al Gore was “a day after tomorrow I am getting my Nobel price” (two days before his Nobel price was announced) a British judge ruled that Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth has nine inconvenient facts, or according to the Times On Line:

The judge said some of the errors were made in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration” in order to support Mr Gore’s thesis on global warming.

Come-on Judge, “alarmism and exaggeration” in the context of Al Gore? Not possible, beside we all know that Bush lied too, so here!.

* * * * *

And where is the scientific proof for the fact that global warming is anthropogenic? (man made) Oh that? Again and again we hear the mantra scientific consensus of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Wait a minute, consensus? Since when consensus is a scientific proof? You do not need to be a scientist to know that consensus may be a valid way to elect Miss World but it has little to do with science.

In fact had Copernicus put his theories to a vote the scientific consensus at his times the vote would have gone to “the world is flat” way.

* * * * *

Apropos nothing, why all the environmental activists in Australia have a North American accent? Don’t we have our own whackos?