Jacob's Soap Box

29 November,2009

Can you imagine that you are about to go into a dangerous military mission just to discover that the intelligence reports on which you mission is based, are fraudulent, would you still go on that mission?

Can you imagine that you are about to board a plane and just to discover that the licences your pilots are holding are forged, would you still board that plane?

Can you imagine that the new breaking system just fitted on your car is based on a mathematical model which was never been road tested, would you still take your car for a spin?

The answers of course are no, no and no.

Yet our politicians are going to Copenhagen to agree measure to combat global warming, in a complete disregard to the fact that the globe is cooling, in a complete disregard to the fact that NONE of the climate models used by the IPCC (the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) forecasted the current cooling and in a complete denial to the recent discovery of Climategate.

Climategate is the term given to the posting of email files on the Internet, files that were hacked from a computer of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in the UK.

These exchanges show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the science behind global warming is controlled by a relative small group of scientists, activists, journalists (surprise surprise) and bureaucrats whose motivation is anything but science. The pear review we heard so much about is a sham, akeen to the police investigating itself, the member of the clique review each other, reciprocate kudos and not only exclude any opposing science from the “reviw”, but use their clout to silence it.

Here is an example, on 14 October 2009, Tom Wigley, a senior researcher with the University Cooperation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) wrote:

Dear folks,

You may be interesting in this snippet of information about Pat Michaels. Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, PhD needs re-assessing?

In a classic approach of the global warmer ideologues of “kick the man, not the ball”, Prof Phil Jones of the UEA replied (inter-alia):

I recall Pat [Michaels] wasn’t very good at writing stuff up.

What was Dr Michaels’s sin that necessitates a re-education Mao style ? Apparently Dr. Michaels had the audacity to publish a (PhD) thesis on the relationship between crop and climate that contradicts findings of one of the group members. So What? you ask, in simple words, it means what we all know intuitively and that is that (global) warming is beneficial to crops and we can have that, can we?

******

On 9 October, 2009, Paul Hudson, a climate correspondent, wrote on the BBC web site an uncharacteristic (for the BBC) article titled What happened to Global Warming? , he wrote:

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

He goes on to suggest, what many of us already know, that perhaps the 1990’s warming was part of a natural cycle as indeed is the current cooling.

The ensuing email discussion revealed that, other than a few guesses, the scientists don’t really have an answer to the current cooling. Dr. Kevin Trendberth of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) was honest enough to say that:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Professor Michael E Mann of Pennsylvania State University (PSU), Mr Hockey Stick (more about him later) ,suggested a real scientific way to resolve the quandary and that is to put Paul Hudson in his rightful place, he said:

extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?

You see, these people not only run the global climate fraud, they also in bed with the liberal media.

* * * * *

There are over 1,000 Climategate email files, mostly with more than one message in them (because of the apparent use “Reply” and “forward”) going back to 1996. I do not pretend to heave read them all, or even a significant number of them, nor do I claim to understand many of the scientific arguments and counter-arguments made, from these that I studied, somewhat randomly, it is abundantly clear that a lot of scientists’ time and efforts is devoted to sheer ideology and politics rather than to science.

Whilst there is nothing new in the fact that the science of global warming is heavily tainted by ideology and politics, a claim that had been made by many reputable scientists, we now have the smoking gun as a proof, if we even need one.

Too often we are told that the science (of global warming) is settled and passed the scrutiny of peer review. It appears that this is not so! It is more like the scientific consensus was brought about by peer pressure, rather than by peer review.

Let me pick a subject.

The Hockey Stick Theory

Had you watch Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, you would no doubt recall this scene where Al Gore stand in front of two large graphs.

The left graph depicts the Northern Hemisphere’s (NH) variation from (a long term) average temperatures going back to 1,000 years and on the right one, the average carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentration in the atmosphere. You can clearly see that the temperatures were relatively stable until the twentieth century as it shot up, resembling a hockey stick on its side, hence the term.

The so-called hockey stick theory was a brain child of Prof Michael Mann (albeit not by name), the very same Prof. Mann I cited earlier. So powerful were those graphs that when shown by Al Gore they swayed many uncommitted into the global warming believers camp, I personally know a few.

The graphs, together with Prof. Mann’s theory made their way into the IPCC report with the blessing of the climate scientists and, naturally, activists, journalists, bureaucrats and the politicians.

In his book Heaven + Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science, Prof Ian Plimer of the University of Adelaide (Australia) described how two Canadian mathematicians, Steven McIntire and Ross McKitrick, obtained Prof. Mann’s raw data (despite great obstacles put him) and concluded, amongst other things, that the data does not support Mann’s conclusions, or in their words:

due to collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolations of source data, obsolete data, geographical location error, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control. defects.

[- Page 90]

So much for peer review scrutiny.

In fact, Prof. Mann somehow missed two significant climatic events in the last 1,000 years, the Medieval Warming Period (MW or MWP) of 900-1300 AD (when Greenland was green and and grapes were growing in northern England) and the Little Ice Age of 1280 to 1850 AD (when the Thames was frozen solid).

Here is a comparison between the hockey stick theory and the real climate history of the Northern Hemisphere (at least).

By 2006 the Medieval Warming period and the Little Ice Age that had been expunged from the IPCC report in 2001, miraculously reappeared with no explanation.

Was it just an error in good faith on the part of Prof. Mann? Not so according to Climategate.

Apparently two honest scientists, Dr Edward R Cook and Dr. Jan Esper, both tree rings specialists, had raised the existence of both the Medieval Warming Period and the little Ice Age with Dr. Mann back in May 2001.

(If you open the link, read it from the bottom upward, last message first. Don’t worry too much about the science itself but rather note that: a) The existence of both the Medieval Warming period and the Little Ice Age was proven by 2001, and b) How “moderate” peer pressure was applied on those who strayed from the orthodox path)

This is what Ed cook says to Michael Mann in a message dated 2 May 2001, inter-alia:

Jan [Esper] also had to compare his record with the hockey stick … the [Jan] Esper series shows a very strong, even canonical, Medieval Warm Period – Little Ice Age – 20th Century Warming pattern, which is largely missing from the hockey stick

You would have thought that the existence of a study that contradicts his previous scientific findings would trigger Prof. Mann’s scientific interest. No fear, as we say down under, Professor Mann is not interested in the science, politics is far more important, Prof. Mann replied that:

I’m just a bit concerned that the result is getting used publically, by some, before it has gone through the gauntlet of peer review [meaning: pressure]. Especially because it is, whether you condone it or not, being used as we speak to discredit the work of us, and Phil et al, this is dangerous.

Translation: Don’t you ever publish results that we don’t approve of! It is dangerous (for you) to do so.

As professor Plimer said in relation to climate data: “If the data does not fit the model, you torture it into submission” (or words to that effect). Now, who are the real climate deniers?

Why is it that I feel that Climategate will keep me busy for week?

© Copyrights Jacob Klamer – all rights reserved (except images and clips).

15 July, 2009

The G-8 Plus meeting in L’Aquila, Italy has finished with the usual pre-scripted, tears generating worded declarations which can be summed up along these lines:

We, the one who know best, [rubbing of hairy chests] agree that global problems require global solutions and regardless of what the people who elected us think about [insert issue here] and about spending their money are going spend it on their behalf anyway and by the tonne.

Much of the time and media management (i.e. propaganda) of this charade was devoted to Climate Change, a euphemism for Global Warming, that is much like the tale about Herscheleh from Ostropol, a fictitious folkloristic Jewish comedian, prankster and village idiot figure in !8^th century Eastern Europe:

One early morning, just before dawn, as the folks were on their way to the synagogue for the Shaharit (early morning payer) they notice Herscheleh under the lamp post, circling the post scanning the ground.

“Herschel” said the rabbi “What on earth are you doing here this time of the morning?”

“I lost my key” replied Herscheleh

“Where did you lose it?” inquire the rabbi

“There” said Herscheleh pointing into the darkness away from the light of the lamp post.

“So why are looking for you key in here if you lost it there”? persisted the rabbi with a puzzle.

“Because the light is here Rabbi, not there” replied Herschel with a smug.

The same goes for the leaders of G-8, the eight largest economies in the world, are all in deep economic disarray which they have no idea as to how to get out of it, using climate change as a decoy away from their incompetence.

The G-8 Plus (some of the G-20) leaders declared amongst other things that they

[R]ecognize the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2 degrees C. [highlight added]

Scientific view, what is it? Science does not have views, sciences has hypotheses which are either proven, disproven or remained unproven. Views express by scientists are only views and are as valid as anyone else’s view, there is nothing scientific about a scientists’ views.

Don’t let them (the scare mongers) fool you, it is not the first time, and probably not the last time, that politicians use science as a fig leaf. We all remember Al Gore’s proclamation that “the science has been settled” and global warming is has been proven by “a scientific consensus” placing science on par with beauty pageant as to picking winners.

Science is never settled and it is not about consensus, science is about selecting hypotheses and proving them (or not). ask Copernicus and Galileo Galilei who, contrary to massive scientific (and theological) consensus, risked their lives and disproved geocentricism. Had science been about consensus, who knows, we may gave still be walking this earth believing that it is flat and that we are the centre of universe.

One can imagine the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Geocentricism warning us of the danger paused by people such as Copernicus and Gallie.

The “science” of global warming is based on two mutual inclusive hypotheses (meaning BOTH must exist) and they are that the increase in CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere is THE CAUSE for global warming of the planet AND that the increase in CO₂ is cause by human activities (anthropogenic).

The facts of the matter are that NONE of these hypotheses have been scientifically proven!

Bear in mind, the CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere is 350ppm (parts per million), compare it to a teaspoon of sugar in a standard glass at about 2,500ppm. More important the so-called “carbon pollution” is only 4% of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (14ppm).

So what are we talking about? Nothing, nada, tipota, gurnischt! BUT the echophiles always come up with escaper route and their escape route is something called the Precautionary Principle, another non-scientific PC term which is neither precautionary nor a scientific.

Under the pretence of science those echophiles tell although we don’t really know what cause global warming we better pretend and behave as if it is manmade carbon dioxide just in case (JIC).

Absolute crap! We already have scientific (mathematical) tools to deal with decision making under uncertainty, it is the Mathematical branch of Operations Research that deals with such questions.

For example Operations Research is used to determine how many bank tellers or supermarket checkout will be setup given a the pattern of the demand for the service and acceptable level of customer queues. The Bank or the Supermarket does not construct 500 service point just in case a one time unusual demend.

BUT, Operations Resreach is based on sound mathematical rules not some eco-whacko furphies such as the “science” of global warming.

Do you really want to use Precautionary Theory? Fine, go right ahead; lets see: Helmet, sky-divers suit, parachute and ejecting seat for every airline passenger, JIC; mandatory crush helmet and fire suit installed in every family car for every passenger, JIC; a man with a red flag in front of every car (with phosphorous vest and a hard hat), JIC … I guess that you get the idea.

Use the precautionary principle argument when you run out valid arguments for your case.

* * * * *

The last two counties to fall to the global warming hoax was Australia (in November 2007) and the USA (in January 2009). We now have almost a global unanimity on the issue among almost all politicians of all persuasions which is frightening – To me it is a true conspiracy even if I am not one who for conspiracies.

If you think that “conspiracy” is too stronger word for it how about reading of the Declaration Of The Leaders The Major Economies Forum On Energy And Climate that formed a part of the G-8 Plus in L’Aquila meeting which foreshadowed global climate change measures not normally spoken about, not loudly anyhow.

In addition to emission trading (however such scheme named) there is a unanimity on a MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING, over and above the various stimuli already flushed down the drains, and

dramatically increase and coordinate public sector investments in research, development, and demonstration of these [green] technologies, with a view to doubling such investments by 2015 [Emphasis added]

Simply put this is a hijack of the global economy by putting obscene amounts of money into the “greening” of our economies.

The last ecophile to join the global war4mning asylum, President Obama, glorified Spain and other countries and use them as examples for the USA to follow, for their “progress” in greening their economies, some six moths ago he said in Bedford, Ohio that:

And think of what’s happening in countries like Spain, Germany and Japan, where they’re making real investments in renewable energy. They’re surging ahead of us, poised to take the lead in these new industries.

This isn’t because they’re smarter than us, … It’s because their governments have harnessed their people’s hard work and ingenuity with bold investments – investments that are paying off in good, high-wage jobs – jobs they won’t lose to other countries. [Highlight added]

Not quite Mr. President, a Spanish academic, Dr. Gabriel Álvarez of the Juan Carlos University in Madrid has published a study that shows, amongst other things, that

we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average [Highlight added]

–Summary, No 2, pg. 1

(I strongly recommend that you read, at least, the whole summary on pages 1-4)

The loss of jobs cited by Dr Álvarez is primarily due to high electricity charges, up to 7 times the market level, that are forced on industry, particularly electricity intensive ones, such as aluminium, steel, other metallurgy, food processing and tobacco. They all move their operation to countries who will not have a bar of this stupidity (eg China, India, Vietnam) and who guarantee low electricity charges for years to come – China is connecting a new (coal fired) power station to their grid every 10 days or so.

In fact the actual loss of jobs to the economy is more then 2.2 per each “smart” job but I leave it for now mainly for sake of simplicity.

* * * * *

As important as jobs are there is something even more insidious that I wish to draw your attention to but I need to explain it a bit first;

Suppose that I am a tomatoes’ farmer, growing your normal humble tomatoes and selling them to the local supermarket for years at market prices that fluctuate with supply, demand quality etc. Nothing to write home about.

One day a man from the government comes around and he want me to grew a new type of pear shaped “green” tomatoes which are environmentally friendly thus give me the opportunity to be part of the movement to save the planet – ain’t that exciting?

I tell the man that I love to help but… those tomatoes are hard to grow, the farm machinery that I need for them is very expensive, and has long period of down time, the yield I would per acre is about 12% of I get now and that them eco-friendly tomatoes are very susceptible to the weather and insects. According to a quick calculation I would probably need to charge about three times the prices I get now and all that I don’t even sure that people would like such tomatoes. “Thanks but no thanks, I pass” I conclude.

To my surprise, the man smiles and says that the government is aware of all the difficulties but here is the deal: The machinery and other investment I need will be provided by the government, the government also guarantees the price I would be getting at about 6-7 times what I get now AND most importantly the government guarantee the sale of the whole crop.

I go back to do my sums and discover that with such massive help I would be earning some 17% on my investment compare with 4% that I get now, wow!

Now my friends, instead of tomatoes think of “renewable energy” and you would immediately understand the attraction global warming has to the likes of GE and Suzlon who adopt global warming AND GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES all heartedly.

So much so that they even “grow” their “tomatoes” in (wind) FARMS, this gives the farming profession a whole new meaning.

If yo were a CEO of any company and had the opportunity to earn 17% return on your shareholders capital, you too will jump on it irrespective of your opinion on the “science” behind it, I know I would, it would be incumbent upon me to do so.

In fact in total subsidies, paid-up and committed, Spain, a country of 46 millions, spent some $36 billions. If America spend the same on a per capita basis it would amount to about $235 billions.

So generous was the Spanish program that it influenced the financial markets and created an investment “bubble” paused to explode in a middle of a global financial crisis that forced the Spanish government to tweak their generosity back somewhat.

And what does that mean in terms of your air-conditioning and hot water regulators? Dr Álvarez worked it out as an increase of 31% in electricity expenses, payable either on you bill or by your taxes.

I hope that now you see why we all going to get carbon trading of some description – much of that money has already been spent. It is now time to pay for it, just watch it coming.

(BTW, has anyone studied the relationship between wind and photovoltaic farms in their states and their state deficit? e.g. California)

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2009

21 May, 2009

Studies have shown that 95% of people die whilst laying in bed. I can no longer remain silent on such mass slaughter of innocent people by the multinational bed and linen corporations, in particular women and children. I therefore resolved to create awareness of the challenges ahead and establish the Coalition For Sleeping On the Floor.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel For Sleeping Change (IPSC), that comprises of the best scientists research funds money can buy and Unocrats, recognised my efforts and produced its First Report On Sleeping Change in preparation for the Bedford Protocol On Sleeping Change.

According to the IPCS report, unless a drastic action is taken to reduce sleeping in beds habits, mathematical models have shown that nearly 40% of all people living today will die by the year 2050 and 99.9% will be dead by 2110, shocking results indeed!!!

In a speech before the Bedford Protocol delegations I said:

There is a sufficient scientific body of consensus, the science is settled, we must act and we must act now! sleeping on beds is no longer a sustainable option. We must come together (but not in beds) and meet the challenge bed-head on and rid the world of beds before we shall all perish.

Former Vice-President, the inventor of the Internet and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, joined my efforts and produced an astonishing docoganda called The Embedded Truth in which he revealed astounding statistics that the death rate per hospital bed is 97.3 times that of a domestic bed actualised the urgency of action. Mr Gore moved for the immediate ban on hospital beds to the applaus of the enthusiastic crowd.

In his docoganda, Mr Gore, holding a hockey stick, pointed to large graphs on the wall behind him showing a steady death rate against number of beds going back to the stone age until the 20^th century when both number of beds and death rate picked suddenly hence the name hockey stick. He added:

The is no doubt, ladies and gentlemen, that the increase death rate is due to manmade beds. As you can see [pointing to the beginning of the graph] the death rate in the stone age is very law indeed, we now know for certain that it is attributable to the lack of beds.

Despite a concentrate efforts scientists were unable to unearth any death certificate from the stone age thus concluded that people did not die during the stone age because there were no beds back then

The Bedford protocol for sleeping change called for a gradual reduction in concentrations of beds to 50% by year 2050, 100% by year 2100 and 150% by 2150 (to be on the safe side). At the suggestion of the Women Against Going To Bed With Men, the habit of two people using the same bed was declared disgusting and banned (unless both bedded are of the same sex).

Ms. Penny Worth, the Australian Minister responsible of sleeping change said:

We cannot allow irresponsible people negating the benefits of reduction of beds by sharing the remaining beds. However, we are cognisant of the human rights issues involving with same sex bonking thus have made some welcome exceptions

* * * * *

Sleeping on the floor has been proven environmentally friendly too. Not only you will be closer to nature and to your ancestors but by us all sleeping on the floor we shall no longer be depended on foreign imports of lead pained beds (ichs) from China carried by foreign own ships propelled by dirty fossil fuel!!! Sleeping on a the floor has a smaller carbon print thus it is considered socially responsible.

It was also shown that as people sleep in floors their lower position viz-a-viz the stratosphere means that the carbon dioxide they exhaling is less likely to reach the stratosphere, thus reducing global warming.

In a teleprompter shattering speech, president Bedvasser said:

America is addicted to its beds, we can no longer sustain such out of control beds. In future American bed manufacturer shall be required to conform to the government smaller SBEU (Single Bed Equivalent Unit – a scientific bed measurement unit) per person.

America can no longer afford irresponsible behaviour such as person sleep alone on a king size bed of 2.75 SBEU’s. I therefore announce a new bedding targets which will come into effect immediately.

The Australian Prime Minister Kevin Tucheslaker said me-too and introduced similar measurers in Australia in order to save humanity, as he put it. Somehow the fact that if we all perish tomorrow the affect on the world population would be a reduction of 0.35% escaped him as did the fact China will make up such shortfall by next Friday.

However, member states of the Non-Aligned Movement of the UN, otherwise known as the Third World countries, who in fact controls the voting of the UN General Assembly were allowed to continue to develop sleeping in beds habits. Their UN spokesman, Mr. Bunkie Moon said:

For centuries we slept on the floor whilst people in America and Europe were tucked in beds under worm quits on soft matrasses with electric blankets turned on “max”, it is now our turn to enjoy such luxuries.

(Privately Mr. Moon was concerned that unless there is allowance to his country his first name may be politically incorrect.)

When the USA representative, Ms. Julia Gotobeds, attempted to warn Mr. Moon of the dangers in adopting such risky sleeping strategy, Dr. Shi Tin Bed from China mumbled something in Chinese, a keen simultaneous translator voice was heard whispering in the earpieces a second later:

We don’t care if our people will die, we have too many of the anyway, serve them right for breeding like rabbits.

In order to avoid objections and procrastinations by the all powerful Bedding Industry, the conference decided to establish a new financial instrument Bed Sleeping Credits (BSC) a system by which a Monopoly-like money is transform to real money. Governments will issued large corporations with BSC’s on the basis of contributions in the last elections (when relevant). Those credits will be traded on the stock exchange. People who cannot fall asleep on the floor can buy such credits to compensate society for their anti-social behaviour. The system will be known as Nap And Trade.

* * * * *

One small bald with glasses and goatee German mathematicians, Dr Hans Sensemacher, tried to explain to the conference that the existence of strong mathematical correlation between two variables is not a proof of cause and effect. It is possible, he argued, that laying in bed may be not be a cause of death but a consequence of the more likely causes, such as illness, accident or old age.

He was booed down by angry participants calling him sceptic, right winger, redneck and neo con. Later the conference heard From Congersman Bernie Klieneweewee that Dr Sensmacher been receiving moneys for his research from the giant Gootschluf matrasses manufacture, of Bavaria and the Iranian president’s cousin, Dr Ahmedpeeinbed.

Post scriptum

On the following morning Greenpeace, World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) and the Wilderness Society raised a strong objection to the elimination of beds altogether because, they claim, it destroys the habitat of bed-bugs and, if such destruction of habitat proceeded with, it will bring bed-bugs to the brink of extinction.

A world without bed bugs is considered even greater environmental disaster than a death of a few people.

The BBC together with the New-York Times, launched the Save The Bed-Bug campaign featuring the great environmentalist Mr David Attengetter shown on TV playing with cute bed-bugs providing running commentary of their contribution to our planter’s fragile eco-system (must have one of those).

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2009 – all rights reserved.

12 May, 2009

As of  Monday 4^th may 2009, supermarket plastic bags are banned in the state of South Australia (capital: Adelaide). Like it or loath it, it is another landmark win for the green social engineers.

In fact this is a win for emotional mediocrity, shallowness, ignorance and stupidity of the South Australian public that allow itself to be anaesthetised by morally corrupt journalists and their editors. Not to be overly harsh on the South Australian public, I am certain that, had it been another state, the results would have been the same – no one would hit the streets with banners because of shopping plastic bags.

But plastic bags are not the real issue, they are only a stage the takeover of our lives by the social engineers in the name of the environment.

Was it only me? I listen to an interview on the ABC Radio (no relation to the American media organisation with the same name) with the South Australian Environment Minister, whose name escapes me and not sufficiently important to look it up, that proudly bragged that ” now the landfills of South Australia have been saved” (or words to that affect).

Let me just put it in proportion; South Australia is nearly one and a half times the size of Texas (1.4 to be precise) with a population of 1.6 million, or 6.6% that of Texas. Take off 1.1 million people who live in Adelaide that leaves 400,000 people, who mostly live in coastal towns, for the rest of the state and a vast empty desert for hundreds of miles – saving landfills? Who are they kidding?

But wait a minute, by law we are required, at least here, to wrap our house refuse in plastic bags. Most people indeed re-use shopping bags for that very purpose which means that from now on, in South Australia, shoppers have to buy plastic bags to wrap their garbage in. How do landfills get to be saved with purpose purchased plastic bags as distinct from the re-used shopping variety? Anyone? Anyone?

Lesson number one; environmentalists do not care about contradictions in their massages.

On this very issue, it is some 25 years since the paper bags were banned because they damaged the environment, “save the forest” the echo-Whacko told us, yet if you do not wish to buy the “green” shopping bags in South Australia you will be supplied with … wait for it! … paper bags!

How about Dr (PhD on butterflies) Paul Erlich, the guru of population control who wrote in his book “The Population Explosion” in 1968 that, unless drastic measures are taken to limit population growth, by 1980 there will be insufficient food for all of us. We are nearly 30 year past that point and the social engineers are gearing up to fight …. oh no! Obesity!

* * * * *

Let me see, the environmental message is about pollution, right?

How many of you think that the atmosphere is more polluted now that it was 30 years ago? If you do you are wrong! By all yardsticks that measure pollutants in the air, such as the level of ozone (O₃), Carbon Monoxide (CO), sulphur dioxide (SO₂), lead and others in the atmosphere, the air quality in the in the developed countries is much higher than it was thirty years ago despite the increase in number of motor vehicles (40% in the USA) during that time.

Yes, the air in the USA and in Australia got cleaner during the tenures of George Bush and John Howard (respectively) but do not expect the media to admit that by all impartial accounts the air quality in the USA in the Bush years was better than in the Clinton’s tenure. In fact the media along with the environmental industry tell you the exact opposite.

Lesson number two; the environmental message is not necessarily true, as a matter of fact it is a pack of lies most of the time.

Greg Easterbrook, an environmental writer, asked a New York Times’ journalist why is it that the paper knowingly misleading the public and allows environmental “news” that otherwise would be edited out as sheer lies? the public would become complacent [about the environment] was the answer. You see my friends, the elitist journalistic profession do not trust you with the truth they need to chew it for you before serving it but what else is new Charlie?

The so-called profession is no longer about impartial reporting, it is about pushing a left an agenda. A left wing agenda supporting the liberal left.

Lesson number three; environmentalism has nothing to do with the environment all to do with social engineering.

In order to facilitate social change, the social engineers need to create a crisis. When people feel threatened they are more likely to agree, or at least no object, to more government control – this is what it is all about, CONTROL!

Patrick Moore, the Canadian co-founder of Greenpeace who left the organisation over policy disagreements provides us with some insight into the movement. In May 2000 he said in the Daily mail that:

“…we have an environmental movement that is run by people who want to fight, not to win.

In other words, the movement select unwinnable issues, such as global warming, that enable the perpetuity of their very existence with a healthy sources of publicity and funds. Take Greenpeace which was founded in 1970 primarily resist the nuclear tests in the Pacific by the USA and France – Once the international nuclear test ban can into force, Greenpeace was forced to diversify to other environmental issues to remain in business.

Why don’t you do a small experiment, walk to the nearest environmentalist and tell him or her: I see that the global temperature declined since year 2000, isn’t it great? Watch their reaction. If you think that they will be relieved that “the imminent” perils of global warming been averted, you are up for a bitter disappointment.

* * * * *

Let us examine the largest con ever perpetrated on humanity, global warming or its predecessor in name only climate change. The demonisation of inert, odourless, colourless gas that is naturally occurring in nature and comprises some 0.03% of the atmosphere as the villain that is destroying the civilisation as we know it. Oh sinful people the end is nye!

Let me see if I get it; the echo-whackos want us to destroy our civilisation in order to save it? How does that work? If we go back to live as the stone age Aborigines that came to meet our First Fleet in 1788, our civilisation will be saved?

Do the echo-whackos want us to destroy our civilisation in order to save it? Not at all, they want everything to stay exactly as it is. Remember, they want to fight not to win and they don’t care much for contradictions.

However, in the meantime and with the help of the liberal media, academia, our education systems and … Hollywood, they have created a monster of a propaganda machine that has the world has never seen before, the two Josephs, Stalin and Goebbels, notwithstanding.

What all these bedfellows have in common with the echo-whackos or with each others, for that matter, that they all banded together against us? The answer is simple; ANTI-CAPITALISM! Sounds familiar?

Yes, the green movement is a watermelon, green on the outside and red on the inside. Browse the platform of the various “Green” parties and you quickly see familiar motifs straight out the Communist Manifesto. The reds did not passed away with the death of the Soviet Union, they simply grew green skins.

Now you see the mutual exclusive relation between Communism and environmentalism, every environmentalist is a Communist and every Communist is a greenie and they have one aim which is simply MORE GOVERNMENT. In order to get average Joe and Sheila Citizen to agree, or even demand, bigger government intervention in their affairs, one must create a crisis. Crisis also means more government money for the cause. More money for “research”, more money for “education” (of the public at large) of the impeding “disaster” and the “need to act” NOW!

As The White House Chief Of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said recently: Never let a serious crisis go to waste, much less if you have gone into the trouble of creating such crisis (the second part is my addition)..

And if we are talking about more crises and more government, who is to say that we mean our own respective sovereign governments, oh no! Global emergencies require global solution. Rather than get tangled with pesky individual constitutions, we need solutions that need not be limited by national laws. So now it is not your elected government who calls the shots, it is the United Nations the most corrupt body of unelected officials on earth who wants to rule the world from New York, Geneva or wherever.

Wait! Just before you decide that you had enough conspiracy theory here, instead of clicking the close button, how about clicking here and check out Agenda 21 and see, amongst other things, how the UN attempt to control every aspect of our lives. If you thought that your local council has to deal with the three “R”, rates, roads and rubbish, you are wrong, chapter 28 is devoted to them.

When recently I demanded to know why my local council waste my rates money on signs that call for the “saving” the Tasmanian forests, not even in my state, Agenda 21 was the answer.

This is how it works, A bunch echo-whacko official UN comes up with an idea and they push it through a committee with fancy name (you bet) till it comes out as UN treaty, declaration, resolution, protocol or agenda and however named such piece of paper that goes to individual members countries, that your country and mine.

Anonymous obscure unelected people in Rio De Janeiro (in this case) decided that my council rates should pay for the greenies agenda in Tasmania, irrespective of what I or any other rate payer think of it.

Our power grabbing politicians, of all persuasions, are happy to push it through because it gives them more powers, how often have you heard that we must adopt one paper or another because even the UN agrees with it? Now and then we see heads of states such George W Bush and John Howard who stand up and refuse to ratify a UN paper, such as the Kyoto Protocol on the ground that it is against the interests of our respective countries, but at great personal cost in term of personal hate campaign by the “companionate” greenies!

And then there is the Kyoto Protocol, a UN agreement to limit the developed (but not other) countries’ emissions by unrealistic levels thus causing untold damage to their economies for … 3% reduction in global warming by 2050. This is a conclusion of a scientist who SUPPORTS the global warming swindle.

Thomas Wigley, a senior scientist with the National Centre For Atmospheric Research (NCAR) said in his article The effect of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming (scroll down) that:

Wigley concluded that the impact on projected temperature increases, with all countries doing only what is required under Kyoto and then continuing with business as usual, would be a scant 0.06 to 0.11°C (0.11 to 0.20°F) shaved off the total warming, roughly a 3% reduction [in global warming].

[emphasis provided]

Hey, with conclusions like these who needs sceptics?

But we already know that the echo-whackos are not concerned about the planet, they want to destroy our economies by attacking the very basis for our lives, energy.

* * * * *

And if you still remain unconvinced that Kyoto was a real attempt to address a problem, albeit unproven one, please address the question why is it that countries, such as France, who rely on nuclear energy for 80% of its electricity production, nor would any other country who would go nuclear, can obtain carbon credits for their effort to reduce omission. Here we have a perfect solution, but no, the echo whackos would not have a bar of it. Of course not, if nuclear power would solve our problem, two things will happen: It will prove that carbon dioxide has no real affect on the weather and more important it will destroy the basis for their agenda – no problem no money.

Planting trees to absorb that retched carbon dioxide was originally excluded from approved activities. Can you imagine that? Turning carbon dioxide into oxygen was banned. The echo whackos later relented somehow but with a caveat, the trees must be native to the areas and MONOCULTURAL, do you get that? We are not allowed to interfere with the “culture” of the trees but we must warship multiculturalism when it comes to … people!

Our government can allow in people with culture even abhorrent to us (try “honour” killings of women for size) and we suppose to treat such culture as sacred in the name of multiculturalism but when it comes to trees, oh no! No foreigners allowed.

All of you out there with eucalyptus trees in your countries, your tree are multicultural, pull them out, they belong to us!

These people have no shame!

© Copyrights Jacob Klamer 2009, all rights reserved.

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.

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?