About Me

Name:El Puntillero
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
Uncategorized

Hot Planets

 
The Planet is Getting Hotter

Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, recently revealed studies which showed the planet is definitely getting a little warmer. His core focus was on the shrinking of the polar ice caps. He is convinced a long ice age is beginning to end and that temperatures will continue to rise for the foreseeable future.

The planet in question is not Earth but Mars. Our nearest neighbour is not alone in terms of temperature rises. Jupiter, Pluto and Neptune’s moon, Triton, have all experienced an increase in temperatures.

“Man-made greenhouse warming has [made a] small contribution [to] the warming on Earth in recent years, but [it] cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” said Abdussamatov in a recent interview. “The considerable heating and cooling on the Earth and on Mars always will be practically parallel.”

What could have caused the temperature increases in so many places at the same time? Higher levels of carbon dioxide generated by increased industrialisation? Gas guzzling SUVs belching out pollution on interplanetary highways? Deforestation?

If none of these above seems appropriate, how about: the sun is going through a cycle in which it is warmer than usual and as a result the solar system is heating up slightly?

Assuming that is the answer for Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Pluto and other parts of the solar system which are getting warmer, why shouldn’t the same factors be the cause of the very slight increase in Earth’s climate during most of the 20th century? How can it be that Earth and Mars are both experiencing the same slight climb in temperatures at the same time and have different causes?

It is true that changes in orbit can also affect planetary temperatures. If just one other place in the solar system was warming up while others places remained the same as before, it would be reasonable to assume the sun is not responsible. But just about every place that has come under recent investigation by space probes and other intense studies have shown the same trend: an increase in temperatures.

It is interesting to note that scientists in America, Russia, Europe and Australia are coming to the same conclusions in the debate on global warming. Given the historic rivalries between these countries/continents, one might expect scientists from one place to criticise findings from foreign scientists even if they had to suppress evidence which agreed with them. The level of agreement is highly encouraging.

Needless to say, those who have staked their careers on global warming being caused by human activity and that it presents an imminent threat to our survival have dismissed the evidence they got things wrong.

“The small measured changes in solar output and variations from one decade to the next are only on the order of a fraction of a percent, and if you do the calculations not even large enough to really provide a detectable signal in the surface temperature record,” claimed Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann.
“The link between solar activity and global warming is just another scapegoat for human-caused warming,”  Mann declared.

“Solar activity continues to be one of the last bastions of contrarians,” said Mann. People who don’t accept the existence of anthropogenic climate change still try to point to solar activity.”

In case you didn’t know, this is the very same Professor Mann who created the notorious “hockey stick” climate graph which has since been discredited as utterly false. Not only did the author compile graphs which were at odds with the facts, but there are very strong reasons to believe this was done intentionally. Data which conflicted with the “findings” of Professor Mann were hidden in a file marked “confidential data”.

Under the circumstances, a full-blooded denunciation from such a perverter of facts is just as good as a ringing endorsement from someone who knows what he’s talking about.





Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Fighting Fire With Fire

Fighting Fire With Fire

Those of you who thought the coalition of scheming politicians, opportunistic NGOs and third rate scientists who have been scare mongering about global warming were irritating but harmless are about to discover the harsh truth.

Most of these dangerous idiots want to tax the living daylights out of you and restrict your lifestyle to such an extent that even George Orwell would have trouble believing things could get so bad. And now they want to use “science” to cool the earth down and reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

You’ve already lost your say in the matter, and if you remain silent and acquiescent for much longer, it will be too late for you to even try and stop them.

The first plan to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide is already in progress. It involves dumping rusty iron filings into the ocean. The supposed benefit to this act of lunacy is the iron increases the growth of plankton and algae. This marine life extracts carbon dioxide from the air through photosynthesis and also provides food for other marine life.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gave a guarded endorsement of the scheme. Planktos Inc. of Foster City, California has already started dumping iron into the Pacific Ocean and recently launched its latest ship, Weatherbird II, for that purpose. This might be the first time in history a company has been formed for the sole purpose of causing pollution.

Planktos is financed by companies and individuals who have been duped into buying “carbon credits” to offset their use of fossil fuels.

Even the IPCC has reservations about the effects of large scale iron dumping in oceans. Seeing as anything other than extremely large scale iron dumping is not going to have the slightest effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, this does rule out the possibility of this being a sane attempt at a solution.

It has been pointed out that dumping massive amounts of rusty iron filings into the ocean would lead to a dramatic difference on ocean temperatures at different levels, which in turn would have a devastating impact on marine life. Blanketing the oceans with plankton and algae would also reduce the amount of light in the oceans and the oxygen levels would change.

The cretins who dreamed up this scheme probably envision the algae providing a superabundance of food for other marine life. If the right kind of algae grows at the right time and in the right place, this is just about feasible. What if the algae is poisonous? Toxic algae is already a massive problem around the world. When red algae blooms under natural conditions, it exterminates practically all lifeforms it encounters. And right now, as you read this, a company in California is dedicated to dumping enough rusty iron in the oceans to cause a marine equivalent of the bubonic plague.

The worst thing of all is you can’t stop them. Planktos is dumping the rusty iron in international waters and needs no permits to do so.

Moving on from this relatively benign attempt to solve the non-existent problem of global warming, some scientists have proposed spending billions of dollars to pump sulphates into our atmosphere. The plan would require pumping tens of thousands of tonnes each month into our already-polluted atmosphere. The loonies behind this proposal were inspired by the volcanoes of Mount St Helens and Mount Pinatubo which both cooled the earth for about a year after erupting in 1980 and 1992 respectively.

The fact that a Nobel laureate could approve such a plan beggars belief, but Paul Crutzen is one of those advocating this approach. If it starts raining sulphuric acid in your neighborhood you know who to blame. If you receive a bill for the cost of sending those sulphates into the atmosphere in the first place – and rest assured you would be the one paying for it – then it’s your fault for letting these madmen get away with such acts.

When the going gets weird, you can always count on scientists to compete to the very end in their quest to outdo each other. Roger Angel of the University of Arizona proposes building a giant sunshade made up of 16 trillion miniature shades. He estimates it would take 20 million rocket launches, with 800,000 mini shades per rocket, to get the job done. Angel estimates the cost of this solar shade at around $4 trillion, spread over 30 years.

Clearly, the man is hopeless at finances. Even if the cost of a single rocket launch could somehow be reduced to a mere one million dollars, that would still result in $20 trillion being spent on rocket launches alone. Assuming it became possible to launch one rocket every hour, on the hour, until the job is done, it would still take 833,333 days or over 2,283 years to complete just the launch phase of the project. I’m all in favour of forward planning, but that’s taking it to extremes.

Assuming the constraints of time and money were somehow overcome, what would be the effect on our planet? How can blocking the sun’s rays be a good thing? Sunshine is vital for plants and animals. Not just in the obvious ways, such as helping crops ripen. Sunshine provides helps our bodies generate vitamins and has a profound psychological impact on us all. Roger Angel is proposing a plan that would cost perhaps 30 or 40 trillion dollars in order to take sunshine out of our lives.

Last, but perhaps not least, is a plan to build millions of towers about 200 feet high with carbon dioxide extractors on the top. The next stage is to somehow dispose of the extracted carbon dioxide safely, perhaps by burying in disused oil wells. No one has quite worked out how to build such a carbon dioxide extractor, or how to provide the power needed to make them work. Nor have they figured out how to dispose of the captured product. Needless to say, the costs haven’t been worked out, either. One thing you can count on – this would cost far, far more than it’s worth, and you would be lumbered with the bill.

All these schemes are being studied with a view to being conducted in your name. This is a direct consequence of accepting the lies, distortions and mindless conjecture that the global warming fraudsters have been shrieking at you over the past few years. If this is not what you want, you have to let them know right now.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Enemy Within

 

The Enemy Within


If you are in Britain right now, take a look at the nearest group of young Muslims. According to the latest survey, conducted by Policy Exchange, if those Muslims you are looking at are representative of their demographic group (Muslim, aged 16-24) then three out of four want Muslim women to wear the hijab. Four out of ten want sharia law imposed on everyone in the UK regardless of what everyone else wants and one in eight admires Al Quaeda.

These figures come hard on the heels of an August 2006 poll which revealed 45% of British Muslims in general believe the September 11 terrorist attacks were really an American-Israeli plot.

If the maxim that ones becomes more conservative with age is true, then it is highly likely this particular segment of society will be even more extremist in the following twenty years or so. During this period, they will also assume a leading role within the Muslim community as a whole.

As parents, they will expose their children to the most intolerant Muslim views, which is saying an awful lot, and brainwash succeeding generations into believing a vile creed must be obeyed by all on pain of death.

How did it come to this? Firstly, some utterly stupid immigration policies, combined with Post Colonial Guilt Complex welcomed most of them into Britain in the first place. Then, we had socialists in Labour governments during the 60s, 70s and the present regime determined to wipe out Britain’s culture and heritage as means to bringing about their left wing visions.

To do this, they had to take away people’s pride in Britain. The easiest way to achieve this was to flood the country with immigrants with an alien culture who resented many of the achievements of their new hosts. Next, the left wingers sought to pander to these new citizens by encouraging them to remain a separate culture within the mainstream.

The result is people who speak only Urdu or another non-European language despite living in Britain for decades. Integration is beyond such people who can only communicate with others in the same predicament.

Forty years of incessant attacks by deranged socialists on just about anything positive about Britain have left their mark. It’s racist to fly the Union Jack. Priority must be given to people from ethnic minorities when it comes to employment, housing and education. It has reached the stage where a black man can successfully sue the state for racism on the grounds that he was promoted above his capabilities because he was from an ethnic minority. The man in question was awarded £30,000 for his troubles.

Having demolished pride in Britain’s culture and history, is it any wonder the socialists have succeeded in their goal of having alien cultures and ways of life receive disproportionate attention and respect? Any loudmouthed jackass can appoint himself a spokesman for a community and be rewarded with publicity, funding and encouragement from the state.

The response of some of these “community leaders” to recent criticism is revealing:

Baroness Uddin, a Muslim in case you couldn’t guess, blames it all on the Brits. The non-Muslim Brits, that is.

“Unlike their parents, our young people feel that this is their country and are saying why are we being told we do not belong here.”

The fact that she used the words “our young people” go a long way to explaining the root cause of the problem. As long as the Muslims feel they are a people apart, they don’t belong in Britain.

Uddin hasn’t finished whining just yet.

“There is also a problem of a lack of opportunities. Some people have been brutalised by their experiences with the police and this war on terror.”

Britain has a reputation second only to America for being a land of opportunity. That’s why there are so many immigrants. The survey mentioned above also reported 84% of respondents felt they had been “treated fairly” in Britain. Given the tendency of Muslim immigrants to complain at the slightest provocation, this suggests the Baroness is not completely aware of reality. She is right about people being brutalised by the war on terror. Thanks to Muslim terrorists, plenty of innocent victims can attest to that.

Those are the words of a Muslim spokeswoman appointed a peer of the realm as an act of appeasement of a hostile minority by a spineless left wing government. Presumably, the words used in mosques up and down the realm are a tad harsher in their criticism, although broadly in agreement with Uddin.

Islamic Human Rights Commission chairman Massoud Shadjareh rejects the findings of the survey:

“If this multiculturalism was the true cause, you would see the same problem in the Jewish community and the Indian community but you have not because they did not have the same level of Islamophobia which has been unleashed here.”

No matter what the problem, sooner or later a Muslim will bring the Jews into it. Perhaps someone should take Mr. Shadjareh to one side and explain there are less than 200,000 Jews in Britain and they have assimilated into British society to the point where it’s hard to tell them apart unless you’re in Hatton Gardens.

The non-Muslim Indian community has had its ups and downs, but essentially, they have made the most of the opportunities Baroness Uddin failed to spot and have got on with their lives. They faced the same combination of prejudice and tolerance and made a better fist of things.

No report on asinine Muslims would be complete without at least one reference to the Muslim Council of Britain, and its assistant secretary-general, Inayat Bunglawala, has duly obliged:

“It is plainly mischievous to say that this indicates a campaign to impose Sharia on others when British Muslims constitute less than three per cent of this country's population.”

Well, Inayat, 40% of young British Muslims want sharia imposed. It’s not unreasonable to suppose some of that 40% might try harder than others to impose their will.

The Labour MP for Dewsbury, Shahid Malik, summed up the situation rather well:

“This report makes very disturbing reading and it vindicates the concern many of us have that we're not doing enough to confront this issue.”

True enough, but a left wing Muslim MP and member of the Government is exactly the kind of person who should be doing an awful lot more to confront this issue as it is his fellow Muslims and his ideological chums are responsible for getting the rest of us in this mess in the first place.

Socialists and Muslims have made an alliance of convenience in order to fulfill their objective which is to destroy the British way of life, and to date have done a pretty reasonable job. Neither has the best interests at heart of anyone who disagrees with them. They have got away with this nonsense for far too long. It’s time they were put in their place. And that place is definitely not even remotely connected to power.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Slavery: Who Should Apologise?

 
Slavery: Who Should Apologise?

Under immense pressure from black campaigners and so-called “community leaders” Tony Blair issued a statement of regret that Britain profited from the slave trade several centuries ago.

His expression of “deep sorrow” coincides with the bicentenary of Britain’s decision to abolish the vile trade in human beings.

While it is perfectly understandable for Blair to feel sorrow at historic wrongs, he has no authority to apologise on behalf of Britons who died centuries ago, and there is no one alive today who has the right to an apology from Britain. Blair should also remember he is not the head of state and should leave such acts to those authorised to make them.

Taking an historical perspective, why should the people of Britain apologise to Africans for the slave trade?

The Barbary Pirates abducted over a million people from Britain, Ireland and Iceland during the 16th to 18th century and sold them into slavery in what is now Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria. Whole communities were wiped out by these Muslim raiders from Africa. They even captured Lundy Island in the Bristol Channel in 1627 and used it as a base for several years.

To put these figures in perspective, the population of England and Wales was about 5,500,000 at the start of the 18th century.

Spain, Portugal and Mediterranean Europe in general suffered on an even greater scale from these African slavers. The Barbary Pirates remained a threat until 1816, when the Royal Navy – with help from the Dutch – destroyed their base at Algiers as part of their global campaign to end slavery.

I challenge anyone to obtain anything remotely approaching an apology from Morocco, Tunisia or Algeria for what happened in the past. This is despite the fact Morocco has demanded an apology from Spain for expelling the Moors in 1492.

Come to think of it, try getting an apology from an Arab for absolutely anything. Period.

Further East, the Ottomans raided Europe for centuries and enslaved its people. In fact, Islam has been responsible for much of the slave trading in the world since the fall of the Roman Empire. Slavery exists today in many Muslim countries, and even in the 21st century Muslim raiders in Africa are capturing and enslaving non-Muslims. The genocide being committed in Darfur involves the enslavement of African survivors by their Muslim conquerors.

Osama Bin Laden used slave labour at his marijuana plantations in Sudan.

Slavery is a feature of Islam because it was encouraged by the cult’s founder. Muhammad was personally responsible for the enslavement of women and children of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza, after he had massacred the men of that tribe. The founder of the Islamic cult also received slaves as tribute from the Nubians which was his personal condition to a peace treaty.

How many Muslim women are de facto slaves as they have been forced into marriages and lack even basic human rights?

What Europeans and Americans did to Africans and Asians in the slave trade was wrong, as was the actions of other Africans who captured the slaves in the first place. The difference between Britain – and other western nations to a lesser extent – and everyone else who took part in the slave trade is that the British realised slavery was completely wrong and took the necessary action to eradicate slavery, despite resistance from Muslims which continues even in the 21st century.

Descendants of African slaves have been given control of most of the Caribbean Islands and have been given full citizenship in Britain, America and other former slaving countries. Taking into account the fate of white slaves in Africa, that is a just and honourable settlement to the descendants of those enslaved.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Africa is Doomed

 
Why Africa is Doomed

There is a saying in certain parts of Africa which relates to why everyone must be a very fast runner. Either you need to run extremely quickly or you will be caught and eaten by a hunter or you have to have to run like the clappers in order to catch your prey. Whichever way you look at it, if you can’t run, you’re dead.

The message behind this saying is that Africa is divided into the hunters and the hunted. The strong and the weak. And the strong feed on the weak.

This goes a long way to explaining why so many rulers of African countries are corrupt tyrants with no regard for the people they are supposed to lead. Uganda’s Idi Amin, Central African Empire’s Jean-Bedel Bokassa, Zaire’s Mobutu Sese Seko, Nigeria’s Sunny Abacha and Togo’s Gnassingbe Eyadema are the most spectacular previous examples, but Kenya’s Daniel Arap Moi, Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah, Zambia’s Kenneth and Tanzania’s Julius Nyere weren’t much better.

The most depressing fact about all these dictators is that when they were finally overthrown, their replacements were just as bad. The world rejoiced briefly when Milton Obote was sworn in as President of Uganda following an insurrection against Idi Amin. It quickly dawned on Ugandans that President Obote was just as murderous and inept as his predecessor. That set the scene for another civil war which led to  Yoweri Museveni seizing power.

By African standards, Museveni has proven a competent leader who has done a lot for his country, but at the expense of democracy.

When Daniel Arap Moi finally bit the dust in Kenya, his successors assured the world they would rule with integrity and justice. The public relations exercise was a stunning success and the aid money poured in. And the new rulers poured it straight into their Swiss bank accounts.

Laurent Kabila. Remember him? He was going to be the saviour of Zaire after waging a 30-year civil war against Mobutu. When his victorious rebels rode into Kinshasa they promptly assumed the same corrupt practices of the previous incumbent.

The list of failures is depressingly long. Out of all Britain’s former colonies in sub-Saharan Africa, only one country can genuinely can genuinely claim to be better off. That country is Botswana, which has a population of approximately one million and relies on sales of diamonds plus tourism income to maintain its relative prosperity.

Those responsible for the mess Africa is in are unanimous about whose fault it is: the wicked west. It’s our fault because all these problems were really caused by colonialism, rather than brutal, thieving dictatorships that squandered every resource and advantage their countries had. Sadly, there are plenty of people in the west who believe that rubbish.

This explains why billions of dollars is given to Africa in the form of aid, and which is really just a slush fund for the rulers of the continent. The word “mbenzi” is Swahili for a rich person – one who owns a Mercedes Benz. In places like America, such a person might have to work very hard to become rich. In Africa, wealth is the prerogative of the ruling class. To become an mbenzi, you must become one of the rulers.

Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe understood this system all too well. Notionally a Marxist, the man is really just another greedy president-for-life who enriches himself and his cronies while his people starve. Actually, the reality is far worse than this. Zimbabwe used to be a net food exporter until just a few years ago. The country was relatively prosperous and the prospects were bright. Today, the farms are mostly dust bowls. People rely on imported food aid just to survive. There is 80% unemployment and inflation is around 1,800% and rising. All this so a few can wallow in luxury.

There are ominous signs Mugabe is about to be replaced, either by a senior rival in his Zanu PF party or the opposition’s Morgan Tsvangirai. If this happens, the world will once more shower the country with aid and praise its leaders for their integrity and vision. As with previous regime changes, a reality check will not be far away. To rise to a senior position in Zanu PF, one would have to be just as ruthless as Bob Mugabe, so there is no hope for salvation from that side. As for Tsvangirai, he may be courageous but he is hardly the man of honour and decency some news agencies are portraying him as these days. Nor is his rival Arthur Mutambara, who might become a compromise candidate if Zanu PF decides to broker a deal with an outsider.

This vicious cycle is bound to continue as long as Africans view political power as the way to wealth. What is needed is the emergence of an entrepreneurial class that uses business – legitimate business – as a means of getting rich. This can not happen while the current “system” in Africa is in place. Business is too risky unless backed by political power, at which point it ceases to be free and fair trade.

The west can help a great deal to change the way things are done in Africa. The first step is to cancel all aid to Africa except emergency humanitarian assistance and skills training programmes whereby volunteers teach Africans their skills. The rest of the aid packages should be cancelled. Unfortunately, this can not happen as long as China is prepared to step into the breach and deposits large sums of cash in return for access to valuable commodities, so it is unlikely to become reality.

Aid must be replaced by genuine free trade with Africa. Trade barriers to African goods must be removed because this would allow African businesses to prosper on a level playing field, which in turn would lead to genuine, sustainable economic development. Again, this won’t happen because certain countries are averse to free trade. The French are prime examples.

Much has been said about the post colonial legacy of putting rival tribes in the same country with artificial boundaries and of the ravages of Aids and other diseases, but prosperity would enable Africans to take advantage of superior medical treatments, and tribes might get along better if there was more wealth to be shared out fairly.

As long as it is politics as usual, funded by naïve aid donors and those very same donors refuse to open their markets to free trade, these obstacles will remain in place. There will be no permanent improvements in the general living conditions in Africa. This is an entirely avoidable tragedy, and as a direct result the continent is doomed.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Leadership Qualities

 

Taking a Moral Stand

America’s Democrat Party is fired up at the prospect of its candidate winning the 2008 presidential election. The party was reasonably successful in the Senate and House elections last November because of voter frustration with the way Republicans were running the show and Democrats were able to win seat after seat without actually offering anything of substance to the electorate.

The 2008 election will be different. The Democrats will have a record to defend in Congressional elections and the presidential candidate will have to demonstrate leadership qualities. Essentially the battle for the Democratic nomination is a two-horse race. Forget Edwards. This time around what he is offering is no different from the half-baked left wing platitudes he spouted in 2004.

Barring a huge upset, either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will be the chosen one. As neither has extensive experience in an elected office, it is doubly important for the candidates to take whatever opportunities come along to demonstrate where they stand on key issues.

A few days ago, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, provided such an opportunity. He made the following comments in an interview with the Chicago Tribune:

“My upbringing is such that I believe that there are certain things, certain types of conduct that are immoral,” said Gen Pace. “I believe that military members who sleep with other military members' wives are immoral in their conduct.”

“I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral, and that we should not condone immoral acts. So the ‘don't ask, don't tell’ (policy) allows an individual to serve the country ... if we know about immoral acts, regardless of committed by who, then we have a responsibility.

“I do not believe that the armed forces are well served by saying through our policies that it's OK to be immoral in any way, not just with regards to homosexual acts,” he added.

"So from that standpoint, saying that gays should serve openly in the military to me says that we, by policy, would be condoning what I believe is immoral activity

There was no ambiguity in what the general said. And his comments outline a position on an issue that has a lot of supporters and opponents. The Democrat presidential candidates were given their chance to state their views.

First, Hillary Clinton was asked to comment.

“Well I’m going to leave that to others to conclude,” she replied.

Great. That rules out any further comments on the issue by Senator Clinton. The woman has nothing to say on the subject. Not exactly leadership quality, is it. Perhaps that’s why Hillary is a senator and Gen Pace is in charge of America’s entire military organisation. Pace is clearly a leader.

A Clinton spokesman later gave a damage limitation statement:

“Obviously she doesn't agree” with Pace's comment and was only trying to say it was the general's right to make up his own mind on the issue.

What’s so obvious about that? Hillary said she’s going to leave it to others to conclude.

Next up was Barack Obama:

“I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That's probably a good tradition to follow.”

If  I’m not mistaken, Senator Obama means Gen Pace’s comments were inconvenient because they force politicians who aspire to the role of commander-in-chief of the US military to take a stand on a controversial issue. Those sentiments are perfectly understandable, but Gen Pace did say something controversial and someone running for president is expected to show clearly where they stand.

Obama was given a second bite at the cherry and his follow up response was:

“I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country, should they be able to if they're doing all the things that should be done.”

That wasn’t the question at all, and we still haven’t had a worthwhile answer.

Neither candidate has given any indication they have “the right stuff” in terms of leadership. They have dodged an awkward question for fear of alienation voters. That lack of courage and commitment is bad enough for a couple of US Senators, but what if one of them were to become president – and possibly vice president, too. A leader has to deal with issues that can’t be left for others to conclude and can’t be wished away.

Can you imagine either politician coping with, for example, a terrorsit attack destroying Times Square? There are some issues you can't leave to others to conclude, nor wish away the inconvenience. Their timid, opinion-polls-oriented response make it blatantly obvious neither Clinton nor Obama should be given the power to confront such events.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Tactics of Last Resort

 

The Tactics of Last Resort


Timothy Ball is a retired professor. Recently, he has received five death threats by e-mail. The reason? He dared to question the claim that global warming is an imminent threat to the world and caused by human activity.

Dr. Ball was a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg, so at the very least he is qualified to speak on the subject. In addition, Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project. His profile at the NRSP reads as follows:-

“Dr. Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball has served on many local and national committees and as Chair of Provincial boards on water management, environmental issues and sustainable development. Dr. Ball has given over 600 public talks over the last decade on science and the environment.

Dr. Ball has recently (Dec 06) co-authored a paper in the scientific journal, Ecological Complexity, with Baliunas, Dyck, Soon, Baydack, Legates, and Hancock entitled Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change: Are warming spring air temperatures the “ultimate” survival control factor? He is also co-author of the book Eighteenth Century Naturalists of Hudson Bay (2004 - McGill/Queens University Press) with Dr. Stuart Houston, one of the World's leading authorities on arctic birds.

Dr. Ball’s extensive science background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition, make him the ideal head of NRSP as we move into our first campaign, Understanding Climate Change. His extensive public speaking experience and presentations to professional societies, business conferences, public forums and a wide variety of public, private and non-profit organizations make him the ideal spokesperson for NRSP as well.

His other work in such areas as water resources, sustainable development, pollution prevention, environmental regulations, the impact of government policy on business and economics will be invaluable as NRSP tackles other issues starting later in 2007.

Throughout his career, Dr. Ball has been heavily involved in local and national committees related to climate, water and river management and hazardous waste. He is regular contributing writer for Country Guide and has appeared as a guest opinion writer in all of
Canada
’s major newspapers.

Dr. Ball is a researcher/author of numerous scientific papers on:

  • climate (especially historical climatology);
  • long range weather patterns;
  • impacts of climate change on sustainable agriculture, ecosystems, air quality;
  • untapped energy resources;
  • silting and flooding problems;
  • bird migration patterns;
  • historical sites development;
  • impact studies on flooding of aboriginal lands in Manitoba.”

Two key facts emerge from this biography. First, Dr. Ball is extremely knowledgeable on the subject of climate change. Second, he is a rational, compassionate man who clearly cares deeply about the environment. Anyone prepared to study and write a book about Eighteenth Century Naturalists of Hudson Bay must have a passion for nature that few can match. A man who has become one of the world’s leading authorities on arctic birds is highly unlikely to support any action that would lead to their extinction.

So what motive could any “opponent” have for threatening to kill the professor?

One possible answer might be that Dr. Ball has been threatened for entirely different reasons, despite being told that if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, appeared on a documentary with Dr. Ball called The Great Global Warming Swindle. According to Professor Lindzen,

“Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University supports this opinion.

“The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do.”

Former New Scientist editor Nigel Calder pointed out

“Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”

Dr. Ball blames unscrupulous politicians for the climate of fear.

“Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened,” he explained. “I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal.”

In fact, Britain’s Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, in November 2006 said those who deny that global warming is a real and imminent threat to our world should not be given any more access to the media than Islamic terrorists.

This is the kind of opposition open minded scientists are up against: left wing, vitriolic, dishonest, downright stupid and in power.

There is a glimmer of a silver lining in this oppressive tale: the opposition must be getting desperate if it has to resort to such tactics. Rational people do not threaten to kill scientists just because they have exposed a theory to serious doubt. If they are honest, they examine the facts and either concede they made mistakes or present fresh evidence to support their claims.

All the global warming fanatics have done is turn up the volume and threaten anyone who still protests and has the wit to point out how utterly wrong they all are. Sooner or later, enough impartial people will realise the truth and the eco-pseuds will be forced to concede defeat.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Shining Example To Us All

 

A Shining Example To Us All


Former Vice President Al Gore is on a personal crusade to warn people of the perils of global warming and encourage them to take action to reduce this threat. As far as Gore is concerned, global warming is the most serious threat to our existence in history. What’s more, he claims this global warming is caused by human activity.

Al’s solution to this dire scenario is for us to substantially reduce our “carbon footprint”. His website is full of truly helpful suggestions for reducing our output of carbon dioxide (CO²). Regardless of whether you believe the man about global warming, there is no denying the fact that his websites give very sound advice on saving energy. By following these suggestions an average family should be able to make fairly significant savings on their utility bills and may end up leading healthier lives through eating more fresh food and less meat and by cutting down on travelling by car.

Given the sense of urgency in Al’s book and film, An Inconvenient Truth, one would expect the Gore household to be a model of energy efficiency and a temple to the environmentalist cause. After all, global warming is supposed to be “…the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced…”

Sadly, it seems the prophet hasn’t been very good at taking his own warnings to heart. The average household in Tennessee uses 10,656 kilowatt-hours per month. According to the Nashville Electric Service, over at Chez Gore, they consumed 221,000 kilowatt-hours per month during 2006. For what it’s worth, President Bush’s ranch in Texas is more environment-friendly.

How could this be? It’s not as if the Gore family are unaware of the eco-damage such profligate consumption must cause. Also, they can’t claim to be ignorant of ways to reduce their consumption.

Perhaps this should not be so surprising to readers. Don’t forget this is the same Al Gore who wrote “Earth in the Balance”. Let us revisit a page or two from that book:

 “air pollution from waste incinerators typically includes dioxins, furans, and pollutants like arsenic, cadmium, chlorobenzenes, chlorophenols, chromium, cobalt, lead, mercury, PCBs, and sulfur dioxide. ... municipal waste incinerators are now the most rapidly growing source of mercury emissions into the atmosphere. .... [It] creates a new solid waste problem that is in some ways worse than the one we have now.”
 pp. 156-157

Just prior to becoming Vice President, Gore made a specific promise that an incinerator built by Waste Technologies Industries would not be permitted to operate until a full investigation had been completed. The incinerator in question, which is permitted to emit lead, mercury and hundreds of other compounds, is only 400 yards from an elementary school.

His exact promise:

“The very idea of putting WTI in a flood plain ... you know it's just unbelievable to me,” Gore told the crowd. ”I'll tell you this, a Clinton-Gore Administration is going to give you an environmental presidency to deal with these problems. We'll be on your side for a change instead of the side of the garbage generators, the way [previous presidents] have been.”

The Vice President let the incinerator operate with no changes to its site or output. It may or may not be a coincidence that the owner of the incinerator was also the biggest single contributor to the Clinton-Gore 92 election campaign.

This shows that Gore’s words when campaigning do not match his actions. In fact they are in direct contradiction.

Perhaps the incinerator was really Clinton’s fault, and Gore might be more principled when Slick Willy’s not around? Dream on.

The Gores have a nice retort to those who think they are using more than their fair share of energy resources. They buy carbon offsets. In simple terms, a carbon offset is a situation whereby someone who is producing more carbon dioxide than he or she should will pay someone to ensure that another person consumes less carbon dioxide than normal through cutting back on something or other that produces the gas.

Think of it in terms of cancelling a $20 donation to the Salvation Army’s local soup kitchen and adding the money to your usual day’s budget for food. If you then splurge on a hotel buffet downtown, you will have eaten far more than normal. But that’s OK because several other people will have starved, so your meal will work out calorie neutral.

For anyone who thinks this concept is a fine way to excuse excessive consumption, there is a link on Gore’s climate change website to a very nice, caring looking outfit that will invest in carbon offsets on your behalf. All you have to do is pay them, and they do the rest, whatever that is. They even take credit cards.

Al Gore, being a concerned, responsible citizen buys carbon credits from an international company. Specifically, he invests through a firm called Generation Investment Management LLP. Guess who’s the Chairman and founding partner? None other than Al Gore. So Gore is buying carbon credits from a company he founded and which is tax exempt. Incidentally, Gore is a substantial shareholder in Occidental Petroleum. No prizes for guessing where they invest in carbon offsets.

At moments like these, you see exactly what a man is made of. In Al Gore’s case, it would come in very handy as fertiliser.
 







Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

There’s Snow Business Like Climate Change Business

 

There’s Snow Business Like Climate Change Business


On St. Valentine’s day, something very unusual happened in Kathmandu: it snowed. This hadn’t happened since January 1944. According to news reports, this caused a fair amount of excitement in the Nepalese capital and the event became a minor footnote many world news programmes.

Are there any wider implications for the region? Does a little sleet in the Himalayas signal the world is on the brink of a new ice age? Most probably not in both cases. The fact is somewhere today, a weather-related record is being broken. Most of Europe has enjoyed an exceptionally mild winter, while most Americans have been shivering their way through blizzards. In 2005, the Atlantic hurricane season was unusually fierce and prolonged. The following year was at the other extreme of the scale.

Until fairly recently, most of these abnormal weather conditions remained local news. Outsiders never knew how hot, cold, wet, dry, windy or becalmed somewhere else was, so they never remarked on it. This has all changed because now the weather is big business. There are entire television channels devoted to this single subject. Thousands of people make a living from the weather as meteorologists, programme presenters, writers, website producers and so on.

Now, the weather is such a big concern that politicians – elected and self appointed – see a tremendous opportunity. They have worked out a way to scare the electorate into voting for them because they claim to have the solution to the bad weather we’ve been having. These politicians can even impose a weather tax on the false basis that we are responsible for the weather and spending vast sums of taxpayers’ money on various half-baked schemes will improve the situation.

The cunning bastards have come up with a clever little name for their latest wheeze – it’s called global warming. At first glance it might seem a rather odd choice of phrase. It doesn’t exactly strike terror into people’s hearts. But by giving it such a vague name, the advocates of global warming are able to include just about every aspect of local and global climate as it suits them at the time. It’s very hard to argue against a concept that might very well be about anything under the sun.

Let us not forget, the same politicians who gave us the global warming scenario, and a multi-trillion dollar tax bill as the solution have also given us the London Congestion Charge which costs almost exactly the same to administer as it raises from motorists.

They have also taken a wrecking ball to education and given us the comprehensive system. I say “us” because none of their children go to such dreadful schools. As with global warming, the politicians have ulterior motives: manipulate what the public learns, make them dependent on you for solutions and scared witless by imaginary threats to their way of life and they’ll keep voting for you.

It is no coincidence that the vast majority of Western politicians involved in the global warming scaremongering are also working flat out to undermine efforts to bring peace and democracy to Iraq and other parts of the Middle East. In previous generations, they tried to appease Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the rest of the Communist Bloc. Now, they would rather we abased ourselves before Muslim terrorist networks.

Being wrong does not deter these socialist con artists in the slightest. Nor does the prospect of destroying everything good that Western civilisation has spent centuries developing. Global warming is merely the latest ruse intended to hoodwink people into giving them power. It is a false means to a ruinous end. We must not let it happen.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Stern Words

 

Stern Words


Back in the autumn of 2006, Sir Nicholas Stern published his report, The Economics of Climate Change. This was supposed to be an authoritative assessment of global warming from an economic perspective.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair declared:

“The consequences for our planet are literally disastrous … without radical international measures to reduce carbon emissions within the next 10 to 15 years.”

The author was even more hysterical:

“If we don't act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least five per cent of global GDP each year, now and for ever.”

“If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20 per cent of GDP or more… Our actions now and over the coming decades could create risks … on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century.”

Tony Blair’s reputation for integrity and credibility had taken a battering since his “dodgy dossier” which persuaded the Government to authorise the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Events since October 2006 merely confirm that if the Prime Minister is prepared to go to such lengths to convince people about something then it almost certainly isn’t true.

Now that Stern’s peers have had the time to digest his 700-page contribution to the debate on global warming, they are queuing up to take potshots at his report.

First up is Professor William Nordhaus who is the Sterling Professor of Economics at the Cowles Foundation, Yale University. Nordhaus was also a member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers between 1977 and 1979. His teaching fields are Macroeconomics and Environmental Economics.

Quite simply, the man is an expert in his field of study and highly respected as such. It is highly unlikely Sir Nicholas would disagree with that appraisal as he copied extensively from Nordhaus’ works when compiling his own report.

What concerns the professor is Stern reported his projections beyond the year 2100 as completely accurate even though the author clearly stated they were “particularly unreliable”.

At a stroke, this means many of the figures that Stern built his report around are nothing more than wild guesses, albeit by an extremely knowledgeable forecaster.

Next, we have Professor Richard Tol who is the Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change, Departments of GeoSciences and Economics, and Director, Research Unit on Sustainability and Global Change, Centre for Marine and Climate Research, Hamburg University, Germany; a Principal Researcher, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; and an Adjunct Professor, Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University.

As his biography states:

He is known for his work on impacts of, and adaptation to climate change. He developed the Climate Framework for Uncertainty, Negotiation and Distribution, an integrated assessment model for climate change. He is a board member of the Centre for Marine and Climate Research and of the International Max Planck Research Schools of Earth Systems Modelling and Maritime Affairs, all at Hamburg University. He participates in the model comparison exercises of the Energy Modeling Forum of Stanford University. He is an editor for Energy Economics and an associate editor for Environmental and Resource Economics. He is advisor and referee of national and international policy and research. He is an author (contributing, lead, principal and convening) of Working Groups I, II and III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He is an author and editor of the UNEP Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact Assessment and Adaptation Strategies. He is actively involved in the European Climate Forum and the European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment.

In other words, the man knows his stuff. And what did he have to say about Sir Nicholas’ report?

The report is “alarmist and incompetent”. He is especially scathing about the way Stern lifted material written by Tol on rising sea levels without making any allowance, as Tol did, for the fact that people would find ways of adapting to that rise. His review of The Economics of Climate Change report is best summed up by his comment on Stern’s calculations on the control of emissions:

“This can be found in any textbook on cost/benefit analysis. It is puzzling that economists at HM Treasury can make such basic mistakes.”

Puzzling, but it does go some way to explaining how Gordon Brown (who commissioned the report) and his team have done such a lousy job of managing the British economy.

The following is a brief post from Professor Tol as part of an online interview on the subject:

“There are arguments for low discount rates (it is the right thing to do) and there are arguments for high discount rates (it is what people use). That is not my point, however.

HM Treasury has clear guidelines on discounting. In fact, they recommend a discount rate that falls over time -- so that problems like climate change are not discounted away.

The Stern Review violates the guidelines of HM Treasury. This is most peculiar, as the Stern Review was written by civil servants of HM Treasury. This is bad procedure.

In my work, I typically present results for a range of discount rates -- and let the reader make her own choice.
The Stern Review does not allow this choice. This is bad style.”

By and large, professors are polite, restrained people, so for Tol to use that kind of language, either Sir Nicholas has been up to no good with a member of the Tol family or he is utterly incompetent.

For a full coverage of the interview and a copy of Tol’s review of the report, click on this link:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000974the_stern_review_on_.html

If you just want a copy of the report, click here.

Another Yale Professor, Robert Mendelsohn, is also critical of Stern. For the record, he is the Edwin Weyerhaeuser Davis Professor of Forest Policy & Professor of Economics at Yale. Mendelsohn has written extensively on global warming, with particular emphasis on forestry issues.
He takes Stern to task for assuming that the economic damage from hurricanes will rise strongly each year. The mild impact of hurricanes in 2006 is proof this is not so.

According to Professor Mendelsohn, Stern's calculations on future costs of climate change might easily be wrong by trillions of dollars. Considering the entire US federal budget for 2007 is $2.7 trillion, this is hardly small change we’re talking about. More importantly, it is your money, as Stern proposes spending taxpayers’ money on his “solutions”.

Our next critic is Sir Partha Dasgupta. His biography is as follows:

Sir Partha Dasgupta is the Frank Ramsey Professor of Economics and past chairman of the faculty of economics and politics at the University of Cambridge. From 1991 to 1997, Dasgupta was chairman of the scientific board of the Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and, from 1989 to 1992, professor of economics and philosophy, and director of the Program in Ethics in Society at Stanford University. His research interests have covered welfare and development economics; the economics of technological change; population, environmental, and resource economics; the theory of games; and the economics of under nutrition. Dasgupta is a fellow of St. John's College, a fellow of the Econometric Society, a fellow of the British Academy, foreign honorary member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, honorary fellow of the London School of Economics, honorary member of the American Economic Association, member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, foreign associate of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and fellow of the Third World Academy of Sciences. He is a past president of the Royal Economic Society (1998-2001) and the European Economic Association (1999). Dasgupta was named Knight Bachelor by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in 2002 in her Birthday Honours List for services to economics and was co-recipient (with Karl Goran Maler) of the 2002 Volvo Environment Prize. He is a fellow of the Royal Society (elected 2004) and a foreign member of the American Philosophical Society (elected 2005).

Again, we see a respected academic who specialises in the field Stern has written about respond with criticism that suggests Sir Nicholas is just plain wrong. Not only wrong, but boneheaded:

“Where the modern economist is rightly hesitant, the authors of the review are supremely confident.”

The most annoying aspect of  The Economics of Climate Change from an economist’s perspective is the discount rate. In plain English this is the method used to calculate the relative value of present and future payments.

Most economists would probably use a 4% discount rate as standard for such projections. Sir Nicholas used a discount rate of 0.1%, something Dasgupta considers “patently absurd”.

To make things worse, Stern has predicted the people we are being asked to make the sacrifices for will be twelve times better off than us on average in 2006 terms. He also predicts that by 2100 North Korea will have a bigger economy than the US. On such shonky “economics” has this report been based.

The final nail in the coffin must be Stern’s claim that failure to follow his recommendations means the global economy losing 5% of GDP “now and for ever”.
Take a look around you. You know full well the world is not losing any percentage of GDP now or even in the foreseeable future. You also know it is impossible to calculate anything whatsoever “for ever”.
This leads us to an inescapable set of conclusions:-

1. The Economics of Climate Change is patently wrong in its findings.

2. The author is woefully incompetent and/or concocted this report, knowing it was wrong in its findings, with a political motive. The motive in question being to persuade the public that global warming is an imminent threat to the world and that the left wing politicians and environmentalists who have proposed a plan of action must be supported and obeyed without further question.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hot Stuff

Hot Stuff


Just as the pseuds at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were announcing the latest batch of statistics concerning global warming (the “evidence” won’t be published until around July 2007), along comes more scientific proof that the whole left wing gaggle of ecohustlers is being more than a little economical with the truth.

Henrik Svensmark, a senior weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre believes cosmic rays are responsible for global warming – and global cooling. Increased intensification of the sun’s magnetic field leads to fewer cosmic rays reaching earth, which in turn leads to the creation of fewer clouds in our atmosphere.

This relative decline in cloud cover is responsible for a slight increase in temperatures in areas that are more exposed. When the sun’s magnetic field weakens –as it does periodically, there is a corresponding rise in the quantity of cosmic rays which penetrate our atmosphere and hence more clouds. This in turn causes a slight decrease in temperatures.

What’s more, there is absolutely nothing we can do about if unless we are able to change cloud cover, cosmic ray penetration and the sun’s magnetic field.

Svensmark accuses the folk at the IPCC of getting the facts somewhat muddled.

“It was long thought that clouds were caused by climate change, but now we see that climate change is driven by clouds,” he claimed.

For those who want to know a little more about the man behind the claims, should note his findings have been published by the Danish Space Centre, which implies official recognition of his work by Denmark. So, at least one developed country is prepared to keep an open mind over global warming.

The Dane’s views are supported by some of his colleagues, like Prof Bob Bingham, a clouds expert from the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils in Rutherford.

Svensmark’s research may also provide answers to some issues that could never be explained by the global warming doom mongerers. For instance, why has the sea ice in the antarctic increased by 8% since 1978? Why, especially, is eastern Antarctica getting colder? Al Gore has pounced on the slight decrease in arctic ice cover, but has been lamentably slow to come up with a convincing explanation for what’s happening on the other side of our planet.

According to earlier research by the Danish scientist, this is perfectly understandable because the underlying snow in the affected part of Antarctica is whiter than the cloud cover, and thus reflects heat more efficiently.

Solar physicists have also pointed out the sun’s magnetic and heat intensity for this cycle peaked in 1997. Is it any wonder that records also show the global temperature also peaked – for this cycle – at the same time?

The global warming fraudsters have too much to lose by admitting the truth, but hopefully Svensmark’s work has brought the day of reckoning a little closer.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »