To all those about to elect Cameron

He's, like, so different to the previous puppets.

Zero vision in the BBC's climate 'debate'

I am reminded of what Noam Chomsky said about how best to control the masses' thoughts - by allowing vigorous debate, but within predefined limits constructed by the propagandist.

I was listening to Official State radio (aka BBC) this morning, and they were discussing whether short haul flights should be banned or taxed more, to discourage people from using them, because of 'climate change'.
(Plane Stupid logo)

Predictably, on the one side, there was your common quasi-militant environmentalist, from (I think I recall correctly) the group 'Plane Stupid' that opposes, amongst other things, proposed expansion of London Heathrow airport.

And the talking points he put forward were the usual carbon-guilt environmental style. We all like to fly but perhaps we have got used to this privilege a little too much, and we should make sacrifices to save the Earth. All of our short haul flights are the most polluting and we should take the train instead. More taxation is needed on the polluting airlines.

On the other side, the laypersons had varying reactions, but of course carefully staying within politically correct boundaries. One said he liked the convenience and speed of flying from one end of the country to the other, and said trains take too long. Another said that shutting down short haul flying would worsen overcrowding on the train system.

Everybody in the discussion carefully and dutifully remained within the accepted discussion area - idealistic environmentalists versus ordinary people who say saving the planet is too much of a sacrifice. No questioning of the fundamentals of the debate - that manmade carbon dioxide is adversely affecting the world's climate and weather systems, and the only way to solve that problem is to deindustrialise. There was a vigorous debate, yet at the same time there was no debate. Propaganda.

Nobody mentioned the new technology that could change the way we travel forever: magnetic levitation trains ('maglev' trains). See here for more info

These would, of course, render the entire debate irrelevant. They are faster than short-haul flying (if you count the check-in time), if co2 is a concern then these would be a fantastic solution, and since they are incredibly efficient both in terms of energy and time, they would surely be chosen by people in the free market without requiring government financial cattle prods in the form of subsidies, or taxes on other means of transport.

To be fair, plans are underway to build 'high speed rail' in Britain, but this is conventional rail, not maglev which, let's face it, would be more awesome. The Germans, Japanese and Chinese all have their own (for now, small) maglev tracks - the Japanese and Chinese projects actually operate commercially.

I suspect the future of long distance transportation lies in the maglev train. Perhaps even the (as of yet hypothetical) vactrain.

Whether you consider yourself an environmentalist or not, these developments would certainly constitute a great advancement for humanity. A new, cleaner, bigger, better, industrial age. (There Is Life After Oil)


(Can you imagine the potential of this combined with geothermal and concentrated solar energy?)

But if the elites are allowed to strangle us all to death over the very life gas we breathe out, then that future is irrelevant.

50 Internets says you haven't heard of this war

Thanks for keeping me informed, MSM. Or not.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gRJdNHNRlp-RQV98p_SfVXhLM4Mg

Yemen rebels accuse Saudi of launching major attack
By Hammoud Mounassar (AFP) – Nov 23, 2009

SANAA — Shiite rebels in northern Yemen accused Saudi forces of launching a major cross-border ground and air attack on Monday, a day after an alleged failed incursion.

"The Saudis began an attack along many fronts on the Yemeni border," said the Zaidi rebels, also known as Huthis.

The Saudis are using "all types of ground and air weapons," including tanks, artillery, rocket launchers, Apache helicopters and jet fighters, the rebels said in a statement.

Witnesses from the northern border town of Razah also told to AFP that the Saudis began an offensive on Monday.

"The Saudi army launched a vast offensive against Huthi positions in the border region," said one witness, who asked not to be identified.

But a Yemeni official denied that a Saudi assault was taking place.

"These are allegations and lies that the rebels often repeat to expand the scope of the conflict, and also to give themselves more importance than they really have," he told AFP.

A local military commander in northern Yemen told AFP that the Yemeni air force continued its raids on rebel positions on Monday and targeted the house of one of the rebel leaders in the Jawf region, killing four people.

He said the Yemeni military employed artillery against rebel positions in the north of the Harf Sufyan area, near the Saada region, which is a rebel stronghold.

The Huthis released a statment accusing Saudi Arabia of bombing north Yemen villages on Sunday and through the night, following what they called a failed Saudi incursion.

"The (Saudi) air force began bomb and missile attacks on various villages in the Malahidh, Shedah, Hidan and Razah areas" of northwest Yemen, the rebels said in the statement.

Saudi aircraft also bombed Saqin near the city of Saada, they said, as well as Saada suburbs and a central security building inside the city. The city of Dahyan was also targeted, according to the insurgents.

Sunday's attack was led by "around 50 Hummers" supported by helicopters and fighter jets, before the Saudis were repelled and "the aggressors suffered heavy losses," the Shiite rebels said.

The Saudi-owned pan-Arab newspaper Al-Hayat on Monday quoted the Saudi military's southern command as saying it had captured 965 Yemeni infiltrators over the previous two days.

The infiltrators were captured in Jebel al-Dukhan, Al-Doud and Al-Rumayh, the paper said.

It was not possible to verify the number with the Saudi military.

The main clashes in northern Yemen over the past three months have pitted the Huthis against the Sanaa government, which on August 11 launched "Operation Scorched Earth," an all-out assault against the insurgents.

Saudi forces entered the conflict on November 4 after the rebels, protesting against alleged Saudi backing for Sanaa, killed a Saudi border guard and occupied two small villages inside Saudi territory the previous day.

The rebels have been clashing with Yemeni government forces on and off in the rugged mountains of Saada province and surrounding areas since 2004.

They complain of being marginalised and oppressed by the government, which accuses them of seeking to reinstate a form of clerical rule that ended in a republican coup in 1962. The rebels deny the claim.

Aid agencies estimate that the violence has caused 150,000 people in northern Yemen to flee their homes in the five years since the fighting first broke out.

And of course, you never let a good crisis go to waste, do you?

Yemen Sees ‘Mounting Evidence’ Iran Is Arming Rebels

Meanwhile, you know something's wrong when you rely on Iranian news sources over your own:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=112947

So here we have another group of non-governmental 'rebels' who just happen to be fighting both Yemen and Saudi. Fourth Generation Butchery. How convenient. Who bankrolls this stuff?

From the pamphlet War Is A Racket by Gen. Smedley Butler:

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

100 Dead British Soldiers in 2009 in Afghanistan

A single death is a tragedy. Is a hundred just a statistic?

Here's what the frontmen in suits have to say about this...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8400529.stm

"My thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of the soldier killed on Monday - as they are with all the families of those who have given their lives in this war." - David Cameron

"This is yet another grim milestone in the record of sacrifice made by our brave troops in their mission in Afghanistan." - Nick Clegg

"All of them are heroes and, in paying our respects and making our tributes, I believe we must keep at the forefront of our minds why our people are in Afghanistan and the progress and achievements they have and continue to make alongside our international partners." - Bob Ainsworth, Defence Secretary

Now of course, they say what they say, but all have few issues with continuing and extending the war. So it's all words.

If you want to know how our rulers support the troops with their actions, why not take a look at the fine memorials designed as tributes to our fallen soldiers.

Wait, why do loads of war memorials feature phallic symbolism? Isn't that an insult?

Figure that one out on your own.

Some of the troops are wise to the trick (only too late)

150 Characters to Tell COP15 the Truth

Here's my take...

Proposed carbon tax policy will increase co2 emissions, and it will also cripple western civilisation. Forget 'save' the planet - it will enslave it!

Adam, United Kingdom

Have a shot yourself.

Not sure they'll post it (or even read it), but you never know do you.

Copenhagen: Board the Gravy Train of Death

I thought I'd do something a little different today, but still Co2penhagen-related...enjoy.

Board the Gravy Train of Death

Yes the weather's changing
Temperatures are ranging
Climate change is here to stay

Bought and paid for science
Says that man's behind this
We create reality

Peer reviewed corruption
Massive money suction
Board the gravy train of death

Train of death

Sin of existence
People should resist this
No Gaia idolatry

Post-Soviet Marxists
Took control of Greenpeace
Marching under cloaks of green

With carbon taxes complete
New World Order's concrete
Board the gravy train of death

Train of death

Then depopulation
Tearing through our nation
Cull the herd fifty percent

TV says that it's good
Solve shortages of food
Wonder where our morals went

No kids without a permit
Prove yourself to earn it
Board the gravy train of death

Train of death


"The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order." - Mikhail Gorbachev

Imagine There's No Global Warming

Tee hee.



Also, remember that fearmongering ACT ON CO2 advert? Fixed.

Is There Life After Oil? Uh...YES!

Can you imagine, back in the 1700s or so, some Malthusians (heck maybe even Tommy himself) or whatever they were called back then, bemoaning how the forests were running out and how we'd have to do without fire in the future, and cut our population?

Now everyone knows they would have been wrong. Because human ingenuity found a new energy source. Fossil fuels. This rendered the old energy source pretty much obsolete, over time.

Now nobody worries about forests running out (except rainforests, but that's a whole other story). It is laughable. If you are cold, are you going to go outside and cut down a tree for firewood? No, you'll most likely turn on your gas or electric heater. Because we have developed technology that increases our standard of living and reduces our required effort. In fact, if the new technology didn't do these things, we wouldn't have widely used it.

(Image: To me, it is not real 'peak oil', but artificial scarcity of oil, which is a very real problem in our world today. There is potentially plentiful, non-polluting/less-polluting energy, but the oil cartels don't want this to be devloped as it isn't profitable and controllable quite like oil is)

The same rubbish is being spewed in a different era, by the same people - parasitic rich elites who want the rest of us to be more like medieval serfs than 21st century (fingers crossed) free citizens. They want us to feel guilty that we exist, that we use energy, that we are supposedly some kind of cancer on the Earth. This is to control us. Simple.

Peak Oil, in the short term, simply isn't happening, except in the minds of Malthusians and oil company press releases (nothing like artificially high oil prices for good old profits, eh?)

BUT the other notion about Peak Oil/post-industrial society plays on real concerns about pollution and so on. How do we reduce pollution? (and by this I don't mean co2, which is an essential life element, not a pollutant)

Do we have to shut down industrial society and go back to the land to dig out a living?

As absurd as it may seem, it is what many Malthusian/Marxist environmentalists (called Malthusian/Marxist to distinguish them from real environmentalists) say we ought to do. As an aside, it's funny that some people don't see that everything about socialism/Marxism is about putting the peasants to work as quasi-slaves, not 'liberation' of 'the working class'.

SO, is this the only way? Are we to convert our cars into horse-drawn ploughs, and switch computers for shovels, and work the land like serfs once more? Or is there some way that industrial civilisation can survive fake crises like Peak Oil and Global Warming, and real ones like The New World Order?

First, I do not deny or try to hide from the shortcomings of fossil fuels. They do cause pollution at many points (oil spills, coal contamination of water, coal releases radioactive particles, etc). However, it is generally agreed upon that they are a useful energy resource.

But for the future?

I'm telling you, fossil fuels will be obsolete before they 'peak'. Probably long before. Look at the potential of nuclear power and geothermal power. As long as the Earth is, you know, very hot (though not quite 'millions of degrees' like Al Gore says), you can drill deep enough anywhere on the Earth's surface and pipe water down towards the mantle to boil it, then drive the resulting steam through a turbine on the way back up. Power. No burning fuels needed. As for nuclear, it should be the backbone of 21st century energy, duh! The issue of waste is much politicised but not that significant since even nuclear may be a stepping stone to bigger and better things. (as an aside, I reckon most other 'renewable' methods are a bit rubbish for mass production, but what do I know)

Hydrogen engines are in my opinion something of great potential. This will replace the petroleum engine I am sure. Just takes time. Processing the hydrogen from water requires electricity, which we can generate using nuclear or geothermal power. In the engine hydrogen is converted into energy leaving water as the only waste product. Hurrah! Life without oil; cleaner, in-the-long-term cheaper, and bountiful standards of living for all, without global carbon taxes or depopulation!

Food is a major issue today. Some Malthusian minded people think there is going to be global food shortage as a result of overopopulation. Well if that happens it would largely be down to biofuel cultivation, not 'too many people'.

How do we feed the world? Tough question but here are my suggestions.
1. HEMP. The more I learn about this crop and its uses (food/medicines/textiles/paper etc), the more I am amazed that a) most people have no idea about hemp unfortunately, and b) it is often subject to legal restrictions on production even if it is drug-free. See here
2. ALGAE for food (some types are incredibly nutrient-dense). See this report on the subject
3. SEAWATER as non-polluting, nutritious fertiliser. This is an exciting area which I honestly know little about, but it seems to have great potential. See report here
And only if we are really in a tight spot:
4. CEASE ANIMAL FARMING AND FARM PLANTS ONLY. This would provide a significant increase to food output if it was really necessary to prevent some kind of famine. See here

I doubt that genetic modification, as some suggest, increases food yields in the long term. Much of this is mere propaganda put out by the biotech industry (the Monstrosity known as Monsanto). Besides, there's a lot more evidence that GM food causes cancer than there is that it increases output.

The point of all this rambling, which was set off by a comment someone left on my earlier Peak Oil post, is that people will look back on today, and ask 'did they see the potential shown by new technology and methods, or did they fall for the lies of Malthusianism?'

Imagine what things would be like today if, instead of being visionaries who looked for new ways to grow and expand humanity, our ancestors decided 'the forests are running out' and implemented one child policies and 'tree carbon taxes'. I think we'd know what to say to them!

Imagine if we could speak to our distant descendants. Or rather, they could speak to us. Would they want us to build and grow our species, or cull it and return to the dark ages? What future would they want us to leave them?

That choice, alone, represents the difference between real environmentalists, real human beings, and evil, negative, cancerous, anti-human Malthusians. There are solutions today, but the Malthusian doesn't care about whether solutions are there or not, they just want everyone else to think as backwardly as they do. Balance. Cull. Restrict. Limit. Neuter. Destroy. Die Off. Ex-ter-min-ate...

Malthusians, I used to think like you because that's how I was taught in school. Population bomb. Finite resources. But what of the infinite human potential! Somehow the masters of our little society here on Earth have stolen that thought from our minds. Or tried to steal it.

Poorly Placed Ad Of The Day: Greenpeace

Took this screenshot while visiting the Minnesotans For Global Warming site today. Maybe they should rethink the sites they choose to advertise on? ;D

More stuff about Global Warming and Climategate

UPDATE: Al Gore Cancels Copenhagen Visit.

Climate campaigner Al Gore has canceled a lecture he was supposed to deliver in Copenhagen.

The former vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner had been scheduled to speak to more than 3,000 people at a Dec. 16 event hosted by the Berlingske Tidende newspaper group.

The group says Gore canceled the lecture Thursday, citing unforeseen changes in his schedule.

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider says the decision was made because of "all the events going on with the summit." Dec. 16 is a key date for the meeting because that's when the ministerial segment starts.

Chief editor Lisbeth Knudsen says it's a "great disappointment" that Gore canceled and that all tickets will be refunded.

Here comes the government whitewash:
Chair for climate e-mail review (the standard BBC talking point is that 'sceptics' only point to ONE e-mail, the 'trick'/'hide the decline' one, when many others are incriminating too)
________________________________________________________________

'Sceptics' dominate an online poll, Climategate emails searchable database site, Vaclav Klaus and Tories are 'sceptical', Minnesotans For Global Warming make me laugh, Some old news stories discussing (allegedly) manmade global warming AND cooling.

________________________________________________________________

First of all, a delicious poll conducted by the pro-AGW theory sciencemuseum.org.uk. Called 'Prove It!', it simply asked respondents to give a positive or negative answer to the following statement:

"I've seen the evidence. And I want the government to prove they're serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen."

Respondents who were actually at their Museum (like, you know, out there in the real world) overwhelmingly responded positively, by 3408 to 626 (84% yes)

However, it gets interesting when we look at their internet poll results, which turned out 2650 in favour to 7612 against! (74% no)

This was summarised in a bemused manner by the director of the Science Museum:
“More work needs to be done to convince people of the reality of human-induced climate change and of the urgency with which we must agree an international solution. Public organisations, like the Science Museum, have a responsibility to lay out the evidence and open up public discussion.”

What it tells me is that the people on the Internet are better informed because they have access to hear all sides, rather than the limited amount of information spoonfed to those who rely on government or corporate 'news' sources alone.

Yep, just as long as the BBC/ITN keep talking about how man is causing those Himalayan glaciers to melt, a potential regional problem no doubt but not caused by humans, some misinformed people might feel gulity enough to believe the AGW lie.
________________________________________________________________

CLIMATEGATE EMAILS are now viewable in a convenient searchable database form at this site http://www.eastangliaemails.com/ (search 'hide the decline' for the most well-known email; also, the one about it being a 'travesty' that there was no evidence for recent GW is one of the most recent, on the last page of the database)
________________________________________________________________

Vaclav Klaus, the only Euro leader with any detectable backbone, on Global Warming:



Cameron hit by Tory backlash on environment

Leading figures including Peter Lilley, the former cabinet minister, Andrew Tyrie and Ann Widdecombe are openly questioning the political consensus on climate change.

And today David Davis, the former shadow Home Secretary, warns in The Independent that the policy of tough targets to cut carbon emissions, supported by Mr Cameron, is "destined to collapse". He criticises "the fixation of the green movement with setting ever tougher targets, in the face of failure to meet earlier promises". He adds: "The ferocious determination to impose hair-shirt policies on the public – taxes on holiday flights, or covering our beautiful countryside with wind turbines that look like props from War of the Worlds – is bound to cause a reaction in any democratic country."

I first heard of Minnesotans For Global Warming a few years ago when they were pictured with a sign saying "Global Warming = Beach Party". Back then of course I thought they were astroturf oil company loving fools. But little did I know, they were right!


________________________________________________________________

Old stories:
2008 was the year that manmade global warming was disproved

Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.

First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare...

...Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions...

...Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world.

2002 - The Ice Age Cometh

THE Earth's climate is changing in a dramatic way, with immense danger for mankind and the natural systems that sustain it. This was the frightening message broadcast to us by environmentalists in the recent past. Here are some of their prophecies.

The facts have emerged, in recent years and months, from research into past ice ages. They imply that the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind. (Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, in International Wildlife, July 1975)

The cooling has already killed thousands of people in poor nations... If it continues, and no strong measures are taken to deal with it, the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come about by the year 2000. (Lowe Ponte, The Cooling, 1976)

1974 - Another Ice Age? (via One's Observations)

[Read the whole article, it's a mirror image of modern day climate alarmism, but here's the key point]

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.
_______________________________________________________________

We are all carbon-based life forms...carbon is not a pollutant!!!

If the Earth warms, you did it. If the Earth cools, you did it. If El Nino or La Nina is too strong or too weak or off by a year, you did it. If a volcanic winter occurs, you did it; and as the planet warms following aforementioned volcanic winter, you did it.

In fact, whatever the Earth's climate does, complex and difficult to understand even with modern science as it may be, we know one thing: you are responsible. And you must pay us money to offset your sin of existence.