Been rough as a badgers arse this last week with Swine Flu. Semi-functional now and back "on form". I apologize for not posting the almost daily farcical stories originating from the world of AGW theory/farce and the farcical proceedings in Copenhagen. If you want to catch up, look at EuReferendum or Watts Up With That for the latest.
So, what it boils down to is that there were 4 interests in Copenhagen, only 1 of which has been satisfied.
First up you have the deep Greens who are mortified that the expected deal on the developed world voluntarily returning to the 15th century has not materialized. My heart bleeds for them.
Second, you have the rogue nations of the world taking every oppurtunity to lambast the West/North (depends on the specific rhetoric) and Capitalism for all their ills. Yawn. Get another tune to play already.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/17/2774069.htm?section=world
Of course, these reprehensible swine were supported by the guilt ridden left wing middle class leadership of much of the developed world, now including the US. The tendency to masochism and self destruction is endemic and mind boggling in Western society. But even the latter did not manage (in most cases - the UK being a sad exception) to provide quite as big a slush fund for siphoning off to Swiss accounts as the developing nations were demanding.
Thirdly, the skeptics, who while winning some ground, were also left unsatisfied since a lot of their supositions were proved true by the 4th interest. Incidently, this shameful occurence http://sppiblog.org/news/is-the-european-police-state-going-global serves very well in highlighting the massive hipocracy in this country -a few isolated and minor incidents during the G20 protests in London last summer by our police are held up for investigation and comdemnation, while the far more rigorous and violent response to demonstrations in Philadelphia (G20 a few months later) and Copenhagen get ignored. The UK police are wimps.
The real winners of course were big business. What draft deal was signed was enough to make a lot of people billions, with just enough greenie content to satisfy the moderates and just enough socialist nonsense to satisfy the not-too-greedy few of the developing sphere. Pachauri (railway engineer bossman of the IPCC) himself is a big winner of course since one the the myriad of companies he is intimately involved in looks like it is going to benefit from the slush fund by building coal-powered power stations in India.
Which should finally go to show that so much hype about AGW has been pushed through by agendas other than honest science, and even those agendas seem to have been somewhat let down. The screams of angst from the deep greens as they realise how deeply shafted they have been is somewhat musical to my ears.
Saturday, 19 December 2009
Saturday, 12 December 2009
Going back to my skeptical roots
Way back when, before I had even heard about the CRU or read anything at all about the science and methodology used to arive at the so called consensus, I had issues with doing anything at all to reduce our emissions when any changes would be irrelevant when compared to the output of CO2 and, more importantly, other pollutants being produced in the developing world, especially China. My visit in 2007 to Hong Kong and Taiwan confirmed this, as did my father in law's visit to Beijing in early 2008.
Now, following all the hoopla and nonsense over the last few weeks and months, I am much more informed (I think anyway) and cynical and skeptical on a whole new level. However, my initial concerns remain valid, and this article from the Wall Street Journal articulates my concerns quite well. Enjoy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574588673072577680.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Now, following all the hoopla and nonsense over the last few weeks and months, I am much more informed (I think anyway) and cynical and skeptical on a whole new level. However, my initial concerns remain valid, and this article from the Wall Street Journal articulates my concerns quite well. Enjoy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574588673072577680.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Friday, 11 December 2009
A Lord's Eloquence
Lord Turnbull hits the nail on the head...
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/91208-0010.htm#091208120000023
Speech in the House of Lords 8th December 2009
Lord Turnbull: My Lords, on first reading the Committee on Climate Change's latest progress report, I found it an impressive document. It was broad in scope and very detailed. But the more I dug into it the more troubled I became. Below the surface there are serious questions about the foundations on which it has been constructed. There are questions in four areas-the framework created by the Climate Change Act 2008, the policy responses at EU and UK level, the estimate of costs and finally the scientific basis on which the whole scheme of things rests. I will consider each in turn.
Unlike many of those involved in the climate change field, I have no pecuniary interest to declare, but I am a founder trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which seeks to bring rationality, objectivity and, above all, tolerance to the debate.
I have long been in the camp of what might be called the semi-sceptics. I have taken the science on trust, while becoming increasingly critical of the policy responses being made to achieve a given CO2 or global warming constraint. First, let us look at the Climate Change Act, which has been highly praised, even today, as the most comprehensive and ambitious framework anywhere in the world-a real pioneering first for the UK. However, it has serious flaws. It starts by imposing a completely unworkable duty on the Secretary of State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, even though many of the actions required lie outside his control. It would have been better, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and I argued, for the duty to be connected to what the Secretary of State can control, such as his own actions and policies, and not the outcome, which he cannot.
In the Act's passage through Parliament, the target was raised from 60 per cent to 80 per cent, with little discussion of its costs or feasibility. It is a simple arithmetic calculation to show that if the UK economy continues to grow at its historic trend rate, we will need, only 40 years from now, to produce each £1,000 of GDP with only 8 per cent of the carbon we use today. That is a cut of 90 per cent. Many observers think that this is implausible. A recent report by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers reported that the rate of improvement in carbon intensity/productivity would need to quadruple from the 1.3 per cent achieved in the five years up to the recession to around 5.5 per cent. It would need to be even higher at the end of the period to make up for what the noble Lord, Lord May, calls falling behind the run rate.
Professor Dieter Helm has pointed out that the measurement system used in the Kyoto framework and in the UK's carbon accounts is a misleading guide to what is really being achieved. The carbon accounts use the territorial method-that is, the emissions from UK territory. In this way, the UK is able to claim that CO2 emissions have been reduced, but that is a misleading way of measuring a nation's carbon footprint and its impact on the world. It should include the carbon in its imports. If this was done it would show that we are going backwards, since we would be forced to take responsibility for the manufacturing that we have outsourced to such countries as China but are still consuming. The current method is, of course, politically very convenient as it allows us to label China as the world's largest emitter. The embedded carbon calculation is, I accept, far more complicated, but it is far more honest.
Another flaw in the framework is that the targets are unconditional. It is a legal duty, irrespective of what other countries achieve. Some, including me, argue that there should be two targets: one of which is a commitment, and a higher one which we will argue for internationally but only undertake as part of an agreement. Ironically, this is precisely the approach that the EU is taking with its 20 per cent reduction target by 2020, which would be raised to 30 per cent as part of an international agreement. The danger is that by going it alone we could face a double whammy, paying for decarbonising our own economy, yet still having to pay for the costs of raising our sea defences if others do not follow suit.
Secondly, let us consider the specific policies that have been adopted. Current EU policy follows two inconsistent paths. On the one hand, the ETS seeks to establish a common price for CO2, against which various competing technologies can be measured. The market share of each is determined by the relative costs. This is attractive to economists, since it allows the cost per tonne of CO2 abated to be equalised at the margin, thereby ensuring that the cost of achieving any CO2 target is minimised. The problem is that, despite its theoretical attractions, the ETS is failing. It provides no clear signal on the price of carbon on which investors can base their decisions. The committee, in this report, estimates that the ETS CO2 price in 2020 will be around €22 per tonne. The committee has rightly identified the central contradiction in its own report: the carbon price will be too low and too uncertain to stimulate the low-carbon investments needed to validate the committee's projections.
At the same time, the EU is following a different approach under its 20:20:20 plan-to achieve a 20 per cent reduction in CO2 by 2020, with 20 per cent of energy coming from renewables. In this way, it predetermines a market share for a technology-renewables-rather than letting the merit order decide. The danger is that in pressing to achieve this target, which implies that over 30 per cent of electricity generation will come from renewables, some renewables capacity will be created which will be more expensive than other responses.
There is also a lack of clarity about the true cost of wind power, once we factor in the cost of retaining a large amount of underutilised conventional capacity, and the extension of the grid. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, has said more than enough on that so I do not need to follow that line of argument.
There is illogicality in the treatment of nuclear energy in the climate change levy. It is ridiculous that nuclear power, as a low-carbon source, is still in the taxable box. For 50 years, a major experiment has been conducted just 20 miles off our coast. France has generated three-quarters of its electricity from nuclear power. The French believe that it has been a huge success, delivering electricity which is secure, cheap and stable in price. France's carbon intensity is 0.3 of a tonne per $1,000 of GDP, compared to 0.42 in the UK, 0.51 in Germany-so much for it being a market leader-and 0.63 in the US. However, the French option has barely been considered in this country.
As part of the EU plan, 10 per cent of road fuel is mandated to come from biofuels, but by the time this was enacted the credibility of first-generation biofuels had collapsed. Finally, our policy framework lacks balance. It is almost exclusively focused on mitigation through CO2 reduction, The Institution of Mechanical Engineers has argued for what it calls a MAG approach, with effort being committed not just to mitigation but to adaptation and geo-engineering.
Thirdly, there is the issue of cost. All we had to go on at the time when the target was set more ambitiously was the estimate by the noble Lord, Lord Stern, of 1 per cent of GDP. Many people were sceptical at the time and probably even more are now, including, it seems, the noble Lord, Lord Stern, himself. It was reported in the press last week that he now thinks that it might be 2 per cent, but could rise to 5 per cent. I hope he will clarify this when he speaks to us shortly.
In the document that we have before us, the committee says that it previously estimated that costs in 2020 would be about 1 per cent of GDP. That is consistent with its view that it might get to 2 per cent by 2050. In the new report it simply reaffirms the 1 per cent figure in just one paragraph in 250 pages. That is it. I have to say to the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord May, that I do not think that that is adequate. It is difficult to relate these figures to what we are observing on the ground about the difficulties and costs of bringing on stream different technologies such as offshore wind and CCS.
One of the problems bedevilling the debate is the lack of transparency over the huge cross-subsidies that are being created by the renewables obligation and the regime for feed-in tariffs. There is no assurance that their extent is commensurate with the benefits in CO2 abated. My electricity costs me 11p per kilowatt hour. If I erected a wind turbine, I could sell the power I produced to the grid for a whopping 23p. I think I would go out and buy a gizmo which linked my inward meter to my outward meter. That excess cost is averaged over the bills of consumers as a whole, but how much is it in total, or for individual consumers? Here I differ from the noble Lord, Lord May. The whole issue of cost must be given far more attention. The Government cannot ask people to make radical changes to their lifestyle without being more open about the costs that they are being asked to bear.
I accept that "do nothing" is not the right option. Some measures, such as energy efficiency, heat recovery from waste and biomass, and stopping deforestation are probably justified on their own merits. More nuclear power which, in turn, would open the way for electrification of our transport fleet would enhance security of supply. Other measures may be justified as pure insurance, given the uncertainty that we face. But what is badly needed is a consistent metric that allows us to judge whether any given objective is being achieved at minimum cost. The recent book by Professor MacKay, the newly appointed scientific adviser at DECC, provides an excellent starting point. I also very much welcome the intervention by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, debunking the waste hierarchy and the act of faith that that embodies.
There is the issue of the science, which I had previously taken as given; but many people's faith is being tested. We are often told that the science is settled. I suppose that is what the Inquisition said to Galileo. If so, why are we spending millions of pounds on research? The science is far from settled. There are major controversies not just about the contribution of CO2, on which most of the debate is focused, but about the influence of other factors such as water vapour, or clouds-the most powerful greenhouse gas-ocean currents and the sun, together with feedback effects which can be negative as well as positive.
Worse still, there are even controversies about the basic data on temperature. The series going back one, 10 or 100,000 years are, in the genuine sense of the word, synthetic. They are not direct observations but are melded together from proxies such as ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings.
Given the extent to which the outcome is affected by the statistical techniques and the weightings applied by individual researchers, it is essential that the work is done as transparently as possible, with the greatest scope for challenge. That is why the disclosure of documents and e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit is so disturbing. Instead of an open debate, a picture is emerging of selective use of data, efforts to silence critics, and particularly a refusal to share data and methodologies.
It is essential that these allegations are independently and rigorously investigated. Naturally, I welcome the appointment of my old colleague, Sir Muir Russell, to lead this investigation; a civil servant with a physics degree is a rare beast indeed. He needs to establish what the documents really mean and recommend changes in governance and transparency which will restore confidence in the integrity of the data. This is not just an academic feud in the English department from a Malcolm Bradbury novel. The CRU is a major contributor to the IPCC process. The Government should not see this as a purely university matter. They are the funders of much of this research and their climate change policies are based on it.
We need to purge the debate of the unpleasant religiosity that surrounds it, of scientists acting like NGO activists, of propaganda based on fear, for example, the quite disgraceful government advertisement which tried to frighten young children-the final image being the family dog being drowned-and of claims about having “10 days to save the world”. Crude insults from the Prime Minister do not help.
The noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord May, and their eminent colleagues on the CCC have a choice. They can take the policy framework as given, the policy responses as given, the costs as given, and the science as given, and then proceed to churn out more and more sophisticated projections, or-as I hope-they can apply the formidable intellectual firepower they command and start to find answers to many of the unsolved questions
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/91208-0010.htm#091208120000023
Speech in the House of Lords 8th December 2009
Lord Turnbull: My Lords, on first reading the Committee on Climate Change's latest progress report, I found it an impressive document. It was broad in scope and very detailed. But the more I dug into it the more troubled I became. Below the surface there are serious questions about the foundations on which it has been constructed. There are questions in four areas-the framework created by the Climate Change Act 2008, the policy responses at EU and UK level, the estimate of costs and finally the scientific basis on which the whole scheme of things rests. I will consider each in turn.
Unlike many of those involved in the climate change field, I have no pecuniary interest to declare, but I am a founder trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which seeks to bring rationality, objectivity and, above all, tolerance to the debate.
I have long been in the camp of what might be called the semi-sceptics. I have taken the science on trust, while becoming increasingly critical of the policy responses being made to achieve a given CO2 or global warming constraint. First, let us look at the Climate Change Act, which has been highly praised, even today, as the most comprehensive and ambitious framework anywhere in the world-a real pioneering first for the UK. However, it has serious flaws. It starts by imposing a completely unworkable duty on the Secretary of State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, even though many of the actions required lie outside his control. It would have been better, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and I argued, for the duty to be connected to what the Secretary of State can control, such as his own actions and policies, and not the outcome, which he cannot.
In the Act's passage through Parliament, the target was raised from 60 per cent to 80 per cent, with little discussion of its costs or feasibility. It is a simple arithmetic calculation to show that if the UK economy continues to grow at its historic trend rate, we will need, only 40 years from now, to produce each £1,000 of GDP with only 8 per cent of the carbon we use today. That is a cut of 90 per cent. Many observers think that this is implausible. A recent report by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers reported that the rate of improvement in carbon intensity/productivity would need to quadruple from the 1.3 per cent achieved in the five years up to the recession to around 5.5 per cent. It would need to be even higher at the end of the period to make up for what the noble Lord, Lord May, calls falling behind the run rate.
Professor Dieter Helm has pointed out that the measurement system used in the Kyoto framework and in the UK's carbon accounts is a misleading guide to what is really being achieved. The carbon accounts use the territorial method-that is, the emissions from UK territory. In this way, the UK is able to claim that CO2 emissions have been reduced, but that is a misleading way of measuring a nation's carbon footprint and its impact on the world. It should include the carbon in its imports. If this was done it would show that we are going backwards, since we would be forced to take responsibility for the manufacturing that we have outsourced to such countries as China but are still consuming. The current method is, of course, politically very convenient as it allows us to label China as the world's largest emitter. The embedded carbon calculation is, I accept, far more complicated, but it is far more honest.
Another flaw in the framework is that the targets are unconditional. It is a legal duty, irrespective of what other countries achieve. Some, including me, argue that there should be two targets: one of which is a commitment, and a higher one which we will argue for internationally but only undertake as part of an agreement. Ironically, this is precisely the approach that the EU is taking with its 20 per cent reduction target by 2020, which would be raised to 30 per cent as part of an international agreement. The danger is that by going it alone we could face a double whammy, paying for decarbonising our own economy, yet still having to pay for the costs of raising our sea defences if others do not follow suit.
Secondly, let us consider the specific policies that have been adopted. Current EU policy follows two inconsistent paths. On the one hand, the ETS seeks to establish a common price for CO2, against which various competing technologies can be measured. The market share of each is determined by the relative costs. This is attractive to economists, since it allows the cost per tonne of CO2 abated to be equalised at the margin, thereby ensuring that the cost of achieving any CO2 target is minimised. The problem is that, despite its theoretical attractions, the ETS is failing. It provides no clear signal on the price of carbon on which investors can base their decisions. The committee, in this report, estimates that the ETS CO2 price in 2020 will be around €22 per tonne. The committee has rightly identified the central contradiction in its own report: the carbon price will be too low and too uncertain to stimulate the low-carbon investments needed to validate the committee's projections.
At the same time, the EU is following a different approach under its 20:20:20 plan-to achieve a 20 per cent reduction in CO2 by 2020, with 20 per cent of energy coming from renewables. In this way, it predetermines a market share for a technology-renewables-rather than letting the merit order decide. The danger is that in pressing to achieve this target, which implies that over 30 per cent of electricity generation will come from renewables, some renewables capacity will be created which will be more expensive than other responses.
There is also a lack of clarity about the true cost of wind power, once we factor in the cost of retaining a large amount of underutilised conventional capacity, and the extension of the grid. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, has said more than enough on that so I do not need to follow that line of argument.
There is illogicality in the treatment of nuclear energy in the climate change levy. It is ridiculous that nuclear power, as a low-carbon source, is still in the taxable box. For 50 years, a major experiment has been conducted just 20 miles off our coast. France has generated three-quarters of its electricity from nuclear power. The French believe that it has been a huge success, delivering electricity which is secure, cheap and stable in price. France's carbon intensity is 0.3 of a tonne per $1,000 of GDP, compared to 0.42 in the UK, 0.51 in Germany-so much for it being a market leader-and 0.63 in the US. However, the French option has barely been considered in this country.
As part of the EU plan, 10 per cent of road fuel is mandated to come from biofuels, but by the time this was enacted the credibility of first-generation biofuels had collapsed. Finally, our policy framework lacks balance. It is almost exclusively focused on mitigation through CO2 reduction, The Institution of Mechanical Engineers has argued for what it calls a MAG approach, with effort being committed not just to mitigation but to adaptation and geo-engineering.
Thirdly, there is the issue of cost. All we had to go on at the time when the target was set more ambitiously was the estimate by the noble Lord, Lord Stern, of 1 per cent of GDP. Many people were sceptical at the time and probably even more are now, including, it seems, the noble Lord, Lord Stern, himself. It was reported in the press last week that he now thinks that it might be 2 per cent, but could rise to 5 per cent. I hope he will clarify this when he speaks to us shortly.
In the document that we have before us, the committee says that it previously estimated that costs in 2020 would be about 1 per cent of GDP. That is consistent with its view that it might get to 2 per cent by 2050. In the new report it simply reaffirms the 1 per cent figure in just one paragraph in 250 pages. That is it. I have to say to the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord May, that I do not think that that is adequate. It is difficult to relate these figures to what we are observing on the ground about the difficulties and costs of bringing on stream different technologies such as offshore wind and CCS.
One of the problems bedevilling the debate is the lack of transparency over the huge cross-subsidies that are being created by the renewables obligation and the regime for feed-in tariffs. There is no assurance that their extent is commensurate with the benefits in CO2 abated. My electricity costs me 11p per kilowatt hour. If I erected a wind turbine, I could sell the power I produced to the grid for a whopping 23p. I think I would go out and buy a gizmo which linked my inward meter to my outward meter. That excess cost is averaged over the bills of consumers as a whole, but how much is it in total, or for individual consumers? Here I differ from the noble Lord, Lord May. The whole issue of cost must be given far more attention. The Government cannot ask people to make radical changes to their lifestyle without being more open about the costs that they are being asked to bear.
I accept that "do nothing" is not the right option. Some measures, such as energy efficiency, heat recovery from waste and biomass, and stopping deforestation are probably justified on their own merits. More nuclear power which, in turn, would open the way for electrification of our transport fleet would enhance security of supply. Other measures may be justified as pure insurance, given the uncertainty that we face. But what is badly needed is a consistent metric that allows us to judge whether any given objective is being achieved at minimum cost. The recent book by Professor MacKay, the newly appointed scientific adviser at DECC, provides an excellent starting point. I also very much welcome the intervention by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, debunking the waste hierarchy and the act of faith that that embodies.
There is the issue of the science, which I had previously taken as given; but many people's faith is being tested. We are often told that the science is settled. I suppose that is what the Inquisition said to Galileo. If so, why are we spending millions of pounds on research? The science is far from settled. There are major controversies not just about the contribution of CO2, on which most of the debate is focused, but about the influence of other factors such as water vapour, or clouds-the most powerful greenhouse gas-ocean currents and the sun, together with feedback effects which can be negative as well as positive.
Worse still, there are even controversies about the basic data on temperature. The series going back one, 10 or 100,000 years are, in the genuine sense of the word, synthetic. They are not direct observations but are melded together from proxies such as ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings.
Given the extent to which the outcome is affected by the statistical techniques and the weightings applied by individual researchers, it is essential that the work is done as transparently as possible, with the greatest scope for challenge. That is why the disclosure of documents and e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit is so disturbing. Instead of an open debate, a picture is emerging of selective use of data, efforts to silence critics, and particularly a refusal to share data and methodologies.
It is essential that these allegations are independently and rigorously investigated. Naturally, I welcome the appointment of my old colleague, Sir Muir Russell, to lead this investigation; a civil servant with a physics degree is a rare beast indeed. He needs to establish what the documents really mean and recommend changes in governance and transparency which will restore confidence in the integrity of the data. This is not just an academic feud in the English department from a Malcolm Bradbury novel. The CRU is a major contributor to the IPCC process. The Government should not see this as a purely university matter. They are the funders of much of this research and their climate change policies are based on it.
We need to purge the debate of the unpleasant religiosity that surrounds it, of scientists acting like NGO activists, of propaganda based on fear, for example, the quite disgraceful government advertisement which tried to frighten young children-the final image being the family dog being drowned-and of claims about having “10 days to save the world”. Crude insults from the Prime Minister do not help.
The noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord May, and their eminent colleagues on the CCC have a choice. They can take the policy framework as given, the policy responses as given, the costs as given, and the science as given, and then proceed to churn out more and more sophisticated projections, or-as I hope-they can apply the formidable intellectual firepower they command and start to find answers to many of the unsolved questions
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Today's tidbits
Not going to launch into a long one today - couple of interesting bits though...
First up, seems as if there is trouble in Copenhagen - for those seeking a deal anyway. Looks as though the developed world is perhaps not quite as suicidal as we thought and is seeking more from the developing world than the latter is prepared to offer up. Good times for those of us praying for a total collapse of this international tax/wealth redistribution seminar.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text
And here is what they are all so upset about
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-change
There are rumours floating about that the developed countries were not alone, and that the developing world also have a secret agenda, probably symbolised by China pushing for much bigger pledges of reduction in the US. All in all chaos and dissent is good for us who do not relish the massive upheaval all of this nonsense is going to cause.
I also came across this
http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/
Take a look at the people who signed it. A much much more credible document than the discredited Oregon Petition. Hopefully it will gather more momentum. Definite proof that the skeptics are not all right wing head jobs like myself.
First up, seems as if there is trouble in Copenhagen - for those seeking a deal anyway. Looks as though the developed world is perhaps not quite as suicidal as we thought and is seeking more from the developing world than the latter is prepared to offer up. Good times for those of us praying for a total collapse of this international tax/wealth redistribution seminar.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text
And here is what they are all so upset about
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-change
There are rumours floating about that the developed countries were not alone, and that the developing world also have a secret agenda, probably symbolised by China pushing for much bigger pledges of reduction in the US. All in all chaos and dissent is good for us who do not relish the massive upheaval all of this nonsense is going to cause.
I also came across this
http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/
Take a look at the people who signed it. A much much more credible document than the discredited Oregon Petition. Hopefully it will gather more momentum. Definite proof that the skeptics are not all right wing head jobs like myself.
Tuesday, 8 December 2009
Mind Blowing in its implications
There is a lot in the papers, mainly warmist scaremongering and backside covering. There is also a lot of distraction going on by the vested interests regarding the CRU emails. Last week it was all a "Russian plot". This week the illegality of the apparent 'hacking' is being used as a diversion - if the emails and code were 'stolen' we don't really have to try and explain everything that they show do we? Disingenuous but effective since the main stream media is lapping it up and singing from the same hymn sheet - and even going further in some cases, reporting that the Met office this morning said that the "noughties" have been the warmist decade on record - misleading since that is only based on UK readings and could easily be taken for a global trend (which it is not).
But far and above the daily grind of annoyance and bovine excrement coming our way, there is something very dark and dubious happening over the pond.
The Sainted One Barack Obama (may he live forever and save us all from ourselves) has had a plan for a while now - and its coming to fruition. Not only has his healthcare programme stalled in the Senate (which is actually a pity - I do think that the US needs to reform is public health service), but the senate has also been stalling his initiatives on controlling CO2 emission. You see, that is the beauty of the American governance system - its a balance between the Executive (The Sainted One, may he live forever and save us all from ourselves), the legislature, and an independent judiciary in the form of the Supreme Court. No single body/person has massive power over the others - in theory anyways, and certainly as intended by the founding fathers. Of course, over the years, especially since Lincoln, the executive has slowly gathered more and more power and now is, at the very least, first amongst equals.
But Congress and the Senate (the legislature part of the tripod) can still block the crazier initiatives of any given president - unless there is extenuating circumstances. Or a back door. The Sainted One (may he live forever and save us all from ourselves) has created this back door.
When a number of federal agencies were created, certain perogatives and powers were devolved to them. In the case of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), one of these powers was to rule what exactly constitutes pollution, and a mandate to impose federal controls over pollutants without direct legislative approval. With presidential encouragement, the EPA has just declared CO2 a pollutant following a 2 year old Supreme Court decision that CO2 production falls under the existing legal umbrella of the Clean Air Act. BOOM! The Sainted One (may he live forever and save us all from ourselves) has neatly sidestepped the legislative inhibition to his personal green initiatives and handed the notoriously warmist EPA the ability to enact just about any insane controls over CO2 production that it wants to.
A 30% blanket reduction over the next five years? Done. Fines and legal action against industry? Done. Enforced controls on automobiles? Done. Cap and trade? Done. Individual fines? Done. Mandatory house and lifestyle alteration? Done. In a single move, the EPA has grabbed for itself more power to directly influence day to day lives than ANY law enforcement or other federal agency. That the Supreme Court made the decision to allow this to happen before The Sainted One (may he live forever and save us all from ourselves) ascended to his office is even more frightening. Thats 2 out of 3 parts of the tripod contributing to the largest single centralization of power in the United States since FDR and the New Deal back in the 1930s.
What does this mean for the rest of us? Bad things basically. With Obama now able to promise all sorts of green goodies in Copenhagen, it might allow China and India to be brow-beaten into submission and some sort of disaterous global agreement that will see wealth redistribution and social engineering and realignment on a massive scale. A socialist's utopian dream. An internationalist's wet dream. The last real hope for some level of sanity in the world to remain was American refusal to bow to external pressure - redneck intransigence and libertarian stubborness was the only thing that had the potential to stop the madness.
Of course, America being America, there will be huge numbers of legal challenges on this ruling. At its basis, since CO2 is actually essential for life it cannot really be considered a pollutant as such, and since the amount of CO2 that mankind actually puts into the atmosphere is infinitessimally small and would be inconsequential even if global warming was man made hopefully sanity and the system of checks and balances in US governance will be restored. But the damage might have already been done by then.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/07/the-epa-co2-regulation-dec-7th-2009-a-day-we-will-not-soon-forget/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1260139 ... TWhatsNews
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/199879.php (a blog that has a subscriber WSJ article cut and pasted)
In semi-related news, while reading the Evening Standard last night on the commute home, I noticed this article.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23780531-uk-to-drop-out-of-top-10-economies-2015.do
Great news isn't it? Less than 6 years and we will have a smaller economy than Canada for goodness sake. From number 4 in 2005 to out of the top ten in less than a decade. This is the true legacy of Labour - a badly managed economy resulting in massive debt, poor resilience and poor competitiveness. High taxes, banker bonus caps, even more debt, slavery to the EU and its non-anglosaxon 'continental' system (I love Sarkozy at times, but he can also be an arse) - everything seems designed to make the UK far less than it was. There will a brain drain to more affluent countries, exacerbating the problem. The decline has been pretty solid since the end of WW1 with regards Britains place and power in the world - but WOW has it spead up since Labour took over in the 90s. They should all be impeached and shot for what they have done to this country economically, not to mention the consequences from their social engineering, apologism, immigration, and education programmes. Bastards.
Not that the blue/greens under Davey boy will be any better - the only hope is to cut ourselves loose from international inhibitions (the EU, whatever hairbrained bollocks they dream up in Copenhagen regarding CO2) and set about systematically fixing this shattered shell of a once admirable nation. Yes, that means vote UKIP. Its a slender, possibly imaginary hope, but its the only one that we have.
More links about the economy rankings
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/sean-ogrady-uk-economy-to-drop-out-of-worlds-top-10-1835493.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233670/CEBR-Report-Britain-set-slump-outside-worlds-10-leading-economies-2015--India-Russia-Canada.html
Enjoy.
But far and above the daily grind of annoyance and bovine excrement coming our way, there is something very dark and dubious happening over the pond.
The Sainted One Barack Obama (may he live forever and save us all from ourselves) has had a plan for a while now - and its coming to fruition. Not only has his healthcare programme stalled in the Senate (which is actually a pity - I do think that the US needs to reform is public health service), but the senate has also been stalling his initiatives on controlling CO2 emission. You see, that is the beauty of the American governance system - its a balance between the Executive (The Sainted One, may he live forever and save us all from ourselves), the legislature, and an independent judiciary in the form of the Supreme Court. No single body/person has massive power over the others - in theory anyways, and certainly as intended by the founding fathers. Of course, over the years, especially since Lincoln, the executive has slowly gathered more and more power and now is, at the very least, first amongst equals.
But Congress and the Senate (the legislature part of the tripod) can still block the crazier initiatives of any given president - unless there is extenuating circumstances. Or a back door. The Sainted One (may he live forever and save us all from ourselves) has created this back door.
When a number of federal agencies were created, certain perogatives and powers were devolved to them. In the case of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), one of these powers was to rule what exactly constitutes pollution, and a mandate to impose federal controls over pollutants without direct legislative approval. With presidential encouragement, the EPA has just declared CO2 a pollutant following a 2 year old Supreme Court decision that CO2 production falls under the existing legal umbrella of the Clean Air Act. BOOM! The Sainted One (may he live forever and save us all from ourselves) has neatly sidestepped the legislative inhibition to his personal green initiatives and handed the notoriously warmist EPA the ability to enact just about any insane controls over CO2 production that it wants to.
A 30% blanket reduction over the next five years? Done. Fines and legal action against industry? Done. Enforced controls on automobiles? Done. Cap and trade? Done. Individual fines? Done. Mandatory house and lifestyle alteration? Done. In a single move, the EPA has grabbed for itself more power to directly influence day to day lives than ANY law enforcement or other federal agency. That the Supreme Court made the decision to allow this to happen before The Sainted One (may he live forever and save us all from ourselves) ascended to his office is even more frightening. Thats 2 out of 3 parts of the tripod contributing to the largest single centralization of power in the United States since FDR and the New Deal back in the 1930s.
What does this mean for the rest of us? Bad things basically. With Obama now able to promise all sorts of green goodies in Copenhagen, it might allow China and India to be brow-beaten into submission and some sort of disaterous global agreement that will see wealth redistribution and social engineering and realignment on a massive scale. A socialist's utopian dream. An internationalist's wet dream. The last real hope for some level of sanity in the world to remain was American refusal to bow to external pressure - redneck intransigence and libertarian stubborness was the only thing that had the potential to stop the madness.
Of course, America being America, there will be huge numbers of legal challenges on this ruling. At its basis, since CO2 is actually essential for life it cannot really be considered a pollutant as such, and since the amount of CO2 that mankind actually puts into the atmosphere is infinitessimally small and would be inconsequential even if global warming was man made hopefully sanity and the system of checks and balances in US governance will be restored. But the damage might have already been done by then.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/07/the-epa-co2-regulation-dec-7th-2009-a-day-we-will-not-soon-forget/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1260139 ... TWhatsNews
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/199879.php (a blog that has a subscriber WSJ article cut and pasted)
In semi-related news, while reading the Evening Standard last night on the commute home, I noticed this article.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23780531-uk-to-drop-out-of-top-10-economies-2015.do
Great news isn't it? Less than 6 years and we will have a smaller economy than Canada for goodness sake. From number 4 in 2005 to out of the top ten in less than a decade. This is the true legacy of Labour - a badly managed economy resulting in massive debt, poor resilience and poor competitiveness. High taxes, banker bonus caps, even more debt, slavery to the EU and its non-anglosaxon 'continental' system (I love Sarkozy at times, but he can also be an arse) - everything seems designed to make the UK far less than it was. There will a brain drain to more affluent countries, exacerbating the problem. The decline has been pretty solid since the end of WW1 with regards Britains place and power in the world - but WOW has it spead up since Labour took over in the 90s. They should all be impeached and shot for what they have done to this country economically, not to mention the consequences from their social engineering, apologism, immigration, and education programmes. Bastards.
Not that the blue/greens under Davey boy will be any better - the only hope is to cut ourselves loose from international inhibitions (the EU, whatever hairbrained bollocks they dream up in Copenhagen regarding CO2) and set about systematically fixing this shattered shell of a once admirable nation. Yes, that means vote UKIP. Its a slender, possibly imaginary hope, but its the only one that we have.
More links about the economy rankings
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/sean-ogrady-uk-economy-to-drop-out-of-worlds-top-10-1835493.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233670/CEBR-Report-Britain-set-slump-outside-worlds-10-leading-economies-2015--India-Russia-Canada.html
Enjoy.
Monday, 7 December 2009
A Climategate Catch Up
Hi all,
Climategate has not quietened down this last week - if anything more and more is being revealed as IT specialists plumb the depths of the code, hidden in which are apparent discrepancies that make the emails seem 'not that bad at all'. Its all a bit beyond me, thanks to my being semi-computer literate at best, but overall the case for evidence of malfeasance at the CRU grows - hopefully the inquests launched by various bodies, including the University of East Anglia, are not brow beaten into a whitewash. I won't hold my breathe in hope of this of course.
And of course, today is the day that 100 world leaders and thousands of delegates start prattling on in Copenhagen about how to re-engineer our countries and economies, ostensibly to limit CO2, but in reality as some sort of wishy-washy do-gooder initiative to redistribute the wealth from the decadent developed world to the poor, exploited and victimized developing one. If you doubt this, just have a gander at the home page at http://green-agenda.com/index.html - its a list of quotes from people influential in the AGW/Environmentalist community as well as some people who have had influence on all of us through positions at the UN. Scary reading.
Hopefully nothing that Obama the Sainted One (may he live forever and save us all from ourselves) agrees to will be ratified in the congress or senate in DC – the only hope for Western Civilization at all is that the Americans remain intransigent rednecks stubbornly resisting the namby-pamby exhortations of Eurotrash guilt ridden at the thought of their colonial past and current relative prosperity. And yes, in this definition I include the angst consumed British intelligentsia and left, who are largely middle class or privileged and feel very bad about being so.
On to some links. As usual, my first port of call on a daily basis to feed my EU and AGW fires is the most excellent www.eureferendum.blogspot.com – the blogger (the scary perceptive Richard North) has a great handle on things, and benefits from having established himself as a creditable hub of information. All of these links were originally posted there in posts going back the last few days – since a lot of what is out there on a daily basis is repetition or clarification of the Climategate scandal, its worth waiting a few days between rants to gather more ammo.
Lets start with two great clips on Youtube. The first is an excellent summary of what is going on by Rex Murphy of the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). Canada seems to be in the front rank of response to Climategate as well as taking a position unique for a generally liberal nation in not bending over and grasping ankles for Copenhagen. Those Alberta tar fields and the billions of barrels of oil sitting there might have something to do with that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIEQqLokL8&feature=player_embedded
This next clip is from the awesome Vaclav Klaus, he of resistance to the Lisbon Treaty fame and probably the political leader I respect most in the world right now. Pity Cameron sold him down the river over the Lisbon Treaty. Klaus also has his head screwed on about AGW as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzGm-z-kB_s&feature=player_embedded
Here is an interesting link regarding the financial security of investing in “green” technologies now that Climategate has happened. Personally I don’t think its 100% on target – the vested interests and big business onside with the fraud will still make money on it – Big Tobacco strung people along with false science for years, the AGW camp will do the same. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/features/the-buy-side/dont-let-climategate-melt-down-your-portfolio/article1389653/
If you are after some real scientific and in depth analysis of what exactly was meant in the infamous “hide the decline” email, here it is. A bit above my head, but I get the gist I think. I understood enough to recognize that the blithe denials of the warmists asked to comment on it are misleading to say the least. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html
Aaaaa Christopher Booker. A legend. Sunday the 29th of November’s article was awesome and caused some controversy over apparent Google collusion in suppressing it, this week’s is good as well (and apparently not hidden by Google). A bit more specific, it targets Michael Mann’s tree ring analysis, which is tied in with the general Climategate furor – its interesting but not as ‘get-the-blood-pumping-in-fury’ stimulating as the one before. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6738111/Climategate-reveals-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world.html.
Eureferendum’s Richard North and Booker are old colleagues (they have written several books together) and EUref has some good expansion on the article. http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/most-influential-tree-in-world.html
I love this next link. Its always the warcry of the warmists that skeptics are financed by big business, especially that nasty boogie man Exxonmobil, even when the financial numbers of this backing are ludicrously small compared to the amount of funds being poured into the AGW camp by various governments and NGOs. Case in point, the possibly criminal Phil Jones (send him down for subverting FoI requests!) is certainly not doing badly by toeing the line and building up the climate catastrophe. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6735846/Climategate-professor-Phil-Jones-awarded-13-million-in-research-grants.html
In response to Climategate, several warmist commentators have pointed to real evidence of global warming being more than enough to eclipse the misdeeds of some politicized scientists. They often point to glaciers melting and disappearing. Yeah. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8387737.stm
Of course, if the science is settled and, as is asserted, the other 2 major data sources/dumps for the AGW models in the US are not compromised by the CRU debacle (arguable since the field is incestuous in the extreme and much of the world-wide data has been influenced or sourced at the CRU), then there would be no need to look at the data again right? The science is solid and settled right? Right? Then why is the UK met office, a co-conspirator to the AGW fraud, publically saying that it is going to do this? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece
Hopefully that will catch you up to whats going on, more or less. I expect lots more over the next two weeks as the Copenhagen farce continues, with daily scare stories in the papers and tear-streaked politicians waxing lyrical about how this is our last chance…
Climategate has not quietened down this last week - if anything more and more is being revealed as IT specialists plumb the depths of the code, hidden in which are apparent discrepancies that make the emails seem 'not that bad at all'. Its all a bit beyond me, thanks to my being semi-computer literate at best, but overall the case for evidence of malfeasance at the CRU grows - hopefully the inquests launched by various bodies, including the University of East Anglia, are not brow beaten into a whitewash. I won't hold my breathe in hope of this of course.
And of course, today is the day that 100 world leaders and thousands of delegates start prattling on in Copenhagen about how to re-engineer our countries and economies, ostensibly to limit CO2, but in reality as some sort of wishy-washy do-gooder initiative to redistribute the wealth from the decadent developed world to the poor, exploited and victimized developing one. If you doubt this, just have a gander at the home page at http://green-agenda.com/index.html - its a list of quotes from people influential in the AGW/Environmentalist community as well as some people who have had influence on all of us through positions at the UN. Scary reading.
Hopefully nothing that Obama the Sainted One (may he live forever and save us all from ourselves) agrees to will be ratified in the congress or senate in DC – the only hope for Western Civilization at all is that the Americans remain intransigent rednecks stubbornly resisting the namby-pamby exhortations of Eurotrash guilt ridden at the thought of their colonial past and current relative prosperity. And yes, in this definition I include the angst consumed British intelligentsia and left, who are largely middle class or privileged and feel very bad about being so.
On to some links. As usual, my first port of call on a daily basis to feed my EU and AGW fires is the most excellent www.eureferendum.blogspot.com – the blogger (the scary perceptive Richard North) has a great handle on things, and benefits from having established himself as a creditable hub of information. All of these links were originally posted there in posts going back the last few days – since a lot of what is out there on a daily basis is repetition or clarification of the Climategate scandal, its worth waiting a few days between rants to gather more ammo.
Lets start with two great clips on Youtube. The first is an excellent summary of what is going on by Rex Murphy of the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). Canada seems to be in the front rank of response to Climategate as well as taking a position unique for a generally liberal nation in not bending over and grasping ankles for Copenhagen. Those Alberta tar fields and the billions of barrels of oil sitting there might have something to do with that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIEQqLokL8&feature=player_embedded
This next clip is from the awesome Vaclav Klaus, he of resistance to the Lisbon Treaty fame and probably the political leader I respect most in the world right now. Pity Cameron sold him down the river over the Lisbon Treaty. Klaus also has his head screwed on about AGW as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzGm-z-kB_s&feature=player_embedded
Here is an interesting link regarding the financial security of investing in “green” technologies now that Climategate has happened. Personally I don’t think its 100% on target – the vested interests and big business onside with the fraud will still make money on it – Big Tobacco strung people along with false science for years, the AGW camp will do the same. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/features/the-buy-side/dont-let-climategate-melt-down-your-portfolio/article1389653/
If you are after some real scientific and in depth analysis of what exactly was meant in the infamous “hide the decline” email, here it is. A bit above my head, but I get the gist I think. I understood enough to recognize that the blithe denials of the warmists asked to comment on it are misleading to say the least. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html
Aaaaa Christopher Booker. A legend. Sunday the 29th of November’s article was awesome and caused some controversy over apparent Google collusion in suppressing it, this week’s is good as well (and apparently not hidden by Google). A bit more specific, it targets Michael Mann’s tree ring analysis, which is tied in with the general Climategate furor – its interesting but not as ‘get-the-blood-pumping-in-fury’ stimulating as the one before. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6738111/Climategate-reveals-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world.html.
Eureferendum’s Richard North and Booker are old colleagues (they have written several books together) and EUref has some good expansion on the article. http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/most-influential-tree-in-world.html
I love this next link. Its always the warcry of the warmists that skeptics are financed by big business, especially that nasty boogie man Exxonmobil, even when the financial numbers of this backing are ludicrously small compared to the amount of funds being poured into the AGW camp by various governments and NGOs. Case in point, the possibly criminal Phil Jones (send him down for subverting FoI requests!) is certainly not doing badly by toeing the line and building up the climate catastrophe. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6735846/Climategate-professor-Phil-Jones-awarded-13-million-in-research-grants.html
In response to Climategate, several warmist commentators have pointed to real evidence of global warming being more than enough to eclipse the misdeeds of some politicized scientists. They often point to glaciers melting and disappearing. Yeah. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8387737.stm
Of course, if the science is settled and, as is asserted, the other 2 major data sources/dumps for the AGW models in the US are not compromised by the CRU debacle (arguable since the field is incestuous in the extreme and much of the world-wide data has been influenced or sourced at the CRU), then there would be no need to look at the data again right? The science is solid and settled right? Right? Then why is the UK met office, a co-conspirator to the AGW fraud, publically saying that it is going to do this? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece
Hopefully that will catch you up to whats going on, more or less. I expect lots more over the next two weeks as the Copenhagen farce continues, with daily scare stories in the papers and tear-streaked politicians waxing lyrical about how this is our last chance…
Monday, 30 November 2009
The case continues. My AGW/Greenie mate Joe has asked to be removed from this list following several very polite debate emails between just the two of us which really serves to highlight a lot of the issues which AGW skeptics have to deal with - the idea that the science is now "done", that 20 years of research is pretty much categoric, even if partially based on the work of scientists now shown to be unethical and manipulative (and possibly criminal), and that those of us who say that there are problems with the science fall into one of the following categories...
1) Conspiracy nuts who deserve to be equated to "9/11 Truthers" and UFO chasers.
2) Scientifically ignorant people who do not see that any malfeasance would have been rooted out by the peer review process long ago (despite evidence that this process has been compromised). This coincides with an assertion that there is no conspiracy (I dont believe that there is a large scale centralised conspiracy myself by the way, just a series of small scale collusions and conspiracies) to inhibit the publication of conflicting data and findings, and that the latter simply is not given credence because it is, at heart, flawed science which just happily happens to contradict AGW orthodoxy.
3) Are possibly complicit of "crimes against humanity" as one prophet of AGW said, and akin to Holocaust Deniers (that David Icke is also a AGW skeptic does not help to refute this ludicrous statement).
4) Slaves of big business interests who are just gullible and believe everything they hear.
Now, in fairness, I am sure that there are AGW skeptics that fall into the above categories (with the obvious exception of #3), and sometimes who fall into more than one. I myself could fall quite easily into #2 - but I personally think I make up for scientific knowledge and instinct with a semi-trained analytical approach from my humanities studies, as well as a big dollop of native cynicism, scepticism of a generic sort, and increasing paranoia about the agendas and goals of social engineering elites of all stripes who want to change us all for our own good.
But all of the above is hyperbole and piffle - none of it, and none of anything I have read on pro-AGW sites (yes, I do look at some of them too) leads me to have even the slightest doubt that fraud on some level is being perpetrated regarding this issue, and that a huge whitewash by vested interests (green politicians, social engineers, big business cashing in on the paranoia, the mainstream media) is currently underway despite revelations that make Nixon's Watergate seem like a little white lie. And that is the basic point - we have been, and are being, screwed royally over this, and with increasingly billions being poured into cap and trade schemes as well as economic aid to the developing world in order for them to cut carbon emissions, we are all looking at being taxed to all hell for, essentially, nothing.
With that rant more or less over, lets get to some links/URLs. I email this to people as well as posting it on my blog (http://nonpcmeanderings.blogspot.com/) and have not learnt how to hotlink or hyperlink, so any technical advice on this would be much appreciated.
First up is a great article on American Thinker, which pretty much sums up the state of play. Worth reading even if it is long. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/global_warming_fraud_and_the_f.html
Chris Booker has also written an excellent article, which in many ways perfectly sums up my own views. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html.
Apparently there is some controversy over the above article somehow being blocked from Google searches, but that may be a touch too paranoid even for me. EU Referendum has some more on Booker's article. http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/11/mushroom-cloud.html
This is a convoluted and long winded article on Watts Up With That showing just how the scientific method has been manipulated and compromised by the good folks at the CRU. As this is a big stick for warmists to beat us skeptics with - the fact that science would have outed any bad behaviour, this is a good article to see that this has actually been done. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole%e2%80%a6/
Another Watts Up With That article that, when you get through the current issue regarding a total idiot named Paul Krugman, has some very interesting links and stats about the money tied up in the Church of AGW. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/quote-of-the-week-krugmans-lol-on-skeptics/
Here is a pretty interesting video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu_ok37HDuE&feature=player_embedded#
And on a slightly lighter note to finish up with, a "most annoying" list from WUWT http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/spencertop-10-annoyances-in-the-climate-change-debate/#more-13345
Enjoy.
1) Conspiracy nuts who deserve to be equated to "9/11 Truthers" and UFO chasers.
2) Scientifically ignorant people who do not see that any malfeasance would have been rooted out by the peer review process long ago (despite evidence that this process has been compromised). This coincides with an assertion that there is no conspiracy (I dont believe that there is a large scale centralised conspiracy myself by the way, just a series of small scale collusions and conspiracies) to inhibit the publication of conflicting data and findings, and that the latter simply is not given credence because it is, at heart, flawed science which just happily happens to contradict AGW orthodoxy.
3) Are possibly complicit of "crimes against humanity" as one prophet of AGW said, and akin to Holocaust Deniers (that David Icke is also a AGW skeptic does not help to refute this ludicrous statement).
4) Slaves of big business interests who are just gullible and believe everything they hear.
Now, in fairness, I am sure that there are AGW skeptics that fall into the above categories (with the obvious exception of #3), and sometimes who fall into more than one. I myself could fall quite easily into #2 - but I personally think I make up for scientific knowledge and instinct with a semi-trained analytical approach from my humanities studies, as well as a big dollop of native cynicism, scepticism of a generic sort, and increasing paranoia about the agendas and goals of social engineering elites of all stripes who want to change us all for our own good.
But all of the above is hyperbole and piffle - none of it, and none of anything I have read on pro-AGW sites (yes, I do look at some of them too) leads me to have even the slightest doubt that fraud on some level is being perpetrated regarding this issue, and that a huge whitewash by vested interests (green politicians, social engineers, big business cashing in on the paranoia, the mainstream media) is currently underway despite revelations that make Nixon's Watergate seem like a little white lie. And that is the basic point - we have been, and are being, screwed royally over this, and with increasingly billions being poured into cap and trade schemes as well as economic aid to the developing world in order for them to cut carbon emissions, we are all looking at being taxed to all hell for, essentially, nothing.
With that rant more or less over, lets get to some links/URLs. I email this to people as well as posting it on my blog (http://nonpcmeanderings.blogspot.com/) and have not learnt how to hotlink or hyperlink, so any technical advice on this would be much appreciated.
First up is a great article on American Thinker, which pretty much sums up the state of play. Worth reading even if it is long. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/global_warming_fraud_and_the_f.html
Chris Booker has also written an excellent article, which in many ways perfectly sums up my own views. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html.
Apparently there is some controversy over the above article somehow being blocked from Google searches, but that may be a touch too paranoid even for me. EU Referendum has some more on Booker's article. http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/11/mushroom-cloud.html
This is a convoluted and long winded article on Watts Up With That showing just how the scientific method has been manipulated and compromised by the good folks at the CRU. As this is a big stick for warmists to beat us skeptics with - the fact that science would have outed any bad behaviour, this is a good article to see that this has actually been done. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole%e2%80%a6/
Another Watts Up With That article that, when you get through the current issue regarding a total idiot named Paul Krugman, has some very interesting links and stats about the money tied up in the Church of AGW. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/quote-of-the-week-krugmans-lol-on-skeptics/
Here is a pretty interesting video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu_ok37HDuE&feature=player_embedded#
And on a slightly lighter note to finish up with, a "most annoying" list from WUWT http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/spencertop-10-annoyances-in-the-climate-change-debate/#more-13345
Enjoy.
Friday, 27 November 2009
Climategate - the next chapter
Hi all,
Taking a break from EU bashing has been refreshing this week, despite the worrying revelations about the new EU 'Foreign Minister', and thus the person ultimately responsible for many of the future decisions regarding the security of our new Reich, was treasurer for the CND back in the 80s (when a nuclear deterrant was arguably essential) and indeed liaised with Communist groups in the UK and possibly accepted money from the USSR to fund the CND - that the USSR did so as a measure to weaken NATO is a matter of historical record.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/11/soviet-stooge.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230097/Revealed-The-CND-past-new-EU-Foreign-Minister-Baroness-Ashton.html
Of course, in the spirit of openess and accountability that permates our glorious Reich, when concerns over this dubious past (for a foreign secretary at least) were raised by UKIP's own Nigel farage, he was slapped down and threatened with disciplinary actions. Democracy in action.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6653340/Baroness-Ashton-questioned-over-CND-and-Soviet-money.html
As my work laptop is now riddled with worms and viruses, I have not been active for a couple of days, so this post will be longish. I am still wading through the links that my mate Joe has sent me explaining the warmist position and trying to absorb his efforts at trying to make me understand how science works with regards theories, peer review etc. I am not sure that the end result will make him happy since the essential core of 'good' science is objective peer review and acceptance, and the core group of warmist science "peers" seems to be an incestuous pool of mutual accredation and agreement, which makes me even less likely to accept AGW as fact. Fascinating stuff though.
But on to the links. Mostly found from the most excellent eureferendum.com site, which has AGW skepticism as its second cause, which is not as fgar fetched as you may think at first since both the EU and the Church of AGW are tied in some very real ways to the same philosophy of internationalism ad transnational progressivism.
Watts Up With That kicks us off with an analysis of the "hide the decline" email and shows how inconvenient data was just deleted. Bit high brow for me, but I think I understood the article. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/mcintyre-data-from-the-hide-the-decline/#more-13256
This next link from the Canadian newspaper Financial Post shows how Phil Jones refused to supply his data to another scientist who in good faith requested it to verify his own findings, which contrasted with the CRU and UEA. Since a core element of 'good' science is the sharing of data and openess to empirical testing of your findings and theories, this rings massive alarm bells. The comments to this artcile are also interesting. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/26/skewed-science.aspx
As usual the Aussies show that they plot their own course. James Delingpole tells us how 5 of their front bench opposittion MPs are resigning from the front bench in protest over a CO2 tax. As Delingpole says, Ian Pilmer must be happy at being vindicated. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018003/climategate-five-aussie-mps-lead-the-way-by-resigning-in-disgust-over-carbon-tax/
Predictably the IPCC, the UN's AGW frontmen and its cabal of 'climate experts' (many of whom are sociologists, economists and not climate scientists at all) is standing firm. To be honest, they are right to do so from a certain point of view - the actions of a small group do not necessarily invalidate the entire theory - however, they should at least be honest enough that the revelations do raise questions about the larger 'consensus' influenced by personaged implicated in the recent revelations, especially the AGW luminaries Michael Mann and Phil Jones. http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSGEE5AP1Y5
George Monbiot, perhaps the leading light of media AGW men in the UK does take a slightly more mature and realistic viewpoint, but is also toeing the line regarding the wider science. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response
Another Delingpole link here - he looks at the response of the AGW camp in general. Some interesting reading. As usual I am less than overwhelmed by the intergrity of the BBC. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017912/climategate-how-they-all-squirmed/
Here is a German summary of whats going on. I especially like the conclusion of a prominent German Climatologist about how the emails show that the Anglosphere scientists at least are not above manipulating and distorting the peer review process. http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4929149,00.html
Here is one from the CRU at UEA itself. One cry that warmists often make is that skepticism is funded by the fossil fuel industry - and this is to some degree true. A lot of science research aiming to discredit AGW will of course be funded by the industries that would be hurt most if AGW ends up, as it has, being a political and social tool. There is nothing at all immoral in looking after your own - as can be seen here, which is an interesting page showing just how lucrative toeing the religious line when it comes to AGW has been for some. The now infamous Phil Jones for example, who has been involved in work garnering £1.2m funded by those paragons of objectivity when it comes to climate science, British Council, NERC, DEFRA and several EU organisations. Fossil Fuel and Tobacco companies are not the only one to play the game. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/research/grants.htm
Here is another antipodean revelation. New Zealand has long been one of the 'greenest' countries in the world. Now, similar claims of data manipulation and exageration have emerged there too. Fascinating stuff. http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf
And finally for today - shock! horror! A network that is NOT Fox is talking about AGW in a critical fashion. Actually, CBS is here talking about a very sensible move on the part of Republicans in congress in my opinion - the email revelations from the CRU may only represent a small group of climateologuists, but since their work and their models were directly incorporated into reports, statements and various other releases by the IPCC which directly influenced political debate and decisions, it MUST be determined that those decisions are/were based on an open, ethical science without manipulation and obfuscation. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml
In summing up, that last link really hits home with what I think should be the next step. Even though I am a skeptic and unlikely to change in that, I objectively acknowledge that the actions of a small cabal of unethical scientists, even if they do count in their number such people as Michael Mann (who is basically the high prophet of AGW and the power behind realclimate.org), do not inevitably invalidate the work of all 'climate scientists'. Even if, as some skeptics assert, there are less than 100 real voices pushing the whole agenda, the CRU emails still do not make all of them unethical. BUT, it MUST now be the case that all political decisions are reviewed and all resolutions and agreements analysed, because if they are even partially based on 'science' originating or touched by Mann and his crew, they are suspect.
Taking a break from EU bashing has been refreshing this week, despite the worrying revelations about the new EU 'Foreign Minister', and thus the person ultimately responsible for many of the future decisions regarding the security of our new Reich, was treasurer for the CND back in the 80s (when a nuclear deterrant was arguably essential) and indeed liaised with Communist groups in the UK and possibly accepted money from the USSR to fund the CND - that the USSR did so as a measure to weaken NATO is a matter of historical record.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/11/soviet-stooge.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230097/Revealed-The-CND-past-new-EU-Foreign-Minister-Baroness-Ashton.html
Of course, in the spirit of openess and accountability that permates our glorious Reich, when concerns over this dubious past (for a foreign secretary at least) were raised by UKIP's own Nigel farage, he was slapped down and threatened with disciplinary actions. Democracy in action.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6653340/Baroness-Ashton-questioned-over-CND-and-Soviet-money.html
As my work laptop is now riddled with worms and viruses, I have not been active for a couple of days, so this post will be longish. I am still wading through the links that my mate Joe has sent me explaining the warmist position and trying to absorb his efforts at trying to make me understand how science works with regards theories, peer review etc. I am not sure that the end result will make him happy since the essential core of 'good' science is objective peer review and acceptance, and the core group of warmist science "peers" seems to be an incestuous pool of mutual accredation and agreement, which makes me even less likely to accept AGW as fact. Fascinating stuff though.
But on to the links. Mostly found from the most excellent eureferendum.com site, which has AGW skepticism as its second cause, which is not as fgar fetched as you may think at first since both the EU and the Church of AGW are tied in some very real ways to the same philosophy of internationalism ad transnational progressivism.
Watts Up With That kicks us off with an analysis of the "hide the decline" email and shows how inconvenient data was just deleted. Bit high brow for me, but I think I understood the article. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/mcintyre-data-from-the-hide-the-decline/#more-13256
This next link from the Canadian newspaper Financial Post shows how Phil Jones refused to supply his data to another scientist who in good faith requested it to verify his own findings, which contrasted with the CRU and UEA. Since a core element of 'good' science is the sharing of data and openess to empirical testing of your findings and theories, this rings massive alarm bells. The comments to this artcile are also interesting. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/26/skewed-science.aspx
As usual the Aussies show that they plot their own course. James Delingpole tells us how 5 of their front bench opposittion MPs are resigning from the front bench in protest over a CO2 tax. As Delingpole says, Ian Pilmer must be happy at being vindicated. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018003/climategate-five-aussie-mps-lead-the-way-by-resigning-in-disgust-over-carbon-tax/
Predictably the IPCC, the UN's AGW frontmen and its cabal of 'climate experts' (many of whom are sociologists, economists and not climate scientists at all) is standing firm. To be honest, they are right to do so from a certain point of view - the actions of a small group do not necessarily invalidate the entire theory - however, they should at least be honest enough that the revelations do raise questions about the larger 'consensus' influenced by personaged implicated in the recent revelations, especially the AGW luminaries Michael Mann and Phil Jones. http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSGEE5AP1Y5
George Monbiot, perhaps the leading light of media AGW men in the UK does take a slightly more mature and realistic viewpoint, but is also toeing the line regarding the wider science. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response
Another Delingpole link here - he looks at the response of the AGW camp in general. Some interesting reading. As usual I am less than overwhelmed by the intergrity of the BBC. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017912/climategate-how-they-all-squirmed/
Here is a German summary of whats going on. I especially like the conclusion of a prominent German Climatologist about how the emails show that the Anglosphere scientists at least are not above manipulating and distorting the peer review process. http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4929149,00.html
Here is one from the CRU at UEA itself. One cry that warmists often make is that skepticism is funded by the fossil fuel industry - and this is to some degree true. A lot of science research aiming to discredit AGW will of course be funded by the industries that would be hurt most if AGW ends up, as it has, being a political and social tool. There is nothing at all immoral in looking after your own - as can be seen here, which is an interesting page showing just how lucrative toeing the religious line when it comes to AGW has been for some. The now infamous Phil Jones for example, who has been involved in work garnering £1.2m funded by those paragons of objectivity when it comes to climate science, British Council, NERC, DEFRA and several EU organisations. Fossil Fuel and Tobacco companies are not the only one to play the game. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/research/grants.htm
Here is another antipodean revelation. New Zealand has long been one of the 'greenest' countries in the world. Now, similar claims of data manipulation and exageration have emerged there too. Fascinating stuff. http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf
And finally for today - shock! horror! A network that is NOT Fox is talking about AGW in a critical fashion. Actually, CBS is here talking about a very sensible move on the part of Republicans in congress in my opinion - the email revelations from the CRU may only represent a small group of climateologuists, but since their work and their models were directly incorporated into reports, statements and various other releases by the IPCC which directly influenced political debate and decisions, it MUST be determined that those decisions are/were based on an open, ethical science without manipulation and obfuscation. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml
In summing up, that last link really hits home with what I think should be the next step. Even though I am a skeptic and unlikely to change in that, I objectively acknowledge that the actions of a small cabal of unethical scientists, even if they do count in their number such people as Michael Mann (who is basically the high prophet of AGW and the power behind realclimate.org), do not inevitably invalidate the work of all 'climate scientists'. Even if, as some skeptics assert, there are less than 100 real voices pushing the whole agenda, the CRU emails still do not make all of them unethical. BUT, it MUST now be the case that all political decisions are reviewed and all resolutions and agreements analysed, because if they are even partially based on 'science' originating or touched by Mann and his crew, they are suspect.
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Complilation of Climategate stuff
When the Climategate story broke about some leaked emails and other info hacked from the University of East Anglia (apparently a major centre of climate science) I started emailing my usual suspects. Here are the two emails I have sent so far
******
Email 1
Hi all,
I am not sure how many of you have been following the “Climategate” story – it would be hard since the main stream media is a little too caught up in pre-Copenhagen hysteria, but here are some links – read them in order I think – that would make the most sense. Not knowing much about the pro-AGW camp, I am sure there are some good sources of debunking info for all of these claims. Joe?
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/home/33-enviro-extremists/5648-global-warming-meltdown-climategate
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017451/climategate-how-the-msm-reported-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1230104/MAIL-COMMENT-Bad-science-climate-change.html
Excellent summary, cross referenced with the source emails here
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
More analysis
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/search/label/CRU%20emails
Thoughts and comments? This is a WAY bigger story than a measly £33m in MP’s expenses, yet it’s a safe bet that, with so much invested in supporting the current “consensus” about AGW the MSM (Main Stream Media) will stay quite a far distance from it. And the public wont get as angry about it. Even though the perpetuation of the AGW myth, if myth it indeed is, will cost a hell of a lot more than £33m.
******
Email 2
Hi all,
Been following this story as it goes on, and also having some very interesting conversations with my mate Joe, who has presented the AGW viewpoint and some very trenchant observations about how science works that has really been food for thought. Before getting to the meat of my links list today, here is a link that Joe sent me yesterday that I plan on working through bit by bit since I think it will answer most of my questions. It may not, indeed will almost certainly not, change my mind, but I think its healthy to see the other side of an argument.
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
Now, on to todays collection of Climategate links.
A bit about the professor in charge from the Guardian, a left wing paper normally firmly on board with the AGW agenda. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/24/climate-professor-leaked-emails-uea
For those of you who don’t know, Monbiot is a leading climate change personality in the MSM. Interesting post on his site, with a somewhat amusing satirical email regarding the “conspiracy” that is a little misleading since I personally think that there is a vested interest in the AGW theory remaining at the centre of political and economic planning http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/
More on Monbiot’s response from the skeptic site Watts Up With That. It really is a big deal that Monbiot is taking the revelations of the emails and the manipulation of data, at least on the part of some AGW science types, seriously enough to say what he is saying. The environmentalist faithful in the UK must be gnashing their teeth at such a high profile response. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/23/monbiot-issues-an-unprecedented-apology/
The Wall Street Journal here – its being looked at a little bit more seriously in the US press than in the band wagon press here in the UK.About halfway down is some interesting info regarding who AGW scientists respond to peer-reviewed journals that dare to publish papers by sceptics http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html
Not all American press media are looking at it, leaving it to the admittedly somewhat ludicrously biased FOX network to cover it. I think that the MSM in the states has some of the same vested interests as the UK media in toeing the line. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/24/climategate-totally-ignored-tv-news-outlets-except-fox
Another Watts Up With That link. This one looks at the fact that some of the code for the models was leaked along with the emails, and in many ways is far more damning than poorly chosen words that can be charitably be excused (though not by me) as out of context. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/
I look forward to any response, and Joe, thanks for all the links yesterday, I will be looking especially at the link I posted above as and when I have time.
******
Overall I think that this is a fascinating story and reinforces a lot of what I have instinctually been saying and thinking. Lets hope it does not get totally brushed under a carpet somewhere - the scientists in question may be only a small percentage of those invested in AGW theory, but they should all "hang" in a career sense, and possibly be investigated for prosecution.
******
Email 1
Hi all,
I am not sure how many of you have been following the “Climategate” story – it would be hard since the main stream media is a little too caught up in pre-Copenhagen hysteria, but here are some links – read them in order I think – that would make the most sense. Not knowing much about the pro-AGW camp, I am sure there are some good sources of debunking info for all of these claims. Joe?
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/home/33-enviro-extremists/5648-global-warming-meltdown-climategate
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017451/climategate-how-the-msm-reported-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1230104/MAIL-COMMENT-Bad-science-climate-change.html
Excellent summary, cross referenced with the source emails here
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
More analysis
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/search/label/CRU%20emails
Thoughts and comments? This is a WAY bigger story than a measly £33m in MP’s expenses, yet it’s a safe bet that, with so much invested in supporting the current “consensus” about AGW the MSM (Main Stream Media) will stay quite a far distance from it. And the public wont get as angry about it. Even though the perpetuation of the AGW myth, if myth it indeed is, will cost a hell of a lot more than £33m.
******
Email 2
Hi all,
Been following this story as it goes on, and also having some very interesting conversations with my mate Joe, who has presented the AGW viewpoint and some very trenchant observations about how science works that has really been food for thought. Before getting to the meat of my links list today, here is a link that Joe sent me yesterday that I plan on working through bit by bit since I think it will answer most of my questions. It may not, indeed will almost certainly not, change my mind, but I think its healthy to see the other side of an argument.
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
Now, on to todays collection of Climategate links.
A bit about the professor in charge from the Guardian, a left wing paper normally firmly on board with the AGW agenda. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/24/climate-professor-leaked-emails-uea
For those of you who don’t know, Monbiot is a leading climate change personality in the MSM. Interesting post on his site, with a somewhat amusing satirical email regarding the “conspiracy” that is a little misleading since I personally think that there is a vested interest in the AGW theory remaining at the centre of political and economic planning http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/
More on Monbiot’s response from the skeptic site Watts Up With That. It really is a big deal that Monbiot is taking the revelations of the emails and the manipulation of data, at least on the part of some AGW science types, seriously enough to say what he is saying. The environmentalist faithful in the UK must be gnashing their teeth at such a high profile response. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/23/monbiot-issues-an-unprecedented-apology/
The Wall Street Journal here – its being looked at a little bit more seriously in the US press than in the band wagon press here in the UK.About halfway down is some interesting info regarding who AGW scientists respond to peer-reviewed journals that dare to publish papers by sceptics http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html
Not all American press media are looking at it, leaving it to the admittedly somewhat ludicrously biased FOX network to cover it. I think that the MSM in the states has some of the same vested interests as the UK media in toeing the line. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/24/climategate-totally-ignored-tv-news-outlets-except-fox
Another Watts Up With That link. This one looks at the fact that some of the code for the models was leaked along with the emails, and in many ways is far more damning than poorly chosen words that can be charitably be excused (though not by me) as out of context. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/
I look forward to any response, and Joe, thanks for all the links yesterday, I will be looking especially at the link I posted above as and when I have time.
******
Overall I think that this is a fascinating story and reinforces a lot of what I have instinctually been saying and thinking. Lets hope it does not get totally brushed under a carpet somewhere - the scientists in question may be only a small percentage of those invested in AGW theory, but they should all "hang" in a career sense, and possibly be investigated for prosecution.
Thursday, 19 November 2009
An Author's Afterword that Struck Me
While away on a training trip this week, I set aside my studies and delved into a bit of military sci-fi, specifically "Yellow Eyes" by John Ringo and Tom Kratman. I won't go through the plot - its ultra-geeky, ultra-violent military sci-fi and of interest to very few of you I am sure. However, there was a very interesting afterword written by Ringo and Kratman that I find echoes a lot of my thoughts, feelings and beliefs quite accurately and wanted to share them. The afterword is written by two Americans, ex-military personnel and takes a military view point. It also makes reference to this event http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/the_pain_in_spain_falls_mainly.html
Now, given my staunch anti-international beliefs, my antagonism towards the EU and the UN, my issues with the ECHR, and my rampant pro-American and pro-Israel points of view, it should be no surprise that I loved the afterword, an abridged version of which is below. I hasten to add that I did not agree 100% with all of it, but I did agree with enough to think it was well worth posting. I have also added a few of my own comments to it as it goes - they are in bold and in squared brackets. I also think its worth reminding people of the dangers of a dangerous appeasing maniac like Obama allowing the US to fall into the Tranzi trap...
*******
So, yes, they’re [the Panamanians] a tough and a brave people, well within the western military tradition, and properly armed and trained they can fight.
Of course, the western military tradition, outside of the U.S. and U.K. [an arguable assertion in 2009, but the book was written in 2007], isn’t what it used to be. Oh, the formations are still there, some of them. The weapons are, if anything, better than ever. Even the men and women, too, of course still have much of what made the West great inside them.
Unfortunately, the West itself has largely fallen under the control of civilizational Dr. Kevorkians. Some call them “Tranzis.”
“Tranzi” is short for “Transnational Progressive” or “Transnational Progressivism.” For a more complete account of their program, look up John O’Sullivan’s Gulliver’s Travails or some of what Steven Den Beste has written on the subject. You might, dear reader, also look at John Fonte’s The Ideological War within the West. Lastly, for purposes of this little essay, look up Lee Harris’ The Intellectual Origins of America Bashing. These should give you a good grounding in Tranzism: its motives, goals and operating techniques. All can be found online.
For now, suffice to say that Tranzism is the successor ideology to failed and discredited Marxist-Leninism. Many of the most prominent Tranzis are, in fact, “former” members of various communist parties, especially European communist parties. These have taken the failure of the Soviet Union personally and hard, and, brother, are they bitter about it.
Nonetheless, our purpose here is not to write up “Tranzism 101.” It is to illustrate the Tranzi approach to the laws of war.
That’s right, boys and girls. Pull up a chair. Grab a stool. Cop a squat. Light ‘em if you’ve got ‘em. (If not, bum ‘em off Ringo; Kratman’s fresh out.)
It’s lecture time.
(WARNING! Authorial editorial follows. If you just
adore the International Criminal Court, then read
further at your own risk. You have been warned.)
One of the difficult things about analyzing Tranzis and their works is that they are not a conspiracy. What they are is a consensus. Don’t be contemptuous; civilization is nothing more than a consensus. So is barbarism. Moreover, the Tranzis are a fairly cohesive consensus, especially on certain ultimate core issues. Nonetheless, if you are looking for absolute logical consistency on the part of Tranzis you will search in vain.
On the other hand, at the highest level, the ultimate Tranzi goal, there is complete agreement. They want an end to national sovereignty and they want global governance by an unelected, self-chosen “elite.” Much of what they say and do will make no sense, even in Tranzi terms, unless that is borne in mind.
Below that ultimate level one cannot expect tactical logical consistency. Things are neither good nor bad, true nor false, except insofar as they support the ultimate Tranzi goal.
For example, if one were to ask a Tranzi, and especially a female and feminist Tranzi, about the propriety of men having any say over a woman’s right to an abortion the Tranzi would probably be scandalized. After all, men don’t even have babies. They know nothing about the subject from the inside, so to speak. Why should they have any say?
Nonetheless, that same Tranzi, if asked whether international lawyers and judges, and humanitarian activist nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs, should have the final say in the laws of war, would certainly approve. This is true despite the fact that the next lawyer, judge or NGO that understands as much about war as a man understands about childbirth will likely be the first.
Why do we say they know nothing about the subject? By their works shall you know them.
The International Criminal Court is, after the UN and European Union, the next most significant Tranzi project (Kyoto being dead on arrival) [wait for Copenhagen and the EU is going full steam ahead] and arguably the most significant with regard to the laws of war. A majority, if a bare one, of the world’s sovereign states have signed onto it while about half have ratified it.
The ICC claims jurisdiction over all the crimes mentioned in its founding statute, irrespective of who committed them, where they were committed, or whether the “crimes” are actually criminal under the traditional and customary law of war. This is called “universal jurisdiction.”
Universal jurisdiction, as a concept, has a number of flaws. Among these are that it has zero valid legal precedence behind it.
Zero precedence? Tranzis will cite at least two precedents. One of these is the jurisdiction exercised from times immemorial by any sovereign power over pirates at sea, when any were caught. The other is Nuremberg. These are flawed. In the case of Nuremberg, the jurisdiction exercised was not “universal” but national jurisdiction of the coalition of the victors over a Germany whose sovereignty had been temporarily extinguished by crushing defeat in war.
The piracy precedent as applied to modern notions of universal jurisdiction doesn’t stand close scrutiny any better. The Tranzis claim that universal jurisdiction was exercised over piracy because piracy was, in its conduct and effect, so ghastly. This is wrong on both counts. In the first place, pirates were not necessarily subject to universal jurisdiction except insofar as they were caught where national jurisdiction did not run; typically at sea, in other words. Moreover, alongside piracy there existed privateering. In their conduct the two were often enough indistinguishable. In other words, however “ghastly” privateering may have been and the former residents of Portobello and Panama City could have told one it could be ghastly, indeed it was still not subject to universal jurisdiction. No matter that piracy was no worse than privateering, it was so subject. The difference was that sovereign powers, nation-states in other words, exercised sovereign jurisdiction over privateers, were responsible for their actions, and punished them at need, while they did not and could not with pirates. It was the lack of sovereign jurisdiction, both as to their persons and as to the locus of their crimes, that left pirates open to universal jurisdiction and not any supposed “ghastliness” of those crimes.
Along with the lack of valid legal precedence, the ICC and universal jurisdiction suffer other flaws. Recall, dear reader, the lack of Tranzi logical consistency on the questions posed above about abortion and the laws of war.
Anti-imperialism is yet another Tranzi tactical cause. But what is imperialism beyond one or several states or people using force or color of law to make rules for another or other state or people? And what is the ICC, using all the staggering moral and military power of . . . oh . . . Fiji . . . France . . . West Fuckistan . . . but the attempt at enforcing rules made by one group of states upon others? It’s imperialism, in other words.
Of course, imperialism in the service of a higher cause the raising of unelected, self-styled, global elites to power, for example is praiseworthy, in Tranzi terms.
Nothing deterred, the Tranzis claim that Tranzi courts, to include notionally national Tranzi courts like those of Spain, have universal jurisdiction. Why?
Tranzis hate national sovereignty. It cramps their style. It interferes with their program. It’s aesthetically unappealing. [Sound like the EU to anyone?]
Their goal is the destruction of national sovereignty. The right of a people to democratically make their own laws, to govern themselves, is anathema to Tranzi goals and dreams. When they say “global governance,” boys and girls, they mean it. They really intend that unelected bureaucrats and judges, and self-selected elites ought be able to tell you what to do, how to live, what to pay in taxes, what rights you are not entitled to. [EU? Is this making sense to you yet?]
Sovereignty stands in the way. The ultimate expression of sovereignty is a nation’s and people’s armed forces. No army; no ability to defend one’s own laws and way of life; no sovereignty. [I would argue that it is the ability to legislate your own laws, including those governing military activity, but that’s somantics.]
But how to do away with sovereign control of national armed forces? It’s a toughie. They’ve got all these guns and shit, while the poor Tranzis have none.
“Aha! We know,” say the Tranzis. “We can control a nation’s armed forces if we can punish the soldiers and especially the officers and a nation refuses to stand up and defend them. No nation which permits a foreign court to exercise jurisdiction over its military can any longer be said to own that military. Instead, that military will be owned by the courts able to punish the leaders. Onward, into the future, comrades!”
Let them punish your soldiers and the soldiers can no longer be counted upon to defend the nation. Nor would you deserve being defended by your soldiers. Let them punish the soldiers and there is no principled distinction to prevent them punishing the President, the Legislature, even the Supreme Court. For who would defend the President, Legislature and courts once the same have let down their soldiers? Let them punish your soldiers and you deserve what you get . . . and to lose what you will lose.
It would be one thing if the ICC were something more than a misguided exercise in legalistic Tranzi mutual masturbation; if it could, in other words, be effective in limiting the horrors of war.
It cannot be effective. Ever.
This is because of the very nature of war itself. There is nothing a court can do that, in terms of punishment that deters, even begins to approach the horror men inflict on each other in war, routinely, in the course of normal and legal operations. There is nothing any court can do that can even hope to catch the interest of tired men, hungry men, men fighting for victory and their lives. No sensible court would even try.
There is some conduct which cannot be deterred. When life is at stake, the law recognizes no “no trespassing” signs. When the choice is between picking pockets at a mass hanging of pickpockets, and risking the noose, or facing slow starvation . . . well . . . at least the rope is fairly quick.
Similarly, when the choice on the battlefield is life or death, what power has some uncertain court distant in both time and space to deter anything? The simple answer is; it has none. What trivial power has the law with its trivial possible punishments to deter conduct that might save soldiers’ lives, their comrades’ and their country’s in the here and now?
Yet we can see that, however imperfectly, the customary law of war has often worked even without any such body as the ICC and without Spain’s recent disgusting, illegal, morally putrescent attempt at exercising sovereignty over American soldiers. It has worked imperfectly, to be sure. Yet it has worked often enough . . . indeed, within western war it has worked more often than not.
Where the laws of war have worked to mitigate the horror and protect innocent life they have, by and large, done so when the combatants were of the same culture, shared the same values, and had what we might like to think of as a basic decency. [All concepts discounted by Tranzis and Internationalists - we are all the same right? Differences are invented and everyone is rational and cuddley and just waiting to be talked to as an equal and then they will stop blowing stuff up. Grrrr.]
That’s rarely been quite enough. It needed a little something else, some other reason to follow the rules.
The other reason was the threat and fear of reprisals.
Tranzis hate reprisals, which are war crimes in themselves but war crimes which become legal in order to punish an enemy who violates the law of war, deter him from violating it, and remove the advantages which accrue from such violations. The Tranzis don’t hate reprisals merely because they’re ugly, cause suffering of innocents, etc., though they hate them for those reasons, too. No, Tranzis hate reprisals because reprisals work to enforce the laws of war and their own silly courts fail.
Reprisals work? You’re kidding us, right?
Wrong. Why wasn’t poisonous gas used in the Second World War? The threat of reprisal. What happened when, in 1944, the Germans threatened to execute some numbers of French resistance fighters and the French Resistance, which was holding many German prisoners, answered, “We will kill one for one”? The French prisoners held by the Germans were left unharmed. Why didn’t the Southern Confederacy during the American Civil War execute the white officers of black regiments as they had passed a law to do? Because the Union credibly threatened to hang a white Southern officer for every man of theirs so mistreated. Why didn’t the United States or South Vietnam execute, generally, Viet Cong guerillas who had gravely violated the laws of war in the course of the insurgency there? Because the North Vietnamese had prisoners against whom they would have reprised had we or the South Vietnamese done so.
Reprisals work; courts and statutes do not. The law of war, because of the nature of war, must be self enforcing, through reprisals. Nothing else can work and any attempt to do away with reprisal is an indirect attack on and undermining of the law of war. [Its unsavoury and I did not like reading it, but I think they are right about reprisals]
But then, the law of war and mitigating its horrors are not really what the Tranzis are about. Undermining national sovereignty? Replacing sovereign nations with themselves? That’s what they’re about.
The Tranzis aren’t about eliminating war’s horrors? Oh, John, Oh, Tom . . . say it isn’t so.
(Interject dual sigh at the vast iniquity of mankind here.)
It’s so.
Recall that we mentioned that Tranzism is the successor philosophy to Marxist-Leninism. It should come as no great surprise, then, that one of the key pieces of Tranzi legislation on the law of war should have been sponsored and forced into existence by . . . wait for it . . . wait for it . . . THE SOVIET UNION. [EU Mark II – Mark I was the 3rd Reich, we are in Mark III now]
This key piece of Tranzi legislating on the law of war was Additional Protocol I to Geneva Convention IV. The protocol itself was shoved through by the Soviets at a time when it looked like People’s Revolutionary War (guerilla war . . . communist insurgency) would continue to be a powerful weapon to advance the cause of communism. The United States has never ratified it and, pray God, it never shall. The Russians, who forced it through, have never paid it the slightest attention, as witnessed by their conduct in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989 and, more recently, in Chechnya.
The protocol is interesting for three reasons: what it purports to do, what it actually does, and for the admittedly slick way in which it tries to do it.
The slickness is in the way the protocol is structured. It begins with a pious preamble, typically enough. That isn’t the slick part. What is clever is that it repeats much of what was already in Geneva Convention IV (GC IV), which is concerned with the protection of civilians caught up in war (as is the protocol), and then interweaves some very new things. The new things include major advantages, given gratis, to guerillas and especially communist guerillas, a broad ban on the use of what it calls “mercenaries,” one rather unreasonable restriction on the use of food as a weapon, and a subtle way of saying “It’s okay to push the Zionist beasts into the sea.”
Then, when a nation refuses to ratify the additional protocol for any of the at least five really good reasons not to do so, it stands accused of anything from being in favor of mass rape to forced medical experiments a la Josef Mengele. Never mind that all that is prohibited by the original GC IV and that the additional protocol adds nothing of importance. “You refuse to ratify the additional protocol? You Nazi bastards!”
Are these guys slick or what? [This is nothing. How about ramming a “treaty” through the legislatures of 27 sovereign states which effectively removes their sovereignty in perpetuity without all but one of those states bothering to consult its electorate?]
As to what the protocol is supposed to do, protect civilians, one has to wonder. It is part of the traditional law of war that, in case of a siege, a city may have its food cut off and civilians attempting to escape may be fired upon, even killed, to drive them back to eat up the food. This is cruel to be sure, an “extreme measure” as the U.S. Army’s manual on the subject admits. Cruel or not, this was upheld in the late ‘40s in the case of United States v. Ritter von Leeb and is still up to a point good law, outside of Tranzidom. Geneva Convention IV ameliorated this harsh rule, and reasonably so, by requiring that some evacuations for particular reasons (maternity, infancy, infirmity, for example) be allowed.
The protocol, however, does not allow food to be cut off or civilians to be driven back into a besieged town to eat up whatever food is there. Naturally, one cannot permit food to enter without at the same time feeding the garrison, which will ensure for itself that it eats first. Therefore, the besieger has a choice, sit there forever which is generally impractical or take the place by assault. Now imagine what will happen to the civilians if the town is stormed, when every room receives its donation of grenade and bullet. And this is supposed to protect them? Starvation, at least, while unpleasant, offered a good chance for a besieged town to fall after a few lean days without the massacre intendant on an assault.
What then is the purpose of the additional protocol? It is to disadvantage the West, to reduce its military power, thus to reduce its sovereignty. Since being forced into existence by the Soviets the protocol has had no other purpose.
The law of war nowhere mentions the phrase “illegal combatants.” Tranzis will tell you that, therefore, there is no such thing. This is false.
There is a legal principle, a Latin expression, “Expresio unius exclusio alterius est,” the inclusion of one is the exclusion of the other. While the law of war does not mention “illegal combatants,” it goes to some length to explain what is required to be a legal combatant. If there is such a concept as legal combatancy, and rules which must be followed to attain that status, then failure to follow those rules places one in the implicit status of illegal combatant.
Those rules are four. To be a legal combatant under the original Geneva Convention, which is quite different from the additional protocol to which the United States is not a party, one must a) wear a fixed insignia recognizable at a distance, b) carry arms openly, c) be under the command of a person or chain of command responsible for your actions (much like a privateer was under a sovereign and a pirate, again, was not), and d) conduct operations in accordance with the customs and laws of war. Failure to meet any of these conditions makes one an illegal combatant.
Note, here, that individuals do not “conduct operations.” Organizations conduct operations. This implies that one is responsible for the actions of one’s organization as well as for one’s own.
Can you hear the sound of Tranzi heads exploding over that last?
They might seem to have a point. Civil law normally doesn’t permit people to be held responsible for the actions of others, right? Wrong. Look up “conspiracy.” Once someone becomes part of a conspiracy they become responsible for everything their coconspirators do. Moreover, within the law of war’s concept of reprisal, perfect innocents may be effectively responsible for what their side does. After all, what happens when a side violates the law by using a hospital, say, for an ammunition dump? The perfectly innocent and otherwise protected wounded are blasted from this world to the next in reprisal.
Equally so, within an armed force, both by “d)”, above, and under the practical effect of the doctrine of reprisal a combatant is responsible for both his own actions and those of his organization.
It works the other way, too, by the way. Note that General Yamashita was hanged not for anything he ordered or could have prevented but for things sub-elements only notionally under his command did.
What does this mean for the current war? It means that every Saudi kid, inspired to go to Iraq to fight by watching some truck driver’s head sawed of on Al Jazeera, has in civil law terms voluntarily joined a conspiracy to fight illegally and is thus an illegal combatant and that in law of war terms he is an illegal combatant even if he personally follows the rules completely. [Given US sympathies for the IRA, I wonder how many right-wing Americans of similar beliefs to Ringo and Kratman would rightfully extend these insights to those Fenian bastards?]
Those who would grant him legal combatant status, the Tranzis in other words, thus are trying to improve and enhance the effectiveness of those who would and do violate the law of war.
This is something you would expect from an enemy, right?
So what can we do? What would John and Tom like to see done?
Number One: Never forget that the Tranzi purpose is inimical to our own, that they are the enemy as much as Hitler was or al Qaeda is. They want us, as a distinct nation and people, to cease to exist. They want our constitution overthrown or made subordinate to their law, which amounts to the same thing. They want our military made subordinate to their judges, so that it can be undermined and made unable or unwilling to defend us. They want us to lose our wars. [Mission now accomplished in Europe, and of course legislation and precedent in place now for a European Army that will be almost totally useless, and lack the political backing, to do and accomplish anything.]
Number Two: Remembering that the Tranzis are the enemy, give them no aid, no money, no support. Do not give them a foothold into the armed forces and if such foothold exists (say, in the form of an institute devoted to peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance) close it down. Audit the Tranzis’ books; they’re as corrupt as imaginable and could not well stand auditing. They tend to lie, especially to raise money. Require that their charitable activities advertise truthfully and punish them when they do not. Jail a few of the bastards. On second thought, jail a lot of the bastards. Remove their tax exempt status on the first whiff of impropriety. When the ultimate Tranzi organization, the UN, cheats the Iraqi people and hides the details of the thefts, withhold the funds otherwise due to the UN and pay it to the Iraqis instead . . . with no chance of ever making good to the UN any such amounts withheld and given. [The EU accounts have never been audited, even though there was a staggering level of public angst at a mere £33 million in UK MP expense claims. The EU would dwarf this figure in waste, graft and corruption.]
Number Three: Did you know that the United States has what amounts to a conditional declaration of war in place should anyone have the gall to grab one of our soldiers to turn over to the ICC or some other Tranzi court? It’s called the American Servicemembers Protection Act and it passed unanimously in the Senate. (Sometimes your country just makes you proud.) We should look for an opportunity to exercise that law . . . and sometime soon. Spain might be a good place to start. [Belgium first please]
Number Four: Even when we have them on the ropes do not let up. Finish them off. Make the Tranzi organizations extinct and the parasites who live off of them spend the remainder of their days poor and hungry. Do not weep for the Tranzis.
Number Five: Don’t, don’t, DON’T give up hope. The Tranzis are not going to win. Their center of gravity, Europe, is dying to demographics. Within the United States and with our own Tranzis much the same thing is happening regionally and subculturally. The prize Tranzi projects, the UN and EU, are staggering under a burden of incompetence, ineffectuality and corruption. Moreover, say what you will about Muslim extremists, they’re still damned good at demonstrating to the world outside of Europe what happens when you let the Tranzis take over. [The UN is becoming less influential, the EU is the true hub of Tranzi power now, and is looking more robust than ever before… until someone secedes – I hope it’s the UK.]
By the way, Tom and John intend to fight the bastards all the way [Me too, as far as I can. I refuse to accept that the Tranzi superstate EU is the only option for the UK. If, as many assert, we need to attach ourselves to a larger power to retain any influence at all, then bollocks to the EU and lets join NAFTA. Or the Cairns Group. Or some sort of English-speaking sphere of influence. Or a more closely linked Commonwealth. Hell, I would sooner see these Islands became states of the United States than see them become provincial backwaters of an EU Empire.]
Now, given my staunch anti-international beliefs, my antagonism towards the EU and the UN, my issues with the ECHR, and my rampant pro-American and pro-Israel points of view, it should be no surprise that I loved the afterword, an abridged version of which is below. I hasten to add that I did not agree 100% with all of it, but I did agree with enough to think it was well worth posting. I have also added a few of my own comments to it as it goes - they are in bold and in squared brackets. I also think its worth reminding people of the dangers of a dangerous appeasing maniac like Obama allowing the US to fall into the Tranzi trap...
*******
So, yes, they’re [the Panamanians] a tough and a brave people, well within the western military tradition, and properly armed and trained they can fight.
Of course, the western military tradition, outside of the U.S. and U.K. [an arguable assertion in 2009, but the book was written in 2007], isn’t what it used to be. Oh, the formations are still there, some of them. The weapons are, if anything, better than ever. Even the men and women, too, of course still have much of what made the West great inside them.
Unfortunately, the West itself has largely fallen under the control of civilizational Dr. Kevorkians. Some call them “Tranzis.”
“Tranzi” is short for “Transnational Progressive” or “Transnational Progressivism.” For a more complete account of their program, look up John O’Sullivan’s Gulliver’s Travails or some of what Steven Den Beste has written on the subject. You might, dear reader, also look at John Fonte’s The Ideological War within the West. Lastly, for purposes of this little essay, look up Lee Harris’ The Intellectual Origins of America Bashing. These should give you a good grounding in Tranzism: its motives, goals and operating techniques. All can be found online.
For now, suffice to say that Tranzism is the successor ideology to failed and discredited Marxist-Leninism. Many of the most prominent Tranzis are, in fact, “former” members of various communist parties, especially European communist parties. These have taken the failure of the Soviet Union personally and hard, and, brother, are they bitter about it.
Nonetheless, our purpose here is not to write up “Tranzism 101.” It is to illustrate the Tranzi approach to the laws of war.
That’s right, boys and girls. Pull up a chair. Grab a stool. Cop a squat. Light ‘em if you’ve got ‘em. (If not, bum ‘em off Ringo; Kratman’s fresh out.)
It’s lecture time.
(WARNING! Authorial editorial follows. If you just
adore the International Criminal Court, then read
further at your own risk. You have been warned.)
One of the difficult things about analyzing Tranzis and their works is that they are not a conspiracy. What they are is a consensus. Don’t be contemptuous; civilization is nothing more than a consensus. So is barbarism. Moreover, the Tranzis are a fairly cohesive consensus, especially on certain ultimate core issues. Nonetheless, if you are looking for absolute logical consistency on the part of Tranzis you will search in vain.
On the other hand, at the highest level, the ultimate Tranzi goal, there is complete agreement. They want an end to national sovereignty and they want global governance by an unelected, self-chosen “elite.” Much of what they say and do will make no sense, even in Tranzi terms, unless that is borne in mind.
Below that ultimate level one cannot expect tactical logical consistency. Things are neither good nor bad, true nor false, except insofar as they support the ultimate Tranzi goal.
For example, if one were to ask a Tranzi, and especially a female and feminist Tranzi, about the propriety of men having any say over a woman’s right to an abortion the Tranzi would probably be scandalized. After all, men don’t even have babies. They know nothing about the subject from the inside, so to speak. Why should they have any say?
Nonetheless, that same Tranzi, if asked whether international lawyers and judges, and humanitarian activist nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs, should have the final say in the laws of war, would certainly approve. This is true despite the fact that the next lawyer, judge or NGO that understands as much about war as a man understands about childbirth will likely be the first.
Why do we say they know nothing about the subject? By their works shall you know them.
The International Criminal Court is, after the UN and European Union, the next most significant Tranzi project (Kyoto being dead on arrival) [wait for Copenhagen and the EU is going full steam ahead] and arguably the most significant with regard to the laws of war. A majority, if a bare one, of the world’s sovereign states have signed onto it while about half have ratified it.
The ICC claims jurisdiction over all the crimes mentioned in its founding statute, irrespective of who committed them, where they were committed, or whether the “crimes” are actually criminal under the traditional and customary law of war. This is called “universal jurisdiction.”
Universal jurisdiction, as a concept, has a number of flaws. Among these are that it has zero valid legal precedence behind it.
Zero precedence? Tranzis will cite at least two precedents. One of these is the jurisdiction exercised from times immemorial by any sovereign power over pirates at sea, when any were caught. The other is Nuremberg. These are flawed. In the case of Nuremberg, the jurisdiction exercised was not “universal” but national jurisdiction of the coalition of the victors over a Germany whose sovereignty had been temporarily extinguished by crushing defeat in war.
The piracy precedent as applied to modern notions of universal jurisdiction doesn’t stand close scrutiny any better. The Tranzis claim that universal jurisdiction was exercised over piracy because piracy was, in its conduct and effect, so ghastly. This is wrong on both counts. In the first place, pirates were not necessarily subject to universal jurisdiction except insofar as they were caught where national jurisdiction did not run; typically at sea, in other words. Moreover, alongside piracy there existed privateering. In their conduct the two were often enough indistinguishable. In other words, however “ghastly” privateering may have been and the former residents of Portobello and Panama City could have told one it could be ghastly, indeed it was still not subject to universal jurisdiction. No matter that piracy was no worse than privateering, it was so subject. The difference was that sovereign powers, nation-states in other words, exercised sovereign jurisdiction over privateers, were responsible for their actions, and punished them at need, while they did not and could not with pirates. It was the lack of sovereign jurisdiction, both as to their persons and as to the locus of their crimes, that left pirates open to universal jurisdiction and not any supposed “ghastliness” of those crimes.
Along with the lack of valid legal precedence, the ICC and universal jurisdiction suffer other flaws. Recall, dear reader, the lack of Tranzi logical consistency on the questions posed above about abortion and the laws of war.
Anti-imperialism is yet another Tranzi tactical cause. But what is imperialism beyond one or several states or people using force or color of law to make rules for another or other state or people? And what is the ICC, using all the staggering moral and military power of . . . oh . . . Fiji . . . France . . . West Fuckistan . . . but the attempt at enforcing rules made by one group of states upon others? It’s imperialism, in other words.
Of course, imperialism in the service of a higher cause the raising of unelected, self-styled, global elites to power, for example is praiseworthy, in Tranzi terms.
Nothing deterred, the Tranzis claim that Tranzi courts, to include notionally national Tranzi courts like those of Spain, have universal jurisdiction. Why?
Tranzis hate national sovereignty. It cramps their style. It interferes with their program. It’s aesthetically unappealing. [Sound like the EU to anyone?]
Their goal is the destruction of national sovereignty. The right of a people to democratically make their own laws, to govern themselves, is anathema to Tranzi goals and dreams. When they say “global governance,” boys and girls, they mean it. They really intend that unelected bureaucrats and judges, and self-selected elites ought be able to tell you what to do, how to live, what to pay in taxes, what rights you are not entitled to. [EU? Is this making sense to you yet?]
Sovereignty stands in the way. The ultimate expression of sovereignty is a nation’s and people’s armed forces. No army; no ability to defend one’s own laws and way of life; no sovereignty. [I would argue that it is the ability to legislate your own laws, including those governing military activity, but that’s somantics.]
But how to do away with sovereign control of national armed forces? It’s a toughie. They’ve got all these guns and shit, while the poor Tranzis have none.
“Aha! We know,” say the Tranzis. “We can control a nation’s armed forces if we can punish the soldiers and especially the officers and a nation refuses to stand up and defend them. No nation which permits a foreign court to exercise jurisdiction over its military can any longer be said to own that military. Instead, that military will be owned by the courts able to punish the leaders. Onward, into the future, comrades!”
Let them punish your soldiers and the soldiers can no longer be counted upon to defend the nation. Nor would you deserve being defended by your soldiers. Let them punish the soldiers and there is no principled distinction to prevent them punishing the President, the Legislature, even the Supreme Court. For who would defend the President, Legislature and courts once the same have let down their soldiers? Let them punish your soldiers and you deserve what you get . . . and to lose what you will lose.
It would be one thing if the ICC were something more than a misguided exercise in legalistic Tranzi mutual masturbation; if it could, in other words, be effective in limiting the horrors of war.
It cannot be effective. Ever.
This is because of the very nature of war itself. There is nothing a court can do that, in terms of punishment that deters, even begins to approach the horror men inflict on each other in war, routinely, in the course of normal and legal operations. There is nothing any court can do that can even hope to catch the interest of tired men, hungry men, men fighting for victory and their lives. No sensible court would even try.
There is some conduct which cannot be deterred. When life is at stake, the law recognizes no “no trespassing” signs. When the choice is between picking pockets at a mass hanging of pickpockets, and risking the noose, or facing slow starvation . . . well . . . at least the rope is fairly quick.
Similarly, when the choice on the battlefield is life or death, what power has some uncertain court distant in both time and space to deter anything? The simple answer is; it has none. What trivial power has the law with its trivial possible punishments to deter conduct that might save soldiers’ lives, their comrades’ and their country’s in the here and now?
Yet we can see that, however imperfectly, the customary law of war has often worked even without any such body as the ICC and without Spain’s recent disgusting, illegal, morally putrescent attempt at exercising sovereignty over American soldiers. It has worked imperfectly, to be sure. Yet it has worked often enough . . . indeed, within western war it has worked more often than not.
Where the laws of war have worked to mitigate the horror and protect innocent life they have, by and large, done so when the combatants were of the same culture, shared the same values, and had what we might like to think of as a basic decency. [All concepts discounted by Tranzis and Internationalists - we are all the same right? Differences are invented and everyone is rational and cuddley and just waiting to be talked to as an equal and then they will stop blowing stuff up. Grrrr.]
That’s rarely been quite enough. It needed a little something else, some other reason to follow the rules.
The other reason was the threat and fear of reprisals.
Tranzis hate reprisals, which are war crimes in themselves but war crimes which become legal in order to punish an enemy who violates the law of war, deter him from violating it, and remove the advantages which accrue from such violations. The Tranzis don’t hate reprisals merely because they’re ugly, cause suffering of innocents, etc., though they hate them for those reasons, too. No, Tranzis hate reprisals because reprisals work to enforce the laws of war and their own silly courts fail.
Reprisals work? You’re kidding us, right?
Wrong. Why wasn’t poisonous gas used in the Second World War? The threat of reprisal. What happened when, in 1944, the Germans threatened to execute some numbers of French resistance fighters and the French Resistance, which was holding many German prisoners, answered, “We will kill one for one”? The French prisoners held by the Germans were left unharmed. Why didn’t the Southern Confederacy during the American Civil War execute the white officers of black regiments as they had passed a law to do? Because the Union credibly threatened to hang a white Southern officer for every man of theirs so mistreated. Why didn’t the United States or South Vietnam execute, generally, Viet Cong guerillas who had gravely violated the laws of war in the course of the insurgency there? Because the North Vietnamese had prisoners against whom they would have reprised had we or the South Vietnamese done so.
Reprisals work; courts and statutes do not. The law of war, because of the nature of war, must be self enforcing, through reprisals. Nothing else can work and any attempt to do away with reprisal is an indirect attack on and undermining of the law of war. [Its unsavoury and I did not like reading it, but I think they are right about reprisals]
But then, the law of war and mitigating its horrors are not really what the Tranzis are about. Undermining national sovereignty? Replacing sovereign nations with themselves? That’s what they’re about.
The Tranzis aren’t about eliminating war’s horrors? Oh, John, Oh, Tom . . . say it isn’t so.
(Interject dual sigh at the vast iniquity of mankind here.)
It’s so.
Recall that we mentioned that Tranzism is the successor philosophy to Marxist-Leninism. It should come as no great surprise, then, that one of the key pieces of Tranzi legislation on the law of war should have been sponsored and forced into existence by . . . wait for it . . . wait for it . . . THE SOVIET UNION. [EU Mark II – Mark I was the 3rd Reich, we are in Mark III now]
This key piece of Tranzi legislating on the law of war was Additional Protocol I to Geneva Convention IV. The protocol itself was shoved through by the Soviets at a time when it looked like People’s Revolutionary War (guerilla war . . . communist insurgency) would continue to be a powerful weapon to advance the cause of communism. The United States has never ratified it and, pray God, it never shall. The Russians, who forced it through, have never paid it the slightest attention, as witnessed by their conduct in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989 and, more recently, in Chechnya.
The protocol is interesting for three reasons: what it purports to do, what it actually does, and for the admittedly slick way in which it tries to do it.
The slickness is in the way the protocol is structured. It begins with a pious preamble, typically enough. That isn’t the slick part. What is clever is that it repeats much of what was already in Geneva Convention IV (GC IV), which is concerned with the protection of civilians caught up in war (as is the protocol), and then interweaves some very new things. The new things include major advantages, given gratis, to guerillas and especially communist guerillas, a broad ban on the use of what it calls “mercenaries,” one rather unreasonable restriction on the use of food as a weapon, and a subtle way of saying “It’s okay to push the Zionist beasts into the sea.”
Then, when a nation refuses to ratify the additional protocol for any of the at least five really good reasons not to do so, it stands accused of anything from being in favor of mass rape to forced medical experiments a la Josef Mengele. Never mind that all that is prohibited by the original GC IV and that the additional protocol adds nothing of importance. “You refuse to ratify the additional protocol? You Nazi bastards!”
Are these guys slick or what? [This is nothing. How about ramming a “treaty” through the legislatures of 27 sovereign states which effectively removes their sovereignty in perpetuity without all but one of those states bothering to consult its electorate?]
As to what the protocol is supposed to do, protect civilians, one has to wonder. It is part of the traditional law of war that, in case of a siege, a city may have its food cut off and civilians attempting to escape may be fired upon, even killed, to drive them back to eat up the food. This is cruel to be sure, an “extreme measure” as the U.S. Army’s manual on the subject admits. Cruel or not, this was upheld in the late ‘40s in the case of United States v. Ritter von Leeb and is still up to a point good law, outside of Tranzidom. Geneva Convention IV ameliorated this harsh rule, and reasonably so, by requiring that some evacuations for particular reasons (maternity, infancy, infirmity, for example) be allowed.
The protocol, however, does not allow food to be cut off or civilians to be driven back into a besieged town to eat up whatever food is there. Naturally, one cannot permit food to enter without at the same time feeding the garrison, which will ensure for itself that it eats first. Therefore, the besieger has a choice, sit there forever which is generally impractical or take the place by assault. Now imagine what will happen to the civilians if the town is stormed, when every room receives its donation of grenade and bullet. And this is supposed to protect them? Starvation, at least, while unpleasant, offered a good chance for a besieged town to fall after a few lean days without the massacre intendant on an assault.
What then is the purpose of the additional protocol? It is to disadvantage the West, to reduce its military power, thus to reduce its sovereignty. Since being forced into existence by the Soviets the protocol has had no other purpose.
The law of war nowhere mentions the phrase “illegal combatants.” Tranzis will tell you that, therefore, there is no such thing. This is false.
There is a legal principle, a Latin expression, “Expresio unius exclusio alterius est,” the inclusion of one is the exclusion of the other. While the law of war does not mention “illegal combatants,” it goes to some length to explain what is required to be a legal combatant. If there is such a concept as legal combatancy, and rules which must be followed to attain that status, then failure to follow those rules places one in the implicit status of illegal combatant.
Those rules are four. To be a legal combatant under the original Geneva Convention, which is quite different from the additional protocol to which the United States is not a party, one must a) wear a fixed insignia recognizable at a distance, b) carry arms openly, c) be under the command of a person or chain of command responsible for your actions (much like a privateer was under a sovereign and a pirate, again, was not), and d) conduct operations in accordance with the customs and laws of war. Failure to meet any of these conditions makes one an illegal combatant.
Note, here, that individuals do not “conduct operations.” Organizations conduct operations. This implies that one is responsible for the actions of one’s organization as well as for one’s own.
Can you hear the sound of Tranzi heads exploding over that last?
They might seem to have a point. Civil law normally doesn’t permit people to be held responsible for the actions of others, right? Wrong. Look up “conspiracy.” Once someone becomes part of a conspiracy they become responsible for everything their coconspirators do. Moreover, within the law of war’s concept of reprisal, perfect innocents may be effectively responsible for what their side does. After all, what happens when a side violates the law by using a hospital, say, for an ammunition dump? The perfectly innocent and otherwise protected wounded are blasted from this world to the next in reprisal.
Equally so, within an armed force, both by “d)”, above, and under the practical effect of the doctrine of reprisal a combatant is responsible for both his own actions and those of his organization.
It works the other way, too, by the way. Note that General Yamashita was hanged not for anything he ordered or could have prevented but for things sub-elements only notionally under his command did.
What does this mean for the current war? It means that every Saudi kid, inspired to go to Iraq to fight by watching some truck driver’s head sawed of on Al Jazeera, has in civil law terms voluntarily joined a conspiracy to fight illegally and is thus an illegal combatant and that in law of war terms he is an illegal combatant even if he personally follows the rules completely. [Given US sympathies for the IRA, I wonder how many right-wing Americans of similar beliefs to Ringo and Kratman would rightfully extend these insights to those Fenian bastards?]
Those who would grant him legal combatant status, the Tranzis in other words, thus are trying to improve and enhance the effectiveness of those who would and do violate the law of war.
This is something you would expect from an enemy, right?
So what can we do? What would John and Tom like to see done?
Number One: Never forget that the Tranzi purpose is inimical to our own, that they are the enemy as much as Hitler was or al Qaeda is. They want us, as a distinct nation and people, to cease to exist. They want our constitution overthrown or made subordinate to their law, which amounts to the same thing. They want our military made subordinate to their judges, so that it can be undermined and made unable or unwilling to defend us. They want us to lose our wars. [Mission now accomplished in Europe, and of course legislation and precedent in place now for a European Army that will be almost totally useless, and lack the political backing, to do and accomplish anything.]
Number Two: Remembering that the Tranzis are the enemy, give them no aid, no money, no support. Do not give them a foothold into the armed forces and if such foothold exists (say, in the form of an institute devoted to peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance) close it down. Audit the Tranzis’ books; they’re as corrupt as imaginable and could not well stand auditing. They tend to lie, especially to raise money. Require that their charitable activities advertise truthfully and punish them when they do not. Jail a few of the bastards. On second thought, jail a lot of the bastards. Remove their tax exempt status on the first whiff of impropriety. When the ultimate Tranzi organization, the UN, cheats the Iraqi people and hides the details of the thefts, withhold the funds otherwise due to the UN and pay it to the Iraqis instead . . . with no chance of ever making good to the UN any such amounts withheld and given. [The EU accounts have never been audited, even though there was a staggering level of public angst at a mere £33 million in UK MP expense claims. The EU would dwarf this figure in waste, graft and corruption.]
Number Three: Did you know that the United States has what amounts to a conditional declaration of war in place should anyone have the gall to grab one of our soldiers to turn over to the ICC or some other Tranzi court? It’s called the American Servicemembers Protection Act and it passed unanimously in the Senate. (Sometimes your country just makes you proud.) We should look for an opportunity to exercise that law . . . and sometime soon. Spain might be a good place to start. [Belgium first please]
Number Four: Even when we have them on the ropes do not let up. Finish them off. Make the Tranzi organizations extinct and the parasites who live off of them spend the remainder of their days poor and hungry. Do not weep for the Tranzis.
Number Five: Don’t, don’t, DON’T give up hope. The Tranzis are not going to win. Their center of gravity, Europe, is dying to demographics. Within the United States and with our own Tranzis much the same thing is happening regionally and subculturally. The prize Tranzi projects, the UN and EU, are staggering under a burden of incompetence, ineffectuality and corruption. Moreover, say what you will about Muslim extremists, they’re still damned good at demonstrating to the world outside of Europe what happens when you let the Tranzis take over. [The UN is becoming less influential, the EU is the true hub of Tranzi power now, and is looking more robust than ever before… until someone secedes – I hope it’s the UK.]
By the way, Tom and John intend to fight the bastards all the way [Me too, as far as I can. I refuse to accept that the Tranzi superstate EU is the only option for the UK. If, as many assert, we need to attach ourselves to a larger power to retain any influence at all, then bollocks to the EU and lets join NAFTA. Or the Cairns Group. Or some sort of English-speaking sphere of influence. Or a more closely linked Commonwealth. Hell, I would sooner see these Islands became states of the United States than see them become provincial backwaters of an EU Empire.]
Monday, 9 November 2009
Betrayal and Treason
I actually found myself in the car on the way to Brentford yesterday filled with anger and frustration. On a day where most of us who give a toss remember the millions of people who have perished in order to preserve the sovereignty of this nation, to preserve its independence from a European Hegemony, I despaired that all that sacrifice had been in vain – a mere couple of generations since the last World War and our independence and sovereignty has been handed to a foreign, unelected power. Its like we lost the Cold War, or either of the World Wars. It is a crime, and the fact that it has been perpetrated without a popular mandate from the electorate of most of the nation states involved, but especially from the UK, deserves prosecution for treason, nothing less.Here are some links that fuelled my angst this morning…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/08/eu-general-election
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6525111/William-Hague-Tories-would-not-take-on-Europe-for-some-years.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/6521617/Restore-trust-in-the-democracy-for-which-so-many-died.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6521187/The-end-of-the-great-deception.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/08/eu-general-election
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6525111/William-Hague-Tories-would-not-take-on-Europe-for-some-years.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/6521617/Restore-trust-in-the-democracy-for-which-so-many-died.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6521187/The-end-of-the-great-deception.html
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
Shock Horror
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8339522.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6900270.ece
Yep, you read it right. Cameron is going to break the pledge he made about a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, just like Labour and the Lib Dems already have. He is insane to ignore his eurosceptic voters this way – they will look elsewhere if he does not come up with a plausible solution to this abrupt U-turn.
On that note, I went to a UKIP meet and greet in Waddesdon (my home village) Monday night and met UKIP boss Nigel Farage, who is breaking tradition and convention by standing against the Speaker (and Labour puppet despite being a “Tory”) John Bercow. Farage was slightly slippery and almost annoyingly smooth and articulate – he is a politician after all, but he was not patronizing, not condenscending in any way, and when he gave his 5 minute speechette, he basically said everything I have been harping on about for the last few weeks to all of you poor people (my family are growing politics callouses I think. That or learning to ignore me). When speaking one to one he was polite and engaging.
The long and the short of it was that my support for UKIP is solidified, I have confidence in Nigel Farage to make the euroscpetic point well, and I still entertain fantasies about 2 or 3 UKIP MPs being returned next May to act as a focal point of Euroscepticism in Westminster, and hopefully attract defectors from the Tories once they have the legitimacy of sitting MPs. A pipe dream probably, but I do not count my vote as “wasted” if there is even a chance that the point gets through to the Tories.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/11/its-over.html
Seems like 1st December is the date that the Treaty will become law. The time for a referendum on it will pass too. The only referendum possible from now on is a basic decision – provincial existence that will see any semblance of sovereignty and independence disappear bit by bit until we are literally a mere province of an EU empire run by the Franco-German-Benelux claque, or dramatic re-evaluation of our membership in the EU at all and a withdrawal from the political union and membership once again in the EFTA instead. Those are the only two choices. To me the choice is clear. I just wish we had a prime minister in waiting with the moral substance to make the choice that the majority of the people in this country want him to. Sadly, we do not.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6900270.ece
Yep, you read it right. Cameron is going to break the pledge he made about a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, just like Labour and the Lib Dems already have. He is insane to ignore his eurosceptic voters this way – they will look elsewhere if he does not come up with a plausible solution to this abrupt U-turn.
On that note, I went to a UKIP meet and greet in Waddesdon (my home village) Monday night and met UKIP boss Nigel Farage, who is breaking tradition and convention by standing against the Speaker (and Labour puppet despite being a “Tory”) John Bercow. Farage was slightly slippery and almost annoyingly smooth and articulate – he is a politician after all, but he was not patronizing, not condenscending in any way, and when he gave his 5 minute speechette, he basically said everything I have been harping on about for the last few weeks to all of you poor people (my family are growing politics callouses I think. That or learning to ignore me). When speaking one to one he was polite and engaging.
The long and the short of it was that my support for UKIP is solidified, I have confidence in Nigel Farage to make the euroscpetic point well, and I still entertain fantasies about 2 or 3 UKIP MPs being returned next May to act as a focal point of Euroscepticism in Westminster, and hopefully attract defectors from the Tories once they have the legitimacy of sitting MPs. A pipe dream probably, but I do not count my vote as “wasted” if there is even a chance that the point gets through to the Tories.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/11/its-over.html
Seems like 1st December is the date that the Treaty will become law. The time for a referendum on it will pass too. The only referendum possible from now on is a basic decision – provincial existence that will see any semblance of sovereignty and independence disappear bit by bit until we are literally a mere province of an EU empire run by the Franco-German-Benelux claque, or dramatic re-evaluation of our membership in the EU at all and a withdrawal from the political union and membership once again in the EFTA instead. Those are the only two choices. To me the choice is clear. I just wish we had a prime minister in waiting with the moral substance to make the choice that the majority of the people in this country want him to. Sadly, we do not.
Saturday, 31 October 2009
My Reasons for Supporting UKIP
I am sometimes asked “Why UKIP? Aren’t they just a one trick pony bleating about those evil Europeans?”
In order to answer this, I thought I would do a small analysis of some of UKIP’s policies. When I voted UKIP in the Euro Elections earlier this year, admittedly as a protest vote aimed at the Tory’s lacklustre stance on Europe, I decided to investigate their domestic policies as well. The website, while not as slick as some, is simple enough and I soon found some literature on UKIP policy.
What immediately struck me was that I agreed with 80% of what they stood for – I had never experienced anything close to that when looking at the Tories. I have an eclectic mix of conservatism, liberalism and socialism in my political make up.
I am not very ‘touchy feely’ about things, but I believe in social justice, a welfare state, some financial regulation and overwatch so boom and bust capitalism does not plunge us into periodic woes etc. I even support the ideas of trade unionism (though not in their present Labour-purse form). I think that state education should be the best available in a country, although I do not support dumbing down everything so it looks as if everyone is achieving great things at school. University should be free, but it’s not a right – it needs to be earned.
I don’t mind big government and a small loss in civil liberty for a large gain in personal security. I don’t even mind paying lots of tax, as long as the services I get provide value for money. I favour extremely close ties to the United States and NATO and favour the doctrine of humanitarian military intervention as long as there is a cohesive and intelligent after-action plan for rebuilding and aid. Military action, once ordered, should be supported at all costs – half-arsed policy and a lack of direction is worse than not acting at all in my opinion. I even support funnelling money to the developing world as aid, although I do think it should come ‘strings attached’ regarding human rights and good government. Fair trade is a moral necessity.
I think that the UN is a joke and should be downgraded to a centralized charity coordinator, and see NATO as by far the most important international organization that the UK belongs to, followed in a distant second by our place in the Commonwealth. I favour a fully elected upper house of parliament (now that Labour has neutered this ancient and noble institution) and a written constitution. I also think that we have grown beyond a ‘first-past-the-post’ electoral system and that it is time for proportional representation. I support the death penalty for certain crimes (serial/mass murder, repeat rape, paedophilia, treason) and sensible self-defence and home invasion laws – criminals forfeit some of their rights when they commit crime, and the victim should always be more protected that the criminal.
I am sceptical about human caused/accelerated global warming and am not persuaded by the science of its advocates. I resent the religious overtones of ‘believers and heretics’ that is bandied about when it comes to the environment. I support recycling for practical purposes (running out of landfill) and alternate energy to get us out from under dependence on OPEC. Other than that I could not care less. I think it’s ludicrous that we get all worked up about MP expenses in the UK yet ignore the fact that most of the EU is unaudited and that MEP expenses make duck ponds in moats look reasonable – if you want to see shameful waste of your tax money, look at Brussels before you look at Westminster.
I support immigration as essential to a vibrant economy, of both skilled and semi-skilled workers. I do think that there should be a minimum language requirement though. I also am fully committed to the end of the multi-cultural myth about coexistent societies. People can and should hold on to elements of their own culture, but if you live in the UK you should make every effort to become British as well. Within two generations that should be your primary identity, not a 3rd generation British born man who sees himself as Afro-Caribbean or Muslim first and British, if at all, a distant second. That means no teaching in state schools in Urdu for example.
Assimilation and integration should be encouraged, separatism discouraged. Any calls for Sharia law should be heard in the terminal of an airport from people being deported back to the countries they came from, countries that have Sharia law already and are in such a mess that the people in question wanted to come here to begin with. British born Muslims fighting allied forces in Afghanistan should be imprisoned for life if not executed. I admit freely to a dose of xenophobia and Islamaphobia in my make up, but do not consider myself racist.
With that nutshell portrait of my beliefs, let me tell you 12 reasons why I will be voting UKIP. I do not expect anyone to agree with everything that I wrote above, and hasten to point out that UKIP does not stand for everything that I have mentioned – they are far more centrist and main stream in some aspects, far more libertarian and free market in others. They do, however, come close enough to earn my vote, and a hell of a lot closer than any of the ‘Big 3’.
1) UKIP wishes to restructure the nature of the UK’s relationship with the EU. It does not currently advocate cutting all ties – it merely wishes a return to the relationship sold to the British people by Heath back in the 70s – one of free trade and movement.
2) UKIP would cease paying the £27 billion a year in EU subs. We are one of the highest contributors to the EU yet receive almost no subsidies in return. Spain is one of the top 5 contributors yet is also one of the biggest receivers – how does that work? Without an enormous rural sector needed subsidies (Spain, France), a post-Soviet basket case of an industrial sector and economy needing rebuilding (Eastern Europe, Balkans), or somewhere like the former East Germany to drain our resources, the UK will always be a net loser when it comes to what we pay and what we get back. Saying that we will benefit from the emerging economies of our fellow member-states is not a good argument – there is no guarantee that said economies will succeed, and if they do there is no obligation for them to re-invest in us. This is where the 19th century doctrine of free trade failed and we are setting ourselves up to do it all again.
3) UKIP would streamline the tax system, including abolishing inheritance tax and tax on the minimum wage – both very fair ideas in my mind. I admit to being a bit fuzzy on the exact methods they would use to fund these cuts – but it’s no less obscure than Lab/LibDem/Con tax policy.
4) UKIP would freeze permanent immigration for a period of 5 years – which would give government a period of time in which to sort out the mess left by Labour, including the ghastly aftermath of the now confirmed decision by Labour to encourage mass immigration, intending to alter the social structure and socially engineer a multi-cultural country, and to rub the conservative portions of society’ “noses in it”.
5) UKIP would repeal the Human Rights Act. Hopefully this would be replaced by a UK specific bill very quickly, but in the short term it would allow us to deport failed Asylum seekers, political dissidents and illegal immigrants far far easier than we can at the moment. This would also help security concerns in the fight against terrorism.
6) UKIP would continue to allow skilled immigration in the long term as well as support genuine asylum cases.
7) UKIP promises referenda on major policy decisions. I would imagine this would not include security issues such as going to war, but I would think that it would and could include referenda that polls show are important to this country… 84% concerned about immigration, 54% in favour of the death penalty etc.
8) UKIP favours alternate energy research and not just knee jerk panic reactions to the evils of CO2. Hopefully this will include the next generation of nuclear power stations – the “greenest” realistic option.
9) UKIP will act to safeguard what little remains of our agriculture and fisheries sector, both of which have been hammered by EU regulation, and in the case of fisheries, being in the EU with its common fisheries policies has seen native stocks of fish massively depleted. Allow us to conserve and manage our own natural resources, and keep thousands in work.
10) UKIP favours tougher and longer custodial sentences for criminals. I would assume this means building more prisons to house them and ending the culture of “holiday camp” that some (not all I know) prisons foster.
11) UKIP supports the re-introduction of grammar schools throughout the country. Axed by Labour in a misguided class war act, their closure removed the best tool for social mobility through education in this country.
12) UKIP favour expanding the military and improving pay and conditions for serving and wounded members of the forces.
These 12 things will not sort out the country. They do however portray a political mindset in the party that means that they could be heading in the right direction. I know the chances of UKIP returning many, if any, MPs in May is slender to non-existent, but they really do represent our last hope for a repatriation of the powers that will leave this country when the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, which it will be as soon as the valiant Czech president succumbs to the current pressure he is under to sign it into law. By Christmas we will be a provincial part of a European Empire, that might even be ruled by Tony Blair of all people!
So, there is an explanation of why I will be voting for them on policy and preference as well as on the basis of their Euroscepticism. I hope that all makes sense and goes some way to persuading you.
In order to answer this, I thought I would do a small analysis of some of UKIP’s policies. When I voted UKIP in the Euro Elections earlier this year, admittedly as a protest vote aimed at the Tory’s lacklustre stance on Europe, I decided to investigate their domestic policies as well. The website, while not as slick as some, is simple enough and I soon found some literature on UKIP policy.
What immediately struck me was that I agreed with 80% of what they stood for – I had never experienced anything close to that when looking at the Tories. I have an eclectic mix of conservatism, liberalism and socialism in my political make up.
I am not very ‘touchy feely’ about things, but I believe in social justice, a welfare state, some financial regulation and overwatch so boom and bust capitalism does not plunge us into periodic woes etc. I even support the ideas of trade unionism (though not in their present Labour-purse form). I think that state education should be the best available in a country, although I do not support dumbing down everything so it looks as if everyone is achieving great things at school. University should be free, but it’s not a right – it needs to be earned.
I don’t mind big government and a small loss in civil liberty for a large gain in personal security. I don’t even mind paying lots of tax, as long as the services I get provide value for money. I favour extremely close ties to the United States and NATO and favour the doctrine of humanitarian military intervention as long as there is a cohesive and intelligent after-action plan for rebuilding and aid. Military action, once ordered, should be supported at all costs – half-arsed policy and a lack of direction is worse than not acting at all in my opinion. I even support funnelling money to the developing world as aid, although I do think it should come ‘strings attached’ regarding human rights and good government. Fair trade is a moral necessity.
I think that the UN is a joke and should be downgraded to a centralized charity coordinator, and see NATO as by far the most important international organization that the UK belongs to, followed in a distant second by our place in the Commonwealth. I favour a fully elected upper house of parliament (now that Labour has neutered this ancient and noble institution) and a written constitution. I also think that we have grown beyond a ‘first-past-the-post’ electoral system and that it is time for proportional representation. I support the death penalty for certain crimes (serial/mass murder, repeat rape, paedophilia, treason) and sensible self-defence and home invasion laws – criminals forfeit some of their rights when they commit crime, and the victim should always be more protected that the criminal.
I am sceptical about human caused/accelerated global warming and am not persuaded by the science of its advocates. I resent the religious overtones of ‘believers and heretics’ that is bandied about when it comes to the environment. I support recycling for practical purposes (running out of landfill) and alternate energy to get us out from under dependence on OPEC. Other than that I could not care less. I think it’s ludicrous that we get all worked up about MP expenses in the UK yet ignore the fact that most of the EU is unaudited and that MEP expenses make duck ponds in moats look reasonable – if you want to see shameful waste of your tax money, look at Brussels before you look at Westminster.
I support immigration as essential to a vibrant economy, of both skilled and semi-skilled workers. I do think that there should be a minimum language requirement though. I also am fully committed to the end of the multi-cultural myth about coexistent societies. People can and should hold on to elements of their own culture, but if you live in the UK you should make every effort to become British as well. Within two generations that should be your primary identity, not a 3rd generation British born man who sees himself as Afro-Caribbean or Muslim first and British, if at all, a distant second. That means no teaching in state schools in Urdu for example.
Assimilation and integration should be encouraged, separatism discouraged. Any calls for Sharia law should be heard in the terminal of an airport from people being deported back to the countries they came from, countries that have Sharia law already and are in such a mess that the people in question wanted to come here to begin with. British born Muslims fighting allied forces in Afghanistan should be imprisoned for life if not executed. I admit freely to a dose of xenophobia and Islamaphobia in my make up, but do not consider myself racist.
With that nutshell portrait of my beliefs, let me tell you 12 reasons why I will be voting UKIP. I do not expect anyone to agree with everything that I wrote above, and hasten to point out that UKIP does not stand for everything that I have mentioned – they are far more centrist and main stream in some aspects, far more libertarian and free market in others. They do, however, come close enough to earn my vote, and a hell of a lot closer than any of the ‘Big 3’.
1) UKIP wishes to restructure the nature of the UK’s relationship with the EU. It does not currently advocate cutting all ties – it merely wishes a return to the relationship sold to the British people by Heath back in the 70s – one of free trade and movement.
2) UKIP would cease paying the £27 billion a year in EU subs. We are one of the highest contributors to the EU yet receive almost no subsidies in return. Spain is one of the top 5 contributors yet is also one of the biggest receivers – how does that work? Without an enormous rural sector needed subsidies (Spain, France), a post-Soviet basket case of an industrial sector and economy needing rebuilding (Eastern Europe, Balkans), or somewhere like the former East Germany to drain our resources, the UK will always be a net loser when it comes to what we pay and what we get back. Saying that we will benefit from the emerging economies of our fellow member-states is not a good argument – there is no guarantee that said economies will succeed, and if they do there is no obligation for them to re-invest in us. This is where the 19th century doctrine of free trade failed and we are setting ourselves up to do it all again.
3) UKIP would streamline the tax system, including abolishing inheritance tax and tax on the minimum wage – both very fair ideas in my mind. I admit to being a bit fuzzy on the exact methods they would use to fund these cuts – but it’s no less obscure than Lab/LibDem/Con tax policy.
4) UKIP would freeze permanent immigration for a period of 5 years – which would give government a period of time in which to sort out the mess left by Labour, including the ghastly aftermath of the now confirmed decision by Labour to encourage mass immigration, intending to alter the social structure and socially engineer a multi-cultural country, and to rub the conservative portions of society’ “noses in it”.
5) UKIP would repeal the Human Rights Act. Hopefully this would be replaced by a UK specific bill very quickly, but in the short term it would allow us to deport failed Asylum seekers, political dissidents and illegal immigrants far far easier than we can at the moment. This would also help security concerns in the fight against terrorism.
6) UKIP would continue to allow skilled immigration in the long term as well as support genuine asylum cases.
7) UKIP promises referenda on major policy decisions. I would imagine this would not include security issues such as going to war, but I would think that it would and could include referenda that polls show are important to this country… 84% concerned about immigration, 54% in favour of the death penalty etc.
8) UKIP favours alternate energy research and not just knee jerk panic reactions to the evils of CO2. Hopefully this will include the next generation of nuclear power stations – the “greenest” realistic option.
9) UKIP will act to safeguard what little remains of our agriculture and fisheries sector, both of which have been hammered by EU regulation, and in the case of fisheries, being in the EU with its common fisheries policies has seen native stocks of fish massively depleted. Allow us to conserve and manage our own natural resources, and keep thousands in work.
10) UKIP favours tougher and longer custodial sentences for criminals. I would assume this means building more prisons to house them and ending the culture of “holiday camp” that some (not all I know) prisons foster.
11) UKIP supports the re-introduction of grammar schools throughout the country. Axed by Labour in a misguided class war act, their closure removed the best tool for social mobility through education in this country.
12) UKIP favour expanding the military and improving pay and conditions for serving and wounded members of the forces.
These 12 things will not sort out the country. They do however portray a political mindset in the party that means that they could be heading in the right direction. I know the chances of UKIP returning many, if any, MPs in May is slender to non-existent, but they really do represent our last hope for a repatriation of the powers that will leave this country when the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, which it will be as soon as the valiant Czech president succumbs to the current pressure he is under to sign it into law. By Christmas we will be a provincial part of a European Empire, that might even be ruled by Tony Blair of all people!
So, there is an explanation of why I will be voting for them on policy and preference as well as on the basis of their Euroscepticism. I hope that all makes sense and goes some way to persuading you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
