RSS

Monthly Archives: November 2013

NO. Apparently it is NOT a total myth!

John Gardner, an old schoolfriend, has sent me his reaction to the claims of the “denialists” quoted in my last post, and I append his comments below. As a layman I would not presume to make a definitive judgement on all this, but I do think it is important for us to try to follow what is going on – difficult though it is. After all, we will also suffer whatever consequences there may be and in any case we will be PAYING for and living through any measures taken! There is even a small chance that if we work together we might be able to INFLUENCE what measures are taken …….

This really is one instance where a reaction of “I’m not interested in politics.” or even “I’m not interested in science.” would be just dumb.

Thank you for these fascinating comments, John, who writes ……….

The interesting thing about the arguments from denialists is that they all come from totally different directions. One set say that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming, some say that anthropogenic CO2 doesn’t cause global warming, some say that CO2 does cause global warming but the oceans will sort it out, some say that global warming doesn’t exist, and others that global warming does exist but it’s all the sun’s fault.

They can’t all be right! It reminds me of the variation of arguments put forward by Creationists.

To get to the basic science of Greenhouse Gases:

1. Do you believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that serves to warm global temperatures?

Very simple models show that given the solar radiation received from the sun the Earth would have a temperature of 253K without CO2. The same simple model shows that with the current atmospheric CO2 the Earth should have a temperature of 303K. It actually has a temperature of 295K – and that is with a model that just includes solar radiation, a bare Earth with an albedo of 33%, and a layer of CO2.

The science of greenhouse gases is well understood. In essence, the sun’s radiation is absorbed by the Earth and re-emitted as black body radiation with the peak in the infrared. The CO2 absorbs a significant proportion of
this radiation, and re-emits it, much of which reaches the ground again.


2. Do you believe in Anthropogenic CO2 loading of the atmosphere?

There really is no reason not to. We oxidise fossil fuels and make CO2. CO2 levels have risen by 30% since the industrial revolution, and this increase matches the increase in economic production. We supply about 10 Gigatons of carbon to the atmosphere per annum, mainly in the form of  CO2, compared to about 0.1-0.2 emitted by volcanoes.

(Incidentally, there are about 700 Gigatons of carbon in the atmosphere, 2,000 Gton on the land, 3,800 Gton in the oceans, and 1,200,000 Gton as limestones and fossil fuels. And it cycles round the four reservoirs.)


3. How can CO2 be such a big factor in all this if it comprises only 0.0405% of the atmosphere?

A good question, but easily answered. Each molecule of CO2 can absorb radiation around the 667 cycles per second waveband, which warms it up. That’s 405 molecules out of one million. Now think how many billions of molecules there are in a column of the atmosphere (90% of them are in the troposphere within the bottom 15 km), and you’ll appreciate that 0.0405% amounts to a significant number.

Interestingly enough, there is a finite amount of energy being emitted by the planet at 667 cycles, so one would think that it would all be absorbed by a certain amount of CO2, and then there will nothing else to absorb. This is true, except that a phenomenon called ‘pressure broadening’ starts to take effect such that the range of IR frequencies absorbed by CO2 becomes broader. This is caused by the gas molecules interacting with each other. The result of this is that the Earth’s temperature rises in proportion to the number of CO2 doublings – i.e. if 4 dollops add 1K to the global temperature, it will take 8 dollops to raise it by 2K, and 16 to raise it by 3K.


4. The Earth has warmed over the last 150 years

The Earth has warmed about 0.5K over the past 150 years. This 0.5K is consistent with climatic models when run with the actual CO2 levels, and then run without the anthropogenic input.


5. Increasing CO2 will continue the trend. ->
Commonsense and modelling indicates that it will.


To me, all the above is all very clear and obvious. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.


FREQUENT OBJECTION
S BY THE DENIALISTS

Some of the objections put forward are easily dismissed, and some of them have actually been withdrawn but are still being recycled.

1. The sea will soak it up.

The sea is actually soaking up about half our emissions. However, there are things to be aware of.

a) Given enough time, the CO2 in the atmosphere will be in equilibrium with that in the sea. The equilibrium used to be a given concentration in the sea, and 300 ppm in the atmosphere. Raise the CO2 in the atmosphere and the concentration in the sea will rise. But because it is in equilibrium it will not take it all.

b) Because there are relatively few windows between the surface and the sea and the depths of the oceans, it takes about 1,000 years to reach equilibrium.

c) Increasing the CO2 in the sea decreases the pH (it has decreased by 0.1 in the last 150 years), which will have a catastrophic effect on the marine ecosystem.


2. Increases in CO2 occur 700 years after the increase in temperatures
(Point 2).

This is obviously nonsense as a glance at any graph showing rising temperatures over the past 150 years with CO2 increase will confirm. It is actually referring to the fact that this is observed during the retreat of ice during
the last ice age. The main agent behind the ice ages is the variation of solar flux reaching the northern hemisphere during the course of the Milancovic Cycle. It seems that the retreat of ice from the landscape
results in CO2 being released as the biosphere re-established its hold. This does not stop the CO2 so released having a positive feedback on the rate of the decreasing ice.


3. Satellites show no increase in global temperatures.

This did puzzle climate scientists for some time, until they realised that the temperatures being measured were being affected by the temperature of the stratosphere which has been getting colder. This has now been taken into account, and the measurements now match those of other means.


4. Sea Levels aren’t rising

This is just crap. Sea levels are rising by about 3mm per year, and have risen by about 250 mm in the last 150 years. It does seem, however, that most of the islands currently seen to be at risk are suffering from increased tides due to El Nino, and increased erosion due to more energetic weather, rather than from rising sea-levels.


5. It’s all down to the Sun

There has been no changes in solar radiation measured in the past 150 years apart from that expected from the 11-year solar cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

The climate scientists do not know it all. There will always be unknowns which are not being modelled; there will always be errors in the modelling; and there will always be problems with things that can’t be properly modelled.

Having said that, if one accepts the basic science, it is clear that increasing the rate at which we inject CO2 into the atmosphere will be bad for those alive in a 100 years, and even if we steady reduce our CO2 output, it still won’t be good.

The good news, however, is that it will all sort itself out over the next 60 million years. We can’t do anything that will totally screw up the carbon cycle for ever.

Advertisements
 
1 Comment

Posted by on November 29, 2013 in Environment

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

IS GW A TOTAL MYTH?

GLOBAL WARMING?????

I was a firm believer; I only had to sit on the cliffs at Dover gazing out over the Channel and watch ships belching out fumes, day after day, week after week and so on, and then think of the hundreds of thousands of factories and power-stations worldwide doing the same …. it seemed self-evident that we were damaging the atmosphere we breathe. This feeling must be much more evident in China for a start!

BUT ……… the pro-GW brigade has become so hysterically-PC that I am starting to wobble …. I am naturally suspicious of mass-hysteria …..

In today’s “Daily Telegraph” someone posted these statements from scientists involved in the IPCC. No doubt one could find contrary opinions from an equal number of other scientists, but the thing is, HOW THE HELL CAN THE LAYMAN BE CONFIDENT THAT HE HAS ANY IDEA OF THE TRUTH?

And it is really important, not only for the future of the planet. In the UK we are spending BILLIONS AND BILLIONS we can’t afford on “green measures”. Is it all a horrendous waste of time and money?

45 statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC

  1. Dr Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.

  2. Dr Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”

  3. Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”

  4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”

  5. Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”

  6. Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”

  7. Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.”

  8. Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”

  9. Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”

  10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”

  11. 1Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”

  12. Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”1

  13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

  14. Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA’s James Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.

  15. Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”

  16. Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”

  17. Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen.”

  18. Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful.

  19. Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”

  20. Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”

  21. Dr Georg Kaser: “This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”

  22. Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”

  23. Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”

  24. Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”

  25. Dr Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”

  26. Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

  27. Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”

  28. Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”

  29. Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”

  30. Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”

  31. Dr Stephen McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a ‘consensus of thousands of scientists’ are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”

  32. Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”

  33. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”

  34. Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”

  35. Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”

  36. Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”

  37. Dr Murray Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”

  38. Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”

  39. Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites — probably because the data show a slight cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction of the calculations from climate models?”

  40. Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”

  41. Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”

  42. Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”

  43. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”

  44. Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

  45. Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”

 
1 Comment

Posted by on November 27, 2013 in Environment, Politics

 

Tags: , , ,

WWIII in gestation?

Well, some extremely worrying developments are taking place in the Far East, as described very well by the following two journalists:

James Delingpole and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, both of “The Telegraph”.

(See also here for latest and most interesting article by James Delingpole)

To summarize, China has declared an “air-defence identification zone” to be enforced by its air-force over the Senkaku Islands, whose ownership is long disputed between itself and Japan. This is clearly a major destabilization of the status quo, and might by some be already considered as a de facto act of war in claiming air-control over territory it does not indisputably own.

Senkaku-islands

There are all sorts of theories, scenarios and questions flying about. Is this a major change in China’s foreign policy? Are they just testing out the apparently weak and rudderless Obama? Could this be a “Sarajevo moment”? How big are the stakes? What have all the parties to lose? What should Japan and the West do? Some reasons for China’s actions are well explained in the afore-quoted articles – as are some answers to the questions I raise, but I would like to add my own four pennorth in comment.

  • We have to carefully distinguish between the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) and the people, who are subjects of a dictatorship. What the CPP wants and does is not necessarily what the people want. Having said that, the people are taught from an early age (partly as a result of history) to feel that the outside world is hostile. Though the Chinese people have vastly more information and knowledge of the world than a few decades ago, SOME of this propaganda must stick. I have Chinese friends who are extremely nice, civilised and rational but who have no doubts that the Han invasion, domination and ethnic swamping of Tibet is both moral and justified. “We are doing it for their own good,” is a typical comment, along with “Tibet has always belonged to China.”, which of course is not true.

  • The point is, the CPP is not necessarily acting either in the people’s interests or of course according to their wishes. China is still a dictatorship; the people as a whole have little say in most policy, especially perhaps foreign policy.

  • The CPP is under severe strain. The internet and growing prosperity have combined to make the people much better informed and also more critical of CPP corruption. No doubt there is also the natural human urge (as I believe it to be) for “democracy”. This of course is total anathema to the CPP, whose own position is increasingly seen as problematical. It is caught in the usual and inevitable trap that dictatorships have to face. Increasing prosperity always brings with it a better-informed and more demanding people – which is of course why the North Korean regime (grotesquely supported by its vast neighbour) has reserved any kind of prosperity for itself, and kept its people in virtual starvation.

  • Unfortunately, is it not true to say that there are only two end scenarios to this situation? Either China will become more open, free and democratic (with the obvious corresponding decline in the power of the CPP) OR the regime will try to turn the clock back with repression. Sadly, the latter is all too often the path chosen, since no authority willingly abandons its power. (Do we still remember Tiananmen Square?). There have been increasing signs of a clampdown recently, in particular with attempts to control an already closely-monitored internet even more tightly. On the face of it, the CPP is attempting the totally impossible: greater economic freedom in conjunction with more severe political control – something has to give.

  • Under long-term threat to its own existence, a fascist government almost always creates external enemies to divert the people’s attention. For the afore-mentioned reasons, it may not be too difficult for the CPP to whip up nationalist – and thus aggressive – fervour, especially as the principal enemy involved is Japan, whose appalling WWII behaviour has left deep and lasting scars, even if – as with Germany – all the guilty are dead.

  • Indeed, just thinking about Japan is – understandably perhaps – like a red rag to a bull for many Chinese; virulent anti-Japanese nationalism is never very far below the surface, as this report from 2012 shows: “Chinese consumers are shying away from Japanese cars not just because of nationalism, but out of fear after one man in Xi’an was beaten into a coma for driving a Japanese marque.”

  • Chinese leaders often dress up their territorial claims with quasi-religious sentiments – and as we know, religion is often a major driver of practical lunacy. In September 2012 Foreign Minister Mr Yang reiterated China’s “solemn position on the issue of Diaoyu Islands, which have been China’s sacred territory since ancient times”.

  • Taiwan is also a potential major flashpoint. A former colleague of mine and expert on China told me that any declaration of independence by Taiwan would definitely provoke a military attack by the mainland. The status of Taiwan is fascinating and outlined below. In all but diplomatic status it functions as an independent state (and democracy), yet is actually “owned” in diplomatic terms by the USA.

So, is this all just mind-games or is there a real danger?

  • Outsiders always tend to assume that a fascist regime is very tightly controlled and run. This may be true on the surface, but who can say if the military (who after all hold the ultimate power) are always fully in tune with the political leadership? An army’s raison d’etre is to fight, and war games in the air over the disputed islands could easily lead to a serious incident (even by accident), whose consequences and knock-on effects are impossible to predict. We all remember Sarajevo, no?

  • On the face of it, the CPP would be insane to provoke a military conflict. Its exports would immediately collapse, it would no doubt lose all its investments in the USA. The whole of South-East Asia would be ranged against it, though the position of the Rusians is – for me at least – hard to predict. However, history has showed that when a regime’s very existence is threatened, it loses all sight of rationality.

  • Apart from the economic and political consequences that a military conflict would involve, China is by no means as strong militarily as its potential enemies. Its massive land forces are of little use against Japan. And do they really think that Obama is so weak he would allow them to take over all the areas they dispute, which is – somewhat predictably – almost all the sea and islands for many miles around its coasts.

  • As far as that goes, Obama is indeed – in my estimation .- a feeble and incompetent President. However, when the chips are down, I also believe that only an utter fool would bet against the USA, even in its weakened state.

All in all, it is a desperately-worrying situation, even though I personally believe it had to come one day. This is what dictatorships do – start wars and cause absolute misery, first stoking up nationalist sentiment. And NO, the USA did NOT start the Iraq war, since its regime had ALREADY been at war with the majority of its own people for decades.

What an absolute tragedy if a new Cold War were to start (let alone serious military action itself), involving like the last one a vast expansion in military expense and capability at a time when the world’s efforts need to be focused on resources in general (energy, water, food, medicine) and global warming. China itself is beset with serious demographic, social, political, water and and pollution problems. But as I have argued, these often weigh little when it comes to a regime’s own long-term survival.

We who were born after 1945 tend to assume that the era of major continental and inter-continental wars ended in that year. Yet history suggests that the long period of peace we have enjoyed since then is an exception, and possibly an anomaly. My personal conviction is that until all dictatorships are removed from the world – and prevented from arising – there will always be wars. Democracies do not provoke wars. They may react violently to them, but they do not  (with some exceptions) start them. And by war I do include a war against its own people by a fascist regime. Iraq is an example already quoted, as are Libya and Kosovo, where the USA bombed the Serbs because of the war they were conducting against the Muslim Kosovans.

Another personal conviction is that no regime is any better than a bunch of gangsters if it has not been elected – or its revolutionary seizure of power rapidly confirmed – in a free, fair and universal vote. This of course makes the regimes of both China and Cuba illegitimate, just for starters. It is a pity this is not enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Were this to be so then ALL of the Chinese regime’s claims, demands and threats would be completely illegal. Man is politically not as advanced as he thinks …… maybe in 500 years ……


FOOTNOTE ON TAIWAN – supplied by a Daily Telegraph blogger – Chas Chan. This all seems pretty authoritative, but if anyone has an update or correction, I would be pleased to hear it.:

In the formal Treaty of Shimonoseki signed in April, 1895, the Chinese government legally ceded Taiwan to Japan. For the next 50 years, Taiwan under international law was the possession of Japan’s.The Japanese Government’s control over Taiwan ceased on August 15, 1945 when it announced its surrender in World War II. The Instrument of Surrender was signed on the deck of the USS Missouri on September 2, which placed “all Japanese forces wherever situated” under the command of “the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers,” Gen. Douglas MacArthur.But the Instrument of Surrender was an armistice, not a formal peace treaty. Japan had not ceded Taiwan to the ROC. The legal authority in Taiwan remained the United States Military Government, which had delegated – delegated, not relinquished – the military occupation of Taiwan to the ROC.Japan did not sign a formal peace treaty until September 8, 1951. Known as the Treaty of San Francisco, Article 2(b) states:”Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores” (islands in the Formosa Straits).

But – the gargantuan but – no receiving country is specified in the treaty. In other words, Japan renounced its sovereignty over Taiwan, but did not turn over that sovereignty to either the PRC in Beijing or the ROC in Taiwan. Neither the PRC nor the ROC were invited to the San Francisco treaty conference, and neither was a signatory to the treaty.

This means that the USMG remained the sovereign legal authority in Taiwan. Article 4(b) of the treaty states this in recognizing the authority of “the United States Military Government in any of the areas referred to in Articles 2 and 3,” as does Article 23(a) recognizing “the United States of America as the principal occupying Power.”

This treaty is still in effect. In the opinion of a number of scholars of international law, Taiwan is neither a province of China over which the PRC has legitimate sovereignty, nor is Taiwan a sovereign state of itself. It is, rather, an overseas territory of the U.S.

The practical bottom line to this is that the Communist PRC government of China has no claim to Taiwan under international law. Further, as Taiwan is a U.S. territorial possession, the United States government is legally obliged to defend it – as well as the Senkaku Islands.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on November 27, 2013 in Politics

 

The “Racial Discrimination” case

Dear Ms Small

Firstly – on a personal note – I imagine that this incident has caused you no little grief and stress, which I of course regret. Your job is not an easy one, as I know from 40 years’ teaching experience.

However, there are certain things that must be said:

“Racial Discrimination”?

  • Firstly, abhorring Islam is NOT “racial”, since Islam is not a race. It is too easy to accuse people with strongly differing views to the establishment of “racism”: too easy, but also intellectually moronic and extraordinarily offensive.

  • Secondly, would you discriminate against Naziism or South African apartheid? I guess so. Ergo, discrimination per se is PERFECTLY MORAL but of course depends WHAT YOU ARE DISCRIMINATING against. And for the below-mentioned reasons, I believe it is totally legitimate to “discriminate against” Islam.

Official Islam as preached from the centre in Mecca and practised in most parts of the world execrates:

  • other religions: the official goal of Islam is that the entire world should be ruled in God’s name by a Caliph  (see fascist Iran) – you can’t open a Christian church in many Islamic countries and in some a conversion to Christianity is a capital offence

  • democracy: which of course is totally incompatible with the first principle above – as soon as Muslims in a country are in a position where they think they can get away with it (see Egypt) they try to set up a religious dictatorship

  • women: they would not say so, but the core elements of their treatment of women are surreally evil and indeed sexually and psychologically perverted – see Saudi Arabia etc

  • homosexuals

  • balanced, open and non-brainwashing education: their madrassas are an obscene insult to the Human Spirit

  • humanely-slaughtered meat: Halal meat is an obscene abomination forced on native Brits without their consent and often without their knowledge

  • civilised punishment

  • respect for other cultures: as soon as their numbers permit (even in England), they start talking about establishing “Shariah Law” in “their” area – see Egypt and indeed parts of London and Birmingham – Muslim taxi-drivers have been known to refuse to carry dogs – they get hysterical when schoolkids are accidentally fed pork

  • alcohol, pigs & dogs: all things the British are quite attached to, drinking it, eating them and taking them for walks respectively

With this core set of beliefs it is a wonder how anyone sane can imagine that Muslims could “integrate” into Britain, a country whose traditional values are diametrically opposed to almost everything Islam believes in. Imagine Islam did not exist and I came to you with my plan to set up a religion based on the above principles? You would surely think me a complete lunatic and my followers no more than a deranged sect comparable to the Moonies. THIS is how I feel about Islam; its SIZE is for me completely and totally irrelevant.

However, the key point in this incident is that Britain is not (yet) a “Muslim country” and there is NO OBLIGATION on native-British citizens to have respect for what many consider to be a weird and often very nasty sect. It is, therefore, NOT the business of so-called educators to issue threatening-letters to parents of primary school children because they refuse to go along with the ludicrous and cravenly-PC establishment mantras.

Moreover, religion in general should be kept OUT of schools – though I appreciate that you may be constrained by the laws imposed by our moronic leaders. Indeed, the very idea of a “faith school” – which is open to the evil brainwashing that occurs in many Muslim countries – is obscene. Catholics of course ALSO have their particular “faith” schools, but Catholicism is no longer rooted in the pre-Middle Ages as Islam is. It is basically inoffensive and as part of our English culture can be tolerated – unlike Islam, which is totally alien to all our traditional core beliefs.

There is, Ms Small, an extraordinary contrast between the establishment’s complete indifference to the opinions and feelings about Islam of millions of British citizens and on the other hand its pathological fear of “offending Muslims”. Many native Britons are massively offended every day – not least by having obscene Halal meat sold in supermarkets and often fed to them without their knowledge. Nobody seem to give a damn, and this is making many ordinary people very angry.

For these reasons I fear that your letter is completely unacceptable. As for myself, Ms Small, nobody can realistically accuse me of “racism”, despite my attitude to Islam. I am British and married to a German, with one Anglo-German son and two Franco-German stepsons. I was previously married to a Spanish woman and have three Anglo-Spanish daughters. I have worked for ten years in the UK, ten in France and three in Germany, where I now live.  My wife and I both speak four European languages, and my wife also Japanese, which allows her to communicate with her Japanese daughter-in-law. I also worked for six months in Africa in a place where I was the only white for miles around. I was responsible for 20 black teachers and had and retain lots of black friends. Does that sound like a “racist” to you?

I have lived through many periods of immigration: it has never been a problem before. Unfortunately – for the above-mentioned reasons – Islam is a special case, and vast Muslim immigration was forced on the people without ANY consultation or mandate. You say that “we live in a multi-cultural society”, but the PEOPLE were given NO SAY in the extreme extent to which this has been taken, particularly with Islam. Whole areas of London are becoming ghettoised as native whites move out and “Shariah Law” areas develop, patrolled by gangs of young Muslim youths. 22% of the population of Birmingham is Muslim, with 200 mosques in the city and so on. Does all this sound reasonable to you? If British Muslims are somehow different from those in other countries, then they should perhaps do as Luther did, and disassociate themselves from the totally unacceptable core beliefs and practices of their creed. As things stand, there is no way that I or millions of my compatriots are going to do anything but despise this rather nasty sect. We are British. We do not accept being told what to think or feel. You cannot FORCE us not to be offended by almost everything that Islam stands for.

I hope you and your school recover from this unfortunate incident. You have been placed by successive appalling governments in an invidious situation, but nothing is gained by not speaking the truth, which is what I believe I have done in this letter.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 26, 2013 in Britain, Religion

 

Tags: ,

Osborne’s Interest-rate Cap

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10474201/Surprise-reversal-as-Osborne-puts-cap-on-payday-loans.html

I note that Osborne is planning to cap interest rates chargeable on loans, a full decade after I suggested that this was a moronically simple and effective thing to do.

Brown of course would never have thought of anything so bleedin’ obvious in a million years, but then he studied history at uni, so what do you expect? But perhaps I do him a disservice. It is possible that he DID think of it and dismissed it on the basis that the more people borrowed the more consumption and growth there would be and the more successful he would seem in growing the economy. Yes, I think that must be it – an economy build on vast borrowing whose catastrophic effects would only become clear after his departure as a noo-socialist hero and Champion Pledger and which could of course be blamed after his demise on the Tories – and Mrs Thatcher, naturally.

Thank God Brown is now out of harm’s way s(k)ulking in some Scottish castle, preferably near a deep Loch he could throw himself into. The dream scenario would be for him, Blair, Mandelscum and Campbell to do a hot-air balloon trip over Loch Ness as part of a triumphal “Didn’t-we-do-well” reunion and Brown letting the air out in revenge so they all plunge to the bottom of the loch to be devoured by the Monster – all filmed for the masses by a submarine manned by a joint Sun and Daily Mail crew. One can only dream.

But the horrific thing is that his acolyte Balls is STILL there and according to the polls STILL likely to be the next Chancellor, unless Minibrother does something sensible for once and chucks him out of the balloon.

As I have said before, the world is indeed insane and does not deserve to survive.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 26, 2013 in Britain, Politics

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Why didn’t the COALITION get rid of Flowers?

Well, the key point is that it was LABOUR who put him in place, principally it seems because he was a crony and would lend them loads of someone else’s money. It can’t have been because he had any experience or managing a bank, only having worked in one as a lowly clerk many years ago.

As for why the Coalition didn’t get rid of him, a question in itself designed only to deflect attention from the original venality, …

A) …. the Coalition has had enough on its plate trying to prevent economic meltdown after the boom part of Brown’s efforts was so magnificently followed by the bust – you can’t expect it to vet the CV of every appointee made by its predecessors and …

B) …. it would be quite easy to kick out and replace with one’s own cronies every appointee of the other load of fatuous dinosaurs immediately on coming into office, thus rapidly leading to the massive politicization and thus degradation of all national institutions. The Coalition has avoided this temptation, but would not of course get any thanks for it, or indeed for anything else, least of all for having avoided economic collapse as predicted by Balls, whom I do not advise to take up fortune-telling.

Returning to the original subject – and leaving aside Mrs Thatcher’s obviously-massive part in all this – the quoted article is magnificent. I give you the link, but a few comments and quotes cannot be avoided.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100247568/sorry-ed-miliband-but-the-revelations-about-the-co-op-arent-smears-theyre-true/

Minibrother has been squawking like a headless chicken about Tory “smears”. In the first place, his party is World Smear Champion of the millenium, having Alistair Campbell and more recently Damian McBride on their payroll. Secondly, the smears are TRUE. Actually, can the TRUTH even BE a “smear”? Does Minibrother even speak proper English? Or perhaps he thinks we are all as moronic as many of the usual suspects and will automatically believe everything he says, whatever its intellectual content? I think that must be it; nobody treats the public with more utter contempt than Labour.

“….. the Co-op, the organisation Milliband singled out as a model of “ethical” conduct in a speech to the bank in July 2012.” That really is a hoot, no!!!

“And what were his credentials for being the chairman of the Co-op, this model of good practice in the banking industry? Er, he once worked at Nat West. No wonder he underestimated the assets of the Co-op to the tune of £44 billion.”

AS I have already made clear, his main – and indeed for Labour his ONLY important – credential was a willingness to fork out loads of someone else’s dosh in gifts and soft loans. WHAT A SOCIALIST HERO!! Yet another specialist misuser of someone else’s money!!

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 26, 2013 in Britain, Politics

 

Tags: , , ,

TODAY’S LUNACIES

TODAY’S LUNACIES:

ONE: Some Tory pillock is ranting on about the party’s image as being “an organisation for the rich”, and indeed, many Labour supporters apparently see things this way.

Which is both hilarious and insane when you consider – just for starters – Blair, Mandelscum, Kinnock and indeed Brown, to whom supposedly intelligent people pay good money to listen to him expound on how to ruin a country. Blair earns a lot more, presumably on speaking about how to spin and lie successfully – invaluable skills for the world’s elite.

So, the Blair, Mandelscum, Brown troika of wealth must be amused to be told that their real spiritual home is the Tories and not the party they led in government for over a decade.

In fact, the Labour Party is of course the principal party for A) the pontificating, rich “pseudo-socialists” like Blair, Brown and Mandelscum, B) for  those on welfare and C) grateful immigrants, and is clearly doing well in the polls as the number of people in the latter two groups have bloated wildly out of control – principally thanks to Labour’s own policies. It is of course no more than clever politics. Were I to launch a party named “Lunatics United”, I would obviously seek to get into the country as many lunatics as I could, and it would also suit me to turn once sane people INTO lunatics – while concurrently impoverishing them beyond belief (except for the leaders of course).

In a sane world, you’d wonder how it is possible that a party recently responsible for the obvious ruination of Britain and still led by the right-hand men of the then leaders and in particular by an evident Hamstead champagne-socialist who has never done a REAL day’s work in his life can have a snowball’s chance in Hades of becoming PM?

But as you know, the world is far from sane.

TWO: But today’s prime news in the form of a quite-brilliant summary of Labour’s core nastiness by Peter Oborne. I copy most of it here just in case you otherwise miss it.

“The book can at last be closed on The Daily Telegraph investigation into the MPs’ expenses scandal. More than 300 Members of Parliament have paid back wrongly claimed expenses. Several of the worst offenders have stood down from Parliament. Now that the former minister Denis MacShane has at last pleaded guilty to fraud, no further prosecutions are planned, and all criminal investigation is reported to have ceased.

But one puzzling question remains. Why is it that only Labour MPs have been found guilty of expenses fraud as a result of the Telegraph revelations? Yesterday’s decision by Mr MacShane ….. brings to six the number of MPs who have been convicted or pleaded guilty. Not a single one is Tory, Lib Dem or from one of the nationalist parties. All six are Labour.

Some people will doubtless argue that the fact that only Labour MPs have been convicted is interesting but meaningless. I don’t think this can be true. Mathematicians tell us that the statistical probability against a coin coming up heads six times in a row is 64-1. In other words there is only one chance in 64 that Labour’s score of 6/6 was a coincidence.

There is an overwhelming likelihood that it is indeed statistically significant that only Labour MPs have been found guilty as a result of the expenses investigation. Labour members of the House of Commons need to face up to the uncomfortable truth. The outcome of the Telegraph investigation strongly suggests they are much more likely to lie, cheat and steal than members of other parties. … It is especially perplexing because the party in general strongly feels itself to be the embodiment of decency and morality. Indeed Labour has always insisted that the Conservatives are the party of venality, greed and selfishness.”

(Ed.: It is NOT “perplexing”. Those with an absolute conviction of their rectitude are usually the first to use immoral ends to justify their self-chosen means.)

“Paradoxically, I believe that it is Labour’s belief in its own higher morality – what Bertrand Russell called the “superior virtue of the oppressed” – that has led to its downfall. Our two major political parties have emerged from rival philosophical traditions. Labour hails from the progressive school, which is fundamentally optimistic about human nature, but believes that our humanity is thwarted and twisted by social institutions. Conservatives are the opposite. They are pessimistic about human nature, and believe that life can only be conducted within the framework of existing institutions and the rule of law. They stress narrow objectives such as telling the truth, caring for one’s neighbour, and good manners. The Conservative tradition is extremely sceptical of ambitious schemes for social transformation.

By contrast, progressives view social conventions and restraints as the crucial impediment to human fulfilment. As far as Karl Marx was concerned, law, morality and religion were simply mechanisms for maintaining bourgeois dominance. Indeed Marx’s followers explicitly licensed falsehood and deceit as instruments of revolutionary change. As J A Schumpeter observed: “The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.” I suggest, therefore, that the readiness of Labour MPs to fabricate their expenses is symbolic of a wider philosophical disposition: a structural tolerance of lying and cheating as a justification for political action.”

(Ed.: BRILLIANTLY EXPRESSED – SHOULD BE IN ALL SCHOOL SYLLABI. Do our kids learn ANYTHING about history, politics, economics and psychology?)

“This was one of the defining characteristics of the 1997-2010 Labour government. Consider the grotesque techniques used by Gordon Brown’s spin doctor Damian McBride, as set out in his recent book. Consider the deliberate deceit of the British public over immigration, Europe and the economy. Above all we should consider the readiness of that government to spread falsehoods about weapons of mass destruction ahead of the disastrous Iraq invasion. This stemmed from what one can only call an intellectual tolerance of fabrication. New Labour brought into government a new kind of epistemology, which was articulated by Tony Blair in his revealing 2004 Labour conference speech: “I only know what I believe.”

I am sure that Mr Blair felt, and still feels, that the falsehoods he uttered ahead of the Iraq invasion were virtuous. In his mind the invasion was vital for world peace, so it was only statesmanlike to dissimulate. The progressive mind will typically sacrifice what it dismisses as an unimportant rule (in this case, truth-telling or observance of due process) in order to achieve a worthwhile objective.

It is always impertinent to speculate about human motive, but there is evidence that the Labour expenses cheats justified their actions in very much the same way. They were underpaid, they needed the extra money for virtuous reasons, they were members of a great reforming government, etc, etc. Denis MacShane insisted, for example, that he made no personal gain from his cheating, and that the stolen money was used to fund research trips to Europe. In short, the fabrication of expenses claims falls into exactly the same category as the fabrication of evidence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.

Let’s now turn to the disaster at the Co-operative Bank. A comparable process is at work. The Co-op used to parade its high ethical status and moral standing as an organisation that placed its duty to the community ahead of profit. A Labour-supporting Methodist minister such as Paul Flowers was therefore, by definition, the right man to chair a bank, even if he knew nothing about banking. Since his motives were transparently virtuous, it seemed not to matter that he knew very little about the business.  A generalised impression of virtue mattered more than good conduct, integrity, and attention to detail.”

(Ed.: LIKE BROWN, WHO KNEW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT ECONOMICS BUT MADE A GOOD “PLEDGE” AND WOULD FIGHT LIKE A CHRISTIAN KNIGHT AGAINST THE EVILS OF POVERTY IMPOSED BY A HEARTLESS TORY PARTY.)

“Of course there are many wholly honest Labour MPs – and quite a number of Conservatives MPs are repulsive. Two Tory peers (Taylor and Hanningfield) have indeed been found guilty of abusing their expenses in the Lords. Only last week the Tory MP Nadine Dorries was forced to apologise for failing to disclose her expenses while her colleague Nadhim Zahawi was obliged to pay back money he had claimed to warm his stables.

Nevertheless, the Telegraph expenses scandal comes close to proof that Labour MPs are far more likely to countenance lying, cheating and breaking the law. Thomas Sowell, the Conservative philosopher, puts it like this in his masterpiece, A Conflict of Visions: ‘Those who see the potentialities of human nature as extending far beyond what is currently manifested here have a social vision quite different from those who see human beings as tragically limited creatures whose selfish and dangerous impulses can be contained only by social contrivances which themselves produce unhappy side effects.’

Conservatives believe that it is only those social contrivances that save us from our own predatory and evil natures. Progressives believe that human beings are wiser than institutions. Conservatives believe that institutions are wiser than human beings. We are talking here about two radically different views of the world and of human potential. The outcome of the Telegraph expenses investigation suggests that the Conservative vision has at least one very important advantage: it keeps you out of jail.”

(Ed.: Anyone who thinks that Man is not fundamentally flawed and liable to seizure by self-delusions of righteousness and grandeur allied to arrogance and greed only has to look at the present and recent Labour leadership.)

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 21, 2013 in Britain, Morality, Politics

 

Tags: , , , , ,