|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
4 July 2014 Thought
for the Week:
“The Greenhouse Effect, that is, the warming of the Earth's surface through the blanketing influence of certain gases in the atmosphere which reduce the radiation into space at infra-red wavelengths from the surface and may re-radiate them downwards, is, and always has been, a natural phenomenon without which the planet could not be habitable. Of late, however, the term has been massively used to suggest that this phenomenon is something artificial, caused by human activities, notably the burning of coal, oil and wood with release of carbon dioxide into the air; and, moreover, that this 'threatens the planet.'…
I find a coloured poster-diagram occupying a two-page spread in the Daily Telegraph's 'Young' Edition (20 Oct. 1990) particularly helpful, since it is an enlarged version taken from that in the Friends of the Earth Yearbook… Also the big red words, GLOBAL WARMING, which, it says: “Is the greatest environmental threat facing the planet, but we can prevent the worst effects if we act quickly and cut emissions of so-called 'greenhouse' gases…”
What is noticeable about this is that it is all vaguely alarmist and antagonistic to something or other and completely isolated from any idea of balance of nature or of anything positive which the children could do… (The children) get no realisation that carbon dioxide and methane are an essential part of a vast circulation of which the human contribution makes but a small fraction. How big a fraction? – that is the real question. But since our children (and most of their parents) have been deprived by exclusive decimal teaching of the power of thinking habitually in fractions, which are ratios and essential to all biological thinking, we have become helplessly vulnerable to this kind of unbalanced propaganda…”
BIG NEWS ON JOANNA NOVA’S WEBSITE
Part I: Historic development — New Solar climate model coming Behind the scenes a major advance has been quietly churning. It is something I have barely even hinted at. (Oh how I wanted to!) You may have noticed my other half Dr David Evans has been quiet — it’s not because he’s moved out of the climate debate, instead a strange combination of factors has pulled him full time into climate research. Things have been very busy here. He’s discovered something extraordinary, and like all real science, it’s been a roller-coaster where the theory appeared to collapse, and we nearly gave up, but then a new insight would turn out to be more valuable than the version that went before. Other times it all seemed so obvious in hindsight we wondered why no one had done this before. But the answer is that there is a very unusual combination of factors at work — how many people have Ivy League experience in Fourier maths, and electrical circuits and have worked as a professional modeler, software developer, and have an interest in the finer details and theory of the climate debate? Who of the people with this background would also be prepared to spend months working unpaid to investigate a non-CO2 climate [...]
And now for the politics
WE ABSOLUTELY CANNOT HAVE … RATIONAL CONVERSATION
“I’m convinced that fear over climate change (the ultimate public goods “problem”) is the last and best hope for those lustful to rule the world by force. Some people just want to run the world…” In “The Rage of the Climate Central Planners”, Jeffrey Tucker describes something we’ve all experienced. That moment where the social atmosphere turns suddenly poisonous. Climate Rage!
Name calling is a tool to stop debate. It works to keep the wandering minds in the square. But the flipside is that sooner or later the smallest crack, the tiniest doubt, elicits a bizarre over-the-top response and the mismatch reveals the game. How many passionate skeptics are created in the moment a fence-sitter realizes that those who say they love the environment will risk friendships and burn relationships in order NOT to discuss it? For surely there is only one possible interpretation of Climate Rage.
Jeffrey Tucker: The conversation with a good friend — brilliant man but a head full of confidence in the planning state — was going well. We’ve agreed on so much… Then the other day that changed. For the first time ever, the topic of climate change and policy response came up….
I’m convinced that fear over climate change (the ultimate public goods “problem”) is the last and best hope for those lustful to rule the world by force. Some people just want to run the world…
I just hinted at it vaguely. It was enough. He began to shake. He turned white and began to pace. He called me a denialist. He was horrified to discover that his good friend turns out to be some kind of extremist weirdo who disparages science. He began to accuse me of believing in things I never said, of failing to read the science (though later admitting that he hadn’t read the science).
I stood there stunned that I could have so quickly and inadvertently changed the whole dynamic of our conversation and even friendship — all for having suggested that something seemed a bit out of whack with mainstream opinion on this topic. This is not the first time this has happened. In fact, I should have come to expect it by now. Every time this subject comes up with anyone who favours government action on climate change, the result has been the same. We seem to be unable to have a rational conversation. It’s like an article of faith for them, and I’m suddenly the dangerous heretic who believes the world is flat.
Now, in light of this, I read Paul Krugman this morning. He writes in his column: “Read or watch any extended debate over climate policy and you’ll be struck by the venom, the sheer rage, of the denialists.”
The denialists? My whole experience has been the opposite. By denialists, I’m assuming he means people who doubt the merit of his grand central plan for the world economy. Among them, I’ve found a vast range of views, an open mindedness, and curiosity about the full range of opinion, and, quite often, an attitude that seems to me — if anything — to be far too quick to defer to all main conventions of this debate. If you want tolerance and humility, and a willingness to defer to the evidence and gradual process of scientific discovery, you will find it among those who have no desire to manage the world from the top down.
What can we say about those who want to empower a global coterie of elites to make the decision about what technologies we can use and how much under the guise of controlling something so gigantically amorphous and difficult to measure, detect, and precisely manage as earth’s surface temperature? This is a level of chutzpah that surpasses the wildest fantasies of any socialist planner.
THE SCANDAL OF FIDDLED GLOBAL WARMING DATA
Christopher Booker, The Telegraph, UK - 21 Jun 2014 The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record
Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.
When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.
IPCC report: impact of global warming by region
IMPROVED COMMUNICATION THE ANSWER? REALLY?
“Improved communication between experts and the public key in winning battle to curb climate change, claims expert”
Why does the following recommendation of Professor Chris Rapley remind me of the legend of King Canute, the Viking leader and 11th Century King of England?
BBC News: “Was King Canute so deluded to really assume he had the powers to turn back the tide? While the histories of the time are unreliable, it seems probable that King Canute was not a madman who thought he could control nature.
The first written account of the Canute episode was in by chronicler Henry of Huntingdon, who lived within 60 years of the death of Canute (1035 AD). According to a story the king had his chair carried down to the shore and ordered the waves not to break upon his land. When his orders were ignored, he pronounced: "Let all the world know that the power of kings is empty and worthless and there is no King worthy of the name save Him by whose will heaven and earth and sea obey eternal laws," (Historia Anglorum, ed D E Greenway). The account shows Canute setting out to demonstrate that the tide would come in regardless, says Professor Simon Keynes of the department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic at the University of Cambridge”. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13524677)
I guess according to Professor Chris Rapley’s line of reasoning, King Canute didn’t ‘still the waves’ because he also failed to communicate (sell) his message to the waves.
Professor Rapley led a big research project into climate science communication with his UCL colleagues and a number of other universities, including Oxford and King's College, London, which published its findings today. “My experiences have convinced me that our training and development has left us insufficiently prepared to contribute as effectively as we should both to public policy, and to communicating our results and conclusions to society more generally,” Professor Rapley said.
“We are especially ill-equipped to deal with controversy in the media and to respond to public attacks on our motivations and behaviours,” he added, advocating the creation of a professional body for climate scientists that, among other things, would train scientists to engage more effectively with climate sceptics.
Professor Rapley admitted that he was also guilty of biased thinking, as he urged scientists to be more critical of their own work and to be less willing to dismiss research that contradicted their thinking. “As a scientist I have not previously invested appropriate effort into evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of my primary research instrument - my mind,” he said… Other contributors to the report include the European Academies Science Advisory Council, the University of the West of England, the Smithsonian Institution, US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the Royal Society of Arts and the Institute of Pyschoanalysis.
GLOBAL WARMING DATA FAKED TO FIT CLIMATE CHANGE FICTIONS
Source: Mike Adams, Natural News Monday, June 23, 2014
Because the actual historical temperature record doesn't fit the frenzied, doomsday narrative of global warming being fronted today on the political stage, the data were simply altered using "computer models" and then published as fact. Here's the proof of the climate change fraud Here's the chart of U.S. temperatures published by NASA in 1999. It shows the highest temperatures actually occurred in the 1930's, followed by a cooling trend ramping downward to the year 2000:
EPA data also confirm the global warming hoax
THE CHINA WAR CONTINUES
by James Reed
The Obama administration said that it will not tolerate anything which undermines “the integrity of fair competition”. If that was so then they should be taking even more severe action with China which is, to their credit, highly protectionist of their nation’s industry and culture and sees “free trade” as the joke which it is. It is interesting to see Professor Alan Dupont (“China’s Maritime Power Trip” The WE-Australian 24-25 May, 2014 p.16) say: “It is abundantly clear that China is intent on challenging the status quo in Asia through the coercive use of its formidable economic and military power”. China’s rise is being viewed throughout Asia as “more dangerous than benign”. I hate to say that I told the world so, but I did.
DID CHINA REALLY GIVE THE WEST GUNPOWDER?
By Brian Simpson and John Steele
A paper by Nicholas Cheronis, “Chemical Warfare in the Middle Ages”: Kallinikos’ “Prepared Fire”,” Journal of Chemical Education, August 1937, points out that “Greek fire” had been used by the Greeks and Romans to destroy ships. A form of it was used by the armies of the Byzantine empire in battles against the Arabs in 670, 678 and 717 to defend Constantinople from their assault. This defeat, Cheronis says “saved the Eastern Empire, as well as western civilisation from Islam”.
Greek fire may have been made of pitch, sulphur and other chemicals. However the fire used by the Byzantine empire appears to have been shot from crude types of guns. Cheronis argues that it is likely that saltpetre, the main constituent of gunpowder, was added to other combustible substances. The propellant properties of saltpetre, when mixed with sulphur and charcoal were discovered in the Middle Ages. The inventor was Kallinikos who was alive around 670. Consequently “the discovery of the first type of gunpowder and the precursor of modern guns” should be assigned to “Kallinikos and the Byzantines”.
WATCH OUT! THEY WILL BE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS AGAIN
by John Steele
While it “sounds good” to regulate illicit trafficking in arms, many US patriots have seen the Arms Trade Treaty as a way of regulating and disarming nationals. I, for one, am naturally suspicious about all UN treaties especially those championed by gun control nations. Americans see this treaty as a way around the Second Amendment. While there is not much hope left for Australia’s guns, Americans may not be so blind and trusting.
SOUTH AFRICA: LOGICAL CONCLUSION OF MULTICULTURAL SOCIETY
From Jon van Helm in Johannesburg
Many of us know of white families suffering from the murder of loved ones. About 50 murders take place in South Africa each day and 20 of these are of whites killed by blacks, according to the website Genocidewatch. As has been pointed out by Francis Begbie “A Blind Eye to Murder of Whites in South Africa” (Occidental Observer.com 22 May 2014), the police have now stopped keeping statistics of crimes based on race – mainly, I believe because it puts the regime in such a bad light. It is widely thought though that since black rule began in 1994 over 70,000 whites have been murdered, and whites are only a minority making up only nine per cent of the population.
White murders are frequently hate crimes. At the murder scene walls have been covered with writing in the victim’s blood such as with the commonly cited phrase “Kill the Boer”. Farmhouse killings usually do not involve robbery – just rape, torture and murder in the most brutal fashion. The liberal media and the politically correct crowd howl down claims of “racism” even though the slightest perceived slight to them demands immediate attention. Nevertheless, despite attempts by the power elites to censor the truth, reports of the plight of victims of crime in South Africa still gets out to the world. The Solidarity Research Institute has said that farm attacks are a national crisis that deserves priority attention. The government though refuses to declare farm murders a priority crime because it denies that there is any pattern involved. Let me assure you, there is a pattern and if it was black farmers being massacred by whites, the liberal world would be climbing up walls using their finger nails and screaming.
White people across the world, learn the lesson of South Africa: we are perishing today, but tomorrow it will be your turn unless you awake.
THE NEW JEWISH PROPHET?
Marc H. Ellis on Gilad Atzmon - 25 June 2014 Introduction by Gilad Atzmon: I learned this week that Professor Marc H. Ellis - regarded by many as the contemporary leading Jewish theologian, came to the conclusion that yours truly, is the new Jewish prophet.
“Although largely silent on the prophets, Atzmon’s prophetic voice wants nothing to do with his biblical patrimony. It seems to him contrivance that leads to what Israel has become-and perhaps, more or less, always was. (pg’ 329)
On Jewish Diaspora, Tribal Symptoms and Detractors
For Atzmon Jewish identity lacks foundation. Therefore, ganging up on him becomes an agreed-upon foundation to deal with a group anxiety that there is a little basis of Jewish identity at all. Why else would such diverse group come together to denounce a fellow Jew with such vehemence? Perhaps, as well, Jewish group-think regarding Atzmon represent an anxiety that Atzmon himself voices and embodies: that the only foundation of Jewishness is injustice. “ (331) “He (Atzmon) baits his opponents and leaves them without a place to turn. Nor does he leave himself room to turn. Unlike the biblical prophets, Atzmon’s call to repentance leads nowhere – unless exile is always somewhere else” (pg’ 334) Addressing the question why Atzmon doesn’t simply drift away and leaves the Jews alone Ellis writes: “In fact, Atzmon takes pleasure in the ire of Jews he antagonizes with his writing. He delights in calling attention to the restrictive Jewishness of Jews across the board. “(Pg, 330)
On the Jewish appeasement of Palestinians a la Ali Abunimah & Co, Ellis writes: “Atzmon’s self-identification has led Jewish and Palestinian groups to publically disassociate from him. The lead has been taken by Palestinians themselves who struggle to separate Jews and Zionism. For these Palestinians, Atzmon muddies the waters since their dispute with Israel as a Jewish State is not with Jews themselves. By disassociating themselves from Atzmon, Palestinians want to set the record straight about their own views on Israel, Zionism and Jews” (pg’ 330)
Final words by Gilad Atzmon
Ellis, no doubt a unique spiritual and critical Jew, is correct to see in me something that is foreign to his vision of Diaspora Jews. I was raised in Israel, I was brought up to see myself as the body and the soul of the revival of the biblical Israelite. In alignment with my peers, we believed ourselves to be the remote sons and daughters of King David. This view was further strengthened by the Israel in which I was raised; a Spartan society driven by Prussian military culture. We were taught to believe in ‘truthfulness’, ‘authenticity’ and ‘justice’. We were patriotic because we blindly adhered to the Zionist ‘homecoming’ ethos. Bizarrely, it was the Israeli rather than the Jew in me who protested once I realised that my existence on the land involved the dispossession of an entire nation.
It was the Israeli rather than the Jew in me, who was outraged to find out that my ancestors were probably Khazarians and North African Berbers rather than biblical Israelites.
I was even more furious as an Israeli, when I found out that my relatives weren’t reduced to soap by the Nazis. It was again the Israeli in me who asked what kind of people fabricate sickening stories accusing others of turning their family into soap. It was the Israeli in me that made me question why [is] the historicity of the Holocaust as a sealed zone protected by draconian Holocaust denial laws.
I also believe that it was the Israeli rather than the Jew in Shlomo Sand, Gideon Levy, Israel Shamir and Israel Shahak that made us into outspoken critics of Israel, the Jewish people, Judaism and Jewish ID.
Unlike the Diaspora Jewish left, a controlled opposition front dedicated to the concealment of the Jewishness of the Jewish State, Israel has managed to produce the most profound critics of Jewish related matters. It follows that it is actually the ‘Negation of the Galut (Diaspora)’ embedded in Israeli patriotic ideology that fixed the Israeli intellect in a bitter battle against the ‘Jew’. It is that unique resilient attitude which Ellis interprets as Hebraic prophetic spirit. (Italics added…ed)
Well worth watching is Paul Eison in Conversation with Gilad Atzmon Parts 1 and 2.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|