Saturday, July 4, 2015

The U.S. Supreme Court Ambushes the Constitution !

The US Supreme Court has decided by the barest of margins - five votes to four - to invent the right to same-sex marriage in direct opposition to the expressed views of voters in several states. Here is
the magnificent dissenting judgement of Justice Samuel Alito:
''At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment. The Members of this Court have the authority and the responsibility to interpret and apply the Constitution.'' 
Thus, if the Constitution contained a provision guaranteeing the right to marry a person of the same sex, it would be our duty to enforce that right. But the Constitution simply does not speak to the issue of same-sex marriage. In our system of government, ultimate sovereignty rests with the people, and the people have the right to control their own destiny. Any change on a question so fundamental should be made by the people through their elected officials.”  
Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences.''

It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. E.g., ante, at 11–13. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.'' 
Today’s decision will also have a fundamental effect on this Court and its ability to uphold the rule of law. If a bare majority of Justices [5 for vs 4 against] can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate.'' 

Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims.
Most Americans—understandably—will cheer or lament today’s decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends. What travesty is coming next?''
And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation… But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial coup d'etat.
Liberals have become accustomed to the idea that Supreme Court decisions can help, but never hurt, their causes. But that isn’t true. At one time, the Court held that there is a fundamental constitutional
right to own slaves, which Congress could not limit in the territories. (The justices in the Dred Scott majority were loyal Democrats, doing their party’s bidding much like today’s progressives.)

Subsequently, the Court held that wage and hour laws were unconstitutional because they infringed the fundamental right of contract. Both of those cases were decided on precisely the same theory as the Court’s gay marriage decision, i.e., substantive due process.

It is disheartening to see the almost universal acclaim received by a decision that is, in terms of process, a raw and unconstitutional usurpation of power. One would think that there should be many Americans who care about the Constitution, regardless of their views on gay marriage. But that does not appear to be the case.

The Way I See It......what would you think if the Court had decided the opposite? That is, if the Court had held that same sex marriage is unconstitutional, so that all state laws approving such unions are void, and all court decisions establishing same sex marriage are overruled. Would you then think it appropriate for “five lawyers,” as Chief Justice Roberts put it, to remove this issue from the democratic process and purport to resolve it by judicial fiat?

I am pretty sure you wouldn’t. I am pretty sure that in the face of such a ruling, you would howl with outrage and insist that the issue of same sex marriage be determined by democratic processes, not by political activists filling out the court along with Obama's cronies.

I realize that hardly anyone on the Left acknowledges any obligation to be consistent. But logically, the issue of same sex marriage either is governed by the Constitution, or it isn’t. The truth is that the Constitution is silent with regard to marriage, which has always been a matter of state law. To assert that the Constitution mandates gay marriage is as outrageous as to assert that it prohibits gay marriage. It does neither.

The Case for American Exceptionalism on this July Forth !

What defines and makes America great? Do the people who helped shape American history deserve to be considered heroes, or monsters? These are the questions that have come to define American culture, our view of Americas as both a people and as a nation, and America’s response to the world.

Dinesh D’Souza, (photo right) the creator of 2016: Obama’s America, and Gerald Molen, the Academy Award-winning producer of Schindler’s List, offer an invitation to history that cannot be refused. In America, they bring us face-to-face with the heroes who suffered, bled, and sacrificed their lives in order to build a great nation: Christopher Columbus crossing an ocean to discover the New World, George Washington fighting as British bullets whiz by his head, Frederick Douglass demanding that America live up to the promises of her Founding Fathers, and Abraham Lincoln sacrificing thousands of lives, and losing his own, to right a great wrong of history.

The roster of historical heroes is impressive, and necessarily controversial: each of these juggernauts have been deliberately and callously dismissed over time by forces seeking to diminish and redefine their place in history. Columbus? Genocidal monster. Washington? Slave-owning white man. Douglass? Self-hating, race-betraying Uncle Tom. History shows that each of these men, caught at the crossroads of hope or disaster, helped form a nation and became heroes for all time. But progressives (meaning deadshit socialists) and their ilk have long understood that by changing what they represent, and by altering their significance, you change what the result of their efforts–their nation–means.

The film’s website offers the most succinct and direct synopsis of D’Souza’s newest theatrical opus:
Someone once observed: “America is great because she is good; if she ever ceases to be good she will cease to be great.” Today that notion of the essential goodness of America is under attack, replaced by another story in which theft and plunder are seen as defining features of American history – from the theft of Native American and Mexican lands and the exploitation of African labor to a contemporary foreign policy said to be based on stealing oil and a capitalist system that robs people of their    the “fair share.”
Secularists, liberals, and historical revisionists have long understood the power of words, history and perception. They learned early on that what made America so great was its understanding of itself as an exceptional nation, led by exceptional people, unlike any other the world had ever known. But the things that had contributed to American greatness; free market capitalism, liberty, self-reliance, and rule of law all ran contrary to the ideals of collectivists and progressives.

In order to achieve their agenda, it became necessary to diminish or redefine those events and persons that confound their preferred narrative, one in which America is no greater than any other nation. These are the modern “99 Percenters”, the Occupy Wall Street movement, the Hope & Change crowd that helped secure two Presidential victories for Obama, who by himself, showed us how so unexceptional he is. D’Souza explores the fevered imaginations of these misguided souls to attempt to ferret out their methods and motives.

His efforts achieve the desired effect: America demolishes the worn out progressive list of grievances progressives have compiled over time in their efforts to subvert the nation to an ideology of self-hatred and division. Interviewing notable leftists and progressives, D’Souza attempts to discern and understand their raison d’ĂȘtre, finding little but deception, greed and hatred. Along the way,
D’Souza discusses the meaning of the Texas Revolution with Senator Ted Cruz  and Hispanics in America with Republican activist Artemio Muniz, and contrasts the history of Black poverty with African-American entrepreneurship that actually created wealth.

D’Souza sounds the alarm against those who would “first have to unmake America” by redefining and transforming it. Using President Obama’s own words against him–”You didn’t build that,” “If you like your doctor, you can keep him,” and “most transparent administration in history” are just a few examples–D’Souza lays bare the nihilistic ideology of the Left. Progressives not only use falsehood and deception to win arguments and elections, but perpetually blame America for various “sins,” insisting it is unworthy to occupy the position of esteem and power it has attained through its actions around the world.

When confronted with actual history, progressive indictments against America fall apart, and they fall silent when presented with the possibility of a world without America. In the last century alone, with actions in WWI and WWII, America saved the civilized world. In spite of her detractors, who focus on the few failings of America, and who insist that the nation is a bigoted, discriminatory place with sins that could never possibly be forgiven, around the globe, when crises of hunger, war and natural disaster arise, it is to America that the world’s eyes quickly turn. D’Souza reminds us all that this fact is with good reason: because despite all its flaws, America is good, has done good, and will continue to do good, as long as we remember and uphold those qualities that made her so.

The Way I See It.......America has gone further than any other society in establishing equality of rights. There is nothing distinctively American about slavery or bigotry. Slavery has existed in virtually every culture, and xenophobia, prejudice and discrimination are worldwide phenomena. Western civilization is the only civilization to mount a principled campaign against slavery; no country expended more treasure and blood to get rid of slavery than the United States.

While racism remains a problem, this country has made strenuous efforts to eradicate discrimination, even to the extent of enacting policies that give legal preference in university admissions, jobs, and government contracts to members of minority groups. Such policies remain controversial, but the point is that it is extremely unlikely that a racist society would have permitted such policies in the first place. And surely African Americans like Jesse Jackson are vastly better off living in America than they would be if they were to live in, say, Ethiopia or Somalia.

Sunday, June 28, 2015

The Death of Science !

 The reputation of Science is being destroyed by the Warming Scare !  It turns out bad ideas can persist in science for decades, be and surrounded by myrmidons of furious defenders they can turn into intolerant dogmas.  Scientists are just as prone as anybody else to “confirmation bias”, the tendency we all have to seek evidence that supports our favoured hypothesis and dismiss evidence that contradicts it—as if we were counsel for the defence.
English science author, Matt Ridley (mentioned in my last posting) says this is precisely what has happened with the climate debate and it is at risk of damaging the whole reputation of science. The “bad idea” in this case is not that climate changes, nor that human beings influence climate change; but that the impending change is sufficiently dangerous to require urgent policy responses.  
Look what happened to a butterfly ecologist named Camille Parmesan (photo below) when she published a paper on “Climate and Species Range” that blamed climate change for threatening the Edith Checkerspot butterfly with extinction in California by driving its range northward. The paper was cited more than 500 times, she was invited to speak at the White House and she was asked to contribute to the IPCC’s third assessment report. 
  Unfortunately, a distinguished ecologist called Jim Steele found fault with her conclusion: there had been more local extinctions in the southern part of the butterfly’s range due to urban development than in the north, so only the statistical averages moved north, not the butterflies. There was no correlated local change in temperature anyway, and the butterflies have since recovered throughout their range. When Steele asked Parmesan for her data, she refused. Parmesan’s paper continues to be cited as evidence of climate change. Steele meanwhile is derided as a “denier”. 
Jim Hansen, recently retired as head of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at NASA, won over a million dollars in lucrative green prizes, regularly joined protests against coal plants and got himself arrested while at the same time he was in charge of adjusting and homogenising one of the supposedly objective data sets on global surface temperature. How would he be likely to react if told of evidence that climate change is not such a big problem?  
Michael Oppenheimer, of Princeton University, who frequently testifies before Congress in favour of urgent action on climate change, was the Environmental Defense Fund’s senior scientist for nineteen years and continues to advise it. The EDF has assets of $209 million and since 2008 has had over $540 million from charitable foundations, plus $2.8 million in federal grants. In that time it has spent $11.3 million on lobbying, and has fifty-five people on thirty-two federal advisory committees. How likely is it that they or Oppenheimer would turn around and say global warming is not likely to be dangerous? His snout is too far into the trough of grant money to even conceive of telling any truth in this matter.
Why is it acceptable, asks the blogger Donna Laframboise, for the IPCC to “put a man who has spent his career cashing cheques from both the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Greenpeace in charge of its latest chapter on the world’s oceans?” She’s referring to the University of Queensland’s dud predictionist ,Ove Hoegh-Guldberg. 
The IPCC actually admits the possibility of lukewarming within its consensus, because it gives a range of possible future temperatures: it thinks the world will be between about 1.5 and four degrees warmer on average by the end of the century. That’s a huge range, from marginally beneficial to terrifyingly harmful, so it is hardly a consensus of danger, and if you look at the “probability density functions” of climate sensitivity, they always cluster towards the lower end.  
What is more, in the small print describing the assumptions of the “representative concentration pathways”, it admits that the top of the range will only be reached if sensitivity to carbon dioxide is high (which is doubtful); if world population growth re-accelerates (which is unlikely); if carbon dioxide absorption by the oceans slows down (which is improbable); and if the world economy goes in a very odd direction, giving up gas but increasing coal use tenfold (which is implausible)… Above all, the temperature has failed to rise as predicted by the models over the last 18 years..
Amazingly, it’s been largely up to bloggers to expose some of the warmists’ biggests cons and exaggerations.
Notice, by the way, how many of these fearless free-thinkers prepared to tell emperors
they are naked are women. Susan Crockford, a Canadian zoologist, has steadfastly exposed the myth-making that goes into polar bear alarmism, to the obvious discomfort of the doyens of that field.
Jennifer Marohasy, (photo left) of Central Queensland University, by persistently asking why cooling trends recorded at Australian weather stations with no recorded moves were being altered to warming trends, has embarrassed the Bureau of Meteorology into a review of their procedures, 
But male sceptics have scored successes too. There was the case of the paper the IPCC relied upon to show that urban heat islands (the fact that cities are generally warmer than the surrounding countryside, so urbanisation causes local, but not global, warming) had not exaggerated recent warming. This paper turned out—as the sceptic Doug Keenan (photo right) proved—to be based partly on non-existent data on forty-nine weather stations in China. When corrected, it emerged that the urban heat island effect actually accounted for 40 per cent of the warming in China. 

There was the Scandinavian lake sediment core that was cited as evidence of sudden recent warming, when it was actually being used “upside down"—the opposite way the authors of the study thought it should be used: so if anything it showed cooling. 
There was the graph showing unprecedented recent warming that turned out to depend on just one Larch tree in the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. There was the southern hemisphere hockey-stick that had been created by the omission of inconvenient data series. There was the infamous “hide the decline” incident when a tree-ring-derived graph had been truncated to disguise the fact that it seemed to show recent cooling.  
And of course there was the mother of all scandals, the “hockey stick” itself: a graph that purported to show the warming of the last three decades of the twentieth century as unprecedented in a millennium, a graph that the IPCC was so thrilled with that it published it six times in its third assessment report and displayed it behind the IPCC chairman at his press conference. It was a graph that persuaded me to abandon my scepticism (until I found out about its flaws), because I thought Nature magazine would never have published it without checking. And it is a graph that was systematically shown by Steven McIntyre (photo below) and Ross McKitrick (photo above) to be wholly misleading, as McKitrick recounts in glorious detail in his chapter in ''The Facts.'' 
Steven McIntyre
Its hockey-stick shape depended heavily on one set of data from bristlecone pine trees in the American south-west, enhanced by a statistical approach to over-emphasise some 200 times any hockey-stick shaped graph. Yet bristlecone tree-rings do not, according to those who collected the data, reflect temperature at all… There was the time Steven McIntyre found that an Antarctic temperature trend arose “entirely from the impact of splicing the two data sets together”. 
Or when Willis Eschenbach showed a published chart had “cut the modern end of the ice core carbon dioxide record short, right at the time when carbon dioxide started to rise again” about 8000 years ago, thus omitting the startling but inconvenient fact that carbon dioxide levels rose while temperatures fell over the following millennia.
The Way I See may not be accidental that this travesty of science has happened during a period when the most important philosopher of science in recent times, Karl Popper, was being sidelined in the universities. In philosophy it appears that he is not mentioned in courses on epistemology (the theory of knowledge) and in the history and philosophy of science he is depicted as an interesting transitional figure between the early part of the century and modern times, but now he is out of date. I think this is not true and we will pay a bitter price if scientists don’t rediscover the importance of testing and serious critical thinking.

The Warming Scare doesn't Die - Despite the Cost & Evidence !

Matt Ridley, who describes himself as a ''Climate Lukewarmer'', speaks out on the Horrific Cost in Cash and Lives of the Global Warming Movement......because the Left needs it !

Climate policy is already doing harm. Building wind turbines, growing biofuels and substituting
wood for coal in power stations — all policies designed explicitly to fight climate change — have had negligible effects on carbon dioxide emissions. But they have driven people into fuel poverty, made industries uncompetitive, driven up food prices, accelerated the destruction of forests, killed rare birds of prey, and divided communities.

To name just some of the effects. Mr Indur Goklany estimates that globally nearly 200,000 people are dying every year, because we are turning 5 per cent of the world’s grain crop into motor fuel instead of food: that pushes people into malnutrition and death. In [Britain], 65 people a day are dying because they cannot afford to heat their homes properly, according to Christine Liddell of the
University of Ulster, yet the government is planning to double the cost of electricity to consumers by 2030.

As professor Bjorn Lomborg has pointed out, the European Union will pay £165 billion for its current climate policies each and every year for the next 87 years. Britain’s climate policies — subsidising windmills, wood-burners, anaerobic digesters, electric vehicles and all the rest — is due to cost us £1.8 trillion over the course of this century. In exchange for that Brobdingnagian sum, we hope to
lower the air temperature by about 0.005?C — which will be undetectable by normal thermometers. The accepted consensus among economists is that every £100 spent fighting climate change brings £3 of benefit.

There has been no real warming of the atmosphere for 17+ years. There has been no increase in cyclones, and little evidence of a worldwide increase of droughts. Most of the low-lying Pacific and Indian ocean islands we were once warned were drowning are either stable or growing in size.  The world’s main food crops have had record harvests. The Arctic has not melted away, after all, and the Antarctic sea ice has been at record levels. Our dams are as full as ever.

In short, the catastrophe that warmists and our top scientific bodies have warned of for years has not come. It is now doubtful it will ever come.
Yet to this day, hoodwinked journalists, Marxist-loving green groups, an asshole AMA president Brian Owler, politicians and many (but far from all) scientists insist global warming is a massive threat and continue to push vastly expensive schemes that would actually not stop global warming even if it was occurring.

Steven Hayward (below) suggests an answer:
Try this out as a thought experiment: what would happen if, tomorrow morning, we had definitive proof that catastrophic climate change was impossible, wasn’t happening, and would never happen. Would Al Gore breathe a big sigh of relief… Of course not. The general reaction from environmentalists and the left would be a combination of outrage and despair. The need to believe in oneself as part of the agency of human salvation runs deep for leftists and the heretic environmentalists who have made their obsessions a secular religion. And humanity doesn’t need salvation if there is no sin in the first place. Hence human must be sinners—somehow—in need of redemption from the left.
The Way I See It......activist liberal elites always need a Grand Cause to satisfy their messianic needs, or for the political equivalent of a dopamine rush. For such people, the only thing worse that catastrophic climate change is the catastrophe of not having a catastrophe to obsess over—and use as an excuse to extend political control over people and resources.
NOTE:  Matt Ridley is an English science journalist and writes a  regular column for the Wall Street Journal and this month wrote an extensive article in the prestige's  science journal Quadrant entitled "The Climate Wars' Damage to Science''

Saturday, June 20, 2015

The Pope Rants Against Air Conditioning ? God Help Us !

 The Pope derides those who have “blind faith” in technological advances as a solution to climate change. Instead, his encyclical declares that the world must stop consuming so much. That, he says, will help the poor people who stand to be affected most by global warming. That is troubling, because technical innovation is exactly what we need more of.
Pope Francis pontificates: People may well have a growing ecological sensitivity but it has not succeeded in changing their harmful habits of consumption which, rather than decreasing, appear to be growing all the more. A simple example is the increasing use and power of air-conditioning. The markets, which immediately benefit from sales, stimulate ever greater demand. An outsider looking at our world would be amazed at such behaviour, which at times appears self-destructive.
Recycling paper, actually a biodegradable product of a renewable resource, is now a religious issue?
These problems are closely linked to a throwaway culture which affects the excluded just as it quickly reduces things to rubbish. To cite one example, most of the paper we produce is thrown away and not recycled.
It is hard to read an encyclical with such passages as a religious document.
But worse is that it contains so much emotional and apocalyptic claptrap of the kind we’d expect in a fundraising pamphlet from Greenpeace but not in a papal encyclical:
The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life. This is why the earth herself, burdened and laid waste, is among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor.
A “sickness evident in the soil”?  And in “all forms of life”? The earth “laid waste”?  Seriously?
And isn’t it a serious moral error to regard pollution as a sin as great as the worst maltreatment of a human being? This is the voice of pantheism, now triumphant in the Vatican.
There is something manic in this railing:
The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth. In many parts of the planet, the lament that once beautiful landscapes are now covered with rubbish.
This is simply not true of vast parts of our planet. Go outside and see for yourself.

Nor is this true:
A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events, even if a scientifically determinable cause cannot be assigned to each particular phenomenon… The melting in the polar ice caps and in high altitude plains can lead to the dangerous release of methane gas.
In fact, there has been a pause in warming of the global atmosphere that has lasted at least 17 years, to the puzzlement of warmist scientists. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change itself struggles to find any evidence of “an increase of extreme weather events”, such as cyclones, storms or droughts. One of the two polar ice caps has actually seen an increase in sea ice extent, and the other has seen no further deterioration for several years.

The Pope does not consider the cost to the poor of the shift he now advocates:
There is an urgent need to develop policies so that, in the next few years, the emission of carbon dioxide and other highly polluting gases can be drastically reduced, for example, substituting for fossil fuels and developing sources of renewable energy.

The Way I See It.....a shift to green power will in many cases mean a big increase in the cost of electricity, keeping it beyond the reach of the poorest people in the world. This is the very point stressed by India, whose Prime Minister has set himself the goal of bring electricity to those who have none. Also, Humanity’s answer to huge levels of famine wasn’t to insist we should eat less.

There is much in the encyclical that is worth considering, not least its appeals to consider the poor, the central importance of the family and the cost of pollution. There is also an argument against abortion which I doubt that the greens now hailing the Pope will demand we heed as they demand we heed his climate alarmism.

But too much of the document seems simply alarmist and just one impatient man’s grumpy opinion. 

Unholy Alliance: The Pope's in Bed with the Pagan Greens !

Smiling, lovable, Pope Francis says and does the darndest things. Wildly popular, this Argentine pontiff provides the common touch that for millions, and not just Catholics, offers a welcome and very public picture of how the world’s most influential religious leader can live, pray and lead as a
humble pastor.

With the much anticipated release of Francis’ environmental encyclical, Laudato Si, today, many faithful who rightly see this pope as yes, Catholic, will nonetheless be focused on the weight of the environmental assertions and claims that fill this nearly 200-page document. And the questions will begin with those who have been enlisted to promote Laudato Si, some of whom are decidedly on the wrong side of Catholic teaching.

Let’s begin with economist Jeffrey Sachs, a prominent supporter of abortion and population control, who was invited to speak at a conference on climate change at the Vatican.  And does it bother anyone else, for instance, that Pope Francis – or the curial officials advising him – have chosen as his only lay advisor on the subject of climate change Hans Joachim Schellnhuber?  And exactly why is the Vatican itching to tackle climate change in the first place? What about recognizing the thousands of Christians being slaughtered across the Middle East and have the Vatican show it's anger?

Investors Business Daily has speculated:
(The) Vatican has been infiltrated by followers of a radical green movement that is, at its core, anti-Christian, anti-people, anti-poor and anti-development.  The basic tenets of Catholicism ­ – the sanctity of human life and the value of all souls – are detested by the modern pagan environmentalists who worship the created, but not the creator…Big Green believes too many human beings are the basic global problem.  People, according to this view, are resource destroyers.  Climate change, they say, is due to overpopulation of Mother Earth.

Enter Hans Schellnhuber, (more like a Hanswurst), a German scientist who came up with the 2 degrees Centigrade temperature limit and is known for his radical ideas on climate change. That is, we must limit any increase in global warming to 2 degrees or humanity faces unavoidable catastrophe. In 2009, for example, he claimed famously that the “carrying capacity” of the Earth is less then one billion people. It will be interesting to see if he still holds these views in the near future, and if so, what advice he will offer on how to adjust that number, given that the world’s population currently stands at 7.2 billion.

Schellnhuber, (photo left) is director of Germany’s Potsdam Institute, which has been crafting data, indicating alarming climate change like the 2 degree trigger, to frighten German politicians into adopting radical climate policies.  His predictions are based on yet to be validated, computer-generated models, predicting doomsday scenarios.  In reality, satellite data confirms there has been no notable warming for the past 18 years. Sea ice is on the rise. Crop production is increasing.  Hurricane numbers are down. Sea level rise has declined for the past decade – all of the catastrophes Schellnhuber predicted – are not happening. Both he and Al Gore should be hanged!

Perhaps that is why Schellnhuber revised his 2011 statement that the emissions curve needs to peak no later than 2020 in order to meet the 2 degree target.  Now he says: at latest by 2030.  Funny how climate change alarmists will keep adjusting their predictions instead of evaluating new data. That’s an example of why some call climate change “a moral crusade in search of a scientific theory.”

Schellnhuber is also the director of the WBGU, the German Advisory Council on Global Change.  The council is made up of nine scientists.  Their primary task is to advise policymakers in Germany and worldwide on how we should deal with climate change.

Their 446-page ''Master Plan'' for “The Great Transformation of Global Society,” was designed to fast-track Germany, and the world, into “sustainability” and an almost carbon-free society by 2050. Their draconian recommendations have caused the price of electricity to rise so substantially, Germans have taken to calling their electric bill their “second rent.”  Bastards!

To reduce carbon emissions, the German government has invested heavily in wind and solar power.  But these methods have proved to be unreliable and unsustainable without government subsidy, tearing at the German economy. Any idiot could've told them that!

Recommendations in the WBGU “Master Plan” include a “future council” made up of a few, non-elected men who would have the power to veto democratic decisions it deemed unacceptable.  But a backlash against this kind of threat to democracy is brewing in Germany.

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung  (FAZ), the German equivalent of the Washington Post, has been highly critical of Schellnhuber, and writes that one of the fundamental aims of the WBGU was changing Germany’s constitutional law: climate protection was to become an official state priority. The WBGU even called it a test for democracy, claiming that if society failed to act, it would tell us that democracy was no longer capable of functioning in the face of crisis. The FAZ disagrees, saying that the WBGU “failed to trick their way past democracy.”

Pope Francis, it seems, has been badly misinformed and led astray by advisors such as Schellnhuber.  However, contrary to what global warming extremists suggest, the science of climate change is not decided.

Thomas D. Williams (photo left) wrote on Breitbart News:  “… a group of 90 prominent scientists, religious leaders and academics have written an open letter to Pope Francis.  The writers profess their appreciation for the Pope’s efforts on behalf of the environment and his commitment to the Judeo-Christian principle of ’responsible stewardship’ for creation, but suggest that the people closest to him may not be providing him with all the facts about climate change.”

One of the most powerful arguments the authors put forward is the effect that alarmist proposals of carbon-reduction would have on the world’s poorest populations, especially given the pope’s ongoing insistence on a preferential love for the most vulnerable among us.

“The world’s poor will suffer from such policies,” the writers say.  The poorest 1.3 billion in developing countries depend on wood and dried dung as primary cooking and heating fuels, he and other scientists contend, adding: “In light of the evidence, we believe it both unwise and unjust to adopt policies requiring reduced use of fossil fuels for energy.  Such policies would condemn hundreds of millions of our fellow human beings to ongoing poverty and end up hating the Pope”
It is my sincere hope and prayer that Pope Francis listens to them.

The Way I See It......I’m not into conspiracy theories — all that winking about lead teeth fillings, Zionists and the September 11 inside job.

So normally I’d have laughed as the Greens did when former ABC chairman Maurice Newman last month warned that global warming was a cloak for some crazies who resented democracy and believed in a “new world order”. Nuts, right?

But then comes along this Climate Hitler, Hans Schellnhuber (rhymes with Shicklgruber), climate adviser to the Pope, and one of the three men who will today present this ignorant, activist Pope’s encyclical on the environment. Schellnhuber, has a dream: a “sophisticated — and therefore a more frightening— version of the conventional ‘world government’ notion where millions will die”.

It is tragic to see the Catholic Church beguiled by the pagan faith of the nature worshippers.

Sunday, June 14, 2015

Larry Pickering on the Dilutional West to a Death Cult !

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. If he was right, then Government policies for combating Islamic violence are nothing short of insane.

Over and over they continue with the same old claptrap theory. “If we just give enough money and recognition to 'moderate' Muslims, these people will fix our problems for us”.

This assumption is so flawed on so many levels that it is difficult to know where to begin. I will however try to outline a few of the more glaringly obvious insanities underpinning this fantasy.

Anyone who knows the story of Mohammed will understand that his life is the example for Muslims to follow. During the 23 years that he declared himself a prophet, Mohammed’s behaviour went through a number of stages.

During the early days in Mecca, he was without power and surrounded by a potentially hostile peer group. At that time, he was preaching cautiously, measured and “moderate”. As he gained more followers and more power however, his tone became steadily more confrontational. He ridiculed the religion of his contemporaries and demanded that they convert to his religion or rot in Hell.

Eventually, he would flee to Medina where his power grew exponentially. Within short measure, he began sending war parties to attack, rob, enslave and kill those who would not submit to him and his religion.
This violent, “extremist” phase was far more successful than his “moderate” phase.   During this period he went from being leader of around 150 souls, to being the King of
all Arabia.
Mohammed’s stated goal was the conquest of the whole world by Islam. His tactics and strategies are believed by devout Muslims to be God given models for success.

Mohammed’s early “moderate” stance is seen by Islamic strategists as a necessary stage of Islamic conquest in times and places where Islam is weak. It is not seen as a goal in itself.

The strategy of trying to boost moderates within the Islamic community is therefore doomed to failure on two fronts. Firstly, politicians seem utterly clueless with regard to what a moderate Muslim looks like.

The second problem is that “moderation” is something that is imposed on Muslims through lack of power and opportunity. The more money, power and resources we shower on them, the more likely they are to jettison their moderation and move up to the next level.

A classic example of this, is President Obama’s promotion of the Boston Islamic Centre as a haven of moderation. I’m sure that the official recognition of their importance in combating “extremism” comes with all sorts of generous grants and funding. The full extent of this largesse will be revealed in time, but as Barry’s favourite Mosque, I’m guessing that the figures will be substantial.

Despite (or perhaps because of) the support they have received from the American taxpayer, their record of moderation is less than impressive. In fact, no fewer than 12 of their members have turned out to be hard core terrorists. If it had been just one or two casual attendees who turned out to harbour extreme views, we could put this down to coincidence. More than three is starting to look suspicious, but twelve?

One of these twelve, is Abdurahman Alamoudi, the founder and first President of the mosque (above), who was sentenced in 2004 to 23 years in jail for plotting terrorism and raising money for Al-Qaeda. Surely that should raise some eyebrows in this day and age.
Other notable worshippers include:
  • MIT scientist-turned-al Qaeda agent Aafia Siddiqui. Known as “Lady al Qaeda”. In 2010 she received 86 years in prison for planning a New York chemical attack. She is a relative of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and ISIS wanted to trade her release for journalists they were holding.
  • Tarek Mehanna, who was sentenced to 17 years in prison in 2012 for a plot to murder shoppers in a suburban Boston mall using automatic weapons.
  • Mosque trustee and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi. He was banned from the US after issuing a fatwa calling for the murder of US soldiers.
  • Former trustee, Jamal Badawi  (below) was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a plan to
    funnel more than $12 million to Palestinian suicide bombers.
The burning question of course is, how come the President of the USA can’t figure out that this Mosque is not a "haven of moderation”? He has access to sources of information that make Google look like a pocket dictionary. The NSA, the FBI and the CIA have multi-billion dollar budgets. They can intercept every phone call or email anywhere in the world. If a mouse breaks wind in South Waziristan, they will know about it.

The answer lies in the way governments operate. They are huge unwieldy bureaucracies which react to incentives and influence. Influence comes in two main forms, money and votes. Of course Western Governments need votes, but with enough money they can afford slick marketing campaigns to bring these in.

The interests of the money backers generally conflict with the interests of the voters. The trick therefore is to offer just enough to the voters to get you over the line without compromising the interests of your financial sugar daddies.
This system is deeply flawed but as Churchill pointed out, the only systems which are worse are all those we tried before. 
There are many different groups exerting influence on governments. Some of the most influential include the farm lobby, the union movement, the tobacco and alcohol lobbies, big pharma and, in the US, the gun lobby.

One group which is widely assumed to have enormous power is the Jewish lobby. Some people seem convinced that every decision that every Western government makes is directed by shadowy Zionist Jews who undoubtedly punch well above their weight in such matters. They also seem to be overrepresented in our deeply flawed monetary and banking system. That said, I believe that today, there is a far more influential group whose ultimate aim is far scarier than anything the pro-Israel lobby is likely to dump on us.

In his 2004 film, Fahrenheit 911, committed socialist Michael Moore (right) attempts to film outside the embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington. Within minutes he is surrounded by a group of men in black suits and sunglasses, who are almost caricatures of FBI special agents. They demanded to know what he was doing and whisked him out of the area before you could say  “Radical Jihad”.

According to Moore, in the aftermath of 9/11 when America’s staunchest ally, John Howard was grounded due to suspicions he might be a terrorist, the FBI was flying around the country picking up members of Bin Laden’s family and the Saudi Royals before flying them out of the country. He points out that the Saudis have a trillion dollars invested in the US stock market and another trillion invested in the US banking system. He further shows that when Dubya was drilling for oil in Texas, losses were picked up by the Saudis to the tune of more than a billion dollars.

Kudos to Michael Moore for pointing out the outrageous links of the Republicans and their oil mates to a foreign power whose basic ideology is disturbingly similar to the Taliban. Fair play to him for pointing out that the media was given a free pass by refusing to investigate links between the Republicans and Islamic extremists.

What he has failed to note however, is that the Press have also refused to investigate the links between the Democrats and Islamic extremists since Obama took over the Whitehouse. In fact, one of Obama’s first overseas trips as President was to Saudi Arabia, where he bowed low to the Saudi King.
Obama's list of White House advisers reads like a “Who’s who” of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Had he investigated this “free pass” further, it might have occurred to him that the Press couldn’t be on the side of the Republicans AND the Democrats. If they aren’t, then the only logical conclusion would be that the free pass is in fact being extended to the high ranking Saudis and Islamic extremists.

It is inevitable and expected that elected governments pander to their financial backers, generally to the detriment of their citizens. However when politicians promote the interests of a foreign power which seeks the overthrow of the Government itself, they leave themselves open to the charge of treason.

Tony Blair rather astutely sidestepped this risk by abolishing the crime of treason in the UK. The Queen then obligingly signed this Bill into law. The intention may have been to avoid prosecution for signing away the power of the British Parliament to a foreign power in Brussels. Conveniently however, it also gives them cover for the promotion of the Islamic political and legal systems, including the setting up of Sharia courts across the British Isles.

Closer to home, Tony Abbott has been a major disappointment to his core constituents who still believe in such quaint ideas as freedom of speech. In a recent development he has caved in to pressure from voters to establish an inquiry into the Halal rort.
In a brazen display of just how keen Abbott is to not fix this issue however, the Government has appointed Sam Dastyari to head the committee of inquiry. Sam Dastyari is an Iranian born Labor senator who was parachuted in a casual vacancy.
The ALP website proudly tells us that his parents were student activists in the Iranian Revolution.
I assume that was the same Iranian revolution where student activists invaded the US Embassy, took all the Embassy staff hostage and threatened to kill them if their demands weren’t met. These student activists reportedly played Russian roulette with the unfortunate handcuffed Americans, repeatedly threatened them with execution and even carried out a mock execution on the blindfolded and handcuffed prisoners in the middle of the night.

Aside from this, they were regularly seen on TV chanting death to America and its allies, burning American flags and screaming their allegiance to the goals of the Islamic revolution. Tony Abbott’s decision to put someone from such a background in charge of the Halal investigation screams a message to those who are listening. It tells us that Tony Abbott is putting the interests of Islamic money men above the interests of  “We the people”.

The great tragedy is that Tony Abbott  (photo right) is far and away the best of a rotten bunch. If Labor and the Greens come to power after the next election they will sell us down the river without a single moment’s hesitation. This would be a disaster for the freedom and prosperity of the people of this great nation.

The knowledge of what is happening is now widespread and ignorance of the law is no excuse. The government has received copies of my book and thousands of Pickering Post readers have written to them asking them to read it and consider the implications. I feel confident that many others have done likewise. The committee considering Halal will also be receiving a copy each so they cannot pretend that they are unaware of the issues involved.

The Way I See this point in time, I believe we need to put our leaders on notice that their support for our sworn enemies constitutes treason. We also need to be vigilant. Australian politicians may well follow Tony Blair’s appalling example and abolish the crime of treason altogether. When your government legalises plots to overthrow a legitimate democratic government, you need to start paying attention.

In the meantime, we all need to redouble our efforts to educate Australians about the dangers we face. I have confidence that once we reach critical mass, cheerleaders for Islam will be forced to capitulate. When that happens, the whole charade may well unravel faster than anyone could imagine. This might sound fanciful but no-one predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall, until it fell.

If it does happen, the backlash against politicians, councillors, journalists and other treacherous leaders will be ferocious. I for one will have little sympathy for them.