Thursday, April 23, 2015

What In the World ? A Climate Denial Course 101

Queensland University of Queensland, Australia, states that keeping ahead of climate change deniers is exhausting. The problem is that the simple question “What is causing climate change?” has an infinite number of wrong answers and only a few correct ones.

Almost every week deniers cook up some new theory, each more ludicrous than the last: The sun is getting hotter (coming in a future posting). The thermometers are in the wrong places. It’s all part of a natural cycle. Scientists are liars. Something about cosmic rays (ignoring The Chilling Stars). The multiplicity of these facts gives climate change deniers an advantage in debates—they know exactly what scientists are going to say, but scientists have no idea what cockamamie theories to prepare for.

For this reason and others, climate change denial has become its own field of academic study, and the University of Queensland means to cash in on it, separate from the science of climate change itself. And, like any legitimate field of study, climate change denial has its own massive open online course, or MOOC. It'll stop at nothing to help muddy the waters of climate science to graduate more brainwashed souls into their global warming religion.

John Cook, (the same asshole who did the sham study that 97% consensus paper and did a ''Colonial Clink'' on anyone questioning it) is a climate communication fellow at the University of Queensland and the creator of the website pushing warming dogma, Skeptical Science, is coordinating the course. It will feature climatologists, modellers, chemists, computer scientists, meteorologists, and glaciologists—real scientists talking about science, pushing the ''it's settled'' line rather than honestly looking at the facts. Is it a crazy idea to think that these are the REAL deniers !.

The eight-week course will give students a grounding in the science of the greenhouse effect and climate change (which will hopefully be a review), as well as explain why the most common climate denial theories are wrong. The instructors will address the alleged (but real) “pause” in global warming and the role the sun plays in changes to the earth’s temperature.

The teachers will also discuss the psychology of climate denial. Al Gore famously attributed climate science resistance to people’s fear of losing their jobs (is he serious??).  Social scientists now tell us that it’s far more complicated than that. Climate change denialism (actually scepticism) is linked more strongly to political conservatism and dislike of government regulation than to economic vulnerability. This is called “motivated reasoning,” the tendency to accept evidence selectively based on a pre-existing belief. As David Robert Grimes (photo left) pointed out last year in the socialist Guardian, the best quote to describe the situation is Leon Festinger's observation that “a man with a conviction is a hard man to change.''

Motivated reasoning is just one of many explanations for the phenomenon. There is also evidence that climate change denial is a form of tribalism. The psychology of climate deniers is a fascinating topic.

The university touts, ''With a virtual diploma from the upcoming MOOC, you can turn a debate with a climate change denier from an argument over science into a deep exploration of your opponent’s motivations and psyche.'' I guess that’s a lot more interesting than the climate “debate” itself, which is, you know,''settled''.

About this course (in Uni-Speak)

In public discussions, climate change is a highly controversial topic. However, in the scientific community, there is proven consensus that 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming has been discredited.
  • Why the gap between the public and scientists?
  • What are the psychological and social drivers of the rejection of the scientific consensus?
  • How has climate denial influenced public perceptions and attitudes towards climate change?
This course examines the science of climate science denial.

We will look at the most common climate myths from “global warming stopped in 1998” (boy are they out of touch) to “global warming is caused by the sun” (ignore a 11/14 paper published in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics) to “climate impacts are nothing to worry about.”

We’ll find out what lessons are to be learnt from past climate change as well as better understand how climate models predict future climate impacts. You’ll learn both the science of climate change and the techniques used to distort the science, but we won't mention ''Climate-Gate.''

With every myth we debunk, you’ll learn the critical thinking needed to identify the fallacies associated with the myth. Finally, armed with all this knowledge, you’ll learn the psychology of misinformation. This will equip you to effectively respond to climate misinformation and debunk myths. This isn’t just a climate MOOC; it’s a MOOC about how people think about climate change.

  What you'll learn
  • How to recognise the social and psychological drivers of climate science denial
  • How to better understand climate change: the evidence that it is happening, that humans are causing it and the potential impacts
  • How to identify the techniques and fallacies that climate myths employ to distort climate science
  • How to effectively debunk climate misinformation.
Gavin Cawley

Some of the Instructors:

Daniel Bedford
On the University website there is a Rogues Gallery of a ''Bakers Dozen'' of these climate ideologues and many of those with their snouts so far in the government Grant Trough their reputations as impartial scientists seem to be finished.
bio for Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
Our Dud-Predictor
 Ove .H. Guldberg

Sunday, April 19, 2015

97 Per Cent of Climate Scientist's Consensus Actually 0.3% !

Richard Tol, (photo right) a former leader author of the infamous Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says the famous paper claiming that 97 per cent of scientists back global warming tells us only that the climate community is pushing creditability:
Now almost two years old, John Cook’s 97 per cent consensus paper on anthropogenic global warming has been a runaway success. Downloaded more than 300,000 times, voted the best 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters, frequently cited by peers and politicians from around the world, the paper seems to be the definitive proof that the science of climate change is settled. It isn’t…

Cook and colleagues argue 97 per cent of the relevant academic literature endorses that humans have contributed to observed climate change. This is suspect....  In popular discourse, however, Cook’s finding is often misrepresented. The 97 per cent refers to the number of papers, rather than the number of scientists
(it's important except for the part about 97% being really 0.3% !
The alleged consensus is about any human role in climate change, rather than a dominant role, and it is about ­climate change rather than the dangers it might pose.
Although there are large areas of substantive agreement, climate science is far from settled. Witness the dozens of alternative explanations of the near 18-year pause in warming of the surface atmosphere. The debate on the seriousness of ­climate change or what to do about it ranges even more widely.
The Cook paper is remarkable for its quantity, though. Cook and colleagues studied 12,000 papers, but did not check whether their sample is representative for the scientific literature. It isn’t. Their conclusions are about the papers they happened to look at, rather than about the literature. Attempts to replicate their sample failed: a number of papers that should have been analysed were not, for no apparent reason.
The sample was padded with irrelevant papers. An article about TV coverage on global warming was taken as evidence for global warming. In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter…

Cook’s hand-picked raters disagreed on what a paper was about 33 per cent of the time. In 63 per cent of cases, they disagreed about the message of a paper with the authors of that paper… Cook’s employer argued that releasing rater identities would violate a confidentiality agreement. That agreement does not exist… Time stamps reveal that ... one of Cook’s raters inspected 675 abstracts within 72 hours, a superhuman ­effort…   There's that creditability factor again. Some questioning by a curious scientist, Brendon Shollenburger, caused him to receive a letter threatening a law suit for even thinking of finding unhidden secret data and commenting on it.  This is really starting to smell like another Climate-Gate! 

UPDATE:   Here's some alarming stuff, straight out of a Hollywood script, and reported by the warmist Sydney Morning Herald as indisputable fact:

1)  Gulf Stream water currents in the Atlantic Ocean have slowed to the weakest in as long as 1,000 years, threatening shifts in US and European weather, as well as coastal sea levels including in New York and Boston…
2)  Researchers have for years raised concerns that shifts in the Gulf Stream may change the climate in Europe. ...                                                                                                    3)  Climate models should be updated as they underestimate the effects of the temperature swings and ice melt, Pennsylvania State University’s Michael Mann said in the statement.
But wait! Michael ”HOCKEY STICK'' Mann?  Whoa....there’s a warning right there! (photo of Mr Shonky-Stick at right)

In fact, other climate scientists can't see what Mann and co-author Stefan Rahmstorf are describing:
Climate scientist Martin Visbeck of the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel sees Rahmstorf’s interpretation of the results critically: ‘The study’s focus on the sub-polar part of the Atlantic and the spectral analysis are interesting,’ he says. ''But there are other AMOC assessments that point to a completely other development. The paper does not offer any strong indication of the development of the AMOC during the past fifty years.”

[AMOC is the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, the larger circulation system of which the Gulf Stream is a part.] Meanwhile, Watts Up With That notes that a reader Jaime Jessop asked Mann an inconvenient question on his FaceBook page, quoting a study indicating the change in AMOC is due to “natural variability”. Mann first answered, but then deleted his response. Was this another ''Gottca'' moment, reminiscent of the Hockey Stick fiasco.

As WUWT reported on a peer reviewed paper last year, H. Thomas Rossby (photo left) says: URI oceanographer refutes claims that climate change is slowing pace of Gulf Stream saying in a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters:
''The ADCP measures currents at very high accuracy, and so through the repeat measurements we take year after year, we have a very powerful tool by which to monitor the strength of the current,” said Rossby. “There are variations of the current over time that are natural — and yes, we need to understand these better — but we find absolutely no evidence that suggests that the Gulf Stream is slowing down.”
Of course, Rahmstorf and Mann don’t list Rossby’s study in their references, nor seem to use the “highly accurate” ADCP data. Instead they use a model along with [proxies, reconstructions, and] the highly interpolated GISS data to come to the conclusions they want. So, it isn’t surprising they are chasing phantoms in their study. They claim (in Figure 1 from their paper) that this cold spot south of Greenland is caused by meltwater from Greenland and it is evidence of a slowed circulation…
And then there’s this other problem; Greenland's ice mass seems to be on the increase so far this year and above the 1990-2011 mean:   (see Blue Line below)

The Way I See It......this would have been an amusing how-not-to tale for our students. But Cook’s is one of the most influential papers of recent years. The paper was vigorously defended by the University of Queensland (Cook’s employer) and the editors of Environmental Research Letters, with the Institute of Physics (the publisher) looking on in silence. Incompetence was compounded by cover-up and complacency…
Cook’s team may, perhaps unwittingly (not), have worked towards a given conclusion.  If you want to believe climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s paper is an excellent case in point. There's seems to be more wishful thinking and fact fiddling in the warmist community than the Truth. The Truth-is-out-there alright, but on the sceptics side.

25 Years as Skeptical Scientists and They're Still Right !

It is 25 years since two scientists announced that their satellite data showed the world was not warming as fast as had been thought.

Professor John  Christy
Professor John Christy, Director of the Earth System Science Center from the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Roy Spencer, climatologist and principal research scientist at the
university, discuss their careers with a reporter from the Atlanta
Local Newspaper ( as sceptics of the theory that man is heating the world catastrophically:
Professor Roy Spencer
Spencer:  It wasn’t too long after [John] came here that we were at a meeting… We were discussing and asking, ''Don’t we have something better than the thermometer data to monitor global temperatures?'' [UAH scientist] Dick McNider said, ‘What about the microwave sounders we have on the weather satellites?...”  And that's how we started to look into the basis and reality of global warming hysteria. How do you respond to the perception that 97 percent of scientists agree on climate change? [The Wall Street Journal in 2013 reported on the ''myth'' of the 97 per cent.
Christy: The impression people make with that statement is that 97 percent of scientists agree with my view of climate change, which typically is one of catastrophic change. So if a Senate hearing or the president or vice president says 97 percent of the scientists agree with me, that’s not true. The American Meteorological Society did their survey and they specifically asked the question, Is man the dominate controller of climate over the last 50 years? Only 52 per cent said ''yes''. That is not a consensus at all in science.

Then when you look at the core of that question, the core is do you believe that man has some influence on the climate. I don’t know anyone who would say no to that… Roy and I have both made the statement that we are in the 97 percent because we believe in some (man-made) effect…

  Spencer: Whoever came up with that, it was very powerful.. It was very misleading, but it was a good idea… Adding CO2 to the atmosphere probably adds some warming. The science on that is pretty solid. But then the devil’s in the details. How much warming does it actually cause?  The extra 100 ppm increase in the last 15 years looks like it actually hasn't had much of an effect except make our planet greener (according to satellite pictures) and with higher crop yields and taller trees. When you hear about the catastrophic effects of climate change, data from reputable organizations such as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or NASA is frequently cited. How do you respond to that?

Christy: NASA, NOAA, EPA, DOE, those are agencies. Agency leaders are appointed by the government, by the current administration. They do not represent objective independent scientific organizations. They can’t. They are appointed by the head. They try. People who come out with different views in their organizations are found to be squashed. There is an agenda in those agencies.. There are skeptics in NASA and NOAA, a good number. But they are quiet. They know in this administration, they don’t speak out.

Spencer: I know that they’re not unbiased. Most of them probably really do believe we’re destroying the earth. When I talk to scientists who should be objective over a beer at the end of the day, I will argue with them and their final position will always be, ‘Yeah, but we need to get away from fossil fuels anyway.’

Where did that come from? Are you an expert in alternative energy sources and what they cost? How many poor people are you going to hurt? How many more people are you going to make poor through energy poverty because they are paying five to 10 times as much for their energy?…

Christy: I am for any energy source that is affordable and doesn’t destroy the environment. If carbon dioxide was a poisonous gas, I’d be against it.... The world used to have five times as much carbon dioxide as it does now. Plants love this stuff. It creates more food. CO2 is not the problem…
There is absolutely no question that carbon energy provides with longer and better lives. There is no question about that… And for the media and the IPCC to suppress me, is immoral. Why is your research using satellite data a more effective way of measuring climate change than surface temperature? ...
Christy: ...Where is the biggest response to greenhouse gases? It’s in the atmosphere, not on the surface. So if you want to measure the response and say that’s the greenhouse gas response, you would look in the atmosphere. That’s precisely where satellites measure it.
Now a “pause” in the Arctic melt, too:

After shrinking 35 per cent over several decades, the low point reached in Arctic ice cover each year appears to have stabilised. This is despite a record low maximum ice extent this winter…
But the “pause” in summer ice melt extent has been widely ­conceded. A paper published in ­Nature by Neil Swart (photo left) from Environment Canada said  ”from 2007-13 there was a near-zero trend in observed Arctic September sea-ice extent, in large part due to a strong uptick of the icepack in 2013 which has continued into 2014”. Climate scientists ­believe the long-term downward trend in Arctic sea ice has been broken, and 2015 looks much the same. Another DUD prediction from Al Gore.
The Swart et al (2015) paper said “cherry-picking” such short periods could be “misleading about longer-term changes, when such trends show either rapid or slow ice loss”. It says claims a pause in Arctic ice loss disproved climate change were not true.

Ed Wawkins, co-author of the Swart paper and a researcher at Britain’s University of Reading, said it was “quite conceivable that the current period of near-zero sea-ice trend could extend for a decade or more, solely due to weather-induced natural varia­bil­­ity hiding the long-term human caused decline”. But David Whitehouse from the London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation said similar arguments had initially been used to reject the surface temp­erature hiatus.

 The Way I See It......Australian warmists have had an easy time pushing the Greens idealogy; renewable energy. They are also experts in cherry-picking climate facts and yet the mainstream media have been irresponsible in not pointing these out. Here are three very basic facts that they always fail to mention in defending renewable energy which they are so sure is meant to “save” us from global warming:
1. Our renewable energy target will at the very most, according to an IPCC alarmist, reduce the world's temperature by 0.0038 degrees by 2100, presuming the IPCC hasn’t actually exaggerated CO2 sensitivity.
2. Green power actually costs a fortune. Without change, the renewable energy target (RET) will cost Australian taxpayers another $22 billion in years,  making electricity too expensive for the poor and some businesses. Utterly ridiculous !
3. Again, their lips are sealed in mentioning: The world’s atmosphere has not actually warmed for some 17 + years.   Hypocrites clinging to their Communist-Climate mantra.

U.S. Science Committee Gets Curry from Professor Curry !

Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee.

Professor Judith Curry had strong revealing evidence placed before the US House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology hearing this week:

"Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change. This includes'"
- The slow down in global warming since 1998 - Reduced estimates of the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide
- Climate models that are predicting much more warming than has been observed so far in the 21st century
"While there are substantial uncertainties in our understanding of climate change, it is clear that humans are influencing climate in the direction of warming. However this simple truth is essentially meaningless in itself in terms of alarm, and does not mandate a particular policy response."
"We have made some questionable choices in defining the problem of climate change and its solution:'"
- The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century
- Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence…
- It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100.
“I found myself deeply troubled by Dr. Curry’s written and oral testimony,” Rep. Don
Beyer, a Virginia Democrat, said during a hearing Thursday… “… In almost total conflict with anything I’ve read over the last 15 years...” 
But Curry wasn’t about to let Beyer lambaste her testimony and responded to the Democrat’s confused rebuttal....
“Climate is always changing and it’s going to change in the future, the issue is how much of the change is caused by humans,” Curry said....
“… It seems to me very much sticking your head in the sand,” Beyer retorted, adding that debating over which year is the hottest was “silly” since 10 of the last 15 years were record warm years.
“The climate has been warming since the 1700s, okay, since the end of the ‘Little Ice Age,'' Curry explained. “We don’t know what’s causing that warming in the 18th Century, in the 19th Century — it’s not attributed to humans.”
“So there are other things going on in the climate system that have been contributing to warming over several centuries,” Curry said. “We can’t blame all of this on humans,
and we don’t know how all this is going to play out in the 21st Century. We just don’t know.”  
Beyer then ...compared Democrats’ advocacy for carbon dioxide regulations to former Vice President Dick Cheney’s arguing for the use of “enhanced interrogation” on the “one per cent chance” it could prevent al-Qaida from getting a nuclear weapon.
“And are we going to do nothing because there’s a greater than one per cent chance climate change…” Beyer said before being interrupted by Curry. 
“There is nothing in my testimony that says we do nothing,” Curry said. “What is being proposed is ineffective, it’s not going to do anything even if the U.S. is successful at meeting 80 per cent reductions by 2050 this is going to reduce warming by about a tenth of a degree centigrade. It’s not going to do anything.”

She concluded with: ''The inadequacies of current policies based on emissions reduction are leaving the real societal consequences of climate change and extreme weather events largely unaddressed, whether caused by humans or natural variability."

The Way I See It......The central issue in the scientific debate on climate change is the extent to which the recent (and future) warming is caused by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions versus natural climate variability that are caused by variations from the sun, volcanic eruptions, and large-scale ocean circulations.

The wickedness of the climate change problem provides much scope for disagreement among reasonable and intelligent people. Effectively responding to the possible threats from a warmer climate is made very difficult by the deep uncertainties surrounding the risks both from the problem and the proposed solutions.

How many more years of no-warming must there be before our politicians dare to notice what the science is saying?  We need to push the reset button in our deliberations about how we should respond to climate change.

Hilary: Another Warming Idiot Wanting to Lead the Free World !

First we had President Barack Obama’s idiotic explanation for why he became a crusader against global warming:
President Obama said in an interview broadcast Wednesday that his push to address climate change has been partly influenced by a frightening moment when his daughter Malia had an asthma attack as a 4-year-old. “What I can relate to is the fear a parent has, when your 4-year-old daughter comes up to you and says, ‘Daddy, I’m having trouble breathing.’ The fright you feel is terrible,” the president said on ABC’s Good Morning America Wednesday.
                “And if we can make sure that our responses to the environment are reducing those incidents, that’s something that I think every parent would wish for.”

In fact, the Asthma Foundation of America stated that warmer weather is better for asthma than cold. In truth, the world’s atmosphere has not actually warmed for close to 18 years. In fact, Obama's smoking would've made his daughter's asthma worse.  Such a douse !

Now Hillary Clinton, Obama’s putative successor, gives an equally idiotic explanation for becoming a warming alarmist:

  In her book ‘Hard Choices’, published last year, Clinton ... [said] she became aware of the impacts of rising temperatures on US ecosystems after a visit to Alaska in 2005 she said, where she saw dying trees and forest fires.
''.....I met lifelong participants in dogsled races who told me they no longer needed to wear gloves.''
So what did last month's Iditarod dogsled race (below right) in Alaska teach Clinton?:

With overnight temperatures approaching 40 below in Huslia, veteran Willow musher Jonrowe said she suffered what looks to be the harshest frostbite of her career on her fingers while mushing toward the village checkpoint. Jonrowe said she has six frostbitten fingers.

The atmosphere hasn't warmed for at least 17 years. The deep ocean hasn't warmed for nine years  Ice around Antarctica is at record levels unpredicted by climate scientists and that asshole Al Gore.  Who are the real DENIERS ?

If world leaders offer such patently absurd reasons for believing the warming scare, can there really be any strong science behind it?

The Way I See It.......aside from these two uninformed idiots not seeing the reality of the Climate Change Hoax I see an underlying tension. It wasn't obvious with Obama on TV two days ago waxing lyrical about what a good candidate Hilary will be in the upcoming presidential race, even though she hasn't been nominated by the Democratic Party as yet. However, the feud between the Obamas and the Clintons is heating up.

When Ed Klein first revealed the incredible infighting between the Obamas and the Clintons in his bestseller Blood Feud, the left scoffed. But recent events—Obama's refusal to stand by Hillary during her email scandal, the revelation that Valerie Jarrett leaked the scandal to the press—have forced even hardcore Democrats to admit: the Obamas and the Clintons are not on good terms. Now, even as Hillary is gearing up for her last-ditch run for the White House, the Obama Administration is angling to throw its support behind Joe Biden instead.

The real drama, of course, is still to come. As President Obama continues to step back from Hillary Clinton.  Bill Clinton—whose hubris and political acumen out measures both Hillary's and Obama's —may make moves to turn the Obama-Clinton blood feud into a full-scale political war. So far his hated of Obama has been kept relatively secret, although Ed Klein revealed some shocking Clinton quotes about the president that prove just how deep his hatred goes, and why he's never forgiven Obama for "taking Hillary's turn" in the White House.

I think Hillary Clinton is a polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, overconfident and secretive candidate. She will do anything to win – She represents the past – She is way out of touch.

Sunday, April 5, 2015

Europeans Fiddle while ISIS plans to Burn Them !

A Turkish people smuggler has claimed thousands of ISIS operatives have posed as refugees and entered Europe to commit acts of terror or simply “lie in wait” prior to receiving orders from al-Raqqa in Syria. His claims were confirmed by a spokesperson for the Islamic State. “Just wait” he said, “we have gone in like asylum seekers.”

Another people smuggler, who claims to have delivered over 4,000 ISIS operatives, said, "I’m sending fighters who want to go and visit their families. Others just go to Europe to ‘be ready’."

In recent years the smuggling business has boomed out of Turkey using Europe’s porous borders and “asylum seekers” have streamed in from Northern Africa by boat through to Italy and beyond.

But neither Turkey nor Libya should be relied upon to stem the flow of ISIS cells to the West. Turkey actively supports the ISIS by buying its stolen oil at half-price and it harbours the terrorist group Hamas. It also refuses the coalition the use of its air bases from which it could attack the ISIS strongholds in northern Syria and Iraq.

Under the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Australian Government an estimated 50,000 “asylum seekers” entered Australia illegally by boat with 30,000 allowed entry, unprocessed and on E bridging visas, during the Gillard reign. They are still compulsorily on welfare and prohibited from working, residing somewhere in our suburbs.

As yet not one single people smuggler has been detained in Australia. At Indonesia’s request to Gillard, and under pressure from the Greens, they were all returned home to Java to continue the

When asked about the smuggling of Islamic State operatives masquerading as refugees, a Turkish Foreign Ministry official said, "My Government does do not have that particular intelligence." But it’s known that the last boat arrivals in Australia were predominantly Syrians and Iranians.

Over 90 per cent of illegal boat arrivals are now on an array of extended welfare benefits and disability pensions which are sucking an unsustainable 30 percent from our annual budget.
Canberra continues to mimic Barack Obama and remains in a state of denial over Islamic extremism, adamantly refusing to accept that recent terrorist attacks have any link to Islam.
But ISIS jihadist, Abu Mohammed al-Adnani, (photo right) disagrees, telling infiltrators to the West, "We repeat our call to all Muslims in Europe, the infidel West, and everywhere to target the Crusaders in their home countries and wherever they find them. If you have the opportunity to shed a drop of blood in Western countries – then you should do so”, he said. He then made a point of praising the recent terror attacks in Australia, Belgium and France.

We will never defeat Islamic State terrorists by pretending they are not driven by a belief in the ''worm turn'?
barbaric cult of Islam. We will never defeat the Islamic State by bombing utes with tomahawk missiles. Without boots on the ground supported by air strikes we are merely fighting a pretend war, and each day we delay the more the cancer festers. When in God's name will the

No nation will act without Obama first taking the lead, and he will not do that, he is too busy releasing jihadist operatives from Gitmo to rejoin the fight. The West has the military ability, but not the will, to wipe out this global Islamic scourge, the Islamic State has Allah as its driving force.

The Way I See It......the main question and sticking point is can we survive as a civilisation without a faith to unite us? To guide us?  And with Christianity dying of indifference and embarrassment, is the West helpless against the claims of Islam for respect, converts and submission to a grand order?

Look at the bitter fruits of the hyper-freedoms, like immorality, greed and sexual deviance, we’ve granted ourselves after destroying our own faith and tradition. Can this dysfunction and rootlessness caused by the rise in Atheism really resist Islam?

I sadly have to admit that in truth European and Islamic civilizations were no longer comparable. By all the measures that really mattered, post-Christian Europe is dying and Islam is flourishing. If Europe was to have a future, it would seen to be an Islamic one.  And the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood might have proved that they were right.  The Roman Empire lasted centuries, the Christian one a millennium and a half. In the distant future, historians will see that European modernity was just an insignificant, two-century-long deviation from the eternal ebb and flow of religiously grounded civilizations. After the Caliphate resurrects....what next?

Obama's Deal Will Give Iran a Nuke Within a Year !

Retired Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden was among many slamming the Obama administration's framework for a nuclear deal with Iran on Thursday, telling Newsmax that it turns Tehran into an "industrial-strength nuclear state" that could have its own weapon within a year.

"It took us 18 months to get to the outline of a framework and now we're going to get to the fine print in what, three months?" asked Hayden, who led both the CIA and the National Security Agency. "That shows you how difficult this is.

"We have just agreed that Iran will be an industrial-strength nuclear state and that it will never be any more than one year away from having a nuclear weapon," he said.

As we all know, the United States and other world powers reached a framework with Iran on Thursday that seeks to curb Tehran's nuclear program for at least a decade. The plan comes after eight days of marathon talks in Switzerland and is incumbent on a final deal being reached by June 30.

All sanctions against Iran would remain in place pending a final deal. They would only be suspended by the U.S., the United Nations, and the European Union after the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed Iran's compliance.

In a Rose Garden speech at the White House, President Barack Obama hailed the outline as "a good deal, a deal that meets our core objectives."

Obama celebrating a bit early
He compared it to nuclear arms-control agreements struck by Republican Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan with the Soviet Union that "made our world safer" during the Cold War.

"Today, the United States, together with our allies and partners, has reached an historic understanding with Iran, which, if  implemented, will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon," Obama declared.

"The issues at stake here are bigger than politics," he said. "These are matters of war and peace, and they should be evaluated based on the facts."

In Switzerland, Secretary of State John Kerry touted the outline as "a solid foundation for the good deal we are seeking."

The framework requires Tehran to shut down more than two-thirds of its installed centrifuges capable of producing uranium that could be used to build a bomb, dismantle a reactor that could produce plutonium, and accept intrusive verification.

Much of Iran's enriched stockpiles also would be neutralized.

Obama said verification mechanisms built into the framework agreed to in Switzerland would ensure that "if Iran cheats, the world will know it."   (You're dreaming Barry)

The president had invested significant political capital in the nuclear negotiations. The talks have strained the U.S. relationship with Israel, which sees Tehran as an existential threat, and deepened tensions with Congress.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said later Thursday that he voiced his ''strong opposition" to the deal in a telephone call with Obama. "A deal based on this framework would threaten the survival of Israel," he said. "Such a deal would not block Iran's path to the bomb. It would pave it."

Obama also warned Congress that tightening sanctions against Tehran before a final deal is reached could scuttle the talks.

The only alternative to the outline was to "bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, thereby starting another war in the Middle East, and setting back Iran’s program by a few years," the president said.

"If Congress kills this deal — not based on expert analysis, and without offering any reasonable alternative — then it’s the United States that will be blamed for the failure of diplomacy," he later added. "International unity will collapse, and the path to conflict will widen."

But Republican criticism was virulent.

House Speaker John Boehner called it "an alarming departure" from the White House's original goals.

"My longtime concerns about the parameters of this potential agreement remain, but my immediate concern is the administration signaling it will provide near-term sanctions relief," said Boehner, who talked with Obama on Thursday afternoon. "Congress must be allowed to fully review the details of any agreement before any sanctions are lifted."

The Ohio Republican led a GOP delegation to Israel, Iraq, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia over the past week.

"After visiting with our partners on the ground in the Middle East this week, my concerns about Iran’s efforts to foment unrest, brutal violence, and terror have only grown," Boehner said. "It would be na├»ve to suggest the Iranian regime will not continue to use its nuclear program, and any economic relief, to further destabilize the region."

Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, (photo left) chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the panel would vote later this month on a resolution requiring congressional review of any Iran agreement reached by June 30.

"A nuclear-armed Iran would lead to a less safe and less secure world, which is why the stakes are so high in the pursuit of a strong agreement that is fully enforceable, verifiable, and is in our national-security interests," Corker said.

"It is important that we wait to see the specific details of today’s announcement, and … we must remain clear-eyed regarding Iran’s continued resistance to concessions, long history of covert nuclear weapons-related activities, support of terrorism, and its current role in destabilizing the region."

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham slammed Obama's notion that no deal meant war with Tehran.

"My biggest fear is a bad deal, which makes Iran a nuclear threshold state, will lead to an arms race in the Middle East," said Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "In addition, it will put our closest ally in the region, Israel, at great risk.

"The impact of a bad deal with Iran are unimaginable to our own national security, the region as a whole, and our allies," he said. "We simply cannot take President Obama’s word that it is this or war."

North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, who also serves on the panel, said the outline proved that "the Obama administration is willing to settle for any deal instead of prioritizing a fundamentally effective deal.

"The Iranian regime has proven their word is worth just as much as the paper it is written on and cannot be trusted to drop their nuclear weapons ambitions," he said. "This framework is undoubtedly taking several steps back in our efforts to prioritize the safety and security of the U.S., Israel, and our allies."

Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, another Armed Services committee member, characterized the framework as "only a list of dangerous U.S. concessions that will put Iran on the path to nuclear weapons.

"These concessions also do nothing to stop or challenge Iran’s outlaw behavior," he said. "Iran remains the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism. Iranian aggression is destabilizing the Middle East. And Iran continues to hold multiple Americans hostage."

Arizona Rep. Matt Salmon, who serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the outline sets "ourselves on a disgraceful path.''  He strongly add; "President Obama may continue to put his trust in a nation that has time and time again publicly stated their desire to destroy America and one of her closest allies, but I will not."

North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows, another member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, slammed Obama's "victory lap before a final deal is actually reached.''

"Today's framework is far too vague for the U.S. to be immediately lifting sanctions," he said. "Without question, Tehran will consider today’s agreement, which allows it to keep its underground facilities intact, a huge victory."

In a jubilant public address on the state-run TV on Friday, Iran's President Hassan Rouhani reminded his people of his election campaign slogan that he would keep Iran’s nuclear industry running and remove the sanctions against the country, and said the Iranian nation is now closer to this goal more than ever.

The Way I See could only image what's happening .... by the jubilation in the face of the Iranian Foreign Minister when he announced what had been agreed to. The bottom line are two things. Iran is promised a total lifting of sanctions. That’s U.N., E.U., United States, everywhere. We are not sure about the timing, but it could be as early as June, and that will super charge the Iranian economy, will strengthen the regime, will give it tens of billions of dollars with which not only to build its nuclear facilities, but to use for the proxy wars around the Middle East.

So, number one, they are going to get their economy back and that’s all they really wanted. But the second, the most astonishing thing is that in return, they are not closing a single nuclear facility. Their entire nuclear infrastructure is intact. That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.”

Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years…..  So, they are going to have the entire infrastructure in place either for a breakout after the agreement expires or when they have enough sanctions relief and they want to cheat and to breakout on their own.  Clearing the way for Iran to get nuclear bombs may—probably will—be the most catastrophic decision in human history.

Shia versus Sunni......should we care ??

Well yes, because, as predicted here last year, Iranian militia will sweep across Iraq like a tsunami toward Jordan and Israel in the absence of a US presence and no other nation will dare intervene, except to drop a few bombs on dodgy, unidentified targets killing more civilians. President Barack Obama has now listened to its Prime Minister, Ashraf Ghani and decided keeping a presence in
Afghanistan might be advisable. Ooooh, good thinking Barry!

Iranian backed Iraqi Shia forces are now trying to “out-atrocity” the Sunnis in beheadings, rapes and mass slaughter, while good ‘ol Barry tries to thrash out a nuclear deal in Teheran so Iran can eventually have the bomb. Bloody hell, Shakespeare couldn’t come up with a script like this one.

Barry has refused existing US air support to the Shia who are wiping out the Sunni, which was exactly what Barry (a’hem) said he was trying to achieve without ground troops. Meanwhile the Kurdish Peshmerga, the only effective force against the ISIS in the north, are refused ammunition by every nation for fear of getting Turkey offside. Pathetic !

Let’s face it, from Kuwait to their home soil, Iraqis are highly skilled only at dropping their guns and running while discarding their uniforms at the same time. Only Iran stood between ISIS and the eventual fall of Baghdad, and now the Iraqis have Iranian backing they are showing they can equal the ISIS in cowardly barbarity.

This Sunni-Shia Islamic war is no different to any other war in terms of atrocities. People were set
alight in both World Wars with flamethrowers. Mass slaughters and rapes were common in all wars, the Japanese beheaded more people than the ISIS and they raped and sex-slaved more women and children.
But we only read about those things. The difference with this war is that it has been professionally documented and delivered nightly in colour to the world’s lounge rooms, and it looks nasty and intimidating to the uninitiated.
So Islam continues its war with Islam! Big deal, why should we give a stuff? We should give a stuff because the US has abdicated its former leadership and the West no longer has a say in what happens in dysfunctional, primitive, Middle Eastern Islam.

The US has left Israel to fight its own battles in the face of a bourgeoning Iran determined to drive all Jews into the Mediterranean and declare Iran, an annexed Iraq and most of the Levant a Shia caliphate. Hmmm, won't THAT be nice!

Obama Bowing to Saudi King (sic!)
The Islamic victor, once tribal differences are settled, will then turn its eyes West and Iran will have nuclear-armed ICBMs with only Jordan, Egypt (and maybe Turkey) daring to complain.

Obama in six short years has damaged alliances, wrecked his own economy, started an internal race war, opened his borders to millions of Democratic-voting aliens, weakened homeland security, denied an Islamic link to terrorism, bowed to the Saudi king, emboldened China, ignored North Korea, started another cold war with Russia, excited and encouraged the Islamic enemy and has set the entire Middle East alight while he sucks on a joint at the 19th hole.

The Way I See It......the whole first goal of this [Iran deal] was to get rid of the Iranian nuclear program. That’s what the president and John Kerry said. We’re a long way from that. I think in less than 10 years, lots of bad things can and will happen. They can really move quickly.

But I’m extremely skeptical of a peaceful future. This is a regime that genuinely talks about and acts on the basis of the idea that it’s a radical regime, with a certain mission and history that doesn’t only talk about it. It acts upon. It funds Hezbollah. It funds Hamas. It funds IEDs that kill American troops. It wants to have a certain influence on the region, which is an extremely hostile influence. I think you have to think we’re going to end up enriching a regime that will end up doing us harm.

They are a radical regime ... Within a few short years, they will be pumping out oil, they will be a lot richer, their influence on the region will be greater, and the Saudis will have to counter. And I already think that the region is in the midst or in the very beginning of what some people have called a 30-years war, a religious war. And allowing Iran to get richer and potentially nuclear in the middle of that 30-years war strikes me as risky.

My recommendation to the American government is the same as the one that former UN Ambassador John Bolton made in the New York Times on March 26: destroy Iran’s nuclear capacity through air strikes. Reasonable people may disagree with this conclusion. But I still would like to hear someone disagree with sober reality. Destroy Iran’s nuclear capacity?  Barack Obama once said he thought so, too, but now has the opposite idea. God Help America and Us All !