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.

Australia's Sobering Facts About a So-called Religion of Peace !

Australia has never been an "overly" racist country... we have had a few racist townships but that began after the 1960s when the do-gooders wanted to do "the right thing" and allow the indigenous peoples access to the grog... and we all know how that's going.

MUSLIMS in Australia  (2013 Census)
However, we have accepted many different peoples from around the globe to this country, black white orange and purple people have been made welcome here. Admittedly some did it tougher than others but it built character and helped build a strong nation.

Two things are now destroying our great country; rampant socialism and Muslim immigration and those who favour socialism over democracy also favour Muslim immigration to assist in the destabilisation of our democracy.

What the socialists do not understand is the fact that their Muslim friends will readily turn on them when the time suits. Muslims are not compatible with our current democracy or a socialist style democracy, if you believe that there could ever be such a thing. Socialist/democrat governments in European countries have eventually turned into unmitigated disasters.

The true Muslim can never integrate into our society as Islam, or the religion of peace as they call it, demands that you have one allegiance and that that allegiance can only be to Islam.

The true Muslim believer can only strive for one thing and that is total world dominance by Islam for that is what is written in their Qu'ran or Holy book.
Muslims are not a race of people, they come from many different countries around the globe.
Wishing to protect this country from people who do not have our democracy at heart and wish to dominate the planet with their way of life is not being racist. Using the racist tag against those who oppose Islamic migration to this country is just a methodology employed by the socialists to lure dumb uneducated dickheads to their cause.

Oh, that is so racist! Well no, it's not! All those mums and dads protesting at the weekend are the true Australians who value the democracy that our parents and grandparents went to bloody war to preserve.

The Muslims and predominantly the Arab Muslims who have been welcomed into this country are the only immigrants in history who have pretty much refused to integrate into our society, thereby establishing themselves in large enclaves and demanding that we change our way of life to suit them.

What really gets up my nose is the fact that the socialist morons completely ignore so many historical facts in regard to Islam, most alarmingly the serious trouble large scale Islamic immigration has caused in many large European cities in Holland, Denmark, France, Belgium, Germany, Sweden and England. I've written about this in previous blog postings.

History shows that Muslims cannot even live peacefully among themselves and that since 1948, 11 million Muslims have died in Muslim-on-Muslim bloody conflicts, and that does not include the current conflicts in Syria and Iraq, which by now would be in the hundreds of thousands.

The simple truth is that Muslims cannot and have not, for 1400 years, lived in peace among themselves. it's an historical fact. To be honest it would appear that the average Muslim male is at his happiest when he is slaughtering something, animal or human, it does not matter, and if it happens to be a Christian human, then all the better.

Yet the socialist Left says that it's racist to try to protect our democracy from people who are indoctrinated into the most violent, racist "religion" on the planet.

I personally do not care if they are a black Muslim, a white Muslim or a purple Muslim... what I care about is that they are unable and unwilling to integrate into a democracy peacefully.

One thing more for the dickheads... it's a pretty poor indictment on the "Muslim religion of peace", when cities like Sydney have to set up a specialist "Middle-Eastern Crime Squad" just to combat
violent Middle-Eastern criminals, and I just wonder how many of those people waving racist placards on Saturday have ever been to places like Punchbowl and Lakemba to see what they're really like.

Racism! You want to see racism? Just take a visit out there and you will find out a thing or two about racism.  Oh, and if you are a female, do not go alone or you might find yourself concerned over more than just being spat on and called white Christian trash.

I don’t understand why Australians need to be asked to wear the clothing of another religion, and an emblem of the subjugation of women:
The City of Dandenong, aside from enduring a crime rate of Africans, Pacific Islanders, now wants women to wear the Islamic headdress for three hours this as part of a “social experiment” for National Youth Week. Girls from the local Islamic school, Minaret College, will staff an information table, and women taking part will relate experiences of posing as Muslims.
This gesture suggests the problem with Islam isn’t the frightening things done in its name but the fear
non-believers have as a result. It is, in the nicest way, an attempt to blame the victim.

Would it not be more useful to have a day in which Muslim women in hijabs and niqabs are invited to walk around the streets in Western clothing instead, as a “social experiment”. Much more useful and to the point.

The Way I See It.....the Sydney Morning Herald - in an astonishingly trite, sneering and inaccurate article - mocked Tony Abbott for calling the Islamic State a “death cult”.

The Greens foolishly took up the theme in the Senate, and were treated to this withering reply.
The Sydney Morning Herald quoted two “experts” who took astonishing exception to describing the Islamic State as a “death cult”:
Kuranda Seyit, a Muslim youth worker and secretary of the Islamic Council of Victoria… [said:] “For mainstream Australians it creates a perception that these people are violent psychopaths...”  
Professor Michele Grossman, an elitist socialist cultural diversity researcher from Victoria University, said it was dangerous to use a term that only reflected one small part of the reality of Islamic State. “It’s too easy to overlook the elements of the IS narrative that focus on building a new world and a new order, promising action, power and engagement,” she said.
I am utterly flabbergasted!
In fact, Mr Seyit, what creates that perception that these people are “violent psychopaths” are not Abbott’s words but the Islamic State’s deeds.

And dear Ms Grossman, you dumb bitch, the truth is exactly the reverse. In fact, what is too easy for cultural relativists and post-modernist academics to overlook is the sheer evil and inhumanity that underpin the IS narrative of building a new world and a new order, promising action, power and engagement.

Let me give you analogy. Remember the countless people who admired Hitler’s autobahns and Mussolini's trains running on time, without questioning the nature of the state that built them?

Monday, June 8, 2015

POTUS 2015: Hillary's Thugs and Things !

Let me say how I feel about Hillary Clinton before we get going.

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.

Evidently, the thought police in the Hillary Clinton campaign have banned the above paragraph, because they have deemed it “sexist.”  The Clintons have deployed thought police, in the form of volunteers, to intimidate reporters into not using certain phrases and words they don’t like.

According to the Washington Post, “Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye for a very long time, which means much has been written about her – including quite a few adjectives. But some are now off limits. That’s according to the Clinton ‘Super Volunteers,’ who have promised to track the media’s use of words they believe to be sexist code words.'' The New York Time’s Amy Chozick tweeted a missive she received from the group saying these tactics sound like the old Chinese Red Guard who would go door to door to confiscate banned books and investigates those who opposed Mao.

One guy, who might get a visit, in the form of a pro-Clinton talking head on cable, is Dan Metcalfe. The Hill reported “Dan Metcalfe, who previously oversaw the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) at the Department of Justice, has been publicly ripping Clinton for her exclusive use of a private email account during her time as secretary of State.” At Hilary’s disastrous United Nations press conference, Clinton explained that following the law would have been inconvenient for her, so she decided to ignore it.

Metcalfe argued in Politico “we now have former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton being revealed as someone who took the unprecedented step of arranging to use her personal email account for all of her official email communications. What’s more, she decided to use her own email server equipment, rather than a commercial Internet service provider, so that the records of her email account would reside solely within her personal control at home.”

Queen Hillary the First shall do her best to not allow the press and her critics to keep her out of the White House.

Rand’s Libertarian Meltdown
Libertarians are absolutely freaking out about Rand Paul these days:
First, they melted down when he wrote a bill declaring war on ISIS. The bill also removed the 2001 Afghanistan and 2002 Iraq Authorizations for the Use of Force (AUMF), prevented the Obama Administration from using old AUMFs to fight new undeclared wars and limited the battlefield to Syria and Iraq. David Weigel of Bloomberg wrote that it limited the President’s war powers. Some libertarians were upset with the declaration of war.

Next, Sen. Paul (photo right) signed Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-Arkansas) open letter to the leaders of Iran saying that any treaty or oral agreement that qualifies as a binding agreement between the nations would have to be submitted to the Senate pursuant to the Constitution for ratification.

Justin Raimondo of wrote that Paul was “the Neville Chamberlain of the liberty movement.” Libertarians were blinded by hate for Sen. Cotton and ignored the fact that the letter’s contents were an accurate description of the constitutional authority of a president.

Finally, Paul filed an amendment to the budget this week to make cuts to programs to pay for new military spending. Some libertarians were ready to pounce and Nick Gillespie of Reason wrote a good analysis of the amendment while other libertarians were throwing him under the bus. The Amendment assumed that if the sequester was eliminated and projected levels of spending on defense were restored, cuts were necessary to pay for the new spending. Paul cut $21 billion in foreign aid, $14 billion from the National Science Foundation, $10 billion from the EPA, $20 billion from the Department of Education and $41 billion from HUD.

On this common sense amendment, Senator Paul only received 4 votes (Sens. Paul, Enzi, McConnell and Vitter). Every Senator, and presidential aspirant, who voted against this amendment, believes that defense spending should not be offset. Ironically, this was the most libertarian amendment offered during the budget debate.

Cruz Missile
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) became the first prominent politician to announce his candidacy for President this past Monday. The man nicknamed “Cruz Missile” blasted into the presidential race with an announcement at Liberty University and a roll out video.

The haters came out of the woodwork to make silly claims. One of the most ridiculous was the claim that Cruz was no qualified because he is a first term freshman Senator. This is a comparison to President Barack Obama who was a one-term freshman Senator from Illinois when he steamrolled Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in 2008.

Cruz fired back that Obama “did not take a leadership role on really any issues of significance. In my time in the Senate, it’s been about a little over two years, you can accuse me of a lot of faults but being a back-bencher is not one of them.” But he could have made a better point.

First term Obama humbled McCain who had over 20 years experience in the Senate. One could argue that Dr Ben Carson is actually the most qualified to be president, because he has not been poisoned by being either a governor or a Senator before jumping into political office.

The Way I See It.....only in Washington, would people complain that a candidate had not spent enough time in the Capitol or in a cushy Governors mansion. This is why I was pleasantly surprised to hear, last month, he was going to run for the presidency in 2016. Here is a man that has risen from a poor Detroit childhood and through his mother's persistent efforts saw him rise to become Director of Paediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital at 33 years old and become famous with his ground-breaking work separating adult conjoined twins.

His has received more than 50 honorary doctorate degrees and is a member of Alpha Honor Medical Society. Since cutting back on his busy schedule he has focused on politics and has been known as an outspoken conservative Republican. In 2012, he attracted a lot of attention when he published America the Beautiful: Rediscovering What Made This Nation Great. His stinging criticism, 2013, of President Obama's positions on taxation and health care made Americans appreciate his honest straightforward soft-spoken manner.

In 2014 Carson published a book that rang true with the American people, especially after Obama's continued poor leadership and the continuing decline in America's globally reputation. It's title: One Nation: What We Can All Do To Save America's Future.''  The calibre of the man came out at his launch announcement when he said, ''I'm not a politician. I don't want to be a politician because politicians do what is politically expedient. I want to do what's right!''

I repeat: I think Hillary Clinton is a polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, overconfident and secretive candidate. As the consummate politician she will do anything to win – She represents the past – She is way out of touch. Americans should shun her like she was carrying the plague.

Sunday, June 7, 2015

Again, that Lethal Victimology. It’s our Fault, you see !

In his adopted home of Wollongong, [Jordanian immigrant] Abu Ayman — as his friends know the sheik — was a young man at peace. ... Australia’s most senior Salafist cleric says if he knew then what he does now, he wouldn’t have come at all [to Australia].
On a Saturday night in Coolaroo, an industrial northern Melbourne suburb where more people consider themselves Muslim than any other religion,[Sheik Mohammed Omran] speaks with disappointment, a tinge of bitterness and overwhelmingly a deep sense of dismay. He says he feels like a foreigner in his own country. 
 "If I knew that one day this would happen in Australia, I swear by the almighty God I will never step foot in my — in your — country,” he tells Inquirer from his office inside the Hume Islamic Youth Centre....Omran gestures to his adult son Osama, who is quietly serving tea to the older men in the room. “He feels he is not wanted because his name is Islamic. Everyone gets devastated by that." 
Omran, emir of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah school of Islamic thought characterised by literal ­interpretations of the Koran, believes the global threat represented by Islamic State is exaggerated and the national security risk posed by Muslim Australians seeking to join its ranks is grossly overblown.. “How many Australians have been killed by terrorists? Skin cancer, breast cancer kill thousands every year.” 
Mustafa Abu Yusuf, an adviser to the sheik and a spokesman for the ASWJ, goes further. He describes terrorism as a fabricated issue that cynically has been used by successive governments to create a Muslim bogeyman. “...If it wasn’t for the half-decent people in Australia most of the Muslim community would be pushed out on to the fringes.” 
In raw numbers, the core problem of youth radicalisation is dwarfed by the scale of the federal government’s policy response. Intelligence agencies believe there are 104 Australians fighting for Islamist groups in Syria or Iraq. Between 35 and 40 people have been killed or in combat or murdered by their Islamic State comrades.
Sheik Omran does not like the word extremism. He prefers ''deviation''. 
Through his involvement at the Brunswick mosque and more recently the Hume Youth Islamic Centre (HYIC) Omran has known some of Australia’s most notorious deviants: Abdul Nacer Benbrika before he formed a terrorist cell; Harun Mehicevic before he established the hardline al- Furqan Centre in Melbourne’s southeast; Melbourne teenager Numan Haider before he lunged at and stabbed two counter-terrorism taskforce officers with a knife outside a suburban police station and was thankfully shot dead.. 
The sheik has been accused of his own deviations, most notably in describing Osama bin Laden as a good man. Omran does not apologise for his past comments or previous associations. Nor does he consider himself a firebrand, as he is often described. Rather, he sees himself as a man grown old in a country that no longer as welcoming as it once was.
Let’s add to that picture some more information which might explain why the warm welcome Omran admits he once received here as a young man has chilled - and why the problem lies more with him than the rest of us.

Omran once described al Qaeda head Osama bin Laden, whose followers helped to kill Australians, as a good man in some ways, and not in other ways.''

But before that, Omran said ''I dispute any evil action linked to bin Laden.''  He said Ï don't believe that even September 11 from the beginning, I don't believe I was done by any Muslim at all.''
Omran was accused by one Somali mother of turning her son into a hardliner, so that her son returned to Somalia to fight - and be killed.

In 2003 Omran had this conversation:
Reporter: Is it a good Muslim's duty to go and fight the coalition forces for jihad in Iraq at the moment?
Sheikh Mohammed Omran: I would say yes.
And now this man is a leader in his community? Unbelievable !

The Way I See It....if Omran wonders why there’s this suspicion he finds so distressing, he should take his rose-coloured glasses off and buy himself a mirror.

And he should ask himself this: if he takes such offence at some non-Muslims here merely being rude to Muslims, can he really be so damning when non-Muslims here take such offence at some Muslims here trying to kill non-Muslims - and some succeeding?

Are you surprised that some in his centre have turned to jihadism?  Is Omran surprised that he is treated with suspicion? He's either totally naïve or in major denial.

Time For Obama to Get Real About Stopping ISIS !

Three hard realities must be faced. First, the international coalition is not winning. At best we have a stalemate, which is a form of victory for the caliphate.

Hard reality No 2 is that the town that must be recaptured urgently by the international coalition is not Ramadi or Mosul but Washington, DC. There will be no victory without the Americans, but the idiot in the White House, President Barack Obama is striving to limit his military commitments.

Hard reality No 3 is that we will not stop the flood of young Muslims radicalising and dreaming of jihadist adventure unless the international community hands Islamic State a thumping battlefield defeat.

Former CIA officer Kevin Carroll has a deadly serious prediction.  Baghdad could fall, with catastrophic results, unless the US starts to fight a real war. For instance:
Kevin  Carroll
Use strategic air power
America’s unrivalled air forces can hit Islamic State from anywhere: neighbouring countries, the sea and the continental US. Yet the sorties flown so far have been minimal, and damage inflicted still less, even as Islamic State held a parade in broad daylight in Rutba, Iraq, last week. It was disgraceful that not one plane was dispatched to bomb and strafed the bastards.

Launch ruthless special operations.
Recent raids into Syria were daring and skilful. But a handful of missions do not resemble the operations led by US army generals Stanley McChrystal and Michael Flynn in 2006-07 that eventually broke the back of Islamic State’s predecessor, al-Qa’ida in Iraq, and drove it abroad. At that campaign’s height, commandos conducted multiple missions every night. They analysed intelligence collected on one “objective” to find and fix targets they finished on successive raids. The rhythm, persistence and sheer number of those operations crushed the enemy. Emulate them now, starting near Baghdad. 
Capture and interrogate Islamic State leaders
Much of the intelligence exploited on those missions came from documents and electronics found in terrorist safe houses. But the best came from interrogations, some conducted on the battlefield as the smoke cleared… A ­robust program of capturing and roughly interrogating terrorists abroad should resume, first ­focused on the whereabouts of ­Islamic State operatives in and around Baghdad.
Send ground combat forces
Despite US efforts to retrain its soldiers, the Iraqi army is now unable or unwilling to stand and fight Islamic State alone… US airborne units can arrive quickly to secure Baghdad’s airport and the long and vital road from the city to that airfield… Americans can stiffen Iraqi lines around the city, and provide artillery and engineer units needed in urban combat. 
US cavalry units can launch what imperial Britain called “punitive expeditions” to destroy Islamic State lairs further afield. The arrival of thousands more American fighting men will improve the Iraqi army’s performance. It was no accident that the Sunni Awakening and US surge succeeded at the same time in 2006-07. As US troops poured in, Sunni sheiks cast their lot with what Bing West (above right)memorialised as the “The Strongest Tribe” in his book of the same name.

The Way I See It.....the US forces under Obama must be allowed to fight as the US forces did under Bush. Obama’s early pull-out from Iraq and his refusal to reverse that error is helping to plunge that region into the most terrible bloodshed.

Pentagon officials say this fight is winnable. But if the administration whistles past the graveyard and insists its policy is working even as Islamic State nears Baghdad and with our diplomats there, the White House may face a debacle that makes Benghazi seem minor in comparison.

Greenpeace Co-founder Debunks the Acid Oceans Scare !

When the slight global warming that occurred between 1970 and 2000 came to a virtual standstill, ... something dire was needed to prop up the climate disruption narrative. “Ocean acidification” was invented, says Patrick Moore, to provide yet another apocalyptic scenario, only this one required no warming or severe weather, just more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The story goes that as CO2 ­increases in the atmosphere the oceans will absorb more of it and this will cause them to become acidic — well, not exactly, but at least to become less basic. This in turn is predicted to dissolve the coral reefs and kill the oysters, clams, mussels and algae that have calcareous shells. It was named “global warming’s evil twin"…

How does one know that increased CO2 will not kill the coral reefs and shellfish? Let me count the ways…

First, contrary to popular ­belief, at 400 parts per million (0.04 per cent), CO2 is lower now in the atmosphere than it has been during most of the 550 million years since modern life forms emerged during the Cambrian ­period. CO2 was about 10 times higher then than it is today.

Corals and shellfish evolved early and have obviously managed to survive through eras of much higher CO2 than present levels…

Second, due to its high concentration of basic elements such as calcium and magnesium, sea­water has a powerful buffering ­capacity to prevent large swings in pH due to the addition of CO2.
This self-correcting capacity of seawater will ensure the pH will remain well within levels conducive to calcification, the process whereby shells and coral structures are formed…

Third, and most interesting, there are freshwater species of clams and mussels that manage to produce calcareous shells at pH 4-5, well into the acidic range. They are able to do this because a mucous layer on their shell allows them to control the pH near the surface and to make calcification possible beneath the mucous layer…

Fourth, ocean acidification proponents invariably argue that increased CO2 will also cause the oceans to warm due to a warming climate. Yet they conveniently ­ignore the fact that when water warms the gases dissolved in it tend to “outgas”.

It’s the same phenomenon that happens in a glass of cold water taken from the fridge and placed on a counter at room temperature. The bubbles that form on the ­inside of the glass as it warms are the gases that were dissolved in the colder water. So in theory a warmer sea will have less CO2 dissolved in it than a cooler one.

Continuing the discussion on the fate of the oceans, do you remember all those scares that Tuvalu would be one of the first Pacific islands to be drowned by ''global warming''?

In fact, warned Al Gore in his An Inconvenient Truth, so dire was this danger that “the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand”.

Take Prof Mohammed Dore, an environmental economist from Canada’s Brock University, who three years ago declared Tuvalu uninhabited already. “In fact, there is an island called Tuvalu which was completely evacuated and New Zealand accepted all the residents because of sea level rising,” he wrote, much to the surprise of the island’s 12,000 residents, who have actually doubled their number in the past three decades, there being little else to do in the middle of the ocean.

Tuvalu’s prime minister in 2003 went to the United Nations to present a bill to the guilty Westerners he insisted were causing the seas to drown his home. He really laid it on thick: “The threat is real and serious, and is of no difference to a slow and insidious form of terrorism against us.”

Another dousebag, Rob Gell, the Aussie TV weatherman, ...  in 2008 launched an exhibition at Melbourne’s Immigration Museum dedicated to convincing the gullible that we should take in all these soggy Tuvaluans before the waves lapped over their heads. It was virtually a “foregone conclusion” that Tuvalu would be uninhabitable “within the next 50 years”, he claimed.
Naturally, Labor signed up to the scare… It even produced a “Pacific climate change plan” which promised help to global warming “refugees” as they fled low-lying island states such as Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, and Tuvalu.
Ian Fry
Said Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese: “The alternative to that is to say, and I don’t think any Australian would accept this, that were going to sit by while people literally drown.”

All of which culminated in the tearful plea from Tuvalu’s delegate, Ian Fry, at the UN’s great warmist gathering at Copenhagen last year… “I woke up this morning crying, and that’s not easy for a grown man to admit ... The fate of my country rests in your hands.”

The Way I See It.......Funafuti atoll, which includes the capital of Tuvalu, is an islet archipelago in the tropical Pacific Ocean made from coral debriswashed up from an underlying reef by waves, winds and currents. Over the past 60 years the sea has risen by around 30 centimetres locally,sparking warnings that the atoll is set to disappear.

But Paul Kench (photo left) of the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and colleagues found no evidence of heightened erosion. After poring over more than a century’s worth of data, including old maps and aerial and satellite imagery, they conclude that 18 out of 29 islands have actually grown.

As a whole, the group grew by more than 18 hectares, while many islands changed shape or shifted sideways. I ask you....when will this world-wide stupidity going to end?  Maybe when there's NO WARMING at the 20 year mark. That's only 3 years to go....I can't wait !!!