The Way I See It....

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

DELINGPOLE: How I Totally Crushed the Ocean Acidification Alarmist Loons !

Meet Dr Phil Williamson: climate ‘scientist’; Breitbart-hater; sorely in need of a family size tube of Anusol to soothe the pain after his second failed attempt to close down free speech by trying to use press regulation laws to silence your humble correspondent.

Williamson – who is attached to the University of East Anglia, home of the Climategate emails – got very upset about some articles I’d written for Breitbart and the Spectator pouring scorn on his junk-scientific field, Ocean Acidification.

In my view Ocean Acidification is little more than a money-making scam for grant-troughing scientists who couldn’t find anything more productive to do with their semi-worthless environmental science degrees. The evidence that Ocean Acidification represents any kind of threat is threadbare – and getting flimsier by the day.

But if, like Williamson, you are being paid large sums of money to conduct a research programme into Ocean Acidification, you’ll obviously want to defend your mink-lined, gold-plated carriage on the climate change gravy train. So first he wrote a long, earnest defence of his income stream in Marine Biologist.

Then, when no one cared, he made a formal complaint about one of my articles to the UK press regulatory body IPSO. And to judge by the punchy tone of this piece he published in Nature before Christmas, he fully expected to win.

Tragically, though, he just lost.

After a long deliberation, IPSO has released its verdict and found that I had no case to answer. Williamson’s complaint was not upheld.

I’m trying hard to be modest here; I’m trying not to gloat. But I’m afraid the facts of the case just won’t allow me.

IPSO’s verdict represents a crushing defeat for the cause of climate alarmism. In this particular scenario, you need to picture me as Julius Caesar in my chariot, wearing purple with a laurel crown around my head; Williamson (and his alarmist cronies) meanwhile, are Vercingetorix and his defeated Gauls (though without the romantic charm and heroism, obviously) being dragged behind me in chains through the streets of Rome prior to being taken to the city’s prison to be ritually strangled.

Seriously, it could hardly be worse for the eco-loons. Just relish the misery in the comments below this report in the Guardian.

Here are some of the comments:

It’s just a passing comment, but Dingopile is an arsehole that knows less than bugger all about climate change! [Do you see what he did with my name there? Comedy genius!]

Nothing written by Delingpole (photo right) is proper science. The man has a degree in English literature.

So it’s okay to publish outright falsehoods meant to mislead the public, as long as you are of the right?

Delingpole is like a 4 year old child who purposefully defecates in his pants for attention.

Delingpole is not a scientist, certainly not an oceanographer, so why print his ramblings on things he knows nothing about?

James Delingpole is a total arse. He has sunk below the level of Michael Gove or Nigel Farage. He does not deserve this publicity by Damian Carrington. He thrives on the oxygen, and he must not be given any oxygen at all.

Note how very personal it all is. And that’s because, as the last commenter rightly noticed, the Guardian’s Environment editor, the Hon. Damian Carrington, (Winchester and Balliol), decided to make it personal.

His headline read:

James Delingpole article calling ocean acidification ‘alarmism’ cleared by the press watchdog

The article was full of snarky little asides, like:

Delingpole, who writes for controversial rightwing news site Breitbart, was censured by the Australian Press Council in 2012 after he quoted an anonymous source who compared the windfarm industry to a paedophile ring. He has dubbed greens “eco-nazis” and in another article he ended a long list of people and groups supporting action on climate change by writing: “Truly there just aren’t enough bullets!”

[I would like to make it clear if I haven’t already that I apologise profusely to any paedophiles who may have been offended at being linked to the wind turbine industry]

This is because in the eyes of the climate alarmist establishment I am one of the most dangerous people on earth. And I say this not to brag. It is merely an observable fact that there are certain figures – in the field of climate science they include people like Willie Soon, Pat Michaels and Tim Ball; in journalism they include me, Christopher Booker, David Rose and, perhaps notably, Mark Steyn; in politics they include Lord Lawson, Aussie Senator Malcolm Roberts and now Donald Trump – who drive the Greenies apopleptic with rage. And because the Greenies see us as significant and influential, they seek at every turn to claim our scalps.

Which, of course, was the whole point of this complaint by Phil Williamson to the press regulator IPSO.

Had Williamson been successful it would have been a major blow to the cause of scientific rationalism, honest scepticism and freedom of speech. It would have been cited and crowed about ad nauseam by the usual suspects in the mainstream media – from the BBC to the New York Times – and in the house journals of the alarmist science establishment, such as Nature and Scientific American.

Damian Carrington

We know that this was the plan because of how closely the case was being followed by the Guardian‘s environment editor Damian Carrington. The first I heard of the IPSO ruling was when Carrington sent an email to my editor at the Spectator Fraser Nelson asking for a comment on the verdict. (The reason Williamson brought his case against the article I wrote in the Spectator, by the way, and not against any of the ones I’d written in Breitbart is because Breitbart doesn’t subscribe to the press regulator IPSO, so he would have been whistling into the wind).

You might think this odd: why would a journalist with absolutely no connection with the case get to hear the result before either the journalist named in the complaint or the publication responsible for running the offending article? The answer, one can only presume, is that Carrington was in close touch with the complainant, Phil Williamson – and was waiting to strike the moment the good news came that the Delingpole monster had been slain by Britain’s press regulator.

The knock-on effects, had IPSO found against my article, would have been dire: the publications for which I write (both the Spectator and Breitbart) would have been made to look like sloppy purveyors of what the left loves to call these days “fake news”; my credibility as a reporter on climate science and the environment would have been diminished (not in the eyes of my regular readers, perhaps, but definitely in the eyes of all those undecideds who can’t make up their mind whether they agree with me on climate science or whether I’m talking bollocks); and, perhaps worst of all, the junk science concept of Ocean Acidification would have been given a reprieve it simply doesn’t deserve.

In case I haven’t made my position sufficiently clear on Ocean Acidification – always a danger with me: I’m forever holding back for fear that someone somewhere might be offended – this seems a good moment to restate it:

Ocean Acidification is a scam – the second biggest one in science right now. I’m not saying that it’s impossible or even unlikely that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide may be causing parts of our ocean to become marginally less alkaline. What I’m definitely saying is that it doesn’t matter a toss, to whit:

Ocean acidification – the evidence increasingly suggests – is a trivial, misleadingly named, and not remotely worrying phenomenon which has been hyped up beyond all measure for political, ideological and financial reasons.

It’s much more a political invention than a scientific one. I call it the climate alarmists’ Siegfried Line because that’s what it really is: it’s their fallback position for when man-made climate change theory finally collapses and they need to find some other half-arsed excuse for justifying their global war on the beneficial trace gas carbon dioxide.

I’m by no means the only person to have pointed this out. Matt Ridley [below] (who unlike me has a scientific background) has written about it here, here and here.

Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, has written a paper debunking it. As has Craig Idso.

So, much as the climate alarmists might pretend otherwise, my scepticism about Ocean Acidification isn’t some weird, lonely, contrarian position I’ve adopted just because I can’t help being an idiot or because I’m instinctively anti-science or because I’m not familiar with the material or because I’m funded by sinister vested interests which want the Ocean Acidification industry to fail or because – if you believe professional greenie Mark Lynas – I’m a “liar” and part of the “alt-right”.

Nope. I’m against Ocean Acidification theory because I’ve done loads and loads of background reading both about the way this marginal phenomenon has been overhyped and about the lack of credible scientific evidence that it represents any kind of problem worth addressing. And the conclusion I’ve reached is that it’s both a money-making scam for some of the many second-rate scientists the grotesquely overbought climate alarmism sector seems to attract and also a silly dangerous propaganda campaign on behalf of all those anti-free-market greenies who are forever in search of another cod-scientific excuse to impose more tax and regulation on us in their endless war against economic growth.

Needless to say, the Ocean Acidification experts with their snouts in the Ocean Acidification don’t like hearing this point of view, which is why they are so livid about the IPSO decision.

The complainant, Phil Williamson, has written a stroppy piece for the Conversation (a website in which mostly left-wing academics are given space to vent about their pet gripes), denouncing IPSO with a piece titled “Science loses out to uninformed opinion on climate change – yet again.”

But this misrepresents IPSO’s decision.

It’s not “Science” – as Williamson grandly terms it – that was under attack in my various articles on Ocean Acidification. I’m not questioning the achingly trivial points that Williamson and his pals may or may not have alighted upon in the course of their navel-gazing research. What I’m questioning is whether it’s right that taxpayers should have to stump up for this research – and whether its findings are in any way significant or useful.

This, as IPSO rightly decided in its ruling, is a matter of opinion.

Findings of the Complaints Committee

19. The article was written in the first person, and sought to challenge what it made clear was the consensus view on ocean acidification. Before the article set out its criticisms, it referred to there being an extensive academic literature on the subject, and made clear that the theory had been endorsed by scientists from a number of institutions. The article referred to the author as being one of a group of “sceptics”, and a “denier”, and the final sentence of the article suggested it was “time our supposed ‘conspiracy theories’ were taken more seriously”. The article was clearly a comment piece, in which the author was expressing sceptical views on ocean acidification, and describing sceptical views expressed by others, that were contrary to the academic consensus.

The Committee’s role is not to make findings of fact or to resolve conflicting evidence in relation to matters under debate. Rather, it assesses the care taken not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, and establishes whether a distinction is clearly made between comment, conjecture and fact, in determining whether the Code has been breached.

At Watts Up With That, Eric Worrall puts his finger on the fatal flaw of Williamson’s case:

In my opinion this entire sorry episode goes straight to the heart of the difference between the way alarmists like Williamson see the world, and the way normal people view the world.

Alarmists seem to want their models, theories and opinions to be accepted as established fact. But the reality is their shaky theories are full of poorly supported conjecture and extrapolation.

Indeed. And it’s by no means the first time Williamson and his crew have tried it on. In 2011 they made a very similar complaint – to what was then known as the Press Complaints Commission – about a piece I’d written on the Climategate scandal.

They objected especially to my description of Phil Jones, the then-head (recently retired) of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia as “disgraced, FOI-breaching, email-deleting, scientific-method abusing”.

What rather scuppered this particular complaint was when I provided the Press Complaints Commission with more than enough evidence to back up the claim.

But the thing that needs to be understood about these complaints is that they are not really designed to sift right from wrong, truth from untruth. Rather, as Mark Steyn (photo right) says, process is the punishment. That is, if you’re a publicly funded scientist on a generous grant with plenty of time on your hands in your cosy academic sinecure, then it’s no problem at all to while away a few days preparing your vexatious complaint to IPSO or the Press Complaints Commission. But if you’re the hapless journalist who has to prepare your defence, it’s a different story: you’re very busy, time is money, and the whole process is so grindingly tedious you’d almost rather lose then have to go through each pettifogging criticism, crossing every T and dotting every I. (That’s why I would have probably lost had it not been for the efforts of the brilliant and indefatigable Ben Pile who has much more of an appetite for kicking irritating, querulous, nitpicking academics into touch by beating them at their own game).
the

Thank goodness I did win, though – not so much for my own sake but for the far more important causes of freedom of speech, honest and open scientific inquiry and responsible use of taxpayers’ money.

Oh, and also, for the sheer joy of causing some really dreadful, low-grade people endless amounts of teeth-gnashing misery.

Williamson, consider yourself pawned. Now, back into your box, where you belong, you lank-haired pillock.

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

The Pause in Global Warming Is Real, Admits Climategate Scientist !

The ‘Pause’ in global warming is real and the computer models predicting dramatically increased temperatures have failed.

This is the shocking admission of a paper published this week in Nature Geoscience. It’s shocking because the paper’s lead author is none other than Ben Santer – one of the more vociferous and energetic alarmists exposed in the Climategate emails.

According to the paper’s abstract:

In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble.

And:

We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.

Translation: the real-world temperature increases were much smaller than our spiffy, expensive computer models predicted.

Its significance did not pass unnoticed by this veteran climate scientist:

His surprise is understandable given that, previously, alarmist scientists like Ben Santer have gone to great lengths to deny the existence of a ‘Pause’ in global warming, to pour scorn on those who have argued otherwise and to insist that their computer models are fundamentally reliable.

Indeed, only last week the Spectator published an article by one such Pause Denier – a scientist from the University of East Anglia (ground zero of the Climategate scandal), fondly known as the University of Easy Access, named Phil Williamson. (photo centre) [ More about this particular deadshit in my next posting.]

It is titled ''The Great Myth of the Global Warming Phase'' and it claims, somewhat imaginatively:

The Paris agreement will be the future, whereas the so-called global-warming hiatus is already history.

And let’s not forget that in the dog days of the Obama administration, alarmist scientists were so desperate to pooh pooh the “Pause” in the run up to the Paris climate talks that they concocted a junk science paper – now the subject of a federal investigation – which used dodgy data to try to airbrush the Pause out of history.

Truly, as the Daily Caller notes, the alarmists’ flip-flopping on this subject has of late been remarkable. Do they believe in the ‘Pause’ (or ‘hiatus’ as they sometimes term it) or don’t they?

Santer recently co-authored a separate paper that purported to debunk statements EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt made that global warming had “leveled off.” But Santer’s paper only evaluated a selectively-edited and out-of-context portion of Pruitt’s statement by removing the term “hiatus.”

Moreover, climate scientists mocked Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz for talking about the global warming “hiatus” during a 2015 congressional hearing. Instead, activist scientists worked hard to airbrush the global warming slowdown from data records and advance media claim that it was a ''Myth''.

Santer and Carl Mears, who operate the Remote Sensing System satellite temperature dataset, authored a lengthy blog post in 2016 critical of Cruz’s contention there was an 18-year “hiatus” in warming that climate models didn’t predict.

The fact that Ben Santer is involved in this embarrassing retraction – his admission on the Pause is bad enough, but what the paper says about the unreliability of the computer models is breathtaking in its implications – will be particularly piquant to those who remember his prominent role in the Climategate emails.

Santer revealed himself to be one of the nastier and more aggressive members of Michael Mann’s “Hockey” team when he emailed one of his colleagues:

"Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted."

(Climatologist Pat Michaels, now of the Cato Institute, incurred Santer’s wrath by being one of the first climate scientists to pour cold water on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. In other words, Michaels made the disgusting, punishment-worthy error of using actual science and being right).

But perhaps Santer’s lowest point was the occasion where he effectively hijacked one of the early IPCC Assessment Reports and ramped up the scaremongering in a way that had rather more to do with political activism than it did to science.

James Delingpole describes it in his book Watermelons:

Ben who? Well quite. Unless his name rings a bell as the guy from the Climategate emails who wanted to “beat the crap out of” climate sceptic Pat Michaels, you almost certainly won’t have heard of him. Yet in the mid-90s this climate modeling nonenity was somehow placed in the extraordinary position of being able to dictate world opinion on global warming at the stroke of a pen.

He achieved this in his role as “lead author” of Chapter 8 of the scientific working group report on the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report (SAR). Nothing to write home about there, you might think, except that Santer was personally responsible for by far the most widely reported sentence in the entire report: the one from the Summary for Policy Makers (the only part of the IPCC’s Assessment Report most people actually bother to read) claiming “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.”

But was this line actually true? Was this really a fair summary – the kind of summary the IPCC purports rigorously and definitively to give of us – of the general state of scientific understanding at that particular moment? Er, well not according to some of the scientists who’d contributed to that chapter of the report, no.

The original version of the chapter – as agreed on and signed off by all 28 contributing authors – expressed considerably more doubt about AGW than was indicated in Santer’s summary. It included these passages:

“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

“No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to (man-made) causes.”

“Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

“When will an anthropogenic climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to the question is “We do not know.”

Strangely, none of these passages made it to the final draft. They were among 15 deleted after the event by Santer, who also inserted a phrase entirely of his own to the effect that “the body of statistical evidence” now “points to a discernible human influence on climate.” In other words the chapter did not represent the “consensus” position reached by 28 scientists.'' What it in fact represented was the scientifically unsupported opinion of one man, Benjamin D Santer.

The Way I See It.......climate rationalists do still get an awful lot of stick from the alarmists for our old fashioned belief that scientists should stick to the evidence and use actual data rather than plucking stuff from thin air based on their fanciful notions of what ought to be true or what might get them more grant-funding.

How delightful it is to have it confirmed – albeit in the arid language of a science paper – that yet again are 100 percent correct.

Monday, July 17, 2017

BELIEVE THIS CHARLATAN AT YOUR (AND OUR) OWN PERIL !

If Syria’s Bashar Assad was warning citizens of impending gas bombing while selling gas masks to the poor bastards, it would be analogous of Al Gore’s current climate warnings while making a carbon credits killing.

In 2007, following an investigation of Gore’s extremely dishonest “floods and famines” XXX movie, a London High Court judge, Sir Michael Burton, (above) ruled against it being shown in secondary schools if it wasn’t accompanied by "guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr Gore’s 'one-sided' views".

Judge Barton pointed out that Gore's movie "An inconvenient Truth" was an “apocalyptical vision” and was politically partisan, and not an impartial analysis.

Now there’s some unusual wisdom from a High Court judge for you.

Ex US Vice-President and failed Presidential candidate, Gore is described by many as a limousine liberal, a tiresome pedant and a climate alarmist who lives a jet-setting, carbon-promiscuous lifestyle while preaching frugality for everyone else.

Gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was urging Congress to adopt, but now, as a private citizen, Mr Gore does not have to disclose his income, assets or his interests, as he did in his years in Congress and the White House.

Al Gore and partner in crime, David Blood

However, as he soldiers toward hundreds of millions more profit from his fraudulent global warming hoax, he is now a founder of "Generation Investment Management Plc”, based in London and run by his partner, David Blood, a former head of Goldman Sachs.

This makes for the attractively named partnership of, “Blood and Gore”.

This Al Gore bastard is competing with Al Capone and Hillary and Bill Clinton to gain the title of America’s biggest crook in the past two hundred years.

His Generation Investment Management company warned in their Wall Street Journal feature of a couple of years back that a “Coming Carbon Asset Bubble” meant that everyone should get out now while they can.

Gore and Blood argued that carbon investment strategies posed three broad risks which would cause carbon assets to become “stranded” and lose their economic value.

Well “goodness me”, I thought, “the carbon kid was finally feeling guilty about his global warming hoax”. But no, I should have known better. Gore and Blood were driving the price down, because Gore was planning on yet another attack on the gullible public with yet another “Inconvenient Truth” movie... and here it is now!

Gore and his mate Blood were planning on another buying foray into the market to capitalise at the lowest possible price before they lurched into this, another profitable scare. They had already wrung the life out of their last lot of carbon investments in their 2007 scare.

Of course normally that little scheme would get you ten years in the slammer, but this all happened under Obama’s and the Clintons’ watch, and now Trump is none the wiser and now Gore has departed politics he doesn't have to reveal anything.

Luckily for Gore America's west has just reported the highest temperature since 1831. Hmmm, that must mean it was hotter there prior to 1831. He of course will ignore the northern hemisphere's five years of record cold temperatures. How can people actually still give him any sense of credibility?

The Way I See It......naturally our dear Menzies'-channeling "Centrist" leader, Malcolm Turnbull, is enchanted in the global warming hoax, but that's no reason for us to fall for it, I mean we aren't all Global Warming Socialist crooks.

So if you feel compelled to go see this new Gore movie, replete with copious new piles of smelly bullshit, you should be aware that Mr Gore is not interested in global warming at all,

.....…this prick is simply still busy making a fortune out of it!

Monday, July 10, 2017

The Ungratefulness of Being First !

The modern world can thank invading nations for its development, and no race bears a permanent grudge against those who once invaded and improved it, except, that is, the Australian Aborigine.

Australia was rather fortunate in that it was considered inaccessible and not arable by many. Cook and Joseph Banks (above) wrote of the Aborigines: “They are a naked and treacherous lot. A collection of cowardly, unfriendly and vindictive savages belonging to the lowest order in creation”. Hmmmm, how un PC of them!

Although it was widely acknowledged that Cook had acted improperly towards the indigenous occupants, it mattered little to his peers. By declaring the continent “terra nullius” (no man’s land) the English discovered a Latin expression to justify taking custody of it.

The modern Aborigine has been internationally successful in casting white Australians as racist. Go anywhere in the World and you’ll find people prepared to call us heartlessly racist. That is not fair, because we are the least racist of any country I know. In fact the way we have tried over a century to assist the development of the Aborigine has worked against them and us!

Because legally no Australian needs to prove his or her Aboriginality, a verbal claim is sufficient and it can’t be challenged. White activists have encouraged endless land claims, a separate flag, a Mabo agreement, treaties, voluminous welfare handouts, “say sorries” and now they want Parliamentrary representation without election and their very existence included in a rewritten Constitution.

It is quite common for European Australians to identify, de-identify, or re-identify as Aboriginal on Census forms, making it a statisticians nightmare. The unfortunate truth is there are actually very few full-blood Aborigines left alive. None in Tasmania.

Many people mistakenly consider Aborigines as full-bloods because of their distinctive appearance, but that is not an accurate assessment.

Mixed breeding has diluted the Aboriginal gene pool and many apparent European whites actually carry Aboriginal blood, as little as one 32nd, and it’s confusing as to how a person can possibly identify as an Aborigine. But legally anyone can, one 32nd or not!

Thirty billion dollars a year is spent on improving conditions for Aborigines, (and that is just Commonwealth expenditure) with little result. We have attempted giving them self determination (ATSIC) with lump sums to be distributed where needed. Unfortunately that was also a disaster as elders spent the money on acquiring better footballers for various clubs and grog became a serious killer.

But that is their culture, tomorrow has no significance, only what is wanted, or needed, today. And the entire tribe must share in any windfall.

Warren Mundine (above) uses the most accurate and up-to-date estimates of Government spending on Indigenous Australians – about $30.3 billion is spent on people claiming Aboriginality according to the Productivity Commission. Q & A fact checking disagrees but who checks the fact checkers? I’ll stick with Mr Mundine rather than Q & A.....thankyou.

Now to the greatest of lies that Aborigines were Australia’s first inhabitants. No full blood Aborigine has any memory of living anywhere else but Australia, therefore they assume they were the first. But there are proven genetic links to Indonesians and it is assumed South Africans.

Anthropologists have found some Northern Australian tribes were able to cross the small distance over water to the more prolific New Guinean and Indonesian Islands.

Australia’s Aborigines are unarguably the most primitive race on planet Earth:

Despite inhabiting Australia for between 40,000 and 60,000 years before we arrived, Aborigines did not invent the wheel, which would have been a godsend to carry their belongings as they were nomadic. They had not even invented numbers other than the number “one” and simply “more than one” despite trade existing between tribes.

But they had developed incredible navigation skills by foot and had an innate knowledge and memory of where to find foods and water holes but moved on as those foods and water holes were depleted rather than using seeds for agriculture. Water in the north was always plentiful. Such was the fecundity of Australia that the original explorers were not aware of until later.

The Way I See It........we Europeans have developed this land into a South East Asian economic, agricultural and mineral success which is the envy of the world, despite the poor modern day administrations that are determined to wind the clock back. Where's the gratitude?

To vainly salve a mistaken conscience, Australia spends on each ''claimed'' Aborigine twice what it spends on those who don’t claim Aboriginality. Is that fair?

All I know is that my wife was born here in this country long before any of those Aboriginal activists started pushing that newer politically correct new term for Abos....Indigenous. (meaning ''born in'' or ''natural to a country'') These activist Assholes overlooked the fact that the majority of white Australians are also indigenous !!

... so surely it’s as much my and my wife's country as theirs, and I don’t expect any special treatment and neither should they. Enough is enough !!

Thursday, July 6, 2017

WHAT THEY REALLY TALK ABOUT AT G20s ???

A Tongue-cheek rumination on this special, privileged Club of Elites as they Ham-it-up in Hamburg from journalist Charlie Pickering.

I would like to be a fly on the wall at only one G20 meeting ever….and that’s this one! Naturally the Left media are promoting a Russia-US showdown over their claim that Putin cost Hillary an election. What bloody rubbish!

The Left is still looking to delegitimise Trump’s win and the clowns won’t let up until an Islam-dominated, EU-influenced UN, gets control of the world with a single currency, single socialist policy, single Islamic caliphate, single Green ideological umbrella government, where the entire world goes to Brussels to pay huge yearly monetary homages.

The Trump-Putin meeting will be no more than ten minutes of a show-dicks exercise with a bilateral agreement that, “I promise I won’t shoot down your planes over Syria if you don’t shoot down mine… now where’s that vodka, cos I wanna talk about those damned Muslims and that global warming bullshit?''”

No, the really earnest, beaded brow discussions are in the main hall over the collapse of the Paris Accord and how global warming is looking exactly like the hoax it always was.

"Did you ask him if he brought Barron?"

France’s President Macron is trying to hide a tiny woody while discussing the failed warming hoax with Germany’s Frau Merkel. “I apologise for this show of excitement Angela, but I simply can’t resist older women, can we have a bilateral in a side room, or maybe a trilateral with Theresa May? There’s an ironing board in the closet. Or even a multilateral because Brigitte said she wouldn’t mind teaching Donald’s young Barron a thing or two.

"Is that your hand, Manny"

“We could all show global-warming solidarity and get our gear off”, said Monsieur Macron, winking at Theresa May and taking his hands out of his pockets … “hmm, perhaps not.”

“Actually I wouldn’t mind giving that Donald a piece of my…”, said Frau Merkel. “Those huge knee-length ties must mean something.”

"Give me your hand Manny"

“Ha, that’s all nonsense”, said Vladimir who had just been drawn to the conversation with Theresa. “Donald just lost a competition with me… did anyone invite that Kim bloke from North Korea? He reckons he can get his hands on a couple of thousand Korean birds at the drop of a hat... has Trudeau got enough coke?”

"How old are you, Justin?"

The main hall was deserted as the side rooms became crammed with in depth multinational intercourse. The only person left was Australia’s lonely Turnbull who had organised himself a unilateral . “I think we should issue a communique on our progress”, he shouted. And so it goes.........

TAKE THIS OBESE JERK OUT NOW! …because the damage will be greater later!

It had been suggested in May on this year as a likely date that Pyongyang would be destroyed after Trump had drawn a line in the sand in late April. That small window has closed and Trump’s confidence in China’s ability to assist in closing the Kid down has been shattered.

Neither Trump nor Obama have understood North Korea’s close association with Iran. It has never been mentioned. Okay, I have been banging on about it for years, yet both rogue nations' nuclear proliferation has been driven in tandem. Whatever Pyongyang achieves nuclear, so too does Iran, and fools Obama and Kerry have already ensured Iran’s nuclear capability.

So North Korea's capability should be no surprise

The little fat kid wih some well tutored admirers

The Kid can afford to thumb his nose at China simply because he no longer needs it. It’s China that needs North Korea. And Trump’s blustering about sanctions is farcical as the Kid can get his French Champagne, caviar and blonde hookers from any State that hates the US… and that means from just about anywhere.

US Defence Secretary, “Mad Dog” Mattis, has been given a free rein by Trump although a pre-emptive strike plan must first pass the Oval Office desk. But there really isn’t any choice, the longer this obese jerk is allowed to develop an increased nuclear capacity, the greater the eventual damage. The question is how much damage is South Korea prepared to sustain now as compared to later?

The other question is what role would China play in the event of a Korean war? China would almost certainly stay hands off, so it all comes down to South Korea.

The US would already know all underground and surface launch sites and could easily take them out along with wherever the Zika Kid is. He has surrounded himself with old obedient fools and bawling women who are commanded to applaud his every move, to put it bluntly he now believes his own bullshit, which is a dangerous thing in any war.

Every facility in North Korea must be bombed (and really bombed) every palace and site that the Kid may be in also. Every military department and installation. Prior to that an iron dome must be thrown over Seoul and 30,000 US troops will cross the DMZ to mop up.

Only then can starving North Koreans be fed and political prisoners be released.

There will doubtless be some damage, but that damage must be weighed against the damage certain to be suffered later if nothing is done now.

Two birds will be killed with the one stone as Iran will pull its head in in the wake of a North Korean annihilation.

Japan will be supportive of a US strike and in the case of Iran there is always Israel who has taken out Iranian installations before.

The US has everything in place… Nuclear aircraft carriers are right now prowling the western Pacific.

An F/A-18 Super Hornet assigned to USS Ronald Reagan practises takeoffs and landings near the island of Iwo Jima

The USS Ronald Reagan carrier has also arrived meaning there are now three carriers including two Nimitz-class on hand with the USS Carl Vinson already off the Korean coast. The carriers have a total of 90 F/A-18C Hornet and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighters.

They are protected by escorts from Destroyer Squadron 15, including the guided missile cruiser USS Shiloh and Aegis destroyers Barry, John S. McCain, McCampbell, and Mustin.

Shiloh, a Ticonderoga-class cruiser, has an advanced version of the Aegis Combat System capable of shooting down any ballistic missile launched by North Korea, as do the destroyers Barry and McCain.

One of the imposing Nimitz class carriers, armed and ready

Carrier Strike Group Five consists of Ronald Reagan’s air wing, Carrier Air Wing 5. Based at Naval Air Station Atsugi, the air wing consists of Strike Fighter Squadron 102 ("Diamondbacks"), Strike Fighter Squadron 27 ("Royal Maces"), Strike Fighter Squadron 115 ("Eagles"), and Strike Fighter Squadron 195 ("Dambusters"). All four squadrons fly the F/A-18E and F/A-18F Super Hornet.

Nuclear attack submarines shadow the carrier strike group to provide anti-submarine protection.

The Way I See It.......when you consider the massive US buildup of nuclear military force adjacent to the Korean peninsula and that the US has today asked for a closed door meeting with the UN Security Council, it appears some action is afoot and it could well be a pre-emptive strike.

Anyway, without an impressive "SHOCK & AWE''.....what other choice is there?