Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Now it's Cowgate: Claims of Livestock Causing Global Warming Are False

It is becoming difficult to keep pace with the speed at which the global warming scam is now unravelling.

The latest reversal of scientific “consensus” is on livestock and the meat trade as a major cause of global warming – one-fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions, according to eco-vegetarian cranks.

Now a scientific report delivered to the American Chemical Society says it is nonsense. The Washington Times has called it “Cowgate”.

The cow-burp hysteria reached a crescendo in 2006 when a United Nations report ominously entitled “Livestock’s Long Shadow” claimed: “The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalents). This is a higher share than transport.”

This led to demands in America for a “cow tax” and a campaign in Europe at the time of the Copenhagen car crash last December called Less Meat=Less Heat.

Now a report to the American Chemical Society by Frank Mitloehner, an air quality expert at the University of California at Davis, has denounced such scare-mongering as “scientifically inaccurate”.

He reveals that the UN report lumped together digestive emissions from livestock, gases produced by growing animal feed and meat and milk processing, to get the highest possible result, whereas the traffic comparison only covered fossil fuel emissions from cars. The true ratio, he concludes, is just 3 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in America are attributable to rearing of cattle and pigs, compared with 26 per cent from transport.

See the full text of Gerald Warner's report at telegraph.co.uk here:


Monday, March 29, 2010

Who Will Now Lead the Climate Fraud?

Political and business leaders gather this week in an attempt to revive the world's faltering challenge to global warming. But they face a battle to lift the cloud of scepticism that has descended over climate science and chart a new way forward.

Some of the planet's most powerful paymasters will gather in London on Wednesday to discuss a nagging financial problem: how to raise a trillion dollars for the developing world.

Those charged with achieving this daunting goal will include UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, directors of several central banks, the billionaire George Soros, the economist Lord (Nicholas) Stern and Larry Summers, President Obama's chief economics adviser.

As an array of expertise, it is formidable: but then so is the task they have been set by the UN puppet, secretary general, Ban Ki-moon. In effect, the world's top financiers have been told to work out how to raise at least $100bn a year for the rest of this decade, cash that will be used to help the world's poorest countries adapt to climate change.

I wonder into whose pockets this $100 billion per year will gravitate?

For at least 20 years now we have seen people starving in Africa. We, the suckers, have given billions of dollars to alleviate this misery. However, these poor souls are still starving!

Where the fuck did our money go?

To raise $100 billion a year the Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing has made clear that it will consider everything – from placing levies on national and international aviation and shipping, to enlarging carbon markets and introducing financial transaction taxes.

You name it and it will be run up the flagpole – for success in establishing a developing world finance plan is now considered crucial to the success of next December's UN climate change meeting in Mexico. "Finance is a prerequisite for a climate agreement," said Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climage Change, on Friday. "Developing countries are very sensitive about this. Talks will collapse without strong and secure financing in place."

Who will pay these levies and taxes?

That's right! You and I will pay and where the fuck will our money go?

Politicians and negotiators are preparing another assault on the issue, though this time talks will be very different. For a start, climate science has suffered damaging setbacks.

There was the leaking from the University of East Anglia's climate research unit of email exchanges between some of the world's top meteorologists as well as the discovery that a UN assessment report on climate change had vastly exaggerated the rate of melting of Himalayan glaciers.

Sunday, March 28, 2010

14,000 Wind Turbines Abandoned!

Tehachapin wind turbines

Part of the craziness of the global warming scam is to get our Government to supply millions of dollars of our money as subsidies for alternative energy sources. I wonder how many of the lucky reciepants of our money are big contributors to Labor Party coffers?

I am all for alternative energy sources but they have to work and by and large wind farms are a failure.

Andrew Bolt, Hearald Sun Blogs, 16/02/2010, reports

"Some say that Ka Le is haunted—and it is. But it’s haunted not by Hawaii’s legendary night marchers. The mysterious sounds are “Na leo o Kamaoa"-- the disembodied voices of 37 skeletal wind turbines abandoned to rust on the hundred-acre site of the former Kamaoa Wind Farm…

The ghosts of Kamaoa are not alone in warning us. Five other abandoned wind sites dot the Hawaiian Isles—but it is in California where the impact of past mandates and subsidies is felt most strongly. Thousands of abandoned wind turbines littered the landscape of wind energy’s California “big three” locations—Altamont Pass, Tehachapin (above), and San Gorgonio—considered among the world’s best wind sites…

California’s wind farms— comprising about 80% of the world’s wind generation capacity—ceased to generate much more quickly than Kamaoa. In the best wind spots on earth, over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned. Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills..."

Do politicians have a duty of care toward our money?

Let us imagine there is a Greens politician on the South Coast standing in the next State election and he is a rabid supporter of wind farms. We'll call him Mr Whingegut. Whingegut says he would like to see the jewel like coastline between Kiama and Gerringong dotted with wind turbines.

Yes you know that beautiful piece of coastline adjacent to the Kiama Bends.

I wonder has Whingegut done his due diligence on wind farms?

At Altamont In Southern California turbines have, since 2008, been tethered four months of every year in an effort to protect migrating birds after environmentalists filed suit.

I can just see it!

Whingegut and the Greens are instrumental in getting their beloved wind turbines installed and three years later, after a multitude of bird kills and Whingegut loosing his seat, the Greens sue the Government of the day over bird kills! Lovely!

Without government intervention, utilities normally avoid wind energy. Wind's erratic power feed destabilizes power grids and forces engineers to stand by, always ready to fire up traditional generators.

Wind does not fit into an electric supply model made up of steady massive low cost "base load" coal plants backed up by on-call natural gas powered "peaker" units, similar to the one on Lake Illawarra, which kick in during high demand. Worldwide no coal or nuclear power plant has ever been replaced by wind energy.

Rudds now defunct ETS scheme assigned profitable carbon credits to wind farm operators based on a theoretical displacement of carbon emitted by coal or natural gas producers, in reality these plants must keep burning to be able to quickly add supply every time the wind drops off.

The formulae do not take into account carbon emitted by idling coal and natural gas plants nor the excess carbon generated by constant fire-up and shut down cycles necessitated to balance fluctuating wind supplies.

The London Sunday Telegraph January 10, 2010 reported that
wind farms produced "practically no electricity" during the cold snap which manufacturers' groups say could lead to severe winter energy shortages within the next decade. http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/sunday-telegraph-the-london-uk/mi_8064/is_20100110/idle-wind-turbines-risk-energy/ai_n45916424/

The cold weather has been accompanied by high pressure and a lack of wind, which meant that only 0.2pc of a possible 5pc of the UK's energy was generated by wind turbines over the last few days.

On the coldest days, in the coldest winter experienced in the Northern Hemisphere in 30 years, when energy use peaked, the wind turbines could only produce point 2% of that energy requirement!

Did you get that Mr Whingeguts? How are your beloved wind generators looking now?

May I make a suggestion?

The tides operate twice every 24 hours regardless!

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Shut Down The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Thank you suckers!

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has announced yet another “flaw” in their reports. It’s time – once and for all – to be very clear about the obvious. There are serious conclusions to be drawn from the fact that the “flaws” in the UN reports produced bias in only one direction.

The latest announcement admits an error that supported Vegan propaganda against the meat industry. Researchers have also admitted that there is no scientifically supportable case for the IPCC’s exaggerated worst-case sea-level rise (which by the way has been orders of magnitude lower than Al Gore’s), dramatic ice-melts in the Himalayas and elsewhere, danger to the South American rain forest, warming of oceans, etc. etc. etc.

These (perhaps more accurately) “forced confessions” are consistent with public awareness, triggered by Climategate, of the general evaporation of the warmers’ case.

Their case for dire warnings about man-made global warming has always rested on computer models that predict rapid temperature increases. These “models” were nothing more than an alternative method of presenting extremist “climate change theory.”

Predictions made by the models have been consistently wrong. Lacking verification, they carry no more weight in serious scientific discussions than computer games with purely imaginary scenarios designed to entertain players.

There is no actual scientific evidence supporting the models or the warmers’ theory on catastrophic man-made global warming. Warmers replaced real temperature data with fake data sets showing the trends they wanted.

When the final press for public access to real data came, they destroyed the data.

So, let’s be absolutely clear about the obvious. They knew there was no scientifically supportable case for catastrophic man-made global warming.

They lied!

Corruption in the organization and the dishonesty of the core science team has been exposed. Quite publicly, the world has been made aware that human activity does not control the climate.

There is no legitimate reason for the IPCC to continue to exist.

So, let’s be absolutely clear about the obvious. The IPCC should be shut down – immediately. Each nation then has an independent responsibility to hunt down those involved in the conspiracy and pursue appropriate legal action against them. What could be more obvious?

Source. Mensnewsdaily.com


Thursday, March 25, 2010

Climategate Shows There's No Global Warming Consensus

US Senator James Inhofe

A speech by James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

"Call it the global warming crackup, an unfolding proc­ess of contradictory claims about glaciers, weather, and scientists asserting a consensus when none exists. Global warming alarmists can't make up their minds because the entire basis for their energy rationing project has collapsed into a mess of errors, exaggerations, and deceit. Let me explain.

The Obama administration said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the "gold standard" for climate science, yet now the Environmental Protection Agency administrator won't defend it.

The IPCC and Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. Now the IPCC has retracted several false claims concerning, among other things, rain forests shrinking, crops dying, and sea levels rising.

We've been told weather is not to be confused with climate, except when you have heat waves or blizzards. We've been told cap-and-trade would create thousands of green jobs, yet the Congressional Budget Office, Department of Energy, National Black Chamber of Commerce, and others say it would mean a net loss of jobs.

We are told that increasing levels of CO2 will increase temperature, yet the key scientist in the climategate scandal says there's been "no statistically significant warming" in the past 15 years—all while CO2 levels have increased.

We've been told that there is an "indisputable consensus" that human-caused global warming is happening and pushing the planet to certain disaster. Yet that same scientist—Phil Jones, former director of Britain's Climatic Research Unit, the foremost such center—now says that the vast majority of climate scientists don't agree on what the data are telling us.

What's going on here? When thousands of E-mails were released from the Climatic Research Unit in November, we finally were able to pull back the veil of the so-called climate consensus.

As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, I have released a minority staff report that uses these E-mails to show that the world's leading climate scientists apparently discussed manipulating data to fit preconceived conclusions and pressuring journal editors not to publish scientific work contrary to their own. This would violate fundamental ethical principles guiding scientific (and taxpayer-funded) research and, our report points out, may violate federal laws."

To read the rest of Senator Inhofe's speech go to:


Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Climate "Science" Peer Lord Oxburg Has a Conflict of Interest

The Good Lord!

The Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia has been accused of manipulating and suppressing data to overstate the dangers from climate change. Professor Phil Jones, its director, has stood down from his post while a separate inquiry takes place into the leaking of e-mails sent by him and his colleagues.

Lord Oxburgh is to chair a scientific assessment panel that will examine the published science of the CRU. Climate sceptics questioned whether Lord Oxburgh, chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and the wind energy company Falck Renewables, was truly independent because he led organisations that depended on climate change being seen as an urgent problem.

Lord Oxburgh has said that he believes the need to tackle climate change will make capturing carbon from power plants “a worldwide industry of the same scale as the international oil industry today”.

The Carbon Capture and Storage Association, of which Lord Oxburgh is chairman, has stated that carbon capture could become a “trillion dollar industry” by 2050. In an interview in 2007, Lord Oxburgh said that the threat from global warming was so severe that “it may be that we shall need . . . regulations which impose very severe penalties on people who emit more than specified amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere”.

And this person is going to chair an "independant" enquiry? I don't think so!

See the full story at The Times Online:


Monday, March 22, 2010

How the WWF Will Make $60 Billion Out of an ETS

Tumucumaque in northern Brazil has been designated a 'carbon sink'

The world’s largest, richest environmental campaigning group, the WWF – formerly the World Wildlife Fund – announced that it was playing a leading role in a scheme to preserve an area of the Amazon rainforest twice the size of Switzerland.

Many people are applauding, thinking this was just the kind of cause the WWF was set up to promote because Tumucumaque in northern Brazil's billions of trees contain the world’s largest land-based store of CO2 – so any serious threat to the forest can be portrayed as a major contributor to global warming.

It then emerged, however, that a hidden agenda of the scheme to preserve this chunk of the forest was to allow the WWF and its partners to share the selling of carbon credits worth $60 billion, to enable firms in the industrial world to carry on emitting CO2 just as before.

The idea is that credits representing the CO2 locked into this particular area of jungle – so remote that it is not under any threat – should be sold on the international market, allowing thousands of companies in the developed world to buy their way out of having to restrict their carbon emissions.

The net effect would simply be to make the WWF and its partners much richer while making no contribution to lowering overall CO2 emissions.

WWF, which already earns $400 million yearly, much of it contributed by governments and taxpayers, has long been at the centre of efforts to talk up the threat to the Amazon rainforest – as shown recently by the furore over a much-publicised passage in the 2007 report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The IPCC’s claim that 40 per cent of the forest is threatened by global warming, it turned out, was not based on any scientific evidence, but simply on WWF propaganda, which had wholly distorted the findings of an earlier study on the threat posed to the forest, not by climate change but by logging.

See the full r(ep)ort from Christopher Booker at:


Sunday, March 21, 2010

Climategate: Two More Bricks Fall Out of the IPCC Wall of Deceit

Oops! There go another two bricks, rainforests and polar bears, tumbling out of the IPCC wall of deceit on man-made global warming.

There is not a lot left now; even the Berlin Wall (to which the AGW construct is ideologically allied) has survived better. Unhappily for Al, Phil, Michael, George and the rest of the scare-mongers, these two discredited components are among the most totemic in the AGW religion.

Firstly, a new study, funded by Nasa (which may be feeling the need to rehabilitate itself post-Climategate) has revealed that the ridiculous claim in the notorious IPCC 2007 report that up to 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest could be drastically affected by even a small reduction in rainfall caused by climate change, so that the trees would be replaced by tropical grassland, is utter nonsense.

Now Dr Jose Marengo, a climate scientist with the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research and himself a member of the IPCC, says: “The way the WWF report calculated this 40 per cent was totally wrong."

An even bigger tear-jerker was the plight of polar bears, bolstered by carefully cropped photographs of lonely bears stranded on fast-melting icebergs, doomed to extinction. That is the second brick that has fallen out of the IPCC wall.

The bottom line is the actual statistics, conceded even by warmists: since 1970 the world’s polar bear population has “declined” from 5,000 to 25,000!

Warmists claim the polar bear population of the Chukchi Sea is declining. When questioned at some depth though they concede illegal hunting by Russians is a prime cause.

Hell! If you are going to get a couple of million dollars for "scientific research" then you can't let statistics get in the way! Or truth for that matter.

See the full article by Gerald Warner at telegraph.co.uk. See link below:


Thursday, March 18, 2010

ClimateGate: What Will Television Do With All Their Scare-Programming?

An interesting thing happened on the way to a global conspiracy. Reality killed it. Funny how that happens!

Not long ago people like Al Gore were jetting around the globe taking in vast speaking fees, winning awards, telling everyone that they must give up the things they enjoy to save the planet meanwhile living in huge McMansions that consumed ten times the energy of the average household!

These doomsayers all told us we were stupid if we doubted them. They knew better, you see. These stooges claimed all “real” scientists agreed that mankind was destroying the planet with global warming. That we humans were at fault and the only way to save ourselves is bend over to a world government, pay lots of taxes and give up our cars, our electricity, air travel, light bulbs, blah blah blah!

There was a vast left wing conspiracy in other words. One designed to scare people into giving more power and wealth to statist bureaucrats who were employing the oldest trick in the book. Using fear and guilt to manufacture consent just as H L Mencken said in 1918:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

These fraudsters began by locking down major institutions like NASA and Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU). Then they got the media on board, the science magazines, the cable networks. They started churning out articles and documentaries supporting the global warming meme.

Millions were spent selling the idea, because many of these groups knew that fear, like sex, sells.

There are two main motivations that human beings have. The desire to have something and the fear of losing something. They used both to pitch the notion that we could create a “green utopia” by changing the way we did things, and in doing so we would prevent the end of the world. Who doesn’t want to be a hero? Who doesn’t love the environment? How can you argue with that?

Its not that they needed our money. They have all the money they will ever need.

They wanted our souls!

But two things happened last year that shot an arrow in the heart of the beast; one of the worst Northern Hemisphere winters on record and Climategate. And the hits keep on coming.

Now it turns out that NASA, who claimed for years that their data proves Global Warming is real, was actually just using CRU data all along. And the CRU couldn’t back up any of its data. In fact, they “lost the records” when they were forced to produce them. Oops!

So now these news channels who’ve been trumpeting the story as fact, spending millions on documentaries hyping it, all those TV shows hawking green as the in color; they all look like fools.

Or worse, they look like they were in on what will go down as one of the biggest scams in human history.

The so called "investigative reporters" did the reporting but not the investigating because, if you report what you are told not to report, two things happen. The story is killed and you are sacked, never to work in the media in Australia again.

What would you do if you were in their position? It’s not hard to understand why they’re carrying on like Climategate never happened. The Americans have a president in the White House as clueless as they are, pushing the Cap and Trade agenda as if those darn glaciers are just about melted and the last Polar Bear just karked it.

We have a Prim Monster in this country slavishly following the agenda he has been told to follow and introduce a similar "scheme".

Can you imagine the schmozzle of an ETS?

Just like the Home Insulation fiasco and now the Education Spending debacle where assembly halls are costing twice to three times what they should cost.

This billion dollar spend on assembly halls will not lift the education standards of Australian students one iota!

The hidden agenda of Australian politics since Whitlam, and probably before, has been to dumb down Australians. Little Johhny Howard didn't hide the same agenda, he did it out in the open.

Telling people they need to cut back is like rubbing salt in their wounds. Promising them “green jobs” as they close coal fired power stations is like telling a 40 year old Santa Claus is coming to town.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Australian of the Year? I Don't Know Why!

Who is Patrick McGorry and What Does he Promote?

He’s a psychiatrist just named Australian of the Year for his work in “youth mental health reform.”

What does that reform consist of?

What he calls a “new form of climate change.” It sure is.

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights International reports on Australian of the Year Patrick McGorry as follows:

"McGorry promotes youths being put on antipsychotics and antidepressants, cited by international drug regulatory agencies as causing hallucinations, hostility, personality change, life-threatening diabetes, strokes, suicide and death.

McGorry goes a giant step further—drug them before they’ve even developed a “psychiatric” disorder.

The Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs (AHRPP) likens such concepts to “performing mastectomies on women who are at risk of—but do not have—breast cancer.”

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has expressed “serious concerns” about child drugging and Senate investigations in the United States have found high profile psychiatrists who were pharmaceutically funded and using fraudulent research being among the heaviest promoters of psychiatric drug use on children.

While the rest of the world is experiencing serious alarm at the rampant use of deadly psychiatric drugs on children, McGorry pushes full steam ahead to increase the amount of children being needlessly subjected to psychiatry’s most powerful drugs—antidepressants and antipsychotics.

What was the first thing McGorry did to capitalize on his winning his “Australian of the Year” award? He demanded the Australian government hand over another $200 million to fund more of his centers where he can drug more children.

Worse still, the government is entertaining the idea.

Yet, for who ever nominated him—apparently an “anonymous supporter”—due diligence wasn’t done on what McGorry advocates.

A cursory look at his research shows that while behavioral symptoms are evaluated and, on a hunch, drugged to see if they “prevent” the onset of a “mental” disorder, there’s no mention of the teens being given full and searching physical exams to first rule out undiagnosed and untreated medical conditions that may be causing it.

McGorry has received unrestricted research grant support from Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Bristol Myer Squibb, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Novartis.

These companies manufacture antipsychotic drugs!

He is also a paid consultant for, and has received speaker’s fees from all or most of these companies."

See the full text of the report from The Citizens Commission on Human Rights International at:


There are no research monies available from drug companies to prove that children with behavioural problems DO NOT need psychotic drugs.

However there ARE shiploads available for those who propose that psychotic drugs are necessary for children with behavioural problems. There is probably a lot more available to a researcher who advocates psychotic drugs for children before there is a diagnosed problem.

I am no fan of the Church of Scientology, a strange mob with many cult like features, but maybe, just maybe, they are onto something with their drive against psychiatry.

Monday, March 15, 2010

Oh My God! Getta Load of This!

This is the latest load of garbage from England's Energy Secretary Ed Milibrand, a deadbeat climate change shill in the British Govt.

Can you believe the depths these richard craniums will sink to?

The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) ruled the adverts – which attracted 939 complaints - made exaggerated claims which went beyond mainstream scientific consensus. The watchdog stated the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) should not publish the adverts again,

Saturday, March 13, 2010

IPCC's Whitewash 'Review' is the AGW Camp's Biggest Mistake Yet

Gerald Warner from the Telegraph.co.uk reports:

"It looks as if the tottering IPCC has just made its biggest mistake yet. Twenty-four hours after the announcement of an “independent” inquiry into certain aspects of its activities it is possible to make a considered assessment of its significance. By any reasoned analysis, it is not only a whitewash but one in which the paint is spread so thinly as to be transparent.

First, who appointed this review body? Those two iconic standard bearers of climate science objectivity, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and IPCC head (still!) Rajendra Pachauri.

There is nothing like being judge in your own cause – it secures a less damaging verdict.

Ban Ki-moon is the clown who, on a visit to the Arctic last September, despairingly proclaimed that “100 billion tons” of polar ice were melting each year, when the sea-ice around him had just extended itself by half a million square kilometres more than at the same time the previous year.

Pachauri, among many other solecisms, is also the buffoon who denounced criticism of the IPCC’s absurd claims about melting Himalayan glaciers as “voodoo science”.

The review will be conducted by the Inter-Academy Council and headed by its co-chairman Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf, who recently broadcast on Dutch radio a complacent statement about the “consensus” on climate science.

The Inter-Academy Council is a representative body for a number of national academies of science, most of which are committed to the climate change cause. So, a very obvious whitewash and presumably very satisfactory to the IPCC camp.

Nevertheless, I repeat, it is probably the most serious mistake the AGW fanatics have so far made. This is because they have seriously underestimated the amount of trouble they are in.

See the rest of the article at:


Monday, March 8, 2010

Would This Work in Australia?

Here we go again!

Another article that has, on the surface, stuff all to do with Climate Fraud. However if you trace the lineage of Climate Fraud back to its beginnings you find the same ideologists who are behind gun control for law abiding citizens but open slather for the poor misunderstood criminals!


“This was the bed-wetting headline of the lead editorial in the August 14, 2005 edition of ‘The Commercial Appeal’ in Memphis in the good ole US of A.

Jacob Evans was robbed at gunpoint by a duo of armed thugs two weeks before he undertook his “risky” behaviour. It seems that ‘The Commercial Appeal’ finds nothing risky for a victim to be held at gunpoint by armed robbers.

Evans went and bought a .357 from a friend the day after the first robbery. Happily, he was not a day late AND a life short.

The same punks abducted Evans at gunpoint (they must have by then decided he was their personal piggy bank). They forced themselves into his car and made him drive them to his bank where they ordered him to draw out $10,000. Since Evans did not have a withdrawal slip, one of the duo went to get one.

That was the moment that Evans chose to pull out his .357 and shoot the other bad guy who was still in the car. Evans did not just shoot him once, he emptied the gun into Leverett Dickson, hitting him with all six rounds. Good for Evans. He made sure that his kidnapper could no longer hurt him.

‘The Commercial Appeal’ was in a dither that the armed robber might have returned fire before he died. Or, that the accomplice might have returned and shot Evans. Or that the ensuing gunfight might have endangered an innocent bystander.

The anti-self defence crowd does not get it. For the second time in less than a month, Evans was victimized by the same pair. The kidnappers were in the process of looting his bank account. Does the Commercial Appeal really think that Evans was going to be told to drop the kidnappers at their house and be wished a good day?

Whatever were Evans’ risks in the actions he took, they were almost certainly less than the risk he faced of being deposited in the landfill later that day.

Oh, and the now-in-custody accomplice? Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, bad guys — even when they are armed — flee when the victim starts shooting, because at that point the tables have been turned and the element of surprise is working in behalf of the victim. Which is what bad guy number two actually did.

As if reading from some gun control talking points playbook, the editorial (in ‘The Commercial Appeal’) raised the problem that a gun might get stolen and be “accidentally discharged by children.” Better that Evans be dead than run the remote risk of some kid stealing his gun. And let’s say it plainly — when the kid steals the gun, he(the kid) is a criminal!

Thanks to Ron Owen in Gympie for this little gem.

It just goes to prove that the police can't stop an intruder, stalker, or mugger from hurting you. They can pursue him
only after he has hurt or killed you. Protecting yourself from harm is your responsibility, and you are far less likely to be hurt in a neighbourhood of gun-owners than in one of disarmed citizens - even if you don't own a gun!

However, in the era of the "Social Experiment" now going on, you are not permitted self defense. If you think the Social Experiment is a Labor only invention, let me remind you who really disarmed Australia. Little Johhny Howard, who wore a bullet proof vest to a meeting of gun owners opposed to his views!

This made all firearm owners appear to be assasians. However, worse still, it made Howard appear a brave man!

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Church of Climatology Overwhelmed by Fear, Panic and Deranged Hatred as Their 'science' Collapses !

James Delingpole of The Telegraph.co.uk reports on his debate with George Monbiot, a journalist with the UK Guardian and a rabid member of the Church of Climatology:

"A sharp-eyed viewer has noticed that when I was debating George Monbiot on TV yesterday and I mentioned that his cherished “peer-reviewed science” had been discredited by Climategate he bared his teeth like a cornered cur. Says body language expert John Lish:

“It was a quite aggressive and defensive gesture which was noticeable when he was attempting to dismiss you (talking about peer review). A definite body-language sign of being rattled. He’s definitely uncomfortable about what’s occurring and others will have spotted that as well.”

Monbiot tried it on yesterday with his free two and half minute propaganda broadcast generously funded by the BBC’s The Daily Politics show in which he rehashed all his old arguments (man’s selfishness, rising sea-levels, plight of the poor, wind farms, blah di blah di blah) as though Climategate, Glaciergate, Pachaurigate, Amazongate, Africagate et al had never happened."

Monbiot was recently carved up by Professor Ian Plimer on Australian TV despite warmist moderator Tony Jones of the ABC constantly interupting Professor Plimer, however never once interrupting Monbiot.

Read the full post here:


Friday, March 5, 2010

Do You Really Know Your Theology?

Who was the third man to walk on water?

The first one was Jesus.

The second one was the apostle Peter.

Who was the third?

Scroll down to find out!

I think it was this bloke!

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Fifty Ships Stuck in Ice in Baltic Sea

This sort of information must be so embarrasing for the members of the global warming cult!

I can just see them thrashing around in anguish as their pathetic little belief system is further undermined. However, just as cult members do, they reject the reality of what is presented to them and continue on with their fantasy.

Here is the article direct from news.com and not one squeak so far from The Church of Climatology!

"AROUND 50 ships, including large ferries reportedly carrying thousands, were stuck in the ice in the Baltic Sea today and many were not likely to be freed for hours, Swedish maritime authorities said."

"Around 50 commercial vessels are waiting for help from ice breakers (and) we have had as many as six large passenger ferries stuck, but have managed to free two of them," Johny Lindvall of the Swedish Maritime Administration's ice breaker unit said.

He said that two large Viking Line ferries that regularly shuttle thousands of passengers between Sweden and Finland were among the four ferries still stuck in the ice.

According to the TT news agency, the two ferries were the Isabella and the Amorella and were in total carrying 2630 passengers."


Tuesday, March 2, 2010

10 Rreasons (of 100!) Why Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Cult

The Prophet! or is that profit!

Is belief in Anthropogenic Global Warming a cult?

Apply this 10 point Cult Test and you tell us. Read each one, adding one point for each statement that rings as true. Total up the score and tell us, on a scale of 0 to 10, what you come up with. Well, it really should be a score between 1 to 10, as there can be no person alive, even if a member of the cult, that could not agree with point #1.

Cult leader Al Gore, is so “always right” that his devotees don’t even question the fact that he will debate no one.

Ever. Anywhere.

1. The Guru is always right.
“The Guru, his church, and his teachings are always right, and above criticism, and beyond reproach.”

2. You are always wrong.

“Cult members are also told that they are in no way qualified to judge the Guru or his church. Should you disagree with the leader or his cult about anything, see Cult Rule Number One. Having negative emotions about the cult or its leader is a “defect” that needs to be fixed.”

3. No Exit.
“There is simply no proper or honorable way to leave the cult. Period. To leave is to fail, to die, to be defeated by evil. To leave is to invite divine retribution.”

4. No Graduates.
“No one ever learns as much as the Guru knows; no one ever rises to the level of the Guru’s wisdom, so no one ever finishes his or her training, and nobody ever graduates.”

5. Cult-speak.
“The cult has its own language. The cult invents new terminology or euphemisms for many things. The cult may also redefine many common words to mean something quite different. Cult-speak is also called “bombastic redefinition of the familiar”, or “loading the language”.”

6. Group-think, Suppression of Dissent, and Enforced Conformity in Thinking
“The cult has standard answers for almost everything, and members are expected to parrot those answers. Willfulness or independence or skeptical thinking is seen as bad. Members accept the leader’s reality as their own.”

7. Irrationality.
“The beliefs of the cult are irrational, illogical, or superstitious, and fly in the face of evidence to the contrary.”

8. Suspension of disbelief.
“The cult member is supposed to take on a childish naïveté, and simply believe whatever he is told, no matter how unlikely, unrealistic, irrational, illogical, or outrageous it may be. And he does.”

9. Denigration of competing sects, cults, religions, groups, or organizations.
“This is commonplace, and hardly needs any explanation.”

10. Personal attacks on critics.
“Anyone who criticizes the Guru, the cult or its dogma is attacked on a personal level.”

Now go to Climategate.com at the link below and see another 90 reasons why AGW seriously resembles a cult:


Monday, March 1, 2010

The Picture

I am really selfish today.

I have put this item in my blog, not because it has anything to do with global warming but because I am selfish.

I am selfish because, until just over three years ago, I had a son just like the mother in this picture has a son.

I want you to take a real good look at this picture. Take in every detail and remember all you can about it!

Look at it!

Don't fuck off and watch TV or guzzle a stubby!


Now please scroll down and read David Cox' blog concerning this picture.

"This was a perfectly healthy twenty two-year-old young man who in the service of his country got half of his head blown off.

I think that’s important, I think that’s newsworthy.

Let me tell you how newsworthy I think it is. I think that it’s more important than chocolate cake recipes and far more important than comic book reviews. It is more important than who fell and whose swell at the winter Olympic games.

It is far more important than any self-serving load of crap banged out by Pseudo doctor Amy. It is more important than American Idol or Lost or any other mindless goat droppings the public chooses to chew on.

This is some American mother’s son, her little boy, he may be gay or straight or transgender but his life is fucked forever.

How did this come to happen to this poor mother’s son?

It came to happen because the people in the media who are supposed to foster a public debate on such public issues as war instead used their franchise to promote articles about chocolate cake and comic book reviews.

They see their free press as free to choose not to look when bad thinks happen.

They feel no need to explain to his parents or to anyone that the war that blew off half of this poor boys head was based on out and out lies.

It was a war perpetrated by people who hoped to gain from it be it in oil or pipelines or service contracts and like the media they don’t care that this mother’s son is mangled and mutilated.

Do you care? "

You can read the rest of David Cox' blog here:


Or you can fuck off and watch TV and guzzle a beer!