Blindspots At the IPCC.

Earlier this week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a 26-page summary of an upcoming 1,000-page report about renewable energy. While perusing this document I was reminded of remarks by an anonymous IPCC insider who answered a questionnaire last year.

According to this individual, the IPCC sees the world through a distorted lens. That distorted lens now dominates the way most of the planet thinks about climate change:

A relatively incoherent narrative…has been established by the IPCC, and scientific research in the field proceeds by embellishing this established narrative. And the end result is that we are not asking the right questions in the field of climate research… [bold added, see page 97 of this 678-page PDF]

IPCC spokespeople (and myriad scientists associated with this organization) have declared that we face a climate crisis and must reduce our carbon dioxide emissions dramatically in order to prevent horrible things from happening.

But if the IPCC really believes this, why isn’t it developing realistic plans to de-carbonize as quickly as possible? Why isn’t it systematically evaluating courses-of-action A, B, and C? That way we’d all have a better understanding of what our full range of options are, what the strengths and shortcomings of each happen to be, and what the trade-offs look like.

Instead, the IPCC has adopted a moralistic view of the world. There is “good” energy (renewables) and “bad” energy (non-renewables). It only wants to talk about the first category – thus this new 1,000-page report – even though the second category includes options that could dramatically improve the situation in the short term.

For example, the International Energy Agency has observed that:

Countries such as Australia, China, India, Poland and South Africa produce between 69% and 94% of their electricity and heat through the combustion of coal. [bold added, see p. 11 of this 130-page PDF]

In the 21st century people are not about to turn their back on either heat or electricity.

Last week the UK-based Global Warming Policy Foundation released a 36-page report titled The Shale Gas Shock. Written by respected science writer Matt Ridley, with a foreword by eminent physicist Freeman Dyson, the report concludes that replacing coal with shale gas would dramatically reduce not only CO2 emissions, but bona fide pollutants as well. As Ridley writes:

…unlike burnt coal, burnt shale gas includes no sulphur dioxides, no mercury, and fewer nitrogen oxides.

Ridley reports that natural gas leads to fewer human fatalities than does coal mining, does far less damage to the natural world (no tunneling or mountaintop removal is required), and is significantly friendlier to wildlife than industrial wind installations.

So how many times do you suppose the term shale gas comes up in the 26-page summary of the IPCC’s new 1,000-page report? That’s right – not even once.


A world in which our leaders genuinely believe humanity’s future is at stake would be one in which governments would be explaining the benefits and promise of shale gas to the public.

Instead, the viewpoint of environmentalists dominates the discussion on shale gas.

We need no further proof that the environmentalist mindset also dominates the IPCC than the fact that this new report appears to completely ignore the shale gas revolution.

Owen Gun

The Owen Gun, the best sub-machine carbine of World War II. Invented, designed and manufactured in Wollongong. 

Australia, that was at that time under threat of invasion by the Japanese. 

As used, by Lysaghts to train staff in assemble-diss-assembly at the Springhill Works, Port Kembla and Lysaghts Newcastle. These Instrucitonal Wall Chart Posters were also used by the Australian Forces from 1942 to 1967 for training purposes. 

These Owen Gun Wall Charts are printed on a banner vinyl, so do not need framing or laminating. Great for Returned Service Club, Rifle Clubs, Behind the bar, in the reloading room. Complete with the inventors Evelyn Owen signature. Two vinyl sizes.

Interested? Get in touch with Ron Owen at Owen Guns in Gympie.

owenguns@spiderweb.com.au

Global Warming Is A Fraud!

"If we were to shut down industry and energy-intensive agriculture in the way the "global warming" fraudsters propose, the worlds population would collapse far below its present level of over six billion. This genocide is the actual intention behind this hoax, brought to you by the same financial oligarchy which created globalisation."

Laurence Hecht, Editor,
21st Century Science & Technology magazine.

The historical record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, claimed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the justification for greenhouse gas reduction, is a fraud. Research by a Freiburg, Germany professor, Ernst-Georg Beck of the Merian-Schule, shows that the IPCC construed and concocted the pre- 1957 CO₂ record from measurements on recently drilled ice cores, ignoring more than 90,000 direct measurements by chemical methods from 1857 to 1957.1

The IPCCs hoked-up record attempts to prove that CO₂ concentrations have been steadily increasing with the progress of human industrial civilization. Becks work con- firms a wealth of previous investigations which demonstrate that the IPCC cherrypicked its data in an attempt to prove that we must stop industrial development and return to the horse-and-buggy age, or face oppressive heat and melting of the polar ice caps. It shows that the Kyoto Treaty on reduction of greenhouse gases was based on a scientific fraud which violates the laws of the universe, denying the well-established determination of climate by cyclical variations in the Earth-Sun orbital relationship and in the Suns heat output.

In a thorough review of 175 scientific papers, Professor Beck found that the founders of modern greenhouse theory, Guy Stewart Callendar and Charles David Keeling (a special idol of Al Gores), had completely ignored careful and systematic measurements by some of the most famous names of physical chemistry, among them several Nobel Prize winners. Measurements by these chemists showed that todays atmospheric CO₂ concentration of about 380 parts per million (ppm) has been exceeded in the past, including a period from 1936 to 1944, when the CO₂ levels varied from 393.0 to 454.7 ppm.

There were also measurements, accurate to within 3%, of 375.0 ppm in 1885 (Hempel in Dresden), 390.0 in 1866 (Gorup, Erlangen), and 416.0 in 1857 and 1858 (von Gilm, Innsbruck). Ironically, although the 1940s increase correlated with a period of average atmospheric warming, Beck and others have shown that the warming preceded the increase in CO₂ concentrations. The data reviewed by Beck came mainly from the Northern Hemisphere, geographically spread from Alaska over Europe to Poona, India, nearly all taken from rural areas or the periphery of towns without contamination by industry, at a measuring height of approximately two meters above ground. Evaluation of chemical methods revealed a maximum error of 3% down to 1% in the best cases.

By contrast, the measurements hoked up from ice cores, show a rather steady increase in CO₂ levels, conveniently corresponding to the preconceived idea that increasing industrial activity has produced a steady CO₂ increase. As Becks collaborator, Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, former senior advisor to the Polish radiation monitoring service and a veteran mountaineer who has excavated ice from 17 glaciers on six continents, has shown, the gaseous inclusions in ice cores have no validity as historical proxies for atmospheric concentrations. The continual freezing, refreezing, and pressurization of ice columns drastically alters the original atmospheric concentrations of the gas bubbles.  

Ban Guns = Bad Idea

Blaming violence on guns and fanning hysteria over deaths from firearms are staples of anti-gun propaganda.

 

Media help gun-control zealots spread false information that gun ownership and self-defense are certain paths to injury and death. Handgun Control, Inc., gives erroneous advice that if you are attacked, the best way to avoid injury "is to put up no defense." 

Anti-gun zealots blame the actions of criminals on guns and argue that disarming law-abiding gun-owners is the best way to reduce the crime rate. 

Scholars such as Gary Kleck, Don Kates and John Lott have demonstrated the falsity of these claims. 

Now comes an important new book from Harvard University Press. "Guns and Violence" by Bentley College history professor Joyce Lee Malcolm brings new evidence that guns reduce violence. Malcolm's carefully researched book is a study of guns and violence in England from the Middle Ages through the present day. When the English were armed to the teeth, violent crime was rare. Now that the English are disarmed, violent crime has exploded. Indeed, crime in England is out of control. 

Did you know that defensive gun use prevents far more crimes than the police? National polls of defensive gun use by private citizens in the US indicate that as many as 3.6 million crimes annually are prevented by armed individuals.

In 98 percent of the cases, the armed citizen merely has to brandish his weapon. As many as 400,000 people each year believe they saved a life by being armed. Contrary to Handgun Control's propaganda, in less than 1 percent of confrontations do criminals succeed in taking the gun from the intended victim.

Did you know that the testimony of incarcerated felons supports the large number of defensive gun uses? Thirty-four percent of felons said they were scared off, wounded or captured by victims who turned out to be armed.
 

Convicted felons say that they are more deterred by armed victims than by the police. 

In the United States, where roughly 50 percent of households are armed, only 13 percent of burglaries occur with residents at home. In contrast, in Britain, where homeowners are disarmed, 50 percent of home burglaries take place with the residents present.

Gun-control zealots claim that the availability of guns is the primary cause of homicides. Between 1973 and 1994, the number of guns in private ownership in the United States rose by 87 million. During this period, both the homicide rate and the percent of homicides committed with firearms dropped. 

WHEN GUNS SAVE LIVES
Nov. 8, 2002 Orange County Register Editorial

One of the biggest fallacies of gun-control supporters is their idea that guns in and of themselves are an evil that needs to be wiped out. That idea motivates gun controllers to support any number of limitations and regulations geared toward reducing the raw number of guns in the public's hands.

But an attack in Laguna Hills recently shows how beneficial gun use can be, when used by potential victims protecting themselves against an armed attacker.
Dana Kiefer and her 10-year-old daughter, Hana, were at Ms. Kiefer's parents' house when Dana's ex-husband Eric Kiefer broke into the home wielding a hatchet. Mr. Kiefer had a history of drug abuse and of abusing Ms. Kiefer during their marriage. He had a restraining order placed on him to stay away from her.

The court decree didn't stop him from assaulting his ex-wife, and it certainly didn't stop him from breaking into his ex-in-laws' house, grabbing his daughter, then trying to force her to drink some form of caustic liquid, according to news reports.

Fortunately, Ms. Kiefer's boyfriend fatally shot Mr. Kiefer with a shotgun, thus ending a confrontation that could have cost five people their lives. It's the latest example of what John R. Lott Jr. calls the underreported story of citizens who use guns to protect themselves from criminals.

"When was the last time that you heard the national evening news reporting about a citizen using a gun to save lives?" Mr. Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime," wrote in a newspaper article. "Few realize that people use guns defensively to stop about 2 million crimes a year, according to national surveys."

That's an astounding statistic. In a sense, gun-controllers use a utopian argument for banning or limiting guns. They assume that if guns were eliminated, then people who would no longer be able to use them for evil. Therefore, there wouldn't be any need for average citizens to have guns to protect themselves and their families.
 
But guns will always be with us. There are millions of guns in the United States, so it's hard to imagine eliminating them all, especially from criminals.

Mr. Kiefer was attacking his ex-wife and daughter with a hatchet. Without guns, the attacker with the biggest knife or strongest physique would succeed. Guns are a great equalizer - which is why even some feminists are coming around to the pro-gun rights argument.

An Orange County judge told the Register that the Laguna Hills incident shows that some people who violate restraining orders need to be held in custody until a judge can evaluate their mental health.

That's a good point. But it's not enough. Innocent people shouldn't have to risk their lives and the lives of their loved ones by going unarmed and hoping the justice system will get its act together.

Guns can save lives. If you doubt that, think about what might have happened to Dana and Hana Kiefer had their household been unarmed.

Media Scrambles As Bin Laden Story Crumbles

Bin Laden Look Alike Swims Away After "Burial at Sea"!

'A poorly photo-shopped image of a dead bin Laden embarrassed a large swath of the world press and several US Senators, too. Shortly after newspapers and television stations around the globe ran the image, it was exposed as a shoddy forgery that had been circulating for years.

Now Obama said he “decided” not to release any pictures — or any other evidence that any element of the story is true, for that matter.

And then there’s the burial issue. The Obama administration originally claimed no country would accept the body; so, it was dumped at sea — Mafia style — in accordance with what Obama alleged were Islamic traditions and customs.

When prominent Muslim theological leaders repudiated that lie and noted that it was actually a violation of Islamic tenets to bury Osama bin Laden in the ocean, the new line was that the decision was to avoid the creation of a “shrine.”

That lie fell apart, too, when it was widely reported that bin Laden’s brand of Islam calls for unmarked graves — building any sort of shrine would have been blasphemous. So far, no new excuses have been concocted for allegedly feeding the body to the fish.'

Read more: Media Scrambles as Bin Laden Story Crumbles

Obama is up for re-election soon. You didn't know that?

He had an unbelievably low popularity rating. You didn't know that?

Since the Bin Laden Killed story surfaced his popularity has skyrocketed. You didn't know that either?

I bet Julia wished she had a long dead terrorist she could ressurect and "kill" to lift her popularity.

Maybe she should email Obama and he would surely find one for her!

CIA Admits: No Live Footage of Raid!!!

 

The head of the CIA admitted yesterday that there was no live video footage of the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound as further doubts emerged about the US version of events. 

Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, revealed there was a 25 minute blackout during which the live feed from cameras mounted on the helmets of the US special forces was cut off.

A staged photograph released by the White House appeared to show the President and his aides in the situation room watching the action as it unfolded. In fact they had little knowledge of what was happening in the compound.

In an interview with PBS, Mr Panetta said: "Once those teams went into the compound I can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes where we really didn't know just exactly what was going on. And there were some very tense moments as we were waiting for information.

"We had some observation of the approach there, but we did not have direct flow of information as to the actual conduct of the operation itself as they were going through the compound."

Mr Panetta also told the network that the US Navy Seals made the final decision to kill bin Laden rather than the president.

Oh What a Co-incidence!

About every three months or so the mainstream media drop some little snippet about Al Queda gearing up for something or other but mostly we don't even see the news item. Probably because we are sick of the media scare campaign and the last twenty or so Al Queda warnings proved non events!

Now we have the man without a credible US birth certificate telling us he watched Bin Laden killed on helmet cam by US forces. These US forces, we are told, shot dead the evilist man in the world in an attack on his heavily fortified hideout.

The evilist man in the world, who was responsible for killing more than 3000 people on 9/11,was unarmed when shot dead?

His body was then quickly buried at sea?

Back to those MSM snippets. Last week an "un-named Al Queda source" was qouted as saying in an article from India's Daily Bahskar.com "WikiLeaks: Nuke hellstorm if Osama is caught or killed, says al-Qaeda", first posted April 27th 2011.

So out of the blue we get a hint that Bin Laden is going to be killed/captured and when this happens we are warned that Al Queda will unleash a nuclear attack. More information was leaked on MSM that the attack would be in Europe.

Putting the MSM announcements together, Europe is about to have a nuclear bomb set off.

Which country of the G-20 is bucking at the bit of implementation of the NWO?

Which country refused to be a part of the 'No Fly Zone' over non-IMF Libya?

Which country refuses to put boots on the ground with NATO against Libya?

Which country had a double rotar head-of-state helicopter accident as a warning three days after saying "no more"?

If you have (G-) 20 lackeys doing your murdering and pillaging for you, and one of these 20 says "no", what do you do to keep the other 19 back in line doing your NWO hegemony bidding?

You come down as hard as you can on the abstainer as a motive for the other 19 not to question your criminal authority.

A nuclear bomb somewhere in europe by "al Quaida".

Where would this device be exploded for maximum fear effect?

I hope I am wrong!