Uvurderlig forkert indsats

Diverse — Drokles on December 30, 2011 at 10:11 am

Således indleder Zenia Stampe en af sine forudsigelige opstød i Politiken

Krigen i Irak var en forkert krig. Det var en beskidt krig. Nu ved vi, at den daværende regering vildledte både Folketinget og den danske befolkning om, i hvor høj grad det var tilfældet.

Danske soldater ydede et uvurderligt bidrag i Irak.

Stampe rammer med sit vrøvl ganske godt venstrefløjens svære dilemma når de angriber den tidligere regerings “aktivisme”, som det vist kaldes: Hvorledes fordømmer man den tidligere regering uden at fordømme folkets tapre sønner? Stampe har allerede spillet fallit.

Hvor man dog savner Thatcher

Diverse — Drokles on December 30, 2011 at 4:00 am

A heavily edited version of Margaret Thatcher’s statement of 30 October 1990 to the House of Commons on the European Council meeting at Rome held on 27/28 October.

The Council was meant to discuss the Uruguay Round on General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which was due to end in a few months but for which the EC had not developed a policy (alone out of the trading blocs). However the Italian Prime Minister, Giulio Andreotti, decided that the Council would refuse to discuss the GATT and instead push for the final stage in European Economic and Monetary Union in an attempt to get Thatcher to either agree or to force her to say “No” and thereby bring about her downfall by Europhile members of her party. Thatcher’s hostility to a federal Europe led to Geoffrey Howe resigning from the Government on 1 November and to his fellow federalist Michael Heseltine’s bid for the Tory leadership which brought down Thatcher on 22 November.

As Howe later said: “I wanted to change the policies, not the leader. But if that meant the leader had to go, then so it had to be”. After the Rome Council a French official was asked whether it had failed. He answered: “On the contrary, the Council had been an outstanding success, since it had re-established an eleven-to-one situation in the Community and destabilised Thatcher at home”.

‘Iranium’ - A Hannity Special

Diverse — Drokles on December 28, 2011 at 8:38 pm

Det nyeste indenfor videnskaben

Diverse — Drokles on December 28, 2011 at 8:45 am

I Hanna Og Hendes Søstre spørger Woody Allen hvorfor Gud lod nazisterne slå jøderne ihjel, hvis han er så god. “Hvad fanden ved jeg,” svarer hans far “jeg ved ikke engang hvordan dåseåbneren fungerer” og gentager dermed et gammelt teologisk dilemma; hvorledes kan det onde eksistere i Skaberens verden? Det hænger vist sammen med den frie vilje og alt det der, men søreme om ikke videnskaben ifølge Politiken har gjort nye landvindinger: “Ny Forskning: Satan er bedre end sit rygte“. Det viser sig nemlig at i takt med at Bibelen er blevet til fra de tidligste jødiske skrifter til Ny Testamente at Satan har ændret karakter fra en integreret del af Guds Orden til at blive et autonomt modstykke - vi venter i spændning på fortsættelsen, hvor man opdager at Gud ligeledes har ændret sit væsen fra jævnlige raserianfald med global destruktion til følge til at elske alle sine skabninger lige - måske efterhånden som han indså at han var i dårligt selskab?

Men vores kulturelle skræmmebilleder af Satan har ikke hold i de kristne tekster. De stammer fra tidligt kirkeligt spin – og bliver selv i dag misbrugt af kristne fundamentalister og grupper som Tea Party-bevægelsen, siger forskerne.

(…)

»Mange af mine studerende tror overhovedet ikke på, hvad der står i Bibelen, men de har stadig en opfattelse af, at der findes en Satan eller i hvert fald en form for ond kraft i verden. Men det, vi kalder ondskab, afspejler tit bare menneskers magtkampe. Og det er en øjenåbner for mange at se, hvad der faktisk står om Satan i de skrifter, som især fundamentalistiske kristne hele tiden slår på«, siger den Harvard-uddannede religionsforsker Kimberly Stratton.

Det er Politikens historie: Der er nogle i USA som har et så unuanceret et syn på godt og ondt at det holder andre vågne om natten. Men med mindre de nogle i USA holder Politiken så må Politikens sensationalistiske vinkel generelt dække over hvad Politiken mener er det generelle dannelsesniveau blandt deres egne læsere siden oldgamle banaliter præsenteres som en overraskelse ikke bare for Tea-Party-satanerne, men for læseren generelt, at mennesker indenfor samme tradition gennem tiderne har gjort sig forskellige tanker om det onde. Om Politikens læsere er så udannede, som Politiken antager skal jeg jo selfølgelig ikke afgøre - Politiken kender deres læsere bedre jeg.

Videnskabens landvindinger stopper dog ikke der for gennem mange års systematiske forsøg i Cerns partikelaccelerator står det kontroversielt nok klart at det berømte maleri ’Washington Crossing The Dellaware’ “er det rene fusk” ifølge Jyllands-Posten

Den sejlads, der skildres på den tyskfødte kunstner Emanuel Leutzes berømte maleri fra 1851, har næppe fundet sted - og der er andre faktuelle fejl i det berømte maleri.

(…)

Mort Kunstler er - efter at have gennemset en række historiske dokumenter og efter research på den berømte lokalitet ved floden - overbevist om at George Washington blev sejlet over om natten på en særlig fladbundet kabeltrukket færge, der også fragtede våben og et større antal soldater.

(…)

En anden detalje den tyske kunstner har fået galt i halsen er hans gengivelse af det amerikanske flag. Krydsningen af floden fandt som nævnt sted i 1776. Det amerikanske flag, som det gengives på maleriet, blafrede første gang i vinden i 1777.

På det berømte maleri ser man tydeligt New Jerseys kyst i baggrunden, men lige nøjagtig den dag og aften - viser optegnelser - var sigtbarheden på grund af sne og storm meget ringe.

Uniformerne

En tredje detalje, som Kunstler og flere historikere sætter spørgsmålstegn ved, er den militære uniform, som Washingtons soldater bærer på det oprindelige maleri. Tropperne var i virkeligheden sandsynligvis civile oprørere og ikke iført formelle uniformer.

Der findes mange kopier af Washington Crossing The Dellaware, mest berømt er nok Lydia The Tatooed Lady, her dog i en anden version.

32-washington_crossing_delaware

Men videnskaben overser her den lille stille pointe at billedet ikke udgiver sig for at være en dokumentar, men er en fortælling om en afgørende historisk periode, både det der kom før, det der skete og det der skulle ske i al opbyggelighed. For eksempel fortæller Wikipedia

The people in the boat represent a cross-section of the American colonies, including a man in a Scottish bonnet and a man of African descent facing backward next to each other in the front, western riflemen at the bow and stern, two farmers in broad-brimmed hats near the back (one with bandaged head), and an androgynous rower in a red shirt, possibly meant to be a woman in man’s clothing. There is also a man at the back of the boat that looks to be Native American.

Og, tilføjes det, desuden ville det være koldt at sidde ned i en sådan båd under dårlige forhold da det iskolde vand i bunden af båden ville skvulpe op om arvesølvet så det er let at tænke sig at Washington som lederen alene har taget sig den frihed at holde sine sydfrugter varme og i vante proportioner - man skulle nødig overraske fjenden ved at føle sig underrepræsenteret.

Den lille lysende prik over den forreste mand i bådenss hoved er i øvrigt Ledestjernen som giver Washingtons stoiske skikkelse - omkring hvilken alle arbejder hårdt og målrettet som een under hårde og farefulde omstændigher ud af mørket og ind mod lyset - et bibelsk skær.

Men mens vi venter på at det Sixtinske Kapel i samme oplysende ånd hvidtes over da det er helt ude i hampen kan man grue over hvilke forhåbninger den Cannesbelønnede politifilm Polisse afspejler ved nedenstående billede - men et skønmaleri er det.

newpic_5206_jpg_606124y

Glædelig Jul minister

Diverse — Drokles on December 25, 2011 at 9:35 pm

Parallelhistorier om at sluge bitre piller

Diverse — Drokles on December 24, 2011 at 1:36 pm

En grotesk historie fra USA om et brødrepar, der i et desperat forsøg på at forlænge friheden må æde deres egne betlerier. Fra Ekstra Bladet

De to brødre blev i forbindelse med en trafiksag anholdt den 30. november af politiet i North Charleston.

Deangelo havde på det tidspunkt gemt en mængde kokain i sin numse, som han af gode grunde ville af med, inden en kropsvisitering på politistationen.

Så da Wayne og Deangelo befandt sig alene i håndjern på bagsædet af patruljevognen, fik Deangelo fisket narkoen op fra numsen og over i hænderne på lillebror, som her efter slugte kokainen.

En morsom historie fra Danmark om et par partier, der i et patetisk forsøg på at bevare magten må æde deres egne betlerier. Fra Politiken

Med grønne stemmelamper i næsten hele folketingssalen er reformen af efterlønsordningen nu blevet vedtaget.

Alle partier på nær Enhedslisten stemmer for reformen.

(…)

For både S og SF har efterlønsordningen i årevis været en mærkesag. Partierne har stået stejlt på at bevare ordningen i den form, den hidtil har haft. Men da det i maj stod klart, at den den tidligere VK-regering, støttepartiet Dansk Folkeparti og de radikale ville samle et flertal for at beskære efterlønnen kraftigt, ændrede S og SF kurs.

Ballade i S
Partierne sagde nu, at de ville acceptere reformen, hvis der stadig var flertal for den efter folketingsvalget, der blev afholdt i september. Dermed undgik S og SF en mulig splittelse af regeringen med de radikale på den anden fløj - og partierne fik dermed også råderet over de milliarder af kroner, reformen indbringer i besparelser.

Glædelig Jul også til alle betlerne.

- Åh, det skal lige med at den stakkel kokainslugende Wayne fra den første historie døde kort tid efter af sit sidste måltid.

Glædelig Jul

Diverse — Drokles on December 24, 2011 at 12:49 pm

Handlende i et indkøbscenter får en overraskende og nærmest bevægende oplevelse af et kor

Bachs Juleoratorium fortjener også større lyd end denne optagelse, men i det mindste kommer den her i sin helhed

Er der noget, der er mere julet end Jerry Lee Lewis? Her endda med en Julesang.

Sammen med Bach, Haendel og Jerry vil Monokultur ønske en rigtig glædelig Jul.

James Delingpole i Uncommon Knowledge

Diverse — Drokles on December 23, 2011 at 3:10 pm

Ind over til en nikker

Diverse — Drokles on December 21, 2011 at 6:28 pm

Den engelske fodboldklub Liverpool FC’s stjerneangriber Luis Suarez er idømt 8 spilledages karantæne plus en bøde på 40.000 pund for vittigt at have repliceret “Why? negro” til Manchester Uniteds Patrice Evra’s “Don’t touch me, you South American!“. Straffen afspejler, hvor alvorligt FA ser på denne såkaldte forbrydelse og stadfæster dermed at det multietniske samfund er en krudttønde som selv en imaginær gnist kan antænde.

David Maddock er i ekstase i Daily Mirror

But now, with Suarez judged a racist, there must be some serious soul-searching at a club that prides itself on its unique community spirit, and its all-inclusive charter.

After such a hard-line stance, they must back up their words with some tough action.

It is not just Dalglish who has been let down.

The club’s owners, who have a passionate record of fighting racism in their native United States, submitted testimony to the FA disciplinary hearing in support of their player.

Suarez er ikke dømt som racist, men for at have “ytret sig fornærmende” med “reference til Evra’s hudfarve”. Og modsat Maddock pointerer Liverpool af Evra selv ‘don’t think that Luis Suarez is racist’ og at “The FA in their opening remarks accepted that Luis Suarez was not racist”. Og Liverpool føler sig ingenlunde svigtet af Suarez, men er derimod “surprised and disappointed” ved at retfærdigheden er blevet svigtet af FA.

We find it extraordinary that Luis can be found guilty on the word of Patrice Evra alone when no-one else on the field of play – including Evra’s own Manchester United teammates and all the match officials – heard the alleged conversation between the two players in a crowded Kop goalmouth while a corner kick was about to be taken.

Og de sår tvivl om Evra’s troværdig med reference til

It appears to us that the FA were determined to bring charges against Luis Suarez, even before interviewing him at the beginning of November. Nothing we have heard in the course of the hearing has changed our view that Luis Suarez is innocent of the charges brought against him and we will provide Luis with whatever support he now needs to clear his name.

We would also like to know when the FA intend to charge Patrice Evra with making abusive remarks to an opponent after he admitted himself in his evidence to insulting Luis Suarez in Spanish in the most objectionable of terms. Luis, to his credit, actually told the FA he had not heard the insult.

Spillerforeningens formand følger begejstret i moralismens flok, som man kan læse på Sky Sports

“We are a multicultural society but also our football is very cosmopolitan and it is important that we send out the strongest message if there has been racist abuse,” Taylor told Sky Sports News.

“Clearly it is an Independent Regulatory Commission set up by the FA. They must have had compelling evidence to come out with such a very strong sanction as a deterrent for the future.”

Oliver Holt udtrykker også sin begejstring over at, der er statueret et eksempel

A three-game ban would have been an insufficient sanction because it would have made it appear the offence was no more serious than a sending-off.

(…)

This is about allegiance to one of the basics of human dignity and that is why, on this occasion, the FA got it right.

Systemet mener at racistiske kommentarer ikke blot er så slemme at de ikke behøver andet bevis end at man selv synes man har hørt dem er det værste problem af dem alle. For de fleste andre menneske ude i virkeligheden vil man måske mene noget andet, hvis man fik valget mellem at skulle stå model en en sårende bemærkning omhandlende ens etniske eller biologiske oprindelse, så langt som den nu fremstår, eller et bevist forsøg på at brække ens ben.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words is even worse! synges der i de ruiner, der engang var England. Også Martin Lipton fejrer i Daily Mirror dommen ud fra devisen at når forbrydelsen er slem nok så må sandheden vige og ingen forbrydelse er værre end racisme

But Evra’s agitation was evident and Suarez’s apparent line of defence, that he was using a phrase which has different, more jocular connotations in South America - “like calling Dirk Kuyt ‘Blondie’” - seemed risible.

Evra took the term used as outright racism and if it is perceived as such and deliberately repeated, it is hard to argue that Suarez was unaware of what he was saying or the way it was being taken.

Hvis Evra virkeligt er blevet ked af det og det ved han jo bedst selv så må Suarez selfølgelig dømmes. Og det skal fejres med eller uden fyrværkeri

Yet this was a landmark day for English football. A huge test of the FA machine.

And one, taking all club allegiances out of the equation, that they did not flunk.

Let there be no denying, either, that the Suarez case was a hugely tough one for the FA and the three-man commission asked to rule on nuance and culture as much as the facts.

Nej fakta skal ikke stå alene når man kun har en påstand mod anden anden og kravet er at der skal statueres et eksempel. Som han uden ironi bemærker til slut i hans infame indlæg

For the FA, though, this was a major moment.

The men at the top may feel better about themselves.

Og det er vel det racismeanklager handler om - at vi andre gennem domme over syndebukke kan få det bedre med os selv.

Forårsstemning

Diverse — Drokles on December 19, 2011 at 12:02 am

Fra Hareetz

The Muslim Brotherhood party secured 39 percent of the vote, while the Salafi Al Nour party won 31 percent of the vote in the second stage of Egypt’s landmark post-Mubarak elections, according to unofficial results published on the website of Egypt’s Al-Ahram newspaper on Sunday.

The unofficial results for the second stage of elections for the lower house of the Egyptian parliament also showed that the secular, liberal Wafd party won 22 percent of the vote.
Islamist parties won some 70 percent of the total vote, a similar result to the first stage of elections, which took place on November 28.

Skattepolitik står ifølge Middle East Forum højt på de muslimske partiers umiddelbare dagsorden

In Egypt, calls for jizya—the tribute doctrinally demanded and historically collected from conquered infidels—are increasing day by day, by those who wish to be true to the words of Koran 9:29:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid that which Allah and his Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the religion of truth [Islam], from the People of the Book [Christians and Jews], until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves utterly subdued.

Accordingly, days ago, Ahmed Imran—a candidate of Egypt’s Salafi party, the “Party of Light,” which won some 20% of votes in recent elections—called for the return of jizya (which was abolished under colonial pressure in the mid 19th century). Sounding like a Western apologist of Islamic supremacism, he distorted history and spoke of jizya in glowing terms: “I say to those who fear that we might govern, that it was the Muslims who liberated the Copts from Roman slaughter and that Copts are obligated to pay the jizya, and it will only be half a dinar, taken from the rich and given to their poor.”

Og imens får de vestlige mediers udvalgte, oplyste, unge og vestliggjorte vox-pop fra Tahrirpladsen kærligheden at føle

Lawfare i klimadebatten

Diverse — Drokles on December 18, 2011 at 5:05 am

Ingen ved, hvorledes en bunke interne e-mails mellem førende klimaforskere i toppen af FN’s Klimapanel havnede på nettet og skabte det, som klimaskeptikere har betegnet Climategate. Støtterne af klimapanelet omtaler det konsekvent som at computere er blevet hacket og denne kriminelle handling kaster derfor enanklage mod alle, der drager fordel af mails’ne, som den gør ofre af de indvolverede forskere. Omvendt er en læk et udtryk for samvittighed, der kaster en anklage mod forskerne - en whistleblower. Politiet arbejder ud fra ideen om en ulovlig handling kan man læse i The Register

Police have targeted at least four climate bloggers in three countries, with constabulary taking computers and networking equipment from a science blogger in the UK.

Roger Tattersall, aka “Tallbloke”, a Digital Content Manager at the University of Leeds, posted that six police officers identifying themselves as being from Norfolk Police and the Metropolitan force entered his home at midnight and took away two laptops and a router.

(…)

Last week WordPress hosting site Automattic, based in San Francisco, notified several climate skeptics including Tattersall, Id and Canadians Steve McIntyre (Climate Audit) and Donna Laframboise (No Consensus) that the US Department of Justice Criminal Division had requested evidence for the period in November when the second batch of emails were uploaded.

Lord Monckton skruer også bissen på og vil omvendt retsforfølge ledende klimaalarmister. Fra Climate Depot

I have begun drafting a memorandum for the prosecuting authorities, together with all evidence necessary to establish not only the existence of numerous specific instances of scientific or economic fraud in relation to the official “global warming” storyline but also the connections between these instances, and the overall scheme of deception that the individual artifices appear calculated to reinforce. In each instance, the perpetrators of the fraud will be named and their roles described.

Once the report has been completed, it will be reviewed carefully by experienced criminal lawyers in each of the national jurisdictions in which the perpetrators reside. The report will then be submitted to the prosecuting authorities in each jurisdiction, with a complaint lodged by lawyers acting for citizens of that jurisdiction against perpetrators there. No complaints can be lodged against the IPCC or the UNFCCC, for they are beyond any national jurisdiction. However, individual “scientists” can be brought to book in the countries where they normally reside.

Here is how you can help. If you consider any specific aspect of “global warming” science to contain an element of fraud as defined and illustrated here, then please – in strictest confidence – get in touch and let me have as much detail as possible. Be specific. Name names. Give details. If you can, supply or point me to backup evidence.

Opfordringen er hermed givet videre.

Kampen om jorden

Diverse — Drokles on December 18, 2011 at 3:59 am

Jorden skal bruges til de rette formål og rundt omkring i verden er der forskellige syn på, hvad det er. Forleden henviste jeg til senator Inhofe, som påstod at nogle negerstammer blev dårligt behandlet som følge af venstredrejede godhedsprojekter. Som amerikansk republikaner er Inhofe selfølgelig dybt utroværdig, men det viser sig nu at han har gættet rigtigt. Vestlige naturbeskyttelsesforeninger opkøber jord i Afrika, som ikke skal forurenes med menneskers forstyrrende tilstedeværd skriver Guardian

Members of the Samburu people in Kenya have been abused, beaten and raped by police after the land they lived on for two decades was sold to two US-based wildlife charities, a rights group and community leader have alleged.

The dispute centres on Eland Downs in Laikipia, a lush area near Mount Kenya. At least three people are said to have died during the row, including a child who was eaten by a lion after the Samburu were violently evicted in November last year.

The London-based NGO Survival International said the Samburu were evicted following the purchase of the land by two American-based charities, the Nature Conservancy and the African Wildlife Foundation.

The groups subsequently gifted the land to Kenya for a national park, to be called Laikipia National Park.

Survival International said the land was officially owned by former president Daniel arap Moi, although AWF simply said it bought it from a private landowner.

With nowhere to go, around 2,000 Samburu families stayed on the edge of the disputed territory, living in makeshift squats, while 1,000 others were forced to relocate, Survival said.

Jo Woodman, a campaigner for Survival, said the pastoralist Samburu had reported constant harassment from police with women allegedly raped, animals seized and an elder shot as recently as last month.

I Kina har man ikke den slags økologiske bekymringer og vil hellere sparke sine borgere ud af den materielle forarmelse, som det kommunistiske eksperiment efterlod. Desværre kan skaber driftighed ikke kun penge i Kina, penge kan også købe driftighed gennem kommunen, til manges store forbitrelse ifølge BBC

The row with the authorities has deep roots. Villagers say local officials have over a long period taken their land and not given them proper compensation.

In a show of anger, they staged protests - and went on a rampage - in September.

In that protest they tore down a wall that had been built around land earmarked for development and ransacked government offices.

This latest unrest was sparked by the detention and death of villager Xue Jinbo, who was acting as a village representative.

Og det kan man tilsyneladende også i Danmark, hvis blot man iklæder det et skær af kunst. Jacob Mchangama skriver i BerlingskeTidende om en grundejer, der uheldigvis ligger i vejen for fremskridtet

Arealet blev hvert år frem til 2010 udlejet til Roskilde Festival, men Keld Bjerregaard opsagde lejeaftalen efter, at Roskilde Festival i rapporten ”Helhedsplan for Råstof- og Festivalområdet” opfordrede Roskilde Kommune til at overtage Keld Bjerregaard jord. Roskilde Festivals interesse i, at Roskilde Kommune overtager jorden, er ikke svær at få øje på. Det vil nemlig formentlig betyde bedre legebetingelser for Roskilde Festival, eftersom Roskilde Kommune har stor egeninteresse i afholdelse af festivalen.

I tråd med Roskilde Festivals opfordring, tog Roskilde Kommune initiativ til at indlede forhandlinger om køb af jordarealet. En handel kom dog aldrig i stand, da Keld Bjergegaard mente, at kommunen tilbød en pris for hans jord, som lå langt under markedsprisen. Uheldigvis for Keld Bjerregaard, men heldigvis for Roskilde Festival, stopper historien ikke her. Roskilde Kommune igangsatte efterfølgende lokalplanlægning for området, hvilket har resulteret i, at det omstridte areal nu – i henhold til lokalplan 538 – skal anvendes til udendørs idrætsfaciliteter og servicearealer til større events. Herefter kan Roskilde kommune ekspropriere arealet, såfremt det er nødvendigt for at realisere lokalplanen.

Forskellige kulturelle udtryk for “Rule by Law”.

Det er debattens skyld

Diverse — Drokles on December 18, 2011 at 1:54 am

Vi vidste godt at det var skadeligt at tale om indvandrerne, integrationen, islam. Alene  tonen i debatten gjorde vores nye medborgere kede af det. Mange debattører forurenede debattens økologi med påstande om at indvandrerne fra især den muslimske verden ofte befandt sig på offentlig forsørgelse, var mere kriminelle og havde en større hang til terror. Det skabte selvfølgelig en følelse af udenforhed, som i sig selv var en barriere for en tilknytning til arbejdsmarkedet, hvilket gjorde dem mere kriminalitetsudsatte. Sådan en strukturel kombination skabte forståelig vrede og afmagt og fik flere til at søge over i fællesskaber, hvor man diskuterede det vi i Vesten betegner som “terror”. Så galt kan det altså gå med debat og ikke et ord om EU og klimaet. Men nu har socialdemokraterne fundet endnu et emne, som tager skade af debat. Fra BT

Nu mener Socialdemokraten Ole Hækkerup, at Joachim B. Olsens udtalelser har fået tunge konsekvenser for de der virkelig trænger og har behov for julehjælpen.

- Mødrehjælpen mangler 1 mio.kr. i juleindsamlingen. Frelsens hær ½ mio.kr. i deres juleindsamling. Årsag: Den seneste tids fattigdomsdebat. Af samme grund kan alle dem der har søgt om julehjælp ikke få det. Tak til Joachim B.Olsen, rigtig mange kommer til at mangle julehjælp i år.

Sådan skriver han på sin Facebookprofil, og uddyber over for bt.dk.

- Jeg mener, at det er takket være debatten, at der ikke er samlet penge nok ind til organisationerne. De møder bemærkninger som’ der er jo ingen fattige, og det har de ikke mødt før, siger Ole Hækkerup til bt.dk.

Nu må der da snart komme et forbud.

Daily Show om Occupy Wall Street

Diverse — Drokles on December 18, 2011 at 1:02 am

 

En religions dødskramper

Diverse — Drokles on December 15, 2011 at 7:48 am

Wall Street Journal har en fremragende og velskrevet leder om klimahysteriet, som selvføglelig kan anbefales. Jeg vil dog bruge dens indledning i en lidt anden sammenhæng.

Consider the case of global warming, another system of doomsaying prophecy and faith in things unseen.

As with religion, it is presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge that promises to make the seas retreat and the winds abate. As with religion, it comes with an elaborate list of virtues, vices and indulgences. As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term “climate change” when thermometers don’t oblige the expected trend lines. As with religion, it is harsh toward skeptics, heretics and other “deniers.” And as with religion, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit.

(…)

Religions are sustained in the long run by the consolations of their teachings and the charisma of their leaders. With global warming, we have a religion whose leaders are prone to spasms of anger and whose followers are beginning to twitch with boredom. Perhaps that’s another way religions die.

Religioner er især hårde mod kættere, undskyld skeptikere, når de er døende. FN’s Klimapanel har ifølge Richard Tol besluttet at data vedrørende dem ikke er omfattet af nogen Freedom of Information Act (FoIA), hvilket vil sige at de ikke mener at de skal stå til regnskab.

Second, the IPCC member states have ruled on freedom of information legislation. Specifically, it has been decided that FoI does not apply to IPCC material. This is false. FoI is national legislation. These laws can only be interpreted by the relevant courts. These laws can only be changed by the relevant parliaments. The civil servants that speak on behalf of their countries have no right to usurp FoI legislation, and the IPCC has no say in this matter.

I England, hvor småbørn, som bekendt for de der følger blogs, som Uriasposten, Snaphanen og Hodjanerne, kan anklages for racisme har politiet beslaglagt en klimabenægters computere. Fra Watts Up With That

The first blogger to break the Climategate2 story has had a visit from the police and has had his computers seized. Tallbloke’s Talkshop first reported on CG2 due to the timing of the release being overnight in the USA. Today he was raided by six UK police (Norfolk Constabulary and Metropolitan police) and several of his computers were seized as evidence.

Men, skal det dog siges, religioner afspejler noget fundamentalt i mennesket og derfor vil de altid indeholde en eller anden form for sandhed (med en enkelt spektakulær undtagelse). Fra Joanna Nova

Robert Bradley Jr. was working for Enron in 1998, and saw Enron lobbying for profits in the green sector. Bradley’s name was on the “to” list of this email below (perhaps with the wrong address because it did not arrive). He only saw the email when another man asked Bradley what he thought of it, and Bradley asked him to forward the message.

See Master Resource for the full email. Here are some key snippets.

——————————————————————————————————————————

From: John Palmisano

Date: December 12, 1997

Subject: Implications of the Climate Change Agreement in Kyoto & What Transpired
Implications

If implemented, this agreement will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring of the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States. The potential to add incremental gas sales, and additional demand for renewable technology is enormous. In addition, a carbon emissions trading system will be developed. While the trading system will be implemented by 2008, I am sure that reductions will begin to trade with 1-2 years. Finally, Enron has immediate business opportunities which derive directly from this agreement.

The endorsement of joint implementation within Annex-1 is exactly what I have been lobbying for and it seems like we won.

Nemlig, det er alligevel olieindustrien, der står bag al ondskab.

Gensyn med Fukushima

Diverse — Drokles on December 13, 2011 at 6:36 am

Resillient Earth har man en bøn for sund fornuft.

New lessons are beginning to emerge from Fukushima. Each new concern leads to additional safety requirements. But some contradictions are beginning to raise questions: Amid tens of thousands of deaths from non-nuclear causes, not a single life-shortening radiation injury has occurred. Not one! And while some people in the housing area are wearing cumbersome rad-con suits, filtered gas-masks, gloves and booties, there are many people living carefree in other places like Norway, Brazil, Iran, India where folks have lived normal lives for countless generations with radiation levels as much as a hundred times greater than forbidden areas of the Fukushima homes.

At Fukushima this is no abstract issue. People are being told they cannot return home for an indeterminate period – perhaps years. And efforts to decontaminate their home sites may require stripping off all the rich top-soil and calling it RadWaste. People who were evacuated have been reduced to economic poverty, clinical depression, and even suicide.

There is good scientific evidence that, except for some hot spots, the radiation levels at these home-sites are not life-threatening. The current restrictions are based on a desire to be “conservative.” No matter how well intended, this “conservatism” is cruelly destructive. The respected radiation authority Wade Allison, author of Radiation and Reason, has proposed that the current annual radiation dose limit be raised 1000-fold, which he says is still well below the hazard level of clinical data on which he bases his proposal. Other radiation protectionists are beginning to feel unhappy about the harm their rules have caused and are joining in the cry for quick action as the Japanese head into winter.

It’s time that the draconian measures be revoked. A simple declaration of the known health facts about radiation from the proper authorities would be a good first step.

Artiklen er god at få forstand af.

Reaktioner på Durban

Diverse — Drokles on December 13, 2011 at 5:06 am

Det er svært at blive klog på, hvad en klimakonference egentlig handler om, hvis man blot læser de danske aviser, som goldt kolporterer enten politikernes eller interesseorganisationers ud- og indfald ved deres egne klimajournalister, der endda også blot politiserer til fordel for interesseorganisationer. En sluttet ring af rygklappere. Politikerne var i første omgang svært tilfredse med de fremskridt imod en smadring af økonomien og folkets selvbestemmelsesret man havde opnået ved tilsagn som Politiken rapporterer

Mødets leder, den sydafrikanske udenrigsminister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, vurderer, at man fik det resultat, der skulle nås.

»Vi kom her med en Plan A og vi har afsluttet mødet med en Plan A for at redde en planet. Det, vi har gjort, er historisk«, erklærer hun.

Andre hæfter sig ved, at det for første gang er lykkedes at få kontrære lande som USA og Kina til endeligt at gå med på, at der skal indføres bindende aftaler om at mindske udslippene af CO2. De to lande har hidtil modarbejdet bestræbelserne på at få dem til at tilslutte sig kampen mod klimaforandringerne.

Interesseorganisationerne var selvfølgelig hurtige til at drysse malurt i bægeret, som man kunne læse i Berlingske Tidende

Det er et usselt resultat. Sådan stempler de danske NGO-organisationer den klimaaftale, som verdens industri- og udviklingslande er nået frem til på FN’s klimakonference i den sydafrikanske by Durban.

På klimamødet, der sluttede tidligt søndag morgen, blev det aftalt, at Kyoto-aftalen skal forlænges, og at en ny global klimaaftale skal forhandles færdig inden 2015 og gælde fra 2020.

Og det resultat skuffer miljøorganisationerne.

- Det er for usselt, at de store lande med USA i spidsen nu får lov at vente til efter 2020 med at igangsætte den nødvendige klimaindsats. Med aftalen accepterer verdens lande at sætte kurs mod kaos i klodens klimasystem, siger Troels Dam Christensen, koordinator for 92-gruppen, der er en sammenslutning af danske miljø- og udviklingsorganisationer.

Og midt i det hele kunne man læse en besynderlig historie i Jyllands-Posten om hvorledes ekstra afgifter på erhvervslivet var en fordel for dansk konkurenceevne.

Først i 2020 vil verdens 192 lande for alvor tage hånd om CO2-udledningen, der skal bremse den globale opvarmning.

Sådan lyder resultatet af klimaforhandlingerne i Durban, og den udvikling kan på sigt styrke danske virksomheders konkurrenceevne.

Mange års brug af grønne afgifter har nemlig tvunget dansk erhvervsliv ud i energibesparelser og alternative energiløsninger, som har skærpet vores konkurrenceevne.

Tendensen kan fortsætte, hvis resultatet i Durban udskyder udenlandske konkurrenters grønne omstilling, mens danske virksomheder står over for nye grønne afgifter.

Logikken er at de sure forhold for dansk erhvervslivs har hærdet dansk erhvervsliv så de er klar, hvis nu resten af verden skulle være lige så dumme. Håbet er lysegrønt. Fælles for disse meninger er at klimaet er truet af forandring og ingen forandring er farligere end den mennesket kan have foresaget ved sin virksomhed. På Watts Up With That skriver Dennis Ray Wingo

There are two critical assumptions that underpin the entire Durban conference as well as previous efforts; the first assumption is that we live in a limited world and that this wealth transfer and the immediate cessation of CO2 emissions is the only possible path toward a “sustainable” future. The second is that technology cannot solve the problem but politics can. What are these assumptions built upon and are they valid? Is this the only path forward? Are we destined to leave our global posterity in a state of perpetual semi-poverty? Human nature rebels against this doom and gloom view of the future, and with good reason.

The Assumptions

I do not wish to seem overdramatic, but I can only conclude from the information that is available to me as Secretary-General, that the Members of the United Nations have perhaps ten years left in which to subordinate their ancient quarrels and launch a global partnership to curb the arms race, to improve the human environment, to defuse the population explosion, and to supply the required momentum to development efforts. If such a global partnership is not forged within the next decade, then I very much fear that the problems that I have mentioned will have reached staggering proportions that they will be beyond our capacity to control.

Who said this? This statement could have very well have been the preamble to the Durban conference but it actually was uttered by UN Secretary General U Thant in 1969 and is included as the introduction to the book, Limits to Growth. The book “Limits to Growth” (LTG) is the touchstone of the environmental movement as well as the ultimate source of the two underpinning assumptions of the Durban conference.

Men det indebære også et paradoks, som Reason Foundation pointerer

But there is an internal contradiction in the IPCC’s own claims. Indeed, the same highly influential report from the IPCC claims both that poor countries will fare terribly and that they will be much better off than they are today. So, which is it? The apparent contradiction arises because of inconsistencies in the way the IPCC assesses impacts. The process begins with various scenarios of future emissions.

These scenarios are themselves predicated on certain assumptions about the rate of economic growth and related technological change. Under the IPCC’s highest growth scenario, by 2100 GDP per capita in poor countries will be double the U.S.’s 2006 level, even taking into account any negative impact of climate change. (By 2200, it will be triple.) Yet that very same scenario is also the one that leads to the greatest rise in temperature—and is the one that has been used to justify all sorts of scare stories about the impact of climate change on the poor. Under this highest growth scenario (known as A1FI), the poor will logically have adopted, adapted and innovated all manner of new technololgies, making them far better able to adapt to the future climate. But these improvements in adaptive capacity are virtually ignored by most global warming impact assessments. Consequently, the IPCC’s “impacts” assessments systematically overestimate the negative impact of global warming, while underestimating the positive impact. Moreover, in these “impacts” assessments, global warming is not expected for the most part to create new problems; rather, it is expected to exacerbate some existing problems of poverty (in particular, hunger, disease, extreme events), while relieving others (such as habitat loss and water shortages in some places).

Den slags skal selvfølgelig ikke stå i vejen for en god vilje og hvad er en bedre vilje end afskaffelse af krig og andre dårligdomme når de nu har en skadelig virkning på klimaet? Lord Monckton giver en glimrende gennemgang af FN’s arbejdpapirer, her i uddrag

The contents of this document, turgidly drafted with all the UN’s skill at what the former head of its documentation center used to call “transparent impenetrability”, are not just off the wall – they are lunatic.

Main points:

Ø A new International Climate Court will have the power to compel Western nations to pay ever-larger sums to third-world countries in the name of making reparation for supposed “climate debt”. The Court will have no power over third-world countries. Here and throughout the draft, the West is the sole target. “The process” is now irredeemably anti-Western.

Ø “Rights of Mother Earth”: The draft, which seems to have been written by feeble-minded green activists and environmental extremists, talks of “The recognition and defence of the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony between humanity and nature”. Also, “there will be no commodification [whatever that may be: it is not in the dictionary and does not deserve to be] of the functions of nature, therefore no carbon market will be developed with that purpose”.

Ø “Right to survive”: The draft childishly asserts that “The rights of some Parties to survive are threatened by the adverse impacts of climate change, including sea level rise.” At 2 inches per century, according to eight years’ data from the Envisat satellite? Oh, come off it! The Jason 2 satellite, the new kid on the block, shows that sea-level has actually dropped over the past three years.

Ø War and the maintenance of defence forces and equipment are to cease – just like that – because they contribute to climate change. There are other reasons why war ought to cease, but the draft does not mention them.

Ø A new global temperature target will aim, Canute-like, to limit “global warming” to as little as 1 C° above pre-industrial levels. Since temperature is already 3 C° above those levels, what is in effect being proposed is a 2 C° cut in today’s temperatures. This would take us halfway back towards the last Ice Age, and would kill hundreds of millions. Colder is far more dangerous than warmer.

Ø The new CO2 emissions target, for Western countries only, will be a reduction of up to 50% in emissions over the next eight years and of “more than 100%” [these words actually appear in the text] by 2050. So, no motor cars, no coal-fired or gas-fired power stations, no aircraft, no trains. Back to the Stone Age, but without even the right to light a carbon-emitting fire in your caves. Windmills, solar panels and other “renewables” are the only alternatives suggested in the draft. There is no mention of the immediate and rapid expansion of nuclear power worldwide to prevent near-total economic destruction.

Ø The new CO2 concentration target could be as low as 300 ppmv CO2 equivalent (i.e., including all other greenhouse gases as well as CO2 itself). That is a cut of almost half compared with the 560 ppmv CO2 equivalent today. It implies just 210 ppmv of CO2 itself, with 90 ppmv CO2 equivalent from other greenhouse gases. But at 210 ppmv, plants and trees begin to die. CO2 is plant food. They need a lot more of it than 210 ppmv.

Ø The peak-greenhouse-gas target year – for the West only – will be this year. We will be obliged to cut our emissions from now on, regardless of the effect on our economies (and the lack of effect on the climate).

Ø The West will pay for everything, because of its “historical responsibility” for causing “global warming”. Third-world countries will not be obliged to pay anything. But it is the UN, not the third-world countries, that will get the money from the West, taking nearly all of it for itself as usual. There is no provision anywhere in the draft for the UN to publish accounts of how it has spent the $100 billion a year the draft demands that the West should stump up from now on.

The real lunacy comes in the small print – all of it in 8-point type, near-illegibly printed on grubby, recycled paper. Every fashionable leftist idiocy is catered for.

Talking of which, note in passing that Rajendra Pachauri, the railroad engineer who, in the topsy-turvy looking-glass world of international climate insanity is the “science” chairman of the UN’s climate panel, has admitted that no one has been talking about climate science at the climate conference here in Durban. Not really surprising, given no real warming for getting on for two decades, no recent sea-level rise, no new record Arctic ice-melt, fewer hurricanes than at almost any time in 30 years, no Pacific atolls disappearing beneath the waves.

Here – and, as always, you heard it here first, for the mainstream media have conspired to keep secret the Madness of King Rajendra and his entire coterie of governmental and bureaucratic lunatics worldwide – is what the dribbling, twitching thrones and dominions, principalities and powers of the world will be asked to agree to.

“International Climate Court of Justice”: This kangaroo court is to be established by next year “to guarantee the compliance of Annex I Parties with all the provisions of this decision, which are essential elements in the obtaining of the global goal”. Note that, here as elsewhere, the bias is only against the nations of the West. However badly the third-world countries behave, they cannot be brought before the new court. Though none of what the draft calls the “modalities” of the proposed marsupial dicastery are set out in detail, one can imagine that the intention is to oblige Western nations to pay up however much the world government run by the Convention secretariat feels like demanding, just as the unelected tyrants of the EU demand – and get – ever-larger cash payments from the ever-shrinking economies and ever-poorer tribute-payers of their dismal empire.

(…)

“Historical responsibility”: The nations of the West (for which the UN’s code is “Annex I parties”) are from now on required to beat their breasts (or at least their strait-jackets) and acknowledge their “historical responsibility” for increasing CO2 emissions and giving us warmer weather. The draft says: “Acknowledging that the largest share of the historical global emissions of greenhouse gases originated in Annex I Parties and that, owing to this historical responsibility in terms of their contribution to the average global temperature increase, Annex I Parties must take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof.” This new concept of “historical responsibility” – suspiciously akin to the “war-guilt” of post-1918 Germany, declared by the imprudent governments of the world at the Versailles conference, which was no small cause of World War II – further underscores the rapidly-growing anti-Western bias in the UN and in the Convention’s secretariat.

Who pays? Oh, you guessed it before I told you. The West pays. The third world (UN code: “non-Annex-I parties”) thinks it will collect, so it will always vote for the UN’s insane proposals. But the UN’s bureaucrats will actually get all or nearly all the money, and will decide how to allocate what minuscule fraction they have not already spent on themselves. As a senior UN diplomat told me last year, “The UN exists for only one purpose: to get more money. That, and that alone, is the reason why it takes such an interest in climate change.” The draft says: “Developed-country Parties shall provide developing-country Parties with new and additional finance, inter alia through a percentage of the gross domestic product of developed-country Parties.” And, of course, “The extent of participation by non-Annex-I parties in the global effort to deal with climate change is directly dependent on the level of support provided by developed-country Parties.”

(…)

Review of Western nations’ conduct: Once the multitude of mechanisms for Western nations’ compulsory reporting to the world government are in place, the information gathered by it will be used as the basis of a continuous review of every aspect of their compliance with the various agreements and concords, whether legally-binding or not. Teams of five to eight members of the Convention’s secretariat will scrutinize each Western nation’s conduct, and will have the power to ask questions and to require additional information, as well as to make recommendations that will gradually become binding. The world government will then prepare a record of the review for each Western nation, including reports of various aspects of the review, an assessment of that nation’s compliance, questions and answers, conclusions and recommendations (eventually instructions) to that nation, and a “facilitative process” (UN code for a mechanism to compel the nation to do as it is told by people whom no one has elected).

Det bringer mig til et andet paradoks, som jeg ofte har fremhævet, nemlig at en eventuel ødelæggelse af verdensøkonomien, om den så blot er midlertidig, under vægten af dyre og irrationelle klimatiltag kan medføre social uro og eventuelt politiske omvæltninger, hvilket, som historien har vist, er gode vækstbetingelser for ikke bare krig, men endda klimauvenlig krig. Nok om det, det handler om klimaet og nu Løkke ikke er ved roret kan man ikke skyde skylden på ham så i stedet roser man Connie Hedegaard, som en “klimahelt” ifølge Jyllands-Posten

“Hun er meget, meget dygtig, og det er heldigt, at vi har hende. Hun holdt det hele sammen på en meget imponerende facon - en klassepræstation,” lyder de rosende ord fra Storbritanniens energi- og klimaminister, Chris Huhne om Hedegaard.

Spørgsmålet om, hvorfor de store lande som USA og Kina ikke vil lave en bindende aftale forklares skolaanalyserende med særinteresser og reaktionære republikanere, som end ikke en klimahelt kan kæmpe imod. Sandheden er måske snarere den at de store lande venter klimahysteriet ud i tiltro til dens snarlige død under vægten af dels en skuffende klimaudvikling og dels hysteriets arnesteds åbenlyse korruption, som selv de engelske medier er begyndt at skrive om her ved Daily Mail

More than 5,000 documents have been leaked online purporting to be the correspondence of climate scientists at the University of East Anglia who were previously accused of ‘massaging’ evidence of man-made climate change.

Following on from the original ‘climategate’ emails of 2009, the new package appears to show systematic suppression of evidence, and even publication of reports that scientists knew to to be based on flawed approaches.

And not only do the emails paint a picture of scientists manipulating data, government employees at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) are also implicated.

One message appeared to show a member of Defra staff telling colleagues working on climate science to give the government a ‘strong message’.

The emails paint a clear picture of scientists selectively using data, and colluding with politicians to misuse scientific information.

‘Humphrey’, said to work at Defra, writes: ‘I cannot overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the government can give on climate change to help them tell their story.

‘They want their story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.’

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the centre of the affair, said the group findings did stand up to scrutiny.

Yet one of the newly released emails, written by Prof. Jones - who is working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - said: ‘Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden.

‘I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.’

Det er min fremhævelse af Daily Mail’s konklusioner som ligger i tråd med Forbes “fraud of massive scope”.

Rune Engelbrecht giver lektion i samfundsøkonomi

Diverse — Drokles on December 9, 2011 at 7:11 pm

Fra hans blog på Politiken

For vi skal jo igen huske på, at de ledige, der kommer ud på arbejdsmarkedet, ikke i sig selv forøger antallet af arbejdende hænder, fordi deres plads uden for arbejdsmarkedet så blot overtages af en anden. Det er denne mølle, der kører og kører i samme rille.

Så er det utroligt heldigt at antallet af arbejdspladser tilfældigvis nogenlunde har fulgt befolkningsvæksten. Og det var heldigt at der skete en forøgning af arbejdsplads nogenlunde samtidig med at arbejdsstyrken blev forøget med kvinderne. Men tænk nu, hvis arbejdspladsantallet vender tilbage til 1820 niveau, så vil 3.000.000 danskere med et stå ledige.

Denne logik er bærende for hans indlæg og gør ham i stand til fortsat at beskrive ”ex-kuglestøderen” Joachim B Olsen som “en simpel udenomssnakkende kyniker, der er ligeglad med fakta”. Rune slår istedet et slag for skraldemandsmodellen “Hvis selve ledigheden skal ned, skal enten det eksisterende lønarbejde deles (hvilket kræver mange flere på orlov og på nedsat tid),” - en model, som skabte mere ledighed og øget pres på de offentlige udgifter, hvilket for Engelbrecht er mere end “dumsmart moraliseren”. Fra Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening

Lad tre skraldemænd gå ned i arbejdstid for at gøre plads til en fjerde ledig. Det var forslaget fra de århusianske skraldemænd for fjorten år siden, da de gerne ville gøre deres for at nedbringe beskæftigelsen.

Men metoden virker ikke. Der kommer ikke flere i job af, at de, som har et arbejde, arbejder mindre tid. Det har et stort eksperiment i Canada nu endegyldigt slået fast. Skraldemandsmodellen var vitterligt en århushistorie.

Det er svært at forestille sig at satanisten Engelbrecht, for det er således vi i den gode tones ånd titulerer politiske modstandere, har udgivet bøger. Og det er direkte bekymrende at nogen sikkert har købt disse bøger skrevet af en simpel limhjerne.

De sidste tider i den klimatiske vækkelse

Diverse — Drokles on December 9, 2011 at 6:58 pm

En anekdote fra slutningen af 1800 tallet fortæller om en indremissionsk præst der i ærgelse over at menigheden var blevet for slap i troen og stram i synden brugte hele gudstjenesten på at hælde svovl ud fra prædikestolen over de stakkelels og skamfulde hoveder. Da han på et tidspunkt tager en ny vejrtrækning opdager han at flere af kvinderne græder højlydt, børnene knuger deres hoveder i deres mødres skørter og de ellers så barske mænd er lig blege i ansigterne. Og præsten siger “Så, så, børn, det kan jo være løgn alt sammen”.

Kristne siger ofte at hvis ikke man tror på Gud tror man på hvad som helst. Som ateist finder jeg dette udsagn lige vel kategorisk, men det er heller ikke helt usandt. Ved ikke at tro på Gud, den kristne altså, mangler man hurtigt et sprog for sin egen tvivl og lader sig derfor lettere forføre af sin religiøsitet, som er iboende uanset om man navngiver og tror på et eller andet væsen eller om man er overbevist om sin evne til at kende eller komme til at en endelig materiel sandhed. Kommunisme er en religiøs forstilling helt blottet for Gud og selverkendelse. Intet menneske går fri af dette dårskab uanset, hvilken klub man melder sig ind eller ud af og hvilke bekendelser man slynger ud.

Det religiøse er skam ganske gavnligt da det giver os en følelse af sammenhæng, formål og retning i en verden, der ellers er kaotisk, tilfældig og meningsløs. Men der påhviler os samtidig en pligt til at erkende vores forestillings faldgruber, så vi ikke bevæger os i en uhensigtsmæssig retning. Ateismen, som dyrkelsen af sin manglende tro på Gud, tror sig hævet over sin menneskelige begrænsninger, identificerer sig faktisk som sådan, og er således dømt til et syndefald. Troen er personlig men religionen er kollektiv og fra tid til anden kaldes der til samling i den dominerende religiøse forestilling - en religiøs vækkelse.

Klimadebatten er præget af en religiøs tro på at kende sandheden, hvor udsagn som ”vi ved nu…”, “debatten er ovre, nu skal der handles” og “FN siger…” helt ud til det nærmest selvmodsigende “jeg tror på videnskaben” følges naturligt op af begreber som “benægtere” om mennesker i dissens, som spiller lige dele på Holocaustbenægtelse og alment kætteri, som flyder frit fra især grønne interesseorganisationer og politikere. Der har i samme underforståede logik derfor været flere forslag om at betragte skeptisisme som en forbrydelse mod menneskeheden da de står i vejen for en redning af Jordens klima og dermed potentielt millioner og atter millioner af menneskeliv. Også tanker om at afskaffe demokratiet fordi problemet var for alvorligt til at det kunne løses med en uforstandig og vrangvillig befolkning og en eksisterende hæmmende lovgivning nyder indpas. Og det endda fra personer, som betragter sig selv som pæne mennesker der kæmper for demokratiet.

Diskrepansen i hekseforfølgelse af anderledes tænkende og plæderen for fascime samtidig med selvopfattelsen af egen civilitet og demokratisk tilkendegivelse er grundet i den manglende erkendelse af at den religiøse vished har overtaget fundamentet for tanken og har gjort blind. Behovet for de mange vejer tunget end behovet for de få, som det hedder på Starship Enterprise eller hensigten helliger midlet, som det hed bag jerntæppet - og den logik kræver vished for nødvendigheden.

Fra American Thinker

More and more scientists are revolting against the global warming consensus enforced by government funding, the academic establishment, and media misrepresentation. They are saying that solar cycles and the complex systems of cloud formation have much more influence on our climate, and account for historical periods of warming and cooling much more accurately that a straight line graph of industrialization, CO2, and rising temperatures. They also point out that the rising temperatures that set off the global warming panic ended in 1998.

(…)

As more and more scientific evidence is published that debunks global warming, the enforced consensus is ending. The Royal Society, Britain’s premier scientific institution — whose previous president declared that “the debate on climate change is over” — “is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures. … The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause.” Most of the rebels were retired, as one of them explained, “One of the reasons people like myself are willing to put our heads above the parapet is that our careers are not at risk from being labeled a denier or flat-Earther because we say the science is not settled. The bullying of people into silence has unfortunately been effective.”

In America, Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-winner in physics, resigned in protest from the American Physical Society this fall because of the Society’s policy statement: “The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring.” Dr. Giaver:

Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?

The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this “warming” period.

(…)

Fifty-one thousand Canadian engineers, geologists, and geophysicists were recently polled by their professional organization. Sixty-eight percent of them disagree with the statement that “the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” APEGGA’s executive director Neil Windsor said, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

Dr. Joanne Simpson, one of the world’s top weather scientists, expressed relief upon her retirement that she was finally free to speak “frankly” on global warming and announce that “as a scientist I remain skeptical.” She says she remained silent for fear of personal attacks. Dr. Simpson was a pioneer in computer modeling and points out the obvious: computer models are not yet good enough to predict weather — we cannot scientifically predict global climate trends.

Dr. Fred Singer, first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, and physicist Dr. Seitz, past president of the APS, of Rockefeller University and of the National Academy of Science, argue that the computer models are fed questionable data and assumptions that determine the answers on global warming that the scientists expect to see.

(…)

Media coverage on global warming has been criminally one-sided. The public doesn’t know where the global warming theory came from in the first place. Answer: the U.N., not a scientific body. The threat of catastrophic warming was launched by the U.N. to promote international climate treaties that would transfer wealth from rich countries to developing countries. It was political from the beginning, with the conclusion assumed: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (U.N. IPCC) was funded to report on how man was changing climate. Its scientific reports have been repeatedly corrected for misrepresentation and outright fraud.

This is important. Global warming theory did not come from a breakthrough in scientific research that enabled us to understand our climate. We still don’t understand global climate any more than we understand the human brain or how to cure cancer. The science of global climate is in its infancy.

Yet the U.N. IPCC reports drive American policy. The EPA broke federal law requiring independent analysis and used the U.N. IPCC reports in its “endangerment” finding that justifies extreme regulatory actions. Senator Inhofe is apoplectic:

(…)

This is not all about idealism. There are crasser reasons of money and power for wanting to close the debate. Billions of dollars in federal grants and subsidies are spent to fight global warming. The cover of fighting to save the planet gives the government unlimited powers to intrude into private business and our individual homes. The government can reach its long arm right into your shower and control how much hot water you are allowed to use. In the words of MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Lindzen, “[c]ontrolling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life.”

Fra National Post

Environmentalists imagine that Kyoto was a sort of bonding moment for the world’s nations. In fact, it was an exercise in multilateral cynicism, with each group of nations tying to extract advantage through green posturing. The developing countries, including China, were happy that the treaty would handcuff the industrialized world’s economic expansion until they caught up. The Europeans wanted it set up in such a way that they could boast about their environmental bona fides without doing anything. And the Russians wanted everyone else to be bound by CO2 limits because they had plenty of unused emission credits they wanted to sell for billions to guilt-ridden Western governments. No one was willing to make the massive, economy-crippling measures that would be required to actually reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, such as replacing cheap carbon-based fuel en masse with more expensive renewable fuels.

Even if all the world’s nations had somehow found some magical method for meeting their emission limits, the most the environmental treaty could have accomplished would have been to delay the total 21st-century warming projected by scientists by a decade or less. The Earth would have warmed as much under Kyoto, just at a slightly slower rate.

Steve McIntyre, som nærmest egenhændigt afslørede Ishockeystavs-grafen som svindel, lægger i dette interview vægt på, hvad også jeg finder er den afgørende afsløring i anden del af sagen om de lækkede emails fra de centrale forskere ved FN’s Klimapanel, nemlig FN-forskernes grundlæggende tvivl på egne påstande og en etisk kvabbelse over deres egne metoder, mens de udadtil fodrede ikke bare det politiske system, men også deres kollegaer i det videnskabelige miljø med den tyraniserende påstand om konsensus og en intimiderende insisteren på absolut sikkerhed.

Den canadiske journalist Donna Laframboise har som tidligere omtalt undersøgt klimapanelet i hendes morsomme og let (nogen gange dog lidt for let) læselige bog The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For The World’s Top Climate Expert.

Op imod denne virkelighed står et enormt system af forskellige interesser, som har satset hårdt på at være først på fremtidens bølge, som vil være ganske tøvende i deres erkendelse. Men de vil blive tvunget til det efterhånden og når først erkendelsen spreder sig vil det gå stærkt - det er en ånd, der slippes ud af en flaske.

I The Leader Episode (tror jeg den hedder) af Simpson flytter en nyreligiøs sekt til Springfield og får snart det meste af byen i sin magt, som giver alle deres værdier til Lederen, mens de selv træller i marken for at giver Lederen mulighed for bag lukkede døre at bygge det rumskib, der skal bringe dem alle til en anden galakse, hvor de kan blive lykkelige (Homer starter på sin samling af Lederbønner, bønner han synes ligner den Leder han aldrig har set). Da illusionen endelig afsløres flygter Lederen på det store rumskib, der viser sig ikke at være andet end en almindelig cykel dækket af papmache, mens alle udtrykker deres vrede over bedraget - alle undtagen Groundskeeper Willie, der som en anden Joey Starret desperat råber “Come Back, Willie still loves you!”. Hvem der ender i rollen som Willie bliver i sig selv spændende at se, men mere vigtigt bliver den selvrangsagelse i den vestlige verden af at Gudløsheden ikke er befrielsen for religionen. Vigtigt er det nemlig altid at holde sig for øje at det kan være løgn alt sammen - endda også dette.

Je vomis

Diverse — Drokles on December 5, 2011 at 4:31 am

Meget hykleri fra den røde regering har man skullet lægge ører til, men den værste er dog Mette Frederiksen. Bedst som man troede at hun ikke kunne blive mere uanstændig overgår hun sig selv i sin spidskompetence hykleri. I fattigdomsdebatten er Frederiksen hoppet foran i køen til håndvasken og placerer i Information ansvaret på de unge og alle os andre

»Jeg kan høre det, når jeg taler med unge. Jeg er selvfølgelig farvet af, at jeg har arbejdet med socialområdet, hvor mange unge hænger på kanten. Men jeg møder en del unge, som synes, at det er o.k., at være på kontanthjælp. Her er der sket et skred.«

— Hvis ansvar er det?

»Det er kollektivt. Højrefløjen ynder at sige, at det er den nordiske velfærdsmodel, men jeg tror, at man skal tage ansvaret på sig. Lige præcis normer er mere end noget andet kulturbårne. Og der bærer vi alle sammen et ansvar.«

— Hvordan kan man vænne folk til at tænke anderledes og være mere tilbageholdende?

»Ingen har den fulde løsning, men en del handler om at være præcis i sine krav. Det handler både om, hvordan vi opdrager vores børn, og om at skolen kræver noget af forældrene.«

(…)

»Og vi kommer ikke uden om, at vi i forældregenerationen skal tage et større ansvar. Vi må sætte det abstrakte fællesskab, som vi har i Danmark, hvor vi betaler skat for at andre kan komme på hospitalet, højt på dagsordenen.«

De voksne har svigtet! Bare sådan - Voksne! Men da næsten havldelen af os jo arbejder for føden og betaler ved kasse et og da nogen uden arbejde søger det aktivt og da andre uden arbejde grundlæggende ikke magter det og da de borgerlige netop har været under heftig anklage for at ville ødelægge mennesker, som Frederiksen selv altid minder os om at vi jo altså taler om, fra Frederiksen især og hendes parti og videre udaf mod venstre holder den selvfølgelig ikke. Måske kan hun slippe afsted med den slags på Information, men til Jyllands-Posten kræver det en anden præsicering

»I mange kommuner og blandt en del sagsbehandlere er der en alt for stor tendens til, at man indirekte fastholder folk på kontanthjælp, fordi sagsbehandlerne af et godt hjerte ønsker at sikre folk en indtægt,« siger Mette Frederiksen.

(…)

»Som socialdemokrat er jeg tilhænger af en hårdere rådighedsvurdering end den, der gælder i dag,« fastslår Mette Frederiksen.

Sagsbehandlerne har svigtet! De der forvalter systemet har svigtet, ikke blot fordi de er voksne, men fordi de har et godt hjerte. Der ligger skylden.

Skylden er ikke Frederiksens, som gennem hendes lange karriere som politiker, ikke har bestilt andet end at tilsvine alle politiske modstandere, som de ikke ville tude om kap med hende over alle det var så synd for. Som med forældrene der svigtede integrationen ved at sende deres børn på privatskole, væk fra det multikulturelle eksperiments ruiner berejder beskæftigelsesministeren, der aldrig har haft anden beskæftigelse end overmoralsk politiker, belærer endnu engang det arbejdende folk, her voskne og/eller offentligt ansatte i frontlinien om deres svigt af det større gode.

Fejlen er ikke ideologien og ideologerne bag systemet eller systemet i sig selv, nej fejlen er alle andres - alle andre end Mette Frederiksen. Som da Mette Frederiksen “blev klogere” da hendes børn skulle til at betale regningen for den opløste folkeskole er hun nu også blevet klogere når hun nu selv skal administrere cirkus gavebod. Men ikke een eneste indrømmelse kommer der fra hende denne gang. End ikke et enkelt lille ”jeg har spildt mit liv med at forpeste andres!” kommer der fra hende. Kun fordømmeler af alle andre, der har rettet sig efter det nedværdigende og skadelige uansvarlighedsunivers hun ikke blot abonnerer gennem Socialdemokratiet, men højt råbende reklamerer for og systematisk arbejder for som et eneste bidrag til samfundet. I dette mit Émile Zola øjeblik ala Joachim B Olsen må jeg sige: Jeg brækker mig!

Next Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress