Dannebrog er stadig vores flag

Diverse — Drokles on April 6, 2012 at 3:16 am

Flaget symboliserer Danmark som suverænt territorie og er ikke en almindelig frihedsrettighed for almindelige grundejere, som f.eks. Ole Birk Olesen tror. Så det er derfor naturligt at Zenia Stampe og Radikale generelt vil ligestille alverdens flag i Danmark så det ikke længere skal markere at Danmark er et geografisk område med krav på suverænitet. Og hvis befolkningsudskiftningen skulle lykkes for dem tillige skal danskerne ej heller nyde minoritetsbeskyttelse. Men jeg tvivler alligevel på at dette er helt vel gennemtænkt. Hvis Dannebrog mister sin territoriale symbolik vil kun den folkelige symbolik være tilbage og den er ganske eksklusiv. Nationen Danmark vil kun være nationen danskerne og dette kan man ikke ændre ved at dele statsborgerskaber ud som konfetti. Det er vores flag og de fremmede kan så aldrig blive en del af os.

Rødhvide Dannebrog kan snart få selskab af italienske ‘Il Tricolore’, britiske ‘Union Jack’ eller amerikanske ‘Stars and Stripes’ i det danske landskab.

Det Radikale Venstre vil ophæve forbuddet mod at flage med andre flag end det danske i Danmark. Forslaget støttes af SF og Enhedslisten, skriver TV 2 Nyhederne.

»Jeg elsker Danmark. Jeg elsker Dannebrog. Men jeg elsker altså også resten af verden og alle de lande, som i øvrigt er repræsenteret i den verden«, siger Zenia Stampe, udlændingeordfører (R), til TV 2 Nyhederne.

Jeg har valgt Politikens gengivelse af historien for deres eufemistiske “italienske ‘Il Tricolore’, britiske ‘Union Jack’ eller amerikanske ‘Stars and Stripes’” - som var det udsigten til netop disse kulturnationers flag der kunne vække bekymring. Snarere reagerer de fleste på truslen fra allehånde islamiske faner vejende over de tabte områder i Danmark. Men det behøver nu ikke være så galt igen for dels kan man bedre undgå muslimske no-go zoner og dels kan man lettere se, hvor de offentlige midler egentlig forsvinder hen, når Københavns Kommune ikke bruger ekstra 450 mill. på byfornyelse, men u-landshjælp i “kvarteret omkring Mjølnerparken”.

Vil en million muslimer smide tørklædet?

Diverse — Drokles on April 5, 2012 at 8:17 pm

Fra Daily Mail

One million women worldwide will show their support for a brutally murdered Iraqi immigrant by posting pictures of themselves wearing hijab headscarves as part of a global campaign.

Muslim mother-of-five Shaima Alawadi was found beaten and unconscious in her San Diego home last month in an apparent killing which officials described as a ‘hate crime’.

Now as a show of solidarity towards the female Islamic community, one million women - many of whom are non-Muslim - have posted photos of themselves wearing the traditional headscarf.

article-2125039-12774afb000005dc-716_634x401

Hate-crime?

Alawadi’s husband had made an emotional plea to catch her ‘racist’ killer, after she was found in a pool of blood next to a note which read, ‘go back to your country, you terrorist’.

On a Facebook group created for ‘One Million Hijabs’, women have also sent their messages of support while posting their photos.

Ah, jamen så går i da bare igang på baggrund af en mærkværdigt malplaceret, ja, hvad man kunne kalde mistænkelig besked på en papir-lap.

article-2125039-1276ff3b000005dc-142_634x507

OK, så fordi fru Alawadi blev myrdet for slørets symbolik skal man, det vil sige kvinder, iklæde sig et muslimsk slør. Mænd skal ikke gøre det, skønt de jo også er “human”, ligesom de glade kvinder på billedet ovenfor (læg i øvrigt mærke til den tykke kvinde med det røde tørklæde yderst til venstre, der holder to skilte med “we are human”, som gjorde hun det ud for to mennesker - måske fordi hun er vant til at købe to flybilletter?). Ikke bare skal det være kvinder, det skal være ikke-muslimske kvinder for ellers er der jo ingen mening i galskaben. Gode ikke-muslimske kvinder skal vise solidaritet med muslimske kvinders muslimskhed fordi en muslimsk kvinde blev myrdet for netop dette. Så solidaritet skal der til for de der dyrker solidariske manifesteringer som man kan skilte med i det offentlige rum. Men, men, men, som det oftest sker for dyrkere af selvgodhed sniger virkeligheden sig ind og ødelægger deres fantasier, som man kan læse i avisen U-T San Diego

Search warrant records obtained Wednesday in the beating death of an Iraqi-American woman show a family in turmoil and cast doubt on the likelihood that her slaying was a hate crime.

Shaima Alawadi, a 32-year-old mother of five, was apparently planning to divorce her husband and move to Texas when she was killed, a family member told investigators, according to the court documents.

The records obtained at El Cajon Superior Court also reveal Alawadi’s 17-year-old daughter, Fatima Alhimidi, who called 911 to report the attack, was distraught over her pending arranged marriage to a cousin.

Så nu er jeg næsten ved at tisse i bukserne af spænding over udsigten til en hvor en million muslimer vil smide tørklædet i sympati med offeret for muslimsk kvindehad.

Heartland svarer igen

Diverse — Drokles on April 4, 2012 at 4:22 am

På Watts Up With That kan man læse Heartland institutes svar på Fakegate.

Background on Fakegate from The Heartland Institute

1. What is Fakegate?

Peter Gleick - World Economic Forum Annual Mee...

Peter Gleick - World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2009 (Photo credit: World Economic Forum)

On February 14, 2012, an environmental activist named Peter Gleick sent to liberal activists and sympathetic journalists several documents he stole from The Heartland Institute, along with a fake memo he claimed was also from Heartland. On February 20, Gleick confessed to stealing the documents but claimed to have received the fake memo “in the mail” from an anonymous source.

The fake memo, titled “January 2012 Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a mixture of text copied and pasted from the stolen documents and original commentary by the forger. By distorting and misrepresenting the plans set forth in the stolen documents, the fake memo paints a false and disturbing picture of Heartland’s motives and tactics.

2. What did the stolen documents reveal?

 

The budget document revealed that Heartland has a broad base of support – about 1,800 donors – and expects to raise about $7.7 million in 2012. It presents confidential personnel information including reasons for termination of former employees and salaries. It also lists scientists we work with to produce Climate Change Reconsidered, a series of reports presenting an alternative perspective to the United Nations’ IPCC reports.

The fundraising plan identifies some of the donors to The Heartland Institute during the past two years and our estimate of how much they would contribute in 2012. It also describes a series of new programs, including four on climate change, that we plan to fundraise for. Are all well within our charitable mission of “discovering, developing, and promoting free-market solutions to social and economic problems.”

Another stolen document reveals contact information for members of Heartland’s Board of Directors, including home addresses for some Directors.

Three things the stolen documents do not reveal are substantial funding from the fossil fuel industry for our work on climate change, substantial funding from David or Charles Koch or Koch Industries, and anything other than a sincere and professional effort to advance the organization’s tax-exempt mission.

3. How do you know the “climate strategy” memo is fake?

We know the memo is a forgery for four reasons:

  • The memo contains numerous errors of fact and interpretation that no one at Heartland would have made. Significantly, every error in the fake memo has the effect of casting Heartland’s fundraising and education efforts in a negative light.
  • Juola & Associates, the country’s leading provider of expert analysis and testimony in the field of text and authorship, studied the document and concluded Gleick is the most likely author. So have many other independent scholars.
  • A thorough forensic analysis of Heartland’s computers (and those owned by Heartland’s president and his spouse) by Protek International concludes “the Memo was not created on Heartland’s computer systems and never existed there, or within Heartland’s email systems, prior to its posting online on February 14, 2012.”
  • The memo references only the documents that were stolen by Gleick. Except for Board members, no one except Gleick had access to all of the documents cited in the memo.

4. What does the fake “climate strategy” memo say?

The memo contains several false statements about The Heartland Institute’s work on climate change. Following is our refutation of some of the most damaging claims:

  • The Charles G. Koch Foundation does not fund our climate change efforts and did not contribute $200,000 to us in 2011. The foundation has issued a statement confirming that its 2011 gift of $25,000 – its first to Heartland in ten years – was earmarked for our work on health care reform, not climate.
  • “[D]issuading teachers from teaching science” is not and never has been our goal. As the “Fundraising Plan” clearly states, we are working with a highly qualified and respected expert to create educational material on global warming suitable for K_12 students that isn’t alarmist or overtly political. We don’t believe this should be controversial.
  • We do not seek to “undermine the official United Nation’s [sic] IPCC reports.” We have openly and repeatedly shown that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports are not peer reviewed in any meaningful sense, exaggerate the certainty of scientific understanding and forecasting abilities, and are written and promoted to serve political rather than scientific objectives. We have produced two highly regarded volumes of scientific research, part of a series titled Climate Change Reconsidered, showing how peer_reviewed science rebuts many of the IPCC’s claims.
  • We do not pay scientists or their organizations to “counter” anyone else in the international debate over climate change. We pay them to help write the Climate Change Reconsidered reports, in the same way as any other “think tank” or scientific organization pays the authors of its publications.
  • We do not try to “keep opposing voices out” of forums, such as Forbes.com, where climate policy has been debated. The truth is just the opposite: We send Heartland spokespersons to debate other experts at fora all across the country and invite persons who disagree with us to speak at our own events. In fact, we invited Peter Gleick to debate a Heartland expert on climate change at our upcoming annual benefit dinner and he turned us down.

5. How does Fakegate compare with Climategate?

Fakegate invites comparison with Climategate, the unauthorized release of emails from the University of East Anglia in 2009 and again in 2011. Both scandals reveal how desperate and delusional the leading figures in the global warming movement are. If you are confident that you are right, you don’t steal documents and try to undermine other organizations.

Groups on the left claim The Heartland Institute, which reported frequently on the Climategate story, is being hypocritical now when it denounces the theft of its documents and calls on journalists to stop assuming the fake memo is authentic. But the “hypocrisy” charge is easily answered:

  • The Climategate documents show a pattern of misbehavior – trying to suppress debate, destroying data, fudging research findings – while the documents stolen from Heartland actually vindicate the organization from claims that it is a “front group” for the fossil fuel industry.
  • None of the Climategate documents was fake. One of the Fakegate documents was.
  • The documents in the Climategate scandal were leaked, not stolen: apparently no crime was committed. Our documents were clearly stolen, and the culprit, Peter Gleick, has confessed.
  • The Climategate documents were apparently being stored to respond to FOIA requests that the University of East Anglia had been stonewalling. The university is a government agency and subject to FOIA; The Heartland Institute is a private nonprofit organization, and is not.

So where Climategate and Fakegate are similar, they reveal the dishonesty and basic moral corruption of the global warming movement. Where they differ, they justify The Heartland Institute taking legal action against Peter Gleick and his co-conspirators.

6. Where does Fakegate stand today?

Environmental groups are using false statements contained in the fake memo and the list of donors in the stolen fundraising document to demand that our corporate donors stop funding us. Since many of our donors give to support our work on topics other than climate change – school reform, health care policy, insurance regulation, and others – they should not be exposed to this kind of harassment.

Similarly, Greenpeace is using the fake memo and the list of scientists in the stolen budget document to demand that universities discipline or fire the climate scientists who work with Heartland. This is an outrageous attack on free and open debate, yet it is being cheered on by many reporters and other environmental activists.

Environmental groups and their allies in the mainstream media still refuse to remove the stolen and fake documents from their Web sites or to issue retractions of editorials and news stories that assumed the authenticity of the fake memo, despite our repeated requests that they do so. This is a clear violation of journalistic ethics.

The Heartland Institute has assembled a top-notch legal team and is asking the government to pursue criminal charges against Peter Gleick and his accomplices, as well as preparing to file civil suits against Gleick and his accomplices on behalf of Heartland and the scientists who have come under attack because of his actions.

7. What is The Heartland Institute?

The Heartland Institute is a national, nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization with offices in Chicago and Washington, DC. The Heartland Institute was founded in 1984. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.

Three things make Heartland unique among free-market think tanks:

  • State and local elected officials nationwide are our primary audiences. We are in frequent contact with some 7,300 state elected officials and more than 8,400 county and local officials.
  • We produce publications that actually get read by elected officials. Six monthly public policy newspapers – Budget & Tax News, Environment & Climate News, FIRE Policy News, Health Care News, InfoTech & Telecom News, and School Reform News – present free-market ideas as news rather than research or opinion.
  • We promote the best work of other free-market think tanks on our Web sites, in our newspapers, at our events, and through our extensive government relations and media relations efforts.

Expertise: Approximately 140 academics and professional economists participate in Heartland’s peer review process as policy advisors and 213 elected officials serve on its Legislative Forum. Fourteen senior fellows are available to write, speak, or comment in depth on a wide range of policy issues.

Media Relations: We send out a constant stream of op-eds, news releases, letters to the editor, podcasts, and much more. In 2011, we contacted journalists more than 410,484 times and appeared in print and on television or radio 1,093 times.

Online: We are leaders in online communication and grassroots organizing, generating nearly 2 million page views and 1.3 million visitors on 16 Web sites and blogs in 2011. Our Facebook page has more than 52,000 fans, and registers approximately 75,000 impressions every week.

Credibility and Influence: Our 28 years producing solid research and educational materials and repeated communications with state legislators have made Heartland a credible, independent, “go-to” source for thousands of elected officials and other opinion leaders. A 2011 survey by Victory Enterprises of 500 randomly selected public officials found 79 percent of state legislators and 66 percent of local elected officials read at least one of our publications, and almost half of state legislators say a Heartland publication changed their mind or led to a change in public policy.

Bipartisan: The Heartland Institute’s influence is not limited to a single political party. The Victory Enterprises survey showed strong across-the-aisle appeal as well. Approximately 73 percent of state Democratic legislators said they read at least one Heartland publication sometimes or always, 64 percent of these legislators said they consider one or more publications a useful source of information, and 38 percent said a Heartland publication influenced their opinions or led to a change in public policy.

Besides its monthly public policy newspapers, Heartland publishes books, policy studies, booklets, and other publications and produces videos, podcasts, and other online features.

Heartland’s 13_member Board of Directors is chaired by Dr. Herbert Walberg, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and research professor emeritus of psychology and education at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Heartland’s 2012 annual budget is $7.0 million. It has a full-time staff of 41. Funds come from approximately 1,800 individuals, corporations, and foundations. No corporate donor contributes more than 5 percent of Heartland’s annual budget. Contributions are tax-deductible under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

8. What is Heartland’s position on climate change?

Heartland’s researchers acknowledge, as do most scientists, that the Earth experienced a rise in temperatures during the second half of the twentieth century, that human activities may have played a role in that increase, and that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

Heartland disagrees with three claims made by many environmental groups: That most of the warming of the twentieth century can be attributed to anthropogenic causes, that computer models are sufficiently reliable to forecast future climate conditions, and that a continued moderate warming would be harmful to humanity or the natural world.

Heartland’s position is supported by many of the world’s leading climate scientists, and many (possibly most) scientists in the United States. We are not “on the fringe” or “anti-climate science.” We are expressing a perspective that is very mainstream, even if it is not what liberal environmentalists and reporters believe.

9. What is Heartland doing on climate change?

We produce more research and commentary on climate change than any other free-market think tank in the world. We have distributed millions of books, booklets, videos, and other educational products to opinion leaders in the U.S., Canada, Australia, Britain, and other parts of the world.

We report on the climate change debate every month in Environment & Climate News, a publication sent to every national, state, and most local elected officials in the U.S. We fund the writing and publication of the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), including two volumes in a series titled Climate Change Reconsidered totaling more than 1,200 pages and citing thousands of peer-reviewed scientific articles.

We have hosted six International Conferences on Climate Change (ICCC), attracting nearly 3,000 scientists, policy experts, and policymakers from around the world. We plan at least one and possibly two ICCCs in 2012.

During 2012, we plan to undertake nearly a dozen projects specifically addressing climate change. An updated proposal is available to donors and potential donors.

# # #

For more information about Fakegate, please visit www.fakegate.org or call Jim Lakely, communications director, at 312/377-4000. For more information about The Heartland Institute, please visit www.heartland.org or call Gwen Carver, membership manager, or Rachel Rivest Dunbar, corporate relations manager, at 312/377-4000.

Contributions to The Heartland Institute are tax exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the IRC. Please send your gift to The Heartland Institute, One South Wacker Drive #2740, Chicago, IL 60606.

Full report in PDF form here: Background on Fakegate

Information kolporterede også Gliecks løgne og har i skrivende stund endnu ikke fulgt op med en berigtigende artikel.

Klimaredaktion

Diverse — Drokles on April 3, 2012 at 3:45 am

Information har rent faktisk haft en historie om Fakegate, forfalskningen af tænketanken Heartland Institute’s papirer for at bringe dem i miskredit, som jeg har overset da jeg tidligere skrev om sagen. Som de fleste abonnenter på FN’s Klimapanels svovlende dystopier faldt også Information i gryden. Under overskriften “Klimaskeptikere smager egen medicin” lægges der allerede i første sætning mere i kakkelovnen

Da ukendte gerningsmænd i november 2009 hackede en klimaforskers computer på det britiske University of East Anglia og lagde omkring 4.000 interne e-mails og andre stjålne dokumenter på nettet, blev det af klimaskeptikere set som den ultimative chance for at få punkteret klimaforskningens troværdighed, aflivet påstanden om menneskeskabt global opvarmning og skudt klimatopmødet i København, COP15, i sænk.

Ingen ved til dags dato hvorledes e-mails’ne fra East Anglia universitetet fremkom. Politiet har ikke fundet tegn på indbrud - hackning - og det vil derfor være en mere naturlig konklusion at de blev lækket til offentligheden. Betydningen af dette ligger i den afledte tolkning - for er der tale om en hackning, som Information’s Jørgen Steen Nielsen antager uden skyggen af bevis, er skeptikerne forbrydere, eller gerningsmænd, i tanke, hvis ikke i direkte handling og deres indveninger mod Klimapanelets autoritet derfor forbryderiske. Er der derimod tale om et internt læk bliver e-mails’nes indhold derimod det forbryderiske, som en whistleblower af samvittighedsgrunde ikke længere kan stå model til.

En ukendt person har narret den indflydelsesrige konservative og klimaskeptiske tænketank The Heartland Institute til at maile sig et antal fortrolige strategidokumenter, som nu er blevet delt med offentligheden via hjemmesiden www.desmogblog.com

Modsat e-mails’ne fra East Anglia ved vi nu, hvem der narrede The Heartland Institutet til at maile sig fortrolige dokumenter - han hed Peter Glick. Glieck var, for hans tid som gårdsanger ser ud til at være ovre, en fremtrædende klimadebattør, som for mere end ti år siden kom på frasen om at debatten er ovre. Han har senere undskyldt sit svig med at det var et forsøg på at højne debatten. Det skal man vist være klimaekspert for at forstå. Han havde også en fremtrædende post som videnskabsetiker grundet den store tiltro til hans hæderlighed og integritet. Med Jørgen Steen Nielsens ord var denne hædersmand og debathøjner, Peter Glieck, gerningsmanden.

Jørgen Steen Nielsen’s artikel bygger, som man kan se i citatet, på Desmogblog, en klimablog som deler FN’s Klimapanels dystre verdensbillede, men han lader læseren forstå at han selv har studeret det belastende materiale fra Heartland; “…forstår man godt, når man studerer dokumenterne”. Og det er bemærkelsesværdigt for han kommer til nøjagtigt de samme spektakulære fejlkonklusioner som Desmogblog

Ét [dokument] fortæller bl.a., at en anonym donor siden 2007 har givet over otte mio. dollar til Heartlands klimaskeptiske arbejde og for 2012 lovet yderligere 629.000 dollar. Blandt andre donorer er Charles G. Koch Foundation, der med midler fra den multinationale olie-, gas- og kemikoncern Koch Industries støtter f.eks. Teaparty-bevægelsen. Ifølge dokumenterne går tænketankens midler på klimaområdet bl.a. til at betale »et hold forskere« 300.000 dollar om året for med en modrapport at »undergrave« de officielle rapporter fra FN’s klimapanel, IPCC. Dertil får en håndfuld ’eksperter’ fast betaling af for deres klimakritiske arbejde i offentligheden, bl.a. den mest prominente, pensioneret miljøprofessor Fred Singer fra University of Virginia, der modtager »5.000 dollar om måneden plus omkostninger.«

Mest opsigtsvækkende er et projekt, hvor Dr. David Wojick — en velkendt klimaskeptiker, der har arbejdet for kulindustrien, men aldrig publiceret én videnskabelig artikel om klimaspørgsmål — skal hyres til at fremstille et undervisningsmateriale til de amerikanske skoler, som kan så tvivl om den menneskeskabte klimaeffekt.

»Hans indsats vil fokusere på at levere et undervisningsmateriale, der viser, at emnet klimaforandring er kontroversielt og usikkert — to centrale punkter, der er effektive, når det gælder at få lærere til at afstå fra at undervise i naturvidenskab.« »Vi planlægger foreløbig at betale Dr. Wojick 5.000 dollar pr. modul, omkring 25.000 dollar pr. kvartal, for dette arbejde med start i andet kvartal 2012. Den Anonyme Donor har givet tilsagn om de første 100.000 dollar til dette projekt,« hedder det.

Det pinlige er nemlig, at det eneste dokument, der indeholdt belastende oplysninger var forfalsket. Men det var ikke blot forfalsket, der var helt tydeligt forfalsket. Skrevet i et andet format, på et andet tidspunkt, i en anden tidszone og med et anderledes sprog, et sprog som Atlantics Megan MarCarthy beskrev som forbrydersprog i en batman tegneserie - “det gælder at få lærere til at afstå fra at undervise i naturvidenskab“! ih, hvor er vi onde - end de andre og ægte dokumenter. Og så havde det tillige en særlig brug af tegnsætning og stavemåde, som Steven Mosher hurtigt genkendte som Glieck’s egen. Glieck havde jo været en flittig publicist, hvilket han åbenbart selv havde glemt.

Jørgen Steen Nielsen og Desmogblog havde altså overset nøjagtigt det samme i deres grundige og kritiske research, hvem skulle have troet det kunne lade sig gøre? Og så meget mere pinligt bliver det når Jørgen Steen Nielsen slutter sin artikel med denne hoverende sarkasme

…i en særlig henvendelse direkte til sine sympatisører skriver Heartland Institute:

»En flok bloggere og venstreorienterede aktivister og deres nikkedukker i de følgagtige medier publicerer og citerer nu disse ’lækkede’ dokumenter. Jeres modige støtte er nu mere nødvendig end nogensinde. Dette angreb ville ikke være kommet, hvis det ikke var fordi, vi afslører sandheden.«

Well, 2-0 til Heartland, de kunne præcist forudse hvor stupide deres selvglade modstandere var, fra Desmogblog henover BBC til Information. De ægte dokumenter afslørede at Heartland havde et meget lille budget, 4,4 mill dollars, som de fordelte på fire interesseområder, hvor klimaet altså blot var et. Grinagtigt bliver det at en så lille organisation skulle kunne true FN’s organer. Eller have sat sig for at skræmme lærere over hele USA fra at undervise i videnskab.

Det værste er dog at jeg ikke kan se at Information og Jørgen Steen Nielsen har bragt en rettelse til dette nonsens, hvilket måske betyder at de har efterladt deres læsere med en fejlagtig opfattelse af virkeligheden? Nåh ja, det er jo Information så læserne har alligevel fået hvad de kom efter.

Frankrig fører an

Diverse — Drokles on April 3, 2012 at 2:09 am

Fra Gatestone Institute

In 2004, the government commissioned a report, called the Obin Report, on « the Signs and Manifestations of Religious Affiliation in Educational Establishments. » The Obin Report showed a deep infiltration by radical Islam into the vast majority of French schools, and a vitriolic hatred for Jews. What it described was so alarming that the text was not initially disclosed. As nothing was done to protest what the report showed, one can deduce that eight years later, the situation has not improved. Jewish families withdraw their children from public schools to place them in Jewish private schools, where they become potential targets of Islamic extremists. Each year, however, two thousand Jews leave France to settle in Israel, sometimes in Canada or the United States.

Jews in France number five hundred thousand, and that number is decreasing. Muslims total more than six million, and for the most part, they are French citizens who exercise their voting rights.

The question is not whether there will be another anti-Semitic murder in France, but rather, When ? Jihad in France is just beginning.

Fra BBC

Police in France have arrested 19 suspected Islamist militants and seized weapons in a series of dawn raids, President Nicolas Sarkozy says.

The raids were in Toulouse, the home of gunman Mohamed Merah, and other cities.

Merah, who killed seven people in three separate attacks, was buried in Toulouse on Thursday after being killed in a shoot-out with police on 22 March.

Police have been hunting possible accomplices but sources said there was no direct link with the raids.

Fra BBC

A nuclear scientist at the Cern laboratory has gone on trial in France accused of plotting terrorist attacks.

Adlene Hicheur has been in custody since his arrest two-and-a-half years ago, after police intercepted his emails to an alleged contact in Al-Qaeda.

Court documents say the emails proposed targets and suggested Mr Hicheur was willing to be part of an active unit.

Fra Jyllands-Posten

To islamister er allerede blev smidt ud af Frankrig og samme skæbne venter for tre andre, melder de franske myndigheder mandag.

Udvisningerne er resultatet af en ny hård kurs, myndighederne har lagt, efter den 23-årige Mohamed Merah for nylig skød og dræbte syv personer i den franske by Toulouse.

En radikal fra Algeriet og en malisk imam blev sendt tilbage til deres respektive lande mandag, mens en tuneser samt saudisk og en tyrkisk imam også står over for en bortvisning.

Ifølge de franske myndigheder er imamerne kommet med antisemitiske udtalelser i deres prædikener og har krævet at, muslimer afviser vestlige værdier.

Det er synd at Aarhus ikke kan hjælpe med en mangfoldighedsdemonstration.

Manu Sareen er en ussel lille skid

Diverse — Drokles on April 2, 2012 at 10:00 pm

Jeg er ked af at omtale en af Danmarks ministre på den måde, men det er netop fordi at han er minister at det gør mig så vred. Fra BT

For kun en uge siden satte kirkeminister Manu Sareen brand i den aktuelle debat om homovielser med en opsigtsvækkende påstand om, at højrefløjspræster  havde truet ham og den øvrige regering med, at de “vil blive straffet på dommedag”, hvis bøsser og lesbiske nogensinde ville få ret til at gifte sig i kirken.

Men ingen præst har nogensinde i en samtale med Manu Sareen fremsat den slags udtalelser. Det indrømmer Manu Sareen nu over for BT.

- Der er ikke en, der har stillet sig op, og sagt sådan her: ‘Manu, jeg straffer dig ved dommedag’, erkender kirkeministeren og beklager samtidig sin udtalelse overfor de danske præster.

Manu Sareen er præsternes minister, de er hans resort og så sværter han dem ved løgne der skal spille på alle de fordomme hans usle historieløse bagland har om dannede mennesker.

Det er ikke let at være grøn i disse tider

Diverse — Drokles on April 2, 2012 at 4:27 pm

Fra Public Service Europe

Did you know that Poland blocked new European Union emissions targets at a recent meeting of EU environment ministers? Are you aware that there is growing support among Eastern European governments to block any new unilateral climate targets permanently? The reason you may not have heard of this growing rebellion in Brussels is simple: climate policy is no longer a big item on the EU’s agenda and the climate mania is gradually coming to an end after almost 20 years. In the past, Poland’s intractable hostility to green unilateralism was greeted by universal protestation in capitals around Europe. Today, it is hardly noticed by the media while green campaigners have become elderly and limp. Other and more pressing concerns are taking precedence and are completely overriding the green agenda. It looks as if a new political ice age has ascended over Brussels.

I Tyskland går det ikke godt ifølge No Tricks Zone

The Wall Street Journal Germany has an in depth analysis of the collapse of German solar module giant, Q-Cells: Too Close to the Sun – The Rise and Fall of Q-Cells.

Last Tuesday the solar company based in Thalheim in Saxony-Anhalt, once the largest module manufacturer in the world, very quietly announced its results for 2011 – a blood bath. The company lost 850 million euros and is now teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, with no hope of a rescue. It is the latest in a series of spectacular solar company failures now ripping through the industry. The number of weird economic events keeps surging.

Det går faktisk værre igen ifølge No Tricks Zone

Yet another German solar manufacturer appears to be reaching the end of the line.

The German TAZ here reports that profits for SMA Solar in 2011 fell by more than a half, to 166 million euros.

In light of the fall in prices in the branch and planned cuts in subsidies in Germany, SMA anticipates a further decrease in sales and profitability.”

Yet, SMA director Pierre-Pascal Urbon is still optimistic. To avert the ill fate of other solar manufacturers in Germany, like Q-Cells and Solarworld, SMA aims expand business in foreign markets. China is a huge market, but Chinese manufacturers are subsidized by the Chinese government, which distorts competition, Urbon claims. Imagine that – subsidies distorting competition. That of course would never happen in Germany or Europe, now would it?  (sarc off)

Og imens udtømmes angsten for klimatruslen som Forbes kan fortælle

The Met Office claims that the greenhouse effects of man-made carbon dioxide are far stronger than the Sun’s influences, sufficiently so not only to overwhelm potential solar cooling, but to produce net warming. These findings are fiercely disputed by solar experts. They point out that the Met’s assessment is based upon highly theoretical climate models that exaggerate CO2 influence, while failing to account for numerous other important contributing factors. For example, as CO2 levels have continued to rise, the Met Office claimed in 2007 that global warming was about to “come roaring back”, predicting an overall 0.3º C temperature increase between 2004 and 2014. Then, in 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years between 2009 and 2014 would break the previous 1998 temperature record. That doesn’t appear very likely.

Since they couldn’t directly emulate the global surface temperature, the Met’s 2009 prediction is based instead upon a simple “energy balance model” (EBM) they used to emulate a fully coupled atmospheric ocean “general circulation model” (GCM). However, the GCM they applied to calibrate their EBM (the “HadCM3”), didn’t contain any solar climate amplification factors (such as cosmic ray/cloud feedback influences)…hence, showed very limited climate sensitivity to solar variations. This is a novel and very creative example of “garbage in-garbage out” modeling wizardry, where a climate model, used to model another climate model, is claimed to have realistic predictive validity.

Judith Curry, a well-known climatologist who chairs the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, finds the Met’s confident prediction of a “negligible” solar impact “difficult to understand”. She has stated that “The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the Sun”. As for a predicted warming pause, she said that many scientists “are not surprised.”

Curry also notes important contributions of 60-year Pacific and Atlantic Ocean temperature cycles, observing that they have been “insufficiently appreciated in terms of global climate”. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific “flipped” back from a warm to a cold mode in 2008, and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip back in the next few years.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, a scientist at the Pulkovo Observatory at the Russian Academy of Science in St. Petersburg, predicts that our planet is now entering a very cold and protracted climate phase. He believes that “after the maximum of solar Cycle-24, from approximately 2014, we can expect the start of the next bicentennial cycle of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055 plus or minus 11 years” (the 19th to occur in the past 7,500 years).

Mon vi får vores penge tilbage?

« Previous Page

Monokultur kører på WordPress