“The Last Ditch” ventures inside The Door Of Hell, and manages to return

David Davis

The grand-challenge-cup award for brave man of the week is to go toTom Paine.

Dear me, the BBC at the anti-capitalist-sauce, again….

David Davis

I couldn’t just let this one go: the subliminal message just chimes in so well with today’s British-State GCSE/A-level “Geography” “syllabuses”. Everyone probably believed it wholeheartedly – it was said on the “Telly”… After all, the “educationists” who produce the syllabus-twaddle just love maundering on about TNCs based in MEDCs exploiting the Pull-Factor among MDPs in LEDCs.

You couldn’t make it up: the use of so many acronyms guarantees the unemployability of any British-State-geography student in any capacity other than a Soviet Metropolitan Council planning department.

The GramscoStaliNazi long march to pre-capitalist-barbarism…

…continues.

David Davis

The Knowsley Soviet, here in North West England, gains the “Gramscian-Education-of-the-masses Grand Challenge Cup”, for aiming low, missing, and also coming bottom. Mistakes this big, as Ayn Rand said, are deliberate.

And whaddaya-know? Boys “fall further behind”. Anyone who looks at any part of the British GCSE “syllabus” will see that it’s designed to demotivate males in particular. For example, there is a “topic” in the “Biology syllabus”, occupying about one whole term of “BY1A”, about the female menstrual cycle (in serious detail including hormone levels day by day) and coupling it (sorry, no pun intended) with “aspects of the control of fertility”, going into the days for “safe sex” and how, whether and why to use “artifical methods of birth control” such as “The Pill”. Seriously, some female biology high-school teachers spend a whole term on it. The feelings of boys in the class can only be imagined. I refuse to teach it, saying only “ask your mum”.

http://www.knowsley.gov.uk/

I do hope not, seriously.

Prince Charles has been at the Philosopher-Juice, again

David Davis

I chanced upon this in the Times. Also, I find that Nick@CountingCats has done a good fisk of the silly old loon. Here’s a bit more detail about what the bugger said…

It’s a great pity really, for the poor British, who have striven mightily over the centuries to achieve something resembling the outer shell of a pre-capitalist-barbarian warlord-polity, but with “added freedom” and some goodish bolt-ons… This sort of social structure I guess gives comfort to some, if not most, people whose main past-time is trying to just get by while avoiding thinking too deeply about much.

But one of the goodish bolt-ons is that this model also delivers a modicum of personal liberty to the vast mass of the subjects – sadly often against their will. They will live to regret this lacuna in their perception of reality.

Now, however, although the British have at last painstakingly evolved, within this structure, the grand tradition of being able to get rid of their “king” and hire another one from somewhere else if they don’t like the first one, and so although they have now got a more-or-less-harmless strain of hereditary “Heads Of State”, the supposedly-chief male heir now proceeds to go batchy on Global Wireless Tele Vision – and he does it often as well, which is worse.

It’s all rather sad. If the concept of republicanism wasn’t so innately un-conservative and redolent of philosophical rootlessness, I might be more in favour of it for the British. I’ll have to reflect a bit.

Well what an absolute surprise

Michael Winning

So we are to be told, now, to “put books in the home”… I wonder what we are to be told that the books ought to be about, then? Is not that the crux or nub? Bettre watch out you book-people, for your books may not measure up, all 20 of them.

If they are not about David Beckham or Cerril Coal and called “my life”, then they perhaps arent allowed. And what if you have more than 20? Are you a dangerous conservative?

You’d be forgiven for thinking the State knew all along about how to educate. Thats what they have always said anyway, is it not?

UK Space Program Launched.

Fred Bloggs.

My contacts at the state of the art launch facility in Skegness sent me some pictures of the highly trained astronauts who will be representing the United Kingdom in space.

The first launch will coincide with the completion of the 2012 olympic stadium in 2014.

Will the first libertarian State (minimalist) have to be armed to the teeth against foreing Statists? Discuss.

David Davis

I do worry about this, really I do: and I lie awake at night and I do not know what to suggest.

It does occur to one that in the event of a truly Libertarian “government” – if that’s not oxymoronic – arriving in power somewhere any time soon – and I don’t somehow think it will be here in the UK – what will we do about the following?  

By this I mean the inevitable ire, fulminations, threats, missiles such as the Shithead-3, the Gramsci-VII, the Fabian-V, the Skcidpan-flying-dustbin-Mark37,478-people’s-sword (based as always on the V-2 and about as effective as seen in 1991) sanctions (you name it, we didn’t invent it!) outright attempts at piracy of out trading-ships on the High Seas by the “people’s spontaneously-arising-revolutionary forces of the” states-most-threatened, and the like?

And what is all this sword-iconography about, that “people’s states” seem to affect strongly? Like this stuff?

I do not mean to be churlish about people who sell us things, but why do that when others do or did this?

 

Must like swords, then

I confess that I don’t see the point. I don’t think even the statist forces of the UK do swords much on their badges. Swords are old hat (bad pun.)

Perhaps they still use them as machinery to behead people. Well then, personally, I believe that to be repellent and disgusting and (even) very very pre-barbarian, and I would put a stop to it in Westminster now  __in__  all those “nations” (Ha!) who do it today, and I’d go after the f****rs on the High seas if needed. As you all know, this writer does not favour the death penalty under the present cicumstances here, for this reason:-

For we cannot delegate to the Agency at Westminster any rights that we do not ourselves posess.

But to get back to the point of this post, as I have to go out and do orange-diode-stuff to the meters on the Steel Beast for a bit, a Libertarian Admministration would have hard choices: I don’t think all of them will involve domestic policy decisions – which will be easy as we can just fire everybody on the State-payroll, raze the buildings, and mallet the hard-drives of the State departments that will need to be “let go”.

I think some decisions will involve what foreign powers think of us, and I don’t think they will be initially friendly.

Really, I was just looking at this stuff, and thinking strategically. Obviously battleships are a no-no, as they are noe deadmeat, but you get the point.#

Greens: like Kermit in a liquidiser, green outside, running red with blood and Gore inside.

David Davis

“Sir” “Jonathon Porritt”, (….on…? Bit prissy, n’est-ce-pas?) described as an “adviser”, has apparently come out in the true colours of GreeNazis, and on the original 1960s paleophilosophic Rachel-Carson-Paul-Ehrlich-Hegelian battle-ground. This was human population, its supposed right size, its growth, and what should be done about it in the light of their belief that lots of humans is bad, and a few well-chosen ones is good.

The Landed Underclass integrates his own thoughts about why Greens and other antihuman-oids have these ideas about population levels, with the notion of what populations would become, for a polity, under different market conditions.

The Devil, also cited by Landed, has this. I tend to agree that people who advocate population levels of humans under those which currently exist, are deliberately wicked and evil killers.

Libertarian beliefs: a sign of mental illness?

David Davis

The Cato Institute seems to think that people think so. Interesting.

Obnoxio socks it to the “foreign aid” industry

David Davis

Good sharp analysis from the clown. The comment thread is worth a trip to the piece on its own (and you can ignore my bit, for I’m just being a vain name-dropper.)

Denying AGW is mental disorder – official … and Bella Gerens added

UPDATE:- Bella Gerens added to blogroll. An important recent omission corrected.

David Davis

My attention was drawn kindly by Martin, on a comment on this post, to the fact that I may be “psychological” (as my mother use to trumpet to me year-after-year as a boy) being as I am a AGW “denier”. It also says so in The Landed Underclass, so there’s clearly no hope for me.

Here’s the links to the event if you want to go along:-

One. (Christopher Booker)  

Two. (The University concerned.)

Clearly, I will have soon, very soon now, to be “admitted” to a Government Health Farm, to be treated for my errors, until such time as I see the error of my ways and am thus fit for execution.

Truly, one is so sorry, and also one apologises hyper-profusely, to The State, to the UN-IPCC, to Al Gore, and to all the other godlike people and august bodies (who all have no thought but that for our good) for spoiling their day by deciding they’re completely mistaken and incidentally a load of thieving, grasping, knowledge-corrupting GreeNazi scumbags, who want to kick the rest of the world except themselves back into the Endarkenment.

Corruption and politicizing of GCSE “science”, in favour of Gramsco-Marxianism.

David Davis

I am obliged to An Englishman’s Castle for bringing to wider notice some ideas I have been banging on about for some time: since the “New” GCSE science syllabuses his the schools in September 2006. The “updated and relevant” “syllabus” consists mostly of repetition of prevailing orthodoxy about issues such as GM foods, global warming, stem cell research, MMR vaccination, the placing of mobile phone masts, and the like.

It’s worth reading the entire thing by the student. preferably before Tomes Online takes it down, as it is wont to do with stuff that gets up the noses of the Enemy Class. In fact I will save it just in case, and it’s here to save time:-

 

February 26, 2009

Can we please have less politics in our GCSE’s: a plea from a 16 year old…..

XXXXXXX is 16. He’s about to do his GCSEs and hopes to study Latin, German, Further Maths and English or History at A Level (so he’s no slouch). After that, he’s thinking of studying Classics and Modern Languages at University. But he’s not happy with the school curriculum, and was inspired to write for School Gate after the Cambridge Primary Review criticised the restrictions for children at a younger age. He thinks that there’s too much politics, that these are pushing out proper learning, and that social issues are being pushed far too hard…

So, over to Joe:

“In recent years, it seems that the school curricula are featuring more and more in public debate. There was considerable press coverage of a study last week which revealed that in primary education, the focus has been steered away from the arts and humanities leaving children “tied to their desks” struggling with the nine times table. The report claims this has “squeezed out” other areas of learning, rendering children’s artistic capacities under-developed and neglected. Furthermore, the report claims not only that the curriculum has been narrowed, but that what remains has become heavily “politicised”.

As a current GCSE student, I can identify with this “politicisation”. It seems to me as if the GCSE curricula, above all for science, no longer focus on understanding the subject. The core biology science curriculum now calls for very little knowledge of the biology that we had studied in the years preceding GCSE, but seems to be a governmental attempt to raise awareness of current social issues. For example, section A of the core biology exam concentrates on contraception, drugs, alcohol, smoking, obesity, anorexia and the MMR vaccines, whilst section B tackles broader issues such as global warming, GM crops, creationism vs Darwinism and alternative energy sources.

Perhaps this is the best solution to the some of the social problems that Britain faces today. Maybe through education, education and education, Labour may finally succeed in reducing teenage pregnancies, child obesity and begin to steer Britain towards a greener way of life. 
Perhaps indeed, learning about the advantages and disadvantages of wind and solar power is vastly more useful to the average sixteen year old than a full understanding of the differences between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. In this way, the younger generation may begin to have a much clearer idea of current affairs, enabling us to partake more readily in the critical issues of the day, making us more informed voters and leaders of tomorrow.

An important aspect of the “politicisation” of the curriculum is the use of exams. Not only are the social issues agenda studied in class, but students must take exams on these topics, requiring an in depth analysis of the themes, and also meaning that students’ grades at GCSE depend on their knowledge of the subject in hand, encouraging a much more motivated and engaged learning process.

However, one of the key problems with sitting exams about topics of this nature is that the exam board are required to write mark schemes clearly detailing the answers that they want within a rigid framework. This leaves no room for debate on the part of the student, meaning that instead of producing insightful, perceptive and interesting answers, pupils tend towards putting down what they think the mark scheme is most likely to have as an acceptable response. For example, in a question about embryo screening, the advantage of screening embryos in accordance to the mark scheme was to reduce health care costs for the parents. I found it a little disconcerting, if not positively concerning, to discover that my answer that it would improve the quality of life for the child, did not feature. Is it right to present these issues to pupils in such a way that they are blinkered into one channel of thought? Is it not more productive to allow pupils to debate current affairs in such a way that they are able to access all viewpoints and form their own opinions? Arguably, the government is now more concerned with indoctrination than discussion.

In my view, it must be asked if the science curriculum is really the right place for these social issues to be debated and taught. Indeed, if education is really the process by which someone’s innate intelligence is led out, then perhaps topical issues should be addressed elsewhere. Arguably, in the hours that we spend in full time education, it is more important to develop an understanding of the basics of the world around us; to understand the science behind the issues as opposed to an awareness of the actual issues, and indeed problems, that science can both cause and solve.

Furthermore, those who are employed to teach Biology, Chemistry and Physics may well become frustrated by the deviance of the curriculum from their chosen subject. Thus, their passion for the subject, presumably because of which they chose teaching in the first place, diminishes. Can pupils really find a topic which frustrates their teachers engaging?

For the pupils, this intervention and politicisation can become annoyingly transparent. Having studied global warming in all three sciences, Geography, English, French, German and Spanish, I have found that its initial shock has now ceased to have an impact. The topic has become stale, and my will to change for the better has been weakened.

There is no doubt that there are a number of social issues, concerning young people, which need to be addressed in one way or another. My question is whether GCSE science is really the place for it. Maybe PSHE is a more obvious option, but the problem is that PSHE is not regarded with anywhere near the same level of importance. I think that as young people, we do need to understand the current topics being debated, but it is possibly more beneficial to be invited to participate seriously in balanced discussion, as opposed to having to show we know the effects of smoking in part b) of question nine.”

Read School Gate on:

How secondary schools stop kids from being creative

Should we have academic selection at 14?

Why do so many bright teenagers drop out of education?

POSTED AT 09:03 AM IN EXAMS, SECONDARY SCHOOL |PERMALINK

Derek Draper gets tarred and feathered on YouTube, and Gaians are very very dangerous guys, and should be stopped…

…by a massive Geo-education project, starting before it’s too late and most of us die in this century because of their crackpot projects.

David Davis

I read this and was stunned. That real people might suggest such things, beats me. Hope we run out of money first (might do even that.)

And here’s Derek “Dolly” Draper, wannabe-arch-deliverer of the blogosphere to New labour, getting pilloried in the usual way:-

(Psssssst…..Why’s he called “Dolly”?)

The London Evening Standard (is it still called that I wonder?) cleans up the Derek Draper Degree Débacle.

The problem with the Left, and the blogosphere, one which they can’t get yet, is that broadly speaking those on the “right” are sharper and cleverer than those on the “left”. This has to be the case evolutionarily speaking, since all external threats to existence  - and even survival – have in general come from the “left”. Everybody round here knows and agrees that foxhunting for example increases the survivability and intelligence of the fox population. This is no bad thing for foxes.

To make a living in leftist organisations such as governments, the BBC, death-camps, the Police, quangos,  “local councils” Soviets and the like, one doesn’t have to be very smart: only to parrot the party line loudly enough in front of the right selectors, and to grass people up whom you have a thing about.

Furthermore, “rightist” bloggers on the whole seem to be a widely-read, classically-liberally-educated bunch of chaps, and even their off-the-cuffs seem statistically to be funnier and more cutting, more often.

The left takes politics and the Utopianising of civilisation too seriously. Yes, we do too, but not in that way. This very fine Jack Thurston article, (I do believe he is a socialist, but a rather sharp-witted one who can write well) hat-tipped via Guido Fawkes, sums up their problem nicely.

The left, to succeed in actually, really, really, madly deeply truly, winning the battles of ideas, has to lighten up and get out more. The trouble for it then, is that it will get mugged by reality and become conservative.

And, then what?

Czars, inept stalinist-collectivist western governments, and spin. Who will over-Czar the Czars?

David Davis

I had been wondering about this very problem for some time, until I came accidentally across this post on Manhattan Capital. I have no clue what Manhattan Capital is generally about, but if they are scurrilously ironic about today’s Western (should be but aren’t) liberal governments and their fixation with “appearing to do something about” “problems” by appointing “Czars”, then they are on the right side.

I couldn’t resist reprinting it:-

Über Czar to be Renamed

By Jennifer Kerfuffle, Universal News Co, Feb. 11, 2008. 1.1PM

The Federal Agency for Renaming Solutions, which is working overtime to find a more attractive title for the bank bailout program TARP, will also tackle the task of renaming the Czar Czar—the Czar that rules over all other Czars. 

The office of the US Czar Czar was recently created to oversee the exponentially growing army of czars appointed to control all aspects of existence. The czars are being given distinctive names, such as Autocrat for the Car Czar, Munarch for the Municipal Bond Czar, Bail Boss for the Bank Czar and Morticia for the Mortgage Czarina. 

“Our staff is working 24 hours a day searching for appropriate names,” said Snaky Mox, the director of FARS. “These are very complex issues for which there is no precedent, so we need to be free to make judgment calls along the way.”

One possible new name for the Czar Czar has cropped up in the blogosphere, where several stories were posted to the effect that FARS has already decided on the new title, which is to be Cza Cza Gabor. 

Ms. Mox said she cannot comment because new names have to get security clearance before they can be made public. She says malicious clones are spreading rumors that are not true, such as the rumor that the Space Czar is named Captain Kirk. FARS announced yesterday that the Space Czar will in fact be named The Great Big Head. 

Derek Draper is funnier than the music we were going to put up.

David Davis

The whole “achievement” of the topic and also – more importantly – the comment thread, is really quite astounding.

Truly, there is no humour in socialism: there are no jokes: everything is utterly serious. Like Islam, whatever that may be. Perhaps both will actually have to go, after all.

Ummm…..which one did I mean, that should go…??

Stop Climate Change (errr?)

David Davis

Be like Dirty Harry and make these dudes’ day. Via Counting Cats and The Devil.

Stalinist filename 3578-A/b-crat-5z.NHS.dll : “National Dementia Strategy.rtf”

David Davis

You have to wonder what the mindset is, of persons who link together these three words. “National” + “Dementia” + “Strategy”. It makes me think of dudes who work under the Ministry, in Richard Blake’s new historical novel, “The Terror of Constantinople“, to be published by Hodder & Stoughton on this coming Thursday (5th Feb 2009.)

“I thought that “national dementia” was something invented and posthumously exploited by “Princess” Diana, and then algorithmically-developed and extended by slebs and also by Peter Bazalgette, until I read the DT today.

You have to wonder what a “dementia czar” would look like, or do in his office. As regards what the Libertarian Alliance thinks about czars, we have two things to say:-

(1) We approve of czars IF and only _if_ they are autocratically appointed within and for private organisations, in which environment those who disagree are free to leave, _and_, importantly, the appointing agents are free to dismiss the czar at any time.

For example, I, the editor of this blog, am the LA Blog Czar.

(2) We disapprove of czars as they are commonly employed these days: which is to say, as used by the British State to act as fall guys and take the blame create spinnable headlines for ZanuLieborg by ordering other less powerful robots about so that it looks in the MSM as if something is being done about some intractable problem that the State has compulsively taken on.

There is something profoundly paradoxical about the left’s use of the word “czar”, considering its masturbatory obsession with the theoretical idea of democracy as it imagines what it persists in calling “people power” to be. I’d have thought that the very concept of “czar” – both as derived from the word “Caesar” which came to mean “Emperor”, and from its Imperial Russian connotations, ought to be in the same token profoundly distasteful to the Gramsco-Marxians.

Perhaps we ought to devil up a list of czars. Here’s some:-

Tech czar

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/29/uk-techczars-ridicul.html

it-theft czar

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/08/id_theft_czar/

drugs czar

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1184845.ece

children’s czar

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/nov/13/childrensservices.pupilbehaviour1

the “crime czar” wants us all to stop calling children “yobs”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/may/22/schools.ukcrime

and here’s sovereignty, which has already spotted thr tyrants of triviality:-

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/eco/czars.html

and it looks like the Yanks have got a touch of Czarrhosis of the whatever, as well:-

http://artblog.net/?name=2009-01-26-08-07-czar

The NHS … “avvin-a-luff” at your expense, at a PCT (whatever that might be) near you, now.

David Davis

I just found this idly while trawling The Devil for fun stuff,  (as you do)  at the Ferret-Fancier.

Some of the job titles are so divinely and frankly arch, as to have to have been deliberately conceived witht he aid of management consultants and screenlay writers, and thus in a spirit of supercilious condescension towards real people, who pay the salaries of these collaborationist EUGramscian bastards, by force.

For example, what would an intelligent space-alien from Tharg make of “Head of Cancer Commissioning”, if he/it fetched up in the forecourt of an oncology hospital (if we have any left)? (Space aliens are never female, sorry.)

I also shudder to think what a “Tobacco Control Worker” actually does, and what equipment he/she/it deploys.

The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam

David Davis

reprinted from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eurorealist/message/27001

By John Coleman

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints.

Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led tthe public to be skeptical that any runaway global warning. There is now awareness that there may be reason to question whether CO2 is a pollutant and a significant greenhouse gas.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government? And how will we ever stop it?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.

These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 41 hundredths of one percent.

[BLOGMASTER: I want to correct an error in the reprinted article above: the CO2 precentage is 0.031%, which is 3.1 humdredths of one percent.] [Sorry]

Several hypotheses emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been led to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950′s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, “It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!” The student described him as “a wonderful, visionary professor” who was “one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming,” That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.

So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his move, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us “the sky is falling, the sky is falling”. The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, “My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways.” He added, “…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer.”

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, “I think so, but I do not know it for certain”. I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It’s a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.
Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when they are asked about we skeptics, they insult us and call us names.

So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over.
And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming. It is _the_ hoax. It is bad science. It is a highjacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

John Coleman
1-28-2009

Story Created: Jan 28, 2009 at 6:19 PM PST

Story Updated: Jan 29, 2009 at 9:15 PM PST

Dunno what we’d do without the Devil

David Davis

Here he is in good form on MPs’ expenses thieving. it actually raises the question about how, if at all, MPs and indeed all other “representatives” ought to be remunerated. here’s a poll:-