What if Ron Paul were elected?

Ron Paul is a likeable man, earnest, feisty, good humored, and with a decidedly different perspective to all the other candidates running for President.

According to the latest Harris poll, Ron Paul would beat Barak Obama 51:49. So what if he wins the Republican nomination and then the Presidency?

As President, he would need no brains trust to figure out what to do. He would lead as the aging Prince Mikhail Ilarionovich Kutuzov led the Russian army during Napoleon's invasion: politely listening to the ambition-crazed advice of the wonks -- and ignoring it.

His policies are already decided.

Abolish the money-printing Fed, the IRS (and with it the Federal income tax), the Department of Education and many other branches of government.

End the wars, slash the Pentagon budget, bring the troops home.

Secure America's borders.

Withdraw from the UN, exit the WTO and other trade agreements that restrict free trade in the interests of the most powerful corporations.

Then what?

Stephen Harper, Cameron, Sarkozy and other former US puppets would be toast. In a post-imperial era, no one likes an imperialist lackey.

America would become a more diverse nation. Some states would no doubt seek to assume the big-government roles abandoned by the Feds. But others would not.

Americans would have new choices. They could vote with their feet for high taxes and massive state intervention in the economy and their personal lives, or for low taxes and greater personal responsibility.

Uncontrolled immigration would end. Abortion would cease to be legal and the birthrate of the native-born would increase.

Abroad, America's direct influence would be greatly diminished.

China, India and other great nations would be free to pursue their own economic interests in Africa and elsewhere, bribing and corrupting governments, monopolizing oil supplies, gaining control over agricultural and other resources.

The Kissingerian policy of ruling the World by controlling the World's energy supplies would be abandoned.

Energy-rich countries such as Iraq and Libya, Iran and Sudan would become prosperous and highly developed, as was occurring in Libya under Gaddafi and in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

Such countries might become militaristic dictatorships or they might evolve in other ways. But what concern is that of Americans?

With thousands of nuclear weapons and means of delivering them within 15 minutes to any spot on Earth, the US has no reason to fear petty despots.

But America would once again become a credible advocate of freedom and of the right of every nation to self-determination and of the right of every person to freedom of conscience.

Political correctness would be at an end. Democracy would emerge more strongly than ever before.

America would once again become a light unto the World: the nation that the mass of people throughout the World would want their own country to emulate.

Would this not be a worthier role, a better role, for the American people than pursuing a global empire controlled by faceless plutocrats buying elections, creating fake democracies and holding the people in contempt?

See also
Aangirfan: LIBYAN TOWNS WRECKED AND LOOTED; THOUSANDS MURDERED
Aangirfan: Inside the minds of the CIA
Aangirfan: Britain, the most Americanized and least happy state in Europe

Is the World tiring of US leadership?

Germany slams 'stupid' US plans to boost EU rescue fund

Stupid US Treasury Secretary?

German finance minister Wolfgang Schauble said it would be a folly to boost the EU's bail-out machinery (EFSF) beyond its €440bn lending limit by deploying leverage to up to €2 trillion, perhaps by raising funds from the European Central Bank.

"I don't understand how anyone in the European Commission can have such a stupid idea. The result would be to endanger the AAA sovereign debt ratings of other member states. It makes no sense," he said.

Mr Schauble told Washington to mind its own businesss after President Barack Obama rebuked EU leaders for failing to recapitalise banks and allowing the debt crisis to escalate to the point where it is "scaring the world".

"It's always much easier to give advice to others than to decide for yourself. I am well prepared to give advice to the US government," he said. ...

Read more

Gibbering?

Fidel Castro calls Barack Obama UN address 'gibberish'

Cuba's Fidel Castro criticised Barack Obama's speech to the United Nations as "gibberish" on Monday, saying the US president used a rambling address to justify the "unjustifiable." ...

Read more

Iran May Send Warships Near US Waters

Iranian Navy off US coast? A "strong presence."

American beachgoers soon may have more to look out for than jellyfish and cast members of "Jersey Shore."

Iran's navy warned Tuesday that it planned to deploy ships near the Atlantic coast of the United States as part of its goal to create a "strong presence" in international waters.

"Just like the global hegemony that is present near our marine borders, we … also plan to establish a strong presence near US marine borders," IRNA quoted Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari as saying on Tuesday. ...

Read more

How the Rich Destroyed the Economy

By Paul Craig Roberts

Economic policy in the United States and Europe has failed, and people are suffering.

Economic policy failed for three reasons: (1) policymakers focused on enabling offshoring corporations to move middle class jobs, and the consumer demand, tax base, GDP, and careers associated with the jobs, to foreign countries, such as China and India, where labor is inexpensive; (2) policymakers permitted financial deregulation that unleashed fraud and debt leverage on a scale previously unimaginable; (3) policymakers responded to the resulting financial crisis by imposing austerity on the population and running the printing press in order to bail out banks and prevent any losses to the banks regardless of the cost to national economies and innocent parties.

Jobs offshoring was made possible because the collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in China and India opening their vast excess supplies of labor to Western exploitation. ...

Read more

See also:
CanSpeccy: How to end unemployment 
Aangirfan: How Argentina protects jobs

Should British company get carbon credits for evicting Ugandans from their homes?

The green-sounding British company "New Forests" is reported to have evicted over 20,000 people from their land in Uganda to make way for tree plantations, some victims of displacement being killed in the process. But it is all in a good cause, apparently. The New Forests Company will earn carbon credits for every tree planted.But why not give them carbon credits for the humans displaced or killed too? That would seem to be pretty much in line with the thinking among the more radical members of the environmental movement.

James Corbett discusses Tom Secker's new vid on the July 7th London bombings

In a Global Research production, James Corbett interviews Tom Secker on his post-July 7th Inquest video, Crime and Prejudice (the latter video, linked here). The discussion provides a useful warning to those inclined to embrace conspiracy theories uncritically. Some quite plausible, but unsubstantiated, theories may well have been spawned for the purpose of being later debunked, lending in the process spurious plausibility to government lies and evasions of the truth.

MSM Finally admit the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives

Apparently the Toronto Hearings on 9/11 have sparked a little anxiety in the MSM, prompting them to publicize a wacky theory that the Twin Towers fell  because a mix of aluminum from the crashed airliners and water from the buildings' sprinkler systems caused a series of gigantic explosions. As YaYa Canada points out,  it's good to see it admitted publicly that the Tower's were brought down by explosives, but folks should bear in mind that there was no aluminum from a crashed airliner to account for the explosions that caused the 47-story World Trade Center 7 to collapse in its own footprint also on 9/11.

The mainstream media are now so pathetic, it seems certain it will have to be made a criminal offense to question anything they say -- with extra jail time for laughing about them in public.

Thing is, on 9/11, the media cannot retreat. To admit the 9/11 lie would be to admit that the corporate media are merely a conduit for lying propaganda and that the US Government and its numerous puppet regimes throughout the World represent a system of disguised tyranny under which the crimes of the ruling elite are justified by false flag terrorism, environmental scare stories based on pseudoscience and genocidal policies presented as an antidote to white racism.

Mmaintenance of the absurd official 9/11 narrative is as vital to the survival of governments as it is to the survival of the MSM. To admit its fatuity would reveal Obarmy, Harpie, Sark and Cameroon for what they are: frauds from snout to tail.

A different angle on that Libyan mass grave

It turns out that the mass grave reported to have been discovered at Tripoli's Abu Salim prison where Gaddafi is alleged to have buried more than a thousand victims of his murderous repression has not, in fact, been excavated, nor have the bones touted by the BBC been positively identified as human.As an anonymous commentator remarks, now that Bin Laden has died his final death, Gaddafi seems to have been promoted by the media to the role of World Enemy No. 1.We will, presumably, be hearing from him due course via various videoed statements of dubious authenticity, declaring war on the west by Muslims, in general, and by all those, in particular, that US/NATO intends to attack in the years to come.

Atzmon on Jewishness: Jezebel’s legacy

By Eric Walberg

The Wandering Who? A study of Jewish identity politics, gives a unique insider’s view of the Israeli mind. Its author explains to Eric Walberg that you can take the girl out of Jezebel, but you can’t take Jezebel out of the girl

 Gilad Atzmon is a world citizen who calls London his home. He was born a sabra, and served as a paramedic in the Israeli Defense Forces during the 1982 Lebanon War, when he realised that “I was part of a colonial state, the result of plundering and ethnic cleansing.” He has wandered far since then, become a novelist, philosopher, one of the world’s best jazz saxophonists, and at the same time, one of the staunchest supporters of the Palestinian cause, supporting their right of return and the one-state solution. He now defines himself as a “proud self-hating Jew” and “a Hebrew-speaking Palestinian”. In 2009 Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan quoted Atzmon during a debate with Israeli president Shimon Peres, telling him at the World Economic Forum that “Israeli barbarity is far beyond even ordinary cruelty.”

 

Atzmon denies that there is even such a concept as “anti-Semitism”, stating that “‘anti-Semite” is an empty signifier. “You are either a racist which I am not, or have an ideological disagreement with Zionism, which I have.” When railed against as an anti-Semite, Gilad quotes the witticism: “While in the past an ‘anti-Semite’ was someone who hates Jews, nowadays it is the other way around, an anti-Semite is someone the Jews hate.”

 

One of his Orient House Ensemble’s nine albums, appropriately called “Exile”, with its arresting blend of Middle Eastern and Western themes, was BBC jazz album of the year in 2003. His fascination with Arab music was a natural development out of his embrace of the Palestinian cause. Arab music “must be internalised, reverting to the primacy of the ear”.

 

His unique blend of jazz and radical politics means his performances are picketed and sometimes disrupted. But the gregarious Gilad relished the opportunity to reach out to even his most strident critics, always engages the picketers and even invites them to coffee and an extended chat after the performance. Peter Bacon wrote that Atzmon reminds us of “the strong link between jazz and the radical politics that are sometimes the only way to ensure its -- and our -- freedom.”

 

Atzmon’s novel My One and Only Love features as a protagonist a trumpeter who chooses to play only one note (extremely well) as well as a spy who uncovers Nazi war criminals and locks them inside double bass cases which then tour permanently in the protagonist’s orchestra’s luggage. His intent was to explore “the personal conflict between being true to one’s heart and being loyal to The Jews”.

 

Tony Blair speaks for his paymasters

Tony Bair yesterday condemned as a "deeply confrontational move" the Palestinian president's request to the United Nations for recognition of of an an independent Palestinian state.

"What we need" continued Blair, "is another hundred years, at least, of futile negotiations going nowhere, while Israel appropriates all Palestinian land and finally persuades the Palestinians to bugger off somewhere else."

Well actually not.

But for a quid, he would surely have said that. For a couple of quid, he'd have believed it too.

So much for the US/EU/UN/Russia's Middle-East Peace Envoy.

Elsewhere, the New Statesman asks "Why is Blair the peace envoy so desperate for war with Iran?" to which the answer should be obvious. Israel will not be content until it dominates the whole of the Middle East,thereby dominating the globe through it control over the World's largest hydrocarbon reserves and among the most important trade routes.

For once, I find myself in agreement with Craig Murray who applauds the Palestinian application to the UN for statehood as, if nothing else, an effective device for exposing US hypocrisy.

Patrick Buchanan asks Is the Window Closing on Israel?, which sounds like a reasonable question, but probably is not. Rather, it appears that by means of its control of puppets throughout the West, Israel is in a position to bring the whole World down before anyone has a chance to close any windows on it.

Confirming that the money window on the American taxpayer's pocket remains open, JePo reports: US budget cuts won't affect military aid to Israel.

Meantime, Muslim nations demand Israel open its nuke program to IAEA viewing.

Now that's a window that will remain firmly shut.

But it's time to give those Palis some stick for their temerity in demanding recognition by the UN, says Jewish supremacist Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.

And Obarmy assures America's rabid Zionists: Whatever Israel may do:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of the state of Israel.

Or something to that effect.

And if you were wondering how subservient the Canadian Government is to Israel:

It supports illegal Jewish settlements on Palestinian land despite a greater number of Canadians supporting Palestinian statehood than voted for the government of Stephen Harper. Yep, the Israel lobby really does have Harpy by the balls.

But in Israel itself, 70 percent of the people polled in a recent Hebrew University survey agreed that "Israel should accept the decision if the UN recognizes a Palestinian state," thus confirming that, wherever it is to be found, democratic government is a blatant fraud: a device for the manipulation of the people by a hidden plutocratic elite that treats the people, Jewish or gentile, as mere cattle to be used, abused and trashed at will without the slightest regard for their opinions, beliefs, wishes or needs.

POSTSCRIPT: Tony Blair's Israeli affair?

Ending unemployment. Part 1: The Negative Income Tax

Image source

The US economy is contracting. US unemployment is at an all time, post-WW2 high of around 18% when discouraged workers and workers only partially employed are included (US Bureau of Labor Statistics: U6 measure of unemployment).

How is it that people who are able to work, who want to work and who need to work, cannot work?

Because no one wants to hire them.

Why does no one want to hire them?

Because folks borrowed too much during the FED-driven housing boom, and are now paying down their debts as their assets, particularly houses, decline in value.

This debt deleverage means reduced consumption, reduced consumption means reduced demand for labor.

The result: idle workers, idle factories, underutilized public infrastructure.

The Keynesian solution?

Increase aggregate demand by deficit government spending covered by money printing.

Is this bad?

In theory, not necessarily. In practice, almost certainly.

Why is it good in theory?

Because it can create something of value from resources that would otherwise be wasted.

Why is it almost certainly bad?

Because government spending is almost always hugely wasteful. As a consequence, money is spent but little if any benefit results. The expenditure must, nevertheless, be paid for by someone, and it is normally paid for by the employed workforce through the inflation tax: the money the government printed to pay for the deficit spending creates inflation that cuts the value of the money that those with jobs are able to earn.

In theory, as noted, this need not be the case. If deficit spending resulted in some new and valuable public infrastructure that increased the productivity of the work force, the efficiency of energy use, or the quality of life, the cost would be recovered in kind. This, however, rarely occurs due to corruption, ineptitude and the near universal lack of imagination in the administration of government programs.

The inflationary effect of deficit spending can to some extent be limited by tax cuts that stimulate the supply of goods and services. This phenomenon was recognized during the Reagan era (supply side economics), and has since been applied to limit the inflationary impact of Keynesian policies.

But whatever the potential benefits, the Keynesian response to unemployment is of diminishing effectiveness in a globalized world economy where jobs in high wage economies are off-shored to places were labor can be had for pennies an hour. Deficit spending simply means bigger trade deficits as increased consumption sucks in cheap consumer goods from abroad, with little impact on domestic manufacturing employment.

What alternatives are there?

The Austrian economists say, let those who borrowed too much go broke, so that the assets they control — land, houses, businesses, etc. —can be acquired by better managers for pennies on the dollar. Then with indebtedness slashed, and mismanaged assets redeployed, the economy will grow and unemployment will fall.

There is undoubtedly merit in this approach. It keeps bankers honest by making them vulnerable to failure as the price of reckless lending, it makes borrowers cautious in the knowledge that there is no government safety net should their speculative ventures fail, and it makes savers disinclined to deposit their money with any but the most conservatively managed banks.

The problem with the Austrian "solution" is that in the process of renewal through widespread bankruptcy, banks would go under, savers would be wiped out and most wealth would end up in the control of a handful of astute speculators who might have little interest in reviving the consumer society.

The effect of the Austrian "solution" applied without restraint would likely be a catastrophic depression followed by massive social unrest, if not war or revolution.

Is there another approach?

Yes.

If it's jobs that are needed, governments should pay for them directly.

How?

Easily enough!

First, eliminate minimum wage laws.

Second, extend the income tax table into negative territory.

Earn less than a living wage? Then the IRS will supplement your income to enable personal and family survival.

How much would this cost?

Not as much as you might think.

Let us suppose that all 30 million unemployed Americans (US Labor Department U6 definition of unemployment) were able to find work at a wage between one cent per hour and the minimum Federally established living wage, which we will take to be $8.00 per hour (with variation according to circumstances, such as dependents, place of residence, etc.). Let us suppose that on average, these workers are able to command a market wage of only half the Federally established living wage. In that case, the Federal wage subsidy would be, approximately, $6,400 per person per year, or a total program cost of $192 billion per year, or about 7% of the 2011 US Federal Budget.

Seven percent of the 2011 US Federal Government budget is not chicken feed. But it's a lot less than the $700 billion banksters' bail out fund. And from it would be deducted substantial amounts that would otherwise have had to be spent on food stamps and other welfare programs, law enforcement, prisons, mental healthcare, and other costly consequences of mass unemployment.

Furthermore, the availability of 30 million American workers at third-World wages would provide American industry a huge shot in the arm, allowing many producers to repatriate jobs, capital and technology presently off-shored to India, China, and other low wage countries.

An expansion in American manufacturing and revival at home of off-shored or outsourced service industries would add substantially to US corporate profits and thus to US Government tax revenues.

So why is this solution not adopted?

Because Wall St. owns the Government and Wall St. wants the Austrian solution.

It's interesting. The top financial entities can borrow ten-year funds at rates as low as 1.75%. So what's to stop the financial elite borrowing the funds to buy up the stock market -- at least that part of it with decent income. BP, for example, with a price to earnings ratio currently at 5.6 looks like a good bet.

At, say, 3% you could finance the purchase of BP, which has yearly earnings of $20 billion, for a mere $3.7 billion per year.

Cool, hey. Let those dumb unemployed Americans starve.

But hold it. We can buy cheaper than this. See there's a run developing on the European banks. Talk it up. Panic, everybody. Just a few million more unemployed. A big bankruptcy. A Greek default. Yay, we'll own everything for really, really cheap.

See also:
Ending unemployment. Part 2: Tradeable Wage Subsidies
Why economics is bunk
America's inflationary depression
USA versus China: Wage Convergence, Wealth Divergence and Global Hegemony
US Economy: Expecting the Unexpected
USA Boom or Bust: The Next Decade
Why China Booms While America Slumps
China's Economy Already Larger Than America's

9/11 Truth? Can't you guys just forget 25,000 years of professional experience?

In a letter to a 9/11 skeptic, Julius Sequerra draws attention to this evaluation by professional architects, engineers, fire prevention experts, physicists, and other scientists of the collapse of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001.



Conclusion: the NIST report on the collapse of the Twin Towers is based on a tissue of lies.

... in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.
Adolf Hitler

Difficult, certainly, for Americans to accept that their government is Hitlerian. For many, better to call the truthers traitors.

Then there are those who know full well that 9/11 was a Hitlerian psyop and fully support its purpose, which was to kick start a war for global hegemony, a war in which more than a million have died already, and many millions more have been maimed, or driven from their homes.

To these pro-war patriots, the death of three thousand Americans was merely an unfortunate necessity: the catalyzing event to trigger a world war.

Whether these Dubya loyalists fully understand what it is they condone is open to question. Nine-eleven marked the death of democracy in America and the imposition of a system of soft tyranny, a tyranny imposed by psychological manipulation of the most gullible half of the population, whose votes negate those of more thoughtful citizens who might have made something meaningful of the term American democracy.

One wonders, also, if those loyal patriots who so readily accept the sacrifice of 3000 American lives for the sake of an effective public relations exercise, understand who's interest will ultimately be served by the war for global empire.

Will it be Americans? An American elite? Or perhaps not necessarily Americans at all?

For is not America merely a tool -- the most powerful presently available instrument for violent transformation of the World, to be used in the service of a deracinated, international plutocratic elite that aims to control all governments through the purchase of elections and the bribery of officials?

Demonstrating thermate cutting steel:


See also:
The New American World Order: How It Works
Afghanistan: They attacked us on 9/11, which is fortunate because the country is a mining treasure house ripe for exploitation
9/11 Crime Scene Evidence Was Destroyed - Firefighters For 9/11 Truth
Defending the Indefensible: Noam Chomsky's 9/11 Spin
Stupid Truthers

Blogger: Stats you can trust?

There is something distinctly odd about the usage stats provided by Blogger for this site. Page views surge and fall abruptly for no apparent reason.  A post about the New World Order is ranked by Blogger as the most popular one day, then a  much older post about the London riots suddenly emerges at the top of the list, and the former and more recently written top post drops overnight to near the bottom of the list, yet none of this surge in hits for the older post is due, apparently, to links from other Web sites. Rather, it would seem that the newly popular page is suddenly coming up in multiple Google searches, yet there seems no reason for a wave of new interest in the London riots. Very odd.

Another oddity is that whereas my Blogger usage stats might indicate, say, 500 page views on a particular day, if I run Google ads on my pages, Adsense will tell me that my page views are only about one tenth of that number.

Odder still, most page views are the result of links from Google, whereas there are virtually not links from Bing.com and non whatever from Yahoo.com or other search engines. So am I being favored by Google in some way, or are my blog posts invisible to most other search engines, or are my blog stats simply wrong?

Altogether, these anomalies induce a slight sense of paranoia. Perhaps there are simple explanations. If any one can suggest an explanation, I'd be glad to hear from them.

Naturally, I'd ask Google if I could, but Google is decidedly unapproachable should you wish to pose a simple question to an actual human being. I guess that would involve employing people, something the modern American corporation seems extremely reluctant to do.

Canada-US Border Deal Threatens Sovereignty

James Corbett reviews the dismantling of Canadian sovereignty in light of the proposed cross-border "security" agreement between Canada and the US, which is expected to be unveiled in the coming weeks. Don't look for any interference from Canada's pathetic new official opposition.

They already rubber stamped the destruction of the sovereign state of Libya, with not a single NDPer voting against the last extension of Canada's participation in NATO's mission to bomb Libya's infrastructure to Hell.

Why would such a bunch of gutless wimps get in the way of the demolition of Canada?

America after 9/11: a nation ruled by emotion, not law

By Paul Craig Robers
From Vdare.com

In the US on September 11, 2011, the tenth anniversary of 9/11, politicians and their presstitute media presented Americans with “A Day of Remembrance,” a propaganda exercise that hardened the 9/11 lies into dogma.  Meanwhile, in Toronto, Canada, at Ryerson University the four-day International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001, came to a close at 5pm.

During the four days of hearings, distinguished scientists and scholars and professional architects and engineers presented the results of years of their independent research into all aspects of 9/11 to a distinguished panel consisting of the honorary president of the Italian Supreme Court who was an investigative judge who presided over terrorism cases and three distinguished scholars of high renown and judgment. The distinguished panel’s task is to produce a report with their judgment of the evidence presented by the expert witnesses.

The Toronto Hearings were streamed live over the Internet.  I was able to watch many of the presentations over the four days. I was impressed that the extremely high level of intelligence and scientific competence of the witnesses was matched by a high level of integrity, a quality rare in US politics and totally absent in the American media.

As I stressed in my recent interview about 9/11 with Jim Corbett and Global Research, I am a reporter, not an independent researcher into 9/11.  I pay attention when the fact-based community finds problems with the official propaganda. Perhaps this reflects my age.  My generation was raised to believe in evidence and the scientific method.  George Orwell and other writers warned us of the consequence of succumbing to government propaganda as a result of disinterest in the truth or government manipulation of one’s patriotism.

My ability to serve as a reporter of scientific evidence is enhanced by my having a Bachelor of Science from Georgia Tech, a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia, and post-graduate education at the University of California, Berkeley, and Oxford University, where my professor was the distinguished physical chemist and philosopher, Michael Polanyi. In the 1960s, I was appointed Visiting Assistant Professor of Chemical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, where together with Polanyi, I was to deliver a course in Polanyi’s unique contributions to knowledge. Polanyi’s illness prevented the course from happening and condemned me to being a mere economist.

This does not mean that I am infallible or that my reporting is correct. If my reporting stimulates you, go to the presentations, which I believe will continue to be available online, and if not, some edited CD will be available. Try here.

As one whose own contributions to economics, now belatedly recognized, are “outside the box,” I am responsive to those who can escape peer pressure in order to advance truth.  Here are some of the important things I learned from the Toronto Hearings.

The NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology, a government agency) reports on the Twin Towers and Building 7 are fraudulent.  Witnesses at the Toronto Hearings proved that Building 7 was a standard controlled demolition and that incendiaries and explosives brought down the Twin Towers. There is no doubt whatsoever about this. Anyone who declares the contrary has no scientific basis upon which to stand. Those who defend the official story believe in miracles that defy the laws of physics.

A nano-chemist from the University of Copenhagen, who together with a scientific team spent 18 months investigating the chemical and physical properties of dust from the Towers, found evidence of nano-thermite in the dust and quantities of particles not naturally formed by office or normal building fires that indicate another explosive was also present.

These findings explain the extreme high temperatures that produced the molten steel for which indisputable evidence exists. In the orchestrated cover-up, NIST denies that molten steel is present as its presence is inconsistent with the low temperatures that NIST acknowledges building fires can produce.

Physicist David Chandler proved beyond all doubt that the visible part of Building 7 (other buildings obscure the bottom floors) fell at free fall speed, an unambiguous indication that explosives had removed all supporting columns simultaneously.There is no possibility whatsoever according to the laws of physics that Building 7 fell for the reasons NIST provides. The NIST account is a total denial of known laws of physics.

Many other powerful points were made at the conference that I will not report, at least not at this time, because the revelation of malevolence is so powerful that most readers will find it a challenge to their emotional and mental strength.

Psychologists explained that there are two kinds of authority to which people submit. One is to the authority of people in high positions in the government. The belief that “our government wouldn’t lie to us” is pervasive, especially among patriots.  The other source of authority is experts.  However, to believe experts a person has to be educated and open-minded and to trust scientific, professional, and scholarly integrity.

In recent years in America, scientific and scholarly authority has come into disrepute among Christian evangelicals who object to evolution and among anti-intellectual Tea Party adherents who object to “elitists,” that is, objection to knowledge-based persons whose knowledge does not support Tea Party emotions.

In other words, qualified, knowledgeable people who tell people what they do not want to hear are dismissed as “the enemy.” Much of the American population is set up to believe government propaganda. Without an independent media, which the US no longer has, people are taught that only “conspiracy kooks” challenge the government’s story. Even on the Internet, this is a main theme on Antiwar.com and on CounterPunch.org, two sites that protest America’s wars but accept the 9/11 propaganda that justifies the wars.

This is the reason that I think that the US is moving into an era where the emotional needs of the population produced by government propaganda overwhelms science, evidence, and facts. It means the abolition of accountable government and the rule of law, because protection from terrorists is more important.

The fact-based world in which “we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead” is being displaced by dogma. Anyone who doubts “our government” is an anti-American, Muslim-loving, pinko-liberal commie, who should be arrested and waterboarded until the culprit confesses that he is a terrorist.

The event of 9/11 is now outside the realm of fact, science, and evidence.  It is a dogma that justifies the Bush/Cheney/Obama war crimes against Muslims and their countries.

Obama regime appointee Cass Sunstein, a Chicago and Harvard Law School professor, thinks the 9/11 movement, for challenging the official “truth”, should be infiltrated by US intelligence agents in order to shut down the fact-based doubters of government propaganda.

When a law professor at our two most prestigious law schools wants to suppress scientific evidence that challenges government veracity, we know that in America respect for truth is dead.

The notion that a country in which truth is dead is a “light unto the world” is an absurdity.

David Cameron, Serving Britain or Israel

By: Rachel Lowenburg

For those spiritual and those not, the words of the Bible contain common sense and truth. Take for instance the simple words of advice that “No man can serve two masters - for he will love one and despise the other.”

Just how then can the British Prime Minister vow to serve both Britain and Israel? Could it now be that David Cameron’s blatant and accelerating dismantling of the British nation, its Constitution, defence, values, morality, history and customs is a sign that he has come to despise the British?

For those who are sensitive about mention of Israel, it is worth emphasising that this article is not about the rights or wrongs of Israel as a nation or its people - our interest and attention is directed to David Cameron, Britain as a Sovereign nation and the Conservative Party. In particular we believe that the British public are entitled to know and understand what their Prime Minister is doing - especially where National loyalty, conflict of interest and treason are concerned.

Starring on the front page of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) website, British Prime Minister David Cameron’s boyish face is partly hidden in shadows and flanked by Israeli flags - it’s a powerful and emotive media image. But aimed at whom?

The headline is equally robust and more telling - Prime Minister David Cameron: “In me, you have a Prime Minister whose belief in Israel is indestructible.”

Read more

Why the Globe and Mail Is Mostly Bollocks

A newspaper publisher, you'd think, would aim to make a profit. In fact, the directors of any newspaper owned by a public company have a legal obligation to the shareholders to maximize profit.

However, the Globe and Mail, Canada's self-proclaimed national newspaper, is 85% controlled by the Thomson-family-owned private company, Woodbridge. Perhaps this explains why, instead of publishing news that people might be glad to pay for, it publishes politically correct bollocks about the terrifying incidence (not) of anti-Semitism in Canada, ridiculous war propaganda, and last week, the need for British Columbia to spend billions on a totally uneconomic scheme to eliminate all carbon emissions in the supply of electricity, notwithstanding that British Columbia is among the World's largest producers of green power. Thus, last Thursday, the G and M's British Columbia section led with an article: Hydro policy threatens to collapse climate-change progress, scientist says:

The Clark government appears poised to adopt a new policy that would roll back the province’s requirements to ensure it can meet its domestic electricity needs even in extreme drought conditions.

Andrew Weaver, the Nobel laureate climate scientist, said Wednesday that would be a mistake, forcing the province to rely on imports from coal-fired plants rather than building up the clean energy sector that the province has been seeking to develop under its Clean Energy Act.

Quite scary As Marvin Shafer points out in a commentary at rabble.ca, if true.

But there is no basis for the story that was told and little need to be concerned. There was no science in the scientist's reported remarks. It was sadly just another effort, sponsored by the Independent Power Producers (IPP) lobby, to encourage the government to retain the now widely discredited "self-sufficiency" policy that is forcing BC Hydro to buy more power than it needs to ensure reliable supply.

The policy issue is not, as characterized by Justine Hunter in the Globe, whether BC Hydro should be able to meet its requirements in drought conditions. Of course it must be able to do that. BC Hydro must ensure reliable supply under all water conditions. The issue is how that can best be done.

The government's self-sufficiency policy requires BC Hydro to guard against the risk of drought by entering into long-term firm power purchase contracts with British Columbia IPPs -- power that in many years it will not need and be forced to sell at a loss. It precludes BC Hydro from even considering more cost-effective and in many ways less environmentally damaging options -- in particular relying on the spot market for electricity in those years that its own hydro production is limited by drought.

Oh, and that bit about "Andrew Weaver, the Nobel laureate climate scientist?"

There is no Nobel Prize for climate science.

Professor Andrew Weaver is not a Nobel Prize winner.

The Nobel Prize referred to is not a science prize.

The Nobel Prize the Globe and Mail is talking about is the 2007 Peace Prize, which was awarded jointly to Al Gore and the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), members of which include 194 countries, but no individuals. In other words, an almost totally meaningless prize that insults 194 countries by association with Al Gore's bogus claims about climate science.

Although thousands of scientists have participated in writing the IPCC's periodic climate change assessment reports, none of them are, or could be, members of the IPCC, which means that none of them are Nobel Prize winners by virtue of their participation in the the preparation of the IPCC's tendentious and scientifically questionable reports.

Other brilliantly inspired choices for the Nobel Peace Prize made by the Norwegian politicians making up the Peace Prize selection committee include Barak Obama (2009), author of various extensions to the war on terror, Menachem Begin (1978), Irgun terrorist, author of the King David Hotel bombing that left 93 dead, and war criminal, Henry Kissinger (1973), author of the mass killing by illegal bombing of Cambodia (1969-1975).

Libya: The real war starts now

By Pepe Escobar
Voltairenet.org

Political, economic and social instability in Libya did not end with the fall of Tripoli and the alleged victory of NATO rebels. Gaddafi’s decision to go underground has caught everyone by surprise. The unfolding scenario is reminiscent of Omar Mukhtar’s legacy, the Libyan leader who struggled against Italian colonialism for nearly twenty years, from 1912 to 1931. Everything can still change in a country where most of the population hasn’t said its final word yet and the neo-colonial powers in place are very fragile.

Gaddafi (left) vs Abdel Hakim Belhadj (right).
Gaddafi could become the new «Lion of the Desert»

Enough about The Big G’s downfall. Now comes the real nitty-gritty; Afghanistan 2.0, Iraq 2.0, or a mix of both.

The "NATO rebels" have always made sure they don’t want foreign occupation. But the North Atlantic Treaty Organization - which made the victory possible - can’t control Libya without boots on the ground. So multiple scenarios are now being gamed in NATO’s headquarters in Mons, Belgium - under a United Nations velvet cushion.

According to already leaked plans, sooner or later there may be troops from Persian Gulf monarchies and friendly allies such as Jordan and especially NATO member Turkey, also very keen to bag large commercial contracts. Hardly any African nations will be part of it - Libya now having being "relocated" to Arabia. ...

Read more

See also:
Tony Catalucci: Genocide, rebel infighting, failed offensives mark third week of NATO's "victory" in Libya

James Petras: NATO War crimes in Libya

We will never heal. We have to demand a new investigation

Image source

Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org


David Chandler of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth


Robert Scheer: How Little We Know About the Origins of 9/11

Tony Cartalucci:The War on Terror is a Fraud

Winter Patriot: Ten years of murderous nonsense

Former Malaysian PM: Bush lied about 9/11 

Paul Krugman: Bush, Giuliani and the other fake heroes of 9/11 

The Onion: Remembering 9/11 A Pleasure For Nation Compared To Remembering Past 10 Years

The following video, All you all you need to know about 9/11 in less than five minutes, provides a brilliant satirical commentary on the official 9/11 conspiracy theory (narrator, James Corbett).



And Paul Craig Roberts' provides a razor sharp logical dissection of the contentions of three prominent anti-Truthers: The "Critics" of 9/11 Truth. Do They Have a Case?

The ideology of Tony Blair, imperialist

Bringing on the NWO: "A catastrophic and catalyzing event".

Former Uk Ambassador, Craig Murray, who was booted from the UK diplomatic service for his opposition to the use by the UK Government of information gained through torture by the notorious, boil 'em alive, billionaire President of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, today launched a brief but violent blog assault on former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, by whose government he was sacked.

The pretext for the attack was this report of Blair's cheer leading for war on Syria and Iran. Blair, Murray suggests, is best understood as a serial killer addicted to mass murder like Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot.

This, I suggest is nonsense. Tony Blair is unquestionably a serial liar whose lies were critical in the launch of an unjust war on Iraq. But to understand what drives Blair, one need to consider the ideology that motivates him or those who pull his strings.

The Project for the New American Century (Authors: Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush and misc. NeoCons) stated in 1997 that America must seek global hegemony through a massive military build-up which is likely to be long delayed "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor" (i.e., we need 9/11 now).

It is in this context that Blair's actions are intelligible. He is a mouthpiece for the NWO, as announced by George H.W. Bush in 1991, and as driven by the World Trade Organization and the GATT round (signed by Bill Clinton) and the War on Terror (Bush/Blair/Obama).

So folks must decide: do they believe in a New World Order, under which the nations of the world, as racial, cultural and religious entities are crushed out of existence, and where a plutocratic elite control the world through a system of pseudo-democracies and elite-controlled media and education establishments, or do they want to preserve the 20th century system of often somewhat democratic nation states, with the inherent risk that such a system entails of repeated international conflicts.

the RULING elites in the NAFTA, EU and NATO states have opted for the New World Order. Consistent with that decision, these states must seek to co-opt or crush all states seeking to preserve their sovereignty, and their distinctive political, cultural and religious traditions. The essentials of this policy were spelled out in 2002 in a Guardian newspaper article by Tony Blair's foreign policy adviser Robert Cooper.

The most logical way to deal with chaos, and the one employed most often in the past, is colonisation. But this is unacceptable to postmodern states. Empire and imperialism are words that have become a form of abuse and no colonial powers are willing to take on the job, though the opportunities - perhaps even the need - for colonisation is as great as it ever was in the nineteenth century. Those left out of the global economy risk falling into a vicious circle. Weak government means disorder and that means falling investment.

All the conditions for imperialism are there, but both the supply and demand for imperialism have dried up. And yet a world in which the efficient and well-governed export stability and liberty seems eminently desirable.

What is needed is a new kind of imperialism, one compatible with human rights and cosmopolitan values: an imperialism which aims to bring order and organisation but which rests today on the voluntary principle.

We already have voluntary imperialism of the global economy through institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. These multilateral institutions provide help to states wishing to find their way back into the global economy and into the virtuous circle of investment and prosperity. In return they make demands which, they hope, address the political and economic failures that have contributed to the original need for assistance.

There we have it. The Blair policy: to all those who challenge US/NATO the message is: you will be assimilated -- resistance is futile.

In Libya, Britain attempted voluntary co-option, but the patience of the French appears to have been exhausted when Gaddafi cancelled arms purchases from France in favor of deals offering better value for money with Russia and China. Obama supported France and assimilation by force is now underway. As a consequence, Blair has moved on to the next phase of the drive for global empire, the assimilation of Syria and Iran.

Even now, it may not be too late for either country to join the Empire of the Willing. No doubt Tony Blair, Middle East envoy on behalf of the US, Russia, the UN and the EU, would be happy to meet with representatives of these recalcitrant states and attempt to work out a deal.

See also:
The beautiful people who rule the World

Cecil Rhodes' secret society for Anglo-Saxon global empire and Alex Jones--Master of Misdirection

John Buchan, Canadian Governor General (1935 - 1940) On Conspiracies Driving World Events

London Riots, John Cleese, Breivik, Norway: Islam, rape and "whores"

It's hard to call a Muslim immigrant a racist for speaking out against his fellow Muslims...

Meaning that criticism of the mores and behavior of immigrants to Europe by European natives is racist?

The European genocide by means of lib-left psychological warfare is truly well underway.

But at least a few aging liberals are beginning to have some vague intimation of the harm that they have wrought.

London is no longer an English city

says John Cleese

I don't know what's going on in London, because London is no longer an English city. ...

I had a Californian friend come over two months ago, walk down the King's Road and say, "Where are all the English people?"

I mean, I love having different cultures around. But when the parent culture kind of dissipates, you're left thinking, "Well, what's going on?"

Pathetic, really. Cleese is a man of great talent -- as an actor. But what he demonstrates by these comments is that the media custom of treating the political views of the stars of the entertainment world as though they were of some special merit worthy of report is both absurd and detrimental to the public interest.

Politically, Cleese is a moron. He sees the English, his own people, displaced from their own capital city by 2.7 million immigrants and several million children of immigrants and he says:

I don't know what's going on.

LOL.

Bloody fool.

The English are being ethnically cleansed. That's what's going on, John.

"I mean, I love having different cultures around. But when the parent culture kind of dissipates, you're left thinking, 'Well, what's going on?'"

Bloody fool squared.

The British culture is not the parent of Islam, it is not the parent of violent black identity culture, it is not the parent of Hinduism or any of the other wonderful different cultures that Cleese loves "having around."

The obvious fact that this damn fool celebrity fails to understand is that when you ethnically cleanse the English from London, English culture is eradicated and foreign culture take its place.

If you love diversity, you'd better damn well keep the diverse cultures, races, breeds of dogs or whatever it is that you so love to be diverse well separated. There's nothing racist about this, unless you call opposition to genocide racism -- as liberals do.

You'd think anyone could understand that. And over 70% of the British population do. But it is too difficult to understand, apparently, for the slimy globalist tools like David Cameron, Nick Clegg and the celebrity fools who get the media coverage and dictate the political agenda.

Peak Oil Postponed

Image source.

Worldwide proven oil reserves are estimated at around 1.35 trillion barrels, or 43 years production at current rates. However, that excludes Canadian and Venezuelan tar sands with 3.6 trillion barrels of recoverable oil, or 116 years production at current rates. Tar sands oil costs around $31 a barrel to extract and upgrade to the quality of conventional crude. So as long as the price of oil stays over $31 (currently $85.00), peak oil will likely be postponed until: (a) output in one of the major oil producing regions is terminated by a political or geological catastrophe, or (b) a convenient and cheaper alternative to oil becomes widely available.

Natural gas seems most likely to replace oil at some point this century. World reserves total about 190 trillion cubic meters or 1.1 trillion barrels of oil equivalent, enough to substitute for oil at present consumption rates for about 30 years. And that's not counting conventional gas reserves yet to be discovered, or shale gas, or deep water gas, or gas in tight sedimentary deposits that new technology is now making available, or methane hydrates, which exist in vast abundance on the seafloor throughout the temperate and polar regions, which might keep the World powered for another hundred years or so.

In fact, natural gas is already a lot cheaper than oil. At around $4.00 a thousand cubic feet, gas in North America is less than a third the price of oil on an energy equivalent basis (6000 cubic feet having the same energy content as a barrel of oil). Natural gas is bulky, however, which makes it expensive both to transport and to store, and unsuitable for some applications, e.g., as a motor or aviation fuel. Moreover, the major gas producing regions of the World are mostly remote from the densely populated and industrialized areas of high energy demand.

But as new methods are applied to the extraction of gas from shales and other unconventional sources, supplies will increasingly be developed close to places of use. In addition, the World's infrastructure for gas transportation and storage will continue to expand in range and capacity. We can expect, therefore, to see natural gas continually encroach on the market for oil.

In addition, there is solar power, a source of the highest quality form of energy: electricity. Both solar thermal and photoelectric generation can achieve efficiencies of more than 40%, which means that global energy demand could be met by solar installations covering only a tiny fraction of the World's land (desert) area. Cost, however, remains high, which means that solar power will continue to be of only marginal significance, without major cost reductions in photovoltaic cell manufacture, and major technical advances in battery technology and electrical transmission systems, including perhaps, the development of World-wide superconducting grids, ensuring the availability of solar power 24/7 during every season of the year.

With the disaster of Fukushima spreading poison around the World, let us hope that the nuclear option will be abandoned altogether.

The State of Climate Science: Have We Passed Peak Civilization?

Scientists: Clouds reflect sunlight. Could it be true? Image source

A recent empirical study by Spencer and Braswell published in the journal Remote Sensing (RS), challenges beliefs about human-caused climate warming with evidence that climate warming predictions ignore a significant role of clouds on surface temperatures.

This conclusion is vehemently denied by a number of prominent climate modellers and has resulted in the resignation of the RS's Editor in Chief. It has also prompted a rebuttal that passed RS's peer-review process like a dose of salts, and a rebuttal video, that ends with these reassuring words:

Results that purport to overturn decades of science are almost always wrong.

Oh, well then, no need for further observation or experiment.

Except now we have the rebuttals of the rebuttal, some of which are, if nothing else, entertaining, including this from philosophy of science grad, Tallbloke, and this by physicist Luboš Mot.

To a non-specialist, a striking feature of this controversy is that it pits warmist modellers and curve fitters against skeptical experimenters, which raises the question of whether "climate science" as the term is used by the warmist camp is, perhaps, a misnomer. In particular, one may ask, what is scientific about a modeling exercise that makes predictions about the climate fifty or a hundred years hence, which cannot be tested except over a similar time-scale?

All that can be tested today are some of the components of the climate models, for example, how things like cloud cover, solar activity, or sea surface temperature are related to air temperature. This is the work of experimentalists such as Richard Linzen, Willie Soon or John Christie.

Generally what the experimentalists find does not seem to support the conclusions of either the modellers, or the curve fitters, such as Kevin Trenberth, Phil Jones, or Michael Mann.

Without questioning anyone's integrity, the conflict between these groups suggests that much of what goes under the name of climate science is not so much science as futurology based on some questionable techniques that produce questionable predictions.

Is this a sign of the times? Is science morphing into something else? A branch of politics, perhaps? Have we, as some observers suggest, reached "peak civilization," and begun the descent into the New Dark Age?

See also:
Al Gore's assault on the integrity of science

Why we're bombing Libya

By Stephen Gowans

While the class character of regimes under siege by Western powers is often explored in analyses of imperialist interventions and is frequently invoked to justify them, it neither explains why capitalist imperialist powers intervene nor stands as a justification for their actions.

The relevant consideration in explaining why interventions occur is not the political orientation of the government under siege, nor its relations with its citizens, but whether it accommodates the profit-making interests of the dominant class in the intervening countries. Does it welcome foreign investment, allow repatriation of profits, demand little in the way of corporate income tax, open its markets, and offer abundant supplies of cheap labor and raw materials? Or does it impose high tariffs on imports, subsidize domestic production, operate state-owned enterprises (displacing opportunities for foreign-private-owned ones), force investors to take on local partners, and insist that workers be protected from desperation wages and intolerable working conditions?

Much as it might be supposed that imperialist interventions target worker and peasant-led governments alone, this is not the case. Regimes that promote national bourgeois interests by denying or limiting the profit-making interests in their own countries of the dominant class of other countries are routinely targeted for regime change, especially if they are militarily weak or have pluralist political systems that afford space for destabilization and political interference. Since the effects are the same in imperialist countries of a local regime, say, expropriating a foreign-privately-owned oil company, no matter whether the company is turned over to local business people, the state, or the company’s employees, it is a matter of supreme indifference to imperialist countries whether the expropriation is carried out by communists, socialists or radical nationalists. Whether you’re inspired by Marx and Lenin, 21st century socialism, or the actually-existing capitalist policies that the United States, Germany and Japan followed to challenge Britain’s industrial monopoly, if you’re going to mess with the profit-making opportunities of an imperialist country’s capital class, it will mess with you.

Al Gore's assault on the integrity of science

I am skeptical of long-term forecasts about global warming. According to Al Gore, this makes me a "denier", a term implying that I not only reject alarmist claims about human-caused climate change, but that I am a Holocaust "revisionist," which is to say an anti-Semitite and, therefore, a racist.

In an interview with an Alex Bogusky, Gore makes absolutely clear his intention to draw a parallel between skepticism about anthropogenic climate warming and racism.

Although this is a claim of astounding asininity, it is, presumably, an effective tactic in what Gore terms "winning the argument," an argument in which he has a huge personal financial stake.

But it is much more than that. It is an obscene attack on civilized and rational discourse.

Climate change projections are just that, projections. There is nothing settled about projections that cannot be definitively tested in less than the time over which the projections have been made.

Yes, science is about projections. But what scientific illiterates such as Al Gore like to call "settled science" is about projections that have been experimentally verified with such certainty that they are described as laws, although even as laws they are subject to skepticism, for otherwise they would not be a part of science. But there is no way that a 50- or 100-year projection of climate variation can be tested with absolute certainty in less than 50 or 100 years.

And even then, confirmation of a projection is not proof of the principles underlying the projection. In the case of climate projection, proof of the underlying principles appears to be theoretically impossible, since the climate is a complex, non-linear system. It was precisely the realization of the non-linearity of climate models that gave rise to chaos theory, which reveals the fundamental unpredictability of most of what happens in the World.

But there are much simpler reasons for skepticism about alarmist predictions of climate warming. Such predictions are based, for the most part, on attempt to project the effect on climate of human-caused increases in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. But as experts in the field readily acknowledge, there are many other effects of human activity that impact climate, but which current climate models fail to adequately consider.

Black carbon, for example, or soot, a product of fossil fuel and vegetation burning, also traps energy in the atmosphere, thereby exacerbating the warming effect of carbon dioxide, whereas atmospheric sulfur pollution adds reflective white sulfate particles to the atmosphere, which have a direct cooling effect while serving as nuclei for water droplet, and hence cloud, formation.

Clouds, have a large effect on the Earth's energy balance by blocking outgoing radiation between Earth and space and reflecting incoming solar radiation. Such cloud effects are likely much greater than those of  either carbon dioxide or black carbon.

The variable activity of the sun must also be considered. For example, the sun's magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic radiation reaching the Earth's upper atmosphere. The mesons, to which cosmic rays give rise in the atmosphere cause water vapor nucleation and cloud formation. Moreover, long-term fluctuations in the Sun's magnetic field seems to explain historic changes in global temperature rather well. This and other solar effects need to be fully evaluated before climate change models could possibly have significant long-term predictive value.

Another great uncertainty concerns the fate of anthropogenic carbon dioxide once it has been added to the atmosphere. Some of it is assimilated by vegetation and increases the pool of carbon in soils and plants. Some dissolves in the ocean. Some is sequestered through geological processes. We know rather little about how changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration affect the rates at which these various sinks for carbon dioxide function.

Therefore, the one thing we can say with certainty about the effect of human activity on climate, is that we cannot predict it with any certainty.

This is not to say we should be unconcerned about human effects on the environment. There is merit in the precautionary principle, and I firmly believe we should aim to reduce the human impact on the environment. But we cannot turn the World's economy on a dime and we should not be focusing on carbon dioxide very largely to the exclusion of all else. Technology is advancing rapidly across the spectrum of industrial activity. Recycling is intensifying, resource use efficiency is increasing. We may need to encourage these trends in some areas. But we should be motivated on the basis of rational discourse, not by insults from self-serving bullies.

Image source

Al Gore's participation in the debate about climate change constitutes a serious threat to the integrity of science. His resort to blind brutal partisanship encourages bad science by inhibiting vigorous criticism of research that supports the climate alarmist view, while promoting vicious attacks on scientists with the temerity to investigate ideas that counter the climate alarmist program.

And it should be remembered that Al Gore's Nobel prize was not a science prize. It was a "peace" prize awarded by the same corrupt or unbelievably stupid Norwegian politicians who awarded the "peace" prize to President Barak O'Bomber.

See also:
Climate Science: Peak Civilization?