By Patrick Buchanan
My days as a political analyst at MSNBC have come to an end.
After 10 enjoyable years, I am departing, after an incessant clamor from the left that to permit me continued access to the microphones of MSNBC would be an outrage against decency, and dangerous.
The calls for my firing began almost immediately with the Oct. 18 publication of Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?
A group called Color of Change, whose mission statement says that it "exists to strengthen Black America's political voice," claimed that my book espouses a "white supremacist ideology." Color of Change took particular umbrage at the title of Chapter 4, "The End of White America."
Media Matters parroted the party line: He has blasphemed!
A Human Rights Campaign that bills itself as America's leading voice for lesbians, bisexuals, gays and transgendered people said that Buchanan's "extremist ideas are incredibly harmful to millions of LBGT people around the world."
Their rage was triggered by a remark to NPR's Diane Rehm – that I believe homosexual acts to be "unnatural and immoral."
On Nov. 2, Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, who has sought to have me censored for 22 years, piled on.
"Buchanan has shown himself, time and again, to be a racist and an anti-Semite," said Foxman. Buchanan "bemoans the destruction of white Christian America" and says America's shrinking Jewish population is due to the "collective decision of Jews themselves."
Well, yes, I do bemoan what Newsweek's 2009 cover called "The Decline and Fall of Christian America" and editor Jon Meacham described as "The End of Christian America." After all, I am a Christian.
And what else explains the shrinkage of the U.S. Jewish population by 6 percent in the 1990s and its projected decline by another 50 percent by 2050, if not the "collective decision of Jews themselves"?
Let error be tolerated, said Thomas Jefferson, "so long as reason is left free to combat it." What Foxman and ADL are about in demanding that my voice be silenced is, in the Jeffersonian sense, intrinsically un-American.
Consider what it is these people are saying.
They are saying that a respected publisher, St. Martin's, colluded with me to produce a racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic book, and CNN, Fox News, C-SPAN, Fox Business News and the 150 radio shows on which I appeared failed to detect its evil and helped to promote a moral atrocity.
If my book is racist and anti-Semitic, how did Sean Hannity, Erin Burnett, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Megyn Kelly, Lou Dobbs and Ralph Nader miss that? How did Charles Payne, African-American host on Fox radio, who has interviewed me three times, fail to detect its racism?
How did Michael Medved miss its anti-Semitism?
In a 2009 cover story in the Atlantic, "The End of White America?" from which my chapter title was taken, professor Hua Hsu revels in the passing of America's white majority. At Portland State, President Clinton got a huge ovation when he told students that white Americans will be a minority in 2050.
Is this writer alone forbidden to broach the subject?
That homosexual acts are unnatural and immoral has been doctrine in the Catholic Church for 2,000 years.
Is it now hate speech to restate traditional Catholic beliefs?
Documented in the 488 pages and 1,500 footnotes of Suicide of a Superpower is my thesis that America is Balkanizing, breaking down along the lines of religion, race, ethnicity, culture and ideology, and that Western peoples are facing demographic death by century's end.
Are such subjects taboo? Are they unfit for national debate?
So it would seem. MSNBC President Phil Griffin told reporters, "I don't think the ideas that (Buchanan) put forth (in his book) are appropriate for the national dialogue, much less on MSNBC."
In the 10 years I have been at MSNBC, the network has taken heat for what I have written, and faithfully honored our contract.
Yet my four-months' absence from MSNBC and now my departure represent an undeniable victory for the blacklisters.
The modus operandi of these thought police at Color of Change and ADL is to brand as racists and anti-Semites any writer who dares to venture outside the narrow corral in which they seek to confine debate.
All the while prattling about their love of dissent and devotion to the First Amendment, they seek systematically to silence and censor dissent.
Without a hearing, they smear and stigmatize as racist, homophobic or anti-Semitic any who contradict what George Orwell once called their "smelly little orthodoxies." They then demand that the heretic recant, grovel, apologize, and pledge to go forth and sin no more.
Defy them, and they will go after the network where you work, the newspapers that carry your column, the conventions that invite you to speak. If all else fails, they go after the advertisers.
I know these blacklisters. They operate behind closed doors, with phone calls, mailed threats and off-the-record meetings. They work in the dark because, as Al Smith said, nothing un-American can live in the sunlight.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
German MP's propose tax on the childless
The idea of taxing people who have no children will no doubt arouse indignation among the brains-washed liberal-leftist masses who have been educated to understand that the only thing wrong with sex is that it perpetuates the human race.
Some German MP's, however, have had the temerity to propose a tax on childless adults as a measure to combat the catastrophic, nation-destroying collapse in the German birthrate. By imposing a tax on the childless, the state would provide couples with an incentive to have children by at least marginally lessening the financial burden of so doing.
At the same time, those without children, would by virtue of the tax, come to bear part of the financial burden that others bear in raising the children upon whom they will become dependent in old age.
To some, the idea that the childless become dependent on other people's children in old age may seem strange, for they will argue, provided I have saved for retirement I will be dependent on no one. But that is not the case. Without a younger generation to provide the labor that delivers the goods and services that the elderly need in order to survive beyond the point of retirement, the elderly cannot remain alive however much money they might have saved.
Oh, it will be said by the thoughtless or the self-genocidal, there will always be immigrants to do the work that we are unable to do when we are old. But that is precisely the problem. If Europeans have no children, there will in future be none of the existing European nations remaining on the face of the Earth.
Yes, there will still be people calling themselves Germans, or French or English, but they will not be the descendants of those ancient races. The proposed legislation would be a small step toward ending the present ongoing self-genocide of the European peoples.
Read article from the German edition of The Local
Some German MP's, however, have had the temerity to propose a tax on childless adults as a measure to combat the catastrophic, nation-destroying collapse in the German birthrate. By imposing a tax on the childless, the state would provide couples with an incentive to have children by at least marginally lessening the financial burden of so doing.
At the same time, those without children, would by virtue of the tax, come to bear part of the financial burden that others bear in raising the children upon whom they will become dependent in old age.
To some, the idea that the childless become dependent on other people's children in old age may seem strange, for they will argue, provided I have saved for retirement I will be dependent on no one. But that is not the case. Without a younger generation to provide the labor that delivers the goods and services that the elderly need in order to survive beyond the point of retirement, the elderly cannot remain alive however much money they might have saved.
Oh, it will be said by the thoughtless or the self-genocidal, there will always be immigrants to do the work that we are unable to do when we are old. But that is precisely the problem. If Europeans have no children, there will in future be none of the existing European nations remaining on the face of the Earth.
Yes, there will still be people calling themselves Germans, or French or English, but they will not be the descendants of those ancient races. The proposed legislation would be a small step toward ending the present ongoing self-genocide of the European peoples.
Read article from the German edition of The Local
Kurt Haskell Exposes Government False Flag Operation During Underwear Bomber Sentencing
Kurt Haskell
Infowars.com Thursday, February 16, 2012: Every victim of a crime in Michigan is entitled to make a statement in open court regarding the impact of the crime on their life. The statement is limited to the victim’s physical, emotional and financial well being as it relates to the crime. Keep that in mind as you read my statement.
Below is a copy of the victim impact statement I gave today at the Underwear Bomber sentencing hearing. When reading my statement, keep in mind that I am a practicing attorney in the State of Michigan.
In addition, I regularly practice in the Court the hearings are taking place at and therefore, I am somewhat limited as to what I can say. We were limited to 5 minutes each.
I wish to thank the Court for allowing me these 5 minutes to make my statement. My references to the government in this statement refer to the Federal Government excluding this Court and the prosecution.
On Christmas Day 2009, my wife and I were returning from an African safari and had a connecting flight through Amsterdam. As we waited for our flight, we sat on the floor next to the boarding gate.
What I witnessed while sitting there and subsequent events have changed my life forever. While I sat there, I witnessed Umar dressed in jeans and a white t-shirt, being escorted around security by a man in a tan suit who spoke perfect American English and who aided Umar in boarding without a passport.
Read more
Infowars.com Thursday, February 16, 2012: Every victim of a crime in Michigan is entitled to make a statement in open court regarding the impact of the crime on their life. The statement is limited to the victim’s physical, emotional and financial well being as it relates to the crime. Keep that in mind as you read my statement.
Below is a copy of the victim impact statement I gave today at the Underwear Bomber sentencing hearing. When reading my statement, keep in mind that I am a practicing attorney in the State of Michigan.
In addition, I regularly practice in the Court the hearings are taking place at and therefore, I am somewhat limited as to what I can say. We were limited to 5 minutes each.
I wish to thank the Court for allowing me these 5 minutes to make my statement. My references to the government in this statement refer to the Federal Government excluding this Court and the prosecution.
On Christmas Day 2009, my wife and I were returning from an African safari and had a connecting flight through Amsterdam. As we waited for our flight, we sat on the floor next to the boarding gate.
What I witnessed while sitting there and subsequent events have changed my life forever. While I sat there, I witnessed Umar dressed in jeans and a white t-shirt, being escorted around security by a man in a tan suit who spoke perfect American English and who aided Umar in boarding without a passport.
Read more
Paul Volcker Slaps Down Bank of Canada Over Rules to Prevent Banks Too Big to Fail
By SIMON JOHNSON Simon Johnson, the former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, is the co-author of “13 Bankers.”
The Volcker Rule is intended to curb “proprietary trading” – specifically, high-risk bets placed by our largest banks. The Dodd-Frank financial reform act put it into law, and the relevant regulators have proposed a detailed and credible set of regulations to make it work. In accordance with typical administrative procedure in the United States, comments on these regulations were solicited. The deadline was this past Monday.
The legislative intent behind the Volcker Rule is clear – and reaffirmed in detail in the comment letter by Senators Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Carl Levin of Michigan, the co-authors of the relevant part of the Dodd-Frank legislation.
The reason that the general approach and this specific regulation makes sense, given past practices and likely future risks, is laid out in meticulous and convincing detail in the comment submitted by Dennis Kelleher and his colleagues from Better Markets.
The big banks and their allies are naturally fighting back. They like the implicit too-big-to-fail subsidies and are apparently offering to split those with people who will support their positions in public (including some of my academic colleagues). Their collective lack of concern for the public interest is also natural, if somewhat callous.
But the executives of these companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to make profits, and they interpret the too-big-to-fail subsidies as helpful in this regard. Government support, after all, allows these banks to borrow more cheaply and to take on more risk (gaining more when they get lucky, precisely because they have “downside protection” provided by taxpayers).
Read more
The Volcker Rule is intended to curb “proprietary trading” – specifically, high-risk bets placed by our largest banks. The Dodd-Frank financial reform act put it into law, and the relevant regulators have proposed a detailed and credible set of regulations to make it work. In accordance with typical administrative procedure in the United States, comments on these regulations were solicited. The deadline was this past Monday.
Congress rightly decided that excessive risk-taking by very large banks had to be curtailed. Responsible regulators around the world are cheering from the sidelines, and that’s why I was shocked to see the recent comment letter from the Bank of Canada that criticized the American law.
The legislative intent behind the Volcker Rule is clear – and reaffirmed in detail in the comment letter by Senators Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Carl Levin of Michigan, the co-authors of the relevant part of the Dodd-Frank legislation.
The reason that the general approach and this specific regulation makes sense, given past practices and likely future risks, is laid out in meticulous and convincing detail in the comment submitted by Dennis Kelleher and his colleagues from Better Markets.
The big banks and their allies are naturally fighting back. They like the implicit too-big-to-fail subsidies and are apparently offering to split those with people who will support their positions in public (including some of my academic colleagues). Their collective lack of concern for the public interest is also natural, if somewhat callous.
But the executives of these companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to make profits, and they interpret the too-big-to-fail subsidies as helpful in this regard. Government support, after all, allows these banks to borrow more cheaply and to take on more risk (gaining more when they get lucky, precisely because they have “downside protection” provided by taxpayers).
Read more
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
The Second Great Depression and The Cause That None Dare Name
 |
| The decline in unemployment to 2008 was the result of an unsustainable credit-based housing bubble created by the US Federal Reserve. Image source |
Unemployment in Spain is around 23%. On a true measure, according to the Trades Union Congress, unemployment in the UK now exceeds 6.3 million people or more than 20% of the workforce. US unemployment according to the U6 measure is over 15%.
Among young people (aged 16-24) the rate of unemployment is even worse. In Spain, youth unemployment has surged over 50%. In the UK, youth unemployment now exceeds one million, while hundreds of thousands of immigrants flood in. For black youth in Britain the outlook is particularly grim with unemployment exceeding 50%. But for black youngsters in America, unemployment approaching 90% is catastrophic.
 |
| European youth unemployment. (Image source) |
But in a World possessed of technology that to an earlier generation would appear to be of near magical power, the idea that the highly capitalized Western nations cannot provide their populations with opportunities to work and support themselves is absurd. And indeed if it were not absurd, why do the Western elites continue to promote a flood of immigration to the West, destroying ethnic diversity, social cohesion and religious compatibility while vilifying and criminalizing opposition to this genocidal program as racist and xenophobic?
As for resource shortages, most appear to be artificial. Food prices have been boosted by government programs to encourage the conversion of food into fuel at huge cost to taxpayers and with little if any net gain in energy. Oil prices have been boosted by the continual Western-generated threat or reality of war in the chief oil exporting regions of the World.
As for global warming, all we've seen so far has likely boosted crop yields, as must have the the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
The reason for mass Western unemployment must, therefore, be hidden in plain sight.
And the cause is in plain sight, though none in the media dare mention it. It is the 1994 GATT agreement that opened the Western nations to unrestricted free trade with the rest of the World, which is to say with the teeming masses of Asia, the Middle East and Africa, where hundreds of millions of workers are sweated for pennies an hour.
The outcome was predictable and predicted. In fact, Sir James Goldsmith felt so strongly about the damage that would be done to Britain by the 1994 Gatt Agreement that he formed the Referendum Party to take Britain out of the EU and thus make her free to regulate trade in the national interest. Goldsmith, however, died in 1997 and his party was absorbed by another Euroskeptic group now headed by a former commodities broker with a gift for lampooning the charisma-challenged EU leadership, but who seems to have nothing to say against global free trade.
But why, if Third-World competition is wreaking such havoc with Western job markets, does almost no prominent individual or mass media outlet dare speak of it? Because it is immensely profitable to those moving work from the West to the Rest, and it is they who own the political class and thus the education system, which should more accurately be called a system of state indoctrination and propaganda, the broadcast media, and the publishing industry.
As the great classical economist David Ricardo explained, "wages and profits are together always the same," meaning that if you lower wages you increase profits. It is no coincidence, therefore, that while the West suffers the severest depression in jobs and wages since the 1930's, profits of Western corporations are at record highs. In the United States, for example, corporate profits have doubled since 2000, while unemployment has increased by 150%.
What then is the solution? Briefly, there is none. True, we have proposed seeming solutions: either trade protectionism, or government intervention to speed wage convergence between the West and the Rest, while providing income support to those in the West whose wages fall below the subsistence level. But Western governments have shown no interest in either protecting jobs and job skills or preventing the flight of capital to low-wage, low regulation regimes, where profits are highest. It is sufficient, they seem to believe, to provide the unemployed with a dole to keep them alive with crumbs from the bankers' tables but in a state of smouldering resentment, while hastening wage convergence through currency devaluation. Unfortunately, for Western countries, the Chinese are putting on a fine performance in the race to debase, thus preventing the US and Europe from gaining competitive advantage through devaluation.
How will this end? Badly. It will end with the burial of Western Civilization and the emergence of the New World Order, which is to say a global plutocracy ruling over a mongrelized human population. There will be no West or Rest in the future. There will be one global mass, and anyone who objects to the genocidal destruction of their own race, nation and culture will be criminalized and silenced.
Unless, that is, there is push back. But there is no evidence that a reaction is possible, let alone occurring. Seeming opponents of the New World Order are mostly globalist controlled assets. How to tell? find out what they say about globalization of trade, mass migration and multi-culturalism. Most you will find are entirely on board with the Council on Foreign relations, Chatham House, and the pseudo-left-wing media.
Related post:
Crooks and Liars: Hell Is Cheap: China, Apple, And The Economics Of Horror
What's Wrong With Europe and What Needs to Be Done About It
Robert Herndon:The globalist lies about the British job market
Monday, February 13, 2012
Is "Bad Science" an Oxymoron
 |
| View full size |
Having written on occasion about scientific fraud, scientific data manipulation and outright scientific nonsense, I was invited by its creators to comment on a poster entitled Bad Science, the psychology behind bad research, offered as a resource on the ClinicalPsychology.net website.
"Scientists," states an introduction to the poster, "are some of our most trusted members of society ... [but] many scientists are not as trustworthy as we would like to believe. By engaging in various kinds of scientific misconduct, such as falsifying or fabricating data, scientists are getting the results they want without the honesty and integrity that we expect of the scientific institution."
As a scientist of almost 50 years standing, it's news to me that scientists are among the most trusted members of the community. Personally, I would trust a scientists no more and no less than I would trust a banker or a politician. And that is surely not being unduly cynical, for as everyone knows, when their work impinges on important economic or political questions, scientists can be remarkably responsive to the interests of those funding their work, whether it be the tobacco industry, the drug industry, the arms industry or a government with an agenda on climate change, HIV/AIDS, the psychiatric treatment of political dissidents, or the use of tactical nuclear weapons in populated areas. So it seems to me that the people at ClinicalPsychology.net are proceeding on the basis of a questionable assumption.
There is no question, however, that data falsification (are falsified data, truly data at all in the scientific sense?) and data fabrication are not activities to be encouraged, so when ClinicalPsychology.net tells us to read their "infographic" to find out how to fix the problem, we are prepared to read on.
However, what we find is little in the way of the promised account of the "psychology behind bad science" or effective means to "fix the problem," but mainly a series of assertions about the prevalence of scientific fraud. "Shady scientific research is rampant" we are told, which sounds bad, but what does it mean. Well for one thing, "One in three scientists admit to using questionable research practices," which include "dropping data points based on gut feeling," and "changing the results or design of a study due to pressure from a funding source."
So now we begin to have some idea what they are talking about, but it nevertheless remains vague. What, for example, does it mean to drop a data point "based on gut feeling"? Presumably it means that the scientist believes that they have a plausible justification for dropping the data point in question: "I noticed some crud in that tube when I was adding the reagents," or "the rat that died looked sick before we began feeding it GM corn." Adoption of such rationalizations for the selection of data is not considered acceptable practice but it has a venerable history in science, and while few would condone it, the question of whether it constitutes "bad science" is less clear than many might suppose.
Scientific knowledge is not a collection of facts, it is a system of laws, principles and patterns which allow us to infer from a given set of facts another heretofore unknown set of facts, including facts about past, present or future. Thus science as a process of discovery is concerned, primarily, not with any specific facts, but with ideas about the relationships among facts in the observable world. Because there is uncertainty about all particular observed facts, there is no overwhelming reason to reject a good idea because it is inconsistent with some observation that "gut feeling", i.e., some plausible argument, suggests is false.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
How can Wikileaks battle mainstream media disinformation by working in collaboration with the mainstream media? LOL
A project such as Wikileaks could provide a most effective mechanism for both diverting the alternative media with misleading or fabricated information, and identifying for termination genuine leaks damaging to US/NATO's imperialist agenda and the anti-social or criminal activities of multinational corporations.
That Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is a recipient of the Sam Adams Award "for integrity in intelligence," which is given annually by a group of retired CIA officers, appears to confirm the hypothesis that Wikileaks is an intel operation.
That Wikileaks claims to have as its primary interest, oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East in no way detracts from the notion that it is an intel or propaganda operation serving the the aims of Western hegemony.
That Wikileaks has collaborated extensively with the mainstream media in the selection and redaction of material to be leaked supports the same conclusion.
In this excellent analysis of Wikileaks and the parties with which it has collaborated, Professor Michel Chossudovksy spells out exactly why Wikileaks has the essential features of a mechanism for the manufacture of controlled dissent.
That Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is a recipient of the Sam Adams Award "for integrity in intelligence," which is given annually by a group of retired CIA officers, appears to confirm the hypothesis that Wikileaks is an intel operation.
That Wikileaks claims to have as its primary interest, oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East in no way detracts from the notion that it is an intel or propaganda operation serving the the aims of Western hegemony.
That Wikileaks has collaborated extensively with the mainstream media in the selection and redaction of material to be leaked supports the same conclusion.
In this excellent analysis of Wikileaks and the parties with which it has collaborated, Professor Michel Chossudovksy spells out exactly why Wikileaks has the essential features of a mechanism for the manufacture of controlled dissent.
Human Biodiversity: Liberals Rediscover IQ
By Dennis Mangan
Whenever the subject of intelligence testing comes up, especially in the context of racial and ethnic differences in intelligence, or disparate outcomes in education, liberals can always be counted upon for their skepticism towards the entire subject of IQ testing. They will usually claim that the tests are either biased or don't measure anything real - as in "IQ measures the ability to take an IQ test". This is of course ironic, since individual differences in intelligence as measured by IQ testing is the most established and robust finding of modern psychometrics, and liberals constantly proclaim their devotion to science, only inbred conservatives being opposed to scientific findings.
But liberals become IQ believers when something like this happens: Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice.
Some of the quotes from the article show how a study like this operates. For instance:
The essential point to make here is that the average Democratic Party member is very likely not as intelligent as the average Republican, since the Democratic Party contains more minorities, who on average score lower on IQ tests than whites. But once you point out something like that, liberals go into IQ denial.
Whenever the subject of intelligence testing comes up, especially in the context of racial and ethnic differences in intelligence, or disparate outcomes in education, liberals can always be counted upon for their skepticism towards the entire subject of IQ testing. They will usually claim that the tests are either biased or don't measure anything real - as in "IQ measures the ability to take an IQ test". This is of course ironic, since individual differences in intelligence as measured by IQ testing is the most established and robust finding of modern psychometrics, and liberals constantly proclaim their devotion to science, only inbred conservatives being opposed to scientific findings.
But liberals become IQ believers when something like this happens: Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice.
Some of the quotes from the article show how a study like this operates. For instance:
Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a laundry list of statements such as "Family life suffers if mum is working full-time," and "Schools should teach children to obey authority."I guess smart liberals believe that a mother working outside the home full-time couldn't possibly have any downside for family life, and that their indoctrination of schoolkids in things like environmentalism, global warming, and the essential evilness of America's past don't constitute teaching children to obey their authority.
The essential point to make here is that the average Democratic Party member is very likely not as intelligent as the average Republican, since the Democratic Party contains more minorities, who on average score lower on IQ tests than whites. But once you point out something like that, liberals go into IQ denial.
Friday, February 10, 2012
How Iran Threatens the United States of Aggression
 |
| Each star marks the location of a US military base. Image Source: Juan Cole |
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Nulius in verba: On the word of no one
Or how the Royal Society betrayed its original purpose to become another quasi governmental organization spewing the scientifically correct official line
By Andrew Montford
Foreword by Professor Richard Lindzen
Andrew Montford provides a straightforward and unembellished chronology of the perversion not only of The Royal Society but of science itself, wherein the legitimate role of science as a powerful mode of inquiry is replaced by the pretence of science to a position of political authority.
The simple chronology speaks for itself, though one cannot read it without thinking, at least, about the motivations. Already in the 19th century, gentleman scientists, like Darwin, noted the potential constraints on scientific inquiry that were associated with functioning within universities. The potential in recent years is obviously magnified by the near monopoly over science support exercised by governments. In the US, our National Academy of Science (NAS) has always had official status as adviser to the government. However, the role was relatively passive until the 1970s.
The 1970s saw a marked expansion of the National Research Council, the branch of the National Academy of Science responsible for responding to government requests. With the presidency of Frank Press (1981-1993), the staff of the NRC increased to over a thousand. Frank often boasted that The Royal Society was envious of the position of the NAS and the existence of its NRC. The global warming issue, it would appear, has offered The Royal Society the opportunity to rectify this situation.
Nevertheless, there are certain peculiarities of The Royal Society’s behavior that are perhaps worth noting. The presidents involved with this issue (May, Rees and Nurse) are all profoundly ignorant of climate science. Their alleged authority stems from their positions in the RS rather than from scientific expertise. This is evident in a variety of ways.
For example, in an exchange in the Financial Times (April 9, 2010), Martin Rees and Ralph Cicerone (President of the NAS) defended global warming concern by noting essentially that carbon dioxide (CO2) was increasing and that climate was changing. Of course, climate is always changing, and increasing CO2 must make some contribution, but none of this suggests anything alarming. The alarm results from controversial feedbacks wherein the small impacts of CO2 are, in current computer models, greatly amplified. With respect to these feedbacks, Rees and Cicerone say: “Uncertainties in the future rate of this rise (referring to global mean temperature anomaly), stemming largely from ‘feedback’ effects on water vapor and clouds are topics of current research.” That is to say, we don’t even know if there is a problem. Yet, Rees and Cicerone conclude: “Our academies will provide the scientific backdrop for the political and business leaders who must create effective policies to steer the world toward a low-carbon economy.”
In other words, regardless of the science, the answer is predetermined. Is this simply ignorance or dishonesty? My guess is that Rees and Cicerone were only mindlessly repeating a script prepared by the environmental movement. In this report Montford documents some disturbing general trends, which one can only hope that scientists of good standing shall increasingly continue to oppose.
Summary
For 300 years after its foundation, the Royal Society adopted a position of aloofness from political debates, refusing to become embroiled in the controversies of the day. This position was encapsulated in the Society’s journal, The Philosophical Transactions, which carried a notice that ‘It is neither necessary nor desirable for the Society to give an official ruling on scientific issues, for these are settled far more conclusively in the laboratory than in the committee room’.
In the 1960s, the society became increasingly involved at the interface of science and political policymaking.With the elevation of Robert May to the presidency, the Society became highly politicised, involving itself in political advocacy and media campaigns. In 1989 it had issued the first of its highly controversial position papers on climate change, a document that eschewed the sober language of the scientist in favour of denunciations of those who questioned the reality or extent of manmade global warming.
May’s political approach was continued by his successor, Martin Rees, with the Society’s authority being used to try to cut off funding of sceptic groups and with Rees putting forward positions on the economics of climate change. The Society issued a series of highly political statements demanding action from politicians.
Under Rees, another combative statement on the science of global warming was issued. With the Society again adopting a political rather than scientific tone, a substantial group of the fellows was stirred to action, demanding that the Society reconsider the unscientific way in which it was addressing the global warming question, the result being a much improved position paper on global warming that reflected at least some of the critics’ concerns.
Despite this, the Society has yet to distance itself from its former unscientific conduct, and the new president, Paul Nurse, has begun his term of office by staking out some very questionable positions on the role of scepticism in the climate debate.
Immense damage has been done to the reputation of the Society by its last three presidents. While the fellows’ rebellion has improved matters considerably, the continuing desire of the Society’s leadership to engage in political controversies represents a serious ongoing risk to the Society’s reputation and an abandonment of its principles.
Full report
Related:
Canspeccy: The Trashing of Tim Hunt, a Breach of the Social Contract, the Death of a Civilization
By Andrew Montford
Foreword by Professor Richard Lindzen
Andrew Montford provides a straightforward and unembellished chronology of the perversion not only of The Royal Society but of science itself, wherein the legitimate role of science as a powerful mode of inquiry is replaced by the pretence of science to a position of political authority.
The simple chronology speaks for itself, though one cannot read it without thinking, at least, about the motivations. Already in the 19th century, gentleman scientists, like Darwin, noted the potential constraints on scientific inquiry that were associated with functioning within universities. The potential in recent years is obviously magnified by the near monopoly over science support exercised by governments. In the US, our National Academy of Science (NAS) has always had official status as adviser to the government. However, the role was relatively passive until the 1970s.
The 1970s saw a marked expansion of the National Research Council, the branch of the National Academy of Science responsible for responding to government requests. With the presidency of Frank Press (1981-1993), the staff of the NRC increased to over a thousand. Frank often boasted that The Royal Society was envious of the position of the NAS and the existence of its NRC. The global warming issue, it would appear, has offered The Royal Society the opportunity to rectify this situation.
Nevertheless, there are certain peculiarities of The Royal Society’s behavior that are perhaps worth noting. The presidents involved with this issue (May, Rees and Nurse) are all profoundly ignorant of climate science. Their alleged authority stems from their positions in the RS rather than from scientific expertise. This is evident in a variety of ways.
For example, in an exchange in the Financial Times (April 9, 2010), Martin Rees and Ralph Cicerone (President of the NAS) defended global warming concern by noting essentially that carbon dioxide (CO2) was increasing and that climate was changing. Of course, climate is always changing, and increasing CO2 must make some contribution, but none of this suggests anything alarming. The alarm results from controversial feedbacks wherein the small impacts of CO2 are, in current computer models, greatly amplified. With respect to these feedbacks, Rees and Cicerone say: “Uncertainties in the future rate of this rise (referring to global mean temperature anomaly), stemming largely from ‘feedback’ effects on water vapor and clouds are topics of current research.” That is to say, we don’t even know if there is a problem. Yet, Rees and Cicerone conclude: “Our academies will provide the scientific backdrop for the political and business leaders who must create effective policies to steer the world toward a low-carbon economy.”
In other words, regardless of the science, the answer is predetermined. Is this simply ignorance or dishonesty? My guess is that Rees and Cicerone were only mindlessly repeating a script prepared by the environmental movement. In this report Montford documents some disturbing general trends, which one can only hope that scientists of good standing shall increasingly continue to oppose.
Summary
For 300 years after its foundation, the Royal Society adopted a position of aloofness from political debates, refusing to become embroiled in the controversies of the day. This position was encapsulated in the Society’s journal, The Philosophical Transactions, which carried a notice that ‘It is neither necessary nor desirable for the Society to give an official ruling on scientific issues, for these are settled far more conclusively in the laboratory than in the committee room’.
In the 1960s, the society became increasingly involved at the interface of science and political policymaking.With the elevation of Robert May to the presidency, the Society became highly politicised, involving itself in political advocacy and media campaigns. In 1989 it had issued the first of its highly controversial position papers on climate change, a document that eschewed the sober language of the scientist in favour of denunciations of those who questioned the reality or extent of manmade global warming.
May’s political approach was continued by his successor, Martin Rees, with the Society’s authority being used to try to cut off funding of sceptic groups and with Rees putting forward positions on the economics of climate change. The Society issued a series of highly political statements demanding action from politicians.
Under Rees, another combative statement on the science of global warming was issued. With the Society again adopting a political rather than scientific tone, a substantial group of the fellows was stirred to action, demanding that the Society reconsider the unscientific way in which it was addressing the global warming question, the result being a much improved position paper on global warming that reflected at least some of the critics’ concerns.
Despite this, the Society has yet to distance itself from its former unscientific conduct, and the new president, Paul Nurse, has begun his term of office by staking out some very questionable positions on the role of scepticism in the climate debate.
Immense damage has been done to the reputation of the Society by its last three presidents. While the fellows’ rebellion has improved matters considerably, the continuing desire of the Society’s leadership to engage in political controversies represents a serious ongoing risk to the Society’s reputation and an abandonment of its principles.
Full report
Related:
Canspeccy: The Trashing of Tim Hunt, a Breach of the Social Contract, the Death of a Civilization
Monday, February 6, 2012
The US Federal Reserve Really Does Turn Over Profits to the Treasury
It is repeatedly stated by bloggers and others self-published on the Internet that the US Federal Reserve is a scam because it prints money for the US Government and then charges the US Treasury interest on the money thus conjured out of thin air.
In fact, charging interest on money created out of thin air is what commercial banks do. They create credit in amounts many times what has been placed on deposit with them and charge borrowers for the use of the money thus created.
The Fed, however, operates differently. If the Treasury needs money, it prints off some bonds and hands them over to the Fed, which then writes the Treasury a check for money it does not have -- so-called ink money.
The Treasury then spends the money the Fed just created out of thin air, while paying interest at the rate specified by the bonds held in the Fed's portfolio.
However, at the end of the year, the Fed pays the Treasury its profits, i.e., interest earned on the Government paper it holds less operating expenses.
So all that actually happens is that the Government pays itself interest on money created for it by the Fed, less the cost of the Fed's role as an intermediary.
Why, one might ask, involve the Fed at all?
The answer is that by handling the Government's paper, the Fed can control the money supply by selling bonds to the public, or buying them back.
When the Fed sells bonds it takes money out of circulation and reduces the money supply. When the Fed buys bonds either from the Government or the public it increases the money in circulation.
The money that the Fed receives on the sale of bonds to the public goes out of existence as magically as the ink money with which it purchased the bonds was conjured into existence.
The only significant consequence for the Treasury of Fed bond sales is that the interest on the bonds is no longer returned, courtesy of the Fed. It is at this point that the interest on the money created by the Fed becomes a real expense to the Treasury and thus to the American taxpayer.
This is as it should be, since the money with which the bonds have been purchased by private parties is real money, not funny money, which is to say that by purchasing government bonds, investors are giving up use of their money and expect, naturally, to earn interest in return.
Confirming that the Fed does not earn interest beyond its expense of operation on bonds that it purchases from the Treasury, the New York Times states in an article published today:
None of which is intended to suggest that the Fed is an unmitigated blessing on the American people or that it should not be audited. On the contrary, it is impossible to judge the value of the Fed without knowing what it does, and anyone who opposes a thorough review of the Fed's activities is probably a banker whose owes their job and bonuses to the generosity of the Fed to undeserving speculators and fraudsters.
In fact, charging interest on money created out of thin air is what commercial banks do. They create credit in amounts many times what has been placed on deposit with them and charge borrowers for the use of the money thus created.
The Fed, however, operates differently. If the Treasury needs money, it prints off some bonds and hands them over to the Fed, which then writes the Treasury a check for money it does not have -- so-called ink money.
The Treasury then spends the money the Fed just created out of thin air, while paying interest at the rate specified by the bonds held in the Fed's portfolio.
However, at the end of the year, the Fed pays the Treasury its profits, i.e., interest earned on the Government paper it holds less operating expenses.
So all that actually happens is that the Government pays itself interest on money created for it by the Fed, less the cost of the Fed's role as an intermediary.
Why, one might ask, involve the Fed at all?
The answer is that by handling the Government's paper, the Fed can control the money supply by selling bonds to the public, or buying them back.
When the Fed sells bonds it takes money out of circulation and reduces the money supply. When the Fed buys bonds either from the Government or the public it increases the money in circulation.
The money that the Fed receives on the sale of bonds to the public goes out of existence as magically as the ink money with which it purchased the bonds was conjured into existence.
The only significant consequence for the Treasury of Fed bond sales is that the interest on the bonds is no longer returned, courtesy of the Fed. It is at this point that the interest on the money created by the Fed becomes a real expense to the Treasury and thus to the American taxpayer.
This is as it should be, since the money with which the bonds have been purchased by private parties is real money, not funny money, which is to say that by purchasing government bonds, investors are giving up use of their money and expect, naturally, to earn interest in return.
Confirming that the Fed does not earn interest beyond its expense of operation on bonds that it purchases from the Treasury, the New York Times states in an article published today:
The Federal Reserve said on Tuesday that it contributed $76.9 billion in profits to the Treasury Department last year, slightly less than its record 2010 transfer but much more than in any other previous year.So if any cranks or crackpots out there still wish to maintain that the Fed prints money and pockets the interest on it, I say take it up with the New York Times, and don't waste your time arguing the point here.
The Fed is required by law to turn over its profits to the Treasury each year, a highly lucrative byproduct of the central bank’s continuing campaign to stimulate economic growth.
Almost 97 percent of the Fed’s income was generated by interest payments on its investment portfolio, including $2.5 trillion in Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities, which it has amassed in an effort to decrease borrowing costs for businesses and consumers by reducing long-term interest rates.
None of which is intended to suggest that the Fed is an unmitigated blessing on the American people or that it should not be audited. On the contrary, it is impossible to judge the value of the Fed without knowing what it does, and anyone who opposes a thorough review of the Fed's activities is probably a banker whose owes their job and bonuses to the generosity of the Fed to undeserving speculators and fraudsters.
Iran provides the West good reason to resist multiculturalism
The practices of Muslims are in some respects deeply repulsive to those brought up in the ethical and legal tradition of the West.
The point is vividly illustrated in the case of Saeed Malekpour, an Iranian citizen resident in Canada, who, while in Iran to see his dying father, was arrested, charged, convicted and condemned to death on the basis of a confession made under torture.
The 35-year-old website designer was found guilty of desecrating and insulting Islam by developing software to upload photographs to the Internet, a program that has been used by pornographic websites.
Mr. Malekpour claims not to have known that his software was used by pornographers and even if he had known, his actions do not, by Western standards, justify the death penalty.
If the government of Iran of any other country maintains a legal system that imposes the death penalty on those convicted on evidence from torture of acts that in the West would considered either perfectly harmless or only mildly anti-social, that is no reason for Western military intervention.
One cannot prevent all the evil in the world and to presume that hanging pornographers is worse than Western practices abhorrent to Muslims such as the state-funded slaughter of millions of humans in utero or the current American practice of detention or execution of citizens without due process is sheer humbug and hypocrisy.
Thus, the lesson of the Malekpour case for the West is not that we need to undertake regime change in Iran. The lesson that the West should draw from the inhumane standards of Iran's Islamic courts is that the Islamization of the West is something to be fiercely resisted.
That Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, a state-appointed leader of England's established church, has argued that adoption in Britain of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable," is truly contemptible. Even more contemptible is his reasoning for this despicable betrayal of the people he is supposed to serve.
The UK has to "face up to the fact," Dr. Williams is reported by the BBC to have said, that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system. A statement to which the obvious retort is that such citizens are not suited to life in Britain should return whence they or their recent immigrant ancestors came.
Or to put it more succinctly: bollocks to you Dr. Williams and bollocks to that traitor and warmonger Tony Blair who appointed such a creep as an Archbishop of the Anglican Church.
The point is vividly illustrated in the case of Saeed Malekpour, an Iranian citizen resident in Canada, who, while in Iran to see his dying father, was arrested, charged, convicted and condemned to death on the basis of a confession made under torture.
The 35-year-old website designer was found guilty of desecrating and insulting Islam by developing software to upload photographs to the Internet, a program that has been used by pornographic websites.
Mr. Malekpour claims not to have known that his software was used by pornographers and even if he had known, his actions do not, by Western standards, justify the death penalty.
If the government of Iran of any other country maintains a legal system that imposes the death penalty on those convicted on evidence from torture of acts that in the West would considered either perfectly harmless or only mildly anti-social, that is no reason for Western military intervention.
One cannot prevent all the evil in the world and to presume that hanging pornographers is worse than Western practices abhorrent to Muslims such as the state-funded slaughter of millions of humans in utero or the current American practice of detention or execution of citizens without due process is sheer humbug and hypocrisy.
Thus, the lesson of the Malekpour case for the West is not that we need to undertake regime change in Iran. The lesson that the West should draw from the inhumane standards of Iran's Islamic courts is that the Islamization of the West is something to be fiercely resisted.
That Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, a state-appointed leader of England's established church, has argued that adoption in Britain of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable," is truly contemptible. Even more contemptible is his reasoning for this despicable betrayal of the people he is supposed to serve.
The UK has to "face up to the fact," Dr. Williams is reported by the BBC to have said, that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system. A statement to which the obvious retort is that such citizens are not suited to life in Britain should return whence they or their recent immigrant ancestors came.
Or to put it more succinctly: bollocks to you Dr. Williams and bollocks to that traitor and warmonger Tony Blair who appointed such a creep as an Archbishop of the Anglican Church.
Canada's interprovincial equalization payments are unfair
A group at the University of Toronto has discovered what must always have been self-evident to anyone but a liberal fanatic for total government control of everything, that a program to equalize incomes that ignores differences in the cost of living between town and country, and between the rich provinces and the poor is bound to be unfair.
As the star.com reports:
If salaries currently paid to Federal civil servants in Toronto are adequate, as they must be since vacant positions with the Federal Government in Toronto are promptly filled, the Federal Government must have very substantial scope for savings to the taxpayer by adjusting civil service wages downward in areas with a lower cost of living than Toronto.
But better still would be to cut the Federal public service, currently numbering 250,000, and return the resultant savings to the taxpayer. The job cuts, apparently, are coming. Whether we see the tax cuts, remains to be seen. We may not even see a spending cut. If Harper has his way, we will almost certainly see a Canadian role in any new Middle-East war, and keeping a soldier in the field is even more costly than employing a Field Interviewer for Statistical Survey Operations in Iqaluit, Nunavut.
As the star.com reports:
In a 41-page paper to be released Monday by the Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation at the University of Toronto, equalization expert Peter Gusen said the status quo is unconstitutional.So far as it goes, the argument seems reasonable, but it could certainly go much further. For example, why are Federal public servants of the same grade paid the same salary wherever they live in Canada, even though costs of living vary greatly. This is surely grossly unfair since it means that either those whose work requires them to live in Toronto or Vancouver are grossly underpaid or that a civil servant in Come By Chance, Newfoundland or Pelican Narrows, Saskatchewan is greatly overpaid.
And that [it] costs Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick billions of dollars annually that go instead to Quebec, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island.
“If equalization continues to ignore differences in expenditure need it will not be treating provinces fairly and it will not be fulfilling its constitutional mandate,” writes Gusen.
When dispensing equalization payouts from the taxpayer-funded $15.4 billion pool, Ottawa doesn’t take into account that wages and cost-of-living expenses are higher in Ontario and B.C. than in much of the country.
“Provinces … differ in their ability ‘to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services’ because they have to spend different amounts to offer similar services; in other words, because they have different expenditure needs,” he writes, quoting Section 36.2 of the Constitution Act.
If salaries currently paid to Federal civil servants in Toronto are adequate, as they must be since vacant positions with the Federal Government in Toronto are promptly filled, the Federal Government must have very substantial scope for savings to the taxpayer by adjusting civil service wages downward in areas with a lower cost of living than Toronto.
But better still would be to cut the Federal public service, currently numbering 250,000, and return the resultant savings to the taxpayer. The job cuts, apparently, are coming. Whether we see the tax cuts, remains to be seen. We may not even see a spending cut. If Harper has his way, we will almost certainly see a Canadian role in any new Middle-East war, and keeping a soldier in the field is even more costly than employing a Field Interviewer for Statistical Survey Operations in Iqaluit, Nunavut.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Arab league monitors find slaughter in Syria the work of foreign-backed subversives
A report by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) based on a one month inquiry by 160 monitors failed, as Pepe Escobar reports in the Asia Times, to conclude that:
See also:
Robert Fisk: From Washington this looks like Syria's 'Benghazi moment'. But not from here
Pepe Escobar: US will continue to arm anti-government rebels in Syria after veto
Brookings: ‘Horrific Provocation’ and ‘Tehran-Sponsored 9/11′ Needed to Trigger Iran Invasion
Wayne Madsen: World War III Has Begun – The First Asymmetric War
West gunning for Putin as Syria face-off unfolds
... the "evil" Bashar al-Assad government is indiscriminately, and unilaterally, killing its own people, and so regime change is in order.
So the report was either ignored (by Western corporate media) or mercilessly destroyed - by Arab media, virtually all of it financed by either the House of Saud or Qatar. It was not even discussed - because it was prevented by the GCC from being translated from Arabic into English and published in the Arab League's website.
Until it was leaked. Here it is, in full.
The report is adamant. There was no organized, lethal repression by the Syrian government against peaceful protesters. Instead, the report points to shady armed gangs as responsible for hundreds of deaths among Syrian civilians, and over one thousand among the Syrian army, using lethal tactics such as bombing of civilian buses, bombing of trains carrying diesel oil, bombing of police buses and bombing of bridges and pipelines.
... So the current "Arab-led drive to secure a peaceful end to the 10-month crackdown" in Syria at the UN is no less than a crude regime change drive. Usual suspects Washington, London and Paris have been forced to fall over themselves to assure the real international community this is not another mandate for NATO bombing - a la Libya. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described it as "a path for a political transition that would preserve Syria's unity and institutions".
See also:
Robert Fisk: From Washington this looks like Syria's 'Benghazi moment'. But not from here
Pepe Escobar: US will continue to arm anti-government rebels in Syria after veto
Brookings: ‘Horrific Provocation’ and ‘Tehran-Sponsored 9/11′ Needed to Trigger Iran Invasion
Wayne Madsen: World War III Has Begun – The First Asymmetric War
West gunning for Putin as Syria face-off unfolds
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Public Education: The Foundation of the New World Order
By Gary North
LEWROCKWELL.COM: One of the most alluring temptations that face men is the desire to enter the inner ring. C. S. Lewis wrote a wonderful essay with this title. It should be part of every person's rite of passage into adulthood.
The desire to enter the inner ring is closely related to the desire to maintain a New World Order. There is always an institutional claimant to New World Order status. It is always structured in terms of a series of concentric rings. These rings are always vertical. They are part of a pyramid of power. They are best represented by a stepped pyramid. (See Genesis 11.)
Every empire has been founded in the name of – on behalf of – some version of a New World Order. Empires all have this in common: they are eventually replaced. There is nothing more defunct than a New World Order that has failed. Think "Ottoman Empire." Think "Thousand-Year Reich." Think "British Empire." Think "Soviet Union."
When they are riding high, they seem unbeatable. What could possibly replace them? Most people cannot imagine anything. But there are always a few who can. They get together informally to help arrange the transition. Then they get together formally. They screen access to meetings. They set up a new inner ring.
In our day, the cry is "Next year, in Davos!" The best book on this is an insider's book, David Rothkopf's Superclass. It is not a conspiracy theory-type book. It is a "look how we've made it" book. It's a "top of the world, Ma!" book. He also sees that this superclass is vulnerable to changes outside of its control: in Asia, in the Third World. "We've made it" can become "we've lost it."
Count on it.
You may not have time to read his book. You do have time to watch a couple of his videos. They are posted here.
In summary, here is his thesis. About 6,000 people, 94% male, average age 61, meet from time to time to set the agenda for the rest of us. Here is the central fact: about 30% of them attended one or more of about 20 elite universities.
Here, I want to focus on this final point: elite universities. Another book spoke of this, a book that became an instant pariah in the liberal Establishment: The Bell Curve. It was published in 1994.
LEWROCKWELL.COM: One of the most alluring temptations that face men is the desire to enter the inner ring. C. S. Lewis wrote a wonderful essay with this title. It should be part of every person's rite of passage into adulthood.
The desire to enter the inner ring is closely related to the desire to maintain a New World Order. There is always an institutional claimant to New World Order status. It is always structured in terms of a series of concentric rings. These rings are always vertical. They are part of a pyramid of power. They are best represented by a stepped pyramid. (See Genesis 11.)
Every empire has been founded in the name of – on behalf of – some version of a New World Order. Empires all have this in common: they are eventually replaced. There is nothing more defunct than a New World Order that has failed. Think "Ottoman Empire." Think "Thousand-Year Reich." Think "British Empire." Think "Soviet Union."
When they are riding high, they seem unbeatable. What could possibly replace them? Most people cannot imagine anything. But there are always a few who can. They get together informally to help arrange the transition. Then they get together formally. They screen access to meetings. They set up a new inner ring.
In our day, the cry is "Next year, in Davos!" The best book on this is an insider's book, David Rothkopf's Superclass. It is not a conspiracy theory-type book. It is a "look how we've made it" book. It's a "top of the world, Ma!" book. He also sees that this superclass is vulnerable to changes outside of its control: in Asia, in the Third World. "We've made it" can become "we've lost it."
Count on it.
You may not have time to read his book. You do have time to watch a couple of his videos. They are posted here.
In summary, here is his thesis. About 6,000 people, 94% male, average age 61, meet from time to time to set the agenda for the rest of us. Here is the central fact: about 30% of them attended one or more of about 20 elite universities.
Here, I want to focus on this final point: elite universities. Another book spoke of this, a book that became an instant pariah in the liberal Establishment: The Bell Curve. It was published in 1994.
US and Israel Divided Only on Timing of Iran Strike
Bloomberg: The U.S. and Israel are publicly disagreeing over timing for a potential attack on Iran’s disputed nuclear facilities, as that nation’s leader said it won’t back down.
The U.S. and Israel have a “significant analytic difference” over estimates of how close Iran is to shielding its nuclear program from attack, Aaron David Miller, a former Mideast peace negotiator in the Clinton administration, said today.
“There’s a growing concern -- more than a concern -- that the Israelis, in order to protect themselves, might launch a strike without approval, warning or even foreknowledge,” he said in an interview.
Read more
The U.S. and Israel have a “significant analytic difference” over estimates of how close Iran is to shielding its nuclear program from attack, Aaron David Miller, a former Mideast peace negotiator in the Clinton administration, said today.
“There’s a growing concern -- more than a concern -- that the Israelis, in order to protect themselves, might launch a strike without approval, warning or even foreknowledge,” he said in an interview.
Read more
WAPO: Israel to nuke Iran to prevent Iran building a nuke that would deter Israel from nuking Iran
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has a lot on his mind these days, from cutting the defense budget to managing the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But his biggest worry is the growing possibility that Israel will attack Iran over the next few months.
Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb.
Read more
Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb.
Read more
Friday, February 3, 2012
Fred on Why the US Government Is a Greater Danger to America Than Nazi Germany Ever Was
Vote? Why? What candidate in the quadiennial resurrection of the Mickey Mouse club wants to do anthing that I want done?
I want to roll back the onrushing police state and return to constitutional government. The plunge into totalitarianism is a far worse danger than World War Two, in which the US was never in danger of being invaded, and in which the outcome was a foregone conclusion. Who do I vote for? No candidate (except Ron Paul: ERP) is against sovietization.
I want to end our stupid wars, now. Yesterday. Who do I vote for? There is no anti'war candidate (ERP). Obama sends the troops anywhere he can think of, and all the Republicans want to attack Iran.
Read More
I want to roll back the onrushing police state and return to constitutional government. The plunge into totalitarianism is a far worse danger than World War Two, in which the US was never in danger of being invaded, and in which the outcome was a foregone conclusion. Who do I vote for? No candidate (except Ron Paul: ERP) is against sovietization.
I want to end our stupid wars, now. Yesterday. Who do I vote for? There is no anti'war candidate (ERP). Obama sends the troops anywhere he can think of, and all the Republicans want to attack Iran.
Read More
The Cost of Britain's kleines Huhn
Britain's Minister for Climate Panic and Punitive Remedial Measures, Chris Huhne, aka kleines Huhn (Chicken Little, in English), has resigned from the Government after being charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice by having his former wife take the blame for a speeding offense.
Over at WUWT, Chris Monckton explains the sheer insanity of the former ministers trillion-dollar plan to cut Britain's carbon emissions 80% by 2042:
Under Huhne, the Climate Change Department has been indistinguishable from a lunatic asylum. I first came across him – or, rather, didn’t come across him – when he and I were due to debate the climate at the annual jamboree of a massive hedge-fund in Spain three years ago. Huhne only found out that I was to be his opponent when he reached Heathrow Airport. He turned straight around and went back to London.
When I visited the House of Lords’ minister, Lord Marland, at the Climate Change Department a couple of years ago, I asked him and the Department’s chief number-cruncher, Professor David Mackay (neither a climate scientist nor an economist, of course) to show me the Department’s calculations detailing just how much “global warming” that might otherwise occur this century would be prevented by the $30 billion per year that the Department was committed to spend between 2011 and 2050 – $1.2 trillion in all.
There was a horrified silence. The birds stopped singing. The Minister adjusted his tie. The Permanent Secretary looked at his watch. Professor Mackay looked as though he wished the plush sofa into which he was disappearing would swallow him up entirely.
Eventually, in a very small voice, the Professor said, “Er, ah, mphm, that is, oof, arghh, we’ve never done any such calculation.” The biggest tax increase in human history had been based not upon a mature scientific assessment followed by a careful economic appraisal, but solely upon blind faith. I said as much. “Well,” said the Professor, “maybe we’ll get around to doing the calculations next October.”
Read more
Over at WUWT, Chris Monckton explains the sheer insanity of the former ministers trillion-dollar plan to cut Britain's carbon emissions 80% by 2042:
Under Huhne, the Climate Change Department has been indistinguishable from a lunatic asylum. I first came across him – or, rather, didn’t come across him – when he and I were due to debate the climate at the annual jamboree of a massive hedge-fund in Spain three years ago. Huhne only found out that I was to be his opponent when he reached Heathrow Airport. He turned straight around and went back to London.
When I visited the House of Lords’ minister, Lord Marland, at the Climate Change Department a couple of years ago, I asked him and the Department’s chief number-cruncher, Professor David Mackay (neither a climate scientist nor an economist, of course) to show me the Department’s calculations detailing just how much “global warming” that might otherwise occur this century would be prevented by the $30 billion per year that the Department was committed to spend between 2011 and 2050 – $1.2 trillion in all.
There was a horrified silence. The birds stopped singing. The Minister adjusted his tie. The Permanent Secretary looked at his watch. Professor Mackay looked as though he wished the plush sofa into which he was disappearing would swallow him up entirely.
Eventually, in a very small voice, the Professor said, “Er, ah, mphm, that is, oof, arghh, we’ve never done any such calculation.” The biggest tax increase in human history had been based not upon a mature scientific assessment followed by a careful economic appraisal, but solely upon blind faith. I said as much. “Well,” said the Professor, “maybe we’ll get around to doing the calculations next October.”
Read more
Clear Water At the North Pole: 1959
 |
| US Submarine Skate (SSN-578), surfaced at the North Pole, 17 March 1959 |
1959: So where's the ice?
The NAZIS and FASCISTS who founded the THE EU and their influence today
Link via Aangirfan's: FASCISM, TOP FAMILIES, FALSE FLAG OPS, which includes an informative interview with Annie Machon, an MI5 whistle-blower.
What Is the Point?
This is my first blog post in over a week, which raises hope of an eventual full remission of the compulsive blogging disorder (CBD).
What I find most helpful in suppressing the blogging impulse is recognition that there really is no point in it: wait a day or two and someone is sure to make the case better than I can.
This was well demonstrated yesterday by Alex Kurtagic's demolition of a university-sponsored pseudo-scientific study proving that all right-wingers are dumb racists.
The study reminds one of those reports that students using Macs are dumber than those with IBM PC, or that folks who use Internet Explorer are dumber than those using Firefox.
But perhaps the study is a hoax to prove that liberal academics will believe anything. If so, we look forward to the follow up.
What I find most helpful in suppressing the blogging impulse is recognition that there really is no point in it: wait a day or two and someone is sure to make the case better than I can.
This was well demonstrated yesterday by Alex Kurtagic's demolition of a university-sponsored pseudo-scientific study proving that all right-wingers are dumb racists.
The study reminds one of those reports that students using Macs are dumber than those with IBM PC, or that folks who use Internet Explorer are dumber than those using Firefox.
But perhaps the study is a hoax to prove that liberal academics will believe anything. If so, we look forward to the follow up.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Europe's Iran Oil Embargo: Iran Strikes First
| ZeroHedge: In what is likely a long overdue move, Iran has finally decided to give Europe a harsh lesson in game theory. Instead of letting Euro-area politicians score brownie points at its expense by threatening to halt imports and cut off the Iranian economy, the Iranian government will instead propose a bill calling for an immediate halt to oil deliveries to Europe. Read more |
Has Iran dealt the EU a harsh lesson in game theory, or merely extricated itself from the consequences of its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz should Europe impose an embargo on the import of Iranian oil?
The European embargo was scheduled to go into effect in July. Closure of the Strait of Hormuz would have elicited the promised American military action to open the Strait. So by making meaningless any European embargo, Iran avoids the need to make good on its threat to blockade the Strait, and thus denies US/Israel the long hoped for pretext for a war that would likely have escalated to the use of nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.
Now US/Israel will need a different justification for nuking Iran to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons to deter US/Israel from nuking Iran.
The Unbearable Whiteness... ...of Being Mitt Romney
By Andy Nowicki
In my previous article "Defiant Chastity," I asked the plaintive question: Is there anywhere in the debauched landscape of postmodern America where one can still find determined cultural resistance to the wearisome blight of entrenched sexual permissiveness, or stiff defiance against the dully exasperating trend towards enforced tolerance for every conceivable brand of unwholesome carnal perversity?
I then met my own seemingly rhetorical question with a surprisingly concrete answer: Yes, I replied; there IS, in fact, just such an unapologetically unreconstructed, sexually reactionary culture still in existence! It lies in the American West, among the denizens of "Deseret" (that is, Utah), which is to say, among the Latter-Day Saints, or Mormons.
Indeed, beyond the so-called "Zion Curtain" of Mormondom, pre-sexual revolution mores still largely hold sway. Girls are taught to dress modestly and always to behave in a ladylike fashion; boys are raised to be chivalrous, courtly, and responsible breadwinners; young couples are expected to put off intimate relations until their Temple marriage—wherein they are "sealed" to one another, not just for life but for eternity (!).
The fact that these quaint old customs still endure in one sector of America must be upsetting enough to the average standard-bearing Zeitgeist enforcer, inclined as such a one is to bouts of hysterical outrage that anyone anywhere might choose not to accept "enlightened" cultural norms as... well, normative.
Yet there was one significant oversight in my "Defiant Chastity" piece, since I neglected to mention a crucial piece of the puzzle, one that goes far to explain the extent of the desperate fear and ardent loathing that Mormonism provokes in the hearts of our modern-day cultural commissars.
What truly renders the Latter-Day Saints beyond the pale is in fact the overwhelming paleness of their sweet, wholesome Latter-Day Saintly complexions. ...
Read more
In my previous article "Defiant Chastity," I asked the plaintive question: Is there anywhere in the debauched landscape of postmodern America where one can still find determined cultural resistance to the wearisome blight of entrenched sexual permissiveness, or stiff defiance against the dully exasperating trend towards enforced tolerance for every conceivable brand of unwholesome carnal perversity?
I then met my own seemingly rhetorical question with a surprisingly concrete answer: Yes, I replied; there IS, in fact, just such an unapologetically unreconstructed, sexually reactionary culture still in existence! It lies in the American West, among the denizens of "Deseret" (that is, Utah), which is to say, among the Latter-Day Saints, or Mormons.
Indeed, beyond the so-called "Zion Curtain" of Mormondom, pre-sexual revolution mores still largely hold sway. Girls are taught to dress modestly and always to behave in a ladylike fashion; boys are raised to be chivalrous, courtly, and responsible breadwinners; young couples are expected to put off intimate relations until their Temple marriage—wherein they are "sealed" to one another, not just for life but for eternity (!).
The fact that these quaint old customs still endure in one sector of America must be upsetting enough to the average standard-bearing Zeitgeist enforcer, inclined as such a one is to bouts of hysterical outrage that anyone anywhere might choose not to accept "enlightened" cultural norms as... well, normative.
Yet there was one significant oversight in my "Defiant Chastity" piece, since I neglected to mention a crucial piece of the puzzle, one that goes far to explain the extent of the desperate fear and ardent loathing that Mormonism provokes in the hearts of our modern-day cultural commissars.
What truly renders the Latter-Day Saints beyond the pale is in fact the overwhelming paleness of their sweet, wholesome Latter-Day Saintly complexions. ...
Read more
Racism in Britain: We Obsess Over Black Britons While Chinese are Ignored
By William Dove
January 12, 2012: Now that Britain has become a country with an unhealthy obsession with race and racism, as shown most recently by the ridiculous outrage over some nonsensical tweeting by Diane Abbott, it was nice to see in the Guardian an aspect of this issue which is almost never raised, namely that of racism towards Chinese and East Asians living in Britain.
Actress Elizabeth Chan complained that Chinese Britons such as herself are "virtually invisible in public life", that she had to endure people making strange kung-fu noises at her and that she had been denied roles which were deemed to be for white characters only.
She also noted that while TV in her youth provided a reasonable number of black and South Asian role models not a single Chinese or East Asian was to be found.
These days I suppose young Chinese growing up in Britain do at least have Gok Wan and the girl from Harry Potter to look up to but there is no denying that there does seem to be a lack of East Asians in prominent places in society.
Friends and relatives of an East Asian background have told me of how they have had to endure being called "Chinky" and such like while also getting the feeling that they are not being taken seriously perhaps in part because of their often weaker English skills.
What is also clear is that what some disparagingly call the "Race Relations Industry" seems to be concerned with just a few races in particular rather than in the status of all the races present in the United Kingdom.
For instance despite the fact that we have and have had in this country black and South Asian cabinet ministers and MPs not only are there no East Asian MPs at present but there has, so far as I am aware, never been an MP from an East Asian background.
Yet one never hears anti-racism campaigners call for more East Asian representation or for "all Chinese shortlists". Instead they seem to rather enjoy spending their time trying to segregate black Britons from the rest of the country by talking about something called the "black community", as something seperate from mainstream British society.
Does this "community", which apparently contains everyone from the Archbishop of York to the killers of Ben Kinsella, have a set of shared values? How does one join it or leave it if one wants to? When we hear talk of "problems in the black community" as we did after the riots (in which hordes of white people took part and which not a few black police officers attempted to control) are we talking about the Archbishop or other elements within this so called community? As Bim Adewunmi pointed out, the people chosen to represent the "black community" often seem to be ex-gang members, which must surely be offensive to the many black Britons who have never had anything to do with gangs.
Unlike in America most black people in this country are here because they or their not too distant ancestors came here by choice. This is also true of the large numbers of people of East Asian descent in the country. Despite this there is an overwhelming emphasis on the fortunes of black people with some regard thrown in for South Asians.
Instead of obsessing over one or a few ethnic groups we should have a society in which racial discrimination is outlawed and where people of all races are free to succeed or fail on their own merits rather than being told that they are victims of a racist society or that members of another race are attempting to, for example, "divide and rule" them. While black Britons do no doubt suffer racism in different forms from time to time, the fact that there are plenty of successful black politicians, businessmen, doctors, journalists and so on would suggest that white oppression is not (thank goodness) the force it once was.
We should also have a society in which people are able to withstand the power of words with tolerance.
As an Englishman when I go abroad I'm often told by foreigners things like "You must like the rain because it reminds you of home". This is not quite as bad as being called a "Chinky", but it is still mildly annoying and based on racial stereotypes. I always respond by saying "Oh so it never rains in the rest of the world?".
Jokes about the rain are of course not the worst forms of verbal racial abuse. John Terry recently got into trouble for allegedly calling Anton Ferdinand a "F****** black c***". Now it is a matter of opinion that Mr Ferdinand is a "F****** c***" but it is a matter of fact that he is what is generally regarded as "black". Strangely though it was the word "black" which was considered most offensive, presumably if Mr Terry just called Mr Ferdinand an "F****** c***" that would have been mere banter.
Mr Terry should not have to face charges for inserting the word "black" into a barrage of obscenities. On the other hand the "racist tram lady" Emma West should perhaps face charges for disturbing the peace and maybe for her threatening behaviour.
What was interesting about the West incident was that while she raged against "F****** Polish" and "F****** brown people" she was told by another passenger that she had "F*** all to say" and that "You're f****** waking my baby up". This response was praised by a government minister who apparently felt that liberal use of the F-word in a public place is reasonable behaviour so long as the word is not accompanied by words like "Polish", "brown" or "black".
It may be unpleasant at times, but proper tolerance means having to put up with things we don't like.
Never again do I want to hear of someone being arrested for singing "Kung Fu Fighting" on the grounds that it's offensive to Chinese (when I heard that story my first thought was that at least they were not singing George Formby, whose series of songs on the career choices of a fictional "Mr Wu" might be somewhat un-PC nowadays) and nor do I want to hear of people being denied their full potential because of racial discrimination.
Sadly I fully expect to hear more instances of both kinds of folly.
January 12, 2012: Now that Britain has become a country with an unhealthy obsession with race and racism, as shown most recently by the ridiculous outrage over some nonsensical tweeting by Diane Abbott, it was nice to see in the Guardian an aspect of this issue which is almost never raised, namely that of racism towards Chinese and East Asians living in Britain.
Actress Elizabeth Chan complained that Chinese Britons such as herself are "virtually invisible in public life", that she had to endure people making strange kung-fu noises at her and that she had been denied roles which were deemed to be for white characters only.
She also noted that while TV in her youth provided a reasonable number of black and South Asian role models not a single Chinese or East Asian was to be found.
These days I suppose young Chinese growing up in Britain do at least have Gok Wan and the girl from Harry Potter to look up to but there is no denying that there does seem to be a lack of East Asians in prominent places in society.
Friends and relatives of an East Asian background have told me of how they have had to endure being called "Chinky" and such like while also getting the feeling that they are not being taken seriously perhaps in part because of their often weaker English skills.
What is also clear is that what some disparagingly call the "Race Relations Industry" seems to be concerned with just a few races in particular rather than in the status of all the races present in the United Kingdom.
For instance despite the fact that we have and have had in this country black and South Asian cabinet ministers and MPs not only are there no East Asian MPs at present but there has, so far as I am aware, never been an MP from an East Asian background.
Yet one never hears anti-racism campaigners call for more East Asian representation or for "all Chinese shortlists". Instead they seem to rather enjoy spending their time trying to segregate black Britons from the rest of the country by talking about something called the "black community", as something seperate from mainstream British society.
Does this "community", which apparently contains everyone from the Archbishop of York to the killers of Ben Kinsella, have a set of shared values? How does one join it or leave it if one wants to? When we hear talk of "problems in the black community" as we did after the riots (in which hordes of white people took part and which not a few black police officers attempted to control) are we talking about the Archbishop or other elements within this so called community? As Bim Adewunmi pointed out, the people chosen to represent the "black community" often seem to be ex-gang members, which must surely be offensive to the many black Britons who have never had anything to do with gangs.
Unlike in America most black people in this country are here because they or their not too distant ancestors came here by choice. This is also true of the large numbers of people of East Asian descent in the country. Despite this there is an overwhelming emphasis on the fortunes of black people with some regard thrown in for South Asians.
Instead of obsessing over one or a few ethnic groups we should have a society in which racial discrimination is outlawed and where people of all races are free to succeed or fail on their own merits rather than being told that they are victims of a racist society or that members of another race are attempting to, for example, "divide and rule" them. While black Britons do no doubt suffer racism in different forms from time to time, the fact that there are plenty of successful black politicians, businessmen, doctors, journalists and so on would suggest that white oppression is not (thank goodness) the force it once was.
We should also have a society in which people are able to withstand the power of words with tolerance.
As an Englishman when I go abroad I'm often told by foreigners things like "You must like the rain because it reminds you of home". This is not quite as bad as being called a "Chinky", but it is still mildly annoying and based on racial stereotypes. I always respond by saying "Oh so it never rains in the rest of the world?".
Jokes about the rain are of course not the worst forms of verbal racial abuse. John Terry recently got into trouble for allegedly calling Anton Ferdinand a "F****** black c***". Now it is a matter of opinion that Mr Ferdinand is a "F****** c***" but it is a matter of fact that he is what is generally regarded as "black". Strangely though it was the word "black" which was considered most offensive, presumably if Mr Terry just called Mr Ferdinand an "F****** c***" that would have been mere banter.
Mr Terry should not have to face charges for inserting the word "black" into a barrage of obscenities. On the other hand the "racist tram lady" Emma West should perhaps face charges for disturbing the peace and maybe for her threatening behaviour.
What was interesting about the West incident was that while she raged against "F****** Polish" and "F****** brown people" she was told by another passenger that she had "F*** all to say" and that "You're f****** waking my baby up". This response was praised by a government minister who apparently felt that liberal use of the F-word in a public place is reasonable behaviour so long as the word is not accompanied by words like "Polish", "brown" or "black".
It may be unpleasant at times, but proper tolerance means having to put up with things we don't like.
Never again do I want to hear of someone being arrested for singing "Kung Fu Fighting" on the grounds that it's offensive to Chinese (when I heard that story my first thought was that at least they were not singing George Formby, whose series of songs on the career choices of a fictional "Mr Wu" might be somewhat un-PC nowadays) and nor do I want to hear of people being denied their full potential because of racial discrimination.
Sadly I fully expect to hear more instances of both kinds of folly.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
More Climate Skeptic Physics Nonsense
 |
| Perpetmo (Image source) |
I am not a physicist, but I believe that the second law of thermodynamics is rather widely accepted among physicists, which leads me to the conclusion that an unintelligible paper published in an obscure journal, which purports to refute the second law, should be regarded with considerable skepticism.
As discussed in an earlier post, such a paper was recently reproduced at Roger Tattersall's popular Tallbloke' Talkshop, prompting refutations over at Anthony Watts' WUWT, first by Willis Eschenbach and, today, by Robert Brown of the Duke University Physics Department.
But Hans Jelbring, author of this remarkable theory, has struck back promptly at the Talkshop with a new derivation of his theory. Unfortunately, the new derivation does not address the inherent absurdity of the conclusion, which seems to be contradicted by any number of simple observations.
Tallbloke, himself, is an advocate of the Jelbring "thermo-gravitational" hypothesis, asserting the Jelbring' thesis as follows:
... gravity causes there to be a temperature gradient from cold high up, because more of the total energy is locked away as gravitational potential energy compared to warm at the bottom where the near surface air is hotter than the average because less of the total energy is locked away. Again, total energy remains equally distributed throughout the troposphere, as the second law of thermodynamics demands, but because of the difference in gravitational potential energy between molecules at the bottom and top, there is a thermal gradient.My own off the cuff refutation of this was as follows:
Consider an airless, sunless planet without an internal heat source that passes through a cloud of gas, thereby acquiring an atmosphere.Tallbloke, to whom this argument was addressed, made no response. Several others did respond, but with what appeared to be spurious objections, for example, that my argument would be invalid if I made my planet spin, or if I added a sun.Other objections were no more compelling.
Initially the planet surface temperature will approximate to the microwave background temperature of 2.75 K. However, as gas accumulates around the planet, the gas is compressed gravitationally, with resultant heating in accordance with the gas laws. The warmth of the atmosphere will heat the planet surface, which will then radiate more energy than it receives from outer space.
Eventually, the thermal energy released in the gravitational compression of the atmosphere will be entirely dissipated, by which time the temperature of the planet surface will have returned to its original value of 2.75 K, though the atmospheric pressure gradient from the surface to outer space remains.
So the gravitational effect on the surface temperature is transient only.
According to this account, the internal temperature of large gas planets must be due either to residual heat acquired during the process of formation, or produced by nuclear reactions, such as as account, in part, for the Earth’s internal heat.
Is this not correct?
In his new derivation of the hypothesis, Jelbring considers:
...two air parcels of equal and suitable mass (a billion molecules) which have to carry an equal amount of total energy regardless of their altitude if an adiabatic condition is assumed.The proof that follows is mathematical, but the essence of it appears to be that as a parcel of air is raised or lowered in the Earth's gravitational field its gravitational potential energy is increased or decreased with a corresponding decrease or increase in temperature, thus maintaining total energy constant.
Now the concept of potential energy is not the easiest thing to grasp, and so the Jelbring hypothesis may have some plausibility. But if one considers the various implications, as does the above-cited Robert Brown, one sees that they flatly contradict the second law of thermodynamics, the law that outlaws perpetual motion machines and free energy.
My own attempt at a refutation at the Talkshop, is as follows:
If your packets of air are in rigid, sealed capsules, you can raise them or lower them in a gravitational field as much as you like and they will undergo no change in temperature, even though you have changed their gravitational potential energy.Whether that settles the argument for all reasonable people, I leave for reasonable people to decide, but at least my conclusion places me on the same side as the Duke University Physics Department, which I find encouraging.
From this we can infer that the change in gravitational potential energy of air with altitude does not explain the change with altitude in air temperature, which results from the work done as the gas is compressed or expanded with change in barometric pressure with altitude.
But in any case, if Hans Jelbring does not want to be affronted by non-physicists continually claiming to have rubbished his theory, he really has no one to blame but himself, since he has failed to put it to the test of the professional physics community by having it published in a reputable physics journal. He has, it is true, published his thesis, but in a sociology journal edited by a retired geography professor, which as I discussed in an earlier post, absolutely does not rate in the eyes of the scientific community.
So what are we to conclude? Seemingly, that popular websites dealing with scientific topics can be swamps of obscurity, nonsense and misinformation. Or is there something sinister at work here? Are we seeing an attempt to discredit the climate warming skeptics by associating them with bogus science, or perhaps part of a general effort to convince the public that the blogsphere as a whole is wasteland to be avoided for the safety and reliability of the mainstream media? But more on that in another post.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Some Climate Warming Skeptics Ready to Ditch the Second Law of Thermodynamics
 |
| Image source |
I am not a climate warming skeptic. I am a skeptic about everything, especially about scientific claims made by those, like Al Gore and the Coal Alliance, who have a political agenda. For that reason, I follow the climate change debate with a skeptical eye for claims made on either side.
Among those skeptical of alarmist claims about human-caused, or anthropogenic, climate change are some of undoubted ability whose critical evaluation of the work of the mainstream school of climate science, which is closely wedded to projections of massive climate disruption due to human activity, deserves careful attention.
However, because of the politics, much skeptic clamor is as preposterous as any of the nonsense with which Al Gore has managed to pervert the course of public debate and embarrass the scientific community. In some cases, the nonsense is surely propagated with the deliberate intent to deceive, but in most cases the spread of nonsense is likely driven solely by wishful thinking, something that is with us always.
An example of the apparent will of the climate skeptic to believe is provided by the ongoing debate at Tallbloke's Talkshop and at Anthony Watt's web site concerning the "Gravito-Thermal Hypothesis" of Hans Jelbring, a debate of such intensity as to create moments of severe inter-Skeptic friction (and here).
The Jelbring hypothesis is quite obscure. So obscure in fact, that it has been claimed that no one understands it well enough to explain it. But what the hypothesis asserts is that the greenhouse effect:
...can be explained as ... a consequence of known physical laws describing the behaviour of ideal gases in a gravity field.Now this is a radical claim, published it should be noted, in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. To understand why it is radical, one needs to be clear as to what the greenhouse effect is.
The so-called greenhouse effect has in fact little to do with greenhouses, but consists in the increase in the Earth's surface temperature attributable to the presence of the atmosphere.
The way that the atmosphere raises the Earth's surface temperature is not immediately apparent. Ignoring internally generated heat, the Eath's surface temperature is largely determined by the amount of radiation received from the Sun. Thus the surface is usually warmer during the day than at night and warmer during the long days of summer than during the short days of winter.
The Sun does not, however, raise the Earth's temperature continuously, because the Earth emits energy to space in the form of heat (i.e., infra-red radiation), at a rate proportional to its temperature. Thus the Earth's temperature fluctuates around a stable equilibrium value, such that planet-wide incoming solar radiation matches planet-wide outgoing infra-red radiation (averaged over the course of the year). Thus any warming tendency is counteracted by an increase in surface temperature and hence an increase in outgoing radiation. Conversely, any cooling tendency is counteracted by a decrease in surface temperature and hence a decrease in outgoing radiation.
Thus, the presence of an atmosphere will make no difference to the mean, planet-wide year-round temperature at the Earth's surface, provide it is transparent to all radiation.
However, the Earth's atmosphere does affect the temporal and spatial distribution of heat at the Earth's surface by acting as a thermal buffer. For example, it cools the surface during the day, while warming it night. But here we are concerned only with mean, year-round, planet-wide surface temperature which is dictated by the radiant energy balance, and so the temperature buffering effects of the atmosphere, or for that matter of the oceans and Earth's crust, can be ignored.
Moreover, the atmosphere does raise the temperature of the Earth's surface because it is not transparent to all radiation. Although nitrogen and oxygen, the chief constituents of the atmosphere are essentially transparent to solar and infra-red radiation, the atmosphere also contains trace amounts of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone, the so-called greenhouse gases (plus water droplets in clouds), all of which absorb radiation, particularly in the infra-red portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
When a molecule of greenhouse gas absorbs radiation, its temperature, i.e., its kinetic energy or velocity, is raised above the ambient temperature. In time, this energy is either transmitted through collision with circumambient molecules to non-greenhouse gases such as oxygen and nitrogen that make up most of the atmosphere, or it is emitted as infra-red radiation. The radiation may be emitted in any direction, which means that some will intercept the ground and cause surface warming. This is the greenhouse effect that keeps our planet at a temperature consistent with organic life, which is to say approximately 33 K above what it would be without a greenhouse effect. The effect is evident in the difference in temperature usually experienced between clear and cloudy nights. The clouds act as radiators, beaming infra-red radiation to the ground and substantially raising the temperature.
But not so, according to Hans Jelbring.
Jelbring contends that the greenhouse effect is almost entirely the result of a gravitational effect on the atmosphere. Unfortunately, precisely what this effect is supposed to be, no one, as noted above, seems able to clearly explain. However, without overly straining one's intellect to understand the theory, one can rather more easily consider its implications and the empirical evidence that would support it.
If Jelbring is correct, it would mean that even if a planetary atmosphere were entirely transparent, which is to say free of greenhouse gases and thus incapable of either absorbing or emitting radiant energy, it would nevertheless raise the surface temperature of the planet above what it would be without an atmosphere.
What does that imply? First, that by raising the temperature of the surface, the atmosphere must raise the outgoing radiant flux at the surface, which in turn, means an increase in radiant flux to outer space, if the atmosphere is entirely transparent (i.e., free of greenhouse gases). In fact, it means that the planet would be at least slightly luminous (i.e., outgoing radiation would exceed incoming radiation). But that is not what CERES (Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System) experiment satellite measurements indicate.
There are other implications that raise even more fundamental issues. For example, if as Jelbring claims, gravity is responsible for the atmospheric temperature lapse rate, this implies a refutation of the second law of thermodynamics, the rule that outlaws perpetual motion machines and free everlasting energy.
It is not inconceivable, therefore, that excitement in the climate skeptic camp about Jelbring's thermo-gravitational hypothesis stems, at least in part, from wishful thinking, not sound scientific analysis.
Consistent with this conclusion, Jelbring's paper, published in 2003, has been cited in the scientific literature only twice, and both citations are in the same journal, Energy and Environment, as the original paper.
According to SCIMAGO, an independent journal ranking agency, Energy and Environment is a low ranking journal in terms of prestige and citations of articles in the rest of the literature. For example, on the Scimago journal prestige ranking index Energy and Environment ranks fortieth out of 49 journals concerned with energy and the environment with a score of 0.03 versus a score of 0.73 for the top journal in that category and scores of 7.8 and 10.0 for Nature and Cell, respectively.
If we turn to the journal itself, we see that the Editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, who, if we look her up here, appears to be no mean scholar. She is the author of a number of frequently cited books and journal articles. However, she has not published in the fields of either climate science or physics. Moreover, according to Wikipedia, she is is an Emeritus Reader in Geography at the University of Hull in Kingston-upon-Hull England, which leads one to question her competence to determine the fate of a paper that challenges a fundamental law of physics. Wikipedia also tells us that the journal Energy and Environment, which she has edited since 1996 is aimed at, among others, "the international social science and policy communities," hardly a group liable to provide critical assessment of the thermo-gravitational hypothesis.
Wikipedia also states:
According to Fred Pearce, Boehmer-Christiansen is a sceptic about acid rain and global warming and calls the science reports produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change "political constructs." Real Climate, a prominent blog run by climate scientists, asserted in 2011 that her journal once published a paper that claimed that the sun is made of iron; Boehmer-Christiansen responded that the claim was falseWe can say, then that Jelbring's highly questionable thesis was published in a journal of minimal scientific significance edited by a scholar of limited or non-existent credentials in the field with which Jelbring's paper deals [though we think Prof Boehmer-Christiansen, sure has the IPCC weighed up right].
The journal has an Editorial Advisory Board, but the membership does not appear strong in the physical sciences. For example, Maarten J. Arentsen holds a Master’s degree in political science specializing in scientific methodology and political modernization; David J. Ball, is Professor of Risk Management, Middlesex University, Hendon, UK; Max Beran, Independent Environmental Services Professional, Oxford, UK; etc.
None of which proves that Jelbring's hypothesis is unquestionably wrong. Perhaps the Earth really does glow in the dark, and perhaps the second law of thermodyamics will have to be repealed. But for now, mainstream science is ignoring the thing, and are probably none the worse for doing so.
Revised January 22, 2012
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Power, Propaganda, and Purpose in American Democracy
By Andrew Gavin Marshall
One central facet to the development of the modern institutional society under which we live and are dominated today, was the redefining of the concept of ‘democracy’ that took place in the early 20th century. This immensely important discussion took place among the educated, elite intellectual class in the United States at that time, and the consequences of which were profound for the development of not only American society and democracy, but for the globalization that followed after World War II. The central theme that emerged was that in the age of ‘mass democracy’, where people came to be known as “the public,” the concept of ‘democracy’ was redefined to be a system of government and social organization which was to be managed by an intellectual elite, largely concerned with “the engineering of consent” of the masses in order to allow elite-management of society to continue unhindered.
The socio-economic and political situation of the United States had, throughout the 19th century, rapidly changed. Official slavery was ended after the Civil War and the wage-slave method of labour was introduced on a much wider scale; that is, the approach at which people are no longer property themselves, but rather lend their labour at minimal hourly wages, a difference equated with rental slavery versus owned slavery. While the system of labour had itself changed, the living conditions of the labourers did not improve a great deal. With Industrialization also came increased urbanization, poverty, and thus, social unrest. The 19th Century in the United States was one of near-constant labour unrest, social upheaval and a rapidly growing wealth divide. And it was not simply the lower labouring classes that were experiencing the harsh rigors of a modern industrial life. One social critic of the era, writing in 1873, discussed the situation of the middle class in America:
As immigrants from Europe and Asia flooded America, a growing sense of racism emerged among the faltering middle class. This situation created enormous tension and unease among middle and working class Americans, and indeed, the industrialists who ruled over them. Yet many in the middle class viewed the lower class, which was increasingly rebellious, as well as the immigrant labourers – also quite militant – as a threat to their own standing in society. Instead of focusing primarily on the need for reorganization at the top of the social structure, they looked to the masses – the working people – as the greatest source of instability. Their approach was in attempting to preserve – or construct – a system beneficial to their own particular interests. Since the middle class survived on the backs of the workers, it was not in their interest as a class to support radical workers movements and revolutionary philosophies. Thus, while criticizing those at the top, the call came for ‘reform’, not revolution; for passive pluralism not democratic populism; for amelioration, not anarchy.
One central facet to the development of the modern institutional society under which we live and are dominated today, was the redefining of the concept of ‘democracy’ that took place in the early 20th century. This immensely important discussion took place among the educated, elite intellectual class in the United States at that time, and the consequences of which were profound for the development of not only American society and democracy, but for the globalization that followed after World War II. The central theme that emerged was that in the age of ‘mass democracy’, where people came to be known as “the public,” the concept of ‘democracy’ was redefined to be a system of government and social organization which was to be managed by an intellectual elite, largely concerned with “the engineering of consent” of the masses in order to allow elite-management of society to continue unhindered.
The socio-economic and political situation of the United States had, throughout the 19th century, rapidly changed. Official slavery was ended after the Civil War and the wage-slave method of labour was introduced on a much wider scale; that is, the approach at which people are no longer property themselves, but rather lend their labour at minimal hourly wages, a difference equated with rental slavery versus owned slavery. While the system of labour had itself changed, the living conditions of the labourers did not improve a great deal. With Industrialization also came increased urbanization, poverty, and thus, social unrest. The 19th Century in the United States was one of near-constant labour unrest, social upheaval and a rapidly growing wealth divide. And it was not simply the lower labouring classes that were experiencing the harsh rigors of a modern industrial life. One social critic of the era, writing in 1873, discussed the situation of the middle class in America:
Very few among them are saving money. Many of them are in debt; and all they can earn for years, is, in many cases, mortgaged to pay such debt… [We see] the unmistakable signs of their incessant anxiety and struggles to get on in life, and to obtain in addition to a mere subsistence, a standing in society… The poverty of the great middle classes consists in the fact that they have only barely enough to cover up their poverty… their poverty is felt, mentally and socially, through their sense of dependence and pride. They must work constantly, and with an angry sense of the limited opportunities for a career at their command.[1]
As immigrants from Europe and Asia flooded America, a growing sense of racism emerged among the faltering middle class. This situation created enormous tension and unease among middle and working class Americans, and indeed, the industrialists who ruled over them. Yet many in the middle class viewed the lower class, which was increasingly rebellious, as well as the immigrant labourers – also quite militant – as a threat to their own standing in society. Instead of focusing primarily on the need for reorganization at the top of the social structure, they looked to the masses – the working people – as the greatest source of instability. Their approach was in attempting to preserve – or construct – a system beneficial to their own particular interests. Since the middle class survived on the backs of the workers, it was not in their interest as a class to support radical workers movements and revolutionary philosophies. Thus, while criticizing those at the top, the call came for ‘reform’, not revolution; for passive pluralism not democratic populism; for amelioration, not anarchy.
US Democracy: Iowa Republican Party Too Incompetent or Currupt to Count the Caucus Vote
(CNN) -- Rick Santorum finished the Iowa Republican caucuses 34 votes ahead of Mitt Romney, but results from several precincts are missing and the full actual results may never be known, according to a final certified tally released Thursday by the Iowa GOP.American democracy is now a joke on multiple levels. Not only are the candidates bought, but election outcomes can be manipulated in multiple ways through the absence of simple, straight-forward, open and observed vote counting methods.
And the US Government is committed to the spread of democracy. LOL.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Ron Paul, a Weak Candidate But the Only One Representing the Ideas of Ron Paul
For a seventy-six-year-old, Ron Paul does OK.
He has remarkable stamina, he speaks to the point, he is unwavering in his adherence to the US Constitution, his defense of individual liberty, and his opposition to preemptive wars for empire.
And he is a man of courage. By reminding Americans of their rights under the Constitution, and by drawing their attention to the emergence of domestic tyranny and the cost of criminal wars of aggression, Ron Paul challenges America's bi-partisan ruling class in a way that invites an assassin's bullet.
Against all that, Ron Paul wears a remarkably ill-fitting suit, speaks less well than many a high-school principal, and lacks the chief elements of charisma other than courage, consistency and dignity under attack. What is more, his ideas about money seem distinctly out of date.
He has remarkable stamina, he speaks to the point, he is unwavering in his adherence to the US Constitution, his defense of individual liberty, and his opposition to preemptive wars for empire.
And he is a man of courage. By reminding Americans of their rights under the Constitution, and by drawing their attention to the emergence of domestic tyranny and the cost of criminal wars of aggression, Ron Paul challenges America's bi-partisan ruling class in a way that invites an assassin's bullet.
Against all that, Ron Paul wears a remarkably ill-fitting suit, speaks less well than many a high-school principal, and lacks the chief elements of charisma other than courage, consistency and dignity under attack. What is more, his ideas about money seem distinctly out of date.
Monday, January 16, 2012
The Eurozone and the Curate's Egg: Both Good in Parts
 |
| Punch cartoon by George du Maurier (November, 1985). Bishop: "I'm afraid you've got a bad egg, Mr Jones"; Curate: "Oh, no, my Lord, I assure you that parts of it are excellent!" |
The joke about the curate's egg (see image) never struck me as particularly funny, but it is bizarre, and in a macabre way funny, to hear the same logic advanced by the President of Europe to assure the World of the soundness of the European economy and financial system.
The complexity of Europe's financial difficulties as discussed in fascinating detail by John Ward, to whom I am indebted for the above quote by Von Rompuy, is far beyond my comprehension, but to reduce matters to a thumbnail sketch, the problem seems to be as follows.
The Greek’s (and sundry others able to get away with it) are lazy bums who won’t work (LBW3), or if they work they pretend not to, so as to avoid paying tax. Then they demand a huge pension or a government job punching tickets on the Athens subway at an annual salary of $96,000 a year.
Contains Milk, Egg and Fish
In search of a decent sherry, we invested recently in an Australian product of the Emu brand, which is pleasant flavored and moderately dry. Curious to know more about this very reasonably priced wine, I was astounded on examining the label to read as follows: "contains milk, egg and fish."
How can that possibly be?
For very good reason, according to this short article by Richard Gowel: it is to "fine" the wine; fining being the process of removing harsh tasting phenolics, or unwanted color from wine made with the final squeeze of the grape. There you are then!
Or to be more specific, the milk protein casein is a fining agent that precipitates phenolics, as does albumen, a protein from egg whites. But of all, the best fining agent, apparently, is isinglass, a protein obtained from the swim bladder of certain fishes.
From this we can infer that Emu sherry is made from a juice so rough that it requires the combined fining power of all three agents, derivatives of milk, egg and fish, to make it drinkable. But drinkable it certainly is, with a distinctive and likable flavor.
How can that possibly be?
For very good reason, according to this short article by Richard Gowel: it is to "fine" the wine; fining being the process of removing harsh tasting phenolics, or unwanted color from wine made with the final squeeze of the grape. There you are then!
Or to be more specific, the milk protein casein is a fining agent that precipitates phenolics, as does albumen, a protein from egg whites. But of all, the best fining agent, apparently, is isinglass, a protein obtained from the swim bladder of certain fishes.
From this we can infer that Emu sherry is made from a juice so rough that it requires the combined fining power of all three agents, derivatives of milk, egg and fish, to make it drinkable. But drinkable it certainly is, with a distinctive and likable flavor.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Mitt Romney's Top Campaign Contributors
Goldman Sachs: $367,200
Credit Suisse: $203,750
Morgan Stanley: $188,800
Source: Zero Hedge via WRH.
Credit Suisse: $203,750
Morgan Stanley: $188,800
Source: Zero Hedge via WRH.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)