Nullius in Verba

As per Norberg usual, excellent documentary on capitalism’s benefits:

More Klein stupidity:

Government intervention = disaster economics:

Update: Guess who was right, Danny and the media or the economist and me? And notice how the media ignores the whole issue when Harper looks like he’s right again. 

Now back to our regular programming:

Watching the recent frenzy over the Climate Conference in Bali I am very happy that we finally have a Prime Minister who is able to blow the cold air of reality into the environmental maelstrom of something that looks like a big-hot-back-slapping doldrum. Canada’s position, Japan’s, (and Australia’s, no thanks to the brainwashing organization, CBC, everyone thinks that the position in Oz has changed because of the new Labour government, but really it hasn’t) and the position of the United States is that there is no point in setting restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) when the world’s largest emittor won’t join in, and I refer to China. India’s emissions are projected to overtake the United States as well. The emissions from the US are going down each year under GW Bush, and not due to a recession either as the United States economy is better than ever, while Chinese emissions are increasing rapidly. If you’re one of those people who believes that anthropogenic GHG emissions (AGHG) is causing a disaster then by AlGlorey, why aren’t you concerned? It’s not going to matter one iota how much Canada does or even the United States for that matter, when the fat kids on the teeter-totter are all sitting on one end. Why isn’t this a bigger concern?

It’s comparable to a disarmament treaty during the Cold War that restricts the United States from building missiles but mandates the Soviet Union to build even more.

But does the media care? They’d rather follow the likes of Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio. After all, it should concern us greatly when the dogs of Hollywood fly in on Lear Jets led by Al-Goreacle, and start yapping that perhaps things are getting blown way out of proportion.

Recently a new journal article* published in 2007 by a Canadian climate researcher and external IPCC reviewer, Dr. Ross McKitrik, in the Journal of Geophysical Research has demonstrated that the increase in surface temperature is in large part due to non-GHG anthropogenic reasons, ie: urbanization - in layman’s terms our cities are warm and temperature stations near cities are recording that. Moreover the methodology used by current science to screen out this background effect isn’t doing an effective job. His work reveals that the increase in temperature is half of that which the current United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is estimating, thereby reducing their estimates even lower than their own reduction in estimates from the latest report. 

A group of Dutch scientists have independently confirmed McKitrik’s work. Dr. Jos DeLaat and Dr. A.N. Maurellis at the Royal Netherlands Meterological Institute and National Institute for Space Research Netherlands respectively showed something very interesting indeed in two recent papers. Their latest in the International Journal of Climatology, 2006, states:

Our analysis of climate model simulations of GHG warming confirms our earlier results, namely, that they do not show any kind of CO2 emission–temperature trend correlation. In fact, the modeled temperature trends are quite insensitive to the magnitude of the industrial CO2 emissions. It is possible that the response of the climate system to enhanced GHG radiative forcing is much more localized than expected in that it occurs only in specific regions and mainly in the lower troposphere, although this runs contrary to the current understanding of GHG-related processes (cf Hansen et al., 1997; IPCC, 2001; Hansen et al., 2005; Santer et al., 2005).

This confirms an earlier work of theirs in 2004 that points out that surface stations situated in regions of low economic output show relatively little change in mean surface temperatures compared to surface stations in areas of high economic output as seen in this graph:

(star = high CO2 area, cross = low CO2 area)

In other words, AGHG is not causing global climate change, only a local effect is seen.

Although the exact mechanisms have yet to be determined our findings show that a significant part of the observed surface warming is related to processes other than enhanced greenhouse warming.

Its interesting to see other scientists dispute the current mainstream thinking just for the sake of a challenge. Stephen McIntyre just cannot leave the Dr. Michael Mann et. al. famous hockey stick graph alone, and for good reason. With its projection heavily weighted by the Graybill tree ring data, McIntyre spends some time in the same Sheep Mountain woods doing core sampling to update the data and demonstrates that according to the forest, the planet has been getting colder lately.

And this brings me to my main point. I’m really concerned when science gets manipulated by politicians. Take for instance hurricane researcher and IPCC member Dr. Chris Landsea who points that fact out as he resigns from the IPCC. There is also no doubt that certain countries eye Kyoto as the holy grail of economic subsidies, a diversion of money to their coffers. It is now currently the world’s largest welfare scam. Kyoto has not much to do with saving the planet from AGHG because it’s reductions are meaningless. Kyoto is all about transplanting more factories to China and India.

(In 1614 Galileo challenged mainstream thinking about the sun revolving around the earth leading to an Inquisition where he was soundly chastized)

It disturbs me as a scientist to see things get so manipulated by certain people with certain agendas. Like for instance what happened with Dr. Paul Reiter, a leading expert on malaria and other diseases carried by the mosquito vector. His testamony in front of the British House of Parliament reveals how the lead writers of the IPCC report on the Impact on Human Health are chosen. It is worth reading the whole thing. After not being chosen as a lead author in IPCC 4, largely due to his suspicion that he is not alarmist enough because he states the research doesn’t support an increase in malaria due to Global Warming, he retorts that the people chosen are basically laymen with agendas chosen by politicians:

34.   I replied with a question about the two Lead Authors that had been selected: “It is often stated that the IPCC represents the worlds top scientists. I copy to you the bibliographies of (the two lead authors), as downloaded from MEDLINE. You will observe that (the first) has never written a single article, and (the second) has only authored five articles. Can these two really be considered “Lead authors” with experience, representative of the world’s top scientists and specialists in human health?”

  35.   I also pointed out that one Lead Author is a “hygienist”, the other is a specialist in fossil faeces, and both have been co-authors on publications by environmental activists.

Imagine that, the lead authors of part of a document that is due to set world policy and massive interference by governments at all levels was written by a group of people with no scientific publications at all. 

The list of climate scientists disillusioned with the political manipulation of the IPCC grows longer, however when they try and make their voices heard they are soundly run out of town. That’s partly the fierce nature of the whole argument which involves scientific blows from both sides, however this fight is now one sided because the media, the politicians, and the hollywood hound-dogs have chosen the side they like - the socialist side that says global warming is cause by us bad humans but we should feel sorry for China and let them emit GHG because they’re poor. So in essence lets do nothing but feel good about it. Modern Liberal policy in progress, something Jean Chretien who did nothing about Canada’s GHG emissions over the last 10 years would have been proud of.

* Note: McKitrik’s work is sponsored by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, not industry.

(For SDA visitors the video link is here) 

When the tragety at Virginia Tech broke out, so to did the hypocrites in their rush to politicize what is really a rare event. An event all first world countries have faced from Sweden to Italy, Canada to the USA.

Guns, they tell us, should be banned.

The problem is that there is no proof that banning guns accomplishes anything (other than possibly harming people). Studies have examined  rates of gun associated crimes between US States that allow carry and conceal vs. States that have strict gun control and find, on average, no difference. There are some criminologists who demonstrate that indeed the carry and conceal States have lower violent crime rates due presumeably to the deterrent of an armed woman while other criminologists argue that the evidence concludes otherwise. In the end my examination of the studies leaves me with the conclusion that there is no proof either way.

Liberals have lost their way on the route of classical liberalism, the philosophy that founded the USA, argueably the most inspirational nation for those great minds who in the 18th to 20th century deemed human rights the moral pursuit of humanity. The tyranny of the state has instead ambushed this moral journey and the old philosophy once mandated by the very people liberals sought to supplant still reigns. The state knows better than the individual.

(Its been a long time since politicians like these were bred.)

Recently self serving frauds like Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Toronto Mayor David Miller have started calling for handgun bans. Outright bans that is. To possess a legal handgun in Canada is an intense process of which I will not delve into here, but one can easily find information on the procedure. In essense the process is as next to a ban as one can get. McGuinty and Miller are adept at diverting the issue from the real problem: criminality, for which they lack all vision and direction. What is worse, for a politician to say, “I have no solutions for this issue” or to construct a diversion? The media should be all over that type of behaviour - but they aren’t.

What simpler political process is there than to find a rather defenseless scapegoat and legislate a maze of bureaucratic laws for which to point to at the end of the day when you have to explain to the numb public all the work you and your politico hacks have been doing. Nothing looks better than a thick pile of laws to these guys. And it is simply too easy for the media to find numerous ivory tower think-heads to put on TV to repeat the government’s enlightened thinking.

Which brings us to today’s point, the Media and its Hypocrisy. From the days of the first printing press, which enabled commen men to cheaply  print and widely broadcast their own philosophy to a large audience, the founders of journalism have never been said to be unbiased. The opposite, in fact, was expected. Many political parties in the blossoming democracies of Britain, France and the United States long had ties with particular pamphleteers and newspapers for which they could expect favourable exhaltations.

�
(The Discoverie of a Gaping Gulf whereinto England is like to be Swallowed by another French Marriage. 1579. This pamphlet published by John Stubbs cost him his writing hand by decree of Elizabeth I. However it can be said that in the days of the all powerful monarch, the ability to sway large numbers of the public with cheap pamphlets lead to the spread of the ideals of democracy. One writing hand at a time.)

In the 20th century the new schools of journalism started to establish ethical guidelines for integrity in journalism. These involved the lofty ideals of unbiased reporting, covering all sides of an issue, facts based reporting and facts validation, refraining from personal opinion, and refraining from ambush style tactics. Remarkeably like most intelligent ideas, these caught on without requiring any silly laws from the government.

So it is with chagrin, but with no degree of suprise that I see the current mainstream media in Canada, such as CBC and CTV, attempt to “instruct” the rest of us with their “progressive” ideas - ideas garnered from the ivory tower of universities where people with degrees in ecology and biochemistry seem to know more about economic theory, and foreign relations than they do about their own subjects of study*. Sadly, it seems, the mainstream media will even stoop to lying in order to spread their ideas.  In fact they become quite savage when their progressive leftist ideas are challenged.

You see time and time again you’ll hear them on CBC and CTV moan on about how same sex marriage is nobody else’s business (I agree) and that we shouldn’t be telling others how to behave or what to do, ie: abortion. Yet the hypocrites, with one sniff of someone wanting to collect handguns or big trucks will suddenly fly into a self-righteous rage. The same kind of rage they mock when it comes from a Catholic right winger railing against abortion or cloning.

Because when it comes down to it CBC and CTV know best what’s good for the rest of us. Sadly I’ve seen the media ramp up its efforts in this direction in regards to almost any political issue. There is no integrity anymore. One of the worst transgressors is Jane Taber of CTV (#24 of the 101 people who are ruining Canada) who regularly inserts her own opinion when moderating a political panel on Question Period. Still the number of schlocks that are not experts who make it onto the newswaves such as Bono, Gore, or Suzuki (all true hypocrites, check out Suzuki’s stink here) compared to the people who may actually know what they are talking about amazes me.

Stockwell Day must have rued the moment he tried to out-media the media and instead got avalanched like a brontosaurus in a mud-slide. It appeared that the only direction Day was going was extinction, his memory simply another fossil in the evolution of Canadian politics. The media hates Day, because he represents the very opposite of what they self-righteously pat themselves on the back all day for. He is against abortion and cloning, he believes in creation, he calls terrorists: “terrorists” instead of “militants”, and Stock thinks the Firearms Registry is a waste of money. Incredibly Day has turned out to be a very competent minister.

(Hey is that thing burning those mythical fossils? Look at the Greenhouse Gasses this guy wastes.)

So when asked once again by McGuinty and Miller to “ban handguns”, Day correctly points out that the increased control of firearms in Britain has not lead to a decrease in criminality and gun crime. In fact other than one sole year, gun crime has increased. Day is pounded in the media for this statement. The Toronto Star states, “Day’s statements, however, don’t appear to match with the facts.” Unfortunately for the Star, Day’s facts garnered from the UK Home Office are correct and it appears that the Toronto Star just decided to not read the full report. Instead they prefer to insert their own bias into the story, and an evident bias it truly is. Day proves that even though he is a Jesus loving Texas North freak, he still can read his letters better than any Toronto Yankee.

However nothing is worse than this pathetic media harrassment of a young Asian man in Virginia called Wayne Chiang who happens to have some resemblence to the psychopath that did the Virginia Tech massacre. The only resemblence I can find is that the two men were both “Asian”** and they both have guns. Basically this guy gets harrassed and stalked by a bunch of internet warriors because they mistake him for the Virginia shooter. Geraldo picks up the story and ambushes him on air. Soon like the second class stepchild that they are, CTV runs the story and Paula Todd makes a complete fool of herself on air by mocking Mr. Chiang. 

In particular, CTV makes a mistake and accidently broadcasts the off-air discussion between Todd and her crew where she calls Mr. Chiang a “freak”. Her moral superiority just stinks, but it affirms what I originally thought when I saw the interview for the first time: she was mocking Mr. Chiang on air and attempting to make him look stupid and even dangerous. In particular two questions she asks sum up the mentality of the ivory tower today.

“What is your most {…} efficient weapon?” She asks. What does she mean here I wondered? The most efficient for killing people or perhaps she’s wondering which one produces the least Greenhouse Gas output.

and

“Do you know as many people in your age group with as many weapons as you have?” She wonders. Mr. Chiang does know many, probably because he is a member of a gun club and a collector.

Paula Todd simply appears to want Mr. Chiang to apologize for owning guns. It appears the intelligent young man even picks up on her subtleties in the interview. Overall Mr. Chiang presents himself in the interview as an articulate, intelligent, and law-abiding human being. He is no more a freak than anyone else with a hobby. Are his interests worth less than mine or yours? I wonder.

Todd presents herself as an arrogant elitist. In fact when she gets off-air with Breslin her fawning college-girl behaviour is absurd. She perfectly fits the stereotype of the ignorant anchorperson. Something which should be beneath her considering her education. She should be interested in facts.

Mr. Chiang’s story is best described by himself on his own blog, here.

The worst part of this whole debacle is when CTV airs a slideshow of the Virginia Tech shooter which includes pictures of Mr. Chiang amongst those of the murderer. Talk about a smear.

Now watch the three videos (you’ll have to download them because of bandwidth issues):

The Interview where Mr. Chiang gets ambushed

The off air discussion where Paula Todd calls Mr. Chiang a freak

The Slideshow

(Please note the off-air discussion has been banned from YouTube by CTV. I found a link to the file.)

So what other confabulations have the mainstream media been responsible for? What agenda are they pushing? The regretable part of this story is that most people come home from work tired and dump themselves in front of the TV and ask no questions as they absorb the slop from the dirty trough.

And perhaps it will be the internet that saves us from tyranny much like the pamphleteers of old with their cheap media were able to usurp Kings, sway public policy, and teach others to question the implied truth and seek the undeniable facts.

(Is this Grail the Truth or a Legend?)

* If I had a dollar for every time I heard a flower child studing the mating habits of Polar Bears tell me the intricate details behind labour theory and cost accounting and the effects of globalization on market share I’d be a rich man and wouldn’t need to join the Canadian union of old economists who became doctors.

**Whatever Asian really is, is a mystery to me because they’re all as different as a Pole is from a Scot when it comes down to it but still the equalization bean counters like to put them in that slot if they come from somewhere east of Russia and West of the USA.

Dear Enlightened Sirs,

It is with deep regret that I “turn in” my friend Carlo Artieri, however I feel that I must for the good of human relations to denounce this heretic of the worst kind. While many of my friends and colleagues are heretics, Carlo is sufficiently far enough away from me as I write this that he cannot punch me in the head or singe me with the flame of his dangerous evilly evil-ness.

(Carlo won’t be laughing long when the PC police burn his hide on a pile of faggots)

Recently your esteemed organization the UN Human Rights Commission (noted for the fact that none of its works has helped anyone, see the video below) passed this resolution on religion. By religion I take it to mean all UN approved religions including Christianity, one of the religions Carlo always attacks.

Alarmed at the continuing negative impact of the events of 11 September 2001 on Muslim minorities and communities in some non-Muslim countries and the negative projection of Islam in the media, and the introduction and enforcement of laws that specifically discriminate against and target Muslims, Alarmed also at the serious instances of intolerance, discrimination and acts of violence based on religion or belief, intimidation and coercion motivated by extremism, religious or otherwise, occurring in many parts of the world and threatening the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Noting with concern that defamation of religions is among the causes of social disharmony and leads to violations of human rights,
Noting with deep concern the increasing trend in recent years of statements attacking religions, Islam and Muslims in particular, especially in human rights forums,
1. Expresses deep concern at negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief still in evidence in some regions of the world;
2. Strongly deplores physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural centres and places of worship of all religions as well as targeting of religious symbols;
3. Notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions, and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities, in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;
4. Expresses deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;
5. Also expresses deep concern at programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at the defamation of religions, in particular when supported by Governments;
6. Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam or any other religion;
7. Recognizes that in the context of the fight against terrorism and the reaction to counter terrorism measures, defamation of religions becomes an aggravating factor that contributes to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of target groups, as well as their economic and social exclusion;
8. Stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions, Islam and Muslims in particular especially in human rights forums;

In favour (24): Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Tunisia.

Against (14): Canada (Damn you McKay, you non lap-dog of progressive thought), Czech Republic, Finland, France (WTF), Germany, Guatemala, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Switzerland, Ukraine and United Kingdom.

Abstentions (9): Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Ghana, India, Nigeria, Peru, Uruguay and Zambia.

Carlo continually offends humanity by defaming, criticising and attacking religion so its high time for him to be hauled up on the pulpit of the International Criminal Court. Like right now. In fact I hope you don’t wait because he may defame me soon. Carlo can be found in Canada somewhere and I expect that he will be quickly deported to the Hague because unlike that nation of evil gun-toting inbred Jesus worshippers in the United States, we quickly signed off on our citizens and subjected them to the whims non Canadian judges and laws.

(Burn you mother of all deniers)

Defame, is defined via Websters as to “harm the reputation of by slander or libel” and to “humiliate by a superior showing”. Libel can also be defined as “the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures.”

Carlo does all this. (And he’s done it like seven times seven times.)

Carlo’s particular modus operandi is attacking creation, which is a sacred tenet of all important religions like Islam and Christianity, but specifically Islam because its like the most importantest (bless the war-prophet). (Judism doesn’t count because they’re subhuman democratzi-Nazi-wank-off posers in the eyes of the glorious Human Rights Commission and deserve what they get. And should get it as much as possible.)

Some may notice that the signers of this Human Rights Council declaration are well noted for their esteemed beliefs in and strident protection of Human Rights. Of course someone like me, a good Canadian socialist trough feeder, would never consider them complete hippocrites. After all the one religion noted in the declaration would never be intolerant, right?

(All your bases are belong to us)

But listen up all you other fundamental fook-twads. This is currently allowed:

(Before: Ancient Buddha statue in Afghanistan)

(After: Take that you lame ancient statue, yeah.)

Taking the “fun” out of “fundamental” every time. But with quotes like this you cannot go wrong:

Ishaq:470 “We attacked them fully armed, swords in hand, cutting through heads and skulls.” - YEAH!

Qur’an:61:11 “Believers, shall I lead you to a bargain or trade that will save you from a painful torment? That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), and that you strive and fight in Allah’s Cause with your property and your lives: That will be best for you!”
Qur’an 61:12 “He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens under which rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Eden: that is indeed the Supreme Achievement. And another (favor) which you love: help from Allah for a speedy victory over your enemies.” - Gimme my reward!

Tabari IX:25 “By Allah, I [Mohammad] did not come to fight for nothing. I wanted a victory over Ta’if so that I might obtain a slave girl from them and make her pregnant” - Stupid women, weak subspecies.

Thanks UN Committee I’m glad my taxes go to you.

 - langmann

PS

(This guy thought he ended all the fundamentalism with quotes like “love your enemies” etc.
Look where it got him. Oh yeah.)