Climate. How is it measured?

FORGET CLIMATEGATE: THIS ‘GLOBAL WARMING’ SCANDAL IS MUCH BIGGER

by JAMES DELINGPOLE30 Jan 20151639

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/30/forget-climategate-this-global-warming-scandal-is-much-bigger/

How can we believe in ‘global warming’ when the temperature records providing the ‘evidence’ for that warming cannot be trusted?

It’s a big question – and one which many people, even on the sceptical side of the argument, are reluctant to ask.

Here, for example, is one of the two most prominent English sceptics in the House of Lords, Matt Ridley outlining his own position.

I am a climate lukewarmer. That means I think recent global warming is real, mostly man-made and will continue but I no longer think it is likely to be dangerous and I think its slow and erratic progress so far is what we should expect in the future. That last year was the warmest yet, in some data sets, but only by a smidgen more than 2005, is precisely in line with such lukewarm thinking.

Though I’ve no reason to doubt the sincerity of Ridley’s position, I can also see plenty of reasons why it would be a politically convenient line for him to take. The same applies to Lord Lawson’s position on climate change and Bjorn Lomborg’s position on climate change. All of these distinguished figures on the mildly sceptical side of the argument have taken the view that the figures provided by the various scientific institutions, such as the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and NASA GISS, as relayed to us in the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are broadly trustworthy. Their beef is not so much with “the science” as it is with the political hysteria and green propagandising that has accompanied that science, as well as with the counterproductive policies resulting from it.

To repeat, these may be earnest, heartfelt positions but they are also politically expedient ones. What it means is that in debates Lomborg and Lords Ridley and Lawson don’t come across as too “out there.” It means that they cannot, by any reasonable stretch, be tarred as “deniers”. Not only are they not denying the existence in “global warming” but they’re not even that far off from where the mainstream “consensus” is.

This all seems to me tactically wise. If their positions weren’t so eminently “reasonable” they would be invited to speak at organisations like the BBC even less often than they are already.

What it does, unfortunately, mean, though, is that those of us on the sceptical side of the debate who want to push the argument a bit further are put in danger of being made to look like extremists. Crazed conspiracy theorists even.

So before I go into technical detail about why the temperature records are suspect, let me provide an analogy which ought to make it perfectly clear to any neutral parties reading this why the problem I’m about to describe ought not to be consigned to the realms of crackpottery.

Suppose say, that for the last 100 years my family have been maintaining a weather station at the bottom of our garden, diligently recording the temperatures day by day, and that what these records show is this: that in the 1930s it was jolly hot – even hotter than in the 1980s; that since the 1940s it has been cooling.

What conclusions would you draw from this hard evidence?

Well the obvious one, I imagine, is that the dramatic Twentieth Century warming that people like Al Gore have been banging on about is a crock. At least according to this particular weather station it is.

Now how would you feel if you went and took these temperature records along to one of the world’s leading global warming experts – say Gavin Schmidt at NASA or Phil Jones at CRU or Michael Mann at Penn State – and they studied your records for a moment and said: “This isn’t right.” What if they then crossed out all your temperature measurements, did a few calculations on the back of an envelope, and scribbled in their amendments? And you studied those adjustments and you realised, to your astonishment, that the new, pretend temperature measurements told an entirely different story from the original, real temperature measurements: that where before your records showed a cooling since the 1940s they now showed a warming trend.

You’d be gobsmacked, would you not?

Yet, incredible though it may seem, the scenario I’ve just described is more or less exactly analogous to what has happened to the raw data from weather stations all over the world.

Take the ones in Paraguay – a part of the world which contributed heavily to NASA GISS’s recent narrative about 2014 having been the “hottest year on record.”

If it wasn’t for the diligence of amateur investigators like retired accountant Paul Homewood, probably no one would care, not even Paraguayans, what has been going on with the Paraguayan temperature records. But Homewood has done his homework and here, revealed at his site Notalotofpeopleknowthat, is what he found.

He began by examining Paraguay’s only three genuinely rural weather stations. (ie the ones least likely to have had their readings affected over the years by urban development.)

All three – at least in the versions used by NASA GISS for their “hottest year on record” claim – show a “clear and steady” upward (warming) trend since the 1950s, with 2014 shown as the hottest year at one of the sites, Puerto Casado.

Judging by this chart all is clear: it’s getting hotter in Paraguay, just like it is everywhere else in the world.

puertoadj

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=308860860000&dt=1&ds=14

But wait. How did the Puerto Casado chart look before the temperature data was adjusted? Rather different as you see here:

puertoraw

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=308860860004&dt=1&ds=1

Perhaps, though, Puerto Casada was an anomaly?

Nope. Similar adjustments, in the same direction, appear to have been made to the two other rural sites.

marisgif

sangif

puegif



Ah. But there was surely some innocent explanation for this, Homewood surmised. Perhaps the rural stations were wildly out of kilter with the urban stations and had been ‘homogenised’ accordingly.

Except, guess what?

pilar

JUAN

CONCEPCION

ASUNCION

SAN JUAN

ENCARNACION

 OK. So why am I making you look at all these charts? Because seeing is believing.

Without those charts, it would be all too easy for you to go: “Yeah well he’s not a scientist so he probably doesn’t know what he’s talking about” or “he’s exaggerating” or “he has got the wrong end of the stick.”

So, judge for yourself. These are the actual before and after charts, reproduced from NASA’s own website.

Now the next thing the doubters among you will be thinking is: “Well these are reputable scientific institutions. They wouldn’t be making these adjustments without good reason.”

And I’d agree with you. That’s certainly what one would reasonably hope and expect.

But the odd thing is that no satisfactory explanation has been forthcoming from any of the institutions which have been making these adjustments. Not from NASA GISS. Nor from NOAA, which maintains the dataset known as the Global Historical Climate Network. Nor from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia which, with the Met Office, maintains the third of the world’s three surface data records, known as Hadcrut.

About as close as we’ve got to an attempted justification is this piece by Zeke Hausfather – Understanding Adjustments To Temperature Data – at the website of lukewarmer Judith Curry.

The explanations he offers for the basic principles of temperature adjustments are plausible enough. They include things like the Urban Heat Island effect; weather stations which have moved locations; weather stations which appear to give false readings which need to be adjusted in line with their neighbours; changes in measuring equipment; changes in the time of day measurements are taken (formerly in the afternoon, now more usually in the morning,) and so on.

In other words it’s a case of “move along. Nothing to see here” and “trust the Experts. They know best.”

The problem with Hausfather’s explanations is that though they’re fine on the theory they don’t seem to bear much relation to the actuality of the adjustments that have been made around the world.

Take, for example, the Urban Heat Island effect. This is where weather stations, over time, have become surrounded by buildings or other heat sources and which therefore record hotter temperatures than they used to. You’d expect, as a result of this, that recent (ie late 20th century) raw temperature readings from urban areas would be adjusted downwards in order to make them more accurate. Rarely though, is this the case. More usually, the adjustments appear to have been made in the other direction, so that the late twentieth century readings are made hotter still – while the early twentieth century readings have been adjusted to make them look cooler.

And this isn’t just an issue with the adjustments to the Paraguay stations by the way. It has happened all over the world.

As Paul Homewood reminds us here, it has been happening everywhere from Iceland, Greenland and Russia to Alice Springs in Australia. Also, it has been reported on, at least in the climate sceptical blogosphere, for quite some time. Among the first to spot the problem was Steve McIntyre who back in 2007 observed the curious fact that where NASA’s James Hansen had once acknowledged that the 1930s was the hottest decade in the US, he subsequently amended it – with the help of some conveniently adjusted records – to the 1990s. Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That? has been reporting on this for years; as have bloggers including Steven Goddard and journalists like Christopher Booker.

So why has the scandal never broken into the mainstream? Why has it never made the same splash Climategate did (not, mind you, that Climategate ever got much play in the MSM either)?

Well, one reason, I guess is that the alarmist establishment is pretty good at fobbing off criticisms with seemingly plausible scientific answers. (See Hausfather above).

It takes time and effort to counter these excuses: time and effort which few people can afford.

As an example of the kind of superficially plausible excuse-making I mean, here is climate scientist Ed Hawkins claiming that the reason for the amendments to the raw data at Puerto Casado is that the weather station has been moved.

Well, fair enough, you’d think – and take his word for it. But blogger Shub Niggurath wouldn’t and has demolished this excuse by pointing out that there is no evidence for the weather station having moved. It’s just a handy excuse, that’s all. And in any case, it doesn’t explain why similar changes were made to the records of the other stations: were they all moved too?

But the bigger reason, of course, is this: if you make the case that all (or at least a good many) of the world’s surface temperature data records have been wantonly tampered with to the point where they are effectively useless, you are more or less accusing some of the world’s most distinguished (and lavishly funded) scientific institutions of, at best, culpable incompetence and, at worst, outright fraud.

Also, to accuse so many temperature gatekeepers of getting the details so badly wrong, you are also implying that there must be some kind of conspiracy involved, even if it is only a conspiracy of silence to cover up what a tremendous cock up they’ve made of their work over a period of years.

Finally, you are suggesting that everything we have been told about dramatic, unprecedented, man-made global warming by the alarmist establishment over the last three decades may be based on a massive lie. Think about it. The satellite records (which show no global warming for the last 18 years) only go back to the late Seventies. So for the main thesis about global warming, the scientists and policymakers who have been pushing the alarmist narrative are largely dependent on the surface temperature data (which, of course, goes back much earlier).

But if this data cannot be trusted, all bets are off. I’m not saying there has been no 2oth century global warming, I think there probably has been, but I don’t honestly know. The worrying part, though, is that neither – it would appear – do the scientists.

Unless, of course, they can come up with an excuse to explain it all. But I’m not holding my breath.

Political Correctness is a Virus, Let discussions be straight forward

ANUARY 30, 2015 4:51 PM

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397613/left-realizes-too-late-political-correctness-virus-charles-c-w-cooke

The Left Realizes Too Late that Political Correctness Is a Virus 
And now it’s eating their movement from within. 

By Charles C. W. Cooke

• About Author
• Archive
• Latest
• RSS
• Follow

(Bowie15/Dreamstime)

 

Print

Text   

Comments

853

Charles C. W. Cooke 

There are few things in life as exquisitely pleasurable as watching the terminally silly fight among themselves, and, for those of us who have turned the practice into a spectator sport of sorts, this week certainly did not disappoint. On Tuesday, New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait decided that he was tired of watching people he dislikes use the tactics on which he himself likes to rely, and, with 4,700 words of deliciously biting criticism, set off something of a firestorm. “The language police are perverting liberalism!” griped Chait. “The new political correctness has bludgeoned even many of its own supporters into despondent silence.” And then, right on cue, came those knocks at the door.
Over at Crooked Timber, Bell Waring reacted precisely as her target had predicted that she would, proposing that Chait “has a skin so thin that he cries when someone gets the butter knife out of the drawer anywhere within six blocks of his apartment, and is also so allergic to his own tears that he then needs to use his EpiPen and ARE YOU HAPPY NOW BLACK FEMINISTS1/1//!” At Gawker, Alex Pareene lamented repeatedly that Chait was a “white man,” and, among other things, accused him of “operatic self-pity.” In the pages of In These Times, meanwhile, Sady Doyle leveled a charge of “blatant racism” and suggested without embarrassment that Chait’s begrudging call for a less totalitarian political culture represented little more than a cover for his “white male tears.” It was, as one might expect, drearily predictable and depressingly stupid — just one more blood-stained grudge match between the Judean People’s Front, the People’s Front of Judea, and, when he can be bothered to show up, the Popular Front as well. I loved every minute.

Providing a nice overview of the contretemps, the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto wrote that he would primarily be “rooting for casualties.” This strikes me as being the correct approach. It is enormous fun for conservatives to write long essays that rail against and mock the scourge of “political correctness,” and yet, as I am coming to learn, it is also a monumental waste of our time. As a genuine “liberal” in the classical sense of the word, I have no particular objections if people wish to descend into surrealism and intolerance. But I am under no obligation to indulge them either. Rather, I think that the best way of responding to somebody who tells you that they are “offended” is to first ask, “so bloody what?” and then to go and do something else. The most effective means of dealing with those who want to talk about who you are and not about what you have said is to repeat your proposition clearly, and to ask kindly if they have an answer to it. The most sensible way of reacting to the sort of ridiculous word-salad that the Left’s sillier emissaries have now perfected is to cackle derisively in their faces. Most people are pretty busy, and they do not have time to start each and every discussion with a re-litigation of whether or not there is such a thing as objective reason, or with a knock-down brawl on the subject of whether the Enlightenment was a Good Thing. If your interlocutor’s opening gambit is that conversation itself is a tool of the oppressors, why not just go get a drink instead?
Indeed, one has to wonder how long it will be before a more substantial backlash begins. “I am out of ideas,” the socialist blogger Freddie DeBoer admittedyesterday afternoon, before inquiring rhetorically what he is supposed to conclude when he sees so “many good, impressionable young people run screaming from left-wing politics because they are excoriated the first second they step mildly out of line?” Among the things that DeBoer claims lately to “have seen, with my own two eyes,” are a white woman running from a classroom simply because she used the word “disabled”; a black man being ostracized for suggesting that there is “such a thing as innate gender differences”; and a Hispanic Iraq War veteran “being berated” for using the phrase “man up.” Worse for him and his interests, perhaps, DeBoer also claims to have under his belt “many more depressing stories of good people pushed out and marginalized in left-wing circles because they didn’t use the proper set of social and class signals to satisfy the world of intersectional politics.” What, he asks in exasperation, is he supposed to say to them?

Pathways for many to go past God

“Neither blindness nor ignorance corrupts people and governments. They soon realise where the path they have taken is leading them. But there is an impulse within them, favored by their natures and reinforced by their habits, which they do not resist; it continues to propel them forward as long as they have a remnant of strength. He who overcomes himself is divine. Most see the ruin before their eyes; but they go on into it.” – Leopold von Ranke.

(Quote at the beginning of Joachim Fest’s biography of Hitler.)

Chlorine kills campaign

http://lobby.la.psu.edu/015_Disinfectant_Byproducts/Organizational_Statements/C3/C3_The_End_of_Chlorine.htm

Rachel's Folly: The End of Chlorine 
By Michelle Malkin and Michael Fumento

(This is a large document, please wait till fully loaded before clicking on the links)

OVERVIEW

The environmentalists are right about one thing: Dirty water kills. Millions are people are dying needlessly all over the world because of it. But are the main culprits man-made pollution and chlorinated chemicals? Try endemic poverty, bad plumbing and lack of access to basic water chlorination techniques. Every year, nearly 1.5 billion people - mostly children under five - suffer from preventable water-borne diseases such as cholera, typhoid fever, amoebic dysentery, bacterial gastroenteritis, giardiasis, schistosomiasis, and various viral diseases such as hepatitis A. Yet now there is a mounting campaign, led by environmental activists in wealthy industrialized nations, to eliminate every last man-made chlorine molecule from the face of the earth.

Greenpeace, the international environmental advocacy group, launched the first salvo in 1991 with its call to phase out completely "the use, export, and import of all organochlorines, elemental chlorine, and chlorinated oxidizing agents (e.g. chlorine dioxide and sodium hypochlorite)."¹ As Greenpeace's Joe Thornton explains, "There are no uses of chlorine which we regard as safe."² Yet chlorination - considered one of the greatest advances ever in public health and hygiene - is almost universally accepted as the method of choice for purifying water supplies.³ In the United States alone, 98 percent of public water systems are purified by chlorine or chlorine based products. Alternative chemical disinfectants such as ozone and other short-lived free radicals have been used in water treatment, but none has demonstrated the safety and efficacy of chlorination.⁴

Chlorine is a ubiquitous element, one of the basic building blocks of all matter in the universe. In fact, scientists are only now beginning to discover and identify the great number of natural organohalogens present in our world. By one estimate, Mother Nature manufactures at least 1,500 chlorine-containing chemicals.⁵ Volcanic activity, forest and grass fires, fungi, algae, ferns and the decomposition of seaweed all release chlorinated organics into the environment.⁶ Our own bodies produce hypochlorite to fight infection and hydrochloric acid for proper digestion.⁷ And there is, of course, sodium chloride - common table salt - present naturally in mines, lakes and seawater, found in our blood, sweat and tears, and essential to the diets of humans and animals.

Clearly, a goal of total chlorine removal from the environment would be unattainable. And the potential human toll resulting from its eradication is manifest and staggering. Every major scientific investigation of chlorinated water has concluded that the real and proven health risks from microbial contamination of drinking water far exceed the uncertain and hypothetical risks of cancer from chlorination and its byproducts. Why, then, are governmental bodies around the world embracing Greenpeace's caprice - absolute zero tolerance for man-made chlorine - when the hazards to humanity are so explicitly large?

Perhaps the answer can be traced back to the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring in 1962. The book is a lyrical tract, the bible of the environmental movement. Carson was the first to bear witness against chlorinated hydrocarbons and other "elixirs of death" created by "the ingenious laboratory manipulation of molecules." She condemned these arrogant manipulations, prophesied a man-made cancer epidemic, and popularized the zero-based approach to regulating synthetic chemicals. A daunting theme runs throughout Silent Spring - that man's ingenuity would be his own worst enemy. And therein lies the essence of Rachel's folly. Carson and her intellectual heirs in the environmental movement embrace a mistaken vision of technology. It is an impaired vision that considers only the risks of industrial chemical compounds, and not the risks created by their absence.

As the late Aaron Wildavsky observed, there are few unalloyed good things in the world. Rarely does one find a substance that has benefits but not costs.⁸ "Sunsetting" all uses of chlorine may reduce the hypothetical risks associated with such compounds as dioxin, DDT and PCBs. At the same time, however, a blanket ban on chlorine would increase the enormous risks of waterborne microbial infection here and in underdeveloped countries that can now barely afford chlorine disinfectants (let alone costly substitutes such as ozone or ultraviolet light treatment).

Even more daunting, a chlorine phase-out would halt the production of most plastics, pesticides and chlorine-containing drugs like chloroquine, a key anti- malarial drug; halogenated tetracycline-based antibiotics like chlortetracycline; and the family of halogenated antipsychotics such as chlorpromazine.⁹According to one industry-backed report, almost 85 percent of the pharmaceuticals manufactured worldwide require chlorine at some stage of production; 96 percent of crop-protection chemicals are chlorine-dependent.¹⁰ From safe drinking water, clean swimming pools and pest-free crops, to flame retardants and food packaging, quality white paper and bright socks, Saran wrap, plastic bottles, garden hoses, window frames and sturdy plumbing pipes, the end of chlorine would spell the end of modern civilization itself.

CHLORINE IN THE TIME OF CHOLERA

There is no plainer example of the health benefits of chlorine, and the health risks of its absence, than the cholera epidemic in Latin America. In February 1991, the first cholera outbreak to hit Peru since the turn of the century was reported.¹¹ According to the journal Nature, U.S. and international health officials blamed the occurrence on Peruvian government officials who made a "gross miscalculation" in not chlorinating the water supply.¹²

Local water officials in Lima had decided to stop chlorinating many of the wells because U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) studies conducted in the mid-1 980s showed an increased hypothetical cancer risk from trihalomethanes (THM), a chlorination byproduct.

Climate is a Changing

http://www.wnd.com/2017/12/13-scientific-studies-suggest-little-ice-age-looming/
 Global cooling, WND - Solar scientists are now increasingly forecasting a period of very low activity that will commence in the next few years, by around 2020 to 2025. The result? Cooling, even Little Ice Age conditions.
 In 1895, the panic was over an imminent ice age. 
Later, in the late 1920s, when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, the media jumped on a new threat – global warming, which continued into the late 1950s. 
Then in 1975, the New York Times’ headline blared, “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.” 
Then in 1981 it was back to global warming..........
......Today, to cover all their bases, much of the press has changed its terminology from “global warming” to “climate change” or “climate catastrophe.” That way they’re covered either way.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/12/13-scientific-studies-suggest-little-ice-age-looming/#Z63RE4AlXPp4WbZq.99

Freedom is to do something

I found this an up lifting response  to a despondancy

"This is a cursed world. If you obey the Ten Commandments. and pray for others, and be polite, and are meek you are devoured alive".

The point of following the Commandments, or being courteous is not so others will be nice to you. The Ten Commandments (and Christ’s Two Commandments) are about our behavior changing others. The point is to live a moral life despite what you see around you. Christ said you have to be as innocent as a dove and as wise as a serpent. That’s a good place to start.

“Western subservient thinking” is a kind of inverted self-hatred which is both arrogant and subservient. The arrogance is the reality and the West has been on the wrong track for over a hundred years. Or at least America has. The elitists hate the middle class and always have. They ape the most nihilistic aspects of European thinking amongst the governing class. The latter’s murderous punishment of Germany after WWI – (for me there is a lot more in those politics of that time) in which America fully cooperated – set us up for the killing fields that have followed since.

We all look to something as a turning point. For me, it will be the global demographic implosion at mid-century. We won’t be here to see it, or at least I won’t – but none can predict its outcome, or rather a wise person would refrain from doing so. Maybe by 2115, they’ll call it The Great Inversion, who knows?

Life is full of sorrow, ............ It is only in recent generations that we’ve demanded it be any different, that somehow we should be
 immune to the lot of being human. “Liberty” is costly and

it is always a freedom to do something, not a 

freedom from travail. The latter is the socialist’s mirage.

another phase from the same commenter
"We’re cooked?"
 Really?

Your second point is cogent: maintaining order at whatever the cost has always been govt’s motive. That’s why we work toward down-sizing the bloat.

 So you both keep your heads down.


You’re right: not in our lifetime. So keep rowing, keep plugging up the holes, keep the bucket brigade going. Do it for the next generation, the way an old man plants oak trees.

We should be tolerant and have no phobias

Aesop’s Multicultural Fable~

Pa: Honey, I’ve decided that our house isn’t diverse enough some I’m inviting in some termites.

Ma: Termites? But, aren’t they… destructive?

Pa: Ho-ho! That’s just Termitophobia! Most termites are completely harmless.

Ma: But haven’t termites been shown to devour the framework of houses to the point that the whole structure collapses?

Pa: Tornadoes, floods, windstorms, earthquakes, and lots of things can bring your house down. Don’t try to claim that termites are some kind of exceptionally dangerous threat. Why single them out? That would be Termo-intolerant. We need to show them that we trust them, and not examine their doings too closely. That alone will be proof our our superior nature. How could they not appreciate that? I can see them actually strengthening the framework! The wood will be more inclusive!

Ma: But what if they do eat through the beams?

Pa: Well you always said you wanted a skylight.
----------------------------------------------------
It is very Difficult to Remove a Gang of Baboons once they get into the Peanut Butter Factory !!

Can not practise white advancement

I have been wondering about why Whites are racists,
And no other race is…
http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/Seinfeld/kramer03.jpg

Proud to be White

Michael Richards makes his point….

Michael Richards better known as Kramer
From TVs’ Seinfeld does make a good point.
This was his defense speech in court
After making racial comments in his comedy act.
In it he raised a few interesting points…

Someone finally said it.
But how many are actually paying attention to this?

There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans,
Arab Americans, etc.
And then there are just Americans…
You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction.

You call me ‘White boy’, ‘Cracker’, ‘Honkey’, ‘Whitey’, ‘Caveman’…
And that’s OK…
But when I call you Nigger, Kike,
Towel head, Sand-nigger, Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink…
You call me a racist.

You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you…
So why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live in?

You have the United Negro College Fund.
You have Martin Luther King Day.
You have Black History Month.
You have Cesar Chavez Day.
You have Yom Hashoah.
You have Ma’uled Al-Nabi.
You have the NAACP.
You have BET…

Imagine if we had WET
(White Entertainment Television)…
We’d be racists.

If we had a White Pride Day,
You would call us racists.

If we had White History Month,
We’d be racists.

If we had any organization for whites only to ‘advance’ OUR lives,
We’d be racists.

We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce,
And then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce.
Wonder who pays for that???

A white woman could not be in the
Miss Black American pageant,
But any color can be in the Miss America pageant.

If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships…
You know we’d be racists.

There are over 60 openly proclaimed
Black Colleges in the US …
Yet if there were ‘White colleges’,
That would be a racist college.

In the Million Men March,
You believed that you were marching for your race and rights.
If we marched for our race and rights,
You would call us racists.

You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange,
And you’re not afraid to announce it.
But when we announce our white pride,
You call us racists.

You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us.
But,
When a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.

I am proud…
But you call me a racist.

Why is it that only whites can be racists???

There is nothing improper
About this e-mail…
But let’s see which of you are proud enough to send it on.
I sadly don’t think many will.

That’s why
We have LOST most of OUR RIGHTS
In this country.
We won’t stand up for ourselves!

BE PROUD
TO BE WHITE!

It’s not a crime YET…
But getting very close!

regulated shire? frying pan to fire?

OVER THE LIMIT: WHY I AM LEAVING THE SHIRE

SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON:

[The following post is by TDV Contributor Pete Gorman]

https://www.dollarvigilante.com/blog/2014/12/18/over-the-limit-why-i-am-leaving-the-shire.html

I love New Zealand, the breathtaking natural beauty, the mostly open and friendly people and my own history here create a real bond with the place, but all my adult life I have felt oppressed by an ever increasing multitude of laws, regulation and bureaucracy, and it is increasing all the time. I have witnessed the slow erosion of freedom, of the old New Zealand of my Grandfathers day. I have seen the nanny state welfare and 'education' systems turn a large portion of our young adults into helpless unskilled and unmotivated state dependants.

There is a marked antipathy against entrepreneurship, at least among the poor, as if profit is morally reprehensible.  Free enterprise barely rates a mention, all you hear about is jobs jobs jobs... the country is rife with woolly headed socialism. Issues of personal freedoms barely make it into the public discourse, if at all.. The regulatory burden slowly increases over time, we are like the proverbial frogs in the saucepan of water.

I ran into an old friend now running an orchard in the countryside. While showing me around we come across an excavation no more than 5 meters across. He explained, "I have a stainless steel pool to go in there, I got it for $1,500 but its going to cost $18,000 in resource consents and engineering reports so I'm just going to leave it". You can tell with a glance there would be no structural issue with the pool.

In a neighbouring village another friend had a solar hot water unit up and running for the last seven years. She told me that the council have just come along and forced her to take it down because it does not have 'resource consent'. Yes in NZ you have to get permission to make even relatively small changes to your own house.

My Aunty had an idea to start a roadside coffee stall, she would have been required to spend $10,000 on fees. A resource consent, a ministry of transport application and even a consultation with the local Maori Iwi. Needless to say she did not go ahead with the idea.

And then there is this bizarre obsession with safety here. I have seen this obsession with safety grow until it is quite pathological. Small children now have to wear hi-visibility gear to leave the school grounds, also a wide brimmed hat, sunscreen, buddy system and extra supervision. Children are routinely dropped off and picked up rather than 'risk' the walk. This pathology is well illustrated by an anecdote from my Aunty. While at a school football game she noted that all the mothers would call their child in every 10 minutes for water or a snack as if they are going to perish of dehydration in half an hour. Some years back a law was introduced regulating the temperatures food must be served at in  retail outlets, since then the pies have been too hot and the sandwiches too cold.

The guy who washes windows at the university is encumbered with two signs that say 'warning tripping hazard'.  He has to move and set these up again every five minutes as he moves along the side of the building.

My brother is going back to running a small fishing day-boat. He is required to furnish an enormous 'safety plan', something he finds rather burdensome and pointless.

My 250cc scooter costs $477 a year in motor registration, its compulsory to wear a helmet, and if you dare to even ride to the shop and back without one you will hear how you are setting a bad example. This is common here, for people to police themselves (or rather their neighbours!) Also in NZ the price of fuel is doubled because of tax on it. Also the price of alcohol and tobacco is hugely expensive because of taxes. Another thing, in a bar here a serving of spirits is 30ml (almost nothing!) and it will probably cost $10.

To become a property owner in NZ most people now will be in debt to the bank all their lives. The high price of property spills out into prices for everything making NZ one of the most expensive countries in the world. My house is illegal, strict building codes regulate even to the type of wood permitted to be used. D.I.Y shacks have been bulldozed by the council. Even worse, legislation looks likely to be introduced perpetrating a 'warrant of fitness' for rental housing. This should mop up the last of the cheaper housing options.

When the National Party recently got re-elected it was inevitable what would happen. Massive government debt, increased surveillance and joining in with Americas 'War of Terror'. The government recently introduced the 'foreign fighters' bill. No one predicted they would also spend $80 million on new paper currency and reduce the legal blood alcohol driving limit to 1 beer. But the icing on the cake was when the police came out with a 1km/hr speed tolerance for the summer holiday period. 1km!!  For American readers, that is about 0.6 miles per hour... if you go more than 0.6 miles per hour over the speed limit you get extorted!

It is likely that we can expect a false flag terror event like Australia and Canada, to further give excuse for increased state power. There is a strong possibility that this could turn most of the west into an authoritarian state. This probably means that it is going to get worse before it gets better.

New Zealand is often listed as one of the 'most free' countries in the world to live and do business. Perhaps this is the case for medium to large business but is not the case for individual free enterprise. Most people here have never experienced freedom and so seem unaware of the oppression we live under. Perhaps others do not experience this stuff as oppression, but I do.

This is why I am going to Anarchapulco, and why I am going on a one way ticket.

Questions or comments on New Zealand? Join us in the comments. 

New Zealand born Pete Gorman spent his early life as an underground rock musician and then EDM producer before entering film school in 2003. He worked in regional television before working as a media producer for the University of Otago. Lifelong Anarchist beliefs eventually led to the discovery of the Anarchast channel and a growing passion for the Anarchist message of freedom and non-violence, and to his current position as Director of Media for TDV Media.

continuing Ipcc saga, though dated 2013

IPCC Climate change “Pig in a Poke”, Where’s the truth?

Posted on September 17, 2013 

 

http://revfelicity.org/2013/09/17/ipcc-climate-change-pig-in-a-poke-wheres-the-truth/#more-3606

This month the IPCC will meet with great publicity to write the political executive summary of their 5th Assessment Report. See Vincent Gray on the background to these here. David Rose at the Mail on Sunday questions how they got it all so wrong.”Climate change sceptics are more outspoken. Dr Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, described the leaked report as a ‘staggering concoction of confusion, speculation and sheer ignorance’.

A fine technical explanation countering man made global warming.

IPCC AR5 Renews Demands For Governments Buy Their Climate Change Pig In A Poke

Repost from wattsupwiththat.com

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

Buying “a pig in a poke” refers to buying an unseen piglet in a sack. The piglet was actually a cat, so when you opened the sack after purchase “the cat was out of the bag.”

Governments bought the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ‘pig’ ‘that human CO2 was causing global warming wrapped in the ‘poke’ of their Reports. IPCC assured buyers it was a pig with 90+ percent certainty.

They fooled governments and media four times now they offer a new poke in Assessment Report 5 (AR5), but with 95 percent certainty it’s a pig. This is despite the fact that the cat is already out of the bag. Their predictions have failed. For 17 years global temperatures have declined while CO2 levels continue to increase. Arctic summer ice, supposedly all gone by 2013 has recovered by 60 percent in one year. Severe weather has not increased. Damage done by policies already implemented, such as green jobs and alternate energies, is already evident. Newspaper coverage declined dramatically as people sense problems even if they don’t understand (Figure 1). Decline followed the peak created by Gore’s false fantasy An Inconvenient Truth.

Figure 1

Instead of acknowledging error, the IPCC [tries] to defend the indefensible. This alone warrants disbanding of the agency.

They’re in a corner of their own design. They manufactured the poke through an organization, process, and computer models designed to prove their claim. Now we know it contains a cat. More frightening for them, people, including governments, are asking questions. A report by German scientists showing 65 climate models failed to predict the current no temperature increase period caused EU and US governments to ask questions.