Does New Zealand halal meat finance Islamic mission?Country: NEW ZEALAND, UNITED KINGDOM
https://barnabasfund.org/UK/Act/Campaign/Operation-Nehemiah/Campaign-updates/Does-New-Zealand-halal-meat-finance-Islamic-mission.html
does not seem to link up??
http://www.christianfriendlyproducts.com/print.php?news.7
Operation Nehemiah can reveal that some of the money paid by consumers in Britain for halal meat is apparently being used to finance dawa (Islamic mission) and Muslim construction projects in New Zealand.
The Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand (FIANZ) claims to certify over 90% of meat exports from the country as halal, making New Zealand the leading global exporter of halal meat with the largest halal slaughterhouses in the world. Despite the country's having an estimated Muslim population of only 41,000 (0.9%)*, over 80% of its meat and poultry plants are supervised by FIANZ, bringing the total value of halal meat exports to 300 million NZ dollars, and it is increasing annually. FIANZ accounts show revenues and assets amounting to millions of NZ dollars. Since obtaining its first Middle Eastern contract in 1984, FIANZ has been recognised in 45 countries.
Mosque of the Muslim Association of Canterbury
FIANZ issues over 9,000 halal certificates each year, for which they charge the meat suppliers. But in addition, over the past twenty years FIANZ has been providing annual grants to its regional associations for dawa activities. Muslim dawa involves more than gaining individual converts to Islam. For many Muslims it includes the establishing of Islamic enclaves that reveal the power and benefits of Islam to others, while for Islamists it involves the eventual and complete Islamisation of non-Muslim societies, both people and structures.
In 2006, a FIANZ dawa group coordinated a lecture tour of New Zealand by Dr Bilal Philips, who has since been banned from entering the UK and whom Operation Nehemiah recently revealed was linked to a major dawa campaign for the 2012 Olympics in London. FIANZ told the New Zealand press that such clerics will not be invited in future. Yet the Canterbury regional association insisted they would continue to invite people such as Sheikh Khalid Yasin, who is also banned from the UK.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Money absorbent Power Hungry Influence
Ideological money laundering
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/6/16/ideological-money-laundering.html
Jun 16, 2011
Climate: IPCC Climate: Parliament Energy Greens
This is a guest post by Ben Pile, of "Climate Resistance" fame.
As everybody now knows, the headlines from IPCC WGIII report on renewable energy appear to have been written by Greenpeace. When the Summary for Policy Makers was published last month, I was one of many who noted the role of Greenpeace, and the extent to which the SPM's authors were involved in the renewable energy industry. Steve McIntyre's discovery has caused further criticism of the IPCC's letting such overt agendas near its evidence-making for policy-makers, even from the green camp, albeit only because it is such bad PR. But there is yet more to this story.
The European Renewable Energy Council (EREC), who co-authored the report with Greenpeace, claims to be an 'umbrella organisation of the European renewable energy industry, trade and research associations' of the renewable sectors. 'EREC represents an industry with an annual turnover of EUR 70 billion and providing over 550.000 jobs'. They consist of a number of partner organisations, each representing one technology sector within renewable energy, such as wind, geothermal and solar, and each of these has as many as hundreds of members. As Mark Lynas points out, then, it is no surprise that the EREC 'are of course enthusiasts for renewable energy’s prospects because they make money from selling wind turbines and solar panels, so hardly count as an unbiased source'.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/6/16/ideological-money-laundering.html
Jun 16, 2011
Climate: IPCC Climate: Parliament Energy Greens
This is a guest post by Ben Pile, of "Climate Resistance" fame.
As everybody now knows, the headlines from IPCC WGIII report on renewable energy appear to have been written by Greenpeace. When the Summary for Policy Makers was published last month, I was one of many who noted the role of Greenpeace, and the extent to which the SPM's authors were involved in the renewable energy industry. Steve McIntyre's discovery has caused further criticism of the IPCC's letting such overt agendas near its evidence-making for policy-makers, even from the green camp, albeit only because it is such bad PR. But there is yet more to this story.
The European Renewable Energy Council (EREC), who co-authored the report with Greenpeace, claims to be an 'umbrella organisation of the European renewable energy industry, trade and research associations' of the renewable sectors. 'EREC represents an industry with an annual turnover of EUR 70 billion and providing over 550.000 jobs'. They consist of a number of partner organisations, each representing one technology sector within renewable energy, such as wind, geothermal and solar, and each of these has as many as hundreds of members. As Mark Lynas points out, then, it is no surprise that the EREC 'are of course enthusiasts for renewable energy’s prospects because they make money from selling wind turbines and solar panels, so hardly count as an unbiased source'.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Etatism
“what is intervention?” and “what is the free market?”, the statists just need to read Rothbard’s “Power and Market” starting at page 1057. Rothbard explains the terms that are the starting point of this debate. It’s a bright shiny line. It’s really not that complicated.
http://mises.org/Books/mespm.PDF
Mises also explains the bright line differentiation:
The most important event in the history of the last hundred years is the displacement of liberalism by etatism.
Etatism appears in two forms: socialism and interventionism. Both have in common the goal of subordinating the individual unconditionally to the state, the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion.******
Etatism assigns to the state the task of guiding the citizens and of holding them in tutelage. It aims at restricting the individual’s freedom to act. It seeks to mold his destiny and to vest all initiative in the government alone.*******
The state is a human institution, not a superhuman being. He who says “state” means coercion and compulsion. ******
The thesis of etatism that the members of the government and its assistants are more intelligent than the people, and that they know better what is good for the individual than he himself knows, is pure nonsense.******
http://mises.org/etexts/mises/og/chap3a.asp
http://mises.org/Books/mespm.PDF
Mises also explains the bright line differentiation:
The most important event in the history of the last hundred years is the displacement of liberalism by etatism.
Etatism appears in two forms: socialism and interventionism. Both have in common the goal of subordinating the individual unconditionally to the state, the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion.******
Etatism assigns to the state the task of guiding the citizens and of holding them in tutelage. It aims at restricting the individual’s freedom to act. It seeks to mold his destiny and to vest all initiative in the government alone.*******
The state is a human institution, not a superhuman being. He who says “state” means coercion and compulsion. ******
The thesis of etatism that the members of the government and its assistants are more intelligent than the people, and that they know better what is good for the individual than he himself knows, is pure nonsense.******
http://mises.org/etexts/mises/og/chap3a.asp
Monday, June 6, 2011
Cate Blancards filthy stinking carbon stupidity
Cate Blanchett's ad about the proposed carbon tax is misleading, argues Andrew Bolt. Source: Herald Sun
IF THE science on global warming is so good, why are we told such lies?
That is the true disgrace of those behind the ad that features Cate Blanchett telling us to "say yes" to the Gillard Government's carbon dioxide tax.
It's not that it stars a multi-millionaire actor blithely instructing the little people to pay a tax that she wouldn't even feel herself.
Click here to have your say at Andrew's blog
It's not that it stars a hypocrite telling us to cut our emissions while she herself jets off to Cannes, New York and LA, and helps to flog luxury Audi cars.
No, it's the lies that should shame Blanchett and the ad's other star, Michael Caton, of Packed to the Rafters, who are not responsible for them, but speak the lines put in their mouths.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related CoverageChat online: Andrew Bolt's blog
Andrew Bolt: Unelected body will set power prices
Andrew Bolt: The Left promotes its own echo
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
It's the flagrant lies in this ad that should shame all the green groups and unions which made the wretched thing -- and that should warn the rest of us there is much less to this scare than such shameless people claim.
How dare they? And where are the regulators? Does the Advertising Standards Bureau exempt global warming alarmists from its demand that "ads shall not be misleading or deceptive"?
The lies start with the very first shot of the ad, showing Caton standing under black skies made filthy by a power station billowing soot --labelled "carbon".
IF THE science on global warming is so good, why are we told such lies?
That is the true disgrace of those behind the ad that features Cate Blanchett telling us to "say yes" to the Gillard Government's carbon dioxide tax.
It's not that it stars a multi-millionaire actor blithely instructing the little people to pay a tax that she wouldn't even feel herself.
Click here to have your say at Andrew's blog
It's not that it stars a hypocrite telling us to cut our emissions while she herself jets off to Cannes, New York and LA, and helps to flog luxury Audi cars.
No, it's the lies that should shame Blanchett and the ad's other star, Michael Caton, of Packed to the Rafters, who are not responsible for them, but speak the lines put in their mouths.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related CoverageChat online: Andrew Bolt's blog
Andrew Bolt: Unelected body will set power prices
Andrew Bolt: The Left promotes its own echo
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
It's the flagrant lies in this ad that should shame all the green groups and unions which made the wretched thing -- and that should warn the rest of us there is much less to this scare than such shameless people claim.
How dare they? And where are the regulators? Does the Advertising Standards Bureau exempt global warming alarmists from its demand that "ads shall not be misleading or deceptive"?
The lies start with the very first shot of the ad, showing Caton standing under black skies made filthy by a power station billowing soot --labelled "carbon".
Sunday, June 5, 2011
USA economy recovery ? ?
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/20-questions-to-ask-anyone-foolish-enough-to-believe-the-economic-crisis-is-over
If you listen to Ben Bernanke, Barack Obama and the mainstream media long enough, and if you didn't know any better, you might be tempted to think that the economic crisis is long gone and that we are in the midst of a burgeoning economic recovery. Unfortunately, the truth is that the economic crisis is far from over. In 2010, more homes were repossessed than ever before, more Americans were on food stamps than ever before and a smaller percentage of American men had jobs than ever before. The reality is that the United States is an economic basket case and all of these natural disasters certainly are not helping things. The Federal Reserve has been printing gigantic piles of money and the U.S. government has been borrowing and spending cash at a dizzying pace in an all-out effort to stabilize things. They have succeeded for the moment, but our long-term economic problems are worse then ever. We are still in the middle of a full-blown economic crisis and things are about to get even worse.
If you know someone that is foolish enough to believe that the economic crisis is over and that our economic problems are behind us, just ask that person the following questions....
#1 During the 23 months of the "Obama recovery", an average of about 23,000 jobs a month have been created. It takes somewhere in the neighborhood of 150,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth. So shouldn't we hold off a bit before we declare the economic crisis to be over?
#2 During the "recession", somewhere between 6.3 million and 7.5 million jobs were lost. During the "Obama recovery", approximately 535,000 jobs have been added. When will the rest of the jobs finally come back?
#3 Of the 535,000 jobs that have been created during the "Obama recovery", only about 35,000 of them are permanent full-time jobs. Today, "low income jobs" account for 41 percent of all jobs in the United States. If our economy is recovering, then why can't it produce large numbers of good jobs that will enable people to provide for their families?
#4 Agricultural commodities have been absolutely soaring this decade. The combined price of cotton, wheat, gasoline and hogs is now more than 3 times higher than it was back in 2002. So how in the world can the Federal Reserve claim that inflation has been at minimal levels all this time?
#5 Back in 2008, banks had a total of 27 billion dollars in excess reserves at the Fed. Today, banks have a total of approximately 1.5 trillion dollars in excess reserves at the Fed. So what is going to happen when all of this money eventually hits the economy?....
#6 If the U.S. economy is recovering, then why are shipments by U.S. factories still substantially below 2008 levels?
#7 Why are imports of goods from overseas growing much more rapidly than shipments of goods from U.S. factories?
#8 According to Zillow, the average price of a home in the U.S. is about 8 percent lower than it was a year ago and that it continues to fall about 1 percent a month. During the first quarter of 2011, home values declined at the fastest rate since late 2008. So can we really talk about a "recovery" when the real estate crisis continues to get worse?
#9 According to a shocking new survey, 54 percent of Americans believe that a housing recovery is "unlikely" until at least 2014. So how is the housing industry supposed to improve if so many people are convinced that it will not?
#10 The latest GDP numbers out of Japan are a complete and total disaster. During the first quarter GDP declined by a stunning 3.7 percent. Of course I have been saying for months that the Japanese economy is collapsing, but most mainstream economists were absolutely stunned by the latest figures. So will the rest of the world be able to avoid slipping into a recession as well?
#11 Next week, Republicans in the House of Representatives are going to allow a vote on raising the debt ceiling. Everyone knows that this is an opportunity for Republican lawmakers to "look tough" to their constituents (the vast majority of which do not want the debt ceiling raised). Everyone also knows that eventually the Republicans are almost certainly going to cave on the debt ceiling after minimal concessions by the Democrats. The truth is that neither "establishment Republicans" nor "establishment Democrats" are actually serious about significantly cutting government debt. So why do we need all of this political theater?
#12 Why are so many of our once great manufacturing cities being transformed into hellholes? In the city of Detroit today, there are over 33,000 abandoned houses, 70 schools are being permanently closed down, the mayor wants to bulldoze one-fourth of the city and you can literally buy a house for one dollar in the worst areas.
#13 According to one new survey, about half of all Baby Boomers fear that when they retire they are going to end up living in poverty. So who is going to take care of them all when the money runs out?
#14 According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, an average of about 5 million Americans were being hired every single month during 2006. Today, an average of about 3.5 million Americans are being hired every single month. So why are our politicians talking about "economic recovery" instead of "the collapse of the economy" when hiring remains about 50 percent below normal?
#15 Since August, 2 million more Americans have left the labor force. But the entire period from August to today was supposed to have been a time of economic growth and recovery. So why are so many Americans giving up on looking for a job?
#16 According to Gallup, 41 percent of Americans believed that the economy was "getting better" at this time last year. Today, that number is at just 27 percent. Are Americans losing faith in the U.S. economy?
#17 According to the U.S. Census, the number of children living in poverty has gone up by about 2 million in just the past 2 years, and one out of every four American children is currently on food stamps. During this same time period, Barack Obama and Ben Bernanke have told us over and over that the U.S. economy has been getting better. So what is the truth?
#18 America has become absolutely addicted to government money. 59 percent of all Americans now receive money from the federal government in one form or another. U.S. households are now receiving more income from the U.S. government than they are paying to the government in taxes. Americans hate having their taxes raised and they hate having their government benefits cut. So is there any hope that this will ever be turned around before disaster strikes?
#19 The combined debt of the major GSEs (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Sallie Mae) has increased from 3.2 trillion in 2008 to 6.4 trillion in 2011. How in the world is the U.S. government going to be able to afford to guarantee all of that debt on top of everything else?
#20 If the U.S. national debt (more than 14 trillion dollars) was reduced to a stack of 5 dollar bills, it would reach three quarters of the way to the moon. The U.S. government borrows about 168 million dollars every single hour. If Bill Gates gave every penny of his fortune to the U.S. government, it would only cover the U.S. budget deficit for 15 days. So how in the world can our politicians tell us that everything is going to be okay?
If you listen to Ben Bernanke, Barack Obama and the mainstream media long enough, and if you didn't know any better, you might be tempted to think that the economic crisis is long gone and that we are in the midst of a burgeoning economic recovery. Unfortunately, the truth is that the economic crisis is far from over. In 2010, more homes were repossessed than ever before, more Americans were on food stamps than ever before and a smaller percentage of American men had jobs than ever before. The reality is that the United States is an economic basket case and all of these natural disasters certainly are not helping things. The Federal Reserve has been printing gigantic piles of money and the U.S. government has been borrowing and spending cash at a dizzying pace in an all-out effort to stabilize things. They have succeeded for the moment, but our long-term economic problems are worse then ever. We are still in the middle of a full-blown economic crisis and things are about to get even worse.
If you know someone that is foolish enough to believe that the economic crisis is over and that our economic problems are behind us, just ask that person the following questions....
#1 During the 23 months of the "Obama recovery", an average of about 23,000 jobs a month have been created. It takes somewhere in the neighborhood of 150,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth. So shouldn't we hold off a bit before we declare the economic crisis to be over?
#2 During the "recession", somewhere between 6.3 million and 7.5 million jobs were lost. During the "Obama recovery", approximately 535,000 jobs have been added. When will the rest of the jobs finally come back?
#3 Of the 535,000 jobs that have been created during the "Obama recovery", only about 35,000 of them are permanent full-time jobs. Today, "low income jobs" account for 41 percent of all jobs in the United States. If our economy is recovering, then why can't it produce large numbers of good jobs that will enable people to provide for their families?
#4 Agricultural commodities have been absolutely soaring this decade. The combined price of cotton, wheat, gasoline and hogs is now more than 3 times higher than it was back in 2002. So how in the world can the Federal Reserve claim that inflation has been at minimal levels all this time?
#5 Back in 2008, banks had a total of 27 billion dollars in excess reserves at the Fed. Today, banks have a total of approximately 1.5 trillion dollars in excess reserves at the Fed. So what is going to happen when all of this money eventually hits the economy?....
#6 If the U.S. economy is recovering, then why are shipments by U.S. factories still substantially below 2008 levels?
#7 Why are imports of goods from overseas growing much more rapidly than shipments of goods from U.S. factories?
#8 According to Zillow, the average price of a home in the U.S. is about 8 percent lower than it was a year ago and that it continues to fall about 1 percent a month. During the first quarter of 2011, home values declined at the fastest rate since late 2008. So can we really talk about a "recovery" when the real estate crisis continues to get worse?
#9 According to a shocking new survey, 54 percent of Americans believe that a housing recovery is "unlikely" until at least 2014. So how is the housing industry supposed to improve if so many people are convinced that it will not?
#10 The latest GDP numbers out of Japan are a complete and total disaster. During the first quarter GDP declined by a stunning 3.7 percent. Of course I have been saying for months that the Japanese economy is collapsing, but most mainstream economists were absolutely stunned by the latest figures. So will the rest of the world be able to avoid slipping into a recession as well?
#11 Next week, Republicans in the House of Representatives are going to allow a vote on raising the debt ceiling. Everyone knows that this is an opportunity for Republican lawmakers to "look tough" to their constituents (the vast majority of which do not want the debt ceiling raised). Everyone also knows that eventually the Republicans are almost certainly going to cave on the debt ceiling after minimal concessions by the Democrats. The truth is that neither "establishment Republicans" nor "establishment Democrats" are actually serious about significantly cutting government debt. So why do we need all of this political theater?
#12 Why are so many of our once great manufacturing cities being transformed into hellholes? In the city of Detroit today, there are over 33,000 abandoned houses, 70 schools are being permanently closed down, the mayor wants to bulldoze one-fourth of the city and you can literally buy a house for one dollar in the worst areas.
#13 According to one new survey, about half of all Baby Boomers fear that when they retire they are going to end up living in poverty. So who is going to take care of them all when the money runs out?
#14 According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, an average of about 5 million Americans were being hired every single month during 2006. Today, an average of about 3.5 million Americans are being hired every single month. So why are our politicians talking about "economic recovery" instead of "the collapse of the economy" when hiring remains about 50 percent below normal?
#15 Since August, 2 million more Americans have left the labor force. But the entire period from August to today was supposed to have been a time of economic growth and recovery. So why are so many Americans giving up on looking for a job?
#16 According to Gallup, 41 percent of Americans believed that the economy was "getting better" at this time last year. Today, that number is at just 27 percent. Are Americans losing faith in the U.S. economy?
#17 According to the U.S. Census, the number of children living in poverty has gone up by about 2 million in just the past 2 years, and one out of every four American children is currently on food stamps. During this same time period, Barack Obama and Ben Bernanke have told us over and over that the U.S. economy has been getting better. So what is the truth?
#18 America has become absolutely addicted to government money. 59 percent of all Americans now receive money from the federal government in one form or another. U.S. households are now receiving more income from the U.S. government than they are paying to the government in taxes. Americans hate having their taxes raised and they hate having their government benefits cut. So is there any hope that this will ever be turned around before disaster strikes?
#19 The combined debt of the major GSEs (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Sallie Mae) has increased from 3.2 trillion in 2008 to 6.4 trillion in 2011. How in the world is the U.S. government going to be able to afford to guarantee all of that debt on top of everything else?
#20 If the U.S. national debt (more than 14 trillion dollars) was reduced to a stack of 5 dollar bills, it would reach three quarters of the way to the moon. The U.S. government borrows about 168 million dollars every single hour. If Bill Gates gave every penny of his fortune to the U.S. government, it would only cover the U.S. budget deficit for 15 days. So how in the world can our politicians tell us that everything is going to be okay?
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
The Ten Cannots
(by William J. H. Boetcker, originally published 1916,)
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by destroying men’s initiative and independence.
And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._H._Boetcker
Boetcker also spoke of the "Seven National Crimes":[3]
I don’t think.
I don’t know.
I don’t care.
I am too busy.
I leave well enough alone.
I have no time to read and find out.
I am not interested.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by destroying men’s initiative and independence.
And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._H._Boetcker
Boetcker also spoke of the "Seven National Crimes":[3]
I don’t think.
I don’t know.
I don’t care.
I am too busy.
I leave well enough alone.
I have no time to read and find out.
I am not interested.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Bjorn Lomborg:- climate debate back to basic principles
http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5473160936763325359
This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABC cannot guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility of mishearing and occasional difficulty in identifying speakers.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: the climate debate in this country seems stuck at the Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire level. can't we do better than this? well consider the following: In the March 2011 edition of Quadrant magazine, we read this:
Paul Comrie-Thomson: Bjorn Lomborg, adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, and director of the Copenhagen Business Centre. His new documentary is called Cool It, and Michael, it's out in about three weeks. I cannot wait. Bjorn was speaking in Melbourne last Monday at an event presented by the Australian Institute for International Affairs.
But ten years earlier, in The Sceptical Environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg stated this:
In a recent address in Melbourne presented by the Australian Institute of International Affairs, Bjorn Lomborg recommended we bring the whole climate debate back to basic principles. Here now are edited highlights of his address.
Bjorn Lomborg: What is it we're actually trying to achieve, because we have a tendency in this climate debate to just jump right ahead and say that it's all about cutting carbon emissions. But let's just remember -- presumably this is about making a better world. And we've got to ask ourselves how do we do that. And I think a large part of what we do in the climate debate is mostly about feeling good rather than actually doing good. It's about something that's fashionable rather than something that actually does good, something that's rational. So I'd like to pause and say, 'What can actually work?'
This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABC cannot guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility of mishearing and occasional difficulty in identifying speakers.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: the climate debate in this country seems stuck at the Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire level. can't we do better than this? well consider the following: In the March 2011 edition of Quadrant magazine, we read this:
Paul Comrie-Thomson: Bjorn Lomborg, adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, and director of the Copenhagen Business Centre. His new documentary is called Cool It, and Michael, it's out in about three weeks. I cannot wait. Bjorn was speaking in Melbourne last Monday at an event presented by the Australian Institute for International Affairs.
Man-made emissions are likely to cause a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide during this century and this increase will continue to have a warming effect on global temperatures. But one of the disappointing distortions of the climate science debate is the claim that sceptics deny this relationship. What sceptics are sceptical about is the strength of these anthropogenic global warming effects.That's from the Quadrant article 'The Intelligent Voter's guide to Global Warming' written by Geoffrey Lehmann, Peter Farrell and Dick Warburton.
But ten years earlier, in The Sceptical Environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg stated this:
My book accepts the reality of manmade global warming but questions the way in which future scenarios have been arrived at and finds that forecasts of climate change of six degrees by the end of the century are not plausible. I shall argue that the limitations of computer modelling, the unrealist nature of the basic assumptions made about future technological change and political value-judgments have distorted the scenarios being presented to the public.The initial response to Lomborg's dispassionate analysis was ugly. He was trashed by the environmentalist establishment. And over the next ten years it appeared he was labouring in the wilderness. Then, post-Copenhagen Lomborg was finally recognised by many as being the environmentalist that made the most sense.
In a recent address in Melbourne presented by the Australian Institute of International Affairs, Bjorn Lomborg recommended we bring the whole climate debate back to basic principles. Here now are edited highlights of his address.
Bjorn Lomborg: What is it we're actually trying to achieve, because we have a tendency in this climate debate to just jump right ahead and say that it's all about cutting carbon emissions. But let's just remember -- presumably this is about making a better world. And we've got to ask ourselves how do we do that. And I think a large part of what we do in the climate debate is mostly about feeling good rather than actually doing good. It's about something that's fashionable rather than something that actually does good, something that's rational. So I'd like to pause and say, 'What can actually work?'
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Russian Climate Warming
James Delingpole
James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including 365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy, Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com. Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 16th, 2009
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/
Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.
Feast your eyes on this news release from Rionovosta, via the Ria Novosti agency, posted on Icecap. (Hat Tip: Richard North)
A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.
The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.
Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.
As Richard North says: This is serial.
UPDATE: As Steve McIntyre reports at ClimateAudit, it has long been suspected that the CRU had been playing especially fast and loose with Russian – more particularly Siberian – temperature records. Here from March 2004, is an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann.
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either
appears
I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Cheers
Phil
And here at Watts Up With That is a guest post by Jeff Id of the Air Vent
And here is what one of the commenters has to say about the way the data has been cherry-picked and skewed for political ends:
The crux of the argument is that the CRU cherry picked data following the same methods that have been done everywhere else. They ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives when available. They ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data, strongly preferred data from stations that relocated, ignored length of data set.
One the final page, there is a chart that shows that CRU’s selective use of 25% of the data created 0.64C more warming than simply using all of the raw data would have done. The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860, the CRU set shows 2.06C rise over the same period.
Not, of course, dear readers that I’m in any way tempted to crow about these latest revelations. After all, so many of my colleagues, junior and senior, have been backing me on this one to the hilt….
Oh, if anyone speaks Russian, here’s the full report.
James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including 365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy, Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com. Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 16th, 2009
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/
Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.
Feast your eyes on this news release from Rionovosta, via the Ria Novosti agency, posted on Icecap. (Hat Tip: Richard North)
A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.
The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.
Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.
As Richard North says: This is serial.
UPDATE: As Steve McIntyre reports at ClimateAudit, it has long been suspected that the CRU had been playing especially fast and loose with Russian – more particularly Siberian – temperature records. Here from March 2004, is an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann.
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either
appears
I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Cheers
Phil
And here at Watts Up With That is a guest post by Jeff Id of the Air Vent
And here is what one of the commenters has to say about the way the data has been cherry-picked and skewed for political ends:
The crux of the argument is that the CRU cherry picked data following the same methods that have been done everywhere else. They ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives when available. They ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data, strongly preferred data from stations that relocated, ignored length of data set.
One the final page, there is a chart that shows that CRU’s selective use of 25% of the data created 0.64C more warming than simply using all of the raw data would have done. The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860, the CRU set shows 2.06C rise over the same period.
Not, of course, dear readers that I’m in any way tempted to crow about these latest revelations. After all, so many of my colleagues, junior and senior, have been backing me on this one to the hilt….
Oh, if anyone speaks Russian, here’s the full report.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Truism of Eating S#%t ? ?
kaya (1,267) Says:
April 17th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
An experienced economist and a novice economist are walking down the road. They come across a pile of dog shit lying on the asphalt. The experienced economist says to the novice, “If you eat it I’ll give you $20,000!” The novice economist runs his optimization problem and figures out he’s better off eating the shit, so he does and collects the money.
Continuing along the same road they almost step into yet another pile of dog shit. The novice economist says to his friend, “Now, if you eat this pile of shit I’ll give you $20,000.” After evaluating the proposal, the experienced economist eats the dog shit and takes the money.
They continue on. The novice economist starts thinking and finally says to his friend, “Listen, we both have the same amount of money we had before, but we both ate shit. I don’t see us being better off.”
The experienced economist answers, “Well, that’s true, but you overlooked the fact that we’ve just been involved in $40,000 of trade.”
ben (1,697) Says:
April 17th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
Kaya: haha cute example, but there is a gain from trade here.
The only way the experienced economist would offer $20,000 to the novice is if he got $20,000+x in enjoyment watching that.
The only way the novice would accept the offer is if he got $20,000 – y > 0, in surplus, if y is the cost to him of eating shit.
Rinse and repeat for the second episode.
Although they both walk away with the same money, there is a gain from trade of 2(x – y) > 0.
Each has received enjoyment in excess of eating shit, which is a prerequisite for trade to occur.
Were that not true, nobody eats shit.
------------------------------
Taoism: Shit happens. Catholicism: If shit happens, you deserve it. Protestantism: Let shit happen to someone else. Scientology: Crazy shit Hinduism: This shit has happened before. Islam: If shit happens, it is the will of Allah. Buddhism: If shit happens, it isn’t really shit. Judaism: Why does this shit always happen to us? Athiesm: No Shit.
April 17th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
An experienced economist and a novice economist are walking down the road. They come across a pile of dog shit lying on the asphalt. The experienced economist says to the novice, “If you eat it I’ll give you $20,000!” The novice economist runs his optimization problem and figures out he’s better off eating the shit, so he does and collects the money.
Continuing along the same road they almost step into yet another pile of dog shit. The novice economist says to his friend, “Now, if you eat this pile of shit I’ll give you $20,000.” After evaluating the proposal, the experienced economist eats the dog shit and takes the money.
They continue on. The novice economist starts thinking and finally says to his friend, “Listen, we both have the same amount of money we had before, but we both ate shit. I don’t see us being better off.”
The experienced economist answers, “Well, that’s true, but you overlooked the fact that we’ve just been involved in $40,000 of trade.”
ben (1,697) Says:
April 17th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
Kaya: haha cute example, but there is a gain from trade here.
The only way the experienced economist would offer $20,000 to the novice is if he got $20,000+x in enjoyment watching that.
The only way the novice would accept the offer is if he got $20,000 – y > 0, in surplus, if y is the cost to him of eating shit.
Rinse and repeat for the second episode.
Although they both walk away with the same money, there is a gain from trade of 2(x – y) > 0.
Each has received enjoyment in excess of eating shit, which is a prerequisite for trade to occur.
Were that not true, nobody eats shit.
------------------------------
Taoism: Shit happens. Catholicism: If shit happens, you deserve it. Protestantism: Let shit happen to someone else. Scientology: Crazy shit Hinduism: This shit has happened before. Islam: If shit happens, it is the will of Allah. Buddhism: If shit happens, it isn’t really shit. Judaism: Why does this shit always happen to us? Athiesm: No Shit.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Obama morphing to Bush? ? ?
http://biggovernment.com/oftheeising/2011/04/07/from-critic-to-convert-obama-adopts-the-bush-doctrine/#idc-cover
comment avoicenmany 79p · 2 days ago
Let us do a little comparison between Bush and Obumbles the Clown here.
This is worded in such a way that regular commenter's here at big are IMHO non partisan, but more so fact based and Conservative. It is also so the likes of ones like, just to pull a name "huskerluvsbo" and the MM/Huffpo crowd might understand ( we all can have wishful thinking now), of course I know that those will find invalid ways to argue with these comparisons but Pfft WTF I like fiction.. Enjoy:-
~ If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompTer installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
~ If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
~ If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
comment avoicenmany 79p · 2 days ago
Let us do a little comparison between Bush and Obumbles the Clown here.
This is worded in such a way that regular commenter's here at big are IMHO non partisan, but more so fact based and Conservative. It is also so the likes of ones like, just to pull a name "huskerluvsbo" and the MM/Huffpo crowd might understand ( we all can have wishful thinking now), of course I know that those will find invalid ways to argue with these comparisons but Pfft WTF I like fiction.. Enjoy:-
~ If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompTer installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
~ If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
~ If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
