Leave of Absence

by craig on September 16, 2012 11:27 am in Uncategorized

I was invited to be on the Murnaghan programme on Sky News this morning – which I always find a great deal more intelligent than the Andrew Marr alternative on the BBC. I declined because I did not want to get up and get a 7.30am train from Ramsgate on a Sunday morning. I had a meeting until 11.30pm last night planning a conference on human rights in Balochistan [I still tend to say Baluchistan], and I have a newly crowned tooth that seems not to want to settle down. But I am still worried by my own lack of energy, which is uncharacteristic. Is this old age?

I also have some serious work to do on my Burnes book, and next week I shall be staying in London to be in the British Library reading room for every second of its opening hours. So there may be a bit of a posting hiatus. I have in mind a short post on an important subject on which I suspect that 99% of my readership – including the regular dissident commenters – will strongly disagree with me.

This is a peculiarly introspective post, perhaps because my tooth is hurting, but I seem to have this curmudgeonly spirit which wishes to react to the huge popularity of this blog by posting something genuinely held but unpopular; a genuine view but one I don’t normally trumpet. The base thought seems to be “You wouldn’t like me if you really knew me”.

Similarly when I wrote Murder in Samarkand I was being hailed as a hero by quite a lot of people for my refusal to go along with the whole neo-con disaster of illegal wars, extraordinary rendition and severe attacks on civil liberties, sacrificing my fast track diplomatic career as a result. My reaction to putative hero worship was to publish in Murder in Samarkand not just the political facts, but an exposure of my own worst and most unpleasant behaviour in my private life.

I am in a very poor position to judge, but I believe the result rather by accident turned out artistically compelling, if you don’t want to read the book you can get a good idea of that by clicking on David Tennant in the top right of this blog and listening to him playing me in David Hare’s radio adaptation.

Anyway, that’s enough musing. You won’t like my next post, whenever it comes. Promise.

Tweet this post


1 4 5 6 7 8 17

  1. Oh, and thanks for the Stallman link. It’s a treasure.

  2. You like the Bonnie? I tried one of those, I thought I was riding a sit-on lawnmower. ‘Til I opened it up, of course. Sturdy. Ever tried a Norton Commando? Most exciting bike I ever rode. It complained every second that it wasn’t accelerating, but twist that grip and it just loved to please.

    I had a Guzzi for years. It’s favourite thing was climbing steep, narrow roads with hairpin bends. Psychic steering, it seemed to know which bit of road to head for. Lovely brakes. When I broke a finger on my left hand (showing off) I moved the clutch lever onto the right-hand bar, and toured from York to Liverpool to Bristol to London and back to York. Integral braking, so the right foot sufficed.

  3. Hackers built the Internet. Free Software is about freedom, not price. Think free speech rather than free beer. Nothing wrong with free beer, of course, but the freedom to drink it, and to tell your friends about it, matters a whole lot more.

    The corporate media trash the Hacker ethic, of course; it’s opposed to everything they stand for. The Hackers came from the MIT Artificial intelligence lab. Most of the Internet runs on Free software. This site is hosted on the Apache web server, of course.

    Whoever controls the code, controls the computer. When Windows puts up that little icon “My Computer”, that is (or rather was) Bill Gates’ little message to the user, taking the piss. You doubt? When you shut down Windoze on a machine without the software switch-off, the message says “It is now safe to turn your computer off”!

  4. Clark – Indeed i have – my google search came up with a 4/5 result. In the interest of fairness maybe you should also ask others to check who all the people on international committees pushing the man made global warming agenda are, and if all their findings are based on independent empirical evidence. Lets shine a light on every single facet as Geoff wisely suggests.

    Geoff – glad you had a look at that site as well. Another very interesting quote from the same chapter as you’ve quoted is:

    “The Committee found that some existing IPCC review procedures are not always followed and that others are weak. In particular, Review Editors do not fully use their authority to ensure that review comments receive appropriate consideration by Lead Authors and that controversial issues are reflected adequately in the report”


    In an earlier pre publication version released online before the watered down version was published the IAC reported that IPCC lead authors failed to give:

    “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views” (p. 20), fail to “provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors” (p. 21), and are not “consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses” (p. 22).

    It goes on to report that the IAC found that “the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents”

    As the author Joseph L. Bast puts it “In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed”


  5. Ben Franklin

    21 Sep, 2012 - 1:06 am

    I was more of a ‘straightaway’ biker. It cornered better than the Trident I test drove, and i was sold on the Bonneville’s low-end acceleration .

    As to the Vincent…..

    “”Whats that?”

    “A fantastic bike,” I said. “The new model is something like two thousand cubic inches, developing two hundred brake-horsepower at four thousand revolutions per minute on a magnesium frame with two styrofoam seats and a total curb weight of exactly two hundred pounds.”

    “That sounds about right for this gig,” he said.

    “It is,” I assured him. “The fucker’s not much for turning, but it’s pure hell on the straightaway. It’ll outrun the F-111 until takeoff.”

    “Takeoff?” he said. “Can we handle that much torque?”

    “Absolutely,” I said. “I’ll call New York for some cash.”


    [At the entry desk for the Mint 400]

    “What’s the entry fee?” I asked the desk-man.

    “Two fifty,” he said.

    “What if I told you I had a Vincent Black Shadow?”

    He stared up at me, saying nothing, not friendly. I noticed he was wearing a .38 revolver on his belt. “Forget it,” I said. “My driver’s sick anyway.”

    His eyes narrowed. “Your driver ain’t the only one sick around here, buddy.”

    “He has a bone in his throat,” I said.

  6. This is what Stallman wrote that made software freedom possible:


  7. Electric bikes running on nimhs and supercaps and tiny little engines and pedals, for extended range and pinching the buttocks. More Zoom less Boom.

  8. Clark: Very nice! Although personally (this may be considered unadventurous) I think having a very modern bike is a different experience altogether. Performance is one of the great joys of motorcycling, and having something probably 100 times more reliable than 1960’s technology, will allow you to push it a lot more. Brakes you know will really work, all that random twitchiness engineered out of it, not to mention incredible performance and reliability from the engine.

    Mind you, I did pick up an old Yamaha powervalve in pretty good nick recently, with a view to doing it up over the Winter. It rattles and rasps, and the engine has a nasty tendency to blow up instead of delivering it’s customary (rather surprising) kick. But it’s a hoot to ride all the same.

  9. “TOR […] Seems to work, albeit more slowly, for me.”

    Yeah, that’s why more of us should set up nodes. TOR was started by the US Navy. It’s Free software, ie. all the source code has to be published, so it shouldn’t be possible to hide anything nasty in the code. Having said that, I think there’s some literature on Cryptome site that suggests that there might be some vulnerabilities.

    Whatever, TOR is the best we have, so far as I know. But you need to anonymise your browser, and turn off JavaScript, or your own machine will give you away. Really, you need a fully Free system at your end, and you need to know how to act anonymously.


  10. Ben Franklin

    21 Sep, 2012 - 1:32 am

    Clark; TOR tells me ‘your IP ‘appears’ to be…..XXXXXXXXXXXX. That’s not sufficient?

  11. Glenn, I knew you’d speak up for the modern stuff, but as soon as we invent the Star Trek inertial damper, we’ll take all the fun out of it. Have you read the great steam locomotive race in Iain M Banks’ Feersum Endjin? I love The Culture!

    Thatcrab, an electric bike is something I’d love to try. An old friend of mine made electric remote-controlled model boats; the acceleration blew all the internal combustion models out of the water. But not much range or running time.

  12. Hey, Ben, I sent you a coded message about that earlier. Shall I say more here?

  13. Ben Franklin

    21 Sep, 2012 - 1:38 am

    “Nuff said, Clark. Thanks.

  14. Chris: I can’t help but notice (in reply to your 20 Sep, 2012 – 2:06 am post) that references you use are all firmly in the GCC denial camp. SPPI is funded by EXXON, and that innocent sounding name is just like those euphemistically titled “Family Research Council”, “Focus on the Family” and all the other BS agencies, Institute for American Values, Americans for Mom & Apple Pie, and so on.

    Take a look at this quote from Phil Lesley as he explains the role of useful “sceptics”:

    “People generally do not favour action on a non-alarming situation when arguments seem to be balanced on both sides and there is a clear doubt. The weight of impressions on the public must be balanced so people will have doubts and lack motivation to take action. Accordingly, means are needed to get balancing information into the stream from sources that the public will find credible. There is no need for a clear-cut ‘victory’… Nurturing public doubts by demonstrating that this is not a clear-cut situation in support of the opponents usually is all that is necessary.” (Lesly, ‘Coping with Opposition Groups,’ Public Relations Review 18, 1992, p.331)”

    Your next referenced source of information is Anthony Watt’s wattsupwiththat.com . A committed “sceptic” and GCC denier, he has no qualifications whatsoever, is not a scientist, and gets paid by the Heartland Institute – yet another “think-tank” funded by right wingers/ heavy industry.

    The “petition project” was originally the Oregon Petition which had some serious problems – it pretended to be a National Academy of Sciences paper (which it had to later admit it had nothing to do with). It was originally about the Kyoto agreement anyway, could be signed by anyone claiming to be a “scientist”, who had no learning whatsoever in the field of Climate Science. That’s like asking anyone with an A level to their name, to sign a petition concerning the death penalty, and using that as “proof” of your side of the issue.

    Most of the Petition Project people – according to Scientific American, the Seattle Times among others – found it worrying dubious.

    Don’t you look into your sources before believing what they want you to believe, and using them as references?

  15. Ben Franklin

    21 Sep, 2012 - 1:43 am

    Holy Shimoles. I have 21.21 bits. Clark, that info is awesome. Total energy !

  16. Ben, here’s a service you might find useful. Doesn’t work with TOR, though; it’s just for testing your firewall etc. Useful information on the site, too. Tell Windoze users the bit about MICE.


    Is your prospective employer asking for your CV in M$ Word .doc format, by any chance? There’s a reason for that:


    M$ Word “metadata” can give away more than that, too. In a worst-case scenario, the entire edit history or “undo” data can be included.

    Bed time for me. Goodnight, folks.

  17. I wish i could help you more to see past your own predisposition and see the bigger picture Geoff but i can’t keep pointing you towards the truth – my arm’s hurting. Have a look at my previous post above regarding the IPCC and how the IAC admit in their own words that the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed

  18. I just popped back to say; I only gave examples of security and privacy problems with Micro$oft software, but don’t go getting the impression that Mac is any better. The iPhone was caught making a log of everywhere its users took the things; yep, longitude and latitude from its GPS system.

    All proprietary software can contain hidden malware “features”. The only guarantee that your software can be set not to spy on you is if the source code is published so that all the world can see. Transparency. That means Free software, ie. software under the GNU GPL (General Public License) or one of the other Free licenses.

    Give-away “freeware” is also non-Free software. It’s a matter of freedom, not money or price.

  19. Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year.


  20. “The ultimate goal of the study was to better understand what the future of climate change may look like,” said Feakins, an assistant professor of Earth sciences at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences. “Just as history has a lot to teach us about the future, so does past climate. This record shows us how much warmer and wetter it can get around the Antarctic ice sheet as the climate system heats up. This is some of the first evidence of just how much warmer it was.”


    “High carbon dioxide levels during the middle Miocene epoch have been documented in other studies through multiple lines of evidence, including the number of microscopic pores on the surface of plant leaves and geochemical evidence from soils and marine organisms. While none of these ‘proxies’ is as reliable as the bubbles of gas trapped in ice cores, they are the best evidence available this far back in time. While scientists do not yet know precisely why carbon dioxide was at these levels during the middle Miocene, high carbon dioxide, together with the global warmth documented from many parts of the world and now also from the Antarctic region, appear to coincide during this period in Earth’s history.”

    Emphasis mine.

    There is no consensus on “man made” climate change.  The climate fluctuates and it always has. CO2 levels also fluctuate. 


  21. Zoologist: Recent examinations of core samples taken in the antarctic show that ferns used to grow there. Is that the sort of climate you’re saying was just dandy (which – perhaps incidentally – was not conducive to an inhabitable planet for human life)? Perhaps you think this NASA reference has provided you with another “gotcha” – sadly it does not. It rather proves the opposite.

    Don’t you find it strange that your climate “sceptic” leaders want to reference 1998 all the time on one hand, but prefer vastly longer timescales (by several orders of magnitude) when talking about anything beyond 15 years?

    Your wikipedia ref – like the references from pretty much everyone on the GCC denial end of the argument – are utterly useless. You will not find a wikipedia entry in any scientific paper by way of reference. You, and Billy, keep churning out new quotes instead of ever responding directly to direct responses. The “Internets” are positively heaving with quotes and references to anything at all you want to establish, but make it no more true.


    I’ve asked ScouseBilly & Chris Jones about why they are so earnest to convince the rest of us that there is nothing to worry about. Just carry on, business as usual. I’ve not even received an acknowledgement of the question, less still a reply. Maybe you can be the first – why are you putting such effort into denying the obvious fact of man made GCC?

    (Before you bat the question back – I’m concerned that we’re turning this planet into a lifeless cinder, and would rather that we did not. Your position happily coincides with that of the cash-heavy fossil fuel industry, and their right-wing corporate shills and stooges, not to mention their legion of useful idiots.)

  22. Memo from Cameron to Mitchell.

    Andrew you must be nicer to the plebs/morons at the gate. David.


    The paper reported a source who quoted Mr Mitchell as saying: “Open this gate, I’m the Chief Whip. I’m telling you – I’m the Chief Whip and I’m coming through these gates.”

    His bike with the wicker basket looks like Miss Marple vintage.

  23. ‘G4S should forego its £57m management fee after failing to supply the required number of Olympics security staff, a committee of MPs has said.’

    G4S should …… but will they and who will make them?

  24. Wonder if Craig produced any comic gems from his postings?

    John Major’s gift horse… and other Foreign Office tales
    Andrew Bryson Producer, BBC Radio 4’s The Spanish Ambassador’s Suitcase


    The Spanish Ambassador’s Suitcase begins on Monday 24 September at 1100 BST on BBC Radio 4.

  25. Mark Golding, thank you for raising awareness of why Dr David Kelly was dispensible. I’ve reposted this on the ‘Re-Open the Inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly’ Facebook page.


  26. deepgreenpuddock

    21 Sep, 2012 - 9:22 am


    For the layperson, i think the argument is not worth getting into. Scouse Billy’s contribution can be ignored. If you go back to one of his very early posts, it is obvious that he has no foundation for comment as he confuses the very elementary word, molecule, used in his post to describe an ionic, crystalline substance.There were other glaring errors that would not be made by a C pass GCSE in Chemistry . He also shows no capacity to come to terms with scientific literature, and simply passes opinions gained second hand from dubious sources-hearsay.

    In fact I have some scientific credibility in this matter, as I was involved in research into the range and distribution of various organisms in this country, and contributed to papers written in that field. However it was 35 years ago and i would hesitate to rely on such material. It will certainly be superseded by more up to date information, and techniques have changed and improved.

    There was a distinct trend that could be picked up then by the laborious processes of mapping and surveying over long periods of time. The story seemed to suggest that the range of many animals, insects mainly, and some plants, was drifting northwards and some animals numbers were increasing in areas previously where rare, and declining in areas previously abundant.

    Of course there are and were many conflicting factors and although it is tempting to relate such changes to climate change, it is impossible to survey or control many factors that influence these numbers.

    On the other hand the finding was repeated often, and over time there emerged a strong sense that the changes could probably only be attributed to some overriding factor that was affecting numerous species. In other words,some rather large influence, rather some other factor(s) that might create more local changes or particular changes confined to a few species.

    However the point i am trying t make is that credibility is served not by the force of the conviction (as in Scouse Billy and others) but by hesitation in making strong pronouncements.
    If anyone is actually dealing with the science, it induces reservation and caution, because it requires the person involved to try to analyse often conflicting and contradictory data. When the work is actually done by someone, it induces a degree of appropriate humility and respect for the work of others.

    I have tried to get to grips with the physical science of climate change. I have some background in Chemistry and Physics and I can follow some of the papers, (but not all) however the idea that i can apply an analysis of that work and pronounce it false or otherwise is ludicrous.
    I am not sure of much but i am pretty sure that Scouse Billy should observe the principle of keeping the mouth shut. you may look a fool by doing so, but better that than confirming it by speaking.

    There is little doubt in my mind that there also a great capacity to conflate ideas to promote a belief or political perspective or sympathies that are acquired in a rather complex way, during our development, a rather curious mix of fantasy, reasoning, prejudice and disposition, and try to use the validity that science has enjoyed to promote this curious set of beliefs. i think everyone is susceptible to some lesser or greater degree to this process.

    What has happened however is that any reputation for validity or reliability in Science is being eroded. This erosion has been going on since the late seventies when Social Science researchers started investigating the way that scientific research was conducted. There were many contributors to this process,(including Foucault) but the essence is that there are a lot of reasons to doubt the neutrality and objectivity of Science, and it is arguable that virtually all science must be attached to some sort of health warning or even some kind of statement of the interests and background to the researchers. Of course that process is mostly impractical.

    It is also becoming clear that ‘scientists’ are not the pure souls they were once taken to be. I personally know of a well thought of researcher who was guilty of blatant fraud in experimental work in order to get a grant.from the SRC. I also know of a Ph.D in molecular Biology that was largely fabricated.

    These situations are not uncommon, although not quite universal, however they are also unspeakable. I cannot name a person who was guilty of such behaviour without creating huge trouble for myself. The Ph.D fabrication became obvious at a meeting. There was genuine shock that it had slipped through the system, but it seemed to me that at the time, there was a sense that the person involved (then on a post-doc elsewhere), was having her cards marked. The word would go out, and any work she produced would be scrutinised much more diligently than otherwise.

    The ‘well-thought’ of researcher ( an Oxford graduate) was rather discriminatory. He knew that the grant application would not be scrutinised as deeply as a formal paper, and while i don’t doubt his capacity for fraud, i think he would have been aware of the limits of what it was possible to get away with, and the consequences of being found out. I suspect he would have drawn a line at the falsification of published results. There was too much to lose, and the work was almost certainly co-authored, and would require some collusion,which is verty difficult if not impossible to achieve.

    Obviously this whole situation is as complex as any activity system, as complex and as potentially as corrupt, as, say, a diplomatic service.

    For what is is worth, i met one of the IPCC contributors recently and had an opportunity to discuss some matters. His attitude was quite impressive and convincing, in that he was able to summon up arguments and data with great ease. He was extremely studious and had a highly recognisable academic perspective and followed his area of Science with great diligence. It was quite obvious why he would be an IPCC member.

    He was certainly not a polemicist but I sensed that he was pre-disposed (psychologically) to a particular perspective-distinctively English intellectual-liberal and tolerant, in the best sense, and perhaps rather non-conformist Christian, although not involved in organised religion. He had strong principles and a very clear sense of propriety. i am certain he would not deliberately falsify material. His integrity is/was without doubt. However people cannot escape their background and neutralise that background.

  27. chris jones wrote at 21 Sep, 2012 – 2:39 am

    “I wish i could help you more to see past your own predisposition and see the bigger picture Geoff”

    Thanks for trying, but could you help me to understand what exactly is my predisposition? I can’t help feeling that this would be the key to my moving on.

  28. Just over 10 mins that summarises the climate science issues as I see them evinced succingtly by Dr Tim Ball:


    Try not to play the the man but hear him out.

  29. Talk about out of touch.

    Lord Young, an economic adviser to David Cameron, provoked controversy last night as he questioned whether Britain really was in recession.

    This specimen is an advisor, and he has the ear of the Cameron, what are the basis of his “sound judgement”?

    “I am not sure the Government can actually measure the economy any more. The internet has had such a tremendous effect on business the last few years. I’m not sure for example sales through Google, eBay, ever get measured. One of the things I think we are doing if we are not careful is we are going to talk ourselves into a recession.”

    Well his Lordship full of piss and wind has adduced to be optimistic and stop the pessimism that is causing the depression that is optimistically called double dip recession (Orwell ought to be turning in his grave). This is akin to the other Lordship Willy Whitelaw whom pontificated; people must top going around the country and spreading apathy!

    Democracy, dounchyou love its smell in the mornings?

  30. O/T like so much here. Update on the Independent PCC campaign in Norfolk

    Hilarious, the apparent Friday talking point here in Norfolk today is the Ex police chair of the authority resigning his seat, because he failed to become the Cons. candidate, he decided to re-brand himself as Independent.
    He’s leaving his job to campaign and has reigned his lifelong membership of the Conservative party.

    Thin is this talking point is being censored heavily, with the public vote going heavily against him, the article has now been pulled from the front pages and disappeared into the background.


    This is my reply as yet to appear….

    “”If Steven Bett has always been an Independent, why did he contest the Conservative party hustings? Only when he failed did he become the default Independent. Steven used his Authority meeting as an election platform and has left Norfolk taxpayers without a chair for the next month., rather than handing over his responsibilities in an orderly manner. Mervin Lambert on the other hand has been an Independent candidate some 20 years ago and still is. The EDP has refused to print Mervin Lambert’s condolences to the two police women killed, they are refusing to print his official campaign photos, in short they are trying their best to keep true Independents out of the contest, whilst many Norfolk voters are fed up with such machinations of the electoral process.”

  31. Scousebilly

    You ask people not to ‘play the man’ – an inherently reasonable request but one i intend to ignore, for reasons I will explain.

    Firstly – I will reiterate, as my point seemed to be lost by Chris Jones – I have NO position on whether or not AGW is real. I am not qualified to judge. Nor will you find me taking a position on its veracity in here, although I suspect you will believe you do.

    I watched the video with, at least initially, an open mind, ready to try to absorb the scientific arguments he was about to make. However, he didn’t make any. All he did was make accusations about corruption and deceit, therefore it’s hard to respond without making it ‘about him’ as there was no substance. Here are the problems I have with taking him seriously:

    The first minute and a half of the video is concerned with the interviewer trying to establish his credentials, making big play of him being ‘Dr’ without explaining what he’s a doctor of, holding climate change advocates such as Al Gore up to scornful reference and silly comments about dancing polar bears. This is a good way to close my mind to what follows, however I struggled on. Later in the piece, the interviewer says (without correction from Dr Ball) that ‘Man made global warming is an oxymoron’ This is nonsensical bias, just trying to say anything negative. Regardless of whether or not AGW is ‘real’, how is it an oxymoron? Why wouldn’t Dr Ball correct him on this?

    Tim Ball’s opening line didn’t make it any better “They started with global warming because they wanted to focus on CO2. They accuse people like me”. Who is this ‘they’? Why did they want to focus on CO2? HE just sails on as if this is some self-evident truth. He repeatedly talks about ‘they’ without explaining. To me, thats analogous to the use of “The Illuminati” which is used by certain people to explain everything wrong in the world.
    On both sides of the argument, there are a wide variety of people. Some people on either side will argue from strong personal conviction. Some (many?) people on either side will have reached their conclusion and see the other side as ‘the enemy’. Using this generic ‘they’ plants the entire ‘opposition’ into one homegeneous lump, indistinct from each other. This switches sceptics off, enrages AGW advocates and cheers the deniers.

    Quickly, I will address the terms ‘sceptic’ and ‘denier’. Dr Ball wishes to be called a sceptic rather than a denier. He says that the term ‘denier’ brings an association with Holocaust deniers. Now I will admit there is some unfortunate element of truth in that, but I don’t know a better word to use than ‘denier’ for someone who denies something. Sceptic is not the right term. I believe I am a sceptic as I haven’t taken a position and I refuse to take a position on something I don’t understand, and I doubt all that is put in front of me. People such as Tim Ball, and with respect yourself, do not stand in a position of doubt, which indicates an open mind, but rather specifically deny that AGW is real. Whether you are ultimately proved correct in that stance or not makes no difference – you are no sceptic when you absorb one side of the argument unquestioningly and make knee-jerk refutations of the other.

    Preposterous claims were made such as the only funding that is available goes only to scientists who are trying to prove that CO2 is the cause of climate change.
    He quoted Canada’s Auditor General as saying that 6 billion dollars went to funding science to demonstrate the reality of AgW and none to disprove it. It sounds very damning the way he puts it, but it doesn’t sound like the kind of claim that would come from that office, at least not phrased like that. I looked through their reports but couldn’t find any such claim. Do you have a source for that, or do you simply accept him at his word? If you do accept him at his word, then fine, but try to reconcile that with any notion of being a sceptic for a minute. I’d certainly be interested to see the report so I could read it myself rather than take one side’s spin on it.

    He finished with a diatribe about the IPCC being a political tool to cut oil supplies and prevent development, and how AGW was being turned into a religion. All very dark and awful, but irrespective of his lack of evidence, he fails to mention what the possible motive for this would be, and also fails to address it’s utter failure in it’s aim of curbing oil use. Clearly ‘they’ haven’t been very successful. If you, he or anyone else can demonstrate the truth of this claim to me, I will listen, but I need more than an evidence-free assertion in order to believe it.

  32. I was very interested to read Mark Golding’s comment on 20 September (10.27 pm) regarding the death of David Kelly. For some time I’ve wondered whether Dr Kelly’s demise was linked with the post 9/11 anthrax attacks in the US and what he knew about them.

    Apart from avoiding an under oath inquest the Hutton Inquiry might have been seen by the establishment as a valuable diversion from the truth with its focus on Gilligan’s broadcast, the 45 minute claim, Dr Kelly’s appearance at the FAC and so on.

    My new Dr Kelly blog has so far concentrated on the more forensic evidence to demonstrate the cover up perpetrated by police, politicians and judiciary. When more of the truth comes out about Dr Kelly’s death then the repercussions could be seismic. I think that the motivation to consider perverting the course of justice in this case has been extremely high.


  33. Chris Jones, you wrote: “…but i can’t keep pointing you towards the truth”.

    Hmmm. You can’t do that, because no one can. We can only point out evidence. You, Chris, seem to think that you know “the truth” and where to find it. I have tried to avoid making such assumptions on my own behalf since I overcame being a Jehovah’s Witless [sic]; back then, I not only “knew” The Truth, I was “in” it.

    How well anyone can know a truth is a matter of personal familiarity with the question. On a matter of, say, the location of my wristwatch, I may know that it’s not in my briefcase, whereas Mr I Pinchstuff claims that it is. I can know, truthfully, that my watch was in my briefcase, because that’s where I put it. But I can’t then claim the status of “truth” for my assertion that “Mr Pinchstuff stole my watch”; there are other possible explanations. Mr Pinchstuff can know the truth or falsity of whether he took that watch or not. But he can’t even assert as truth “I stole Clark’s watch”, because he doesn’t know whether that watch was actually mine.

    That’s how complex it gets with just two people and two objects. There are 30,000 signatures on that petition you cited. I think, Chris, that you need to review your ideas about truth.

  34. @Chris Jones –

    I took up your challenge to “Have a look at my previous post above regarding the IPCC and how the IAC admit in their own words that the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed”.

    I downloaded the entire report – for good measure, I made sure it was the pre-publication one from the site you recommended, as you seemed to place more weight on that one. I then did a search on the word ‘peer’. I suspect you have not done this as I almost immediately found the following: “IPCC’s peer review process is elaborate, involving two formal reviews and one or more informal reviews of preliminary text.”, “The assessment relies on observations, global models, and on peer-reviewed literature” and for balance: “Working Groups II and III rely more heavily on non-peer-reviewed literature”. On page 18 it then explains why this was necessarily so.

    The IAC even specifically condones the inclusion of non-peer reviewed material: “The primary source of information is intended to be peer-reviewed literature. Where such literature is not available, appropriately considered and documented non-peer-reviewed literature… …may be used.”

    Now how does that square with your representation? Sure, some of the 47 instances of the word peer refer to usage of non peer-reviewed material, but it is clear that they do not condemn this practice, but simply recommend that the IPCC is more transparent about when they do include material of this nature.

    A failing of the IPCC, but nothing even remotely like the one you are asserting.

  35. Oy vey! bin Laden’s driver suspected in the frame that murdered Ambassador Stevens. Urrm is that Salim Hamdan? I thought he was in Yemen. Hold on!!- it was a bearded mutation called Sufyan Ben Qumu according to The Mail.


    Although not according President Obama who believes the killing was executed by inflamed extremists in a spontaneous assault.

    Obama, a lawyer, is wise enough to keep al-Qaeda under wraps or in the bottle considering his proxy war in Syria is crumbling in the main media who are struggling to hold onto the Syrian government atrocity line in the frame of heinous nefarious foreign(Saudi)terrorist bombing of innocent women and children perfectly captured in images by an exSAS British mercenary. Thank-you.

  36. As Joseph Postma points out,

    “For Earth, the blackbody temperature works out to 255K (-18C), and in fact, this is exactly what the temperature of the planet Earth is! The temperature of the Earth is exactly the temperature it is supposed to be. But what the alarmists do is mix up two different physical metrics and phenomena: they compare the blackbody temperature of the Earth to its surface temperature, when these are completely different phenomena.”

    Anybody that is scientifically competent realises that the 33 degrees difference between the average surface temperature of c. 15 degrees C and planetary temperature of -18 degrees C is not down to some mythical greenhouse blanket. Clearly the average planetary temperature would lie not at the surface but somewhere between surface and top of atmosphere.

    Energy in = energy out – the sun drives our climate, we don’t.

    This is the nub of the scientific fraud feeding a political depopulation agenda.

  37. deepgreenpuddock

    21 Sep, 2012 - 1:01 pm

    @ Geoff

    These polemics (let’s call them), such as the Ball’s, complain that he is called a ‘denier’ while he is guilty of using similar language himself and not actually answering any of the points, based on observational facts. He simply say that the theory is wrong. He occasionally ‘cites’ a few common sense idea,s items such saying the sun changes(flickers) and affects the climate and that there is an ongoing process called climate change and that all current observations fits easily within the established pattern of variability. However that is not correct. The science revolves around trying to identify signals which are distinct and different to that which might be expected from historical or other data and does take into account known changes in the energy which is striking the earth and other phenomena such as variations in ocean currents.

    Admittedly this process is extremely difficult due to the complexity of the system and it involves mathematical thinking which I can guarantee he does not follow, because, if he did, and had identified an analytic error, he would triumphantly expose it by writing a paper about it, because he would be aware of the great benefit to him as a scientist to be able to do such a thing .He prefers a dodgy web based TV outfit because he knows he will be paid, but not challenged, on any of the substance of his position He does not answer any observation, such as the changing ranges and distribution of various organisms. In other words he does not provide any plausible and sensible alternative thesis.
    He talks about ‘truth’ but that just gives the game away. George Bush talked about truth (and liberty), meaning the sel-attributed truth of his religious convictions, and the liberty of the grave and shopping in Wal-mart.
    Bush was a deeply sophisticated man and narcissistic but also deeply stupid.

    Ball is simply adopting a position in the culture wars that have been ongoing since at least Raegan, not talking science. This culture war has dragged many people, including scientists, into adopting a polarised position, and unfortunately some people, followers, feel obliged to also position themselves, regardless of their ignorance, and worthlessness of their op[inions, on one side or other. However such tub thumping is simply a sign of the same profound ignorance that Bush displayed.
    Scouse Billy and many people (me) on this thread will be dead before this issue is definitively resolved scientifically.

  38. Deepgreenpuddock

    Yes, I find it depressing as I would like to read some genuine, sceptical assessment. I would recognise such a piece instantly, as it wouldn’t claim to reach a definitive conclusion in a few short paragraphs.

    Unfortunately, presentations that are short on anything beyond ‘preaching to the converted’ such as the Dr Ball clip are omnipresent and held up as evidence by the credulous. When I ask a question about it, the presenter generally moves on wordlessly to the next topic as scousebilly demonstrates immediately prior to your post.

    Oh well, such is life.

  39. Scouse Billy

    21 Sep, 2012 - 1:22 pm

    Geoff – it was a short interview on youtube not intended to be a scientific paper with references and I said that it summarises my position.

    I hardly moved on – I simply pointed out the fallacy of the Trenberth-Kiel energy budget diagram that epitomises the greenhouse myth.

  40. As a lateral thought buddies our Sun revolves around Sirius and our solar system revolves around the center of the Milky Way according to Mayan and recent observations. Can this affect climate change? When all is said and done everything relates to to the cosmos.

  41. Scousebilly

    …and you asked that the man be heard out, which I obliged. I’m just not sure what was meant to be heard. Rather than take me up on anything I posted, you simply switch to another strand. This is suggestive of dogma rather than enquiry

    I find Dr Ball’s background on sourcewatch.org to be far more revealing in terms of understanding his position in the debate than his own ‘c.v.’ (and I use the quote marks advisedly) which is the most disturbingly vague such effort I think I have ever seen. Still don’t know what his PhD is. He says where and when he got it, but not what field it was in, which is a curious way to present on a c.v.

  42. Scouse Billy

    21 Sep, 2012 - 1:44 pm

    Mark, that is a very pertinent observation – in fact, there is a theory attributed largely to Henrik Svensmark that suggests just that.

    In a nutshell, cosmic rays are hypothesised to ionise particles (aerosols) in our atmosphere that in turn nucleate (seed) clouds.
    With increased sunspot activity more cosmic rays enter our atmosphere and more clouds are seeded reflecting more of the suns energy back into space before it can warm the surface – during the Dalton and Maunder minima (little ice ages) there was more sunspot activity observed and this has been proposed as the reason for the colder climate.

    It is the basis for the Cloud experiment at CERN.

    see The Cloud Mystery (Danish TV Documentary):


  43. Scouse Billy

    21 Sep, 2012 - 1:46 pm

    That’s right Geoff – Dr Ball has been persecuted for questioning the consensus!

  44. Scouse Billy

    21 Sep, 2012 - 1:57 pm

    Mark, Correction: been a while but it’s absence of sunspots (magnetic activity) that allows the cosmic rays in.

  45. @ deepgreenpuddock,

    Was the explanation of the aphid and greenfly ‘flux’, and the subsequent flux of ladybirds, of the mid 70s, ever definitively expounded? I’ve seen great changes in the relatively long term make-up of bird and animal life on the Isle of Wight, from the 60s onward, to know first hand that extreme shifts have occurred. But I’m not convinced that it was global warming that was/is the culprit. Weather patterns can explain short term fluxes, and climate change can account for long term changes; then again so can farming practices, and their ever potent and efficient large scale use of pesticides. The latter has a political lobby that can stop research dead [nothing to see here, move along], whereas the former can be made a cause celebre for ‘crowd control’, and scare tax harvesting.

    Regarding the credibility of modern science, I’m convinced that it is imploding, even in the relatively robust disciplines like physics and chemistry.

    For example:

    I was doing a PhD in liquid crystal physics at Manchester University in the early 90s, and as I had won an award for experimental excellence at Manchester Poly [don’t laugh :) ], I was invited to be a lab demonstrator for the 3rd year undergrad physics. One of the experiments in that lab revolved around the students measuring the time for a liquid crystal to switch in a cell, at various applied driving voltages, and varying temperatures. All good undergrad stuff.

    Two students were assigned [volunteered] for that particular experiment, which would involve working on it for several Thursdays; so they had more than plenty of time to perform measurements, ‘research’, models, and presentation. I was informed that one of the students was destined to win the student of the year award, the other student [they would work as a team, and share the marks] was a very assertive Greek student.

    The labs were a fifth of the final years assessment, so stakes were high. The equipment was already set up for them, so all that was left was to follow the ‘lab script’ as far as objectives were concerned, the methods of analysis was left up to the student, to shine with their techniques.

    With relatively high voltages, the oscilloscope gave a well behaved time trace for the students to record; but at lower voltages, the trace developed an ‘anomalous bump’. I bit my tongue, and encouraged the students to ‘discover’ the cause of the anomaly, and left them to it [it was caused by a conflict between the change in the capacitance due to the rotating liquid crystal altering the cells dielectric constant, verses the static capacitance of the glass cell acting as a ‘fixed’ reactive capacitor. something a 3rd year physicist should have suspected]. After the allotted weeks, the students presented their results, and I with a member of academic staff would mark their efforts.

    Then the surprise, the Greek student, who was adept at programming, had used a computer to analyse the oscilloscope output, and automatically provide the calculated results. Alas the program could only handle ‘well-behaved’ graphical output, and so the students opted to ignore the ‘anomalous bumps’ of the real data.

    I felt I was being overly generous to award them 70%, and rather dominated the member of staff [I was a mature student], who wanted to award more points! Further, when word got around that the ‘wonder’ student had only gotten a ‘mere first’ from some lowly Poly oik of a lab demonstrator, it rather split the department regarding my credibility. And it became knowledge to another PhD student, who was himself an undergraduate from Manchester University, who recognised his computer program had been used by the Greek student without citing the true author. But it was too late for me, I had offended the status quo, and after the Greek student complained to the head of the department [to his credit, the star student took it on the chin], the students were given more points, and I was put on probation.

    That was just one of many eye openers as to the decay of academic standards in what used to be an exemplary physics institute. Another is the fact that 25% of the student intake at Manchester Uni’ got firsts, compared to the Poly where only 4% of the whole science faculty intake got firsts; even less for physicists. Compounded by the lack of external scrutiny regarding exam questions. The Poly had the CNAA to ensure that exam questions were not rigged; whereas the exam questions at the Uni’ were not scrutinized, as a trip to John Rylands library would confirm from looking through past papers, that despite the higher academic standard required to answer the Uni’ papers, they were the same questions year in, year out. Therefore any moderately competent student could get a first by simply having a good memory.

    It’s an ongoing cultural decay, and not only limited to the UK:


    It’s the deadly combination of ‘scientific conceit’ coupled with lax criticism brought about by namby-pamby moral relativism, that is resulting in a Dunning-Kruger type skills inversion, with the credibility of science drowning in the rise of the parvenues.

  46. He was persecuted… of course, and how do we know this – because he says it to be true.

    Sourcewatch are persecuting him by pointing out that he is chairman of NRSP and a previous advisor for “friends of science” (a name which positively screams of newspeak), both organisations heavily linked to the oil industry. TBH, as cases of persecution go, I don’t think this is up there with the worst of them.

    Does ‘persecution’ explain the incredible opacity of his own c.v. which shows the last 15 years of his career simply as “Environmentalist, Public Speaker, Consultant, Author, columnist.” while his 2 years of military service from 50 years ago is more detailed?

  47. Scouse Billy

    21 Sep, 2012 - 2:23 pm

    Back to science (for those who are “time poor”) – from 30min on in the Cloud Mystery (link above) Nir Shaviv (astrophysicist) and Svensmark direcly address the relevance of the Milky Way and our Solar systems position within it to our climate.

  48. Ben Franklin

    21 Sep, 2012 - 2:51 pm

    Clark; Interesting you were ‘in the Truth’. How long? Me; 7 years.

    I just couldn’t get past the fossil record.

  49. Sufyan Ben Qumu

    The script writers, psychologist, and anthropologists gathered in a backroom and given their task: reappraise the enemy.

    As any school kid knows “Q” is a scary, sinister, and dangerous letter, as in the bond movies Q is a trouble maker. Added to the scary bit is the Pavlovian “bin” and the finishing touches are the Sufyan, this latter bit indicates a Turkic connection, but hey Arab, Turks, what matters they are Muslims, aren’t they?

    Now that we have the villain object all we need to do is to find the methods for this villain to conduct his “Jihad”. This means the story of the day embellished and the villain injected in to it.

    Well that is how these bastards ride around in their big cars and enjoy no questions asked company credit cards.

    However, those of us whom value mundane and old fashioned concepts like dignity, humanity, and conscience would rather ride on the buses, keeping expenses to a minimum to meet the rent and energy bills, but to be proud; these never sold out.

  50. Ben Franklin

    21 Sep, 2012 - 3:52 pm


    Obama can’t have it both ways. Qumu’s detention was the linchpin. No, it wasn’t the films fault, in a vacuum, but are there really any vacuums? The film was a tool, but the trigger is the due-process genie-in-a-bottle released, and it will be hard to put it back in. The Sorcerer’s apprentice has lost control of the wand, and the brooms multiply exponentially.

  51. Hi Scouse Billy

    You no understand (in Italian accent), Earth is an independent eco system that is unlike any other place in the whole damn universe.

    Now let me educate you;
    Life is found only on Earth, as well as water, and seeing as we human beings were created in the image of God and God has been making everything in six days that lasted 900 years for Adam to live to populate the place with his seed, that means the lot of the incestuous bastards keeping the banking and other lucrative scams in the family and not letting any of the other distant cousins to have look in.

    Now do you understand?

    Best learn properly because soon you will have to sit a stringent written test, as per M. Gove new polices.

  52. This filter thing must hate me, or love me, which I cannot fathom out? It keeps grabbing my comments and rudely telling me;”Your comment is awaiting moderation.” and to add insult to injury in bold too. Oh the humanity of it all, oh the calumny, oh the ……

  53. Anyone who has any doubts about the IPCC being a political rather than scientific organisation should read The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert by Donna Laframboise. The IPCC is about as trustworthy as its namesake…

    This book details the make up and workings of the IPCC. It is fully referenced and brings together many threads you may read about elsewhere, sometimes even in the MSM. Gosh. Such is the documentary evidence, it seems beyond rebuttal.

    The Anthony Watts smear in a comment above is breathtaking. The work he has done (genuine scientific enquiry) puts some of the warmist scientists to shame.

    Another book worth reading is The Hockey Stick Illusion. Again, fully referenced and quite damning. The creator of the Hockey Stick (Michael Mann) does not like to discuss the contents of this book, because he has no answer to it.

    I recall Craig previously saying he believed in man-made global warming. I for one given credence to Craig’s comments about the FCO and the shenanigans of government, compared to those I read in the MSM. But not global warming. Craig and many readers here will have taken views about climate change from the media and establishment sources. They are not always to be trusted! You know this or wouldn’t be here! Seek out dissidents (like Craig is r.e. government) from the scientific community and you will start to see a more credible picture of what is really going on. BTW anything written by George Monbiot (who can by OK on other subjects) is almost always bonkers.

    I speak as someone scientifically trained who accepted the theory until I started thinking hard about it myself.

  54. Ben Franklin

    21 Sep, 2012 - 4:13 pm

    What is the crux of the disagreement? Humans, like all life are carbon-based. What have we contributed to the ecosystem? Plastic? Cow farts, and cyclic natural phenomenon may be the lion’s share of warming, but can anyone suggest we don’t contribute?

  55. Still on the science thing. Anyone who rates people by their qualifications is deluded. I have met quite a few PhDs who are seriously deficient in the thinking department. This goes for Professors too. Appeals to authority don’t work in science. Well, they do but shouldn’t.

  56. Fucking hell the bottom has fallen off even the crime business now:

    Warning issued over plans to close 11 sheriff courts in Scotland

    A PROPOSAL to close 11 sheriff courts across Scotland threatens access to justice, the Law Society of Scotland has warned.

    The Scottish Courts Service (SCS) has begun a three-month consultation, outlining its plan to shut sheriff courts in Dornoch, Duns, Kirkcudbright, Peebles, Rothesay, Alloa, Cupar, Dingwall, Arbroath, Haddington and Stonehaven.

    However in line with the mandated optimism by Lord Young the economic advisor to PM, one could also put a positive spin on this as;

    Crime business is getting deregulated and it is viewed to be fast becoming the only way of earning a living in UK. After all if the banksters got away with it, so can the ninety nine percentiles get away with it too!

    Enterprise and equal opportunity taken care of, now lets move onto how to Freedom the heck out of some place or other overseas.

  57. What will those secular bastards taking the piss out of the outraged Muslims: say, when they read this.

    A senior member of the Royal College of General Practitioners is under investigation after telling medical students that they should act in a less “overtly gay” fashion in order to pass their exams.

    According to the Independent, the inquiry was launched following the discovery that Dr Una Coales had written a controversial guide setting out ways in which minority candidates could “neutralise bias” from examiners when trying to pass the Royal College’s Clinical Skills Assessment.

  58. Scouse Billy

    21 Sep, 2012 - 4:45 pm

    J, thank you for raising an important point – here of all places, there is such an acceptance by some including our host of MSM establishment dogma wrt AGW.

    I just read a great quotation from a fellow “slayer” (as I consider myself):

    “The “typology” for this Faux debate is obvious….there are three sides, Warmists, Luke Warmists and Slayers….and two sides are wrong. There is NO emperical evidence that the “atmospherics” of GHE exist anywhere beyond climate insiders computer models. Complex science is not easily reducable to the intentionally reduced layman level of understanding. Bullet point rebuttals become useless and therefore require reference to other supporting research. CO2 does not “capture” or redirect IR energy. The absorption process lasts a billionth of a second. The momentary kinetic energy boost is followed by a lower energy, longer wave emission that is invisible to additional CO2 absorption. This kinetic energy is then distributed to adjoining N2 and O2 molecuels in 4 billionths of a second, creating an upward convective current. Any downward directed emission would have less energy, and NO ability to warm the still warmer Earth.

    Everything about AGW is absurd, requiring cherry picked data and statistical manipulation, as Montford documents in his excellent book “The Hockey Stick Illusion”. But this is not the only illusion, as much of modern science is a fraud. Read more about this in “Becoming A TOTAL Earth Skeptic”.

    “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled”….Mark Twain

    We have been fooled for a reason, read “Fractional Reserve Banking Begat Faux Reality” to see the real reason for climate alarmism…and supporting branches of Faux Science.”

    Amen to that especially the Mark Twain quotation.

  59. Question for J

    I really want out of this ridiculous nonsense now, but I feel compelled to ask a quick question first.

    Anyway, J – at first you wrote:

    “Anyone who has any doubts about the IPCC being a political rather than scientific organisation should read The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert by Donna Laframboise. The IPCC is about as trustworthy as its namesake…”

    17 minutes later you wrote:

    Anyone who rates people by their qualifications is deluded.

    Well, in those intervening 17 minutes I was reading a little about Ms Laframboise’s book, and to sum up, it seems the titular complaint was that someone without a PhD wrote a report for the IPCC. She also quoted to Fox news in discussion of the very book you are promoting:

    “But the fact is, you are just not qualified without a doctorate. In academia you aren’t even on the radar at that point.”

    Can you see the contradiction here between your two posts, and which one should we ignore?

  60. Scouse Billy

    21 Sep, 2012 - 4:56 pm

    Geoff, it is the hypocrisy of the IPCC that states that its reports are prepared by the world’s best accredited peer reviewed scientific experts.

    LaFramboise investigated their claim – that is the point.

    J, is not contradicting his own perfectly correct view.

  61. Scousebilly,

    I will do something you have so far refused to do, and that is to respond to a post aimed at me.

    Can you point me to a link where the IPCC have made the statement you attribute to them? And by that, I mean a quote directly from them, not a link to a third party attribution.

    Should you be able to do so, I will judge them on that basis. Should you be unable to do so, I will put as little store in this allegation as I have in others I have read previously.

  62. Scouse Billy

    21 Sep, 2012 - 5:31 pm

    Chairman, IPCC
    Director General, The Energy and Resources Institute
    Director, Yale Climate and Energy Institute

    Excellencies, members of the media, distinguished ladies and gentlemen! I speak to you in the voice of the world’s scientific community, which in November 2007 completed IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), the collective effort of almost four thousand of the world’s best specialists working tirelessly over five years…


  63. Scouse billy, the large time required to turn any global system, not that we yet can do such a thing, would make it crucial to act.
    Lets face it, we cannot stop methane releases, we have not attempted it or could possibly stop them. No we instead are just about to drill and probe the North Atlantic/Artic floor with more oil wells, whilst methane releases happen all the time, but there are vast stores of it and if they would be released in a large amount, due to a particularly chaotic year, where temperatures sore and more methane gets released, then we will have a runaway situation, with rising temperatures galore.

    Should we act to stop this ecological supertanker and begin to feed in some new, more sustainable coordinates, or shall we go full steam ahead, gosh, that makes me think of Dr. Strangelove waving his hat madly as he descends.

  64. Scouse Billy

    21 Sep, 2012 - 6:00 pm

    Nevermind, it is a manufactured “crisis” – there is no empirical evidence for the radiative (greenhouse effect) model whatsoever.

    I do think there are real issues of poverty, pollution, and disease that need to be addressed but are if anything exacerbated by the “solutions” to this fake “problem” aside from the billions wasted on fake science that could and should be put to better use.

  65. Got totally bogged down in the al Hilli thread. Just surfacing for air.

    If you haven’t been there lately, you should check it out as a fine example of diversion, derailing and dissembling. One does wonder why?

    Meanwhile, London Met..

    London Metropolitan University wins reprieve in student visa row
    Judges rules more than 1,000 overseas students can start courses while LMU challenges suspension of licence


  66. Ben Franklin

    21 Sep, 2012 - 6:21 pm

    Hmmm. Human activity. What could go wrong? “Drill, baby, drill”


  67. Chris Jones 19 Sep, 2012 – 5:04 pm
    “30,000 recognised scientists have signed a petition denouncing the exagerated claims of man made global warming.”



    I do not have the knowledge to understand the science and must assess the opinions/credentials/motivations of those who do to make a judgement.

    I was genuinely interested in your impressive claim. Thanks for the link. I took a look at the site.

    First Impressions

    I have looked at a lot of web sites and my immediate intuitive reaction to this one was BEWARE. It has the look of a site trying to sell a miracle cure for headaches. It looked like the work of a marketeer rather than a scientific study. You know, patterned background, big red lettering.

    The home page says “31,487 American scientists have signed this petition”. American? Why only invite Americans to sign? Yet again not proof of anything but possibly an indicator of the myopic nature of this project.

    The “Qualifications of Signers” page explains “Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields.” They are “approved for inclusion”, they have obtained “formal” degrees. Now that is the language of marketeers, repeatedly reinforces great authority where in fact there is little.

    In fact even the project acknowledges the signatories merely have a science related degree. We shall look at the veracity of that claim in a minute but even taken at face value, so what? A degree is absolutely no indicator of an inquiring mind. Really none. I have met so many people with degrees who are idiots and even corruptible.

    So, my first impressions were not favourable. My internal alarm bells were singing. But hey that’s only my impression. So let’s look further.

    The People Behind The Project

    The project web site is registered to Arthur Robinson. Art is currently running for congress. He is for smaller government, less business regulation, reduced taxation, large miltary, private medical care, NRA. He opposes any welfare except charity.

    Now that list should have all our alarm bells ringing. He is, at the very least, in thrall of big business.

    Now can I see a reason for such a man to create a climate change denial project (if indeed this is what he has done)? You bet I can. Let me spell out my doubting logic. Big business deny climate change because acknowledgement would interrupt their profits. Art is their man and a scientist. He would be the perfect stooge for a denial propaganda exercise.


    Dr. Frederick Seitz is the scientist who compiled the arguments forwarded by the project. Seitz earned over half a million dollars lobbying for the tobacco industry. So a man who will clearly sell his soul.


    The homepage displays the signature of Edward Teller. Teller helped develop the hydrogen bomb and worked on Reagan’s star wars project. He was an active anti communist.


    The Signatories

    The signatories is merely a list of names. Nothing else at all. No other information about the signatories is provided. I simply googled a random selection. Here is the results for everyone that I searched for (I was not selective).

    David F Larochelle, MD
    I saw only 3 types of results for this name. One for his web site. Another for his entry on the project. The rest where for meaningless corporate listing sites which are meaningless and often used for data manipulation.

    His own web site, claiming he is a orthopdeic surgeon, has 8 pages. All the pages are empty except the home page which has contact details and an apology that the site is still under construction. However, the web site was put up in 2006. A quick search on the address shows it is actually occupied by North Bay Paediactrics with no DR Larochelle working there.

    So, one possibly real, but possibly not real, orthopdeic surgeon.


    Harry H. Kishineff
    Absolutely nothing except for his reference in the project’s list.

    Everett Williams Jameson Jr., Phd
    Jameson was a zoologist who wrote books about falconary and mammal evolution. He died in 2010.

    Betty W. Kjellstrom, DVM
    Kjellstrom practised as a vet but her licence expired in 2009.

    Daniel Tao, Ph.D
    A professor at the Department of Mining Engineering, University of Kentucky.

    H. William Leech, PhD
    Inconclusive but possibly a mechanical engineer in the nuclear industry. Leech died in May.

    Deanna K Belanger
    Absolutely nothing

    Wayne Reynolds Faircloth, PhD
    Faircloth was a biologist/botanist who died in 2008.

    Alvin R. Flesher
    Flesher was a mechanical engineer, model builder and badmington enthusiast who dies in 2007.

    Lawrence Harding Johnston, PhD
    Johnston has a B.A. in Foreign Languages. He is a partner in McConkey-Johnston International who claim to be “the best general consulting firm in the Christian marketplace”.


    Not a comprehensive analysis but I bet it’s more than you have done. So none of the above seem to be anything more than mediocre in their fields. And most of their fields give them little more insight into very complex specialist science than an informed hairdresser. With a few possible exceptions, but even these have a vested interest (mining, nuclear).

    Certainly this tiny cross section instills no faith that the list comprises a weight of expertise.

    But it takes no skill to do such research. If you still have faith in this list then why not research a few names yourself. But don’t be picky!

    My Conclusion
    The site is organised by people who are obvious propagandists for the corporate world. The list, by my small analysis, is made up of no experts, people who know nothing about the subject and others who might or might not exist.

    What a load of shit it is.

  68. LeonardYoung

    21 Sep, 2012 - 6:44 pm

    PIcking up on this point about consequences for the poor in underdeveloped countries, the warming lobby and perhaps well-meaning supporters have in the last decade swooped on third world nations including their hosted environmental conferences and in effect told the undeveloped world that it cannot have even the most basic sources of power that we all take for granted. In particular they have been told to feel guilty about having a meaningful electricity supply, meaningful being coal, gas, hydro or nuclear power, because solar and wind technology in their current states are woefully inadequate and extremely expensive.

    So while the developed countries are being asked to restrict their power usage by a small amount, the third world has been asked not to have conventional power at all. In effect this means the warmist lobby and green activist want to deny developing and already desperately poor rural communities in those countries from having any electricity. This kind of arrogance and complete naivity would soon be dispelled if the same activists were to live in a poor tribal village for just three days.

    In those three days they will learn what it is like to cook over a fire and breath in sulpher and carbon MON-oxide, or go to a local doctor’s surgery where there is barely enough power to run a refrigerator to keep medicines and drugs cool and therefore usable, or to preserve many foods for more than a day, or to have any light to see by after sunset.

    This naivity comes from a ludicrous romanticisation of tribal village life. And all this for the sake of a common gas (CO2) which is just one tiny part of a host of other possible reasons for a small rise in global temperature.

    Meanwhile, other really serious and proven pollutants have dropped off the warmists’ agenda, so obsessed are they by CO2. Of course you cannot trade in other pollutant “offsets” so the bigwigs of the environmnental lobby want to keep everyone focussed on CO2 trading, from which many of them have reaped vast rewards in addition to tax payer subsidised investment in new technologies (wind, solar and others) none of which have made any viable contribution to energy problems because of their vast expense and relative inefficiency.

    It is true that nations like China are major polluters and that is because their techniques of burning of coal is still in the dark ages. Western coal burning industries have never been cleaner and there are huge reserves of coal. Meanwhile the switch to bio-fuels has decimated food provision in the third world but in fact bio fuels ironically produce more CO2 than conventional fuels.

  69. Billy: thanks for stepping in, you saved me the bother. I try to avoid getting bogged down in global warming arguments on the internet these days as it gets tiresome very quickly. Hence my reference to a couple of books which, if people actually read them, can’t help but make them feel uneasy about the line they have been fed for years. The tide is turning anyway. I’m loathe to make predictions, but I’m certain global warming will be used as an example of what goes wrong when science and politics get mixed up. People on the left say AGW is happening so it must be true. And the reverse. Bollocks to both. Many a PhD study and book will be created on it and some names, familiar to a few here, will live on in infamy.

    Due to my work & background I associate with a lot of scientifically minded people. Once they have started looking into things and thought things through critically, none of them believes in the scare stories anymore. But hey, don’t believe me, I’m just some guy on the internet.

  70. Ben Franklin

    21 Sep, 2012 - 6:55 pm

    Well, not to muddy the water further for the Authoritarian, but worker productivity ( interest peaks !) declines 2.4% for each degree of temp increase. Is that a motivator?


  71. technicolour

    21 Sep, 2012 - 7:53 pm

    Phil: impressive background research, I think everyone must agree. Geoff, ditto. Thanks.

  72. Passerby 21 Sep, 2012 – 4:26 pm – Fucking hell the bottom has fallen off even the crime business now:Warning issued over plans to close 11 sheriff courts in Scotland

    Not for G4S it hasn’t. They have just got the tagging contract for Scotland.

  73. Scousebilly, I had hoped (genuinely) for a better quote from them. Something that actually went along with what you were saying – about the ‘best accredited’ and about nothing but peer reviewed work (I assume you meant peer reviewed work, rather than peer reviewed experts which was what you actually typed)

    What you gave me was a speech to an audience with the only relevant line being “the collective effort of almost four thousand of the world’s best specialists” No mention of accreditation, not peer review.

    I fail to see how this is the ‘smoking gun’ of hypocrisy in relation to a report being carried out by an expert in the field who is working towards their PhD rather than having already obtained it.

    Oh well, it was worth a try.

  74. Craig, have you made it to Question Time on the BBC yet 😉

  75. Yet another military death makes Mr Flynn’s expulsion from the HoC even more disgraceful.

    BREAKING NEWS:A soldier from 28 Engineer Regiment has been killed in a “non-hostile” shooting incident in Afghanistan. Next of kin told

    The latest STWC newsletter refers mainly to military deaths and to ‘bringing the troops home’.

  76. Ben Franklin, I was born ’63, and adopted; I have no memory of either genetic parent. I had no adoptive siblings. Adoptive Dad was never religious. Adoptive Mum sent me to Methodist Sunday school until she converted to Witlessism when I was 3 or 4, so I was 12ish when Armageddon was scheduled in 1975. I think I started to escape at about 15, but I still had lapses into fear until my early 20s.

    Mum was devout and pious, we did the whole thing; two hours each Sunday (Public Talk and Watchtower), half an hour’s preparation for the one hour Group each Tuesday, one hour Kingdom Ministry School followed by another one hour public lecture each Thursday, an hour Bible Study / Watchtower Study every Friday evening, to be ready for Watchtower on Sunday. Assorted “Work” (out “on the doors”) usually a couple of hours per week. Extra for Assemblies.

    I never really got to know my dad, because, of course, he was scheduled to be annihilated at Armageddon. Mum hated him anyway, and made sure I knew it.

    I didn’t escape by disbelief; the indoctrination and fear were too strong. Rather, I started to get to know non-believers and most of them seemed quite nice. I decided that if Jehovah God was going to kill the 99.95% of the population who weren’t In The Truth, the moral choice was to die with them rather than buy Eternal Life by believing what I was told.

    Sorry, I’m still pretty bitter about all this. I hope your experience was less heavy.

    I might not be on-line much this evening, but I’ll check in again later.

  77. Oh, I wasn’t allowed to study the fossil record, or anything that would contradict The Truth. Mum wrote to the school and ensured I was excluded from such things. In school Religious Education I sat alone copying the latest Witness book by hand into my exercise book. I was excluded from Christmas carol singing. For the Christian parts of school assembly, I had to go to the room that all the Jewish kids were sent to. For the first three years of secondary school I was the only Witness in the school. It’s remarkable I’m not crazier than I am.

  78. Clark, thanks for sharing. My horrible dragged-through-religion experience seems like a cakewalk in comparison! Bitter too here, sadly, but working through it. Authoritarian religion in my family was a natural shelter for my vicious mother, who had so many untreated neuroses that she subconsciously avoided all kinds of personal moral responsibility. Ergo, she attached herself to a faith in a cruel God, a deeply hierarchical society and various shades of war-mongering and anti-libertarian Government. Suffering was regarded, in the Puritan way, as a good thing, and the Devil was painted as a literal, real entity, who influence was sometimes declared to be at work.

    Phew, it all looks surreal and counterproductive at a distance, doesn’t it? But, children kept in thrall to frightening ideologies will believe anything. I’ve not seen my mother in seven years or so by choice, but I hear she is still a slave to her nonsense, and I’m sad for her. Not everyone escapes it.

    I wonder, have you considered an ex-JW group? I spotted a Midlands one whilst idly browsing some while ago. Here’s one for the South, and they’ve a do coming up in December: http://www.meetup.com/ex-jehovahswitness-uk/

  79. The member list of the above XJW group is closed, but this Midlands one is open, and a number of people there have been kind enough to share a little about their JW experiences. Stories about “disfellowship” [presumably ex-communication] within family groups are greatly saddening:


  80. Jon, thanks.

    “Ergo, she attached herself to a faith in a cruel God, a deeply hierarchical society and various shades of war-mongering and anti-libertarian Government.”

    Yep, sounds very similar. One of the last things my mum said to me before she died was:

    “Not every traitor is an Arab, but all Arabs are traitors.”

    Or was it the other way around? Doesn’t really matter, does it?

  81. Clark You are not crazy. You are amazingly open about your upbringing. I wonder what made your adoptive mother like the woman she was? It is a pity that you were the only child in the family and had no brother or sister to share some of the flak? It’s a very strange coincidence that both you and Jon had the same experience and fortunately emerged from it.

    Old Philip Larkin was right.


  82. The thing that keeps getting to me is that she could adopt a child and do that. It’s illegal these days to perform that horrible conditioning that turns out attack dogs, but children apparently have less rights than that.

  83. Well that explains the hedonist atheist ….

    Trouble is being frivolous is not called for……..

    Guys I am really sorry for your experiences, however you have opened my eyes into a world of hurt that I never knew existed.

    The nice little JW guy who calls on me, I hope will bot be putting his kids through the crap that you have been put through.

    I know some people cannot cope all on their own and need some deity of sorts to be around them to help them through their live.

  84. Propaganda for war from Channel 4. The introduction dispassionately talks of war as if tea on the vicarage war was being discussed.

    http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/210912/clipid/210912_4ON_ISRAEL_21 6.32 minutes

    ‘When will Israel attack Iran’ or similar. There is no mention of unlawfulness or of the warlike entity being the only ME nuclear armed state. It was terrible including the croaking from Kissinger at the end.

    The same entity killed two Palestinians in an airstrike on Gaza yesterday.

  85. Mary, yes – I knew that had to be “Here Be The Verse” before I clicked it :). British psychologist Oliver James quotes the poem in the preface, and respectfully takes the first line as a title, for his book on surviving family life.

  86. Mary, thanks. I don’t think I have any offspring out there…

    Oh Mum was probably fucked up by having an illegitimate child twenty years before she got hold of me. He was brought up thinking she was his sister and his gran was his mother. Mum kept it utterly secret. I only found out when his wife found me through Facebook, last year. He wanted to know who his dad was, but Mum wouldn’t reply to him. At least Mum heard from him, though, so she knew he’d found her. That gave me some grim satisfaction. Then she promptly died.

  87. Fedup, I really don’t think the problem is a belief in The Divine, which is pretty universal across societies. The problem is religious conditioning, which is required to sustain its dogmas and its authoritarian structure. Religion seems to have little to do with “God” whatsoever. That’s what the story of Jesus is all about, but people just had to turn it into yet another set of religions. Ultimately, these are opposites. One says, “you have a conscience, which is your connection to the divine, Follow it.” whereas the other says “ignore your conscience, and follow these rules, which, we repeat repeat repeat, were written by God.”

  88. And Fedup, be as frivolous as you like. God, I need a laugh occasionally!

  89. Fedup, don’t get cross with the JWs on the doorstep, because it is highly counter-productive. I’ve been there, and angry “householders” (that’s the approved JW term) just prove that The Devil is at work, which strengthens the faith.

    Religion can be defeated, and eventually diffused, by its internal belief structures. The stuff written in the “holy” books, well, obviously, some of it is there because political power structures preserved it for its utility in controlling the masses. But much is there because it’s good moral sense.

    You need a good knowledge of a religion to use its own principles to confound its adherents, but eventually, by asking questions about appropriate bits of their own belief-set, you can get them to think for themselves.

  90. Man reading your histories makes me feel guilty for even thinking that I have had any hardships. Life ought to have been a world of shit for you guys.

    I know of an old lady (German extraction) whom sometime ago walked into the family dinning room and announced that she had an illegitimate child to a love affair during WWII, that she had given up for adoption. Then she proceeded to let her other children know that she had found the child, and she intended to make up for all the years of separation, and her children could like or lump it!

    The sad story of years of separation somehow ended well with her other children actually accepting their half sister with open arms and the whole family seems to be lot more happier and the old lady is really enjoying herself with her long lost daughter. (I admired her honesty and balls to be frank)

    But to read stories of rejections, and totally fucked up shit, man that is heavy. I am lost for words and that does not happen too often, how do you recover from torture like that?




    The mad tosser ziofuckwit is facing elections in a month time, if I am not mistaken hence the empty threats of fire and brimstone all around. However to find Bullshit Broadcasting Corp. playing the stenographers is a puzzle.

  91. Clark, yes – being cruel to an adopted child is a particular mystery. It reminds me of “Hot Sauce Mom”, a Mormon parent who appeared on the “Doctor Phil” US talk show to explain her extreme methods of punishing her seven-year old adopted son. Various videos of this are easily found on YouTube.

    The mother had submitted a home video illustrating her approach to the TV network. What she didn’t expect was that the talk show crowd practically wanted to lynch her, and the local police department received so many calls after the broadcast, she was a year later found guilty of child abuse, and received a suspended sentence.

  92. Clark

    My own stance about religion; a first attempt in construction of paradigms for communal life that minimised the degrees of friction and set out means of arbitration, as well as addressing the inheritance and gene pool diversity. Most prophets were in fact highly intelligent social scientists. Further the independence (differing opinions) of the individual members of the early societies was addressed/resolved trough the referral to higher authority of “God”.

    Most pagan religion have their roots in female forms of life (menstruation ie bleeding and not dying), later evolution of religion was somewhat stifled with failure of Zoroaster.

    Zoroaster was the first unified God prophet but failed to embody the good and evil in one God, and the concepts of god and anti god were born that in effect brings about the constant fight of the good and evil.

    The specialisation of a good god, and evil god extrapolated leads to all manner of good people being devoid of evil and bad people being devoid of good, a primitive notion that itself is a great source of confusion.

    However, as I said before, life is tough (no need to remind you guys) so if a pilgrim is happy in believing a deity of sorts is guiding and protecting the pilgrim thought the crap maze then so be it. However it appears life is not as simple and straight forward and these pilgrims in turn make others’ lives a misery.

    Frankly at times I really wish there to be a hell, and after life for the bastard war criminals, but the sad fact is; it is only wishful thinking.

    Although I must admit I have read the main religions books and still keep reading them, for clues.

    Further I disagree with the new religion of atheism that itself is rapidly becoming a dogma. I find this to be akin to the devil worshippers that in fact take the Christian religion and turn it upside down/reversed/mirrored, to the recitation of the lords prayer backwards!

  93. Right, I am logging off. For a nice lighter note, I am listening to an awesomely beautiful new record, warmly recommended to all. Shades of Morcheeba and Zero 7.

    Am listening now on my new Grado SR80 headphones, bliss 😀

  94. My arm has had a bit of a rest now and is ready for some more pointing. Apologies beforehand for the long post.

    Regarding the Oregon petition project: it seems that the consensus by Geoff and Phil is that the over 30,000 signers of the petition should be utterly dismissed because a) a few randomly picked signers have the cheek to not believe in big government b) some dare to have a measured opinion that differs from theirs c) some randomly picked members even have the audacity to have died.

    Like it or not guys (and i think you don’t) the fact is, although you may dislike them for having an opinion or being dead, a massive number of people, many highly qualified scientists and climatologists across the world, and not just in this particular petition, are fast realising that what the IPCC has been peddling is unreliable and cannot be taken seriously.

    Going back to that initial IAC report on the IPCC – it also found that Government officials appoint scientists from their countries, and report that they “do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications” (p. 18). In other words, as Joseph Bast puts it: “authors are selected from a ‘club’ of scientists and non scientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favoured by politicians”

    Bast goes on ‘The rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers by politicians and environmental activists — a problem called out by global warming realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the media or policymakers — was plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by an organization in the “mainstream” of alarmist climate change thinking’: “[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated,” the IAC auditors wrote. The scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report “too political” (p. 25). Even the scientists involved in writing the reports felt the summaries were “too political.”

    As the Galileo movement also demonstrate on their websites: ‘The UN IPCC’s political Summary for Policy Makers was written and given to national governments and media before the science chapters were written. UN IPCC guidelines state that where there is conflict between the science report and the summary for policy makers, the summary takes precedence. Thus science reports are modified to reflect the political summaries’

    Here is the instruction in the IPCC procedures. “Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) or the Overview Chapter.”

    Further more, here is how the IAC described how the IPCC arrives at the ‘consensus of scientists’:“Plenary sessions to approve a Summary for Policy Makers last for several days and commonly end with an all-night meeting. Thus, the individuals with the most endurance or the countries that have large delegations can end up having the most influence on the report” (p. 25) In other words, the biggest countries that can stay awake the longest get the most influence – as long as they are politically palatable of course. Sounds very scientific

    According to Bast ‘Another problem outlined by the IAC is the use of “confidence intervals” and estimates of “certainty” in the Summary for Policy Makers (pp. 27-34). Scientists simply gather around a table and vote on how confident they are about some prediction, and then affix a number to it, such as 80% confident’ That is how the super scientific IPCC operates. The IAC authors say it is “not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty” (p. 34) You can say that again hombre

    The IAC authors also warn that “conclusions will likely be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute, and therefore statements of ‘very high confidence’ will have little substantive value.” But don’t let that keep you or the media from citing them over and over again as irresputable ‘proof’

    Crucially, the IAC noted, “the lack of a conflict of interest and disclosure policy for IPCC leaders and Lead Authors was a concern raised by a number of individuals who were interviewed by the Committee or provided written input” as well as “the practice of scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their own work. The Committee did not investigate the basis of these claims, which is beyond the mandate of this review” (p. 46) How convenient.

    It has also apparent that the majority of the authors and contributors to various chapters of the IPCC reports are environmental activists and not scientists at all – another major discrediting factor to add to the long list. Was any of this reported in the mainstream media i wonder? -16 years of global science undermined? Nah…nothing to see here,move on

    Like i stated before, i am not a scientist and was, like a great deal of people i’m sure, happy to go along with the international experts who, i thought, must know what they were talking about. What reason would they have to mislead? It would be ludicrous to suggest that wouldn’t it? Now that there is overwhelming evidence that the whole process can’t be trusted, it is the IPCC itself that is looking ludicrous

    Still no explanation on how the IPCC graph completely changed from its 1996 model to the 2001 model by the way. Maybe it’s just a fashion thing. Maybe it’s those naughty birds leaving crumbs in the circuits again

  95. Saddened by your post Clark. If you need support you know where. Your welcome.

  96. Hi Clark – Thank you for disclosing what is obviously a very painful experience of religious childhood abuse. Very glad you didn’t get into a medical situation where a blood transfusion would have been necessary. Because it makes the Baby Jesus happy to see children die pitiably, rather than be saved (in the literal sense) by well established medical practice. Just ask any “Jehovah’s Witness”.

    It’s pretty terrible that a child has to expect Armageddon as a date on the calender, only to have it rescheduled. Pretty much akin to a mock execution, I imagine. I’ve had a gun pointed at my head at close distance – pretty unsettling. To have it looming for years is unimaginable.

    Not surprised you’re a bit bitter about it mate. Excellent choice to pitch in with the non-believers, even though it appeared at the time a damnable decision. Very brave.


    There was an atheist kid in school (by which I mean he came from atheist parents), at the age of about 10-11. He explained – when put on the spot by a teacher, who told him to stand up in front of the class to explain himself – that when we die we return to elements of the Earth, and life is simply what we have right now. The teacher, with a display of exaggerated, shuddering disgust, cast her gaze around the class and told him that us good God-fearing Christians had a beautiful future to look forward to while he rotted and was eaten by worms.

    A group of my more thuggish classmates stopped me a little later, wanting counsel on how best to punish this infidel. I considered. Not liking him at all for other personal reasons, it struck me that his receiving a good hiding would be no bad thing – but on behalf of God? No – I told them. Truly considering myself a Christian, Christ would not want someone to be beaten up because they didn’t declare themselves a follower. The fellow (Kevin Stockley) never knew about it. I persuaded the thugs not to do him any harm.


    Sorry you got so segregated because of your parent/guardian’s whacked-out belief systems, Clark. All schooling should be entirely secular. These “free schools” and religious schools are an absolute outrage. If secular schools were mandated in Northern Ireland, we’d be free of “the troubles” in a couple of generations.

  97. Fedup said “Further I disagree with the new religion of atheism that itself is rapidly becoming a dogma. I find this to be akin to the devil worshippers that in fact take the Christian religion and turn it upside down/reversed/mirrored, to the recitation of the lords prayer backwards!

    I’ve no idea why you should make such a frankly idiotic statement, at the end of one of your better posts.

    A “religion of atheism” is as oxymoronic as a “scientific belief” – the definition of the first precludes the second. Atheists don’t worship devils, because they have no Gods, no masters, and think for themselves! JHC.

  98. What’s this about a thread with 4.5k comments? whos got time for that?

    IDF are on live excercises.
    To muse on the topic much less informed than others: I think, the population around them all supports retribution to some degree for decades of harm.
    So the idf want to let their weapons off on everyone who supports retribution – everyone around them, except settlements. That would be the only thing which would satisfy their security, it seems.

    Elsewhere, besides, Artic krill are down to 20% of their mass since levels where monitored in 1970s.
    Levels of cynicalism are so high, im lead to believe that this finding will have been exaggerated by the ecologicaly minded academics for funding purposes. Artic Krill follow their own cycles and couldnt ever be bothered by mammon.

    Craig is off far and wise, doing his book, grumbling about an overimportant opinion or two.
    His next post will be about internet twittering and blabbering, of the noisy yet not so informative kind, link flooding favourite pet peeves and such. oooh they are so wrong you Must read this. This way forward fellas ive seen lights like you havent a quack!

    Party season approaches, im pondering the ethics and potential humour of bad taste costumes such as the classic ‘hitler’, perhaps now ‘the joker’, others.. a ‘hindley’… hmmm, thinking about it bad taste can be truely bad – in the distasteful sense. But someones gotta fall of the edge of the carpet. I hope i dont this year anyway, being no Charlie Chaplin.

    The news just reported meteorite sightings, like an early scene in many a sci-fi film.

    How do you tell meteorites from ‘live fire’?
    – They are far less aimed at reasonable people.

    Why do we resort to calling out ‘innocent’ victims? Few are very innocent; Humans are a guilty kind. Almost everyone would neverless agree to fair terms.
    The only fair terms sought are literary, so its like meteorite strikes are it.

    careful with the sky ^^

  99. Ben Franklin

    22 Sep, 2012 - 1:05 am

    There is no need to trash the person known as Jesus to make a point about the hypocrites who claim his name. Atheism is a religion of faith, as much as any Christianist POV. It takes as much faith to assert THERE IS NO GOD, as it does to assert THERE IS A GOD. Therefore, it is just as much ideology as the religion of the uninformed or, low-info religionists.

    Clark; I am sorry your experience was one of servitude which arose from your dysfunctional maternal authority. It is different from mine, as I was an adult, making my own decisions. If your bitterness were more subdued I would pursue further, but I see your anguish and feel a discussion would be counter-productive. I just think the hypocrites of Christendom have perverted the message to an inordinate degree, and don’t wish to stir up any dust from the past. Cheers.

1 4 5 6 7 8 17

Powered By Wordpress | Designed By Ridgey | Produced by Tim Ireland | Hosted In The Cloud