I’m fed up with the discrimination being levelled against me by the anti-smoking fraternity. I have stopped inviting non-smokers into my house. I simply won’t let them in. I’m pretty fed up with all the blatant and absolute lies that we hear about the fantastic overblown statistics on second hand smoke, third hand smoke and soon, I’m sure, the fourth, fifth and sixth hand as well. If smoking is as deadly as I’m told it is, then I already died twenty odd years ago. So did a lot of others I know. As with the global warming eejits, so the anti-smoking eejits. I’m fed up to here with both the lies and the liars.

It is nice then, to find someone else who shares my disgust at those lying to us, and my irritation with those that are stupid enough to believe them. My hat is off to Andrew Alexander at the Mailonline.  (http://www.dailymail.co.uk)

My thanks to him for this pearl. A truly great article. I bring it here in its entirety.

A lie, by definition, is something you say which you know is untrue. (The Iraq Inquiry may provide the right label for Tony Blair’s misleading statements.)

The vaguer category of ‘dishonest’ applies to all sorts of official statistics, as presented by the Government, in policing, immigration etc.

But how do you classify claims that are obviously false but are being provided by those who are apparently too stupid to understand them?

Smoking is an interesting area because the figures – intended to make your flesh creep – must be, by definition, false.

We are told that smoking ‘costs’ the National Health Service £1.7bn, or maybe £5bn. They are not just guesswork, they are patently contrary to common sense.

We are told that smoking is a cause of lung cancer and heart disease and other potentially lethal disorders.

That may well be so.

But if smoking leads to premature deaths, it obviously saves the NHS money, since it is in old age that the cost of medical attention soars.

If we could all arrange to die at retirement age, the NHS would save an awful lot of money.

Moreover, smoking is an appetite suppressant and may therefore reduce obesity, which is certainly a cause of heart disease, and other disorders, costing the health service an awful lot of money.

An outright lie is also included in the anti-smoking campaign.

Tobacco manufacturers have to warn purchasers that, among other things, ’smoking kills’.

If one said that prussic acid kills, it would be true. A more honest statement would be that tobacco can kill. Only the illiterate or mentally idle will fail to see the difference.

Alas, there is something about smoking which damages the mind – of anti-smokers. Normal as they may be in other respects, they rave and rant about tobacco.

Entrepreneur Duncan Bannatyne recently declared that he looked forward to the day when, if a mother lit up in a car, her children would call the police! Russia and Germany at one time also favoured the denunciation of unsound parents.

Bannatyne apparently had great trouble giving up many years ago. So he wants others to suffer, too.

Poor chap! I am sorry he found it so hard.

I gave up smoking once, for about 12 years – more a test of will than a health worry. The toughest moment was facing my typewriter to start writing.

I would watch a fellow pipe smoker as he sat down to do the same, slowly and thoughtfully filling his pipe (an art you have to master), finally lighting up and allowing that slow upward drift of the curling smoke.

Sensibly, I returned to the habit. Pipe-smoking is a very ruminative process. It creates the right spaces and pauses for a writer.

But we have not finished with the statistics yet. Second-hand smoke is claimed to cause many deaths and is the basis for tyrannical curbs on offices and pubs.

This figure is arrived at by guesswork, inspired by hysteria, and masquerades as scientific ‘proof’ – a process which characterises our age.

And who, might you ask, is George Monbiot? He’s one of the leading greenies. He writes for the Guardian amongst other things. A staunch defender of those that have lied to us about global warming climate change for years. He refers to those of us who choose not to believe the flawed and manipulated data concerning temperature and CO2 and other such blithering nonsense and therefore dare to challenge his preferred new religion  science, as “scumbags”, “liars” and “cheats”. Which I’m sure, is all very scientific and greatly adds to the debate.
Nevertheless, in the light of “climategate”, the hacking and releasing of CRU emails and files, which clearly documents who has been lying and cheating, he has been more than a little on the defensive and probably shed a tear or two for the now dying falling sky theories.

Admitting that the emails et al are damaging and damning, he has taken on a somewhat passive-aggressive tone and is clearly suffering from a dose of sackcloth and ashes. Which is a bit like swine flu at the moment, spreading at pandemic rates through the green camp accompanied by a good deal of wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth.

I’m not going to bring any of George’s scribblings here, but I would take the time to include the following links which will take you, dear reader, to the thoughts of Mr. Monbiot. I hope you will take the time to follow and read.

Guardian article #1

Guardian article #2

By the way Mr. Monbiot, I object to being called a scumbag, liar or cheat by you. Especially now, where I can finally see what company you otherwise keep. Which is how I measure a man.

However, I can also insult. You sir, are a twit.

And that’s putting it nicely.

I couldn’t resist this and I hope Peter Brookes, cartoonist for the Times, will forgive me for bringing this to your attention. We have yet to see the muslim backlash at Switzerlands popular refusal regarding the building of minarets but this little gem of a cartoon would probably sum it up..

If one ever needed proof that all the talk of global warming was indeed made up by, more than made by, humans, some damning evidence has turned up through the efforts of a hacker. I don’t normally support hacking in any form but this one time, I’m going to make an exception. This hacker was able to retrieve emails and files from the University of East Anglia which basically prove the corruption and subsequent destruction of raw data that didn’t fit the green agenda. The original data has been wilfully corrupted, the original data deleted, leaving only the doctored data available.

The Timesonline has been running a few articles and seems to be the only current outlet for this story as I write. There are other websites running with this.

Here are extracts from two of the Timesonline’s articles:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

[….]

I don’t particularly care for the excuses. Dumping your original data is no way for a scientist to complete his work. Unless, of course, the original data doesn’t support the theory one is trying to prove. Which would also be a very good reason to thwart the efforts of sceptics to see such data. What better way to thwart them than to destroy the data for ever? But not to worry dear sceptic, you can see the corrupted data. In fact, that’s all we’re being allowed to see. Every day.

This second article is, perhaps, a little more enlightening. I particularly like the mention of “value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

Homogenised = altered. Value added = inflated. Quality controlled = conformative.

Reading further into the article below, we hear of a temperature increase of 0.8 degrees(C) over 157 years of data which is the result of “decades of work” by theses scientists. A bit thin for a result of decades of work, in my opinion. That could be no more than statistical error.

Perhaps this phrase says it all:

“Some critics believe that the unit’s findings need to be treated with more caution, because all the published data have been “corrected” — meaning they have been altered to compensate for possible anomalies in the way they were taken.”

Anyhow, judge for yourself:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece

The storm began with just four cryptic words. “A miracle has happened,” announced a contributor to Climate Audit, a website devoted to criticising the science of climate change.

“RC” said nothing more — but included a web link that took anyone who clicked on it to another site, Real Climate.

There, on the morning of November 17, they found a treasure trove: a thousand or so emails sent or received by Professor Phil Jones, director of the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich.

Jones is a key player in the science of climate change. His department’s databases on global temperature changes and its measurements have been crucial in building the case for global warming.

What those emails suggested, however, was that Jones and some colleagues may have become so convinced of their case that they crossed the line from objective research into active campaigning.

In one, Jones boasted of using statistical “tricks” to obliterate apparent declines in global temperature. In another he advocated deleting data rather than handing them to climate sceptics. And in a third he proposed organised boycotts of journals that had the temerity to publish papers that undermined the message.

It was a powerful and controversial mix — far too powerful for some. Real Climate is a website designed for scientists who share Jones’s belief in man-made climate change. Within hours the file had been stripped from the site.

Several hours later, however, it reappeared — this time on an obscure Russian server. Soon it had been copied to a host of other servers, first in Saudi Arabia and Turkey and then Europe and America.

[…]

Steve McIntyre, a prominent climate sceptic, was amazed. “Words failed me,” he said. Another, Patrick Michaels, declared: “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud.”

Inevitably, the affair became nicknamed Climategate. For the scientists, campaigners and politicians trying to rouse the world to action on climate change the revelations could hardly have come at a worse time. Next month global leaders will assemble in Copenhagen to seek limits on carbon emissions. The last thing they need is renewed doubts about the validity of the science.

The scandal has also had a huge personal and professional impact on the scientists. “These have been the worst few days of my professional life,” said Jones. He had to call on the police for protection after receiving anonymous phone calls and personal threats.

Why should a few emails sent to and from a single research scientist at a middle-ranking university have so much impact? And most importantly, what does it tell us about the quality of the research underlying the science of climate change?

THE hacking scandal is not an isolated event. Instead it is the latest round of a long-running battle over climate science that goes back to 1990.

That was when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the group of scientists that advises governments worldwide — published its first set of reports warning that the Earth faced deadly danger from climate change. A centrepiece of that report was a set of data showing how the temperature of the northern hemisphere was rising rapidly.

The problem was that the same figures showed that it had all happened before. The so-called medieval warm period of about 1,000 years ago saw Britain covered in vineyards and Viking farmers tending cows in Greenland. For any good scientist this raised a big question: was the recent warming linked to humans burning fossil fuels or was it part of a natural cycle?

The researchers set to work and in 1999 a group led by Professor Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, came up with new numbers showing that the medieval warm period was not so important after all.

Some bits of the Atlantic may have been warm for a while, but the records suggested that the Pacific had been rather chilly over the same period — so on average there was little change.

Plotted out, Mann’s data turned into the famous “hockey stick” graph. It showed northern hemisphere temperatures as staying flat for hundreds of years and then rising steeply from 1900 until now. The implication was that this rise would continue, with potentially deadly consequences for humanity.

That vision of continents being hit by droughts and floods while the Arctic melts away has turned a scientific debate into a highly emotional and political one. The language used by “warmists” and sceptics alike has become increasingly polarised.

George Monbiot, widely respected as a writer on green issues, has branded doubters “climate deniers”, a phrase uncomfortably close to holocaust denial. Sceptics, particularly in America, have suggested that scientists who believe in climate change are part of a global left-wing conspiracy to divert billions of dollars into green technology.

A more cogent criticism is that there has been a reluctance to acknowledge dissent on the question of climate science. Al Gore, the former US vice-president turned green campaigner, has described the climate debate as “settled”. Yet the science, say critics, has not been tested to the limit. This is why the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia is so significant.

Its researchers have built up records of how temperatures have changed over thousands of years. Perhaps the most important is the land and sea temperature record for the world since the mid-19th century. This is the database that shows the “unequivocal” rise of 0.8C over the last 157 years on which Mann’s hockey stick and much else in climate science depend.

Some critics believe that the unit’s findings need to be treated with more caution, because all the published data have been “corrected” — meaning they have been altered to compensate for possible anomalies in the way they were taken. Such changes are normal; what’s controversial is how they are done. This is compounded by the unwillingness of the unit to release the original raw data.

David Holland, an engineer from Northampton, is one of a number of sceptics who believe the unit has got this process wrong. When he submitted a request for the figures under freedom of information laws he was refused because it was “not in the public interest”.

Others who made similar requests were turned down because they were not academics, among them McIntyre, a Canadian who runs the Climate Audit website.

A genuine academic, Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada, also tried. He said: “I was rejected for an entirely different reason. The [unit] told me they had obtained the data under confidentiality agreements and so could not supply them. This was odd because they had already supplied some of them to other academics, but only those who support the idea of climate change.”

IT was against this background that the emails were leaked last week, reinforcing suspicions that scientific objectivity has been sacrificed. There is unease even among researchers who strongly support the idea that humans are changing the climate. Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, said: “Over the last decade there has been a very political battle between the climate sceptics and activist scientists.

“It seems to me that the scientists have lost touch with what they were up to. They saw themselves as in a battle with the sceptics rather than advancing scientific knowledge.”

Professor Mike Hulme, a fellow researcher of Jones at the University of East Anglia and author of Why We Disagree About Climate Change, said: “The attitudes revealed in the emails do not look good. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organisation within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.”

There could, however, be another reason why the unit rejected requests to see its data.

This weekend it emerged that the unit has thrown away much of the data. Tucked away on its website is this statement: “Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites … We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (ie, quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

If true, it is extraordinary. It means that the data on which a large part of the world’s understanding of climate change is based can never be revisited or checked. Pielke said: “Can this be serious? It is now impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. [The unit] is basically saying, ‘Trust us’.”

WHERE does this leave the climate debate? While the overwhelming belief of scientists is that the world is getting warmer and that humanity is responsible, sceptical voices are increasing.

Lord Lawson, the Tory former chancellor, announced last week the creation of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank, to “bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant”.

Lawson said: “Climate change is not being properly debated because all the political parties are on the same side, and there is an intolerance towards anybody who wants to debate it. It has turned climate change from being a political issue into a secular religion.”

The public are understandably confused. A recent poll showed that 41% accept as scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made, while 32% believe the link is unproven and 15% said the world is not warming.

This weekend many of Jones’s colleagues were standing by him. Tim Lenton, professor of earth system science at UEA, said: “We wouldn’t have anything like the understanding of climate change that we do were it not for the work of Phil Jones and his colleagues. They have spent decades putting together the historical temperature record and it is good work.”

The problem is that, after the past week, both sceptics and the public will require even more convincing of that.

Yep. I need a lot more convincing. You lied to us. All of you. Some of us have known that forever.

Here’s something that won’t be hitting the news near you, but the Timesonline managed to report it. A referendum in Switzerland has resulted in the rejection of minarets to be built in that country. Obviously the EU courts, Amnesty International freaks and all things to the left of common sense will be up in arms over this.

From the article:

Swiss voters appear to have defied their Government and churches today and approved a national ban on the construction of minarets.

Early results showed that 57 per cent of voters had backed the proposal, ensuring international embarrassment for Switzerland and a possible backlash in the Muslim world.

[....]

The approval is the latest act by European voters in support of anti-immigrant parties, following electoral successes over the last decade by far-right parties in Austria, the Netherlands and France.

[....]

The SVP rejects the Government view that a ban would breach the law on freedom of religion. "Mosques are not part of freedom of religion. This is not against Islam. The minaret is a symbol of political power," Mr Schluer said.

The Swiss political world is worried about the prospects of a worldwide Muslim backlash of the kind that hit Denmark after the affair of the Muhammad cartoons.

"Swiss-made", the most trusted brand image in the world, is at stake, say business leaders. Gerold Burhrer, president of the Swiss Business Federation, has reminded the country that it earns £10 billion a year from Muslim countries and that Geneva alone received 174,500 visits from the Gulf last year.

The referendum result, if confirmed, is certain to be challenged in the courts as a breach of the constitution. Amnesty International and other campaign groups had warned that the Swiss initiative would breach the norms of international human rights.

It will also be seen as further evidence of Switzerland’s desire to resist political integration with the rest of Europe. This has been manifested by the rise of the SVP and growing grass-roots hostility towards the European Union. Switzerland narrowly rejected EU membership 19 years ago and mainstream politicians acknowledge that there would be little chance of approval now.

The truly worrying part of all this is, that despite the vote, “the referendum result is certain to be challenged in the courts as a breach of the constitution. Amnesty International and other campaign groups had warned that the Swiss initiative would breach the norms of international human rights”.

Really? So democracy counts for nothing then? Which says more about the courts and Amnesty et al than it does about the Swiss people. And just what authority does “Amnesty International and other campaign groups” have to warn anybody about anything? None.

Now, where can I find a reasonably priced house in Switzerland?

Hat tip: Timesonline

The city I call home is about to be overrun with screaming greenies all hell bent on telling me how I am ruining the planet. I take a certain distance from their idiotic views. I agree the climate is changing. I believe it may be, in some cases, for the better and that we should accept it as a fact and not as a threat. Just to put a few things into perspective, I am considering my own little campaign to weigh against the green mantras of death and destruction.

For example, they are not telling the whole truth about coral reefs. Yes, the old ones are dying, which is a normal cycle in itself, but why do we never hear of the new ones that are springing up form the west coast of Ireland to the Gulf of Carpenteria? Even in places where there never has been coral before.

Don’t believe me? well, here’s a few links to support my standpoint:

New coral reef: Phuket

New coral reef: Ireland

New coral reef: Seychelles

New coral reef: Australia

There are more. Just Google for “new coral reef” and you hit loads of them. Why are we not being told about this? Well, it doesn’t fit the green agenda. It really is that simple.

See, they aren’t simply telling us lies about the changing climate, they aren’t telling us the truth about it either.

Which is doubly shameful and should be doubly damning.

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

~ Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931

How very true.

There’s a real scare campaign going on over here. It is based on the supposed effects of CO2 and Global Warming, whatever that may mean, and is doubtless designed to curry favour for the coming climate conference in Copenhagen. We are shown, through the medium of TV, pictures of beautiful places that are to be destroyed because of mankind’s folly and use of technology. The imminent destruction of all things nice on this planet. The sky is falling, the sea is rising. We’re all gonna fry.

Bollocks.

Greenland and the ice cover there is getting a fair share of the propaganda. It’s melting. Whoopee. The sea will rise 7.4 metres. OK. That doesn’t bother me. If Greenland warms up that much then it will be green again, as it doubtlessly was when Erik the Red went there at the start of the Medieval Warm Period around a thousand years ago. He didn’t name it “Green Land” for nothing. Canada was beautifully green then too. All year round.  No permafrost.

Here’s something I found about permafrost.

In geology, permafrost or permafrost soil is soil at or below the freezing point of water (0 °C or 32 °F) for two or more years. Ice is not always present, as may be in the case of nonporous bedrock, but it frequently occurs and it may be in amounts exceeding the potential hydraulic saturation of the ground material. Most permafrost is located in high latitudes (i.e. land in close proximity to the North and South poles), but alpine permafrost may exist at high altitudes in much lower latitudes. Permafrost accounts for 0.022% of total water and exists in 24% of exposed land in the Northern Hemisphere.

(Wikipedia.)

If Greenland’s ice melts and if the sea really rises 7.4 metres, then the permafrost, which is basically at the same latitudes, will also melt. That will open the 24% of the presently uninhabitable frozen area of exposed land in the Northern Hemisphere up to agriculture and living space. I reckon that will more than compensate for any land loss due to rising seas.
Not only that, but if it is the CO2 you are worried about, don’t be. The extra agricultural activity will benefit from it and it will bring about record harvests. Plants love CO2. They thrive on it. Add the warmer climate to that and you have a success story.

Strange. Al Gore never mentioned that. Why is that?

I have a couple of other questions for Al Gore and the boys. For example;

Around the time of the bronze age and for a period of some 4,000 years, the earth was considerably warmer than it is today. This is known as the Holocene Climate Optimum. It was a time of great advancement as far as the human race was concerned. Most of Europe was occupied by people migrating Northward to the new territories. We’re still here.
How the hell did the bloody polar bears survive that one? And the penguins? And all those damn fish you’re all going on about? Answers please, Mr. Gore & co. Straight ones, please.

Ditto the Medieval Warm Period, Mr. Gore.

Why do we never, and i mean never, see pictures of the snow and ice falling by the megaton on the polar regions and Greenland et al every year but always see the annual melting of glaciers on TV? Where the hell does all that ice come from every year?

Why do we never see pictures of the newly forming coral reefs but always see the dying off of the old ones?

Why does no-one ever discuss the re-growth of the rain forests?

All this and more, Mr. Gore. But no. Let’s all get on the doom and gloom bandwagon and push for higher taxes, the stagnation of the third world and jobs for the boys based on misleading and false science promoted through the IPCC.

You bastards don’t frighten me anymore. You’re lying and we all know it.

Here’s how it works. The giant pharmaceutical companies are funding the WHO. It’s called investment. To be sure they get their money back, the pharmas need a health panic. The WHO finds one every year. Last year it was Avian flu, this year it’s Swine flu. There is, naturally, an influenza break out every year. There always has been. There have always been mutations. Some dangerous, most not. But the panic has to be believable, so the new flu strains, every year, are pumped up by the WHO.

This results in massive amounts of money being poured back into the Pharmaceutical industry, every year, for the purchase of flu medication, needed or not. This is the return the pharmas need to continue to make enormous profits with which to fund the WHO, who, in return, create the next panic to ensure their income.

This is called symbiosis. Both need each other to survive.

If the panic is not shown to be justified, then other measures have to be used. The third world hasn’t been able to buy enough of the meds to bolster the Pharmaceutical industry’s profits during the present financial “crisis”. What a shame. The big pharmas need every penny they can get, so what does one do? One ramps it up to the WHO’s big brother.

Read this.

Simple really. The west will have to pay more but how can they get us to shell out more for what we already have enough of? Roll out the guilt trip and see who jumps on board.

I wouldn’t mind, but Swine flu isn’t that deadly anyway compared to regular flu.

Pandemic my ass.

If I can see we’re being duped, why can’t the idiots that demand my tax money see it too?

This will be the shortest post I ever put up.

Go here and see the film.

It will explain a whole lot of things.