Tuesday, 27 January 2015

Those Progressives Eh?

There was a post yesterday over at Nourishing Obscurity which commented on the shiftiness of progressives in comment posts in the mainstream media.  Their argument as James points to has a habit of jumping around. It's true.  They do jump around.  Not finishing one argument before going somewhere else and before you know you're miles from the main point and you give up and walk away from these fools.

James hits the nail on the head when he points to the deliberateness of it. It's easy to think they're just morons but that would be underestimating them.  It's just one of their ploys to win the argument.  They want to leave you trying to plat smoke.

Why. Because they don't want you near facts that cant doctor and alter.  They're not interested in being right, they just want to win. If you can't get to the heart of the matter, you can't win which leaves them with their other favourite tactic, declaring themselves hands down winners of the battle for the moral high ground on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

Our mistake is to fall for it and let them dictate the terms. They don't want you near the facts because they are like Kryptonite to them.  One subject you get this in the US is one the subject of gun control. It's popular with the American left and they love to manipulate a tragedy to push the idea home. If you want an example of why they argue the way they do, Bill Whittle whips out the Krypton and demonstrates quite clearly why they don't want you getting to the unadulterated facts.


Sunday, 25 January 2015

Cooking The Books(again)

A quick trip round some blogs early this morning sees Richard North picking up on Booker's latest offering  focused on Global Warming.

The article resonated with me quite quickly as early in the content it started referring to us once again having been through the hottest year on record.  I'd heard that trotted out quite in bit in the British media during the back end of 2014 and each time I heard it, it seemed strangely at odds with many of my memories of the year.  I'm know I'm middle aged, but I didn't think I was that addled in the brain just yet.

It seems looking at Booker's work, he's picked up on the work of Paul Homewood, looking at the data for that hottest year ever narrative and its sources - the oft quoted climate record monitoring departments including NASA.

As ever, the devil is in the detail.  I recommend readers go and have a look for themselves as it makes quite an interesting read.  At the heart of all of this is that Homewood did his homework.  In the plethora of global warming 'research' coming out, it's very easy to take the numbers at face value.  Homewood, didn't and as Booker via North explains:

But when Homewood was then able to check Giss's figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline

Once again it seems that someone in this word has been amending the numbers to tell a story opposite to what the data is really telling them.  They're talking the temperature up when the numbers point to us going off in a different direction altogether.

I'm saying nothing you don't already know when I say something's afoot here.  There's the obvious question of how can they call themselves scientists when they're not willing to be honest in their findings and are resorting to manipulating data to tell the story they want to tell.  They want to tell the story of an ever warming planet.  They're playing with the words by calling it Climate Change but they want it to mean warming.  They're clearly not interested in climate change that means climate cooling.

I suspect many of us know what's going on here, but Joe Public seems not to.  There are simply too many vested interests in what's become the accepted story about what global temperatures are doing.  We have a core of 'scientists' amending the base numbers that in turn go into the key information sources.  we have the removal of recording stations that present data that is counter to the accepted narrative and stations that are compromised by their urban location left in the equation so they enhance the narrative.  That's the bastardised science that is running the show.

Then we have the sheep science that is simply addicted to the grant funding around this.  These scientists and universities probably know something's afoot, but hey, that's where the cash is going Jack and you're either in the loop and in the money, or you're out of it, so it's easy for principles to go out of the window when the funding is like crack .  What's a little doctored science or pre-ordained findings in times like these.

At the heart of it all, there's just too many damn people getting rich off public money to stop this.  It has to continue despite it being highly questionable.  We have politicians in all senses of the word who have stuck a big bore needle into the artery of public cash. They are designing all manner of ways to drain this money into their coffers. Businesses and political policy are all falling into line.  The press have been brought to heel to trot out the mantra relentlessly that the climate is going to a hot hell.  These people don't want it to stop.  That's partly why it's weaved its way into the education agendas across the world. Presented as unquestionable truth allows the money to keep flowing without that annoying little problem of people questioning it.

From bottom to top, there's evidence of fraud going on.  All of it starting with the numbers which they need us to accept it as truth.  .

We have to get to the heart of what's really true, not what they want to be true because the flow of money says so. The signal however has to get out.  The press won't do it, so we have to.  We have to go on all fronts like they are doing.  Every time someone mentions it, even the average Joe in the street, tell them the data's doctored.  Tell them the story of the reducing number of stations.  Finally when they ask why - simply ask them to think about whose getting rich off the back of this and look who's paying for it.

One day.  One day the truth will come out -but only if people insist on it.

Thursday, 22 January 2015

Bill Nails It

It's no secret that I have a problem with the left wing of politics.  In theory I shouldn't. My background and my history should see me as a raving lefty based on what they claim to want. However, all of that would hinge on their theories being true.  Their reality is somewhat different and that's why I have a different outlook.

I could go on and probably will in another post at some point.  In the meantime, I'll let Bill Whittle spell out what's wrong with them.


Tuesday, 23 December 2014

Foundations

 There are lots of things in mainstream thought, viewpoint and activity, that seemingly just "are". If you were to ask anyone about those subjects, they would just respond like it was a truth carved in stone. They've never questioned whether it's true or not. That's almost understandable because everyone's parroting it with the same level of conviction.

The funny thing is when they're explored, many of these have stories have weak or questionable foundations. This is especially true of the scare stories. Take for example, the oft quoted "the average Briton is caught on CCTV x times per day." All sorts of people love that phrase. Turns out, its roots lie in a piece of fiction about a theoretical character and slowly it drifted into mainstream thought via an academic paper. Similarly, the Y2K bug which had industry and government running around in a blind panic, creating a lot of well paid IT consultants was a lot less scary and likely than the activity and spend indicated. What makes his story worse and relevant to this post is that when it first began its journey into into hype, the disaster being alluded to was unlikely and the people who started it knew that.

There's another story already out there and has people running around panicking. More importantly, a lot of people have made a lot of money off this and continue to do so whilst it remains a sacred cow. We all know it as global warming. One of its foundations is the subject of ocean acidification. That general idea is that the sea is turning into one giant, life ending vat of acid that will burn everything in it alive. The warmists love to trot it out as fact without question.

However, it looks this foundation is having some of its foundation science questioned. I suspect, judging by the way the strong hint he was given to desist from his research, the discoverer may be on to something. As they say, if you're taking flak, you're getting close to the target.

I'll let Watts Up with That take up the story

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/23/touchy-feely-science-one-chart-suggests-theres-a-phraud-in-omitting-ocean-acidification-data-in-congressional-testimony/



Wednesday, 15 October 2014

Some rape is okay people...

...or so it would seem. It would seem that following Judy Finnigan's controversial comments about footballer Ched Evans on Loose Women, Her daughter, Chloe has received a ton of abuse on Twitter ( sorry having linking problems today for some reason). Within that it's reported that a number of them are hoping that she gets raped. Pretty vile sentiments I'm sure you would agree.

Strange that isn't it. There's outrage at Finnigan was for having a conversation about it. I think she was  daft bringing it up, because the subject is a vile one and provokes strong feelings and no matter how well intentioned. I suspect there's nobody in the world with the verbal dexterity to speak about this without provoking understandable fury.

But how odd it is that from that angry crowd, for whom there is total intolerance (a sentiment I would share), their response is to wish the very thing they so abhor on someone. Is their argument that it's okay in such cases if they give it the nod?

What was it former radical left winger David Horrowitz said? Inside every liberal is a tyrant screaming to get out.

Friday, 10 October 2014

What's new pussycat

So after the much predicted win by UKIP in Clacton, Dave feels it's wise to warn those turning to UKIP of the Consequences at the 2015 election. The wise old sage predicts a vote for UKIP will result in a Labour govt.

I love that implicit in that warning is how it will be our fault. Typical modern politician. At no point does Dave seem to wonder, what precisely it is that has caused this result. I mean what could possibly have happened to the electorate of Clacton or anywhere else for that matter that could cause Tories to plump for someone else? Was it just some sudden attack of the vapours resulting in delirium. This ones going to a tough one to crack isn't it.

Well no, not really. Maybe as opposed to pointing his waggy finger at the public he should look back at his own duplicitous behaviour, promising one thing and doing another.

Maybe, just maybe, the electorate are not worried about his vote UKIP get Labour threat. After all that's precisely the same as they got in 2010 when they voted Tory.

Thursday, 28 August 2014

In a nutshell

Just watching the news channel in which one of the victims of the Rotherham abuse scandal is being interviewed. She summed it up perfectly when speaking about those who did nothing.

"I don't think they're sorry. They're not sorry because I got abused. They're sorry because they got caught out in a scandal that's hit the media"

Right there in a nutshell is it. Everything you need to know about what's wrong with public life in modern Britain. Our institutions and our democracy is broken. This is what we have because we have no meaningful method of holding public servants to account.

The question is what happens as a result. I've seen a lot of outrage both in the media and more importantly the comments from the public. It's palpable and the comments are suggestive that it won't be tolerated any longer.

That becomes a "so what?" moment in that it becomes a question of what they will do about it beyond venting in comment threads. I'm not talking about violence or anything of that notion but the point I make is that there is a small window of opportunity here to start something turn this around, but everyone has to be part of it, because here's the rub.

Look at what this scandal points to. It points to people who tried to keep a lid on a disgusting and vile  practice. They tried to ignore it, hide and generally ride out the problem. They'll try again. They're already playing for time and it won't be long before we start to hear revisionism come in to play.

1400 children. As opined in the Telegraph "let the weight of that number sink in" .  It is the equivalent of almost 50 classes or an average size secondary school.

This is about as bad as it gets and there's a lot of noise. If nothing happens though, it will tell those who work for us, there is virtually nothing that will cause us to take action. If nothing happens they will know all they have to is make mealy mouthed apologies, buy time and it will be business as usual.

So. What will It be?