19 December, 2008.
Not quite a Tennessee Williams but here is a small play:
Charlie is my conscious, he always tells me things and stuff, sort of keeping me on a straight and narrow, Charlie’s moralising do not stop me from doing anything I want, only from enjoying it.
Scene 1: Sometime In mid-1980
Charlie: Hey Jacob, the scientists have found a hole in the ozone layer, they recon it is because of you using your spray shaving cream and stuff and your car’s aircon.
Me: Hmm that bad heh? Should I stop shaving and turn off the aircon?
Charlie: Oh no, they found another gas that you can use, it will cost you more but it will close the hole in ozone layer.
Me: OK (to myself: We all must pay a price to save our planet)
(Curtain – intermission)
Scene 2: Year 2008
Me: Hey Charlie, remember that hole in the ozone layer we talked about 25 year ago? I did everything you told me to do but I see now that the hole is still getting bigger, what did I do wrong? (you see according to Charlie, everything is my fault)
Charlie: Don’t worry Jacob, it took more then 50 years for all those gases to reach the hole and open it up, so it will take another 50 years for it to close, just be patient.
Me: (thinking for a while and then saying) Hey Charlie, I remember that they found the hole in the 1970′s, right? 50 years earlier were the 1920′s, they did not have spray cans, air conditioners and staff in the 1920′d, did they?
Charlie: You are a bloody skeptic and denier, Jacob, shame on you, how dare you question scientific consensus?
(Curtain – The End)
* * * * *
You see? Like many other people, I once accepted that science is fact and if scientists decree it, it must be true. But unfortunately, the greatest liars in history (in terms of affect on people) have sought, with some success, to use science to give credence to their lies, more so, enlist corrupt scientists for their cause.
So we get science that does not require proof, history that reflect made up facts to support an agenda, unprovable theories that are suffixed science or not (such as Political Science, Behavioural Science, economics) and a myriad of studies that sprung in recent years, I guess that we call them Politically Correct Sciences. I refer to subject such as Cultural Studies, Peace Studies, Race Studies, Social Justice Studies,
All these so-called studies have one common goal and that is making hatred of your country and America a science, just look at the products (graduates and writings) of such “studies” and you will see what I mean. In countries where the regime is less tolerant to criticism from academe , the hatred is directed at Israel instead whilst the freedom to hate America is always maintained.
Lying is wilfully describing facts as they are not. This includes presenting opinions as facts.
There has been an increase in global temperature between 1975 and 1998, it is a fact. There has been an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere during the same time, that is a fact too. The carbon dioxide is the cause for the increase, this has never been proven therefore it is an opinion. Human activity is cause for the increase in concentration of carbon dioxide, an opinion; 2,500 scientists think so, 2,500 opinions.
* * * * *
I don’t do celebrities, nor am I belong to the fans club of Nicole Kidman. She is an Aussie, good looking, a good actress and, from a distance appears to be, a decent woman too, that’s about sums up my relations with Ms. Kidman.
However, I was taken back the other day when I heard that the Aboriginal Branch of the Misery Industry lunched an savage attack (hey Charlie, can I say “savage” in here? Ok let’s settle on “very angry”) for playing, or rather attempting to play, the didgeridoo on German TV. Didgeri what?
Didgeridoo is a traditional Aboriginal musical wind instrument that is made from a limb or a trunk of a tree hollowed by termites (white ants). If you wish to have the Stradivarius of didgeridoos, otherwise you will have to be happy with the Bamboo or plastic made in China version.
Poor Nicole, she did not know what hit her; “Nicole Kidman deeply offended …”, “blunder”, ” .. angered Aboriginal groups ..” shouted the headline of newspaper and websites around the world .. shock horror!
The Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian version of the New York Times was quick to enclose the word horrified in an inverted commas citing Nicole’s reaction to the news claiming that she was not aware that the didgeridoo is taboo for women and that playing it offend our indigenous people.
I did not know it either. One can buy a didgeridoo in any one of the hundred souvenir shops around Australia complete with quick instruction how to play it by a female saleswoman, some of whom are definitely with Aboriginal blood in their veins.
I bet you that the bleeding hearts journalists who criticised Nicole, were not aware of such taboo, ley alone the enlightened Lefties of media outside Australia, who have had never heard the word didgeridoo and nearly cause DOS (denial of service) to the Wikipedia quickly learning the meaning of this strange word so they can appear knowledgeable to their readers, lister and viewers.
How come no one knew about the taboo? You may ask, Simple, because it ain’t true! The social engineers and the PC brigade have made it up as they went, a definite lie. Bear in mind that the didgeridoo is part of the Aboriginal culture only in northern Australia.
Needless to say the claim for taboo was not made by Aborigines themselves, but by white Anglo-Saxon European lefty loons PC brigade, the very same people who think that Australia is an evil country and that marry Christmas is offensive.
These are the very same people who tell the Aboriginal people that we, wicked white fellas, forcefully removed some 100,000 Aboriginal children from their parents, dobbing them (the children) the Stolen Generation. This is a lie! Intended to portray Australia as evil country. You may wish to read my essay So You Want Me To say “Sorry” of 6 February, 2008 for further details.
These people went after Nicole for sometime now because she is a proud Australian who advance the cause of Australia on every opportunity, something that those loons distaste.
And then there is Nicole’s cardinal sin; No, Nicole did not undress in front of the Pope, nor did she bring a pork sandwich to the Great Synagogue in Sydney or has a 14 years old lover. She has not stolen any Aboriginal kid and to best of my knowledge, she has never use the “N” word, but this an opinion only.
Her ultimate sin is that Nicole Kidman smokes, oy vei, and she did it on camera in front of million impressionable kids (all of whom took up smoking the same day) and if that is not bad enough, she had the audacity to tell PC brigade to nick off, or unmentionable words to that affect.
* * * * *
This brings me to another established set of lies, smoking.
I do not claim that smoking is good for you, this is not my intend, my aim to demonstrate how self interested social engineers lie to us and how the “establish truth” is far from established.
We are all aware of the lies perpetrated by the tobacco industry in the 1970′s in their battle with the anti smoking lobby, particularly in the USA. What many of us are not aware of are the lies that are perpetrated by the anti smoking lobby ever since. Apparently the anti smoking lobby had learnt the tricks from its opponents and greatly improved in their contribution to the science of lying.
Let us look at an example of an Australian anti smoking TV commercial.
Pretty bad, isn’t it? But … what you see is not what you get. If you feel pitty for the lady in the ad, you can relax, the lady is fine, as soon as the shooting of this commercial completed, the woman return to her make-up table and removed her “cancer”. Yes it was all make-up!
The Australian Cancer Council, who is responsible to this ad, confirmed the fact that they used an actress and that that it was just make-up but excused the stunt with “the end justifies the means” (or words to that affect).
Let me see, the Cancer Council want me to believe in their true message by lying to me? Surely if smoking really cause mouth cancer, the Cancer Council should have no trouble locating a real case.
(Please note that I am a financial contributor to the Australian Cancer Council, they do a magnificent job in may other aspects, but unfortunately the were wrong on this occasion).
The anti-smoking lobby won their case against the tobacco industry lock stock and barrel. In fact they were so successful in achieving their goals, that they just about did themselves out of a cause, their self preservation instinct kicked in
The anti-smoking lobby needed a issue that enables them to continue with their cause (cause=fame + funding), such cause needs to be related to the old cause but ideally it should have objectives that can never be achieved (or takes long time to attain) to ensure the continuity and viability of the cause. Passive smoking was born.
The passive smoking cause rely on the fact that as long as smoking is not criminalised, there will be smokers meaning there will be a cause. Anti smoking lobby do not want smoking criminalised, because if it did, it would become a law enforcement issue not a cause.
Passive smoking has also marked a new era in the war over our minds. It was the first time (to my knowledge) that science was used heavily in the rhetoric when there was no science behind it at all. More so, when science was used, it was fraudulent.
Let explain that, science is observations of events, definition possible explanation (or theories), hypotheses and testing such hypotheses. If an hypothesis is proven a scientific rule is created, otherwise the hypothesis remain unproven.
Being unable to prove a claim does not prove a claim to the opposite. In other words, being unable to prove that passive smoking is harmful, is not a proof that it is not harmful.
Last March I wrote an assay Is Smoking A Sexually Transmitted Disease? In which I explained how the concept of cause and effect has been abused to provide “scientific” proof that passive smoking is harmful. I let you read it in your own time but basically I show that statistical relation (correlation) by itself does not prove a thing, least a proof of cause and effect.
In my essay I explain the concept:
Let me explain this, 95% death of people occurs in whilst they are laying in bed, you cannot get a much stronger (prima facie) statistical relation than that. Does that mean that we can extend our life expectancy by sleeping on the floor? Of course not, because laying in bed is not a cause of death, the real causes of death, illness, injury, frailness etc, also cause people to lay in bed, this is the real link.
[bold highlighting in the original ]
In the same essay I showed how reverse research is was used and how cause an effect and (statically) biased sample have been manipulated to prove the desired results.
No Charlie, Doctors are well aware of the concept of cause and effect – just ask your doctor about research that have shown that smokers are less likely to suffer from Parkinson and Alzheimer Diseases and you will get a chapter and verse lecture about … cause and effect. They would correctly point out that there might be other factors that create such correlation.
Apparently the same concept does not exist when it comes to passive smoking.
* * * * *
Whilst the anti-smoking social engineers were busy banning smokers from airplanes, scientist discovered a hole in ozone layer in the atmosphere above Australia. As chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) gas is known to interact with ozone gas in a lab, the eco-whacko ecoholics decided that somehow, our antiperspirants, shaving gels and aircon are responsible for that hole.
Theories upon theories were expunged as to why the offending gas decided to come all the way from the northern hemisphere where its was mainly used, and end up on top of the most sparsely populated continent.
The explanation about the hole in the ozone layer, as later with the global warming “science” THE basic law of climate was fraudulently ignored. I say fraudulently because the most basic law of Meteorology – it is the Law of Coriolis.
The Law of Coriolis is that (because of the earth rotation) in the northern hemisphere, winds around barometric high pressure (and sea currents) rotates in a clockwise direction whilst winds around barometric low pressure rotates in anti-clockwise direction. In the southern hemisphere it is the exact opposite.
Further, barometric high or low pressure systems (including tropical storms) never cross the equator. This means that there little “leakage” of air and ocean currents between the two hemispheres.
Yet, as basic as it is, no one ever explained, let alone proved, how the CFC gases ended up on top of Australia.
Unfortunately for the cause, technology quickly replaced CFC gas, planet save! Or has it?
In a very similar process of cause creating as passive smoking, global warming was born.
* * * * *
From its inception, global warming has proven a social engineering goer. Unlike its predecessors, (real) pollution and the hole in the ozone layer, global warming was constructed correctly to ensure emotional wide appeal, cross disciplines and most important, continuity into the 22nd century (it started in the 20th century).
The eco whackos like it because, unlike real air and water pollution which, with, can be resolved, removing carbon dioxide from the Atmosphere is impossible meaning a continuity to the cause.
What a megalomaniac moron thinks that man has the power change the climate? What is next? Stopping earth rotating around the sun? or maybe “just” reversing the direction.
Global warming has nothing to do with the environment and all to do with social engineering. The quicker you recognise this the quicker yo recognised the magnitude of deception it is.
The fact that is “global” makes it attractive to politicians, global problems (oops, challenge) requires robust global solutions meaning more conventions in exotic place, more UN protocols, more declarations, more treaties, more accords, more agreements … more Champaign?
In order to make global warming more acceptable to the masses, it was made threatening with forecast of rising oceans, sinking islands, bleached coral reefs, melting ice, floods, droughts, storms and any other meteorological event are upon us … help!! Save the planet! – mix in emotion, about all those disappearing cute species forgetting the most important one on earth, humans. There
nothing like a bit of fear to get the folks focusing on the planet instead of on incompetent politicians and bureaucrats.
Back to melting ice. Yes I did. Did you watch Al Gore’s docoganda An Inconvenient Truth? Did you see those melting ice caps? If you did (or not) here is something for you:
Again, what you see is not what you get. Although the woman from the (sci-fi movie) The Day After Tomorrow appears unconcerned about Al Gore’s graphic plagiarism, she also seems to be previously unaware of it. The great Caesar of global warming, and a Nobel Price winner could not only produce a real shot melting ice but surreptitiously used someone else’s computer graphics to support his lies.
Al Gore lies? Is that possible? Well, at a day which for Al Gore was “a day after tomorrow I am getting my Nobel price” (two days before his Nobel price was announced) a British judge ruled that Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth has nine inconvenient facts, or according to the Times On Line:
The judge said some of the errors were made in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration” in order to support Mr Gore’s thesis on global warming.
Come-on Judge, “alarmism and exaggeration” in the context of Al Gore? Not possible, beside we all know that Bush lied too, so here!.
* * * * *
And where is the scientific proof for the fact that global warming is anthropogenic? (man made) Oh that? Again and again we hear the mantra scientific consensus of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Wait a minute, consensus? Since when consensus is a scientific proof? You do not need to be a scientist to know that consensus may be a valid way to elect Miss World but it has little to do with science.
In fact had Copernicus put his theories to a vote the scientific consensus at his times the vote would have gone to “the world is flat” way.
* * * * *
Apropos nothing, why all the environmental activists in Australia have a North American accent? Don’t we have our own whackos?