Jacob's Soap Box

By Mila

23 March, 2010

I used to be an anti-American liberal. I used to look at the “horrors” of American foreign policy and what I used to call “ignorance” of the average American citizen as the root causes for all the world’s problems.  Even though I didn’t have a remote idea of what its foreign policy entailed, this was my mindset and outlook then. Somehow I knew it was evil. Don’t ask me how though…

In retrospect, I never really considered its foreign policy to be the main problem. In  reality I saw the way the American people were in general as the biggest problem. I viewed Americans as unhappy people who thought they were happy, as people who had very little to no morals and who were misfortunate to have been born in a sort of capsule that prevented them from understanding how things came to be in the world.

I viewed them almost as part of a machine that worked in a very schematic system and as long as the machine was working then they would have no need to be concerned with the affairs of the world. I viewed them as uncultured and as slaves of a materialistic system that eroded humanity and emboldened pride and arrogance.

When the average American used to say “we are the best” it would infuriate me. Now I look back and realize that where I’m from we also used to say, “we are the best”. In short, for me, the United States, whether its people knew it or not, was the cause of all the materialism that lacked any humanity, promoted ignorance, lacked any sort of culture, and was an exporter of immorality throughout the world.

Because of this view, I then began to put blame on the United States for basically anything. Not only did I blame the US for things it didn’t do right, but for things that it didn’t do at all. I went as far as to construct this entire philosophy in my head where the central pillar of evil was the United States.

Furthermore, because I despised the American way of life and the mentality of the American people, I linked the United States with all the problematic regions in the world. So for example, if Africa was poor it was because the United States was stealing its resources and preventing it from developing as it used it as a war field, especially during the cold-war. If Latin America was corrupt, then it was because the United States needed it to be corrupt for its own interest and because it had put puppet governments in order to fight the Soviets during the cold-war. It was because the American elites needed a place to hide their corruptive transactions and so they used Latin America as a playground. And the list goes on and on….

My vision of reality was so twisted that I would somehow find some esoteric and totally unrelated evidence to support my theories and philosophies about how evil the United States was. I looked at everything through the lens of hate. I was conditioned by hate. Hate is an emotion, so I was plainly being emotional and not using a single neuron in my brain or my heart for that matter. In reality, I was simply being hormonal about the United States.

A few years passed since I’ve been living in the United States by the time I arrived at the university. At the university the professors agreed with me and my anti-American views, however when they would teach the history of my own country that faced 56 coup d’état, military dictatorships, hyperinflation, a guerrilla-style warfare, and Soviet puppets as leaders, they would not know minimal facts and would teach a fictional story about it. A story so far from what really happened that it sounded like a fairy tale to me. They taught a story that was fueled with victimhood and resentment and not based on what really happened. Most of my International Relations professors had never been to the country and were just spouting nonsense based on anti-American sentiment.

I was born amid guerrilla warfare. In fact, the guerrilla started the year I was born and continued until I was 8 years old. The dirty war was primarily fought in my city. And north of the city where I lived is where most of the Soviet driven violence via guerrilleros (or red fighters as we called them) occurred.

Honestly, I don’t remember much. I do, however, remember that those who people today refer to as the “disappeared ones” were the Soviet red driven guerrilla fighters that today people feel pity for and regard as victims.

Anyhow, these university professors here in the US were teaching their students how the US helped the military dictatorship in my country of birth kill its own people. But I knew better than these professors. One day I raised my hand and asked the professor of my Problems in US Foreign Policy class to talk about the Soviet driven guerrillas (militias) and the bombings and kidnappings they would do instead of focusing on some fictional story where the US was the aggressor. The professor knew nothing about the Soviet militias, but somehow he knew all about the US’s “help” to the so-called military dictatorship of my country. I was amazed that he knew nothing of the USSR’s involvement, but somehow it was the US’s (Reagan’s) fault.

Well, just six decades prior to the guerrilla, my country was one of the top 10 richest countries in the world. It had and it still has resources to sustain itself, the entire continent of America (South, Central, and North), and all of Africa combined. It has abundant oil, natural gas, and all sorts of minerals. Its agricultural industry is extremely rich and flowing with different resources.

It was once a country with the potential to be a super-power. It was going on the right path. Industries began to develop; infrastructure was being built around the country, its financial system had begun to boom and banks would lend large amounts of money, our monetary value was actually competitive in the world market, and investors from all over the world would come in and do business with us and even establish a branch of their own business in our country.
The country had a lot of potential and it was realizing its potential, however something happened and the country began to decline.

What happened?

What began as an inoffensive campaign strategy of a politician who played the populous game to win mass support with hollow promises to the poor, turned into the rule of an arrogant socialist full of resentment.

Soon after he assumed power changes did begin to take place. The financial system was quickly taken over by a central bank run by the government, property begun to be disappropriated from the “rich” and supposedly given to the poor, however this socialist didn’t give the poor anything. He just stole from the “rich” without any regards for the poor. It was the so-called rich (who were once poor themselves) that gave the poor an opportunity to work, get an education, travel around the country with great transportation and infrastructure so they could themselves become entrepreneurs and small business men and eventually get out of poverty as well, etc. If it wasn’t for the “rich” the poor would not have a chance to get out of poverty.

It was a fomentation of a class warfare that did not exist.

This socialist “leader” was evermore gaining power as industries began to be run by the government and so more labor unions were now part of the government body and the vicious cycle began. Without the capital to produce and severe financial barriers, fees, and taxes by the government for production, caused the producers not to produce as much and so the entire economic engine began to malfunction. Unemployment rate in the double digits was as common as the air we breathed. The ripple effect had begun.

Less production means fewer jobs. Less jobs means less consumers. Less consumers means less economic growth in every aspect. Less economic growth means more dependency. More dependency means more government.

The socialist leader who had assumed power under the banner of change and “healer” of a “great” socio-economic injustice managed to destroy not only the economic system, but the nation as a whole. This is where the ripple effect can be seen not just in the economic sphere.

When the false premise of some social injustice is inculcated into the minds of people then the country’s society becomes extremely divided. As a result of that division, the society becomes weak. As society becomes weak, so do individuals. And in a society where individuals become weak, progress is rare to non-existent. It turns into a society where corruption reigns.

In order to cope, survive, and have a chance in a system that is corrupt, people then become corrupt themselves. Corruption is a primordial side effect of socialism. With corruption comes distrust. With distrust comes the lack of any opportunity for citizens to form a significant political resistance to these destructive, false, and unsustainable socialist agendas. With the lack of an organized group of individuals fighting these socialist agendas, the government begins to take more and more and in less than a generation, the nation can become completely dependent on literally self-righteous corrupt thieves in power. It happens fast, but it could only happen after a society has been brainwashed to think that it’s a society in need of a revolution of some sort. Kind of like a defiance of the status quo. Only in an already sickened with division, hate, and resentment society can this happen successfully.

In the end, nations become so sick and its citizens so deep in a hole in the ground that they don’t know how to get out of it anymore.

The ripple effect of these nefarious agendas is so huge and so cyclical. In other words, it makes a society fall into a vicious cycle that throws it into an endless and hopeless abyss. A society keeps falling and falling until it no longer knows in which direction it must go in order to climb back up.

When I go back to my country I am extremely happy to see family and friends, but I see a huge sign at the airport that says “welcome, just make sure you leave all your hopes behind.”

By knowing this transgression of events that took place in my country I realized that the United States was a place where one could breathe fresh air and not the polluted air of corruption, hopelessness, and surrender.

I began to grow out of the childish phase that the United States was the cause of all the problems in the world. I began to look at the American people, not as a whole, but rather as individuals and that’s when I realized the great values of the American people. I was wrong to look at them collectively. I should have known that it was different here and not look at what Hollywood, the media, the TV, or the politically correct trends told me how the Americans were.

I began to feel a lot of respect and a great love for this country. One of the things that made me realize how ignorant I had been was when one day I watched a program on TV. The program showed scenes of the only war my country fought with a foreign power in modern history. When they showed young men from my country being shot in the battle field I was crushed with anger and felt such a degree of patriotism that I had never felt before. I have never watched that war that had taken place when I was 6 years old until I saw those scenes on TV. Those scenes didn’t just show me that patriotism and a great pride in one’s nation is a healthy thing to have in a world that is increasingly becoming “nationless”, but they also made me understand why the American people felt so patriotic and proud.

What I used to view as arrogance, turned out to be healthy patriotism and a sense of pride in one nation’s deeds. Here I was feeling the same sense of patriotism and pain for my own country while I watched scenes from one small war. The only war my country fought with a foreign power in modern history. I thought to myself, how insensitive and blind I was not to see how the American people had fought in so many wars spilling blood all over the world with cemeteries throughout the world and receiving more body bags than any other nation in the world since its short 200 year-old history.  And to think that I was one of those who viewed the United States as the only evil one who used nuclear bombs, but failed to see how Japan had killed millions of civilians. It was then that I realized how unjust I had been and how unfair the world was and is incrementally becoming towards the United States.

It was the United States that has virtually showed societies that had fallen into that endless abyss where the top of that abyss was so they could climb back up. It was the United States that showed by example that a better system of life could be adopted and individuals could flourish.

What happened yesterday is a huge wound into this nation’s health. It is as if an already weakened nation was given not a cure or even treatment, but rather an injection containing huge amounts of the same virus it had been infected with.

I have no words to describe how betrayed I feel and how hurt I am by the democrat’s insult with this bill. And I see them laughing and smiling full of arrogance that it makes me sick; literally sick. Definitely a sickness they could never cure. I don’t even think those Americans who are still defending this catastrophic monster plan only because it falls under the Obama presidency really know what the consequences of it are.

I just had time to finish reading most of the bill and my jaw dropped to the floor in disbelief. I still can’t comprehend how this could have happened in the United States.

I read the bill and it is worse than the nationalized healthcare system we had in a third-world country.  In fact, it is a lot worse. And to think this is just their first step.

This must be stopped. And I mean by any means necessary. The government has literally turned against its people. What are people supposed to do then?

Anyway, thanks for listening. I’m just in shock that this is happening and here.

© Copyrights Mila, all rights reserved

19 December, 2009

Last week a lawyer working for a Palestinian activist organisation sought an arrest warrant against the Israeli Opposition Leader, Ms. Zipi Livni, under the International War Crimes And Crimes Against Humanity’s Universal Jurisdictions provisions, in relation to her alleged part in the Israeli Cast Lead operation in Gaza last January.

Although it is apparent to any fair minded person that it was, what is known in Legalese, a frivolous claim, the Westminster Court granted the request and issued an arrest warrant for the Opposition Leader who was due to visit London on a private capacity (hence not entering on a diplomatic passport).

Apparently the Universal Jurisdictions of British law permits any person to bypass the prosecutor and request arrest of any person, for alleged war crimes, something which is not permitted under any other Law.

(the arrest warrant was subsequently withdrawn when it transpired that Ms. Livni would not come to London).

This case is not about war crimes, it is not even about intimidation of Israeli officials and it certainly not about Zipi Livni. This case is about political correctness riddled justice system, which is not uniquely British.

We don’t know who was the judge that stupidly granted that frivolous warrant which, rely on liberal media reports and left wing blogs as something that vaguely resembles evidence. I wonder how many arrest warrants request for common criminals this very judge declined the Metropolitan Police for lack of sufficient evidence or for a missing comma somewhere on the applications form? Just a thought!

This is not the first time that activists Eurabian judges issuing arrest warrants against Israeli officials. In 2000 a Belgian judge had issued an arrest warrant against Ariel Sharon which was subsequently ruled by the International Court of Justice in Hague as contravening international law and ordered to be withdrawn.

In 2005, Maj. Gen (ret) Doron Almog ( a retired IDF Chief Of Stuff) was tipped that there is an arrest warrant against him for “war crimes” as he landed in Heathrow Airport. The general escaped arrest by remaining on the (El-Al) plane and return with it back to Tel-Aviv.

Last September (2009), an arrest warrant was sought against Israel Defence Minister and Deputy PM, Ehud Barak, whilst in London on official duties but deputy district judge Daphne Wickham, whilst accepting Mr Barak’s diplomatic immunity said that the allegation of war crimes (in Gaza) were well documented (oh really?).

Hey Charley, how many MUSLIM terrorists were arrested and trialled in Europe? How many? I thought so!

Most of the Palestinian terror organisations openly kept offices in London, came and went as they pleased using diplomatic passports issued by Arab countries (Libyan and Syrian mostly)

Have you ever wonder why, despite Israel being culturally closer to Europe than any Arab country, why is the European policy towards Israel so negative and different from America’s? The answer lies in three letters EAD, the European-Arab Dialogue. In her book Eurabia, Bat Yeor describes the EAD as:

The Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) began [in 1973] as a French initiative composed of representatives from the EC [now EU] and Arab League countries. From the outset the EAD was considered as a vast transaction: The EC agreed to support the Arab anti-Israeli policy in exchange for wide commercial agreements. The EAD had a supplementary function: the shifting of Europe into the Arab-Islamic sphere of influence, thus breaking the traditional trans-Atlantic solidarity.

Can you now understand the ease by which an arrest warrants are issued against Israelis in Europe compare with the wheeling and dealing in an attempt to bring the Sudanese president Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir to justice for his involvement with genocide in Darfur? Sure you can!

Don’t get me wrong, I am NOT opposed to universal jurisdiction for REAL war crimes and REAL crimes against humanity that was put in place to overcome the ability of REAL criminals to escape justice in countries with a weak or nonexistent legal systems. What I am incest about is the hijacking of universal jurisdiction by the human rights industry and the PC brigade.

The British government undertook to amend their laws to ensure that universal jurisdiction cannot be abused political activism. We shall patiently await the outcome. But bear in mind that, when (and if) the Brits will close the loophole, the problem will simply shift into another country in Eurabia that adopted the universal jurisdiction, not all EU members have.

The term crime against humanity is a modern version of an old legal term hostis humani generis, Latin for: the enemies of mankind (before it was politically corrected to “humankind”) that originated in the first true international Law, the Admiralty Law .

The Admiralty Law specifically referred to sea piracy as hostis humani generis. Slave trading was added to the definition some time later but recent attempts to include terrorism so far failed due to the objection of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the under-developed countries bloc in the UN which control the voting of the General Assembly and in turned is itself controlled by Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), surprise, surprise.

As a matter of interest, the Admiralty Law was introduced by Eleanor of Aquitaine (Richard the Lionheart’s mother) in 1160, hardly a new concept.

Whilst the Admiralty Law is still widely used in governing international shipping today, the piracy provisions have been transferred into the Law Of The Sea.

And indeed there is universal jurisdiction, albeit not by that name, in the sea piracy provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Low Of the Sea (UNCLOS), Article 105 (in Part IV) says:

Seizure of a pirate ship or aircraft

On the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State, every State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the personsand seize the property on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure may decide upon the penalties to be imposed, and may also determine the action to be taken with regard to the ships, aircraft or property, subject to the rights of third parties acting in good faith.

[Emphasis are mine]

As you can see both universal jurisdiction and crimes against humanity has their origin in medieval maritime law.

Question: How many captured MUSLIM Somali pirates were brought to justice in British (or any other European) courts under UNCLOS universal jurisdiction? NONE!!!!

I must clarify that Islam is NOT what makes these scum bags Somalis, pirates, there is no evidence of that whatsoever, no Somali pirate has ever board a ship shouting “Allahu Akhbar” but to point that they are getting a “pass” from the EU ships (in particular) BECAUSE they are Muslim.

So the enemy of humanity that cause havoc in international shipping in the Gulf of Aden, the East African Coast and deep into the Indian Ocean go scot free while human rights industry and the PC brigade are busy trying to arrest Israeli dignitaries, whose only “crime” was protecting their civilian population from terror.

Can someone please point out a human right that surpasses LIFE?

Whilst the European politicians, knowingly, or otherwise, mislead their public by saying that there are no legal grounds to arrest MUSLIM Somali pirates, their real concern is that according to the UN Conventions Relating To Status of Refugees, once a pirate is on a European territory (European flagged ships included) they can claim the status of asylum seekers.

Yes my friends, indeed, the inmates are running the asylum.

© Copyrights Jacob Klamer 2009 — all rights reserved

13 December, 2009

As expected, Climategate has done nothing to temper the enthusiasm of the climate ideologues in the funfest of Carbonhagen, even the Danish sex workers harnessed themselves to the task of ensuring a successful event by opening their hearts (and their legs) to the delegates.

Climategate has NOT taught us anything we had not known before, it merely added another level of confirmation that global warming is a fraud of gigantic proportion. I shall explain that later.

The main stream media, who finally could not ignore the story went into a “yes but” mode, glossing over the fact that the “robust science” is a work of scientists who are more preoccupied with politics s and funding that with science. I is all a sceptic stunt to undermine the Crapenhagen conference, and the global warming is still as real as ever and the current cooling is only a natural variability after a long warming and still 2008 was the fourteenth hottest year since …. etc etc etc, whoopee!

Natural variability hey? and what would you call the warming of the 20th century after the Little Ice age that ended at the end of the 19th century? If you go by Climategate that has never happened — Prof Michael Mann, the father of the Hockey Stick theory (as we saw in Climategate I) religiously prefixed the terms Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice age with the words “so-called” as if they had never happened. And they call us “deniers”(?!)

Sure, the Hockey Stick theory is now truly buried, even by the dogmatic IPCC. I was shown to be a plain scientific hoax but the charade goes on.

The Climate Models

The global warmers tell us ad-nauseam that the climate models (there are about six versions) provide the scientific proof to global warming.

Let me explain what a model is.

A climate model is a mathematical model, or model for shot. A model is a set of mathematical (including statistical) calculations, known as algorithms, attempting to simulate the real world. A model is as good, or bad, as the rules and the data put into it, for example:

Suppose I want to model trains time table; I know the distances between stations, I know what speed the train can do, therefore I know how long it takes a train to get from one station to the next. I allow 2 or 3 minutes for every stop and bingo I have a model that simulate the run of one train. But this only a start.

My aim to provide service to the travelling public so I need more than trains, I know how many passengers I need to carry thus I can work out how many cars each train will have (consistent with the length of platforms), I space the trains and run my model to ensure that the no two trains reach a station at the same time, or meet each other in the opposite directions, if they use the same tracks on both direction.

But I also know that the vast majority of the travelling public require to travel to and from work in the morning and the evening, so I run more and longer trains during rush hours. As more people need to get on and off the trains, I need to allow more time at stain stops, meaning yet more trains — it is getting complex but manageable because ,so far, I have dealt with known factors.

The difficulties starts emerging when I deal with known unknowns; mechanical breakdowns (trains and signals), accidents, weather delays (floods, snow, heat waves). I use probabilities that I work out from past records (data) and build it into my model, I then run “what if” scenarios (called sensitivity analysis).

Eventually I will have a model simulating the whole railway network in a quite reliable MODEL, the technology to do it exists, it was done successfully many times in the past, so far so good. BUT,

How successful would be my model if I try to do it for a city in a country that has never had trains before?

Not much because I don’t have the required data to construct my model — I would need to rely on guesstimates and experiences in other places and ASSUME that it is relevant. In technical wards, I built assumptions into my mode.

As I don’t really know the size of the train travelling public, I would try and estimate it from other available data, say, buses statistic – The bus data becomes my “proxy”, that proximates my train travelling public, is the yardstick by which I guess the size of the travelling public, it is not perfect but it the best I have.

You can now see, that usefulness of such model is limited by my lack of data, my confidence in my model would be shrunk by comparison to the earlier model.

What all this has to do with climate? I hear you ask; the climate models akin models that simulate trains that have never run (as yet). They rely on data, such as tree rings, ice core samples (called boreholes), and other proxies to simulate temperatures for the times when there was no methodological collection and recoding of climate data on earth which is the whole of the planet’s 4.55 billion years history barring the last 200 years at the most.

Climate Proxies

There is a legitimate debate about how well the various proxies represent past climate data. Such debate is a matter for the science to resolve and I am not going to buy into it.

This is not a criticism on the use of proxies, science has to use what is available to it, but we must bear in mind that whilst the bus travelling public may give us a good clue as to how many train passengers it is only an indication, that may or MAY NOT come to fruition.

In my second train model I would take bus data and CALIBRATE it. I would try to run my model a number of times with different assumptions such as 50% 60% 70% of the bus passengers will travel by train whiles it start running.

The climate science does just that, so as you can clearly see, it is an educated estimate, at best, and with all the care I take, I would not stick my house on being 100% right, would you?

It may take some 10 or 15 or twenty years before the new trains, which I just modelled, will start running. Would you now, base on my MODEL, commit yourself to be at the station at 8:17 am on Monday, 2025? of course not. Yet these global warmers not only want us to commit ourselves to be in station that has been built yet but they also want us to buy the tickets, (carbon credits) NOW because the models say so.

But there is more.

Suppose I see a bump in the number of passengers between 2pm and 3:0pm (presumable caused by school kids going home) and I ignore it as a “natural variability” as it does not suit my model. This is exactly what the Hockey Stick theory does — ignore available data because it spoils the model!

In fact, it is worse than that, the global warmers goes further and tell us that the trains are already running. Yet a mere 8 years into their predictions and the trains are running indeed but in the wrong direction!!! yet they insist that the model is 95% accurate.

This bring us to the question of:

How Certain Are The Models?

We often hear that the accuracy of the models are within 95% probability. No, it is Not!!!

The warm mongers are in fact referring to the statistical term known as degree (or level) of confidence, (also Confidence Interval) which measures the accuracy of their models.

That term has little to do with probability. It is a statistical measurement of an interval , a “window” around the model result into which a certain percent of the eventual and real life events expected to falls. It is typically 95% or 97.5% but it can be any number under 100%. I’ll give an example

Taking the trains again, it means that within a certainty of, say,95% a train will arrive within a time” window” around the schedule time. In other words, 95% of trains will arrive within a certain time before or after the appointed schedule time. Naturally, it stand to reason that the larger the time window is the more trains will be “on time”.

As you can see 95% confidence interval is meaningless without knowing what is the actual interval — it is one thing if 95% of trains arrive within one minute of the time table and a completely different story if 95% of trains arrive within three hours of the schedule time and still “be on time”.

Climate is a lot more complex than my trains model example and whilst in the case of running trains we know all there to know about what affect the trains running on time , when it comes to climate science, we don’t even know that the track is reaching the next station let alone the our final destination.

The best science do is forecast the weather reasonably accurately for FOUR DAYS into the future, any further then that is an educated guess and they want to tell me that they can tell the weather in 2050?

Enjoy you cold showers in the dark if you still think that you are saving the plant.

All aboard!

© copyright Jacob Klamer 2009 — all right reserved

29 November,2009

Can you imagine that you are about to go into a dangerous military mission just to discover that the intelligence reports on which you mission is based, are fraudulent, would you still go on that mission?

Can you imagine that you are about to board a plane and just to discover that the licences your pilots are holding are forged, would you still board that plane?

Can you imagine that the new breaking system just fitted on your car is based on a mathematical model which was never been road tested, would you still take your car for a spin?

The answers of course are no, no and no.

Yet our politicians are going to Copenhagen to agree measure to combat global warming, in a complete disregard to the fact that the globe is cooling, in a complete disregard to the fact that NONE of the climate models used by the IPCC (the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) forecasted the current cooling and in a complete denial to the recent discovery of Climategate.

Climategate is the term given to the posting of email files on the Internet, files that were hacked from a computer of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in the UK.

These exchanges show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the science behind global warming is controlled by a relative small group of scientists, activists, journalists (surprise surprise) and bureaucrats whose motivation is anything but science. The pear review we heard so much about is a sham, akeen to the police investigating itself, the member of the clique review each other, reciprocate kudos and not only exclude any opposing science from the “reviw”, but use their clout to silence it.

Here is an example, on 14 October 2009, Tom Wigley, a senior researcher with the University Cooperation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) wrote:

Dear folks,

You may be interesting in this snippet of information about Pat Michaels. Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, PhD needs re-assessing?

In a classic approach of the global warmer ideologues of “kick the man, not the ball”, Prof Phil Jones of the UEA replied (inter-alia):

I recall Pat [Michaels] wasn’t very good at writing stuff up.

What was Dr Michaels’s sin that necessitates a re-education Mao style ? Apparently Dr. Michaels had the audacity to publish a (PhD) thesis on the relationship between crop and climate that contradicts findings of one of the group members. So What? you ask, in simple words, it means what we all know intuitively and that is that (global) warming is beneficial to crops and we can have that, can we?

******

On 9 October, 2009, Paul Hudson, a climate correspondent, wrote on the BBC web site an uncharacteristic (for the BBC) article titled What happened to Global Warming? , he wrote:

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

He goes on to suggest, what many of us already know, that perhaps the 1990’s warming was part of a natural cycle as indeed is the current cooling.

The ensuing email discussion revealed that, other than a few guesses, the scientists don’t really have an answer to the current cooling. Dr. Kevin Trendberth of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) was honest enough to say that:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Professor Michael E Mann of Pennsylvania State University (PSU), Mr Hockey Stick (more about him later) ,suggested a real scientific way to resolve the quandary and that is to put Paul Hudson in his rightful place, he said:

extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?

You see, these people not only run the global climate fraud, they also in bed with the liberal media.

* * * * *

There are over 1,000 Climategate email files, mostly with more than one message in them (because of the apparent use “Reply” and “forward”) going back to 1996. I do not pretend to heave read them all, or even a significant number of them, nor do I claim to understand many of the scientific arguments and counter-arguments made, from these that I studied, somewhat randomly, it is abundantly clear that a lot of scientists’ time and efforts is devoted to sheer ideology and politics rather than to science.

Whilst there is nothing new in the fact that the science of global warming is heavily tainted by ideology and politics, a claim that had been made by many reputable scientists, we now have the smoking gun as a proof, if we even need one.

Too often we are told that the science (of global warming) is settled and passed the scrutiny of peer review. It appears that this is not so! It is more like the scientific consensus was brought about by peer pressure, rather than by peer review.

Let me pick a subject.

The Hockey Stick Theory

Had you watch Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, you would no doubt recall this scene where Al Gore stand in front of two large graphs.

The left graph depicts the Northern Hemisphere’s (NH) variation from (a long term) average temperatures going back to 1,000 years and on the right one, the average carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentration in the atmosphere. You can clearly see that the temperatures were relatively stable until the twentieth century as it shot up, resembling a hockey stick on its side, hence the term.

The so-called hockey stick theory was a brain child of Prof Michael Mann (albeit not by name), the very same Prof. Mann I cited earlier. So powerful were those graphs that when shown by Al Gore they swayed many uncommitted into the global warming believers camp, I personally know a few.

The graphs, together with Prof. Mann’s theory made their way into the IPCC report with the blessing of the climate scientists and, naturally, activists, journalists, bureaucrats and the politicians.

In his book Heaven + Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science, Prof Ian Plimer of the University of Adelaide (Australia) described how two Canadian mathematicians, Steven McIntire and Ross McKitrick, obtained Prof. Mann’s raw data (despite great obstacles put him) and concluded, amongst other things, that the data does not support Mann’s conclusions, or in their words:

due to collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolations of source data, obsolete data, geographical location error, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control. defects.

[- Page 90]

So much for peer review scrutiny.

In fact, Prof. Mann somehow missed two significant climatic events in the last 1,000 years, the Medieval Warming Period (MW or MWP) of 900-1300 AD (when Greenland was green and and grapes were growing in northern England) and the Little Ice Age of 1280 to 1850 AD (when the Thames was frozen solid).

Here is a comparison between the hockey stick theory and the real climate history of the Northern Hemisphere (at least).

By 2006 the Medieval Warming period and the Little Ice Age that had been expunged from the IPCC report in 2001, miraculously reappeared with no explanation.

Was it just an error in good faith on the part of Prof. Mann? Not so according to Climategate.

Apparently two honest scientists, Dr Edward R Cook and Dr. Jan Esper, both tree rings specialists, had raised the existence of both the Medieval Warming Period and the little Ice Age with Dr. Mann back in May 2001.

(If you open the link, read it from the bottom upward, last message first. Don’t worry too much about the science itself but rather note that: a) The existence of both the Medieval Warming period and the Little Ice Age was proven by 2001, and b) How “moderate” peer pressure was applied on those who strayed from the orthodox path)

This is what Ed cook says to Michael Mann in a message dated 2 May 2001, inter-alia:

Jan [Esper] also had to compare his record with the hockey stick … the [Jan] Esper series shows a very strong, even canonical, Medieval Warm Period – Little Ice Age – 20th Century Warming pattern, which is largely missing from the hockey stick

You would have thought that the existence of a study that contradicts his previous scientific findings would trigger Prof. Mann’s scientific interest. No fear, as we say down under, Professor Mann is not interested in the science, politics is far more important, Prof. Mann replied that:

I’m just a bit concerned that the result is getting used publically, by some, before it has gone through the gauntlet of peer review [meaning: pressure]. Especially because it is, whether you condone it or not, being used as we speak to discredit the work of us, and Phil et al, this is dangerous.

Translation: Don’t you ever publish results that we don’t approve of! It is dangerous (for you) to do so.

As professor Plimer said in relation to climate data: “If the data does not fit the model, you torture it into submission” (or words to that effect). Now, who are the real climate deniers?

Why is it that I feel that Climategate will keep me busy for week?

© Copyrights Jacob Klamer – all rights reserved (except images and clips).

02 October, 2009

Last week we saw one of the most frightening exposition of the end of our individual (respective) national sovereignties as we have been accustom to know it. Last week was the watershed in what our politicians often refer to as “the journey” towards global governance. Call me “scare monger” or “conspiracy theorist” if you wish but I am here neither to scare you nor to advocate a conspiracy theory, I merely seek to highlight certain facts that are unfolding right in front of our eyes and ears and propose their significance, as I see it.

But first let me explain, global governance is not the same as global government. Global government refers to the establishment of one world-wide government, presumably under the auspices of the United Nations (or a similar organisation yet to be established), that would govern the whole world as if it was one single country. Although there are some who aspire to it, world government is not going to happen, not without a lot of bloodshed anyway.

On the other hand global governance is the action of governing under common global set of rules. Instead of blue helmets “policemen” and Black Hawk helicopters with blue UN emblem enforcing the rules of a global tyrant, under global governance, our own, friendly (or not), policemen and women will continue enforce the laws of the land, except that increasingly the laws of the land will be the laws of the globe and will come from a global governance bodies such as the UN and its agencies, proposed and drafted by faceless UN bureaucrats and rubberstamped largely by Non-Aligned Movement’s countries who hold the majority voting power in the UN.

Those of us who live under democracy will still have democracy of sort, we shall continue to vote for our respective national democratic institutions except that those institutions will be subservient to the global governance body. In other words our national governments of the future, in time, will have as much powers as the current federal powers of your local municipal council, the powers given to it by Agenda 21, more about Agenda 21 later.

Within a week, the week ended on 28September, 2009, we saw the United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change in New-York (Sept 22), the United Nations Security Council Meeting (25 September,2009, chaired by president Obama, the general debate of the opening of the 64^th session of the General Assembly of the United Nation in New-York (on 23-28 September,2009) and the Pittsburgh G20 Partnership Meeting (on 24-28 September, 2009). Whilst none of these events, in themselves, are anything new, apart from a lot of symbolism, it was the first time that leaders of the western democracies not only spoke in such unison on all raised issues BUT the all push the “Global” part above the interest of their own countries.

Our so-called leaders went to New-York and Pittsburgh to represent us, one would assume, but instead they ended up pushing their own global governance agenda through climate change, G20 or straight out UN speak, here are some example:

Barack Obama in a speech to General Assembly, highlights provided:

We have sought — in word and deed — a new era of engagement with the world. And now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.

He later said:

Today, let me put forward four pillars that I believe are fundamental to the future that we want for our children: non-proliferation and disarmament; the promotion of peace and security; the preservation of our planet; and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people.

Go and tell the brainless idiot Marxists anti-globalisation protestors in Pittsburgh that their Messiah and their activists professors are the champion of globalisation, but hey why lets some pesky fact spoil a good anti capitalists demonstration, beside, who said that riots need have a good reason?

And our illustrious Prime Minister Kevin Rudd aka Kevin747 was at his besting terms of laying grounds for his next job, he said to the very same forum:

And it is on the current challenges facing the global order that I wish to speak to this 64th General Assembly today – the global financial crisis, the unfinished business of the Doha Round, the unfolding crisis of the planet itself, the unresolved question of nuclear weapons 20 years after the end of the Cold War – and of the future of global governance itself.

Dear Kevin, he does not mince his words, does he? He continued:

And a wake-up call that our system of global governance today is in radical need of reform.

You see, to Mr. Rudd, global governance is already in here, all it needs is a radical reform, is that the same person who had told the Australian voters the he, Kevin 07, has plans for Australia? I do not recall any mention of making Australia governed from New-York.

Indeed, in certain aspect global governance is already with us, it has been here for some thirty years, just look at all conventions, declarations, charters, protocol and other euphemisms for RULES, coming down from the UN and ratified by our respective governments under our noses.

Whilst you and I been busy labouring to put roofs over our respective families, and food on our tables, the people who we elected and TRUSTED to protect our interests we busy scheming amongst themselves to bring us a global governance by stealth.

Take a look at some examples, The Lima Declaration of 1975, states, inter alia:

[Solemnly declare] their resolve to ensure the speedy and effective implementation of the principles of industrialisation laid down in the International Development Strategy for the 197Os which is being adapted to the Programme of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order; [para 25]

And

That countries, particularly developed countries, should undertake an objective and critical examination of their present policies and make appropriate changes in such policies so as to facilitate the expansion and diversification of imports from developing countries and thereby make possible international economic relations on a rational, just and equitable basis; [para 27]

In other words, we “particularly the developed countries”, must hand our production to under-developed countries. Why? Because we, the developed country are evil and must pay for our sins – nothing about the billions of aid money that was squandered by corrupt leaders, nothing, no one talks about it because they are VICTIMS.

Then we have The Rio Declaration which is part of Agenda 21, documents that, irrespective of our sovereign laws, mandates local government and NON-GOVERNMENTAL organisations (NGO’s) an official status not only in relation to environmental legislation but also, the use of the environment as an excuse for all left wing doctrines – indeed a masterpiece of left wing activism, here are some examples (from the Rio declaration):

Principle 20

Women have a vital role in environmental management and development. Their full participation is therefore essential to achieve sustainable development.

Principle 21

The creativity, ideals and courage of the youth of the world should be mobilized to forge a global partnership in order to achieve sustainable development and ensure a better future for all.

Principle 22

Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognize and duly support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development.

Principle 23

The environment and natural resources of people under oppression, domination and occupation shall be protected.

Principle 24

Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall therefore respect international law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further development, as necessary.

Principle 25

Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible.

[Highlights provided]

And we had thought that looking after the environment means to ensure clean air, clean water and rain forests. Oh no! Agenda 21 makes it clear that just about any left wing activist can become a police officer.

When your local council require an environmental impact study before it approve your car port, say Agenda 21, when you council declare you town Nuclear Free Zone, say Agenda 21, when your council put up signes calling for the protection of the Tasmanian rain forest, say Agenda 21 – in fact when you council involves itself with issues outside its boundaries chances are that it is Agenda 21.

Charity organisations such as Oxfam or World Vision, supposedly established in order to assist the needy in poor countries (but not in their own for some reason) are getting vocally involved in issues such as global warming or join in condemning Israel’s “disproportionate” use of force, say Agenda 21 – You see my friends, the misery industry, just as the watermelon environmentalism, green on the outside and red on the inside.

The way it works is that the UN organises a convention on the issue, the UN bureaucrats, most come from under-developed countries, who prepare the final outcome and name it as a convention, protocol, declaration, agenda or whatever, it automatically passed by two third majority of the so-called non-aligned bloc with 113 votes of which about Half (56) are also members of the Organisation Of The Islamic Conference (IOC) and now you have it a “UN resolution” that your government rash to ratify as a good global citizen – It is for your own good, even the UN said so ….. hmmm hmmm hmmm.

I am sick and tired hearing politicians using “other countries” excuse as if the monopoly on wisdom lay in other countries – I like it here as it is, thank you very much but when I see politicians from all over the world using the same speak about global governance I get frightened.

whose side are they on?

© Copyright Jacob Klamer, 2009

26 July, 2009

I must confess, I got it wrong, it seemed a good idea at the time, but it turned out like all other ideologies, WRONG!!! I am talking about the ideology of free trade, the philosophy that says that it generate wealth to all that practice it. As it turned out it does not!

The principle of free trade is simple, if I can grow tomatoes better (more efficiently, as economists say) then my next door farmer, who in turn can grow cucumbers better then I do, then we are both better off by I growing all the tomatoes and my next door neighbour growing all the cucumbers and we trade tomatoes for cucumbers between us. In this way we each get better products all around.

In real life, more efficient usually means cheaper, we all agree that if we produce widgets here for say, $4.00 a piece and the Chinese produce them for 10 cents each, it is a prima facie evidence that, the Chinese are more efficient in producing widgets thus we should stop making them, buy all our widgets from the Chinese and concentrate on producing something that we are more efficient at, say gismos, sell them to China and we would all be better off for it, or would we?

Let us pause and look at the “efficiency” again, suppose our workers produce 10 widgets per hour and a Chinese worker can manage only 2 widgets per hour, wouldn’t you say that our workers are more efficient then the Chinese? On this example, of course they are! So you can see that “cheaper” is not always synonym with more efficient, here is why;

If our widget wage costs (actual wage paid to workers and on-costs) amounts to $40.00 per hour whiles a Chinese worker equivalent cost is only $2.00 per 10 hours day,  the vast gap in wage costs completely obscures our advantage in terms of efficiency.

Therefore, we get rid of our workers and produce all our widgets in China albeit it would take five times the number of Chinese workers to produce the same number of widgets.

And in order to further obfuscate the treachery to our more workers we use the euphemism outsourcing. Hey man, you are not sucked, you are just outsourced. (How strange, you never hear of outsourcing the CEO’s of large corporation, do you?)

Further, in order to ensure that outsourcing is REALLY successful, the free traders call on our governments to remove all import duty our forefathers put in place for the very reason of protecting jobs. They even go as far as demonise the word “protection” as a dirty word, something to be avoided at all costs. No politician OF EITHER SIDES, wish to be called “protectionist”, oh no! As if protecting our jobs is the wrong thing to do.

Whose side these people are on?

And so we are handing over our manufacturing expertise to under-developed nations, lock stock and barrel, some of whom don’t even like us. We are quickly reaching the point that whole sections of manufacturing industries are disappearing from our local landscape. What is going to replace lost employment in apparel, steel mills and food canneries that disappeared in recent years?

The economic rationale of free trade implies that everybody has some comparative advantage whereas we may not be as good as say the Chinese at making widgets but are really good in making gizmos, so we let the Chinese make all the widgets and we make all the gizmos … but wait, it has not worked like that at all. What in fact has happened is that, China is making BOTH widgets and gizmos.

Slowly and not so slowly we see that the emerging economies, (a euphemism for China and India) China in particular, are taking over sector after sector of our manufacturing industries, it is like slicing a salami- every day a small slice of our manufacturing industry is carved away without any impact until we wake up one day and realise that the salami  has gone.

Few of us ask where does this jobs destruction lead us get the standard spin is that we do not need manufacturing industry to prosper, we can still prosper by being a service economy .  It make no sense whatsoever we cannot produce wealth by producing nothing.

Serving each other drinks and making each others’ beds is not an economy!

One day we shall wake up, not only with no factories and with no manufacturing expertise, then what?

The Chinese will have us by the sort and curly and they will pull, have no doubt about it!

* * * * *

All ideologies, euphemisms and spins do not change one fact and that is that CHINA IS A TOTALITARIAN COMMUNIST COUNTRY. All the Western democracies would be better advised to take this fact into account when dealing with China before we hand over our manufacturing industry.

Whilst we all pontificating on the merits or otherwise of free trade China is forging forward, not by reciprocating our free trade but by practicing protectionism – the Chinese current import duty tariffs may not be high but don’t let it fools you, the Chinese government has achieved protectionism by other means, not the least their by tight control over EXCHANGE RATES, foreign currency restrictions and other administrative and bureaucratic limitations and control, all aim at supporting their emerging economy not ours.

Since 1984, the Renminbi (China’s people’s currency) has been devalued by 200%. This is as “good” as having across the board tariff of 200% increase on all imports at the time when our tariffs are for Chinese products coming down.

Further the Renminbi is not a readily convertible currency. Traditionally Chinese citizen could not receive allocation of foreign currency for imports, unless they had earned foreign exchange in previous exports. (These restrictions have somewhat relaxed in recent times due to large foreign currency reserves accumulated in recent years.)

As you can see, China’s current wealths is a combine result of sever protectionism on their side and the free trade ideology on our side.

In fact China approach is not unique, all historical economic empires were built on the foundation of protectionism, or mercantilism as it was known years ago. England’s Navigation Act of 1651 reserved all English trade, including to, from and between its colonies to be carried only by English ships (or ships owned by English nationals). The Corn Laws of 1815 that prohibited importing grain into England at a price less than 80 shillings per quarter (28 pounds) are some of such examples of protectionism going back to the 19^th century.

Britain before 1846 (when the Corn Laws were repealed), the USA from 1860 to 1914, Germany from 1870 to 1914, Japan of after WWII and Australia till the 1970’s all developed their economies on a foundation of protectionism.

If free trade is best for nations, how is it that every modern state that rose to prominent and power …. Was protectionist?

Asks Pat Buchanan rhetorically in his book Day Of Reckoning and continues to cite that

All four presidents on Mount Rushmore – Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt – were economic nationalists.

[- pp 195]

The apparent discrepancy in the benefits of free trade is simple to explain, free trade is beneficial to both parties ONLY when it is practised between nations of similar standard of living.

There are many examples that prove this hypothesis, not the least the free trades among the states in the USA, Australia, and the EU, as well as our free trade with New Zealand albeit we are competitors on many products when it comes to international trade.

A recent survey done in Australia, has shown that about 80% of shopper SAYING that they prefer Australian products over overseas’ even if it costs more BUT when it comes to action, only about 20%  of shoppers actually put their money where their mouth is.

I suspect that the situation in America and other western democracies is similar. Come on people, put you money where your mouth is, use it or loose it!

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2009