If you don't know who H.R. Giger is, you're an asshole. 'Nuff said.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
The IPCC Does It Again
By Chris Irvine
Published: 12:59PM GMT 24 Jan 2010
The United Nations' climate science panel is facing further embarrassment after claims it incorrectly linked global warming to a rise in natural disasters.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claimed in 2007 that the world had "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather related events since the 1970s", suggesting that part of the increase was down to global warming.
But the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim was allegedly not peer reviewed or published by the time the report was issued. When it was eventually published in 2008, it came with the caveat: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses".
Despite the concession, the IPCC failed to clarify the statement ahead of last month's Copenhagen summit. The claim formed a central argument at the climate change conference, where African nations demanded £62 billion in compensation from rich nations responsible for the highest amount of carbon emissions.
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chair of the IPCC has now conceded that the evidence will be reviewed.
"We are reassessing the evidence and will publish a report on natural disasters and extreme weather with the latest findings," he said.
Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, who commissioned Dr Muir-Wood's paper, told The Sunday Times: "All the literature published before and since the IPCC report shows that rising disaster losses can be explained entirely by social change. People have looked hard for evidence that global warming plays a part but can't find it," he said.
"The idea that catastrophes are rising in cost because of climate change is completely misleading."
Last week the IPCC was forced to admit it made a mistake by claiming the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035. It made the assertion two years ago, saying it was based on detailed research into global warming, but has now conceded it was an error and the claim would be reviewed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/7066720/UN-climate-science-panel-incorrectly-linked-global-warming-to-rise-in-natural-disasters.html
Published: 12:59PM GMT 24 Jan 2010
The United Nations' climate science panel is facing further embarrassment after claims it incorrectly linked global warming to a rise in natural disasters.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claimed in 2007 that the world had "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather related events since the 1970s", suggesting that part of the increase was down to global warming.
But the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim was allegedly not peer reviewed or published by the time the report was issued. When it was eventually published in 2008, it came with the caveat: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses".
Despite the concession, the IPCC failed to clarify the statement ahead of last month's Copenhagen summit. The claim formed a central argument at the climate change conference, where African nations demanded £62 billion in compensation from rich nations responsible for the highest amount of carbon emissions.
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chair of the IPCC has now conceded that the evidence will be reviewed.
"We are reassessing the evidence and will publish a report on natural disasters and extreme weather with the latest findings," he said.
Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, who commissioned Dr Muir-Wood's paper, told The Sunday Times: "All the literature published before and since the IPCC report shows that rising disaster losses can be explained entirely by social change. People have looked hard for evidence that global warming plays a part but can't find it," he said.
"The idea that catastrophes are rising in cost because of climate change is completely misleading."
Last week the IPCC was forced to admit it made a mistake by claiming the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035. It made the assertion two years ago, saying it was based on detailed research into global warming, but has now conceded it was an error and the claim would be reviewed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/7066720/UN-climate-science-panel-incorrectly-linked-global-warming-to-rise-in-natural-disasters.html
Friday, January 22, 2010
James Randi on Anthropogenic Global Warming
Written by James Randi
Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:14
Though this subject is not one that directly concerns the JREF, I'm very frequently asked if I'll turn my skeptical eye to it. As a year-end fling, I'll give it a try. To wit:
An unfortunate fact is that scientists are just as human as the rest of us, in that they are strongly influenced by the need to be accepted, to kowtow to peer opinion, and to "belong" in the scientific community. Why do I find this "unfortunate"? Because the media and the hoi polloi increasingly depend upon and accept ideas or principles that are proclaimed loudly enough by academics who are often more driven by "politically correct" survival principles than by those given them by Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and Bohr. (Granted, it's reassuring that they're listening to academics at all -- but how to tell the competent from the incompetent?) Religious and other emotional convictions drive scientists, despite what they may think their motivations are.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- a group of thousands of scientists in 194 countries around the world, and recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize -- has issued several comprehensive reports in which they indicate that they have become convinced that "global warming" is and will be seriously destructive to life as we know it, and that Man is the chief cause of it. They say that there is a consensus of scientists who believe we are headed for disaster if we do not stop burning fossil fuels, but a growing number of prominent scientists disagree. Meanwhile, some 32,000 scientists, 9,000 of them PhDs, have signed The Petition Project statement proclaiming that Man is not necessarily the chief cause of warming, that the phenomenon may not exist at all, and that, in any case, warming would not be disastrous.
Happily, science does not depend on consensus. Conclusions are either reached or not, but only after an analysis of evidence as found in nature. It's often been said that once a conclusion is reached, proper scientists set about trying to prove themselves wrong. Failing in that, they arrive at a statement that appears -- based on all available data -- to describe a limited aspect about how the world appears to work. And not all scientists are willing to follow this path. My most excellent friend Martin Gardner once asked a parapsychologist just what sort of evidence would convince him he had erred in coming to a certain conclusion. The parascientist replied that he could not imagine any such situation, thus -- in my opinion -- removing him from the ranks of the scientific discipline rather decidedly.
History supplies us with many examples where scientists were just plain wrong about certain matters, but ultimately discovered the truth through continued research. Science recovers from such situations quite well, though sometimes with minor wounds.
I strongly suspect that The Petition Project may be valid. I base this on my admittedly rudimentary knowledge of the facts about planet Earth. This ball of hot rock and salt water spins on its axis and rotates about the Sun with the expected regularity, though we're aware that lunar tides, solar wind, galactic space dust and geomagnetic storms have cooled the planet by about one centigrade degree in the past 150 years. The myriad of influences that act upon Earth are so many and so variable -- though not capricious -- that I believe we simply cannot formulate an equation into which we enter variables and come up with an answer. A living planet will continually belch, vibrate, fracture, and crumble a bit, and thus defeat an accurate equation. Please note that this my amateur opinion, based on probably insufficient data.
It appears that the Earth is warming, and has continued to warm since the last Ice Age, which ended some 10,000 to 20,000 years ago. But that has not been an even warming. Years of warming followed by years of cooling have left us just a bit warmer than before. This conclusion has been arrived at from data collected at some 1,200+ weather stations in the USA, though bear in mind that there are very few weather stations over the vast oceans that cover 70% of our planet, or on the continents Africa, South America, and especially Antarctica.
We can now record temperatures with much better than the former fraction-of-a-degree accuracy we had just a decade ago, but that temperature change appears to be just about half a degree Centigrade.
Our Earth's atmosphere is approximately 80% nitrogen, 20% oxygen. Just .04% is carbon dioxide -- a "trace" amount. But from that tiny percentage is built all the plants we have on Earth. CO2 is a natural molecule absolutely required for plant life to survive, and in the process of growing, those plants give off oxygen. We -- and all animal life -- consume that oxygen and give off CO2. (No, this is not an example of Intelligent Design.) If that balance is sufficiently disturbed, species either adapt or perish. And the world turns...
Incidentally, we have a convenient phenomenon that contributes to our survival. Doubling the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere will not double the temperature rise, small though it is. The basic principle of what's known as the "greenhouse effect" is quite simple: in a glass-enclosed environment, sunlight enters through the glass and strikes a surface, where it is transformed into longer infrared rays which do not easily reflect back through the glass; they're trapped. and raise the temperature. However, the greenhouse effect as applied to our planet is more complicated. The infrared rays that are reflected back from the Earth are trapped by the greenhouse gases, water vapor and CO2 -- a process that warms those gases and heats the Earth. This effect makes Earth habitable, preventing extremes of temperature. The limit of the influence of CO2 is dictated, not by the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but by the amount of solar radiation reflected back from the Earth. Once all the infrared rays have been "captured" by the greenhouse gases there is no additional increase in carbon dioxide.
Yes, we produce CO2, by burning "fossil fuels" and by simply breathing. And every fossil fuel produces CO2. Some products produce more than others, varying with their chemical composition. Methane gas produces less CO2, wood produces more. But almost paradoxically, when wood burns it produces CO2, and when a tree dies and rots it produces yet more CO2. Oceans are huge storage tanks for CO2, but as they warm up, they hold less of the dissolved gas. They release it into the atmosphere, then more of it is absorbed back into the oceans. And as far as humans are concerned, ten times more people die each year from the effects of cold than die from the heat. This a hugely complex set of variables we are trying to reduce to an equation...
It's easy enough to believe that drought, floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes are signs of a coming catastrophe from global warming, but these are normal variations of any climate that we -- and other forms of life -- have survived. Earth has undergone many serious changes in climate, from the Ice Ages to periods of heavily increased plant growth from their high levels of CO2, yet the biosphere has survived. We're adaptable, stubborn, and persistent -- and we have what other life forms don't have: we can manipulate our environment. Show me an Inuit who can survive in his habitat without warm clothing... Humans will continue to infest Earth because we're smart.
In my amateur opinion, more attention to disease control, better hygienic conditions for food production and clean water supplies, as well as controlling the filth that we breathe from fossil fuel use, are problems that should distract us from fretting about baking in Global Warming. From Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's 1891 A Scandal in Bohemia, I quote:
Watson: "This is indeed a mystery," I remarked. "What do you imagine that it means?"
Holmes: I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts...
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html
Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:14
Though this subject is not one that directly concerns the JREF, I'm very frequently asked if I'll turn my skeptical eye to it. As a year-end fling, I'll give it a try. To wit:
An unfortunate fact is that scientists are just as human as the rest of us, in that they are strongly influenced by the need to be accepted, to kowtow to peer opinion, and to "belong" in the scientific community. Why do I find this "unfortunate"? Because the media and the hoi polloi increasingly depend upon and accept ideas or principles that are proclaimed loudly enough by academics who are often more driven by "politically correct" survival principles than by those given them by Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and Bohr. (Granted, it's reassuring that they're listening to academics at all -- but how to tell the competent from the incompetent?) Religious and other emotional convictions drive scientists, despite what they may think their motivations are.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- a group of thousands of scientists in 194 countries around the world, and recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize -- has issued several comprehensive reports in which they indicate that they have become convinced that "global warming" is and will be seriously destructive to life as we know it, and that Man is the chief cause of it. They say that there is a consensus of scientists who believe we are headed for disaster if we do not stop burning fossil fuels, but a growing number of prominent scientists disagree. Meanwhile, some 32,000 scientists, 9,000 of them PhDs, have signed The Petition Project statement proclaiming that Man is not necessarily the chief cause of warming, that the phenomenon may not exist at all, and that, in any case, warming would not be disastrous.
Happily, science does not depend on consensus. Conclusions are either reached or not, but only after an analysis of evidence as found in nature. It's often been said that once a conclusion is reached, proper scientists set about trying to prove themselves wrong. Failing in that, they arrive at a statement that appears -- based on all available data -- to describe a limited aspect about how the world appears to work. And not all scientists are willing to follow this path. My most excellent friend Martin Gardner once asked a parapsychologist just what sort of evidence would convince him he had erred in coming to a certain conclusion. The parascientist replied that he could not imagine any such situation, thus -- in my opinion -- removing him from the ranks of the scientific discipline rather decidedly.
History supplies us with many examples where scientists were just plain wrong about certain matters, but ultimately discovered the truth through continued research. Science recovers from such situations quite well, though sometimes with minor wounds.
I strongly suspect that The Petition Project may be valid. I base this on my admittedly rudimentary knowledge of the facts about planet Earth. This ball of hot rock and salt water spins on its axis and rotates about the Sun with the expected regularity, though we're aware that lunar tides, solar wind, galactic space dust and geomagnetic storms have cooled the planet by about one centigrade degree in the past 150 years. The myriad of influences that act upon Earth are so many and so variable -- though not capricious -- that I believe we simply cannot formulate an equation into which we enter variables and come up with an answer. A living planet will continually belch, vibrate, fracture, and crumble a bit, and thus defeat an accurate equation. Please note that this my amateur opinion, based on probably insufficient data.
It appears that the Earth is warming, and has continued to warm since the last Ice Age, which ended some 10,000 to 20,000 years ago. But that has not been an even warming. Years of warming followed by years of cooling have left us just a bit warmer than before. This conclusion has been arrived at from data collected at some 1,200+ weather stations in the USA, though bear in mind that there are very few weather stations over the vast oceans that cover 70% of our planet, or on the continents Africa, South America, and especially Antarctica.
We can now record temperatures with much better than the former fraction-of-a-degree accuracy we had just a decade ago, but that temperature change appears to be just about half a degree Centigrade.
Our Earth's atmosphere is approximately 80% nitrogen, 20% oxygen. Just .04% is carbon dioxide -- a "trace" amount. But from that tiny percentage is built all the plants we have on Earth. CO2 is a natural molecule absolutely required for plant life to survive, and in the process of growing, those plants give off oxygen. We -- and all animal life -- consume that oxygen and give off CO2. (No, this is not an example of Intelligent Design.) If that balance is sufficiently disturbed, species either adapt or perish. And the world turns...
Incidentally, we have a convenient phenomenon that contributes to our survival. Doubling the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere will not double the temperature rise, small though it is. The basic principle of what's known as the "greenhouse effect" is quite simple: in a glass-enclosed environment, sunlight enters through the glass and strikes a surface, where it is transformed into longer infrared rays which do not easily reflect back through the glass; they're trapped. and raise the temperature. However, the greenhouse effect as applied to our planet is more complicated. The infrared rays that are reflected back from the Earth are trapped by the greenhouse gases, water vapor and CO2 -- a process that warms those gases and heats the Earth. This effect makes Earth habitable, preventing extremes of temperature. The limit of the influence of CO2 is dictated, not by the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but by the amount of solar radiation reflected back from the Earth. Once all the infrared rays have been "captured" by the greenhouse gases there is no additional increase in carbon dioxide.
Yes, we produce CO2, by burning "fossil fuels" and by simply breathing. And every fossil fuel produces CO2. Some products produce more than others, varying with their chemical composition. Methane gas produces less CO2, wood produces more. But almost paradoxically, when wood burns it produces CO2, and when a tree dies and rots it produces yet more CO2. Oceans are huge storage tanks for CO2, but as they warm up, they hold less of the dissolved gas. They release it into the atmosphere, then more of it is absorbed back into the oceans. And as far as humans are concerned, ten times more people die each year from the effects of cold than die from the heat. This a hugely complex set of variables we are trying to reduce to an equation...
It's easy enough to believe that drought, floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes are signs of a coming catastrophe from global warming, but these are normal variations of any climate that we -- and other forms of life -- have survived. Earth has undergone many serious changes in climate, from the Ice Ages to periods of heavily increased plant growth from their high levels of CO2, yet the biosphere has survived. We're adaptable, stubborn, and persistent -- and we have what other life forms don't have: we can manipulate our environment. Show me an Inuit who can survive in his habitat without warm clothing... Humans will continue to infest Earth because we're smart.
In my amateur opinion, more attention to disease control, better hygienic conditions for food production and clean water supplies, as well as controlling the filth that we breathe from fossil fuel use, are problems that should distract us from fretting about baking in Global Warming. From Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's 1891 A Scandal in Bohemia, I quote:
Watson: "This is indeed a mystery," I remarked. "What do you imagine that it means?"
Holmes: I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts...
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html
Thursday, January 21, 2010
More From The Front Lines Of Skepticism
This doesn't surprise me when you take into consideration that many of the people who work for the IPCC, and do research for the IPCC, are not even scientists. Instead these are people that don't possess the qualifications necessary to weigh in on what should be a scientific debate - not a political platform. Is this really the organization that we as a species want biasing sweeping political policy? They don't exactly have a sterling reputation for thorough fact checking, astute science or objective presentations - and five minutes with Google will be more than enough to verify my very explicit accusations.
GWC
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
The vice-chairman of the UN's climate science panel has admitted it made a mistake in asserting that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) included the date in its 2007 assessment of climate impacts.
A number of scientists have recently disputed the 2035 figure, and Jean-Pascal van Ypersele told BBC News that it was an error and would be reviewed.
But he said it did not change the broad picture of man-made climate change.
The issue, which BBC News first reported on 05 December, has reverberated around climate websites in recent days.
Some commentators maintain that taken together with the contents of e-mails stolen last year from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, it undermines the credibility of climate science.
Dr van Ypersele said this was not the case...
Read more at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8468358.stm
GWC
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
The vice-chairman of the UN's climate science panel has admitted it made a mistake in asserting that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) included the date in its 2007 assessment of climate impacts.
A number of scientists have recently disputed the 2035 figure, and Jean-Pascal van Ypersele told BBC News that it was an error and would be reviewed.
But he said it did not change the broad picture of man-made climate change.
The issue, which BBC News first reported on 05 December, has reverberated around climate websites in recent days.
Some commentators maintain that taken together with the contents of e-mails stolen last year from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, it undermines the credibility of climate science.
Dr van Ypersele said this was not the case...
Read more at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8468358.stm
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Roy Spencer
If you like to get the temperature of a debate pool before hopping in, then I simply cannot recommend this book enough. In his book, Dr. Spencer takes the readily available information on both sides of the spectrum and dissects the scientific jargon and eliminates hazy math in order to give us, the laymen, a full understanding of the argument. Dr. Spencer is gentle in his tone, professional in his language but also fiercely dedicated to telling the truth and displaying the facts for what they are, facts. This book also serves as a fine weapon to bash idiots over the head with, I must say.
Below I have taken the liberty of posting a couple of reviews.
You can follow Dr. Spencer at his website:
GWC
http://www.drroyspencer.com/climate-confusion/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
“Climate Confusion is the best book length treatment of global warming science that is available to the literate citizen. The title says it all. Spencer explains the broad agreement over the existence of some climate change and the existence of some human role, but he also explains why these have little to do with the implausible and overheated projections of environmental disaster. The author thus cuts through all the rhetorical brickbats of “denialism” and “salvationism” to allow the citizen to reach rational conclusions. Despite a light touch, Spencer does not pull punches when it comes to unclothing the moral pretenses of many in the environmental movement—pretenses often disguising some truly immoral agendas.”
Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“An outstanding discussion of the many scientific, political and religious problems associated with the acceptance that humans are the primary cause of global warming. A must read for anyone wanting a full and balanced understanding of the global warming debate.”
William M. Gray
Professor Emeritus, Department of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Immigrants Will Be The New Constituent Assembly
By DEVIN DWYER and TEDDY DAVIS
WASHINGTON, Jan. 15, 2010
The Obama administration said today that tens of thousands of illegal Haitian immigrants can remain temporarily in the U.S. while their country rebuilds after Tuesday's devastating earthquake.
The announcement to grant "temporary protective status," or TPS, to Haitian nationals allows immigrants already in the U.S. to live and work freely here until conditions in Haiti improve. After 18 months the status could be revoked.
Read more at:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HaitiEarthquake/haiti-earthquake-illegal-haitians-protected-status-quake/story?id=9570995
WASHINGTON, Jan. 15, 2010
The Obama administration said today that tens of thousands of illegal Haitian immigrants can remain temporarily in the U.S. while their country rebuilds after Tuesday's devastating earthquake.
The announcement to grant "temporary protective status," or TPS, to Haitian nationals allows immigrants already in the U.S. to live and work freely here until conditions in Haiti improve. After 18 months the status could be revoked.
Read more at:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HaitiEarthquake/haiti-earthquake-illegal-haitians-protected-status-quake/story?id=9570995
Monday, January 18, 2010
Letter To Ban Ki Moon
Below is an open letter sent to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki Moon. It's fascinating to me that so many scientists still question what the media would have us believe is a "settled" case. Could it be that the vote is still out? Well damn Mr. Gore, what kind of bullshit are you trying to sell here?
GWC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
His Excellency Ban Ki Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, NY
United States of America
8 December 2009
Dear Secretary-General,
Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.
Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.
We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.
Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:
1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
2. Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
3. Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
4. Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
5. The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
8. Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
10.Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.
It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.
Signed by:
Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Dr. Sci., mathematician and astrophysicist, Head of the Russian-Ukrainian Astrometria project on the board of the Russian segment of the ISS, Head of Space Research Laboratory at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia
Göran Ahlgren, docent organisk kemi, general secretary of the Stockholm Initiative, Professor of Organic Chemistry, Stockholm, Sweden
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.
J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000, Pretoria, South Africa.
Jock Allison, PhD, ONZM, formerly Ministry of Agriculture Regional Research Director, Dunedin, New Zealand
Bjarne Andresen, PhD, dr. scient, physicist, published and presents on the impossibility of a "global temperature", Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant and former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Member, Science Advisory Board, ICSC, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Douglas W. Barr, BS (Meteorology, University of Chicago), BS and MS (Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota), Barr Engineering Co. (environmental issues and water resources), Minnesota, U.S.A.
Romuald Bartnik, PhD (Organic Chemistry), Professor Emeritus, Former chairman of the Department of Organic and Applied Chemistry, climate work in cooperation with Department of Hydrology and Geological Museum, University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland
Colin Barton, B.Sc., PhD, Earth Science, Principal research scientist (retd), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Many more signatures can be found at the source posted below.
http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/
GWC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
His Excellency Ban Ki Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, NY
United States of America
8 December 2009
Dear Secretary-General,
Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.
Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.
We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.
Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:
1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
2. Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
3. Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
4. Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
5. The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
8. Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
10.Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.
It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.
Signed by:
Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Dr. Sci., mathematician and astrophysicist, Head of the Russian-Ukrainian Astrometria project on the board of the Russian segment of the ISS, Head of Space Research Laboratory at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia
Göran Ahlgren, docent organisk kemi, general secretary of the Stockholm Initiative, Professor of Organic Chemistry, Stockholm, Sweden
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.
J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000, Pretoria, South Africa.
Jock Allison, PhD, ONZM, formerly Ministry of Agriculture Regional Research Director, Dunedin, New Zealand
Bjarne Andresen, PhD, dr. scient, physicist, published and presents on the impossibility of a "global temperature", Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant and former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Member, Science Advisory Board, ICSC, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Douglas W. Barr, BS (Meteorology, University of Chicago), BS and MS (Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota), Barr Engineering Co. (environmental issues and water resources), Minnesota, U.S.A.
Romuald Bartnik, PhD (Organic Chemistry), Professor Emeritus, Former chairman of the Department of Organic and Applied Chemistry, climate work in cooperation with Department of Hydrology and Geological Museum, University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland
Colin Barton, B.Sc., PhD, Earth Science, Principal research scientist (retd), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Many more signatures can be found at the source posted below.
http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/
Sunday, January 17, 2010
That Pesky Ice!!!
By MAIL FOREIGN SERVICE
Last updated at 8:18 AM on 12th January 2010
Sea water under an East Antarctic ice shelf showed no sign of higher temperatures, first tests showed today.
Despite fears of a thaw linked to global warming that could bring higher world ocean levels, tests conducted on the Fimbul Ice Shelf showed the sea water is still around freezing point.
Thanks to sensors, lowered through three holes drilled in the shelf, scientists have discovered the water is not at higher temperatures widely blamed for the break-up of 10 shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula, the most northerly part of the frozen continent....
Read more at:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1242398/Now-tests-ice-ISNT-melting-Sea-water-shelf-East-Antarctic-freezing.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems that the data just isn't going to conform to alarmist propaganda.
Bummer.
GWC
Last updated at 8:18 AM on 12th January 2010
Sea water under an East Antarctic ice shelf showed no sign of higher temperatures, first tests showed today.
Despite fears of a thaw linked to global warming that could bring higher world ocean levels, tests conducted on the Fimbul Ice Shelf showed the sea water is still around freezing point.
Thanks to sensors, lowered through three holes drilled in the shelf, scientists have discovered the water is not at higher temperatures widely blamed for the break-up of 10 shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula, the most northerly part of the frozen continent....
Read more at:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1242398/Now-tests-ice-ISNT-melting-Sea-water-shelf-East-Antarctic-freezing.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems that the data just isn't going to conform to alarmist propaganda.
Bummer.
GWC
John Coleman
My opinion has never warmed up (pun intended) to the assertion that anthropogenic global warming is a doomsday crisis. Rather, I suspect that this is another case in the historical grocery list of politically motivated disinformation and fear mongering. Cynicism seems to be the reasonable position to adopt when you consider the prevailing culture of 'big government, fast money, loose business' we currently live in. Fear sells, and it sells great.
John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, gives a rather compelling treatment of the situation in this short, but concise video. Enjoy.
GWC
John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, gives a rather compelling treatment of the situation in this short, but concise video. Enjoy.
GWC
Only A Matter Of Time
Hardly surprising that an interview starring Pat Robertson - that always grossly insensitive, outrageously dumb, Evangelical fruitcake - would eventually surface on YouTube. Let's not forget that this is the same dip shit that blamed 9/11 on unions and homosexuals, and hurricane Katrina on abortion. So is it any wonder that he knows exactly why God chose to smite ol' Haiti? And that his reasoning is just as stupid as he is?
P.R. lesson for the day; God endorses slavery - those Haitians should have enjoyed their yoke of bondage with much thanks. This dumb mother fucker would have been truer to his cause and to the absurdities written in the bible if he blamed this on circumcision.
GWC
P.R. lesson for the day; God endorses slavery - those Haitians should have enjoyed their yoke of bondage with much thanks. This dumb mother fucker would have been truer to his cause and to the absurdities written in the bible if he blamed this on circumcision.
GWC
The Mighty War Nerd
Given the recent events in Haiti, I think the amazing history of the region as told by the "War Nerd" Gary Brecher is only fitting.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was first published in The eXile on February 19, 2004.
Haiti popped into the news again, and I decided it was time to tell the whole military history of the place. It’s got to be the most amazing, bloodsoaked, heroic, messed-up story in the Western Hemisphere: slave armies defeating Napoleon’s troops, huge castles built in the middle of the jungle, endless three-cornered war between whites, blacks and mulattos…it’s just incredible. In fact, it’s so wild and complex I’m going to have to divide it into two columns. This one will cover Haiti up to independence in 1803. Next issue I’ll bring it from there to the present.
Haiti is like the big slaughterhouse across the tracks: you kind of know what goes on in there, but you’d rather not think about it.
Every now and then there’s a bad stench when the wind’s blowing the wrong way, or the drainage ditch runs red with blood for a week — the kind of thing nice people can’t ignore any more. That’s when the do-gooders send a commission to investigate, or even send in the Marines to clean the place up. They stick around a while, till the blood starts slopping around their ankles, then pack up and head home. And nobody worries about Haiti for another few years....
Read more at:
http://exiledonline.com/homage-to-haiti-a-war-nerd-classic/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was first published in The eXile on February 19, 2004.
Haiti popped into the news again, and I decided it was time to tell the whole military history of the place. It’s got to be the most amazing, bloodsoaked, heroic, messed-up story in the Western Hemisphere: slave armies defeating Napoleon’s troops, huge castles built in the middle of the jungle, endless three-cornered war between whites, blacks and mulattos…it’s just incredible. In fact, it’s so wild and complex I’m going to have to divide it into two columns. This one will cover Haiti up to independence in 1803. Next issue I’ll bring it from there to the present.
Haiti is like the big slaughterhouse across the tracks: you kind of know what goes on in there, but you’d rather not think about it.
Every now and then there’s a bad stench when the wind’s blowing the wrong way, or the drainage ditch runs red with blood for a week — the kind of thing nice people can’t ignore any more. That’s when the do-gooders send a commission to investigate, or even send in the Marines to clean the place up. They stick around a while, till the blood starts slopping around their ankles, then pack up and head home. And nobody worries about Haiti for another few years....
Read more at:
http://exiledonline.com/homage-to-haiti-a-war-nerd-classic/
Oh Oh Haiti
Nothing like a disastrous earthquake to bring them ol' Haitians together in a wonderful display of social solidarity. Oh yeah, this is Haiti, forget that fluffy idea, they'd rather hack and slash each other to bits with rusty machetes. That's right, those animals are following the script perfectly. Really, the only thing that I find regrettable is the innocent children left to rot in the wake of the Haitian condition.
Maybe the death of tens of thousands of people (when and if the chaos subsides to the standard level of genocidal mayhem) will lessen the burden of feeding a dreadfully poor, mostly uneducated, culturally suicidal populace. I mean really, what else do these people have to hope for? If I believed in God, I'd say that Haiti was his penultimate cosmic "fuck you" to humanity. Well anyway...
...Here you go, the pearl of the Caribbean, in all it's shit-ridden glory.
GWC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Published: 1:00AM GMT 15 Jan 2010
Shaul Schwarz, a photographer for TIME magazine, said he saw at least two downtown roadblocks formed with bodies of earthquake victims and rocks.
"They are starting to block the roads with bodies, it's getting ugly out there, people are fed up with getting no help," he said.
President Barack Obama has promised Haitians they would not be forgotten, offering $100 million in immediate earthquake aid and the backing of every element of US power.
A large-scale US military and civilian aid operation has gained momentum with Washington sending rescue teams, ships, helicopters, planes, a floating hospital, emergency supplies and more than 5,000 ground troops.
However, there was little sign of the aid effort on the ground in the capital, where chaos ruled.
Gunshots were heard throughout the night and looting was commonplace as desperate survivors scrambled to find scarce supplies of food, water and medical equipment.
Gangs were also reported to be roaming the streets, making up rumours of a looming tidal wave so that they could steal from fleeing families.
Complicating the relief effort, the city's airport was closed for several hours due to severe overcrowding and a lack of airport fuel.
The Pentagon has rejected criticism that it may have acted too slowly to deploy its military might in the first 24 hours of the disaster, saying it moved in assessment teams quickly.
But the relief effort faced serious challenges, Mr Obama said, with roads in Haiti impassable, communications rudimentary, and aftershocks still rumbling.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/haiti/6992274/Haiti-earthquake-corpses-used-as-roadblocks-as-anger-grows.html
Maybe the death of tens of thousands of people (when and if the chaos subsides to the standard level of genocidal mayhem) will lessen the burden of feeding a dreadfully poor, mostly uneducated, culturally suicidal populace. I mean really, what else do these people have to hope for? If I believed in God, I'd say that Haiti was his penultimate cosmic "fuck you" to humanity. Well anyway...
...Here you go, the pearl of the Caribbean, in all it's shit-ridden glory.
GWC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Published: 1:00AM GMT 15 Jan 2010
Shaul Schwarz, a photographer for TIME magazine, said he saw at least two downtown roadblocks formed with bodies of earthquake victims and rocks.
"They are starting to block the roads with bodies, it's getting ugly out there, people are fed up with getting no help," he said.
President Barack Obama has promised Haitians they would not be forgotten, offering $100 million in immediate earthquake aid and the backing of every element of US power.
A large-scale US military and civilian aid operation has gained momentum with Washington sending rescue teams, ships, helicopters, planes, a floating hospital, emergency supplies and more than 5,000 ground troops.
However, there was little sign of the aid effort on the ground in the capital, where chaos ruled.
Gunshots were heard throughout the night and looting was commonplace as desperate survivors scrambled to find scarce supplies of food, water and medical equipment.
Gangs were also reported to be roaming the streets, making up rumours of a looming tidal wave so that they could steal from fleeing families.
Complicating the relief effort, the city's airport was closed for several hours due to severe overcrowding and a lack of airport fuel.
The Pentagon has rejected criticism that it may have acted too slowly to deploy its military might in the first 24 hours of the disaster, saying it moved in assessment teams quickly.
But the relief effort faced serious challenges, Mr Obama said, with roads in Haiti impassable, communications rudimentary, and aftershocks still rumbling.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/haiti/6992274/Haiti-earthquake-corpses-used-as-roadblocks-as-anger-grows.html
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Jihad Anyone?
November 12, 2009 by Amil Imani
There is a division of the house. On one side are the politically correct in government, the leftist mainstream media, and a raft of Islamist apologists. One and all are tripping over each other in reassuring us the mass murderers such as Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan and suicide-bombers who detonate their explosive vests in crowded marketplaces and even mosques are individual anomalies and Islam is not responsible for what they do.
On the other side are those fed up with the innumerable daily horrific acts throughout the world that are clearly committed under the banner of Islam. In all fairness, there needs to be a distinction. Numerous criminal acts are also committed on a daily basis by non-Muslims. The critical difference is that non-Muslim criminals do not hoist a religious banner to justify their misdeeds, while the Muslims proudly claim that they commit their heinous acts in obedience to the dictates of their religious faith.
Would someone please explain what motivated Nidal Hasan, who at taxpayers' expense was educated from college all the way through medical school and post medical-school training, to turn his deadly weapons against the nation that gave him everything he had?
If Islam had nothing to do with what Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan did, then why:
* did he repeatedly preach the ascendancy of Islam over the U.S. Constitution?
* did he publicly support Islamic suicide-bombing?
* did he proclaim his highest loyalty to Islam?
* was he in contact with violent anti-U.S. Islamists and a virulent Yemeni Imam?
* did he distribute copies of the Quran to people the morning of his bloody attack?
* did he keep screaming "Allahu akbar" as he heartlessly sprayed over a hundred bullets, killing thirteen and injuring some thirty innocent men and women?
Here is the truth, as bitter as it may be: Islam is the culprit. Islam is anything but a religion of peace. Violence is at the very core of Islam. Violence is institutionalized in the Muslims' holy book, the Quran, in many suras:
Quran 9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
9:112 "The Believers fight in Allah's cause; they slay and are slain, kill and are killed."
8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."
8:65 "O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding."
9:38 "Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to go forth and fight in Allah's Cause you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you go forth, He will afflict and punish you with a painful doom, and put others in your place."
47:4 "When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam."
And the Quran is considered by Muslims to be the word-for-word literal edicts of their god, Allah.
Right from the start, violence served as the engine of Islam under the command and supervision of Muhammad himself. For one, the Prophet's son-in-law cousin, Ali, was titled the Commander of the Faithful for his unsurpassed feats of butchery. With the assistance of one or two of his thugs, Ali beheaded some seven hundred captives, most of them Jews, in only one day. This man, highly esteemed by the prophet of Allah, carried a sword that had its own name -- Zolfaghar. Ali's portrait, holding the menacing sword, adorns the homes and shops throughout Shiite lands. And Ali is revered by the Shiites at the same level as Muhammad.
On the Sunni side, Muhammad's co-revered is Umar, another unabashed killer of untold numbers. And of course, the choice weapon of these champions of the religion of peace was the sword. To this day, a sword adorns the flag of Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of the religion of peace.
And Islam, by the very nature of its doctrine, appeals to man's base nature. It promotes intolerance, hatred, discrimination, and much more:
Quran 61:2 "O Muslims, why say one thing and do another? Grievously odious and hateful is it in the sight of Allah that you say that which you do not. Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in a battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure."
In reality, Islam is like a deadly, contagious disease. Once it invades the mind of its victim, it is capable of transforming him to a helpless pawn that has no choice but to execute what he is directed to do.
Of the reported 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, millions are already trapped in the terminal stages of this affliction, while millions of others are rapidly joining them. The people enslaved with the extreme cases of Islamic mental disease are highly infectious. They actively work to transmit the disease to others, while they themselves engage in horrific acts of mayhem and violence to demonstrate their unconditional obedience to the dictates of the Islamic cult.
The savagery and variety of the actions of these Islamic captives are seen daily around the globe. Many of these acts, committed under the banner of Islam, have become so commonplace that the world has come to view them as part and parcel of a troubled humanity. And, from time to time, the world is shocked into a passing and momentary realization of the evil deeds these Islamist robots commit. However, people quickly get over it, and they do nothing to seriously address this affliction.
The recent and dastardly mass murder at Fort Hood, committed by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, will be forgotten by the public before long. Life will continue on its deadly course, pushed along in a variety of ways by Islamists, the agents of death. Only the families who lost their loved ones and those who survived the bullets have to live the rest of their lives with incapacitating injuries. They likely won't be able to put the episode behind them.
The mass-murderer Hasan did not riddle people with bullets under the pressure of momentary insanity. The insanity -- ironic in a man who was trained to help people with sanity -- was introduced in him from the moment of birth and from the very early years when he prostrated himself five times daily toward Mecca in expression of total submission to the dogma of hate called Islam.
A true Muslim does not and cannot believe in freedom of choice. In the religion of Islam -- "submission" -- everything is up to Allah, as clearly and repeatedly stipulated in the Quran. The raison d'être for the Muslim is unconditional submission to the will and dictates of Allah. Everything that a "good" Muslim does is contingent upon the will and decree of Allah, in which the Muslim is indoctrinated to believe.
Humanity is facing a deeply troubling dilemma. On the one hand is the desire of enlightened people to forge a diverse world into one society ruled by peace and justice, while on the other hand, Islamists are hellbent on imposing their stone-age system on everyone. Tellingly, the Muslims themselves are at one another's throats regarding which of dozens of Islamic sects' dogma should rule.
For now, Islam is busy with what it did from the time of its birth: fighting the non-Muslims, and infighting.
Truth be told, violence is the animating force of Islam. Islam is a religion born through violence, raised by violence, which thrives on violence, and which dies without violence.
Article written by Amil Imani
There is a division of the house. On one side are the politically correct in government, the leftist mainstream media, and a raft of Islamist apologists. One and all are tripping over each other in reassuring us the mass murderers such as Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan and suicide-bombers who detonate their explosive vests in crowded marketplaces and even mosques are individual anomalies and Islam is not responsible for what they do.
On the other side are those fed up with the innumerable daily horrific acts throughout the world that are clearly committed under the banner of Islam. In all fairness, there needs to be a distinction. Numerous criminal acts are also committed on a daily basis by non-Muslims. The critical difference is that non-Muslim criminals do not hoist a religious banner to justify their misdeeds, while the Muslims proudly claim that they commit their heinous acts in obedience to the dictates of their religious faith.
Would someone please explain what motivated Nidal Hasan, who at taxpayers' expense was educated from college all the way through medical school and post medical-school training, to turn his deadly weapons against the nation that gave him everything he had?
If Islam had nothing to do with what Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan did, then why:
* did he repeatedly preach the ascendancy of Islam over the U.S. Constitution?
* did he publicly support Islamic suicide-bombing?
* did he proclaim his highest loyalty to Islam?
* was he in contact with violent anti-U.S. Islamists and a virulent Yemeni Imam?
* did he distribute copies of the Quran to people the morning of his bloody attack?
* did he keep screaming "Allahu akbar" as he heartlessly sprayed over a hundred bullets, killing thirteen and injuring some thirty innocent men and women?
Here is the truth, as bitter as it may be: Islam is the culprit. Islam is anything but a religion of peace. Violence is at the very core of Islam. Violence is institutionalized in the Muslims' holy book, the Quran, in many suras:
Quran 9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
9:112 "The Believers fight in Allah's cause; they slay and are slain, kill and are killed."
8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."
8:65 "O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding."
9:38 "Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to go forth and fight in Allah's Cause you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you go forth, He will afflict and punish you with a painful doom, and put others in your place."
47:4 "When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam."
And the Quran is considered by Muslims to be the word-for-word literal edicts of their god, Allah.
Right from the start, violence served as the engine of Islam under the command and supervision of Muhammad himself. For one, the Prophet's son-in-law cousin, Ali, was titled the Commander of the Faithful for his unsurpassed feats of butchery. With the assistance of one or two of his thugs, Ali beheaded some seven hundred captives, most of them Jews, in only one day. This man, highly esteemed by the prophet of Allah, carried a sword that had its own name -- Zolfaghar. Ali's portrait, holding the menacing sword, adorns the homes and shops throughout Shiite lands. And Ali is revered by the Shiites at the same level as Muhammad.
On the Sunni side, Muhammad's co-revered is Umar, another unabashed killer of untold numbers. And of course, the choice weapon of these champions of the religion of peace was the sword. To this day, a sword adorns the flag of Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of the religion of peace.
And Islam, by the very nature of its doctrine, appeals to man's base nature. It promotes intolerance, hatred, discrimination, and much more:
Quran 61:2 "O Muslims, why say one thing and do another? Grievously odious and hateful is it in the sight of Allah that you say that which you do not. Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in a battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure."
In reality, Islam is like a deadly, contagious disease. Once it invades the mind of its victim, it is capable of transforming him to a helpless pawn that has no choice but to execute what he is directed to do.
Of the reported 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, millions are already trapped in the terminal stages of this affliction, while millions of others are rapidly joining them. The people enslaved with the extreme cases of Islamic mental disease are highly infectious. They actively work to transmit the disease to others, while they themselves engage in horrific acts of mayhem and violence to demonstrate their unconditional obedience to the dictates of the Islamic cult.
The savagery and variety of the actions of these Islamic captives are seen daily around the globe. Many of these acts, committed under the banner of Islam, have become so commonplace that the world has come to view them as part and parcel of a troubled humanity. And, from time to time, the world is shocked into a passing and momentary realization of the evil deeds these Islamist robots commit. However, people quickly get over it, and they do nothing to seriously address this affliction.
The recent and dastardly mass murder at Fort Hood, committed by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, will be forgotten by the public before long. Life will continue on its deadly course, pushed along in a variety of ways by Islamists, the agents of death. Only the families who lost their loved ones and those who survived the bullets have to live the rest of their lives with incapacitating injuries. They likely won't be able to put the episode behind them.
The mass-murderer Hasan did not riddle people with bullets under the pressure of momentary insanity. The insanity -- ironic in a man who was trained to help people with sanity -- was introduced in him from the moment of birth and from the very early years when he prostrated himself five times daily toward Mecca in expression of total submission to the dogma of hate called Islam.
A true Muslim does not and cannot believe in freedom of choice. In the religion of Islam -- "submission" -- everything is up to Allah, as clearly and repeatedly stipulated in the Quran. The raison d'être for the Muslim is unconditional submission to the will and dictates of Allah. Everything that a "good" Muslim does is contingent upon the will and decree of Allah, in which the Muslim is indoctrinated to believe.
Humanity is facing a deeply troubling dilemma. On the one hand is the desire of enlightened people to forge a diverse world into one society ruled by peace and justice, while on the other hand, Islamists are hellbent on imposing their stone-age system on everyone. Tellingly, the Muslims themselves are at one another's throats regarding which of dozens of Islamic sects' dogma should rule.
For now, Islam is busy with what it did from the time of its birth: fighting the non-Muslims, and infighting.
Truth be told, violence is the animating force of Islam. Islam is a religion born through violence, raised by violence, which thrives on violence, and which dies without violence.
Article written by Amil Imani
Ricky Gervais - Discussing The Bible
A little clip from that paragon of British comedy Ricky Gervais.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)