Despite all that I have alleged here I am still a free man, still free to exercise my right to free speech.
WHY?!
Friday, January 29, 2010
WHICH IS BEST : ZIONAZI OR ZIONUTTER?
I can't decide.
It's such a close call.
But due to the indisputable explicit collaboration between the Zionists and Nazis, for the explicit common goal of transferring Jews from Europe to Palestine despite their initial reluctance and doubt, I say Zionazi is the most appropriate term.
I understand that Zionutter is a softer and possibly more PC but still accurate term, but I feel that Zionazi sums up the 20th Century concisely, accurately and explicitly.
Don't you?
It's such a close call.
But due to the indisputable explicit collaboration between the Zionists and Nazis, for the explicit common goal of transferring Jews from Europe to Palestine despite their initial reluctance and doubt, I say Zionazi is the most appropriate term.
I understand that Zionutter is a softer and possibly more PC but still accurate term, but I feel that Zionazi sums up the 20th Century concisely, accurately and explicitly.
Don't you?
BETTER THE BERNANKE YOU KNOW
How corrupt is the US Senate to elect Bernanke to a second term?
VERY!
It doesn't matter that it was 70-30.
He was voted in...some stating it was better to have someone you know in charge rather than some unknown that Obummer could have imposed.
Absolute cr..!
VERY!
It doesn't matter that it was 70-30.
He was voted in...some stating it was better to have someone you know in charge rather than some unknown that Obummer could have imposed.
Absolute cr..!
TONY BLAIR SUMS UP NEW LABOUR
In his closing comments to Chilcot today Blair stated that he had no regrets.
Meanwhile his son Euan worked for J P Morgan which engineered and profited most from the current financial crisis via the very derivatives that they invented. For current exposure to derivatives see http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2009-161a.pdf
Guess who is top of and controls the market? Yep! JP Morgan Chase.
And it has done so for many years...every year that Euan Blair has worked for them.
Lord Adair Turner, one among many, concluded that derivatives caused the crisis.
JPMC invented the derivative.
JPMC control the derivative market.
JPMC have benefited most from the crash caused by the derivative market, though Goldman Sachs have not done too bad either having been illegally bailed out by AIG.
JPMC would have been master of the carbon derivative market had Copenhagen succeeded. Hence Tony Blair, along with Prince Charles, spoke in favour of a tyrannical genocidal world government at Copenhagen that would have imposed such a market.
So both dad Tony and son Euan worked for JPMC while it benefits from any chaos caused by the very war and policies that dad Tony engineered!
Nice bloody work if you can get it.
Meanwhile his son Euan worked for J P Morgan which engineered and profited most from the current financial crisis via the very derivatives that they invented. For current exposure to derivatives see http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2009-161a.pdf
Guess who is top of and controls the market? Yep! JP Morgan Chase.
And it has done so for many years...every year that Euan Blair has worked for them.
Lord Adair Turner, one among many, concluded that derivatives caused the crisis.
JPMC invented the derivative.
JPMC control the derivative market.
JPMC have benefited most from the crash caused by the derivative market, though Goldman Sachs have not done too bad either having been illegally bailed out by AIG.
JPMC would have been master of the carbon derivative market had Copenhagen succeeded. Hence Tony Blair, along with Prince Charles, spoke in favour of a tyrannical genocidal world government at Copenhagen that would have imposed such a market.
So both dad Tony and son Euan worked for JPMC while it benefits from any chaos caused by the very war and policies that dad Tony engineered!
Nice bloody work if you can get it.
JUST HOW CORRUPT CAN THE CHILCOT INQUIRY GET?
Blair is now, as this morning, being given time by Chilcot to continue the war talk on Iran!
Iran is the last target of the current phase of military adventures and propaganda.
This morning Blair stated that Saddam's past use of gas on Halabja convinced him that after 9/11 Saddam had to go.
Our involvement in Iran is much more bloody, detailed and long!
The A Clean Break document explicitly listed Iraq as a target for Israeli military aggression, and explicitly called for the removal of Saddam.
From A Clean Break,
Iran is named as a target in A Clean Break.
W then creates this Axis-of-Evil whose members are Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses explicitly names Iran.
The people who wrote A Clean Break and Rebuilding America's Defenses all belong to them same group of Zionist nutters some of whom occupied very very powerful positions before, on and after 9/11.
Iran is the last target of the current phase of military adventures and propaganda.
This morning Blair stated that Saddam's past use of gas on Halabja convinced him that after 9/11 Saddam had to go.
Our involvement in Iran is much more bloody, detailed and long!
The A Clean Break document explicitly listed Iraq as a target for Israeli military aggression, and explicitly called for the removal of Saddam.
From A Clean Break,
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.
Iran is named as a target in A Clean Break.
W then creates this Axis-of-Evil whose members are Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses explicitly names Iran.
Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has.
The people who wrote A Clean Break and Rebuilding America's Defenses all belong to them same group of Zionist nutters some of whom occupied very very powerful positions before, on and after 9/11.
TONY BLAIR GETS A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD FROM CHILCOT
What a pathetic bunch of whimps the Chilcot Inquiry members are.
I have written to them twice with detailed information about PNAC etc. So far I have heard questions that have allowed Blair to hammer home the point that Blair perceived Saddam as a threat to the UK because he had used gas on the village of Halabja.
Where Saddam got that gas was not asked.
Nor was Blair asked on the collaboration between Saddam and the West on weapons and during the Iran-Iraq war.
But never mind that.
Blair stated that 9/11 changed his mind. Before 9/11 Blair believed in containment. But then 9/11 somehow happened. Blair didn't believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11 but still agreed that Saddam had to go.
I have written to them twice with detailed information about PNAC etc. So far I have heard questions that have allowed Blair to hammer home the point that Blair perceived Saddam as a threat to the UK because he had used gas on the village of Halabja.
Where Saddam got that gas was not asked.
Nor was Blair asked on the collaboration between Saddam and the West on weapons and during the Iran-Iraq war.
But never mind that.
Blair stated that 9/11 changed his mind. Before 9/11 Blair believed in containment. But then 9/11 somehow happened. Blair didn't believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11 but still agreed that Saddam had to go.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
WHAT WAS GEITHNER DOING?
In evidence to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee Bilderberger Timothy Geithner said he knew nothing regarding the payments to AIG.
WHAT THE FUCK WAS HE DOING THEN?
The biggest financial crash in decades (deliberately) caused by derivatives and he, as head of the most powerful bank in the most powerful cartel The Federal Reserve, claims he knew nothing about its business with the largest insurer of the derivatives market?!
ABSOLUTE BOLLOCKS!
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York IS Wall Street.
No ifs. No buts.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is Wall Street because Wall Street is in New York. It really is that simple.
The Fed is alleged to be a compnonet of the Executive.
It is not.
It is a cartel of private banks.
But this is secondary.
The FRBNY is the most powerful bank in the USA.
It should know what is going on in Wall Street.
If Geithner didn't know then who did? Did Geithner name anybody as responsible for anything to do with the AIG bailout? Did nearly $200 billion just walk out of the door?
I DON'T FINK SO!
And Bernanke has said the same thing; I know nothing.
It doesn't matter. I'll have the ^&$%&%£ in the dock.
WHAT THE FUCK WAS HE DOING THEN?
The biggest financial crash in decades (deliberately) caused by derivatives and he, as head of the most powerful bank in the most powerful cartel The Federal Reserve, claims he knew nothing about its business with the largest insurer of the derivatives market?!
ABSOLUTE BOLLOCKS!
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York IS Wall Street.
No ifs. No buts.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is Wall Street because Wall Street is in New York. It really is that simple.
The Fed is alleged to be a compnonet of the Executive.
It is not.
It is a cartel of private banks.
But this is secondary.
The FRBNY is the most powerful bank in the USA.
It should know what is going on in Wall Street.
If Geithner didn't know then who did? Did Geithner name anybody as responsible for anything to do with the AIG bailout? Did nearly $200 billion just walk out of the door?
I DON'T FINK SO!
And Bernanke has said the same thing; I know nothing.
It doesn't matter. I'll have the ^&$%&%£ in the dock.
WHY IS THE BBC FOCUSING ON FALSE ALLEGATIONS REGARDING THREAT TO GOLDSMITH?
Today former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith gave us another piece of the jigsaw puzzle in his evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry when he stated that his scepticism over the legality of the invasion of Iraq was converted into enthusiasm after a discussion in Washington DC (at taxpayers expense) with Condoleeza Rice and William Howard Taft IV.
Rice's Neocon credentials are impeccable and beyond doubt.
Taft is something else!
He is bloodline.
His great grandfather created Skull and Bones.
His grandfather was groomed by traitor and Anglophile Teddy Rossevelt for the Presidency.
Taft IV was a Bonesman.
Taft IV was appointed Chief Counsel to the State Department by fellow Bonesman George W Bush.
But what is more important is that Taft IV was a member of PNAC!
Yet the BBC is focusing on allegations that Goldsmith changed his mind after he was allegedly pinned to the wall by Blair or someone else.
Rice's Neocon credentials are impeccable and beyond doubt.
Taft is something else!
He is bloodline.
His great grandfather created Skull and Bones.
His grandfather was groomed by traitor and Anglophile Teddy Rossevelt for the Presidency.
Taft IV was a Bonesman.
Taft IV was appointed Chief Counsel to the State Department by fellow Bonesman George W Bush.
But what is more important is that Taft IV was a member of PNAC!
Yet the BBC is focusing on allegations that Goldsmith changed his mind after he was allegedly pinned to the wall by Blair or someone else.
LIES, DAMNED LIES AND ANYTHING THAT TONY BLAIR SAYS
Really looking forward to Friday.
If I got a penny for every lie that Blair has shamelessly uttered I could bail out the whole world.
If I got a penny for every lie that Blair has shamelessly uttered I could bail out the whole world.
GOLDSMITH CHANGED HIS MIND AFTER TAKING LEGAL ADVICE FROM NEOCONS
Lord Goldsmith changed his mind about invading Iraq after he received legal advice in Washington DC from Condoleeza Rice and US Government lawyers, one of whom was William Taft IV. Taft is a direct descendent of President William Taft, who was groomed for the Presidency by the traitor and Anglophiile Theodoere Roosevelt. President Taft's father created the Skull and Bones at Yale, so it is no surprise to find that Taft IV was also a Bonesman along with his best mate John Kerry.
But there's more!!
Taft IV was a member of PNAC and signed the letter from PNAC to President Clinton demanding action on Milosevic.
So Goldsmith advises war would be illegal and is kept out of the loop, and asked for legal advice only after war plans are well underway. He then goes to DC and speaks to PNAC Neocons and changes his mind.
Goldsmith, like the lawyers at the FCO, thought any invasion of Iraq would have been illegal.
But after a trip to Washington DC he changes his mind.
Goldsmith also stated that while in Washington DC he was told that Russia and France had privately stated to US officials that a 2nd resolution was not needed!!
This second statement is the most intriguing.
Is it true?
But there's more!!
Taft IV was a member of PNAC and signed the letter from PNAC to President Clinton demanding action on Milosevic.
So Goldsmith advises war would be illegal and is kept out of the loop, and asked for legal advice only after war plans are well underway. He then goes to DC and speaks to PNAC Neocons and changes his mind.
Goldsmith, like the lawyers at the FCO, thought any invasion of Iraq would have been illegal.
But after a trip to Washington DC he changes his mind.
Goldsmith also stated that while in Washington DC he was told that Russia and France had privately stated to US officials that a 2nd resolution was not needed!!
This second statement is the most intriguing.
Is it true?
BILDERBERG BANK BAILOUTS MACHT FREI
I watched Auschwitz : The Nazis and the Final Solution on National Geographic TV the other day, and was disgusted by the mention that Auschwitz was selected by I G Farben because of its proximity to the rich coal seams nearby because I G Farben had developed technology to manufacture oil and rubber from coal.
WTF?!
I G Farben did not develop this technology.
THEY WERE GIVEN IT!!
They were given it by Rockefeller Standard Oil as part of a collaboration between the two in which Standard Oil gave I G Farben a lot and received little in return.
But why would Standard Oil do this?
Because Rockefellers wanted another war, and for war their private Project Nazi Germany required a lot oil, which Germany did not have.
Rockefellers financed the first attempt at world government after WW1, The League of Nations, and after WW2 succeeded in establishing a world government of sorts by financing The United Nations.
And from the profits of WW2, via The Federal Reserve, their banks and the banks of their allies in Bilderberg were able to dominate global finance and thus created the current financial crash, knowing that their Bilderberg buddies would bail them out, enabling them to increase their power further by capitalising on the engineered chaos.
WTF?!
I G Farben did not develop this technology.
THEY WERE GIVEN IT!!
They were given it by Rockefeller Standard Oil as part of a collaboration between the two in which Standard Oil gave I G Farben a lot and received little in return.
But why would Standard Oil do this?
Because Rockefellers wanted another war, and for war their private Project Nazi Germany required a lot oil, which Germany did not have.
Rockefellers financed the first attempt at world government after WW1, The League of Nations, and after WW2 succeeded in establishing a world government of sorts by financing The United Nations.
And from the profits of WW2, via The Federal Reserve, their banks and the banks of their allies in Bilderberg were able to dominate global finance and thus created the current financial crash, knowing that their Bilderberg buddies would bail them out, enabling them to increase their power further by capitalising on the engineered chaos.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
A TINY BIT OF COMMON SENSE FROM GEORGE ROBOT
George Robot has switched from the environment to Blair, or to be more precise, arresting Blair.
Robot has placed a bounty on Blair, and urged all to contribute to that bounty and arrest Blair asap, preferably on Friday before he manages to obtain more tax-payer funded security.
Despite his obvious hatred of Blair, Robot still can't understand why Blair spoke at Copenhagen. As if Blair really cares about the environment! Blair only cares about his bank balance and property portfolio, which is why he is now advising JP Morgan Chase, the bank that engineered the current financial crash.
=================================
From http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/25/bounty-blair-war-criminal-chilcot
Wanted: Tony Blair for war crimes. Arrest him and claim your reward
Chilcot and the courts won't do it, so it is up to us to show that we won't let an illegal act of mass murder go unpunished.
The only question that counts is the one that the Chilcot inquiry won't address: was the war with Iraq illegal? If the answer is yes, everything changes. The war is no longer a political matter, but a criminal one, and those who commissioned it should be committed for trial for what the Nuremberg tribunal called "the supreme international crime": the crime of aggression.
But there's a problem with official inquiries in the United Kingdom: the government appoints their members and sets their terms of reference. It's the equivalent of a criminal suspect being allowed to choose what the charges should be, who should judge his case and who should sit on the jury. As a senior judge told the Guardian in November: "Looking into the legality of the war is the last thing the government wants. And actually, it's the last thing the opposition wants either because they voted for the war. There simply is not the political pressure to explore the question of legality – they have not asked because they don't want the answer."
Others have explored it, however. Two weeks ago a Dutch inquiry, led by a former supreme court judge, found that the invasion had "no sound mandate in international law". Last month Lord Steyn, a former law lord, said that "in the absence of a second UN resolution authorising invasion, it was illegal". In November Lord Bingham, the former lord chief justice, stated that, without the blessing of the UN, the Iraq war was "a serious violation of international law and the rule of law".
Under the United Nations charter, two conditions must be met before a war can legally be waged. The parties to a dispute must first "seek a solution by negotiation" (article 33). They can take up arms without an explicit mandate from the UN security council only "if an armed attack occurs against [them]" (article 51). Neither of these conditions applied. The US and UK governments rejected Iraq's attempts to negotiate. At one point the US state department even announced that it would "go into thwart mode" to prevent the Iraqis from resuming talks on weapons inspection (all references are on my website). Iraq had launched no armed attack against either nation.
We also know that the UK government was aware that the war it intended to launch was illegal. In March 2002, the Cabinet Office explained that "a legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to law officers' advice, none currently exists." In July 2002, Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, told the prime minister that there were only "three possible legal bases" for launching a war – "self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC [security council] authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case." Bush and Blair later failed to obtain security council authorisation.
As the resignation letter on the eve of the war from Elizabeth Wilmshurst, then deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office, revealed, her office had "consistently" advised that an invasion would be unlawful without a new UN resolution. She explained that "an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression". Both Wilmshurst and her former boss, Sir Michael Wood, will testify before the Chilcot inquiry tomorrow. Expect fireworks.
Without legal justification, the war with Iraq was an act of mass murder: those who died were unlawfully killed by the people who commissioned it. Crimes of aggression (also known as crimes against peace) are defined by the Nuremberg principles as "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties". They have been recognised in international law since 1945. The Rome statute, which established the international criminal court (ICC) and which was ratified by Blair's government in 2001, provides for the court to "exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression", once it has decided how the crime should be defined and prosecuted.
There are two problems. The first is that neither the government nor the opposition has any interest in pursuing these crimes, for the obvious reason that in doing so they would expose themselves to prosecution. The second is that the required legal mechanisms don't yet exist. The governments that ratified the Rome statute have been filibustering furiously to delay the point at which the crime can be prosecuted by the ICC: after eight years of discussions, the necessary provision still has not been adopted.
Some countries, mostly in eastern Europe and central Asia, have incorporated the crime of aggression into their own laws, though it is not yet clear which of them would be willing to try a foreign national for acts committed abroad. In the UK, where it remains illegal to wear an offensive T-shirt, you cannot yet be prosecuted for mass murder commissioned overseas.
All those who believe in justice should campaign for their governments to stop messing about and allow the international criminal court to start prosecuting the crime of aggression. We should also press for its adoption into national law. But I believe that the people of this nation, who re-elected a government that had launched an illegal war, have a duty to do more than that. We must show that we have not, as Blair requested, "moved on" from Iraq, that we are not prepared to allow his crime to remain unpunished, or to allow future leaders to believe that they can safely repeat it.
But how? As I found when I tried to apprehend John Bolton, one of the architects of the war in George Bush's government, at the Hay festival in 2008, and as Peter Tatchell found when he tried to detain Robert Mugabe, nothing focuses attention on these issues more than an attempted citizen's arrest. In October I mooted the idea of a bounty to which the public could contribute, payable to anyone who tried to arrest Tony Blair if he became president of the European Union. He didn't of course, but I asked those who had pledged money whether we should go ahead anyway. The response was overwhelmingly positive.
So today I am launching a website – www.arrestblair.org – whose purpose is to raise money as a reward for people attempting a peaceful citizen's arrest of the former prime minister. I have put up the first £100, and I encourage you to match it. Anyone meeting the rules I've laid down will be entitled to one quarter of the total pot: the bounties will remain available until Blair faces a court of law. The higher the reward, the greater the number of people who are likely to try.
At this stage the arrests will be largely symbolic, though they are likely to have great political resonance. But I hope that as pressure builds up and the crime of aggression is adopted by the courts, these attempts will help to press governments to prosecute. There must be no hiding place for those who have committed crimes against peace. No civilised country can allow mass murderers to move on.
Robot has placed a bounty on Blair, and urged all to contribute to that bounty and arrest Blair asap, preferably on Friday before he manages to obtain more tax-payer funded security.
Despite his obvious hatred of Blair, Robot still can't understand why Blair spoke at Copenhagen. As if Blair really cares about the environment! Blair only cares about his bank balance and property portfolio, which is why he is now advising JP Morgan Chase, the bank that engineered the current financial crash.
=================================
From http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/25/bounty-blair-war-criminal-chilcot
Wanted: Tony Blair for war crimes. Arrest him and claim your reward
Chilcot and the courts won't do it, so it is up to us to show that we won't let an illegal act of mass murder go unpunished.
The only question that counts is the one that the Chilcot inquiry won't address: was the war with Iraq illegal? If the answer is yes, everything changes. The war is no longer a political matter, but a criminal one, and those who commissioned it should be committed for trial for what the Nuremberg tribunal called "the supreme international crime": the crime of aggression.
But there's a problem with official inquiries in the United Kingdom: the government appoints their members and sets their terms of reference. It's the equivalent of a criminal suspect being allowed to choose what the charges should be, who should judge his case and who should sit on the jury. As a senior judge told the Guardian in November: "Looking into the legality of the war is the last thing the government wants. And actually, it's the last thing the opposition wants either because they voted for the war. There simply is not the political pressure to explore the question of legality – they have not asked because they don't want the answer."
Others have explored it, however. Two weeks ago a Dutch inquiry, led by a former supreme court judge, found that the invasion had "no sound mandate in international law". Last month Lord Steyn, a former law lord, said that "in the absence of a second UN resolution authorising invasion, it was illegal". In November Lord Bingham, the former lord chief justice, stated that, without the blessing of the UN, the Iraq war was "a serious violation of international law and the rule of law".
Under the United Nations charter, two conditions must be met before a war can legally be waged. The parties to a dispute must first "seek a solution by negotiation" (article 33). They can take up arms without an explicit mandate from the UN security council only "if an armed attack occurs against [them]" (article 51). Neither of these conditions applied. The US and UK governments rejected Iraq's attempts to negotiate. At one point the US state department even announced that it would "go into thwart mode" to prevent the Iraqis from resuming talks on weapons inspection (all references are on my website). Iraq had launched no armed attack against either nation.
We also know that the UK government was aware that the war it intended to launch was illegal. In March 2002, the Cabinet Office explained that "a legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to law officers' advice, none currently exists." In July 2002, Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, told the prime minister that there were only "three possible legal bases" for launching a war – "self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC [security council] authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case." Bush and Blair later failed to obtain security council authorisation.
As the resignation letter on the eve of the war from Elizabeth Wilmshurst, then deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office, revealed, her office had "consistently" advised that an invasion would be unlawful without a new UN resolution. She explained that "an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression". Both Wilmshurst and her former boss, Sir Michael Wood, will testify before the Chilcot inquiry tomorrow. Expect fireworks.
Without legal justification, the war with Iraq was an act of mass murder: those who died were unlawfully killed by the people who commissioned it. Crimes of aggression (also known as crimes against peace) are defined by the Nuremberg principles as "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties". They have been recognised in international law since 1945. The Rome statute, which established the international criminal court (ICC) and which was ratified by Blair's government in 2001, provides for the court to "exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression", once it has decided how the crime should be defined and prosecuted.
There are two problems. The first is that neither the government nor the opposition has any interest in pursuing these crimes, for the obvious reason that in doing so they would expose themselves to prosecution. The second is that the required legal mechanisms don't yet exist. The governments that ratified the Rome statute have been filibustering furiously to delay the point at which the crime can be prosecuted by the ICC: after eight years of discussions, the necessary provision still has not been adopted.
Some countries, mostly in eastern Europe and central Asia, have incorporated the crime of aggression into their own laws, though it is not yet clear which of them would be willing to try a foreign national for acts committed abroad. In the UK, where it remains illegal to wear an offensive T-shirt, you cannot yet be prosecuted for mass murder commissioned overseas.
All those who believe in justice should campaign for their governments to stop messing about and allow the international criminal court to start prosecuting the crime of aggression. We should also press for its adoption into national law. But I believe that the people of this nation, who re-elected a government that had launched an illegal war, have a duty to do more than that. We must show that we have not, as Blair requested, "moved on" from Iraq, that we are not prepared to allow his crime to remain unpunished, or to allow future leaders to believe that they can safely repeat it.
But how? As I found when I tried to apprehend John Bolton, one of the architects of the war in George Bush's government, at the Hay festival in 2008, and as Peter Tatchell found when he tried to detain Robert Mugabe, nothing focuses attention on these issues more than an attempted citizen's arrest. In October I mooted the idea of a bounty to which the public could contribute, payable to anyone who tried to arrest Tony Blair if he became president of the European Union. He didn't of course, but I asked those who had pledged money whether we should go ahead anyway. The response was overwhelmingly positive.
So today I am launching a website – www.arrestblair.org – whose purpose is to raise money as a reward for people attempting a peaceful citizen's arrest of the former prime minister. I have put up the first £100, and I encourage you to match it. Anyone meeting the rules I've laid down will be entitled to one quarter of the total pot: the bounties will remain available until Blair faces a court of law. The higher the reward, the greater the number of people who are likely to try.
At this stage the arrests will be largely symbolic, though they are likely to have great political resonance. But I hope that as pressure builds up and the crime of aggression is adopted by the courts, these attempts will help to press governments to prosecute. There must be no hiding place for those who have committed crimes against peace. No civilised country can allow mass murderers to move on.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
THERE IS NO INTELLIGENCE TO SUGGEST THAT AN ATTACK IS IMMINENT
Those are the words of Home Secretary Alan Johnson.
Two items of news have appeared in today's British media that highlight the scaremongering that is occuring.
1. the media is reporting that Osama bin Laden has issued a voice message claiming responsibility for the blazing underpants bomb of Christmas Day. All reports initially state that the voice is that of ObL's, but the AP report that most quote from ends with this statement;
And the BBC has been stating the exact the same thing; it is ObL without question, but has only now started to suggest that maybe it is not ObL after all.
So take from that what you will. Reports initially state that without question it is ObL, but then end with a caveat that there is no way to tell if it is ObL. But by the time you read that caveat, if you do at all, you are already imagining planes flying into Canary Wharf and are scared shitless hiding behind the sofa. It is curious that a voice message was released and not a video so soon after the BBC Conspiracy Files focused on ObL with the videos that show he was being impersonated.
2. India sent MI5 a report that a plane flying from India could be hijacked. Now let's examine the information and the response. India did not say when the alleged hijacking would take place nor specify that Britain was the target. In fact it is reported that a war between India and Pakistan is being engineered, so a target in either of those countries is much more likely, as we have seen recently in the many bombs and attacks on hotels in India and Pakistan. But this did not stop MI5 ramping up the fear by assuming that Britain was a target and that it was to be this coming week. However other reports say the fear was inflated due to increased chatter. So which is it? Chatter, intelligence, or both? And actually, to be told that a plane flying from India, specifically from either Delhi or Mumbai, is not exact precise intelligence but is a very good start and could be classified as specific intelligence, so if anything does happen as India suggest then the incompetence of our intelligence agencies is there for all to see. All passengers on any flight out of Mumbai or Delhi should by now have been thoroughly checked out, and any future passenger should receive similar investigation.
So what's going on?
Chilcot is questioning Blair on Friday.
And The Sunday Times gives the game away today in its report on this when it suggests that Blair saved the day in 2003 when he sent tanks to Heathrow.
[source : Indian hijack plot caused new UK terror alert, The Sunday Times 24/01/2010, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6999959.ece]
When the fear factor was raised we were initially told there was no specific intelligence, and that it was just precautionary due to increased chatter. Now we are told that India told MI5 that a plane flying from either Mumbai or Delhi could be hijacked but did not say when or if Britain was a target, but it was immediately assumed that Britain was a target, even though India or Pakistan is much more likley, and that the hijack would be very soon.
Let's see what happens.
Two items of news have appeared in today's British media that highlight the scaremongering that is occuring.
1. the media is reporting that Osama bin Laden has issued a voice message claiming responsibility for the blazing underpants bomb of Christmas Day. All reports initially state that the voice is that of ObL's, but the AP report that most quote from ends with this statement;
There was no way to confirm the voice was actually that of Bin Laden, but it resembled previous recordings attributed to him.
And the BBC has been stating the exact the same thing; it is ObL without question, but has only now started to suggest that maybe it is not ObL after all.
So take from that what you will. Reports initially state that without question it is ObL, but then end with a caveat that there is no way to tell if it is ObL. But by the time you read that caveat, if you do at all, you are already imagining planes flying into Canary Wharf and are scared shitless hiding behind the sofa. It is curious that a voice message was released and not a video so soon after the BBC Conspiracy Files focused on ObL with the videos that show he was being impersonated.
2. India sent MI5 a report that a plane flying from India could be hijacked. Now let's examine the information and the response. India did not say when the alleged hijacking would take place nor specify that Britain was the target. In fact it is reported that a war between India and Pakistan is being engineered, so a target in either of those countries is much more likely, as we have seen recently in the many bombs and attacks on hotels in India and Pakistan. But this did not stop MI5 ramping up the fear by assuming that Britain was a target and that it was to be this coming week. However other reports say the fear was inflated due to increased chatter. So which is it? Chatter, intelligence, or both? And actually, to be told that a plane flying from India, specifically from either Delhi or Mumbai, is not exact precise intelligence but is a very good start and could be classified as specific intelligence, so if anything does happen as India suggest then the incompetence of our intelligence agencies is there for all to see. All passengers on any flight out of Mumbai or Delhi should by now have been thoroughly checked out, and any future passenger should receive similar investigation.
So what's going on?
Chilcot is questioning Blair on Friday.
And The Sunday Times gives the game away today in its report on this when it suggests that Blair saved the day in 2003 when he sent tanks to Heathrow.
The warning revived long-running concerns following an Al-Qaeda plot in 2003 in which a hijacked aircraft was to be flown into Heathrow airport. That incident led Tony Blair, then prime minister, to make the largely symbolic move of dispatching armoured vehicles to guard the airport perimeter.
[source : Indian hijack plot caused new UK terror alert, The Sunday Times 24/01/2010, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6999959.ece]
When the fear factor was raised we were initially told there was no specific intelligence, and that it was just precautionary due to increased chatter. Now we are told that India told MI5 that a plane flying from either Mumbai or Delhi could be hijacked but did not say when or if Britain was a target, but it was immediately assumed that Britain was a target, even though India or Pakistan is much more likley, and that the hijack would be very soon.
Let's see what happens.
LORD HUTTON TELLS THE WHOLE WORLD THAT DAVID KELLY WAS MURDERED
The Mail on Sunday is reporting that Lord Hutton has secretly and bizarrely barred the release of medical records and witness statements for at least 30 years, and in some cases for 70 years!!
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!
But is also an admission that Hutton's report is a load of bollocks, and that Kelly was murdered because he, as the recognised expert on Iraqi WMD, was telling us that Iraq had no WMD, which would have stopped the invasion of Iraq as laid out in the documents A Clean Break and Rebuilding America's Defenses.
===============================
From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245599/David-Kelly-post-mortem-kept-secret-70-years-doctors-accuse-Lord-Hutton-concealing-vital-information.html
David Kelly post mortem to be kept secret for 70 years as doctors accuse Lord Hutton of concealing vital information
By Miles Goslett
Last updated at 11:28 PM on 23rd January 2010
Vital evidence which could solve the mystery of the death of Government weapons inspector Dr David Kelly will be kept under wraps for up to 70 years.
In a draconian – and highly unusual – order, Lord Hutton, the peer who chaired the controversial inquiry into the Dr Kelly scandal, has secretly barred the release of all medical records, including the results of the post mortem, and unpublished evidence.
The move, which will stoke fresh speculation about the true circumstances of Dr Kelly’s death, comes just days before Tony Blair appears before the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War.
It is also bound to revive claims of an establishment cover-up and fresh questions about the verdict that Dr Kelly killed himself.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245599/David-Kelly-post-mortem-kept-secret-70-years-doctors-accuse-Lord-Hutton-concealing-vital-information.html#ixzz0dWYp4uce
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!
But is also an admission that Hutton's report is a load of bollocks, and that Kelly was murdered because he, as the recognised expert on Iraqi WMD, was telling us that Iraq had no WMD, which would have stopped the invasion of Iraq as laid out in the documents A Clean Break and Rebuilding America's Defenses.
===============================
From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245599/David-Kelly-post-mortem-kept-secret-70-years-doctors-accuse-Lord-Hutton-concealing-vital-information.html
David Kelly post mortem to be kept secret for 70 years as doctors accuse Lord Hutton of concealing vital information
By Miles Goslett
Last updated at 11:28 PM on 23rd January 2010
Vital evidence which could solve the mystery of the death of Government weapons inspector Dr David Kelly will be kept under wraps for up to 70 years.
In a draconian – and highly unusual – order, Lord Hutton, the peer who chaired the controversial inquiry into the Dr Kelly scandal, has secretly barred the release of all medical records, including the results of the post mortem, and unpublished evidence.
The move, which will stoke fresh speculation about the true circumstances of Dr Kelly’s death, comes just days before Tony Blair appears before the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War.
It is also bound to revive claims of an establishment cover-up and fresh questions about the verdict that Dr Kelly killed himself.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245599/David-Kelly-post-mortem-kept-secret-70-years-doctors-accuse-Lord-Hutton-concealing-vital-information.html#ixzz0dWYp4uce
Saturday, January 23, 2010
THERE IS NO SPECIFIC INTELLIGENCE BUT TERRORIST THREAT IS RAISED ANYWAY
In a classic move that proves beyond doubt that the perceived threat from terrorism is engineered the level of threat from a terrorist attack has been raised to severe, implying an attack is highly likely. And allegedly Hilary Clinton is the target when she arrives in London next week for a conference on Afghanistan.
There is no specific intelligence, but what the heck!
Warmongers Brown and Blair will soon be testifying at the Chilcot Inquiry, so it won't hurt to scare the Inquiry members so they go soft on Brown and Blair.
And it won't hurt to scare the shit out of Clinton too so she keeps American troops in Aghanistan and in that region to continue to stoke the flames of global terrorism which in turn leads to a global police state.
We, the muggins British public who have just bailed tax-avoiding Nazi bankers with trillions, are being asked to scrutinise everyone and everything for the minutest threat to national security.
Surely they cannot be allowed to raise fear like this without any specific intelligence, just because one of them got goosebumps in the bath yesterday?
But then again, knowing the manipulating fuckers, they may well be aware of specific intelligence of a terrorist attack but don't want to tell us so that the attack occurs and more war and police state laws follow...and they will have covered their arses by raising the threat level!
Cynical me...
There is no specific intelligence, but what the heck!
Warmongers Brown and Blair will soon be testifying at the Chilcot Inquiry, so it won't hurt to scare the Inquiry members so they go soft on Brown and Blair.
And it won't hurt to scare the shit out of Clinton too so she keeps American troops in Aghanistan and in that region to continue to stoke the flames of global terrorism which in turn leads to a global police state.
We, the muggins British public who have just bailed tax-avoiding Nazi bankers with trillions, are being asked to scrutinise everyone and everything for the minutest threat to national security.
Surely they cannot be allowed to raise fear like this without any specific intelligence, just because one of them got goosebumps in the bath yesterday?
But then again, knowing the manipulating fuckers, they may well be aware of specific intelligence of a terrorist attack but don't want to tell us so that the attack occurs and more war and police state laws follow...and they will have covered their arses by raising the threat level!
Cynical me...
Friday, January 22, 2010
THE BRITISH MEDIA GOES BERSERK AT OB...
Today the POTUS has allegedly declared war on Wall Street
The Financial Times is the most aggressive and threatening, in its OpEd, "Obama in declaration of war on Wall Street".
This could be a plain and simple smokescreen, similar to that provided by FDR who declared on Wall Street in his Inauguration Speech but who subsequently went on to serve The Federal Reserve traitors by not destroying The Federal Reserve, but instead engaging the USA in a second world war that dragged the USA into significantly more debt to The Federal Reserve, and which also led to the creation of Israel and all related terrorism, the USSR and the Cold War, and a host of global governing institutions such as the UN that are still encroaching into our lives in the minutest of details.
Obummer seems such a nice guy. That's why he was chosen and so much money thrown at him.
Maybe the sleeping giant has awakened...
Maybe not.
The Financial Times is the most aggressive and threatening, in its OpEd, "Obama in declaration of war on Wall Street".
This could be a plain and simple smokescreen, similar to that provided by FDR who declared on Wall Street in his Inauguration Speech but who subsequently went on to serve The Federal Reserve traitors by not destroying The Federal Reserve, but instead engaging the USA in a second world war that dragged the USA into significantly more debt to The Federal Reserve, and which also led to the creation of Israel and all related terrorism, the USSR and the Cold War, and a host of global governing institutions such as the UN that are still encroaching into our lives in the minutest of details.
Obummer seems such a nice guy. That's why he was chosen and so much money thrown at him.
Maybe the sleeping giant has awakened...
Maybe not.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
WHY IS ASSISTED SUICIDE BILL BEING AIRED LIVE ON BBC RADIO?
Margo Macdonald has just launched her Assisted Suicide Bill in the Scottish Parliament...and it was broadcast live on the BBC.
WHY?!
Because assisted suicide is part of the general plan for euthanasia in all its forms because the Bilderberg Nazis who run the planet believe there are too many people on the planet.
We all know that severe austerity policies are coming because the same Bilderberg Nazis at JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs deliberately engineered the current financial crisis, partly for that very reason, and partly to buy up competitors weakend by the crisis while they were given tens of billions to ride out the engineered storm and capitalise on the chaos.
There is something fundamentally wrong here.
We give Nazi bankers TRILLIONS in bailouts, the same bankers who employ very clever accountants to avoid paying as much tax as possible, while slashing public services. There is a cult of death that needs to be killed.
If we can find trillions to bailout tax-avoiding Nazi bankers then we can find trillions for excellent palliative care, can't we?
WHY?!
Because assisted suicide is part of the general plan for euthanasia in all its forms because the Bilderberg Nazis who run the planet believe there are too many people on the planet.
We all know that severe austerity policies are coming because the same Bilderberg Nazis at JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs deliberately engineered the current financial crisis, partly for that very reason, and partly to buy up competitors weakend by the crisis while they were given tens of billions to ride out the engineered storm and capitalise on the chaos.
There is something fundamentally wrong here.
We give Nazi bankers TRILLIONS in bailouts, the same bankers who employ very clever accountants to avoid paying as much tax as possible, while slashing public services. There is a cult of death that needs to be killed.
If we can find trillions to bailout tax-avoiding Nazi bankers then we can find trillions for excellent palliative care, can't we?
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
PRESIDENT BARAK OBUMMER : A YEAR OF TYRANNY
Within hours of winning the election of 2008 President Barak Obummer Obomber appointed the son of a Zionist terrorist as his primary adviser. Obummer subsequently appointed a number of senior CFRs and Bilderbergers to his administration, on the advice of a senior Bilderberger.
In late December 2008 Israel bombed Gaza into the stone age after Hamas had agreed to a ceasefire with the aim of peace talks and aid. By September 2008 Hamas had cut rocket attacks on Israel to virtually nil (as shown by the Israeli Foreign Ministry itself). But then Israel invaded Gaza on the day of the US Presidential Election (when the world wasn't looking) thus provoking Hamas into some sort of retaliation, which was then used by Israel as proof that Hamas were a bunch of brutal soulless bastards giving Israel the excuse to go on a bloodlust, killing innocent women and children. Obummer said sweet FA.
Obummer then bailed out the banks with trillions. Not billions. Not hundreds of billions.
TRILLIONS!!!!
Why?
Well, certain Wall Street banks, e.g. Goldman Sachs, were serious contributors to his election campaign.
But it goes deeper than this.
Obummer was involved in the establishment of a carbon trading market and organisation in Chicago that would have profited handsomely with the creation of a global green market. So Obomber went to Copenhagen with a personal profit motive.
He failed.
Obummer is also intimately involved in the creation of the healthcare bills, which if studied carefully would create unquestionable Nazi-style boards to implement euthanasia, very similar to the Liverpool Care Pathway but more Nazi. The guy who implented the LPC here has been sent to the USA to do the same thing there.
So out of 10 I would give Obummer -10 out of 10.
And for that I applaud Obomber.
He is so pathetic, incompetent and sad.
I detect a serious desperation in the British media about Obomber, which is a shame because he seems such a nice guy.
But he's not.
And the first year of his bum presidency proves it.
So my mark out of 10? -10.
In late December 2008 Israel bombed Gaza into the stone age after Hamas had agreed to a ceasefire with the aim of peace talks and aid. By September 2008 Hamas had cut rocket attacks on Israel to virtually nil (as shown by the Israeli Foreign Ministry itself). But then Israel invaded Gaza on the day of the US Presidential Election (when the world wasn't looking) thus provoking Hamas into some sort of retaliation, which was then used by Israel as proof that Hamas were a bunch of brutal soulless bastards giving Israel the excuse to go on a bloodlust, killing innocent women and children. Obummer said sweet FA.
Obummer then bailed out the banks with trillions. Not billions. Not hundreds of billions.
TRILLIONS!!!!
Why?
Well, certain Wall Street banks, e.g. Goldman Sachs, were serious contributors to his election campaign.
But it goes deeper than this.
Obummer was involved in the establishment of a carbon trading market and organisation in Chicago that would have profited handsomely with the creation of a global green market. So Obomber went to Copenhagen with a personal profit motive.
He failed.
Obummer is also intimately involved in the creation of the healthcare bills, which if studied carefully would create unquestionable Nazi-style boards to implement euthanasia, very similar to the Liverpool Care Pathway but more Nazi. The guy who implented the LPC here has been sent to the USA to do the same thing there.
So out of 10 I would give Obummer -10 out of 10.
And for that I applaud Obomber.
He is so pathetic, incompetent and sad.
I detect a serious desperation in the British media about Obomber, which is a shame because he seems such a nice guy.
But he's not.
And the first year of his bum presidency proves it.
So my mark out of 10? -10.
EARTH TO ALISTAIR DARLING! EARTH TO ALISTAIR DARLING!
I have just watched Paul Mason's piece on BBC Newsnight. His last comment was that major players in The City of London will be proposing to you that euthanasia is the only way forward for the British government to raise lending, because it is the most obvious way for a government to make profit from its people, the same ordinary muggins British taxpayers who have paid NI for decades expecting health treatment and pensions when they retire.
I am here to say that we don't need such fuckers!
We need people who are prepared to tell people like that to fuck off!!
We need people who are prepared to work for the best interests of the nation as a whole, not just for the banker class!!
Fuckers like that engineered WW1 and WW2 and sent our fathers and grandfathers into war, to swim in the mud of Flanders and to sweat in the deserts of North Africa.
Simply tell them to fuck off, we don't need them and their destructive policies.
Tell them to pack their bags and catch the first plane out of here.
If they want to stay then demand that they denounce and expose their previous blood-sucking policies of gambling, taking any profits to off-shore tax-havens but claiming massive public bailouts when it all goes predictably wrong!
Have you got the balls for this?
Here is a very very brief summary of what has happened in the last decade;
1. the banks, with their government intelligence contacts in the media, e.g. the BBC but you can also watch it in Friends, encouraged reckless lending via the property market
2. this lending, via the magic of fractional reserve lending, raised much money for the privately owned banks so that they could implement their derivative gambling
3. gambling is only useful if it can be fixed
4. the first creater of many of these gambling derivatives was J P Morgan Chase
5. JPMC has been the main beneficiary of the current financial crisis
6. JP Morgan was already identified as a criminal enterprise by the Pecora Commission of 1935 which found that JPM had contributed to the crash of that era
7. JPMC is part of the Rockefeller empire
8. Rockefellers had some serious collaboration with the Nazis, financing Auschwitz with a collaboration with IG Farben and financing research of Josef Mengele
9. JPMC received a massive bailout from The Federal Reserve (which it owns) and bought up several of its competitors, including Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual and today we learn it is on the brink of buying RBS Sempra to make JPMC a universal behemoth of Wall Street.
10. David Rockefeller met Tony Blair and Gordon Brown at Bilderberg (that you have not attended)
11. Gordon Brown with another Bilderberger Ed Balls ordered the FSA to go easy on The City of London and its policies during the 2000's
12. similar efforts were made in Wall Street by similartraitors bastards men of 'great intellect and integrity' to relax rules of the SEC
I put it to you now, applying the classic rule of crime, cui bono?;
JPMC engineered the current financial crisis via derivatives and its contacts in Bilderberg so that it could significantly increase its control over global markets, and to 'suggest' to governments across the globe that they implement Nazi healthcare, i.e. deathcare, to pay for the bailouts that its derivatives gambling deliberately caused, and they caused the financial crisis safe in the knowledge that they and their loyal friends would be bailed out by their Bilderberg loyalists in The Federal Reserve (that they own) so that they could capitalise on the engineered chaos while their competitors drowned.
Have a nice day!
I am here to say that we don't need such fuckers!
We need people who are prepared to tell people like that to fuck off!!
We need people who are prepared to work for the best interests of the nation as a whole, not just for the banker class!!
Fuckers like that engineered WW1 and WW2 and sent our fathers and grandfathers into war, to swim in the mud of Flanders and to sweat in the deserts of North Africa.
Simply tell them to fuck off, we don't need them and their destructive policies.
Tell them to pack their bags and catch the first plane out of here.
If they want to stay then demand that they denounce and expose their previous blood-sucking policies of gambling, taking any profits to off-shore tax-havens but claiming massive public bailouts when it all goes predictably wrong!
Have you got the balls for this?
Here is a very very brief summary of what has happened in the last decade;
1. the banks, with their government intelligence contacts in the media, e.g. the BBC but you can also watch it in Friends, encouraged reckless lending via the property market
2. this lending, via the magic of fractional reserve lending, raised much money for the privately owned banks so that they could implement their derivative gambling
3. gambling is only useful if it can be fixed
4. the first creater of many of these gambling derivatives was J P Morgan Chase
5. JPMC has been the main beneficiary of the current financial crisis
6. JP Morgan was already identified as a criminal enterprise by the Pecora Commission of 1935 which found that JPM had contributed to the crash of that era
7. JPMC is part of the Rockefeller empire
8. Rockefellers had some serious collaboration with the Nazis, financing Auschwitz with a collaboration with IG Farben and financing research of Josef Mengele
9. JPMC received a massive bailout from The Federal Reserve (which it owns) and bought up several of its competitors, including Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual and today we learn it is on the brink of buying RBS Sempra to make JPMC a universal behemoth of Wall Street.
10. David Rockefeller met Tony Blair and Gordon Brown at Bilderberg (that you have not attended)
11. Gordon Brown with another Bilderberger Ed Balls ordered the FSA to go easy on The City of London and its policies during the 2000's
12. similar efforts were made in Wall Street by similar
I put it to you now, applying the classic rule of crime, cui bono?;
JPMC engineered the current financial crisis via derivatives and its contacts in Bilderberg so that it could significantly increase its control over global markets, and to 'suggest' to governments across the globe that they implement Nazi healthcare, i.e. deathcare, to pay for the bailouts that its derivatives gambling deliberately caused, and they caused the financial crisis safe in the knowledge that they and their loyal friends would be bailed out by their Bilderberg loyalists in The Federal Reserve (that they own) so that they could capitalise on the engineered chaos while their competitors drowned.
Have a nice day!
VERY SUSPICIOUS PURCHASE OF RBS COMPONENT BY JP MORGAN CHASE
J P Morgan is to purchase a coveted component of the RBS empire, RBS Sempra.
RBS was under the control of Bilderberg via Sir Peter Sutherland and Sir Tom McKillop, and before it went down was the largest bank in the world!
But now, because of a EU directive, RBS is selling off its assets, and RBS Sempra is one of them.
RBS Sempra deals in carbon; not just physical goods such as petroleum and gas, but in carbon emissions too!
This purchase looks very very suspicious, not just in who is involved, but what it suggests, which is that JP Morgan Chase is increasing its already huge power over everyone and everything, including carbon emissions which should now be dead after Copenhagen. The UK government continues to terrorise us with adverts on CO2 emissions.
===============
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/573d42aa-05c0-11df-88ee-00144feabdc0.html
JPMorgan nears $4bn RBS Sempra deal
By Patrick Jenkins and Javier Blas in London
Published: January 20 2010 12:53 | Last updated: January 20 2010 13:37
JPMorgan has seen off competition from Deutsche Bank and Macquarie to enter exclusive talks to purchase the RBS Sempra Commodities trading business for about $4bn (£2.5bn), people close to the negotiations said on Wednesday.
The sale of the business – a joint venture between RBS, the rescued UK bank, and US group Sempra Energy – was triggered by a European Commission state-aid ruling that ordered RBS to divest its stake.
A deal would make JPMorgan a fourth big force in the commodities trading business alongside Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Barclays Capital, after an aggressive two-year acquisition drive by Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan chief executive.
RBS was under the control of Bilderberg via Sir Peter Sutherland and Sir Tom McKillop, and before it went down was the largest bank in the world!
But now, because of a EU directive, RBS is selling off its assets, and RBS Sempra is one of them.
RBS Sempra deals in carbon; not just physical goods such as petroleum and gas, but in carbon emissions too!
This purchase looks very very suspicious, not just in who is involved, but what it suggests, which is that JP Morgan Chase is increasing its already huge power over everyone and everything, including carbon emissions which should now be dead after Copenhagen. The UK government continues to terrorise us with adverts on CO2 emissions.
===============
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/573d42aa-05c0-11df-88ee-00144feabdc0.html
JPMorgan nears $4bn RBS Sempra deal
By Patrick Jenkins and Javier Blas in London
Published: January 20 2010 12:53 | Last updated: January 20 2010 13:37
JPMorgan has seen off competition from Deutsche Bank and Macquarie to enter exclusive talks to purchase the RBS Sempra Commodities trading business for about $4bn (£2.5bn), people close to the negotiations said on Wednesday.
The sale of the business – a joint venture between RBS, the rescued UK bank, and US group Sempra Energy – was triggered by a European Commission state-aid ruling that ordered RBS to divest its stake.
A deal would make JPMorgan a fourth big force in the commodities trading business alongside Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Barclays Capital, after an aggressive two-year acquisition drive by Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan chief executive.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
AND NOW HERE'S PINOCCHIO WITH THE WEATHER
The Meteorological Office (MO) is reviewing its policy on medium and long range forecasting after its spectacular failures.
[source : Met Office's debate over longer-term forecasts, 16/01/2010 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8462890.stm]
According to the above report Piers Corbyn months ago correctly predicted the deep freeze.
I have to say I believe this is a very grave possibility.
The BBC report suggests that the MO is employing computer models that somehow predict warmer temperatures than are actually recorded. Andrew Watson, a Royal Society environment fellow from the University of East Anglia's school of environmental sciences is quoted as saying,
The problems I have with the MO are these;
1. why is it run by someone who is NOT a meteorologist but who instead has very green credentials after working for the WWF which itself was created by Prince Philip?
2. why did he apply for the job?
3. how did he get the job?
4. why was the MO turned into a quasi-private office dependent on finance?
5. why is it since he took the job has the MO entered into this climate change and seasonal prediction business and getting it spectacularly and dangerously wrong?
On a very related note, the panic caused by reports about the Himalayan glaciers melting was engineered by the IPCC to scare the shit out of everybody.
[source : World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown, The Sunday Times 17/01/2010, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece]
Why would anyone do that?
Because 'they' want
1. world government
2. mass genocide
3. to tax you more.
As with the inflated threat of H1N1, terrorism, Iranian nuclear weapons, etc it's all engineered and/or fabricated.
Have a nice day!
[source : Met Office's debate over longer-term forecasts, 16/01/2010 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8462890.stm]
According to the above report Piers Corbyn months ago correctly predicted the deep freeze.
"He [Corbyn] says the Met Office failed to warn of extreme events in their seasonal forecasts because they are employing a computer model based on the assumption of man-made climate change."
I have to say I believe this is a very grave possibility.
The BBC report suggests that the MO is employing computer models that somehow predict warmer temperatures than are actually recorded. Andrew Watson, a Royal Society environment fellow from the University of East Anglia's school of environmental sciences is quoted as saying,
"The warming bias is admittedly very small - but the Met Office has to address why it is there. It will certainly be very difficult to get rid of - they can't just knock a bit off their forecast - that would be totally unscientific."
The problems I have with the MO are these;
1. why is it run by someone who is NOT a meteorologist but who instead has very green credentials after working for the WWF which itself was created by Prince Philip?
2. why did he apply for the job?
3. how did he get the job?
4. why was the MO turned into a quasi-private office dependent on finance?
5. why is it since he took the job has the MO entered into this climate change and seasonal prediction business and getting it spectacularly and dangerously wrong?
On a very related note, the panic caused by reports about the Himalayan glaciers melting was engineered by the IPCC to scare the shit out of everybody.
[source : World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown, The Sunday Times 17/01/2010, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece]
Why would anyone do that?
Because 'they' want
1. world government
2. mass genocide
3. to tax you more.
As with the inflated threat of H1N1, terrorism, Iranian nuclear weapons, etc it's all engineered and/or fabricated.
Have a nice day!
Saturday, January 16, 2010
YOU'RE NAME'S NOT DOWN YOU'RE NOT COMING IN
Bilderberg bouncers will repeating this a few times this year, incompetemt as they are; travelling half way around the world to meet with this bunch of pathetic losers?
Understand this! This bunch of pathetic Bilderberg bastards are fcukt!! Roasted and carved to be served up to delights of the Great British public...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tguP14GMrCA&feature=related
Understand this! This bunch of pathetic Bilderberg bastards are fcukt!! Roasted and carved to be served up to delights of the Great British public...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tguP14GMrCA&feature=related
UNDER PRESSURE
After Copenhagen who on earth could this refer to?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtrEN-YKLBM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtrEN-YKLBM&feature=related
Friday, January 15, 2010
BILDERBERG 2010
I will allow Bilderberg 2010 to occur this year.
I know I stated that 2010 would be the year that Bilderberg would be busted, but I did not say when that bust would occur.
The emotion of Bilderberg this year will be total panic.
They've been busted with their Federal Reserve bailout of the Bilderberg Banks so that they could capitalise on the chaos that they themselves caused for that very reason. And I will be surprised if Gonner Geithner lives until Christmas this year. Just look at him. He hasn't got the face. He looks like a fairy!
Never mind that he's been busted bailing out certain customers via AIG. That was the point of the scam. Certain (Bilderberg and British) banks would get 100% insurance while the rest would get fractions of % so that those (Bilderberg and British) banks would be able to to take full advantage of the financial crisis that they created. Hence JP Morgan Chase, the creator of the initial derivative and master of the derivatives market, reports sickening profits after it was able to buy up some of its competitors with its bailouts after those competitors allegedly failed.
The reason I am allowing Bilderberg 2010 to occur is that by now they would have expected to be well on the way to world government after Copenhagen, but it didn't happen, so they are now in panic mode and will thus make mistakes. They will enturst certain information to certain Bilderbergers with the confidence that those Bilderbergers are 100% bona fide bastards.
But believe me...they aren't!!
So it will only be after the UK general election this year, when the new government has decided upon and published its economic policies to deal with the Bilderberg bank bailout, shall I strike. With exact numbers provided by HM Government will my argument be much more precise. For now, we can only speculate on the austerity that the major parties would impose. But after the GE 2010...
And Cameron could well be invited, and if so he will be first witness to testify as to what was said at Bilderberg 2010.
You see...even their greatest weapons against us can be turned against them and fired directly back into their satanist faces!
Fuck you, Pindar!
I know I stated that 2010 would be the year that Bilderberg would be busted, but I did not say when that bust would occur.
The emotion of Bilderberg this year will be total panic.
They've been busted with their Federal Reserve bailout of the Bilderberg Banks so that they could capitalise on the chaos that they themselves caused for that very reason. And I will be surprised if Gonner Geithner lives until Christmas this year. Just look at him. He hasn't got the face. He looks like a fairy!
Never mind that he's been busted bailing out certain customers via AIG. That was the point of the scam. Certain (Bilderberg and British) banks would get 100% insurance while the rest would get fractions of % so that those (Bilderberg and British) banks would be able to to take full advantage of the financial crisis that they created. Hence JP Morgan Chase, the creator of the initial derivative and master of the derivatives market, reports sickening profits after it was able to buy up some of its competitors with its bailouts after those competitors allegedly failed.
The reason I am allowing Bilderberg 2010 to occur is that by now they would have expected to be well on the way to world government after Copenhagen, but it didn't happen, so they are now in panic mode and will thus make mistakes. They will enturst certain information to certain Bilderbergers with the confidence that those Bilderbergers are 100% bona fide bastards.
But believe me...they aren't!!
So it will only be after the UK general election this year, when the new government has decided upon and published its economic policies to deal with the Bilderberg bank bailout, shall I strike. With exact numbers provided by HM Government will my argument be much more precise. For now, we can only speculate on the austerity that the major parties would impose. But after the GE 2010...
And Cameron could well be invited, and if so he will be first witness to testify as to what was said at Bilderberg 2010.
You see...even their greatest weapons against us can be turned against them and fired directly back into their satanist faces!
Fuck you, Pindar!
J P MORGAN CHASE
J P Morgan Chase made nearly $12 billion profit last year, stating that its investment branch contributed most to this sum.
To make such massive profit in this depressed global economy implies that JPMC knew where to invest, and in David Rockefeller JPMC has the tool to advise on where to invest.
Several other banks all closely linked to Bilderberg will soon report similar profits, after their competitors had collapsed in the crisis leading to lack of competition. The crisis was engineered by JPMC who were the creators and masters of the derivatives that brought the global economy to its knees for the benefit of the Bilderberg banks.
=====================
From http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article6989493.ece
JPMorgan Chase, the Wall Street group, kicked off the bank reporting season by posting a near-fivefold increase in fourth-quarter profits to $3.28 billion (£2 billion), but acknowledged that its results “fell short” of the firm’s potential.
Barely a year after the US Government bailed out the financial institutions amid the worst economic crisis in decades, the global banking conglomerate reported full-year profits of $11.7 billion, or $2.26 a share, on record revenue of $108.6 billion.
To make such massive profit in this depressed global economy implies that JPMC knew where to invest, and in David Rockefeller JPMC has the tool to advise on where to invest.
Several other banks all closely linked to Bilderberg will soon report similar profits, after their competitors had collapsed in the crisis leading to lack of competition. The crisis was engineered by JPMC who were the creators and masters of the derivatives that brought the global economy to its knees for the benefit of the Bilderberg banks.
=====================
From http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article6989493.ece
JPMorgan Chase, the Wall Street group, kicked off the bank reporting season by posting a near-fivefold increase in fourth-quarter profits to $3.28 billion (£2 billion), but acknowledged that its results “fell short” of the firm’s potential.
Barely a year after the US Government bailed out the financial institutions amid the worst economic crisis in decades, the global banking conglomerate reported full-year profits of $11.7 billion, or $2.26 a share, on record revenue of $108.6 billion.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
GEORGE ROBOT STILL DOES NOT GET IT
Just because it snows does not mean global warming is not occuring.
That is the argument put forth by GeorgeMonbiot Robot and co-author Leo Hickman in a comment posted on The Environmental Blog at The Guardian.
[Britain's cold snap does not prove climate science wrong
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jan/06/cold-snap-climate-sceptics]
Yes it is correct that just because it snows does not mean that global warming is not happening. But regarding this current deep freeze the government office that has been pushing the theory of AGW did not predict the occurence or depth or length of the big deep freeze, now 4 weeks long.
So why should we trust the prediction of that same office when it says that unless we slash CO2 emissions then in 20 to 30 years the world will boil?
If you went to a fortune teller who told you that you would win the lottery at the weekend but you didn't, would you believe that same fortune teller when he or she told you that in 20 to 30 years you would have won the lottery 5 times?
It is a question of trust.
The Meteorological Office has attempted to predict the climate of three different seasons, and got them spectacularly wrong. By using the words like "mild" the MO is describing the climate, not specific weather events but the general overall climate of those seasons.
So the MO can be compared to a fortune teller because neither does not apparently use science, otherwise the MO would have got it right not wrong!
But I also didn't hear George say these kind of things about unique weather events when snow was not involoved, such as in 2003 and 2007.
The point of my argument that AGW is bollock is this;
1. the theory of AGW has been pushed by The Meteorological Office
2. The MO markets itself as providing accurate weather forecasts
3. The MO can predict the weather accurately, but generally only for the next one or two days, but rarely are its forecasts for a few days in advance correct
4. The MO has recently made attempts to predict the climate of three seasons, in which all three forecasts were for higher than usual temperatures and all three forecasts were laughably incorrect
6. The MO predicted a mild winter, and even when the first snows fell four weeks ago did not predict the length and depth of the deep freeze we all suffered, hence the shortage of salt and grit and failure of transport systems
7. The MO is run by a former head of the WWF-UK with interests in several green organisations that could have done well in a carbon-trading industry
8. the WWF has very deep Nazi roots despite its apparent greenness (perhaps their logo should be a green swastika)
9. before Copenhagen HM Queen demanded that her 'Commonwealth' sign up to slash CO2 emissions which would have seriously decreased their economic output and brought mass genocide to their nations
10. at Copenhagen Prince Charles demanded the same of every nation in order to 'save the planet'
11. at Copenhagen a report from the Optimum Population Trust was handed to every nation that stated that the best and cheapest way to reduce carbon emissions is to kill people
12. Prince Philip, co-founder of the WWF, after his death wants to come back as a deadly virus to reduce human population
13. just before Copenhagen a collection of data was hacked from the UEA CRU which clearly indicated that the theory of AGW had been sexed-up with manipulation and deletion of data and unscientific bias in research citation. This event known as Climategate has not been investigated by any MSM journalists, who have continued to parrot the mantra "Man made global warming - we will exterminate"
14. an attempt at creating and funding more world government was made at Copenhagen, but failed
15. another goal at Copenhagen was the establishment of a massive system for trading in carbon which would no doubt have been controlled by the same banks that caused and profited from the current financial crisis
16. the one goal that was achieved at Copenhagen was the creation of a Climate Fund that is to be controlled by a Bilderberger in control of a key institution in the World Government apparatus, The World Bank
When you cut through the hippie green bullshit you are left with mass genocide, world government and scientific corruption.
There is nothing wrong with recycling etc but to establish a genocidal tyrannical world government is unnecessary and unwanted.
That is the argument put forth by George
[Britain's cold snap does not prove climate science wrong
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jan/06/cold-snap-climate-sceptics]
Yes it is correct that just because it snows does not mean that global warming is not happening. But regarding this current deep freeze the government office that has been pushing the theory of AGW did not predict the occurence or depth or length of the big deep freeze, now 4 weeks long.
So why should we trust the prediction of that same office when it says that unless we slash CO2 emissions then in 20 to 30 years the world will boil?
If you went to a fortune teller who told you that you would win the lottery at the weekend but you didn't, would you believe that same fortune teller when he or she told you that in 20 to 30 years you would have won the lottery 5 times?
It is a question of trust.
The Meteorological Office has attempted to predict the climate of three different seasons, and got them spectacularly wrong. By using the words like "mild" the MO is describing the climate, not specific weather events but the general overall climate of those seasons.
So the MO can be compared to a fortune teller because neither does not apparently use science, otherwise the MO would have got it right not wrong!
But I also didn't hear George say these kind of things about unique weather events when snow was not involoved, such as in 2003 and 2007.
The point of my argument that AGW is bollock is this;
1. the theory of AGW has been pushed by The Meteorological Office
2. The MO markets itself as providing accurate weather forecasts
3. The MO can predict the weather accurately, but generally only for the next one or two days, but rarely are its forecasts for a few days in advance correct
4. The MO has recently made attempts to predict the climate of three seasons, in which all three forecasts were for higher than usual temperatures and all three forecasts were laughably incorrect
6. The MO predicted a mild winter, and even when the first snows fell four weeks ago did not predict the length and depth of the deep freeze we all suffered, hence the shortage of salt and grit and failure of transport systems
7. The MO is run by a former head of the WWF-UK with interests in several green organisations that could have done well in a carbon-trading industry
8. the WWF has very deep Nazi roots despite its apparent greenness (perhaps their logo should be a green swastika)
9. before Copenhagen HM Queen demanded that her 'Commonwealth' sign up to slash CO2 emissions which would have seriously decreased their economic output and brought mass genocide to their nations
10. at Copenhagen Prince Charles demanded the same of every nation in order to 'save the planet'
11. at Copenhagen a report from the Optimum Population Trust was handed to every nation that stated that the best and cheapest way to reduce carbon emissions is to kill people
12. Prince Philip, co-founder of the WWF, after his death wants to come back as a deadly virus to reduce human population
13. just before Copenhagen a collection of data was hacked from the UEA CRU which clearly indicated that the theory of AGW had been sexed-up with manipulation and deletion of data and unscientific bias in research citation. This event known as Climategate has not been investigated by any MSM journalists, who have continued to parrot the mantra "Man made global warming - we will exterminate"
14. an attempt at creating and funding more world government was made at Copenhagen, but failed
15. another goal at Copenhagen was the establishment of a massive system for trading in carbon which would no doubt have been controlled by the same banks that caused and profited from the current financial crisis
16. the one goal that was achieved at Copenhagen was the creation of a Climate Fund that is to be controlled by a Bilderberger in control of a key institution in the World Government apparatus, The World Bank
When you cut through the hippie green bullshit you are left with mass genocide, world government and scientific corruption.
There is nothing wrong with recycling etc but to establish a genocidal tyrannical world government is unnecessary and unwanted.
IS THIS WHY THE GUARDIAN IS INVOLVED IN A CLEAN BREAK PROPAGANDA?
The recent revelations in The Guardian regarding Iran and its alleged role in the kidnapping of Peter Moore are part of a propaganda machine that itself is part of the Zionist drive laid out by Zionist nutters in A Clean Break and Rebuilding America's Defenses, who themselves are witting or unwitting pawns of Great Britain after they carved up The Middle East at Versailles and other conferences after WW1.
Just a few days ago the Iranian Foreign Minister accused the USA and thus the UK of increasing insecurity, extremism and heroin production following the invasion of Afghanistan.
This is indisputable.
Yet The Guardian did not report these blatantly obvious statements.
Why?
===================
From http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8810200735
TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki blamed the drastic increase in the plantation and production of illicit drugs in Afghanistan on the United States' wrong policies.
"Due to wrong policies insecurity has mushroomed throughout the conflict-stricken country and production of illicit drugs has jumped from several hundred tons to nine thousand tons," Mottaki said on Saturday.
Speaking in a meeting with visiting Bahraini Parliament Speaker Khalifa bin Ahmed al-Dhahrani here in Tehran, he also blasted the wrong policies of the former US President, George W. Bush, which have led to insecurity and extremism in the region.
Just a few days ago the Iranian Foreign Minister accused the USA and thus the UK of increasing insecurity, extremism and heroin production following the invasion of Afghanistan.
This is indisputable.
Yet The Guardian did not report these blatantly obvious statements.
Why?
===================
From http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8810200735
TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki blamed the drastic increase in the plantation and production of illicit drugs in Afghanistan on the United States' wrong policies.
"Due to wrong policies insecurity has mushroomed throughout the conflict-stricken country and production of illicit drugs has jumped from several hundred tons to nine thousand tons," Mottaki said on Saturday.
Speaking in a meeting with visiting Bahraini Parliament Speaker Khalifa bin Ahmed al-Dhahrani here in Tehran, he also blasted the wrong policies of the former US President, George W. Bush, which have led to insecurity and extremism in the region.
Monday, January 11, 2010
IF SWINE FLU THREAT WAS EXAGGERATED WHY NOT TERRORISM?
It looks like the threat from Swine Flu was exaggerated.
[source : The 'false' pandemic: Drug firms cashed in on scare over swine flu, claims Euro health chief, The Daily Mail 11/01/2010]
Of course the NHS can always make up for this by killing a few more little old grannies...
But seriously, this report should be taken in hand with the allegations about who knew what and when about the Christmas Day Blazing Underpants Bomber and the corruption of the Meteorological Office.
Regarding the Christmas Day Blazing Underpants Bomber, they knew and let him on board and then terrified the world with yet more terrorism from the ghostly al-Qaeda to distract from the predictable failure at Copenhagen.
Regarding the corruption of the Meteorological Office, whenever it has tried to predict the climate of a season in the last 18 months it has failed spectacularly, and it may have been forced to predict a mild winter recently because it has been exaggerating the threat of AGW and predicting a freezing cold winter just before Copenhagen would not have looked good.
So there you have it. Threats of terrorism, global warming, WMDs etc are all exaggerated to influence public policy, implement war, mass genocide and global government and to make a massive profit at the same time.
Have a nice day!
Wolfgang Wodarg, head of health at the Council of Europe, accused the makers of flu drugs and vaccines of influencing the World Health Organisation's decision to declare a pandemic.
This led to the pharmaceutical firms ensuring 'enormous gains', while countries, including the UK, 'squandered' their meagre health budgets, with millions being vaccinated against a relatively mild disease.
[source : The 'false' pandemic: Drug firms cashed in on scare over swine flu, claims Euro health chief, The Daily Mail 11/01/2010]
Of course the NHS can always make up for this by killing a few more little old grannies...
But seriously, this report should be taken in hand with the allegations about who knew what and when about the Christmas Day Blazing Underpants Bomber and the corruption of the Meteorological Office.
Regarding the Christmas Day Blazing Underpants Bomber, they knew and let him on board and then terrified the world with yet more terrorism from the ghostly al-Qaeda to distract from the predictable failure at Copenhagen.
Regarding the corruption of the Meteorological Office, whenever it has tried to predict the climate of a season in the last 18 months it has failed spectacularly, and it may have been forced to predict a mild winter recently because it has been exaggerating the threat of AGW and predicting a freezing cold winter just before Copenhagen would not have looked good.
So there you have it. Threats of terrorism, global warming, WMDs etc are all exaggerated to influence public policy, implement war, mass genocide and global government and to make a massive profit at the same time.
Have a nice day!
OLIVER STONE : "THE WAY IT WORKS"
The recent showing of the trailer for Oliver Stone's new work The Secret History of America has provoked some furore. From the reports that I have read of the work's thesis it looks like it could go some way to show the three-world-war plan on the silver screen, bringing the conspiracy to tens if not hundreds of millions of people, hence the latest negative reports of Stone, the trailer and the work.
One constant property of all the reports I have read is the attack on Stone for allegedly sympathising with Adolf Hitler in this latest work (see the title of the article on Stone from The Independent below). Having not seen the film, as the other reporters have not, I cannot comment on how far Stone does sympathise with Hitler, if at all. But Stone will address the question of how Hitler became the dictator he did, and in doing so will address the question of the Nazi collaboration with American corporations, hence the negative press.
Whether Stone addresses the creation of Israel remains to be seen, but Stone could bring a significant branch of the real conspiracy to many more millions of people.
============================
From http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/can-oliver-stone-show-us-the-human-side-of-hitler-1863888.html
Can Oliver Stone show us the human side of Hitler?
Director describes subject of his new project as 'easy scapegoat'
By Stephen Foley in New York
Monday, 11 January 2010
Oliver Stone, the director of JFK and W, wants to provide a 'more factual representation' of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin
Oliver Stone has never been one to spot a historical controversy without steaming towards it, but the latest project from the film-maker behind JFK and W threatens to pitch him into more dangerously hot water than ever before.
The director is battening down the hatches already, saying he fully expects "ignorant attacks" on a new documentary series in which he is promising to "liberalise" Hitler and to finger US corporations for their role in the rise of National Socialism in Germany.
Launching Oliver Stone's Secret History of America, the director promised to lay bare the military-industrial complex his fictionalised movie JFK blamed for a conspiracy to kill one president, and which Stone now says is trapping Barack Obama into the errors of his predecessors.
"I don't want to put out a conventional History Channel product where it's easy to like it," the 63-year-old director said. "You cannot approach history unless you have empathy for the person you may hate.
"I've been able to walk in Stalin's shoes and Hitler's shoes to understand their point of view. We're going to educate our minds and liberalise them and broaden them. We want to move beyond opinions ... go into the funding of the Nazi party. How many American corporations were involved, from GM through IBM? Hitler is just a man who could have easily been assassinated."
Stone unveiled a trailer for his Secret History at the Television Critics Association's biannual press tour in Pasadena, California, and even his collaborators appeared nervous. As the director promised empathy with leaders who ordered mass murder, Peter Kuznick, the history professor drafted in as lead writer, leapt in to clarify: "He's not saying we're going to come out with a more positive view of Hitler. But we're going to describe him as a historical phenomenon and not just somebody who appeared out of nowhere." Stone promised not to judge historical figures as "bad" or "good" and countered: "Obviously, Rush Limbaugh is not going to like this history. As usual, we're going to get those kind of ignorant attacks."
After winning two Oscars for a series of films about the Vietnam War, Stone turned his revisionist history lens on US presidents, from a more complex "Tricky Dicky" in Nixon, to a privileged, disengaged George W Bush in W. And as a documentary maker, he has courted controversy before with plans for biopics of US bogeymen such as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
Last year, he walked the red carpet with the socialist president at the Venice Film Festival for the premiere of the documentary South of the Border. He has also long pursued Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran in the hope of making a film about his life and presidency. Stone's forthcoming 10-part series ranges over subjects the director says have been "under-reported", taking in President Harry Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan, and the origins and the end of the Cold War. Stalin, too, is getting a makeover, according to Stone.
"Stalin, Hitler, Mao, McCarthy – these people have been vilified pretty thoroughly by history. Stalin has a complete other story. Not to paint him as a hero, but to tell a more factual representation. He fought the German war machine more than any single person."
Hitler has been "an easy scapegoat" throughout history for forces that were bigger than one man, Stone says, and – warming to the theme in Pasadena – he said that the same complex of interests between corporations and the military were still at work today.
"You can understand why Obama is following in Bush's footsteps in Afghanistan," he said. "Obama is very much trapped, we believe, in that system. And so that's what we're going to try and show you: the way it works."
One constant property of all the reports I have read is the attack on Stone for allegedly sympathising with Adolf Hitler in this latest work (see the title of the article on Stone from The Independent below). Having not seen the film, as the other reporters have not, I cannot comment on how far Stone does sympathise with Hitler, if at all. But Stone will address the question of how Hitler became the dictator he did, and in doing so will address the question of the Nazi collaboration with American corporations, hence the negative press.
Whether Stone addresses the creation of Israel remains to be seen, but Stone could bring a significant branch of the real conspiracy to many more millions of people.
============================
From http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/can-oliver-stone-show-us-the-human-side-of-hitler-1863888.html
Can Oliver Stone show us the human side of Hitler?
Director describes subject of his new project as 'easy scapegoat'
By Stephen Foley in New York
Monday, 11 January 2010
Oliver Stone, the director of JFK and W, wants to provide a 'more factual representation' of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin
Oliver Stone has never been one to spot a historical controversy without steaming towards it, but the latest project from the film-maker behind JFK and W threatens to pitch him into more dangerously hot water than ever before.
The director is battening down the hatches already, saying he fully expects "ignorant attacks" on a new documentary series in which he is promising to "liberalise" Hitler and to finger US corporations for their role in the rise of National Socialism in Germany.
Launching Oliver Stone's Secret History of America, the director promised to lay bare the military-industrial complex his fictionalised movie JFK blamed for a conspiracy to kill one president, and which Stone now says is trapping Barack Obama into the errors of his predecessors.
"I don't want to put out a conventional History Channel product where it's easy to like it," the 63-year-old director said. "You cannot approach history unless you have empathy for the person you may hate.
"I've been able to walk in Stalin's shoes and Hitler's shoes to understand their point of view. We're going to educate our minds and liberalise them and broaden them. We want to move beyond opinions ... go into the funding of the Nazi party. How many American corporations were involved, from GM through IBM? Hitler is just a man who could have easily been assassinated."
Stone unveiled a trailer for his Secret History at the Television Critics Association's biannual press tour in Pasadena, California, and even his collaborators appeared nervous. As the director promised empathy with leaders who ordered mass murder, Peter Kuznick, the history professor drafted in as lead writer, leapt in to clarify: "He's not saying we're going to come out with a more positive view of Hitler. But we're going to describe him as a historical phenomenon and not just somebody who appeared out of nowhere." Stone promised not to judge historical figures as "bad" or "good" and countered: "Obviously, Rush Limbaugh is not going to like this history. As usual, we're going to get those kind of ignorant attacks."
After winning two Oscars for a series of films about the Vietnam War, Stone turned his revisionist history lens on US presidents, from a more complex "Tricky Dicky" in Nixon, to a privileged, disengaged George W Bush in W. And as a documentary maker, he has courted controversy before with plans for biopics of US bogeymen such as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
Last year, he walked the red carpet with the socialist president at the Venice Film Festival for the premiere of the documentary South of the Border. He has also long pursued Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran in the hope of making a film about his life and presidency. Stone's forthcoming 10-part series ranges over subjects the director says have been "under-reported", taking in President Harry Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan, and the origins and the end of the Cold War. Stalin, too, is getting a makeover, according to Stone.
"Stalin, Hitler, Mao, McCarthy – these people have been vilified pretty thoroughly by history. Stalin has a complete other story. Not to paint him as a hero, but to tell a more factual representation. He fought the German war machine more than any single person."
Hitler has been "an easy scapegoat" throughout history for forces that were bigger than one man, Stone says, and – warming to the theme in Pasadena – he said that the same complex of interests between corporations and the military were still at work today.
"You can understand why Obama is following in Bush's footsteps in Afghanistan," he said. "Obama is very much trapped, we believe, in that system. And so that's what we're going to try and show you: the way it works."
Sunday, January 10, 2010
BILDERBERG PETROLEUM (OR JOBS FOR THE BOYS)
Mandelson is going to BP after Labour lose the GE.
Sutherland led the downfall of RBS but made Goldman Sachs a fortune.
================================
From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241929/Mandelson-BP-job-Election-say-insiders.html
Lord Mandelson 'to get BP job after Election', say insiders
By Mail On Sunday Reporter
Last updated at 11:19 AM on 10th January 2010
Business Secretary Peter Mandelson 'will land job with BP'
Peter Mandelson is being lined up for a lucrative job with BP following the General Election, according to sources at the oil giant.
A senior figure at the company said the Business Secretary was likely to be offered a position on its board if, as expected, Labour loses the Election and he retreats from frontline politics.
The BP source said the peer – who boasts long links with Peter Sutherland, who has just stepped down as BP chairman – was expected to ‘walk into’ a post such as vice-chairman, or as a roving ambassador for Russia and the Middle East.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241929/Mandelson-BP-job-Election-say-insiders.html#ixzz0cD6GA3Ge
Sutherland led the downfall of RBS but made Goldman Sachs a fortune.
================================
From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241929/Mandelson-BP-job-Election-say-insiders.html
Lord Mandelson 'to get BP job after Election', say insiders
By Mail On Sunday Reporter
Last updated at 11:19 AM on 10th January 2010
Business Secretary Peter Mandelson 'will land job with BP'
Peter Mandelson is being lined up for a lucrative job with BP following the General Election, according to sources at the oil giant.
A senior figure at the company said the Business Secretary was likely to be offered a position on its board if, as expected, Labour loses the Election and he retreats from frontline politics.
The BP source said the peer – who boasts long links with Peter Sutherland, who has just stepped down as BP chairman – was expected to ‘walk into’ a post such as vice-chairman, or as a roving ambassador for Russia and the Middle East.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241929/Mandelson-BP-job-Election-say-insiders.html#ixzz0cD6GA3Ge
Friday, January 08, 2010
IRAN AND THE GUARDIAN
The front page of The Guardian today claims that British forces were sent to the Iranian border immediately after Peter Moore had been kidnapped in order to rescue him and the other kidnapped men. However these forces failed somehow.
But again the details are not provided.
They weren't then (which is the most important part of this story).
They aren't now.
It seems that this story has been created years after the time.
If the details being provided now were known then they would have been published not just in The Guardian but in The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Sun.
Iran has always been a target of our intelligence agencies, not because of the sand and its people but because of the fossil fuel for BP and the other Bilderberg oil corporations. Iran was named as a member of the Axis-of-Evil and named as a military target in Israels' A Clean Break and America's Rebuilding America's Defenses (both written by the same Zionist nutters).
Moore was kidnapped in May 2007. Are you telling me that Iran sent Iranians to Baghdad, kidnapped five British men, somehow sneaked them across the Iranian border even though the US and British military apparently knew where they were without any military intervention, and only now, nearly three years later, are the details of this being published in The Guardian at the same time that false allegations of Iranian nuclear triggers are published in The Times?!
Remember:
1. we went to war on the words of cabbie
2. The Guardian was the proudsest of the proud to demand mass genocide at Copenhagen
========================
From http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/07/british-troops-iran-border-hostages
British troops tried to rescue hostages at Iran border
Exclusive: UK forces sent to intercept hostages, including recently freed Peter Moore, as they were taken from Iraq
British troops in southern Iraq were scrambled to the Iranian border after the abduction of five British hostages in May 2007, in a failed attempt to stop them being taken into Iran, the Guardian has learned.
The troops were sent to the border area north of Basra to intercept the kidnappers after receiving intelligence that they were heading to the frontier from Baghdad, but failed to find them. It is unclear whether the British unit arrived too late or went to a different crossing point along the 1,500km border.
British officials today refused to give details of the attempted rescue operation, describing the issue as "extremely sensitive", but a British journalist visiting the Iraq-Iran border a few months after the abduction was briefed on the operation by British officers who had taken part.
But again the details are not provided.
They weren't then (which is the most important part of this story).
They aren't now.
It seems that this story has been created years after the time.
If the details being provided now were known then they would have been published not just in The Guardian but in The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Sun.
Iran has always been a target of our intelligence agencies, not because of the sand and its people but because of the fossil fuel for BP and the other Bilderberg oil corporations. Iran was named as a member of the Axis-of-Evil and named as a military target in Israels' A Clean Break and America's Rebuilding America's Defenses (both written by the same Zionist nutters).
Moore was kidnapped in May 2007. Are you telling me that Iran sent Iranians to Baghdad, kidnapped five British men, somehow sneaked them across the Iranian border even though the US and British military apparently knew where they were without any military intervention, and only now, nearly three years later, are the details of this being published in The Guardian at the same time that false allegations of Iranian nuclear triggers are published in The Times?!
Remember:
1. we went to war on the words of cabbie
2. The Guardian was the proudsest of the proud to demand mass genocide at Copenhagen
========================
From http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/07/british-troops-iran-border-hostages
British troops tried to rescue hostages at Iran border
Exclusive: UK forces sent to intercept hostages, including recently freed Peter Moore, as they were taken from Iraq
British troops in southern Iraq were scrambled to the Iranian border after the abduction of five British hostages in May 2007, in a failed attempt to stop them being taken into Iran, the Guardian has learned.
The troops were sent to the border area north of Basra to intercept the kidnappers after receiving intelligence that they were heading to the frontier from Baghdad, but failed to find them. It is unclear whether the British unit arrived too late or went to a different crossing point along the 1,500km border.
British officials today refused to give details of the attempted rescue operation, describing the issue as "extremely sensitive", but a British journalist visiting the Iraq-Iran border a few months after the abduction was briefed on the operation by British officers who had taken part.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
UNBELIEVABLE
The Independent is saying today that
[source : Global warming is happening, even if it doesn't feel like it, The Independent 06/01/2010]
Over the last decade whenever a major weather event occured it was all over the media 'proving' that manmade global warming was indisputable fact. The floods of 2007? Blame man made global warming. The heatwave of 2003? Blame man made global warming.
The major source of such claims has been the WWF-Meteorological Office. We now know to our detriment that the WWF-MO cannot predict the weather a few days in advance, except in exceptional circumstances as now in which a large static weather system hangs over the UK.
But as with this system, did the WWF-MO predict the current deep freeze? NO!
The WWF-MO forecast a mild winter (which I suppose it had to with the Copenhagen meeting occuring in December), which may have affected the planning of councils and corporations across the UK leading to the state of the nation today; standstill.
The WWF is a green Nazi-fascist organisation with the aim of reducing development and reducing human population.
When the WWF-MO has attempted longer term forecasts, such as last winter, last summer, and this winter it has failed spectacularly!
And the Climategate scandal was a treasure trove of inconvenient truths; climate data had been deleted, sexed-up and manipulated to 'prove' manmade global warming, while opposing theories and scientists were ignored.
Did any of the mainstream media investigate and report on the Climategate data and its implications? NO!
Instead they complained that the UEA CRU was a victim of crime!
When a major (unpredicted) freeze occurs we are told that it is still compatible with manmade global warming, and in some cases supports it.
When a major source of information is released indicating that the theory of manmade global warming has been sexed-up and manipulated as truth (just like Iraqi WMD) it is ignored.
When a major geographical disaster occurs we are told that it is due to manmade global warming.
We are supposed to believe the forecasts of the climate decades in advance from people who can't forecast the weather a week in advance.
Unbelievable!
The weather's natural variability means it is impossible to draw long-term conclusions about a changing climate from any single episode, be it of hot, or cold.
[source : Global warming is happening, even if it doesn't feel like it, The Independent 06/01/2010]
Over the last decade whenever a major weather event occured it was all over the media 'proving' that manmade global warming was indisputable fact. The floods of 2007? Blame man made global warming. The heatwave of 2003? Blame man made global warming.
The major source of such claims has been the WWF-Meteorological Office. We now know to our detriment that the WWF-MO cannot predict the weather a few days in advance, except in exceptional circumstances as now in which a large static weather system hangs over the UK.
But as with this system, did the WWF-MO predict the current deep freeze? NO!
The WWF-MO forecast a mild winter (which I suppose it had to with the Copenhagen meeting occuring in December), which may have affected the planning of councils and corporations across the UK leading to the state of the nation today; standstill.
The WWF is a green Nazi-fascist organisation with the aim of reducing development and reducing human population.
When the WWF-MO has attempted longer term forecasts, such as last winter, last summer, and this winter it has failed spectacularly!
And the Climategate scandal was a treasure trove of inconvenient truths; climate data had been deleted, sexed-up and manipulated to 'prove' manmade global warming, while opposing theories and scientists were ignored.
Did any of the mainstream media investigate and report on the Climategate data and its implications? NO!
Instead they complained that the UEA CRU was a victim of crime!
When a major (unpredicted) freeze occurs we are told that it is still compatible with manmade global warming, and in some cases supports it.
When a major source of information is released indicating that the theory of manmade global warming has been sexed-up and manipulated as truth (just like Iraqi WMD) it is ignored.
When a major geographical disaster occurs we are told that it is due to manmade global warming.
We are supposed to believe the forecasts of the climate decades in advance from people who can't forecast the weather a week in advance.
Unbelievable!
Monday, January 04, 2010
THE HUNTER AND THE HUNTED
In spring/summer of last year I posted
READ MY LIPS. NO NEW WORLD ORDER.
SALMON SANDWICHES
THE BEAR AND THE SALMON
Since Copenhagen things have come much more into focus.
READ MY LIPS. NO NEW WORLD ORDER.
SALMON SANDWICHES
THE BEAR AND THE SALMON
Since Copenhagen things have come much more into focus.
DID PRINCE CHARLES REALLY OPPOSE THE INVASION OF IRAQ
Yesterday The News of the World alleged that Prince Charles opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq. However Paddy Harverson, the Prince's communications secretary, would neither confirm or deny the allegation, stating to the NotW that the story was "entirely speculative."
[source : Prince Charles tried to stop war, News of the World 03/01/2010 ]
I do not recall the Prince making his alleged opposition public in 2002 and 2003.
I do not recall the Prince speaking or even marching at anti-war demonstrations.
Opposing and trying to prevent war are distinct.
I do however recall the Prince making his feelings public on anthropogenic global warming just a few weeks ago in Copenhagen, shortly after his mummy had demanded that the Commonwealth sign up to national suicide by agreeing to a tyrannical world government at Copenhagen after corrupted organisations such as the WWF-MO had scared the shit out of everyone with apocalyptic forecasts of people frying in the streets and icebergs boiling if CO2 emissions weren't slashed immediately.
If the Prince had opposed the war I would have liked to have heard something like his speech at Copenhagen, which I quote from the ex-newspaper The Guardian;
From http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/15/prince-charles-speech-copenhagen-climate
Prime minister, secretary-general, ministers, ladies and gentlemen:
I am most grateful for your kind invitation to address this crucially important international gathering.
We live in times of great consequence and, therefore, of great opportunity.
With issues of such magnitude, it is easy to focus solely on the challenges, the worst-case scenarios, the what-ifs of failure.
But take a moment to consider the opportunities if we succeed. Imagine a healthier, safer and more sustainable, economically robust world. Because if we share in that vision, we can share the will to action that is now required.
Over more than three decades, I have been privileged to talk with some of the world's most eminent experts on climate change and environmental issues and to listen to the wisdom of some of the world's indigenous people.
The conclusion I draw is that the future of mankind can be assured only if we rediscover ways in which to live as a part of nature, not apart from her.
For the grim reality is that our planet has reached a point of crisis and we have only seven years before we lose the levers of control.
As the President of Gabon said at a meeting I hosted last month: 'The door to our future is closing...'
This, I fear, is not an overstatement. For climate change is a risk-multiplier. It has the potential to take all the other critical issues we face as a global community and transform their severity into a cataclysm.
Reducing poverty, increasing food production, combating terrorism and sustaining economic development are all vital priorities, but it is increasingly clear how rapid climate change will make them even more difficult to address.
Furthermore, because climate change is intimately connected with our systemic, unsustainable consumption of natural resources, any decline in the ecological resilience of one resource base or ecosystem increases the fragility of the whole.
We appear intent upon consuming the planet. It seems likely, on current patterns of use, that our global fisheries will collapse by 2050 and, already, fresh water is becoming scarcer, placing global food security at ever greater hazard.
In the last 50 years we have degraded 30% of global topsoil and destroyed 30% of the world's rainforests.
All of these issues are linked to each other and to climate change - a truly vicious circle - and the climate crisis is the mirror in which we see reflected the combined ecological impact of our industrialised age.
However, it is these links, together with our common humanity and the unprecedented connections of today's global community, which might, perhaps, provide us with a solution.
Moreover, in our increasingly precarious situation - on a small, unique and precious planet - this is not a problem resolvable in terms of 'them and us'.
For when it comes to the air we breathe and the water we drink, there are no national boundaries. We all depend on each other - and, crucially, on each other's actions - for our weather, our food, our water and our energy. These are the 'tectonic plates' on which the peace and stability of the international community rest.
The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that a partial solution to climate change is no solution at all. It must be inclusive and it must be a comprehensive approach - one that strengthens the resilience of our ecosystems. Crucially, it must be embraced by the public, private and NGO sectors, as well as by local communities and indigenous people, while also encouraging individual responsibility.
One example that has been high on my agenda for the last two years is that of tropical rainforests.
These ecosystems have been described as the planet's lifebelt, and with good reason. Not only do they harbour about half of our terrestrial biodiversity and generate much of the rainfall that is vital for farming, they also absorb and hold vast quantities of carbon that would otherwise be in the atmosphere.
Unfortunately, as you know better than I, the forests are being cleared at a terrifying rate.
The simple truth is that without a solution to tropical deforestation, there is no solution to climate change. That is why I established a Rainforests Project to try to promote a consensus on how tropical deforestation might be significantly reduced.
In early April, I was able to host a meeting of heads of state and government at which it was agreed to establish an informal working group to look at this issue.
As it turns out, it seems the quickest and most cost-effective way to buy time in the battle against catastrophic climate change is to find a way to make the trees worth more alive than dead.
The project has been exploring the drivers of deforestation and how innovative financing mechanisms could provide rainforest nations with financial rewards for positive performance.
One example of such a performance-based approach is the recent agreement between Guyana and Norway.
The project is also working with the World Bank on an emergency package to stimulate private sector finance for rainforest nations.
It is critical to find ways to prevent forests being converted to agriculture.
I have been heartened by my conversations with some of the world's largest agri-businesses, which have told me that, through more effective use of vast areas of degraded land, we could feed and fuel a growing population and keep the forests.
But, ladies and gentlemen, it must be genuinely sustainable agriculture that helps to empower local communities and small farmers.
We thereby create a truly virtuous, not a vicious, circle and one, because of its understanding of the relationship between agriculture and forestry, that can only improve the lives of many of the poorest people on the planet while simultaneously benefiting nature.
It also builds what seems to me to be the absolutely critical chain which links ecosystem resilience, adaptive capacity, poverty reduction and sustained economic development.
This is the chain that we have broken ... And it is the chain that we must now re-make.
The need fully to engage the private sector reflects not only the growing determination of business to act in a sustainable way but, crucially, its determination to listen to customers.
And what customers are saying ever more loudly is that they want their investment choices to make a positive difference to climate change.
One practical result of my work with the private sector on corporate, social and environmental responsibility for the past 25 years is that growing numbers of pension funds have made a commitment to set climate solutions at the heart of their long-term investment decision-making.
To ensure a large-scale deployment of capital, these pension funds need clear long-term policies to be agreed here this week.
This request is supported by the 191 financial institutions with assets of over $13tr which signed the International Investor Statement on Climate Change.
A further practical contribution is a statement by the international Corporate Leaders Group, of which I am patron - comprising over 900 of the world's most prominent companies drawn from more than 63 countries, including all the G20 members - on the significant business opportunities which a robust, effective and equitable global climate agreement could deliver.
In helping to facilitate these initiatives, my simple aim has been to show that we can all make a difference if we are determined to do so. Above all, I am convinced it is these kinds of global partnerships - between government, business, NGOs, civil society and even individuals - that will provide the global solutions needed to secure our future.
Subsequent inflows of private sector investment would do much to reinforce the credibility of all those, particularly in the poorest countries, who have had the courage to believe in the positive outcome of this meeting.
Several of their leaders, while being only too aware of the immediate economic benefits of monetising their countries' natural capital, have still chosen to follow the difficult path of turning their economies towards sustainable development.
Such visionary people have a vital role to play in helping the world to find the strength needed to address its problems. But they desperately need our support, for without it they may not have a second chance.
Surely now, then, is the time to recognise that we cannot have capitalism without nature's capital - we cannot sustain our human economy without sustaining nature's economy?
I know that so very many of you here today have been negotiating the unbelievably complex details of a potential agreement for a very, very long time, and you must be profoundly weary.
But this is an historic moment. I can only appeal to you to listen to the cries of those who are already suffering from the impact of climate change.
Just as mankind had the power to push the world to the brink so, too, do we have the power to bring it back into balance.
You have been called to positions of responsibility at this critical time. The eyes of the world are upon you and it is no understatement to say that, with your signatures, you can write our future ...
One final thought ... As our planet's life-support system begins to fail and our very survival as a species is brought into question, remember that our children and grandchildren will ask not what our generation said, but what it did. Let us give an answer, then, of which we can be proud.
[source : Prince Charles tried to stop war, News of the World 03/01/2010 ]
I do not recall the Prince making his alleged opposition public in 2002 and 2003.
I do not recall the Prince speaking or even marching at anti-war demonstrations.
Opposing and trying to prevent war are distinct.
I do however recall the Prince making his feelings public on anthropogenic global warming just a few weeks ago in Copenhagen, shortly after his mummy had demanded that the Commonwealth sign up to national suicide by agreeing to a tyrannical world government at Copenhagen after corrupted organisations such as the WWF-MO had scared the shit out of everyone with apocalyptic forecasts of people frying in the streets and icebergs boiling if CO2 emissions weren't slashed immediately.
If the Prince had opposed the war I would have liked to have heard something like his speech at Copenhagen, which I quote from the ex-newspaper The Guardian;
From http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/15/prince-charles-speech-copenhagen-climate
Prime minister, secretary-general, ministers, ladies and gentlemen:
I am most grateful for your kind invitation to address this crucially important international gathering.
We live in times of great consequence and, therefore, of great opportunity.
With issues of such magnitude, it is easy to focus solely on the challenges, the worst-case scenarios, the what-ifs of failure.
But take a moment to consider the opportunities if we succeed. Imagine a healthier, safer and more sustainable, economically robust world. Because if we share in that vision, we can share the will to action that is now required.
Over more than three decades, I have been privileged to talk with some of the world's most eminent experts on climate change and environmental issues and to listen to the wisdom of some of the world's indigenous people.
The conclusion I draw is that the future of mankind can be assured only if we rediscover ways in which to live as a part of nature, not apart from her.
For the grim reality is that our planet has reached a point of crisis and we have only seven years before we lose the levers of control.
As the President of Gabon said at a meeting I hosted last month: 'The door to our future is closing...'
This, I fear, is not an overstatement. For climate change is a risk-multiplier. It has the potential to take all the other critical issues we face as a global community and transform their severity into a cataclysm.
Reducing poverty, increasing food production, combating terrorism and sustaining economic development are all vital priorities, but it is increasingly clear how rapid climate change will make them even more difficult to address.
Furthermore, because climate change is intimately connected with our systemic, unsustainable consumption of natural resources, any decline in the ecological resilience of one resource base or ecosystem increases the fragility of the whole.
We appear intent upon consuming the planet. It seems likely, on current patterns of use, that our global fisheries will collapse by 2050 and, already, fresh water is becoming scarcer, placing global food security at ever greater hazard.
In the last 50 years we have degraded 30% of global topsoil and destroyed 30% of the world's rainforests.
All of these issues are linked to each other and to climate change - a truly vicious circle - and the climate crisis is the mirror in which we see reflected the combined ecological impact of our industrialised age.
However, it is these links, together with our common humanity and the unprecedented connections of today's global community, which might, perhaps, provide us with a solution.
Moreover, in our increasingly precarious situation - on a small, unique and precious planet - this is not a problem resolvable in terms of 'them and us'.
For when it comes to the air we breathe and the water we drink, there are no national boundaries. We all depend on each other - and, crucially, on each other's actions - for our weather, our food, our water and our energy. These are the 'tectonic plates' on which the peace and stability of the international community rest.
The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that a partial solution to climate change is no solution at all. It must be inclusive and it must be a comprehensive approach - one that strengthens the resilience of our ecosystems. Crucially, it must be embraced by the public, private and NGO sectors, as well as by local communities and indigenous people, while also encouraging individual responsibility.
One example that has been high on my agenda for the last two years is that of tropical rainforests.
These ecosystems have been described as the planet's lifebelt, and with good reason. Not only do they harbour about half of our terrestrial biodiversity and generate much of the rainfall that is vital for farming, they also absorb and hold vast quantities of carbon that would otherwise be in the atmosphere.
Unfortunately, as you know better than I, the forests are being cleared at a terrifying rate.
The simple truth is that without a solution to tropical deforestation, there is no solution to climate change. That is why I established a Rainforests Project to try to promote a consensus on how tropical deforestation might be significantly reduced.
In early April, I was able to host a meeting of heads of state and government at which it was agreed to establish an informal working group to look at this issue.
As it turns out, it seems the quickest and most cost-effective way to buy time in the battle against catastrophic climate change is to find a way to make the trees worth more alive than dead.
The project has been exploring the drivers of deforestation and how innovative financing mechanisms could provide rainforest nations with financial rewards for positive performance.
One example of such a performance-based approach is the recent agreement between Guyana and Norway.
The project is also working with the World Bank on an emergency package to stimulate private sector finance for rainforest nations.
It is critical to find ways to prevent forests being converted to agriculture.
I have been heartened by my conversations with some of the world's largest agri-businesses, which have told me that, through more effective use of vast areas of degraded land, we could feed and fuel a growing population and keep the forests.
But, ladies and gentlemen, it must be genuinely sustainable agriculture that helps to empower local communities and small farmers.
We thereby create a truly virtuous, not a vicious, circle and one, because of its understanding of the relationship between agriculture and forestry, that can only improve the lives of many of the poorest people on the planet while simultaneously benefiting nature.
It also builds what seems to me to be the absolutely critical chain which links ecosystem resilience, adaptive capacity, poverty reduction and sustained economic development.
This is the chain that we have broken ... And it is the chain that we must now re-make.
The need fully to engage the private sector reflects not only the growing determination of business to act in a sustainable way but, crucially, its determination to listen to customers.
And what customers are saying ever more loudly is that they want their investment choices to make a positive difference to climate change.
One practical result of my work with the private sector on corporate, social and environmental responsibility for the past 25 years is that growing numbers of pension funds have made a commitment to set climate solutions at the heart of their long-term investment decision-making.
To ensure a large-scale deployment of capital, these pension funds need clear long-term policies to be agreed here this week.
This request is supported by the 191 financial institutions with assets of over $13tr which signed the International Investor Statement on Climate Change.
A further practical contribution is a statement by the international Corporate Leaders Group, of which I am patron - comprising over 900 of the world's most prominent companies drawn from more than 63 countries, including all the G20 members - on the significant business opportunities which a robust, effective and equitable global climate agreement could deliver.
In helping to facilitate these initiatives, my simple aim has been to show that we can all make a difference if we are determined to do so. Above all, I am convinced it is these kinds of global partnerships - between government, business, NGOs, civil society and even individuals - that will provide the global solutions needed to secure our future.
Subsequent inflows of private sector investment would do much to reinforce the credibility of all those, particularly in the poorest countries, who have had the courage to believe in the positive outcome of this meeting.
Several of their leaders, while being only too aware of the immediate economic benefits of monetising their countries' natural capital, have still chosen to follow the difficult path of turning their economies towards sustainable development.
Such visionary people have a vital role to play in helping the world to find the strength needed to address its problems. But they desperately need our support, for without it they may not have a second chance.
Surely now, then, is the time to recognise that we cannot have capitalism without nature's capital - we cannot sustain our human economy without sustaining nature's economy?
I know that so very many of you here today have been negotiating the unbelievably complex details of a potential agreement for a very, very long time, and you must be profoundly weary.
But this is an historic moment. I can only appeal to you to listen to the cries of those who are already suffering from the impact of climate change.
Just as mankind had the power to push the world to the brink so, too, do we have the power to bring it back into balance.
You have been called to positions of responsibility at this critical time. The eyes of the world are upon you and it is no understatement to say that, with your signatures, you can write our future ...
One final thought ... As our planet's life-support system begins to fail and our very survival as a species is brought into question, remember that our children and grandchildren will ask not what our generation said, but what it did. Let us give an answer, then, of which we can be proud.
DID YOU SEE THE WEATHER FORECAST LAST NIGHT?
Even the minimum temperatures were doctored last night.
The minimum temp shown on the UK was -9 in Glasgow, but the presenter mentioned a minimum of -16. Where was it? Not shown. It should have been North Scotland, and there was plenty of room for a temperature tag to be shown because the most northern temperature given was for Glasgow, and even that tag was placed South of Glasgow!
So what?
When the first snows fell nearly three weeks ago now there was no mention of the freeze being this deep and lasting this long. There wasn't going to be a White Christmas. This was just a freak few days of snow (after all, the WWF-MO had predicted a BBQ winter...)
Nearly three weeks later and the big deep freeze is now predicted to last for the whole of this week, maybe longer.
And this morning the BBC weather presenter Carol Kirkwood tried to spin the freezing Arctic weather with a very happy its-not-my-fault smile.
The MO is now corrupted and endangering the UK with its laughably incorrect forecasts.
Sack Napier Now!
The minimum temp shown on the UK was -9 in Glasgow, but the presenter mentioned a minimum of -16. Where was it? Not shown. It should have been North Scotland, and there was plenty of room for a temperature tag to be shown because the most northern temperature given was for Glasgow, and even that tag was placed South of Glasgow!
So what?
When the first snows fell nearly three weeks ago now there was no mention of the freeze being this deep and lasting this long. There wasn't going to be a White Christmas. This was just a freak few days of snow (after all, the WWF-MO had predicted a BBQ winter...)
Nearly three weeks later and the big deep freeze is now predicted to last for the whole of this week, maybe longer.
And this morning the BBC weather presenter Carol Kirkwood tried to spin the freezing Arctic weather with a very happy its-not-my-fault smile.
The MO is now corrupted and endangering the UK with its laughably incorrect forecasts.
Sack Napier Now!
Sunday, January 03, 2010
THE CORRUPTION OF THE METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE
There is a very very good article in The Daily Mail today about The Meteorological Office (MO). It echoes somethings that I've been commenting on regarding massive computing power etc, and it raises the question of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), but goes no further than that.
The WWF was created by Prince Philip, Prince Bernhard and Julian Huxley.
Prince Philip has been quoted as saying that after dying he wants to come back as a deadly virus to reduce human population, and is well known for his racist gaffes.
Prince Bernhard was a card-carrying Nazi who worked for I G Farben and founded the conspiratorial Bilderberg Group with many roots in Nazism that is working towards European and global government.
Huxley was a former President of the Eugenics Society.
So this is the real background of the WWF - green Nazism.
During the Copenhagen meeting last month much British media attention was focused on the MO and its gloomy forecasts. In the last week of that meeting the MO made the prediction that the earth would boil if nothing could be agreed to slash CO2 emissions, a forecast that was plastered all over the media.
The Daily Mail article on the MO looks briefly at the development of the MO in the last twenty years from a small department of the MoD providing short range weather forecasts into an alleged world leading centre for climate change data and forecasts.
And then in 2006 Robert Napier became Chairman of the Board of Directors of the MO.
Before joining the MO Napier had been CEO of the WWF-UK.
Napier is also Chairman of the Green Fiscal Commission which has three aims.
From http://www.greenfiscalcommission.org.uk/index.php/site/about/about_gfc/
The three work streams of the Green Fiscal Commission are:
1. The generation of information/evidence on the operation and implementation of environmental taxes,
2. The generation of information/evidence on public and stakeholder attitudes to environmental taxes,
3. Targeted and appropriate communication of the Commission’s findings to a broad range of stakeholders and the public
i.e. to find reasons to tax you to death.
Napier is also Chairman of the Trustees of the Carbon Disclosure Project, and Chairman of the Trustees of Conservation Monitoring Centre.
====================================
From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240082/It-gigantic-supercomputer-1-500-staff-170m-year-budget-So-does-Met-Office-wrong.html
It has a gigantic supercomputer, 1,500 staff and a £170m-a-year budget. So why does the Met Office get it so wrong?
By Richard North
Last updated at 11:23 AM on 03rd January 2010
Its supercomputer makes 1,000 billion calculations a second - then tells us to expect a mild winter. But what would you expect from a 'scientific' organisation that for 20 years has been dominated by climate change zealots, and whose current chairman is the former boss of the World Wildlife Fund?
'Cold of a variety not seen in over 25 years in a large scale is about to engulf the major energy-consuming areas of the northern hemisphere. The first 15 days of the opening of the New Year will be the coldest, population weighted, north of 30 [degrees] north worldwide in over 25 years.'
That is the chilling (quite literally) verdict of Joe Bastardi, a weather forecaster on the American TV channel AccuWeather.
Yet, while many months ago he and several of his rivals correctly forecast a pre-Christmas freeze, the organisation that told us last year to prepare for a 'barbecue summer' was getting it wrong again.
This is our own famous Met Office, which last September confidently predicted a warmer than average winter for Britain. Tell that to Eurostar passengers stuck in the Channel Tunnel for 18 hours before Christmas, the breakdown of their trains blamed on the coldest weather for 15 years.
Not until late November did the Met Office tone down its prediction by saying that there was a '50 per cent chance' of a mild winter.
Spinning a coin could have given the same result - not one you would expect from an organisation that spends nearly £170million a year, has 1,500 staff and a team of scientists operating a £30million supercomputer capable of 1,000 billion calculations every second, with a carbon footprint the size of a small town.
Yet even with this brand-new computer in action since last August, on December 10 the Met Office predicted that it was 'more likely than not that 2010 will be the warmest year in the instrumental record, beating the previous record year which was 1998'. That prediction stands unchanged.
How could the Met Office be so wrong, both about its barbecue summer and the mild winter? And could the answer to that question have anything to do with its remarkable transformation in recent years?
From a fuddy-duddy organisation created in 1854 to provide a service to mariners, and then aviators when the aeroplane was invented, the Met Office became an arm of the Ministry of Defence. But it has since transmuted into a powerful advocacy unit that sees its main mission to convince the world that we are prey to ' dangerous climate change'.
Much of this is down to one man - John Houghton (now Sir John) who was the director-general and later chief executive of the Met Office between 1983 and 1991.
It was he, way back in 1988, who attended the first World Conference on the Changing Atmosphere in Toronto and later became the first scientific chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
It was Houghton who, with one of her senior advisers, Sir Crispin Tickell, convinced the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to fund a new Met Office unit called the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. Opened in 1990, it is now based in Exeter and employs more than 200 staff, having become a temple to what many regard as the climate change 'religion'.
Its pivotal role is now well-recognised as it is this centre, working with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, that produces one of the most relied-upon data sets used to track the global temperature and tell us that the planet is heating up.
Crucially, it is that same CRU that has been embroiled in the so-called 'Warmergate' scandal, where leaked emails suggest that climate scientists may have manipulated the evidence when it did not give the answers that proved that global warming was continuing. The University of East Anglia has ordered an independent review into the Warmergate row and the allegations made against the CRU.
The point of this row - which is often poorly understood - is that the so-called 'global temperature' which these scientists produce, upon which rests the whole case for 'dangerous global warming', is not a matter of observed fact.
The data collection system is far from perfect, designed primarily for weather recording, not long-term climate prediction. Reflecting the military origins of the Met Office, many weather stations are situated on airfields. They are there to provide real-time observations for aviators and to provide the basis for short-term forecasts. They are not climate monitoring stations and arguably should not be used as such.
Furthermore, the likes of Manchester and Aberdeen airports, which were once grass airstrips, are now vast stretches of concrete, ramping up temperatures well above the surrounding countryside. This is known as the urban heat island effect.
Because of this effect, instrument changes, inbuilt errors and the huge gaps in the record, the crude data has to be 'adjusted' - sometimes several times. Then sophisticated statistical techniques have to be applied before a single global figure can be produced.
The complexity of the calculations, and the considerable element of human judgment in choosing which of the limited number of specific temperatures to use from the thousands of weather stations all over the world, leave the process wide open to error and bias. Thus, the final results may actually reflect, to one degree or another, no more than the opinions of the scientists producing them.
This is where the good faith and the impartiality of the scientists involved is so important, and why the Warmergate scandal was so damaging. Far from being impartial custodians of the truth, some scientists were shown to have feet of clay, guarding their own patch rather than the science.
This was reinforced shortly after Warmergate, when Russian analysts complained that the Hadley Centre had been 'cherry-picking' temperatures from the Russian data set, using only those that were untypically high. Similar complaints have been made of the United States' data set, where urban heat island effect and positioning errors may taint as much as 80 per cent of the weather station records. Last month the Met Office denied 'cherry-picking' and said it used data from a network of individual stations designated by the World Meteorological Organisation.
But there is an even greater reason to doubt the impartiality of the Met Office and the Hadley Centre. Having had at its helm Sir John Houghton, a conviction 'warmist', in 2006 it acquired a new and highly controversial chairman - Robert Napier.
Described as a 'committed conservationist' and then a 'passionate environmentalist', before taking over the most senior position at the Met Office, Napier had for seven years been the chief executive of World Wildlife Fund-UK, one of the foremost activist groups in the climate-change business.
Up to then, WWF was primarily concerned with wildlife issues and conservation. It is widely acknowledged that Napier put climate change on the map during his tenure, using his position to 'leverage the power and experience of the whole organisation', changing its focus to the extent that campaigning on this issue became its main activity.
Among other things, he was particularly effective in making alliances with big business, doing deals with the likes of the insurance giant Allianz and convincing the company that there was money to be made out of climate change.
Bizarrely, although the Met Office is still part of the MoD and its staff are civil servants (who, as the Met Office itself says, 'cannot support individual campaigns that actively lobby for policy change'), the organisation has taken its cue from its new leader. It has become a powerful and vocal climate-change lobbyist, contributing hugely to the climate-change conference in Copenhagen last month, at which it launched its prediction that this year would be the hottest on record.
That raises the question whether the Met Office can still be relied upon to give accurate forecasts. Predicting the weather - both short-term and long - is not an exact science. Computers can do the number crunching but the programs or 'models' they work to are devised by human beings.
Exactly the same computer models that are used to forecast that we will fry by the year 2030, 2050 or even 2080, are also those used to produce the shorter-range forecasts. It was these models, back in September, that told us we were going to have a mild winter.
But the problems do not stop there. From a technical body, the Met Office has now become the producer and purveyor of endless propaganda on climate change. Its latest production is an expensive, glossy, 20-page pamphlet. It is packed with highly controversial and disputed assertions that are delivered with the authority of a government agency as if they were unarguable fact.
There is no room for doubt, for instance, in the assertion that humans are causing climate change.
'Human activities like burning coal, oil and gas have led to...extra warming. As a result, over the past century there has been an underlying increase in average temperatures which is continuing.'
Yet no discernible warming has been recorded since 1998.
Indeed, it has snowed in the UK for the past three years, famously last October as MPs were voting through the Climate Change Bill. Each winter has been harsher than the last, and many independent meteorologists, including Joe Bastardi, believe the Earth has entered a cooling cycle.
What was once a highly respected organisation risks becoming a laughing stock in the weather community and a danger to the rest of us.
Farmers who rely on the Met Office risk their animals dying and their crops being destroyed. Local authorities, who ran down their grit stocks because the Met Office said it would be mild, are putting the lives of motorists and pedestrians at risk. Airlines, unprepared for the snow, have lost millions of pounds, while the travel plans of hundreds of thousands of people have been disrupted.
The Met Office seems to have forgotten what it was set up for - to predict weather day by day. Instead, it is devoting it energies to the fantasy that it can predict climate decades ahead when it cannot even tell you whether it is going to snow next week, or whether we might have a barbecue summer.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240082/It-gigantic-supercomputer-1-500-staff-170m-year-budget-So-does-Met-Office-wrong.html#ixzz0bYlcp6HM
The WWF was created by Prince Philip, Prince Bernhard and Julian Huxley.
Prince Philip has been quoted as saying that after dying he wants to come back as a deadly virus to reduce human population, and is well known for his racist gaffes.
Prince Bernhard was a card-carrying Nazi who worked for I G Farben and founded the conspiratorial Bilderberg Group with many roots in Nazism that is working towards European and global government.
Huxley was a former President of the Eugenics Society.
So this is the real background of the WWF - green Nazism.
During the Copenhagen meeting last month much British media attention was focused on the MO and its gloomy forecasts. In the last week of that meeting the MO made the prediction that the earth would boil if nothing could be agreed to slash CO2 emissions, a forecast that was plastered all over the media.
The Daily Mail article on the MO looks briefly at the development of the MO in the last twenty years from a small department of the MoD providing short range weather forecasts into an alleged world leading centre for climate change data and forecasts.
And then in 2006 Robert Napier became Chairman of the Board of Directors of the MO.
Before joining the MO Napier had been CEO of the WWF-UK.
Napier is also Chairman of the Green Fiscal Commission which has three aims.
From http://www.greenfiscalcommission.org.uk/index.php/site/about/about_gfc/
The three work streams of the Green Fiscal Commission are:
1. The generation of information/evidence on the operation and implementation of environmental taxes,
2. The generation of information/evidence on public and stakeholder attitudes to environmental taxes,
3. Targeted and appropriate communication of the Commission’s findings to a broad range of stakeholders and the public
i.e. to find reasons to tax you to death.
Napier is also Chairman of the Trustees of the Carbon Disclosure Project, and Chairman of the Trustees of Conservation Monitoring Centre.
====================================
From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240082/It-gigantic-supercomputer-1-500-staff-170m-year-budget-So-does-Met-Office-wrong.html
It has a gigantic supercomputer, 1,500 staff and a £170m-a-year budget. So why does the Met Office get it so wrong?
By Richard North
Last updated at 11:23 AM on 03rd January 2010
Its supercomputer makes 1,000 billion calculations a second - then tells us to expect a mild winter. But what would you expect from a 'scientific' organisation that for 20 years has been dominated by climate change zealots, and whose current chairman is the former boss of the World Wildlife Fund?
'Cold of a variety not seen in over 25 years in a large scale is about to engulf the major energy-consuming areas of the northern hemisphere. The first 15 days of the opening of the New Year will be the coldest, population weighted, north of 30 [degrees] north worldwide in over 25 years.'
That is the chilling (quite literally) verdict of Joe Bastardi, a weather forecaster on the American TV channel AccuWeather.
Yet, while many months ago he and several of his rivals correctly forecast a pre-Christmas freeze, the organisation that told us last year to prepare for a 'barbecue summer' was getting it wrong again.
This is our own famous Met Office, which last September confidently predicted a warmer than average winter for Britain. Tell that to Eurostar passengers stuck in the Channel Tunnel for 18 hours before Christmas, the breakdown of their trains blamed on the coldest weather for 15 years.
Not until late November did the Met Office tone down its prediction by saying that there was a '50 per cent chance' of a mild winter.
Spinning a coin could have given the same result - not one you would expect from an organisation that spends nearly £170million a year, has 1,500 staff and a team of scientists operating a £30million supercomputer capable of 1,000 billion calculations every second, with a carbon footprint the size of a small town.
Yet even with this brand-new computer in action since last August, on December 10 the Met Office predicted that it was 'more likely than not that 2010 will be the warmest year in the instrumental record, beating the previous record year which was 1998'. That prediction stands unchanged.
How could the Met Office be so wrong, both about its barbecue summer and the mild winter? And could the answer to that question have anything to do with its remarkable transformation in recent years?
From a fuddy-duddy organisation created in 1854 to provide a service to mariners, and then aviators when the aeroplane was invented, the Met Office became an arm of the Ministry of Defence. But it has since transmuted into a powerful advocacy unit that sees its main mission to convince the world that we are prey to ' dangerous climate change'.
Much of this is down to one man - John Houghton (now Sir John) who was the director-general and later chief executive of the Met Office between 1983 and 1991.
It was he, way back in 1988, who attended the first World Conference on the Changing Atmosphere in Toronto and later became the first scientific chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
It was Houghton who, with one of her senior advisers, Sir Crispin Tickell, convinced the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to fund a new Met Office unit called the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. Opened in 1990, it is now based in Exeter and employs more than 200 staff, having become a temple to what many regard as the climate change 'religion'.
Its pivotal role is now well-recognised as it is this centre, working with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, that produces one of the most relied-upon data sets used to track the global temperature and tell us that the planet is heating up.
Crucially, it is that same CRU that has been embroiled in the so-called 'Warmergate' scandal, where leaked emails suggest that climate scientists may have manipulated the evidence when it did not give the answers that proved that global warming was continuing. The University of East Anglia has ordered an independent review into the Warmergate row and the allegations made against the CRU.
The point of this row - which is often poorly understood - is that the so-called 'global temperature' which these scientists produce, upon which rests the whole case for 'dangerous global warming', is not a matter of observed fact.
The data collection system is far from perfect, designed primarily for weather recording, not long-term climate prediction. Reflecting the military origins of the Met Office, many weather stations are situated on airfields. They are there to provide real-time observations for aviators and to provide the basis for short-term forecasts. They are not climate monitoring stations and arguably should not be used as such.
Furthermore, the likes of Manchester and Aberdeen airports, which were once grass airstrips, are now vast stretches of concrete, ramping up temperatures well above the surrounding countryside. This is known as the urban heat island effect.
Because of this effect, instrument changes, inbuilt errors and the huge gaps in the record, the crude data has to be 'adjusted' - sometimes several times. Then sophisticated statistical techniques have to be applied before a single global figure can be produced.
The complexity of the calculations, and the considerable element of human judgment in choosing which of the limited number of specific temperatures to use from the thousands of weather stations all over the world, leave the process wide open to error and bias. Thus, the final results may actually reflect, to one degree or another, no more than the opinions of the scientists producing them.
This is where the good faith and the impartiality of the scientists involved is so important, and why the Warmergate scandal was so damaging. Far from being impartial custodians of the truth, some scientists were shown to have feet of clay, guarding their own patch rather than the science.
This was reinforced shortly after Warmergate, when Russian analysts complained that the Hadley Centre had been 'cherry-picking' temperatures from the Russian data set, using only those that were untypically high. Similar complaints have been made of the United States' data set, where urban heat island effect and positioning errors may taint as much as 80 per cent of the weather station records. Last month the Met Office denied 'cherry-picking' and said it used data from a network of individual stations designated by the World Meteorological Organisation.
But there is an even greater reason to doubt the impartiality of the Met Office and the Hadley Centre. Having had at its helm Sir John Houghton, a conviction 'warmist', in 2006 it acquired a new and highly controversial chairman - Robert Napier.
Described as a 'committed conservationist' and then a 'passionate environmentalist', before taking over the most senior position at the Met Office, Napier had for seven years been the chief executive of World Wildlife Fund-UK, one of the foremost activist groups in the climate-change business.
Up to then, WWF was primarily concerned with wildlife issues and conservation. It is widely acknowledged that Napier put climate change on the map during his tenure, using his position to 'leverage the power and experience of the whole organisation', changing its focus to the extent that campaigning on this issue became its main activity.
Among other things, he was particularly effective in making alliances with big business, doing deals with the likes of the insurance giant Allianz and convincing the company that there was money to be made out of climate change.
Bizarrely, although the Met Office is still part of the MoD and its staff are civil servants (who, as the Met Office itself says, 'cannot support individual campaigns that actively lobby for policy change'), the organisation has taken its cue from its new leader. It has become a powerful and vocal climate-change lobbyist, contributing hugely to the climate-change conference in Copenhagen last month, at which it launched its prediction that this year would be the hottest on record.
That raises the question whether the Met Office can still be relied upon to give accurate forecasts. Predicting the weather - both short-term and long - is not an exact science. Computers can do the number crunching but the programs or 'models' they work to are devised by human beings.
Exactly the same computer models that are used to forecast that we will fry by the year 2030, 2050 or even 2080, are also those used to produce the shorter-range forecasts. It was these models, back in September, that told us we were going to have a mild winter.
But the problems do not stop there. From a technical body, the Met Office has now become the producer and purveyor of endless propaganda on climate change. Its latest production is an expensive, glossy, 20-page pamphlet. It is packed with highly controversial and disputed assertions that are delivered with the authority of a government agency as if they were unarguable fact.
There is no room for doubt, for instance, in the assertion that humans are causing climate change.
'Human activities like burning coal, oil and gas have led to...extra warming. As a result, over the past century there has been an underlying increase in average temperatures which is continuing.'
Yet no discernible warming has been recorded since 1998.
Indeed, it has snowed in the UK for the past three years, famously last October as MPs were voting through the Climate Change Bill. Each winter has been harsher than the last, and many independent meteorologists, including Joe Bastardi, believe the Earth has entered a cooling cycle.
What was once a highly respected organisation risks becoming a laughing stock in the weather community and a danger to the rest of us.
Farmers who rely on the Met Office risk their animals dying and their crops being destroyed. Local authorities, who ran down their grit stocks because the Met Office said it would be mild, are putting the lives of motorists and pedestrians at risk. Airlines, unprepared for the snow, have lost millions of pounds, while the travel plans of hundreds of thousands of people have been disrupted.
The Met Office seems to have forgotten what it was set up for - to predict weather day by day. Instead, it is devoting it energies to the fantasy that it can predict climate decades ahead when it cannot even tell you whether it is going to snow next week, or whether we might have a barbecue summer.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240082/It-gigantic-supercomputer-1-500-staff-170m-year-budget-So-does-Met-Office-wrong.html#ixzz0bYlcp6HM
GORDON CLOWN JUST SAID IT AGAIN
The clown of the century just said his favourite catchphrase live on BBC Radio 5 Live (and nobody interrupted him...)
Global solutions for global problems
As good citizens let us all repeat it ten times each night before we go to bed.
Global solutions for global problems
Global solutions for global problems
Global solutions for global problems
Global solutions for global problems
Global solutions for global problems
Global solutions for global problems
Global solutions for global problems
Global solutions for global problems
Global solutions for global problems
Global solutions for global problems
Global solutions for global problems
As good citizens let us all repeat it ten times each night before we go to bed.
Global solutions for global problems
Global solutions for global problems
Global solutions for global problems
Global solutions for global problems
Global solutions for global problems
Global solutions for global problems
Global solutions for global problems
Global solutions for global problems
Global solutions for global problems
Global solutions for global problems
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)