How hilarious! Didn’t you know? Iran is immune to homosexuality: it doesn’t exist over there!

So far, the Iranian president’s psychological profile seems to be that when faced with insurmountable evidence, just wish it away:

Could this be why?

If you ever want to know what tomorrow will look like, it’s often a good idea to listen to the cellular movements of today’s teenagers. With a mixture of blanket politically correct brainwashing and an panacea of laziness that can’t even be bothered to read the charters that call for us to be blown up on buses, we are truly doomed.

The justification for this Youth Ignorance is the age-old European moral sadism and the obsession with self-criticism. If others want to kill us, the cause is very simply and unquestionably something that we’ve done. What that something is though doesn’t really matter in the scheme of things, blaming ourselves is an easy-to-remember soundbite, and at the very least we just need to negotiate our way out of a 1400 year ideology of hatred.

Maybe some Labour spin and Big Brother soundbites are all these suicide bombers need to hear.

And wait! Didn’t we solve the 30-year-old Northern Ireland problem through “negotiation”? Where’s the Moral Equivalence Thought Police when you need them? (The fact that the IRA wasn’t based on an ideology that wanted us wiped off the face of the earth hopefully will never register on today’s children. If it does, our young might actually need to start reading stuff like the Hamas Charter that calls for the mass-murder of Jews. Heaven forbid tomorrow’s adults should actually research before opening their mouths!).

Believe it or not but the future will be one where the very word terrorism will be a morally equivalent blanket term for everything from suffragettes and Nelson Mandela to the islamo-nazi Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, and Hamas! The fact that there’s a difference between a cry for freedom and the abhorrent attempt to commit genocide and enforce mass conversion will be seen by our future young adults as a neo-con conspiracy against the liberal sadism of Eurabia. Now that’s a panacea!

So, are you sitting comfortably? Prepare to take a sneak preview into the future of terrorism. I can guarantee that you will be terrorised for the first 34 minutes:

Schools Question Time Terrorists’ Curriculum

I agree with the Live Earth brain-washers on one issue: it’s about time the majority of the human race woke up… but not to the religion of man-made global warming. It’s about time we all woke up to the hypocrisy of the rich n famous lauding it over us that we should all become “carbon neutral” by damaging the environment and then expunging our guilt by planting a few trees, like Band Aid “healed” all of Africa’s troubles - remember that success story?

Let’s apply the tree-planting carbon “neutral” logic, then, to an analogous situation and see just how much sense it makes. Let’s say someone rich n famous causes you physical damage by breaking your nose, would it really make it “crime neutral” if they apologised and said: “oh, don’t worry - or sue my ass! - here’s some tissue and a bandage. There, all better now!”

The fact that the bone may be broken and the healing won’t return your nose to its original size n shape may not feature on your nose-breaker’s conscience. It’s not their nose after all.

This is effectively what “carbon hypocritical” singers such as Madonna and Sting (full list of hypocrites here) are saying. They fly in to various cities around the world on their private jets releasing a staggering 220,000 tons of carbon-based “pollution” Live into the Earth’s atmosphere, their collection of audiences leave enough rubbish to fill a landfill, their speakers and lights eat up enough electricity to power a small town, but, the concert organisers tell us, that’s A-OK because all artistes have given money to an organisation that will plant trees out in Mozambique (when various factions there are not bombing or chopping them down).� The concert’s toll on our planet is officially “carbon neutral”, even though there is much debate in the scientific community that “damage + band-aid” really does equate to neutral.

Never mind the science part - this is 21st Century religion we’re talking about here.� So, thank you!� Thank you jet-set Madonna, thanks Crowded House, thank you a thousand times Snoop Dogg, Bon Jovi, and all you other rich n famous private-jet flying, multiple-car driving singers of our age.� Thanks for breaking the Earth’s nose and then being so very kind and generous as to offer it some recycled tissue and bandage to make it all better again.

Where would planet Earth be without all you famous peeps?

The world of mathematics has been proved wrong today by the UK government’s Carbon Footprint Calculator. Where normally one is greater than zero, with the Green “we’re the new Church of Dogma” Squad, numbers have a value of whatever you set them before conducting any calculation. 1,700, for example, actually has a green ‘value’ of 9 million-and-something point 5. Does it matter as long as it “proves” your point, i.e. pulls the wool over the public’s eyes?

What ever next? How about a Carbon Financial Calculator that turns your overdraft into a winning lottery ticket, or sends your bank charges back up the darkened passage they came from?

Yes, man-made global ‘warming’ believers, give us something we actually want for a change, and stop preaching from the bible of psuedo-science: we’re already too familiar with the religious attempt at brain-cell eradication of the public, do we really need to have a “scientific” attempt at it, as well?

Here’s the British government’s latest waste of public funds: Carbon Footprint Calculator. Go figure!

Computer Says NOOOOO!

I got this message the first few times I tried to access it:

Thank you for coming to see the Act on CO2 calculator. The calculator is proving extremely popular at the moment, so please come back shortly to calculate your carbon footprint and find out how to help tackle climate change.

Is this perhaps “proof” that it’s really all a sub-marxist invention?� The fact that we have to queue up to use it, reeks of the old Communist days, doesn’t it?

The government’s spin (unquestioned and unchallenged by the media) has been regurgitated here.� Now that’s what I call recycling!� Go gov!� Go gov!

Government-funded climate scientists in an attempt to save their government grants are, together with their enviro-fundamentalist supporters, reacting quicker than CFCs hitting ozone to the Channel 4 expose’ The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Of course if you want to get your meaning across and correct any misunderstandings or misinterpretations then the language you use is vital; it is, after all, the only tool you have to convey your meaning to the public.

A few days after Channel 4’s broadcast and we get more vague guesses than a juror on an OJ Simpson trial. Take for instance this attempt to explain away the fact that temperature increase precedes CO₂ increases by 800 years - a point brought to the public in The Great Global Warming Swindle - contrary to the gospel of politico-science that claims that CO₂causes global warming (emphasis mine):

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO₂ did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO₂, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

Um…yes, could have, what does that mean again? Here it means “it’s possible that this is what happened”. But as most scientists will appreciate, anything’s possible; it’s whether it’s probable or not that’s the clincher - and that requires evidence.

The could have, might have, may have trend continues:

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO₂ could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

If you’re not in the mood for a grammar lesson, let’s talk evidence: We know from ice core data that CO₂ levels rise 800 years after global warming. Which is more reliable: what we know backed up by evidence, or what might be possible based on mere induction alone?

Which should form government policy, raise taxes, and be used to lecture developing countries on what they can and can’t do with their natural resources? Which gets extrapolated by certain groups’ political agendas?

So far we’ve been sold down the river with one preaching after the other that it is man-made CO₂ emissions that cause global warming.

It’s not all mythical though. There’s lots of reason to believe that

CO₂ does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway.

seeing as CO₂ absorbs IR radiation, thus stopping the radiation from escaping our atmosphere, and it’s logical to expect that an increase in reactants yields more product. But seeing as man-made CO₂ concentrations are still dwarfed by the sea’s contribution and other “organic” processes, the focus on us (in the form of hypocritically preaching to the developing world, increasing taxes for knee-jerk pilot schemes, and vote grabbing sound bites) is somewhat disproportionate (remember when that word was last used about another global myth?). Some even put our contribution at 0.28%.

Then couple this with water vapour’s far more significant role in climate, this link shows that removing water vapour would create a far more significant decrease in the Greenhouse Effect. But then again “water vapour” isn’t as effective at pointing the finger at capitalism’s trade and industry as CO₂ is. “Blinded by science” is a reality for many. This is probably why Al Gore has no problems effectively lying:

Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

It’s this massive wool over the public’s eyes that has resulted in our post-normal era of blind science. Newton, Einstein, et al., must all be turning in their graves.

And I haven’t even mentioned sunspots yet!

Then there’s this eco-living argument that lives on the Naive Borders of Reality:

The assertation that 10,000’s jobs are dependent on global warming - well surely many, many more are dependent on a high carbon economy, so the idea that the establishment has a vested interest in global warming is laughable.

Yes, why would politicians want to spread the incontrovertible ‘truth’ of the GW gospel? Um… are the eco-living brigade implying the Jesus-like Tony Blair and his John the Baptist sidekick Gordon Brown don’t want to go down in history as “the men who saved the world”? You don’t have to be an arm-chair psychologist to spot the Saviour Complex wherever it may martyr itself. Our whole Judeo-Christian culture is based on leaders making a name for themselves. Tony Blair has consistently shown his Saviour Complex with Kosovo, Iraq, Human Rights Law, and even the great distractor: Israel-Palestine.

Can you say Messianic Complex, My Own Private Historicity and Vote Winner?

And do they also mean to say that when there’s money being thrown at research institutes there are no hands more than willing to take payment? And when the money has been gratefully received do you mean there’s no pressure to produce forecasts and deductions (like the one above) to keep the money wheels rolling?

I would have thought the money talks argument works both ways.

So what is to be done?

Firstly, we must all appreciate the dangers of lying (except perhaps Al Gore who thinks good intentions are all you need): If the truth outs, you and your side are discredited and may never recover. Science is about observation, experimentation, and evidence, not conjecture and extrapolation. We’re seeing signs that the theory outlives the evidence, that the conclusions are written before the results are in.

Secondly, needlessly polluting our planet is a self-defeating exercise. However, to stop pollution, there must be economically viable alternatives ready to take its place, or economically viable purification processes. Moral indignation and taking personal offence are irrelevant: only action and solutions matter. You can’t just put people out of work and tax people into lifestyle concentration camps (try telling that to the anti-car, anti-capitalist, pseudo-progressive - usually left wing - groups) in a knee-jerk reaction so as to look as if you’re doing something about our minority contribution to the Greenhouse Effect.

Thirdly, you can’t expect one group of human beings lumbered with solar power to have to choose between having either their lights on or their fridge, while another group of people have a TV in every room , two cars, every kitchen appliance invented, and a coal-, gas-, and oil-fuelled industry with very few limits to keep them in a comfortable standard of living. (And, contrary to sub-Marxist theory, you don’t improve the have nots by eliminating the haves.) Trains, industry, and hospitals don’t run on solar power or wind power so they’re nowhere near a solution.

It’s back to the drawing board for those who really want countries to develop in a more energy efficient way.

There are two sides to the environment story, but only one is propagated like a pagan religion-cum-fact by liberal and leftist media outlets and politicians. Do you dare to challenge this myth about to descend on us in the form of higher taxes, penalty charges, and lifestyle concentration camps (is that the pollution of political correctness I smell?)

If so here is a list of books and articles giving a very different version of what is happening to our environment. Let your carbon footprints disappear into the myth they came from with the turning of each page…

More…

Update: Cox & Forkum’s new designer peace n love range (click on the image to go to the peace n love store)

PRESS RELEASE
Christian Solidarity International
http://www.csi-int.org

Contact: Maria Sliwa, M. Sliwa Public Relations, 973-272-2861

102 Sudanese Slaves Freed
CSI: “An Excellent Example to all Abolitionists”, says Anti-Trafficking Specialist

(AWEIL, Southern Sudan ) Last week, 102 Black African slaves were liberated from Baggara Arab masters and returned to their homeland in Southern Sudan in an action supported by Christian Solidarity International (CSI).

Most of the liberated slaves - mainly boys and young men - had been captured by Sudanese government-sponsored Arab militias during two decades of civil war, pitting the Arab-Muslim dominated Government of Sudan against the predominantly Black African Sudan People’s Liberation Front (SPLA).

Interviews reveal a strong pattern of physical and psychological abuse. The overwhelming majority of the liberated slaves had been subjected to beatings, racial and religious insults, forced labor and denial of the freedom to practice any religion other than Islam. Most of the girls and women had been subjected to sexual abuse. Among the slaves were:

The liberation and documentation of the 102 slaves was the result of cooperation between Arab-Dinka Peace Committees, the civil authorities in Aweil State , local churches and CSI.

The Sudanese Episcopalian priest, Rev. Tito Athian - a longstanding local CSI partner – expressed joy at the liberation and repatriation of the slaves, stating: “Thank you for helping bring back our people from slavery. Now they are free to hear the Good News of Jesus Christ and choose their own religion.”

After witnessing several CSI slave liberation actions, including last week’s, anti-trafficking consultant and author of The Jubilee Prophecy, Aaron Cohen, said: “I have seen first hand, in 23 countries, the positive changes good programs can have in the lives of enslaved people. CSI has created in Sudan a sustainable and effective program which has liberated thousands of slaves, inspired anti-trafficking legislation, and brought hope to people in bondage. CSI’s pioneering work in Sudan is an excellent example to all abolitionists.”

——-
CSI has been in the forefront of the campaign to eradicate slavery in Sudan since 1995, and is commemorating this year the 30th anniversary of its foundation and the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the British slave trade.

This is child abuse on a massive scale:

As said by British Prime Minister Tony Blair and completed by me:

“Here are elements of the government of Iran openly supporting terrorism in Iraq to stop a fledgling democratic process, trying to turn out a democratic government in Lebanon, flouting the international community’s desire for peace in Palestine at the same time as denying the Holocaust, and trying to acquire nuclear weapon capability.”

… to bring about a second Holocaust.