Taqqiyah is a concept that is found in the koran. It is the act of
lying to infidels for the benefit and advancement of Islam.
It is very important for infidels (like me) to understand that this concept
exists and is acceptable to Islam. It explains a lot of things that happen
in the world.
One such thing is "Durban II", the second UN conference on racism
(named after the city in South Africa where the first one took place).
Here is an article about Durban II by Patrick Goodenough of www.cnsnews.com. See how
much taqqiyah you can spot without my featuring it in bold print:
OIC Welcomes U.S. Shift on Durban II; Denies
Anti-Semitic Intent Tuesday, February 24,
2009 By Patrick Goodenough,
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the OICs Jeddah-based secretary-general,
has welcomed the U.S. decision to participate in preparatory talks for an
upcoming U.N. racism conference. (Photo from OIC Web
(CNSNews.com) Everyone should
have the right to criticize breaches of human rights, and if Islamic states use
an upcoming U.N. racism conference to criticize Israeli policies this should
neither be perceived nor portrayed as anti-Semitism, according to the
Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).
Critics of the Durban
Review Conference (Durban II) view the OIC -- whose members account for 57 of
the U.N.s 192 member states -- as the leading instigator of a campaign to use
the gathering to attack Israel, Jews, Western counter-terrorism initiatives and
freedom of expression. Those critics are calling on democracies to join Israel
and Canada in boycotting the conference.
The Bush administration,
which withdrew in protest from the original Durban conference in 2001, shunned
the Durban II preparatory process, but left a decision on whether to participate
in the April 20-24 conference to its successor.
administration says it shares the concerns. In a policy shift last week, it sent
a delegation to four days of talks at the U.N. in Geneva, to try to change the
direction in which the Review Conference is heading.
Department said in a statement afterward that the U.S. had yet to make a final
decision on whether or not to participate, but that information from the weeks
work would be important in that regard.
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the
OICs Jeddah-based secretary-general, has welcomed the U.S. decision to
participate in the preparatory talks.
He said in a statement a
decision to be represented at the Review Conference would be widely perceived
by the Muslim world as a credible signal of the new U.S. administrations
goodwill and desire to introduce a fresh, fair and objective approach to the
issues related to human rights and Middle East peace process as well as to
rejuvenate the United States positive image throughout the Muslim
Ihsanoglu then turned to some of the controversies
surrounding the event.
Durban II, he said, should not be perceived
as a gathering of the U.N. member states to criticize specifically Israel [but]
rather be perceived as an expression of the global communitys growing concern
over acts of discrimination, intolerance and incitement to
It would be a setback, he said, if any country stayed away
from the conference because of some pre-conceived notion that the Review is
directed against any particular
A key criticism of the
outcome document being drafted for Durban II is the singling out of Israel.
Still intact in the draft, in a section on the Middle East, is a
reference to foreign occupation being a contemporary form of apartheid. The
draft also takes issue with Israels racially-based law of return and refers
to the racial policies of the occupying power.
currently 45 pages long, does not refer specifically to other conflict
situations around the world where race is a factor.
criticizing Israeli policies and practices that contravene human rights
principles should not be seen as anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semitism is a
practice which neither originates within, nor belongs to the Muslim
communities, he said. Therefore, anti-Semitism should not be associated either
with the religion of Islam, or with the OIC member states.
question of defamation of religion is another controversial aspect of the
Durban II process. The outcome document raises concerns about Islamophobia and
condemns the association of Islam with terrorism, including through publication
of offensive caricatures and making of hate documentaries.
statement, Ihsanoglu emphasized the OICs firm commitment to freedom of
expression which is a fundamental human right.
The OIC is not
looking for limitation or restrictions of this freedom beyond those that already
have been set by Articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, he said.
(Article 19 of the covenant upholds
freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions necessary to respect the
rights or reputations of others. Article 20 prohibits any advocacy of
national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence.)
The outcome document does
include references to restrictions on free speech. It urges states to take
firm action against negative stereotyping of religions and defamation of
religious personalities, holy books, scriptures and symbols.
states are also called on to develop, and where appropriate to incorporate,
permissible limitations on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression
into national legislation.
The OIC for several years has
spearheaded a campaign aimed at outlawing religious defamation.
There you have it. So, how much taqqiyah did you spot?
Ok, let me help this along...
The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has told us that Islamic
countries have no anti-Semitism. That OIC members have no problem
with Jews, just the country of Israel.
This, of course, is why giving Jews the same basic rights
that Muslims have is unheard of in OIC countries. It is why some OIC
members - Israel's "moderate" neighbor Jordan, for example -
do not allow any Jews into the country at all. (Did you know that?
Did you know that it is not legal for a Jew to be a citizen of
Then we have the fact that Durban II's draft calls Israeli occupation "apartheid" but does
not talk about any other occupation by any
other country in the world. Apparently the OIC considers "apartheid" throughout the non-Israel world
to be irrelevant'n'immaterial.
I was particularly fascinated by that part where it says that the OIC "upholds freedom of expression, subject to
certain restrictions necessary to respect the rights or reputations of others.
Article 20 prohibits any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that
constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or
This comes from an organization based in
Jedda, Saudi Arabia, where it is illegal to so much as
of any religion besides Islam. If a Christian cannot openly wear a
cross in Saudi Arabia, how do you suppose a star of David would go over? And that's before we discuss
the OIC countries that make it a crime - punishable by death in some
of them - to convert to a non-Islamic religion.
So tell me; how am I supposed to feel about the USA
considering participation in Durban II?
I guess I can hope (with great skepticism) that our interest is
not real, only window dressing aimed at making the Muslim world feel
better when we eventually don't attend. But - let's talk plain - that
would be our taqqiyah, wouldn't it?
Besides, what is there to like about making OIC members feel we would even consider
participation in a farce like this. Am I supposed to think it's a
good idea to suggest to the OIC that we might legitimize
such a hate-fest by attending it?
This is exactly the kind of situation I feared when Barack Obama was elected
I will be watching closely to see how it plays out. I hope my fellow
supporters of Israel, especially those among the 78% of Jews who voted for Obama, are
watching just as closely.
FACT-CHECK ON OBAMA'S SPEECH
Credit where credit is due.
The Associated Press has put out a fact-check on President Obama's
post-election campaign speech (what would you call it?) and nailed him
on his repeated misinformation and dishonesty.
Here it is:
FACT CHECK: Obama's words on home aid ring
hollow Feb 25, 3:15 AM (ET)
WOODWARD and JIM KUHNHENN
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama knows Americans
are unhappy that the government could rescue people who bought mansions beyond
But his assurance Tuesday night that only the
deserving will get help rang hollow.
Even officials in his administration, many
supporters of the plan in Congress and the Federal Reserve chairman expect some
of that money will go to people who used lousy judgment.
The president skipped over several complex
economic circumstances in his speech to Congress - and may have started an
international debate among trivia lovers and auto buffs over what country
invented the car.
A look at some of his assertions:
OBAMA: "We have launched a housing plan that will
help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly
payments and refinance their mortgages. It's a plan that won't help speculators
or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to
afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining
THE FACTS: If the administration has come up with
a way to ensure money only goes to those who got in honest trouble, it hasn't
Defending the program Tuesday at a Senate hearing,
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it's important to save those who made
bad calls, for the greater good. He likened it to calling the fire department to
put out a blaze caused by someone smoking in bed.
"I think the smart way to deal with a situation
like that is to put out the fire, save him from his own consequences of his own
action but then, going forward, enact penalties and set tougher rules about
smoking in bed."
Similarly, the head of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corp. suggested this month it's not likely aid will be denied to all
homeowners who overstated their income or assets to get a mortgage they couldn't
"I think it's just simply impractical to try to do
a forensic analysis of each and every one of these delinquent loans," Sheila
Bair told National Public Radio.
OBAMA: "And I believe the nation that invented the
automobile cannot walk away from it."
THE FACTS: Depends what your definition of
automobiles, is. According to the Library of Congress, the inventor of the first
true automobile was probably Germany's Karl Benz, who created the first auto
powered by an internal combustion gasoline engine, in 1885 or 1886. In the U.S.,
Charles Duryea tested what library researchers called the first successful
gas-powered car in 1893. Nobody disputes that Henry Ford created the first
assembly line that made cars affordable.
OBAMA: "We have known for decades that our
survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today
than ever before."
THE FACTS: Oil imports peaked in 2005 at just over
5 billion barrels, and have been declining slightly since. The figure in 2007
was 4.9 billion barrels, or about 58 percent of total consumption. The nation is
on pace this year to import 4.7 billion barrels, and government projections are
for imports to hold steady or decrease a bit over the next two decades.
OBAMA: "We have already identified $2 trillion in
savings over the next decade."
THE FACTS: Although 10-year projections are common
in government, they don't mean much. And at times, they are a way for a
president to pass on the most painful steps to his successor, by putting off big
tax increases or spending cuts until someone else is in the White House.
Obama only has a real say on spending during the
four years of his term. He may not be president after that and he certainly
won't be 10 years from now.
OBAMA: "Regulations were gutted for the sake of a
quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew
they couldn't afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway.
And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for
some other time on some other day."
THE FACTS: This may be so, but it isn't only
Republicans who pushed for deregulation of the financial industries. The Clinton
administration championed an easing of banking regulations, including
legislation that ended the barrier between regular banks and Wall Street banks.
That led to a deregulation that kept regular banks under tight federal
regulation but extended lax regulation of Wall Street banks. Clinton Treasury
Secretary Robert Rubin, later an economic adviser to candidate Obama, was in the
forefront in pushing for this deregulation.
OBAMA: "In this budget, we will end education
programs that don't work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that
don't need them. We'll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions
in Iraq, and reform our defense budget so that we're not paying for Cold War-era
weapons systems we don't use. We will root out the waste, fraud and abuse in our
Medicare program that doesn't make our seniors any healthier, and we will
restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the
tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas."
THE FACTS: First, his budget does not accomplish
any of that. It only proposes those steps. That's all a president can do,
because control over spending rests with Congress. Obama's proposals here are a
wish list and some items, including corporate tax increases and cuts in
agricultural aid, will be a tough sale in Congress.
Second, waste, fraud and abuse are routinely
targeted by presidents who later find that the savings realized seldom amount to
significant sums. Programs that a president might consider wasteful have staunch
defenders in Congress who have fought off similar efforts in the past.
OBAMA: "Thanks to our recovery plan, we will
double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years."
THE FACTS: While the president's stimulus package
includes billions in aid for renewable energy and conservation, his goal is
unlikely to be achieved through the recovery plan alone.
In 2007, the U.S. produced 8.4 percent of its
electricity from renewable sources, including hydroelectric dams, solar panels
and windmills. Under the status quo, the Energy Department says, it will take
more than two decades to boost that figure to 12.5 percent.
If Obama is to achieve his much more ambitious
goal, Congress would need to mandate it. That is the thrust of an energy bill
that is expected to be introduced in coming weeks.
OBAMA: "Over the next two years, this plan will
save or create 3.5 million jobs."
THE FACTS: This is a recurrent Obama formulation.
But job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the
economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of
uncertainty in their numbers.
The president's own economists, in a report
prepared last month, stated, "It should be understood that all of the estimates
presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error."
Beyond that, it's unlikely the nation will ever
know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. While it's clear when
jobs are abolished, there's no economic gauge that tracks job preservation. The
estimates are based on economic assumptions of how many jobs would be lost
without the stimulus.
As you can see, Mr. Obama's rah-rah speech may
have thrilled Nancy Pelosi and a lot of the fawning
mainstream media. But it was fraught with errors and flat-out
Maybe that is why it did exactly nothing to assure Wall Street. The
stock market took an immediate nosedive this morning (as
of 10:52AM the Dow Jones average is down 180
We can only hope that someone quickly steps forward
to give Wall St. more credible assurances than President Obama did, so
it can have a reason to rally back this afternoon.
Finally, let me show you that fact-checkers, even those who do an
otherwise admirable job, can mess up too.
The article states that: "Obama only has a real say on spending during the
four years of his term. He may not be president after that and he certainly
won't be 10 years from now." But, in reality, it is not certain
at all. Mr. Obama can lose in 2012, then run again and win in 2016, which
would make him President 10 years from now.
Not only is this perfectly legal and perfectly feasible, it has been done
before. It is why Grover Cleveland is our 22nd and 24th
So we'll give the Associated Press's Calvin
Woodward and Jim Kuhnhenn an A+ for effort and an A- on
follow-through. But don't take that as a criticism, guys. The
AP should only do this well on all
THE BIZARRO WORLD OBAMA DEMANDS THAT ISRAEL LIVE IN
Israel left Gaza in 2005. Not one Israeli, soldier or civilian
Gaza is entirely controlled by hamas, a terrorist group specifically
committed to Israel's obliteration and the death of its Jews.
The Gazan population elected hamas to rule them. A minority of the
fatah party was also elected, but hamas violently removed fatah and is in 100%
For three years, there have been unrelenting attacks on Israel from Gaza. Thousands of rounds of
artilleryhave been fired on its cities and towns (estimates range as high as 6,000 -
Finally, after three years of this, Israel attacked Gaza and did major damage
- though a fraction of the damage it could have done.
Now there is major damage to what passes for
infrastructure in Gaza and shortages of just about everything.
So what does the Obama administration feel Israel should be doing? Read these excerpts
from today's article
in the left wing
Clinton warns Israel over delays in Gaza aid
Barak Ravid and
Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondents
Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton has relayed messages to Israel in the past week expressing anger
at obstacles Israel is placing to the delivery of humanitarian aid to the
Gaza Strip. A leading political source in Jerusalem noted that senior
Clinton aides have made it clear that the matter will be central to
Clinton's planned visit to Israel next Tuesday.
Ahead of Clinton's
visit, special U.S. envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell is expected
to issue a sharply worded protest on the same matter when he arrives here
"Israel is not making enough effort to improve the
humanitarian situation in Gaza," senior U.S. officials told Israeli
counterparts last week, and reiterated Washington's view by saying that
"the U.S. expects Israel to meet its commitments on this matter."
Two weeks ago, four senior European Union officials
sent a letter to the prime minister, foreign minister, defense minister
and Yitzhak Herzog, the minister charged with humanitarian aid transfers
to the Gaza Strip, protesting delays in the flow of aid through the
crossings into Gaza. The officials also demanded that Israel formulates a
clear policy on this issue.
In response, Israel explained that the
delay stems, in part, from the uncertainty regarding the fate of abducted
soldier Gilad Shalit, but also stressed that efforts are being made to
improve the situation.
Herzog also asked Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak to hold a meeting in order to
revaluate current policy on the delivery of aid to Gaza.
at the defense establishment confirmed last night that pressure is
increasing on Israel to reopen the crossings to larger volumes of aid for
the Gaza Strip. Defense sources said that Israel will find it increasingly
difficult to counter the pressure, and may agree to more extensive use of
the crossings for aid. Currently, fewer than 200 trucks carrying aid are
allowed through daily. The U.S., the EU and the UN are demanding that at
least 500 trucks carrying aid be allowed into the Strip
The Obama administration demands that Israel, the victim of years of attacks from people who want it obliterated
and its Jewish population dead, must allow, and facilitate, massive aid to the same people
who have victimized it.
What other country in the world would be expected to do this for a mortal enemy,
unequivocally committed to its destruction? Is that what Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton mean by evenhandedness?
logic, US troops in Iraq should be supplying food and shelter to al-qaeda and the
Don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen -- although, now that I think
of it, with Obama and Clinton there, you never know....
Here, from The Army Times, via www.sweetness-light.com, is a glimpse
- and the aroma - of what passes for transparency in the Obama
The Obama administration has
directed defense officials to sign a pledge stating they will not share 2010
budget data with individuals outside the federal government.
In an undated non-disclosure
agreement obtained by Defense News, the administration tells defense officials
that strict confidentiality must be practiced to ensure a successful and
proper 2010 defense budget process.
The secrecy pact comes as dozens
of Bush-era Pentagon appointees remain on the job, asked to stay on by the
Obama administration until replacements are confirmed to ensure continuity
The Pentagon and Office of Management and Budget
have agreed on a fiscal 2010 defense budget top line figure of $537 billion.
That level is nearly $50 billion lower than the $585 billion defense
plan created during the final months of the Bush administration, and
$24 billion higher than the already enacted $513 billion 2009 defense budget.
The pledge covers any data about the 2010
budget, including: planning, programming and budgeting system documents and
databases, and any other information that concerns the administrations
internal discussions about the nature and amounts of the presidents budget
for fiscal year 2010, and any supplemental budget request during the current
The administration is requiring defense
officials to promise they will not divulge the kinds of information covered in
the document to any individual not authorized to receive it.
Under no circumstances will I disclose such
information outside the Department of Defense and other government agencies
directly involved in the defense planning and resource-allocation process,
such as the Office of Management and Budget, the agreement said.
What is this?
We thought Mr. Obama had pledged to have an open
and honest government that would be completely transparent?
Except, of course, when it comes to his slashing
of the nations defense budget.
Y'see, voters might not like the idea of gutting the
military during a
war on terrorism. But Mr. Obama has a very
effective resolution to this problem. Don't tell them.
The theory is an old one: Keep 'em ignorant and you own 'em.
This is what we elected. Thus it is what we deserve.
In two years there will be a national election in which we can evaluate the performance of Mr. Obama and his party . I
hope that's not too late.
HAS BARACK OBAMA HEARD OF SMALL BUSINESSES?
Before President Obama's speech last night, my wife went out for dinner with "the girls". So I called
one of my fellow dinner-bachelors to see if he wanted to grab a bite with
me. As it turned out, he already had plans with one of his children.
But during our call he angrily asked me whether I was "stimulated" by
President Obama's so-called stimulus package. He then went into a very
unhappy riff about the fact that it didn't give small business owners like him
(and me) a thing.
The interesting part is that my friend supported and voted for Barack
I didn't ask how he now felt about that vote. For all I know, if given
the same choice today, he'd vote for Obama again. But it's pretty clear
that he is extremely displeased with the President's brushoff of small
businesses. And he's not the only one.
Here is an article by Christopher Gunn of the American Small Business
League, that gives chapter and verse of why ignoring small businesses is a
very, very bad idea:
Obama's Speech Ignores
98 Percent of U.S. Firms
As predicted by the American Small Business League (ASBL), President Barack
Obama failed to make any reference of his plans to fix existing federal programs
designed to direct federal infrastructure spending to America's 27 million small
businesses during his address to Congress and the nation Tuesday
Top economic experts like Dr. Laura Tyson and Carly Fiorina have
both acknowledged that directing federal infrastructure funds to small
businesses would be the most effective way to stimulate our nation's failing
economy and create jobs. Tyson is the former Chair of the U.S. President's
Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton Administration and is currently
an economic adviser to President Obama. Fiorina is the former CEO of
Hewlett-Packard and a former McCain campaign economic advisor.
to the latest statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau, 98 percent of all American
firms have less than 100 employees, 90 percent of all firms in the U.S. have
less than 20 employees and those firms are responsible for over 97 percent of
all new jobs in America.
stimulus bill signed last week by President Obama was designed primarily to
create and preserve jobs. Yet not one line of the bill contains specific
language to direct any of the stimulus bill's spending to the 98 percent of
American firms that create over 97 percent of all new jobs.
absence of legislative language to specifically direct the billions of dollars
in stimulus bill spending to small businesses, over 90 percent of all prime
contracts from the stimulus bill will likely go to the top 2 percent of U.S.
firms. This would seem to run contrary to the bill's stated mission of creating
Congress realized the vital role played by American small
businesses when the Small Business Act was passed in 1953. Existing federal law,
based on the Small Business Act, stipulates that a minimum of 23 percent of all
federal contracts and subcontracts be awarded to small businesses. The
federal government is not meeting its goal of 23 percent and is inflating its
small business contracting numbers by including contracts to some of the largest
corporations in the world.
"Dr. Laura Tyson needs to explain to President
Obama, that if you want to stimulate the economy and create new jobs you have to
direct federal infrastructure spending to the small businesses that create 97
percent of new jobs," ASBL President Lloyd Chapman said.
Message to Mr. Obama and his cohorts: The country is not comprised
entirely of large corporations, union members, health care workers and the
unemployed. There are other groups out there. And one of the most
important is small businesses.
What I'm wondering, sir, is not so much when you get around to helping
them. I haven't gotten that far yet. Right now I'm wondering when
you get around to noticing that they exist at all.
Here's a little break from the political wars.
Here, from www.thebabywebsite.com, is a list of
names they (and I, and, I fully expect, you) will find very amusing:
Next time you sign your name spare a
thought for Justin Case, Barb Dwyer and Anna Sasin.
The incredibly unfortunate names emerged in our study
of the most bizarre names in Britain today. Other unlucky punters are also
trying to lead normal lives despite being named Stan Still, Mary
Christmas, Paige Turner, Chris Cross and Barry Cade. It might also be
worth thanking your lucky stars you're not called Sonny Day, Rose Bush,
Pearl Button or Hazel Nutt, who also make the list of 'The Most
Unfortunate Names in Britain'.
TheBabyWebsite recently carried out
the search of names registered with phone numbers and names posted on the
world wide web.
When the parents of some of those people mentioned
named their children, many probably didnt even realise the implications
at the time. However, we cant help but smile when we imagine someone
having to give their full name.
There must be tremendous
embarrassment every time they have to introduce themselves to anyone,
especially to a crowd. Even their teachers must have had to hold back
their smiles sometimes.
On the positive side, anyone wanting to
become well-known would have an added advantage No-one would forget a
name such as Justin Case, would they?
Parents really do need to
think carefully though when choosing names for their children. Their name
will be with them for life and what may be quirky and fun for a toddler
might be regretted terribly when that person becomes older or even a
Our month-long study scoured the world for
real people who have their own unique crosses to
TheBabyWebsite.com also uncovered some other crackers such as
the brilliantly-named Tim Burr, a speed-freak named Max Power and a man
called Doug Hole. Teresa Green, Terry Bull, Helen Back, Lee King, Jo King
and Ray Gunn also cropped up on the list.
Wider afield America as
you'd expect is a haven of weird and wonderful names including Anna
Prentice, Annette Curtain, Bill Board and Carrie Oakey.
A string of
people have brilliant names linked to their professions including Dr
Leslie Doctor and Dr Thoulton Surgeon, a vet in Connecticut, Dr Payne, a
plastic surgeon in Sandusky, Ohio, Les Plack, a dentist in San Francisco
and Priti Manek, a doctor in Florida.
And one of the funniest, Dr
Sumey in Fairmont is likely to invite more than his fair share of lawsuits
from disgruntled patients.
BRITAIN'S MOST BIZARRE
Pearl Button Hazel Nutt Ray Gunn Helen
Back Stan Still Jo King Lee King Terry Bull Mary
Christmas Max Power Paige Turner Sonny Day Tim Burr Teresa
Green Will Power Anna Sasin Chris Cross Doug Hole Justin
Case Barry Cade
Annette Curtain Bill Board Carrie Oakey Dr
Leslie Doctor Dr Thoulton Surgeon Dr Payne Les Plack Priti
Manek Dr Sumey
Yes, there are a couple that I'm still
trying to figure out too (Thoulton Surgeon, for one). But you have to admit that
most of these are funny.
And they're all real. Which is more than you can say for the politicians
we talk about in here.
IS MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING A MYTH?
The question raised in that title is hardly new. I (and many, many
others) have been talking about this for a long time - though you would barely
know it from the dearth of media coverage this side of things has gotten.
Well here, via Noel Sheppard's blog at www.newsbusters.org, is the latest group
of skeptics that is being ignored. See if you're more impressed than our
wonderful "neutral" media is:
Japanese Commission Challenges
UN: Global Warming Not Man-made
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive) February
25, 2009 - 11:12 ET
Japanese energy commission released a report last month challenging the supposed
international consensus that man is responsible for warming the planet while
claiming that climate modeling -- the questionably accurate process of
predicting the future so key to Nobel Laureate Al Gore's myth -- is immature and
akin to ancient astrology.
The study also called the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's conclusion that global temperatures
are likely to continue to rise "an unprovable hypothesis," while
castigating "the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to
support the hypothesis."
The Japan Society of Energy and Resources was founded in 1980 to "promote the science and technology concerning
energy and resources and thus to facilitate cooperation among industry academia
and governmental sectors for coping with the problems in this field."
On Wednesday, the UK Register published a
translation of the
Society's January report which for some reason America's global warming-obsessed
press chose to ignore:
Three of the five researchers
disagree with the UN's IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the
consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases.
One of the five contributors compares computer
climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US
ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that
the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has
Kanya Kusano is Program Director and Group
Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science
& Technology (JAMSTEC). He focuses on the immaturity of simulation work
cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Using
undiplomatic language, Kusano compares them to ancient astrology. After
listing many faults, and the IPCC's own conclusion that natural causes of
climate are poorly understood, Kusano concludes:
"[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on
atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonous increase,
should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis," he writes.
Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International
Arctic Research Center in Alaska, has expressed criticism of the theory
before. Akasofu uses historical data to challenge the claim that very recent
temperatures represent an anomaly:
"We should be cautious, IPCC's theory that
atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is
nothing but a hypothesis. "
Akasofu calls the post-2000 warming trend
hypothetical. His harshest words are reserved for advocates who give
conjecture the authority of fact.
"Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been
substituted for truth... The opinion that great disaster will really happen
must be broken."
Isn't it interesting that this group has touched
on issues NewsBusters has been reporting for years, namely the absurdity of
relying on unproven and untested climate models and the unreliability of the
climate data being collated and disseminated by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Association as well as NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies?
Interested parties are encouraged to review the
entire translation here as are political
leaders and media members foolishly encouraging a carbon cap and trade scheme
which will cost America billions of dollars in the midst of a recession to solve
a problem that doesn't exist.
Exist question: how many international scientists
and commissions will need to come forward and contest this nonsense before folks
on the left and their media minions acknowledge anthropogenic global warming to
be a man-made myth with no scientific foundation?
Why is this not getting media coverage? How can media call
itself media and not report it?
My answer is: The same way it has not covered the literally
hundreds of scientists who have come forward over the years, many of whom I have
chronicled in this blog.
Al Gore gets richer and richer selling "carbon offsets" (while he personally gluttonizes energy
for himself and his family). Media, like the dutiful little lapdogs
they are determined to be, look the other way. Meanwhile, the mountain of evidence that
Gore and his claims are both full of horse excrement gets bigger and
But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them
Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site,
third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser,
or using web beacons to collect information.
At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small.
In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.
So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.
And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!