Al Gore is alleging there is a global conspiracy against him and the so-called ‘scientific consensus’ on anthropocentric global warming.
He claimed, at a forum in Singapore, that the Exxon Mobil Corp, together with other unnamed ‘carbon polluters’, are waging a secret campaign to dispute the theory.
He went on to claim that "In actuality, there is very little disagreement." and alleges that "the deniers” (the infra green luddites just love that term) ”offered a bounty of $10,000 for each article disputing the consensus that people could crank out and get published somewhere,". "They're trying to manipulate opinion and they are taking us for fools,", he bleated.
Get real!
I suspect it’s Mr Gore who is doing his level best trying to manipulate public opinion, there is ultimately probably a lot more money and power at stake for his side and him personally than for anyone else - and that when all is said and done he and his cronies will turn out to have been taking people for fools.
Has he listened to himself? I know he is probably preaching to the converted and that the faithful will not like to question his assertions - but he sounds just a little like a conspiracy theorist, not too far from the Islamist claims that the CIA and MOSSAD blew up the twin towers, or that the CIA, or some other US government agency, have a captured flying saucer tucked away at a secret base.
To really hook the suckers in with this one he needs to work the CIA into it, at least, big business is good, but it still needs a little something extra to really get the conspiracy nuts going…
Now what are my chances of getting $10K for this?
Zero, Zip, Zilch, Nil, None, Nought, Nowt - if I had to guess...
Wednesday, 8 August 2007
Tuesday, 7 August 2007
Foreign Office Minister advocates UK gives up Permanent Seat on UN Security Council
Former UN Deputy Secretary General and now newly minted UK Foreign Office Minister, Lord Malloch-Brown (what is it with Nu-Lab PMs littering the ranks of the not necessarily derserving high and mighty with namesakes?) is advocating the UK gives up it’s seat on the UN Security Council to the EU.
Nice to know the Foreign Office Minister has Parliament and the UK’s very best interests at heart then ;-)
After all, we can be 100% sure the EU would vote just the way we would want, in every set of circumstances, knowing how similarly the French and Germans see things to us, in all circumstances. Surely the French should be falling over themselves to give up their seat.
Day, Cold, Hell, In?
This was obviously in his master plan last October, while he was still the UN's Deputy Secretary General, when he advised EU diplomats in Brussels that the EU would eventually have single seat within the UN. "I think it will go in stages. We are going to see a growing spread of it institution by institution," He went on that he hoped it would happen "as quickly as possible. I'm a huge fan of it."
When confronted with this evidence the Foreign office argued that had made those comments before he was made a Government minister.
Oh well that’s all right then - So are they suggesting he lying then, to suit his words to what his audience wanted to hear - and does not still hold those views? Possibly quite a plausible argument when considering a politician’s words, but would you want to bet on it?
Or did his words reflect his true intentions and loyalties? If so where exactly are his primary loyalties?
With the UN or the EU?
Why would a PM who was loyal to parliament appoint someone like that?
Nice to know the Foreign Office Minister has Parliament and the UK’s very best interests at heart then ;-)
After all, we can be 100% sure the EU would vote just the way we would want, in every set of circumstances, knowing how similarly the French and Germans see things to us, in all circumstances. Surely the French should be falling over themselves to give up their seat.
Day, Cold, Hell, In?
This was obviously in his master plan last October, while he was still the UN's Deputy Secretary General, when he advised EU diplomats in Brussels that the EU would eventually have single seat within the UN. "I think it will go in stages. We are going to see a growing spread of it institution by institution," He went on that he hoped it would happen "as quickly as possible. I'm a huge fan of it."
When confronted with this evidence the Foreign office argued that had made those comments before he was made a Government minister.
Oh well that’s all right then - So are they suggesting he lying then, to suit his words to what his audience wanted to hear - and does not still hold those views? Possibly quite a plausible argument when considering a politician’s words, but would you want to bet on it?
Or did his words reflect his true intentions and loyalties? If so where exactly are his primary loyalties?
With the UN or the EU?
Why would a PM who was loyal to parliament appoint someone like that?
Monday, 6 August 2007
Recommended Read
If you have not come across it I must recommend ‘FAT’ by Rob Grant, Published by Gollancz. ISBN 978-0-375-07820-8
Set in the UK, in a scarily (barely) immediate future, who’s probability wave appears to be in the process of collapsing, as Schrodinger might say, even as I write.
It is a good read - funny and also makes some seriously telling points.
In his preface he says:
” When somebody does something you don’t like and then tells you they did it for your own best interest: run. Run till you drop. And don’t look back” - Excellent advice…
Set in the UK, in a scarily (barely) immediate future, who’s probability wave appears to be in the process of collapsing, as Schrodinger might say, even as I write.
It is a good read - funny and also makes some seriously telling points.
In his preface he says:
” When somebody does something you don’t like and then tells you they did it for your own best interest: run. Run till you drop. And don’t look back” - Excellent advice…
Parents left with limited options now make more use of A&E
This one is an absolute classic. Dr Patricia Hamilton head of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, is complaining that parents in the UK are now more willing to take their child to A&E with a minor problem, such as a fever, instead of dealing with it at home or calling their GP.
Oh really! She might try the experiment of calling NHS direct out of office hours herself. She could claim she had a small child and they were running a fever. She would find that the advice she was given, especially if it is filtered through non-medical parental perceptions, was effectively to go straight to A&E, do not pass go, do not collect £200.
Now most people are very reluctant to go to A&E. Despite the frankly untrue claims of being seen within some fictitiously tiny amount of time, we all know that it can only be counted as a personal miracle if you are really seen within 2 hours, as opposed to being assessed by someone - possibly a cleaner :-) - and then put to the back of a very long queue behind a retarded thug barely retraining their natural urge to random violence and a 15 year old single mother with a flat head and one continuous eyebrow. Recent personal experience you will no doubt deduce…
So the average parent, or indeed anyone sensible, would have to be pretty desperate to use the average A&E at all and would probably be more that happy to take even advice from their own GP as an alternative if it were actually possible to speak to them.
So then not more willing then, just faced with fewer opportunities to avoid it.
So perhaps she really needs to direct her comments to the incompetent Governmental department in question or ditto hospital ‘manager’. Then she could be given duff advice and told to wait uncomfortably for and indefinite period.
Whilst complaining about parents actually using A&E she also took the opportunity to get in a plug for the Government’s propaganda line on the (probably soon to be crime) of childhood obesity and on the ever encroaching ‘menace’ of child binge drinking.
At least the latter has regulations and laws, that if actually enforced would work well enough to prevent it, though this is unlikely to stop the government from passing a whole raft of entirely pointless unnecessary legislation that will cause some unexpected consequences far worse than the so-called problem.
Oh really! She might try the experiment of calling NHS direct out of office hours herself. She could claim she had a small child and they were running a fever. She would find that the advice she was given, especially if it is filtered through non-medical parental perceptions, was effectively to go straight to A&E, do not pass go, do not collect £200.
Now most people are very reluctant to go to A&E. Despite the frankly untrue claims of being seen within some fictitiously tiny amount of time, we all know that it can only be counted as a personal miracle if you are really seen within 2 hours, as opposed to being assessed by someone - possibly a cleaner :-) - and then put to the back of a very long queue behind a retarded thug barely retraining their natural urge to random violence and a 15 year old single mother with a flat head and one continuous eyebrow. Recent personal experience you will no doubt deduce…
So the average parent, or indeed anyone sensible, would have to be pretty desperate to use the average A&E at all and would probably be more that happy to take even advice from their own GP as an alternative if it were actually possible to speak to them.
So then not more willing then, just faced with fewer opportunities to avoid it.
So perhaps she really needs to direct her comments to the incompetent Governmental department in question or ditto hospital ‘manager’. Then she could be given duff advice and told to wait uncomfortably for and indefinite period.
Whilst complaining about parents actually using A&E she also took the opportunity to get in a plug for the Government’s propaganda line on the (probably soon to be crime) of childhood obesity and on the ever encroaching ‘menace’ of child binge drinking.
At least the latter has regulations and laws, that if actually enforced would work well enough to prevent it, though this is unlikely to stop the government from passing a whole raft of entirely pointless unnecessary legislation that will cause some unexpected consequences far worse than the so-called problem.
Sunday, 5 August 2007
Our privacy is not in the governments gift
I was going to do a piece on the Labour State’s ever expanding DNA database, presumably, whatever lies they come out with, eventually destined, if only by political ‘gravity’, to contain a record of all UK citizen’s DNA.
However I came upon this excellent commentary on it by Sam Leith in the daily Telegraph entitled “Our privacy belongs to us not the Government”, so include the link here - it is well worth a read.
Here is another excellent piece, this time in the Guardian, by Henry Porter on the subject.
You know you really need to worry when both the Telegraph and the Guardian are worried about something…
However I came upon this excellent commentary on it by Sam Leith in the daily Telegraph entitled “Our privacy belongs to us not the Government”, so include the link here - it is well worth a read.
Here is another excellent piece, this time in the Guardian, by Henry Porter on the subject.
You know you really need to worry when both the Telegraph and the Guardian are worried about something…
Thursday, 2 August 2007
IPCC: De Menezes never had a chance to surrender
The British Police generally do a difficult job fairly well. They put their own hides between the rest of us and danger. Every now and then a police officer will pay the price for that, with their health or their life.
The average citizen of the UK would probably not want to swap them for any other nation’s police forces.
That is why it is so appalling that they appear to have fallen down so very badly in the case of poor Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian electrician, who had apparently over stayed his visa.
According to the Independent Police Complaints Commission the Metropolitan Police released, what was described as, "incorrect information" - saying Mr de Menezes had been challenged and "refused to obey" and kept claiming he had been wearing suspicious bulky clothing when he had not.
The report said:
"The IPCC investigation team understands that Mr de Menezes did not refuse to obey a challenge prior to being shot and was not wearing any clothing that could be classed as suspicious.”
"However there is no suggestion that the challenge is one that an innocent man would have understood, or that Mr de Menezes was given instructions that he could have chosen to obey."
On the face of it, but for the grace of God, it could have been any of us. Well any youngish male who had a bit of a tan and dark hair, one suspects, based on the profiling.
What were they playing at? By the sound of the IPCC report he was not carrying a rucksack, or wearing clothing that could have concealed a bomb. By the sound of it he was never given a realistic opportunity to ‘come quietly’.
One worries that even if he had put his hands in the air and said ‘I surrender’ he would not have survived his encounter with the Met.
The average citizen of the UK would probably not want to swap them for any other nation’s police forces.
That is why it is so appalling that they appear to have fallen down so very badly in the case of poor Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian electrician, who had apparently over stayed his visa.
According to the Independent Police Complaints Commission the Metropolitan Police released, what was described as, "incorrect information" - saying Mr de Menezes had been challenged and "refused to obey" and kept claiming he had been wearing suspicious bulky clothing when he had not.
The report said:
"The IPCC investigation team understands that Mr de Menezes did not refuse to obey a challenge prior to being shot and was not wearing any clothing that could be classed as suspicious.”
"However there is no suggestion that the challenge is one that an innocent man would have understood, or that Mr de Menezes was given instructions that he could have chosen to obey."
On the face of it, but for the grace of God, it could have been any of us. Well any youngish male who had a bit of a tan and dark hair, one suspects, based on the profiling.
What were they playing at? By the sound of the IPCC report he was not carrying a rucksack, or wearing clothing that could have concealed a bomb. By the sound of it he was never given a realistic opportunity to ‘come quietly’.
One worries that even if he had put his hands in the air and said ‘I surrender’ he would not have survived his encounter with the Met.
Obama threatens Pakistan over al-Qaeda
It seems Barack Obama is getting overly feisty in his efforts to get himself the Democrat ticket.
Talking about possible terrorist targets in Pakistan he said: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will,"
Nice to know how concerned he is over national sovereignty. He’ll play along giving it lip service - as long as he can get his own way. But if he is baulked then an act of war is presumably not out of the question.
Pakistan’s President Musharraf has certain difficulties dealing with al-Qaeda and Taliban militants in areas bordering Afghanistan. They are wild and in many respects virtually autonomous, controlled by tribes.
I hope Mr Obama is only trying to sound tough and hoping this will play to the domestic hawks, but the fact is President Musharraf has been a key US ally in it’s ‘war on terror’ since 9/11 and this is the thanks he gets.
Obama’s grandstanding makes him look pretty feeble to his own people and doesn’t seem likely to exactly strengthen his hand domestically.
It is also enough to make everyone else think twice. On the face of it Obama seems to think, if the rest of the world doesn’t jump when he says frog then some ass kicking ‘military intervention’ may be in order.
Talking about possible terrorist targets in Pakistan he said: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will,"
Nice to know how concerned he is over national sovereignty. He’ll play along giving it lip service - as long as he can get his own way. But if he is baulked then an act of war is presumably not out of the question.
Pakistan’s President Musharraf has certain difficulties dealing with al-Qaeda and Taliban militants in areas bordering Afghanistan. They are wild and in many respects virtually autonomous, controlled by tribes.
I hope Mr Obama is only trying to sound tough and hoping this will play to the domestic hawks, but the fact is President Musharraf has been a key US ally in it’s ‘war on terror’ since 9/11 and this is the thanks he gets.
Obama’s grandstanding makes him look pretty feeble to his own people and doesn’t seem likely to exactly strengthen his hand domestically.
It is also enough to make everyone else think twice. On the face of it Obama seems to think, if the rest of the world doesn’t jump when he says frog then some ass kicking ‘military intervention’ may be in order.
Wednesday, 1 August 2007
The new EU Constitutional ‘Treaty’ is virtually a ‘cut and paste job’
The official English translation of the New EU Constitutional ‘Treaty’ is now out – It has not gone unnoticed that they waited until Parliament were off on their 10 week summer break.
They have taken out the actual word 'constitution' and have avoided enshrining legal status to the EU flag, motto and anthem.
They have done a Find/Replace on ‘Foreign Minister’ and changed those references to ‘High Representative’. Mmmm - ‘Catchy’. They must have been reading Lord of the Rings again.
Conservative foreign affairs spokesman, William Hague, pointed out:
"We can see clearly what a cut-and-paste job this is from the old EU constitution. Virtually everything that was in the old EU constitution is in this treaty."
William Hague is pretty much spot on there. It also includes a handy replacement ‘ratchet clause’ lifted more-or-less word for word from the constitution allowing the EU to scrap national vetoes and sidestep referendums. All the rage with the european elite these days.
So much for Gordon Brown and his smokescreen ‘red lines’. How does he look at himself in the mirror each morning when he shaves?
They have taken out the actual word 'constitution' and have avoided enshrining legal status to the EU flag, motto and anthem.
They have done a Find/Replace on ‘Foreign Minister’ and changed those references to ‘High Representative’. Mmmm - ‘Catchy’. They must have been reading Lord of the Rings again.
Conservative foreign affairs spokesman, William Hague, pointed out:
"We can see clearly what a cut-and-paste job this is from the old EU constitution. Virtually everything that was in the old EU constitution is in this treaty."
William Hague is pretty much spot on there. It also includes a handy replacement ‘ratchet clause’ lifted more-or-less word for word from the constitution allowing the EU to scrap national vetoes and sidestep referendums. All the rage with the european elite these days.
So much for Gordon Brown and his smokescreen ‘red lines’. How does he look at himself in the mirror each morning when he shaves?
UK Drs reduce home visits by half in 10 years
The latest official figures on UK GPs show more consultations are now carried out by telephone and nurses see one in three patients. More damning, home visits carried out by GPs has halved in ten years.
Figures also show they are putting in on average seven hours less work per week yet also doing more consultations.
One wonders if they can fit the extra consultations in because they are reluctant to do home visits.
Ten years ago if your child had a temperature of 103 °F (39.5°C) chances are your Dr would come out to do a home visit. These days (certainly out of hours) you are told to take them to the nearest NHS direct facility, probably a few miles away.
It’s OK if you don’t work, but most Drs are effectively office hours only and getting a non emergency appointment is not always easy.
Seems that GP’s practices are taking some of the workload hospitals used to carry too, maybe this is having an impact.
It is all probably done so it looks good in Government ‘targets’, but is it actually good for the patients?
Many would say the difficulty in getting a home visit from a Dr from your own practice, or even from someone at all, outweighs any theoretical gains.
Figures also show they are putting in on average seven hours less work per week yet also doing more consultations.
One wonders if they can fit the extra consultations in because they are reluctant to do home visits.
Ten years ago if your child had a temperature of 103 °F (39.5°C) chances are your Dr would come out to do a home visit. These days (certainly out of hours) you are told to take them to the nearest NHS direct facility, probably a few miles away.
It’s OK if you don’t work, but most Drs are effectively office hours only and getting a non emergency appointment is not always easy.
Seems that GP’s practices are taking some of the workload hospitals used to carry too, maybe this is having an impact.
It is all probably done so it looks good in Government ‘targets’, but is it actually good for the patients?
Many would say the difficulty in getting a home visit from a Dr from your own practice, or even from someone at all, outweighs any theoretical gains.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)