"He that cannot reason is a fool. He that will not is a bigot. He that dare not is a slave."Andrew Carnegie
Saturday, 5 December 2009
Quote of the Day
No room for science that is not "on message"
It has been a while since I have posted, as has been pointed out to me.
The reason is twofold. I have far less time to spare for blogging than I used to and I frankly despair that it makes any difference. The public sometimes seem indifferent to the lies, obfuscations and fiddles of politicians.
I listen sometimes to a sound bite or even news report and the broken logic and confused reasoning is truly incredible to behold. And they do it with straight faces too. You can practically see the fishing hook in the reporters mouth sometimes.
It’s certainly not because there was nothing to post about.
There is something that has disturbed me quite a lot recently. You see it every now and then in the news.
Most recently, ahead of the Copenhagen talks, over the fuss caused by those leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, in the UK that suggest leading ‘climate scientists’ may have fiddled figures and destroyed data to bolster the anthropomorphic theory of climate change, Man Made Global Warming.
The UK Premier and Glorious Leader Gordon Brown came out strongly in defence of consensus global warming with another personal contribution of hot air in the Guardian ranting:
"With only days to go before Copenhagen, we mustn't be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics,"
Now why anyone in their right mind would by now imagine Gordon Brown to be competent in anything - let alone “climate science”, when he is clearly a complete buffoon in his own claimed area of expertise… economics, I fail to grasp. Better for the warmists camp if he had kept quiet.
His mere mention of it almost makes one want to seriously review everything one knows about “flat earth science”, in case there just might be something in it after all :-)
Surely it is "anti science" to fiddle results? To bolster your own research? To destroy data that someone who is questioning your figures asks for? To discount evidence against your theory. Or indeed to shout down opponents, denigrate them.
The language becomes even more suspect when another politician Ed Miliband (David Milliband’s not so famous younger brother), branded anyone who is not fully on New Labour’s political message as, “dangerous and deceitful, climate saboteurs”.
David is the one Hills seems to like.
Ed, like David, soaked up Marxist Theory at his father Ralph’s knee so he probably knows a thing or two about class enemies and re-education. One wonders when they will enact legislation to lock these climate saboteurs in mental institutions and outlaw their deceitful lies.
That it is all over climate change in this particular instance is almost irrelevant to my point. If the science is good it can stand on it’s own feet. It can stand up to scrutiny, It does not fear verification. It certainly does not need the sort of language employed by religious or old style soviet leaders.
As soon as one hears things couched in that sort of intemperate hyperbole Brown and Milliband deployed you know you are dealing with a deep belief like a religious or political conviction, not subject to being moved by reason or proof and willing to do anything to protect and support their dogma or belief.
But it is not in relation to just one of the state’s pet enthusiasms you see this dubious attitude wherever it surfaces in a certain mind set.
Recently it was discovered by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) that the original recommendations for an individual’s average daily calorie intake, which were made in 1991, underestimated the average requirement by up to 16%.
The official UK guidelines were and still are at the time of writing, 2,000 calories for women, 2,500 calories for men and 1,800 calories for children aged five to 10, 16% below the real figure.
The first official thoughts seem to be concern that revising the guidelines might risk sending "mixed messages", rather than concern for accuracy.
It was reported that health campaigners were concerned that the Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) could seek to "sweep this report under the carpet" in a bid to avoid sending out “mixed messages “in the middle of an “obesity epidemic”. Especially as New Labour are looking at the introduction of new food-labelling schemes. The FSA has spent two years evaluating new methods of labelling and this will change things
This view was bolstered when The National Obesity Forum partnered with the government’s Department of Heath chipped in warning that it was a ‘dangerous assumption’ that adults could consume more calories each day.
Advice Service Diet Scotland representative Lorraine McCreary, said: “People have lived with these established guidelines for a long time and most people understand if they go above the recommended intake they are likely to put on weight” she went on to say she thought it would be “very confusing for people.”
Again, when New Labour’s drug aviser complained that government policy on drugs didn’t fit with the science or the advice the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) were giving the government he was ruthlessly forced out by Alan Johnson the UK Home Secretary to shut him up.
The unfortunately named Professor, David Nutt had criticised Labour politicians for "distorting" and "devaluing" the research evidence in the debate over illicit drugs. Pointing out that some "top" scientific journals had published "horrific examples" of poor quality research on the alleged harm caused by some illegal drugs.
UK police boss Johnson said the Professor’s comments “damaged efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs”.
Time and again we see those who run the UK state have scant regard for whatever may, or may not, be the actual facts.
Their prime concern seems to be that science is "on message", that it should be forced to bolster whatever policy they happen to have, shoehorned to fit with any square corners roughly hacked off to fit the round hole they insist it will be going in.
Whether it is to enable them to criminalise and control vast swathes of the British public or to find new and inventive ways of stealthily taxing them (for their own and the planet’s good of course) in these straightened times.
The party dogma machine just grinds away. Anyone who questions it, right or wrong, is shouted down, ground under, called bad names, briefed against.
No wonder people are more interested in voting for the X-Factor TV show, at least they get the chance to do that once a year and their vote influences the outcome of the contest.
The reason is twofold. I have far less time to spare for blogging than I used to and I frankly despair that it makes any difference. The public sometimes seem indifferent to the lies, obfuscations and fiddles of politicians.
I listen sometimes to a sound bite or even news report and the broken logic and confused reasoning is truly incredible to behold. And they do it with straight faces too. You can practically see the fishing hook in the reporters mouth sometimes.
It’s certainly not because there was nothing to post about.
There is something that has disturbed me quite a lot recently. You see it every now and then in the news.
Most recently, ahead of the Copenhagen talks, over the fuss caused by those leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, in the UK that suggest leading ‘climate scientists’ may have fiddled figures and destroyed data to bolster the anthropomorphic theory of climate change, Man Made Global Warming.
The UK Premier and Glorious Leader Gordon Brown came out strongly in defence of consensus global warming with another personal contribution of hot air in the Guardian ranting:
"With only days to go before Copenhagen, we mustn't be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics,"
Now why anyone in their right mind would by now imagine Gordon Brown to be competent in anything - let alone “climate science”, when he is clearly a complete buffoon in his own claimed area of expertise… economics, I fail to grasp. Better for the warmists camp if he had kept quiet.
His mere mention of it almost makes one want to seriously review everything one knows about “flat earth science”, in case there just might be something in it after all :-)
Surely it is "anti science" to fiddle results? To bolster your own research? To destroy data that someone who is questioning your figures asks for? To discount evidence against your theory. Or indeed to shout down opponents, denigrate them.
The language becomes even more suspect when another politician Ed Miliband (David Milliband’s not so famous younger brother), branded anyone who is not fully on New Labour’s political message as, “dangerous and deceitful, climate saboteurs”.
David is the one Hills seems to like.
Ed, like David, soaked up Marxist Theory at his father Ralph’s knee so he probably knows a thing or two about class enemies and re-education. One wonders when they will enact legislation to lock these climate saboteurs in mental institutions and outlaw their deceitful lies.
That it is all over climate change in this particular instance is almost irrelevant to my point. If the science is good it can stand on it’s own feet. It can stand up to scrutiny, It does not fear verification. It certainly does not need the sort of language employed by religious or old style soviet leaders.
As soon as one hears things couched in that sort of intemperate hyperbole Brown and Milliband deployed you know you are dealing with a deep belief like a religious or political conviction, not subject to being moved by reason or proof and willing to do anything to protect and support their dogma or belief.
But it is not in relation to just one of the state’s pet enthusiasms you see this dubious attitude wherever it surfaces in a certain mind set.
Recently it was discovered by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) that the original recommendations for an individual’s average daily calorie intake, which were made in 1991, underestimated the average requirement by up to 16%.
The official UK guidelines were and still are at the time of writing, 2,000 calories for women, 2,500 calories for men and 1,800 calories for children aged five to 10, 16% below the real figure.
The first official thoughts seem to be concern that revising the guidelines might risk sending "mixed messages", rather than concern for accuracy.
It was reported that health campaigners were concerned that the Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) could seek to "sweep this report under the carpet" in a bid to avoid sending out “mixed messages “in the middle of an “obesity epidemic”. Especially as New Labour are looking at the introduction of new food-labelling schemes. The FSA has spent two years evaluating new methods of labelling and this will change things
This view was bolstered when The National Obesity Forum partnered with the government’s Department of Heath chipped in warning that it was a ‘dangerous assumption’ that adults could consume more calories each day.
Advice Service Diet Scotland representative Lorraine McCreary, said: “People have lived with these established guidelines for a long time and most people understand if they go above the recommended intake they are likely to put on weight” she went on to say she thought it would be “very confusing for people.”
Again, when New Labour’s drug aviser complained that government policy on drugs didn’t fit with the science or the advice the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) were giving the government he was ruthlessly forced out by Alan Johnson the UK Home Secretary to shut him up.
The unfortunately named Professor, David Nutt had criticised Labour politicians for "distorting" and "devaluing" the research evidence in the debate over illicit drugs. Pointing out that some "top" scientific journals had published "horrific examples" of poor quality research on the alleged harm caused by some illegal drugs.
UK police boss Johnson said the Professor’s comments “damaged efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs”.
Time and again we see those who run the UK state have scant regard for whatever may, or may not, be the actual facts.
Their prime concern seems to be that science is "on message", that it should be forced to bolster whatever policy they happen to have, shoehorned to fit with any square corners roughly hacked off to fit the round hole they insist it will be going in.
Whether it is to enable them to criminalise and control vast swathes of the British public or to find new and inventive ways of stealthily taxing them (for their own and the planet’s good of course) in these straightened times.
The party dogma machine just grinds away. Anyone who questions it, right or wrong, is shouted down, ground under, called bad names, briefed against.
No wonder people are more interested in voting for the X-Factor TV show, at least they get the chance to do that once a year and their vote influences the outcome of the contest.
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
New Labour's Child Catchers
The UK Orwellian NewLabour state is desperately rolling out the quite sinister National Children's Database designed to contain details of and track everyone in the UK under 18.
One wonders how long it will be before they decide to keep the details for life...
The alleged reason for it is to enable "more co-ordinated services for children" and of course to ensure none slips through the net like Victoria Cimbie.
It is questionable if such a database would in fact have prevented her death, or that of baby "P", local co-ordination, lower case loads and effective working practices would almost certainly have far more impact and cost far less.
In the same way they try to uses the fear of terrorism to justfy a national ID database. It is well known thatID cards would never have prevented the London Tube suicide bombers. Or those who attempted to bomb busy London clubs and attacked Glasgow Airport.
This governemt though seems to have only one kneejerk reponse, cataloguing, regimentaion and control of the ordinary citizen - and it seems their children too.
It is terrifying to think of the numbers of people who will have access to what should be private details of our children. Will all council employees be vetted in the same way as youth workers? No. The potential vulnerability that access to this data lays children open to is truly concerning.
Then there is the potential to just loose the details releasing them into the public domain.
The way local councils have misused anti terrorist laws gives an indication they are not to be trusted with our children's details, that are effectively also our details. How long before they routinely check them to establish where you live for instance?
Those who take comfort that these are the twilight days of New Labour and hope the scheme will die a death with their electorial demise are probably fooling themselves. Once rolled out could an new incoming governemnet be trusted to remobve such a big state friendly tool of control?
Maybe the economic facts of life might make a difference. The database is currently slated to cost £224 million, as with all such things this will be underestimated by a whole order of magnitude. Perhaps in the end it will prove to be too expensive.
One wonders how long it will be before they decide to keep the details for life...
The alleged reason for it is to enable "more co-ordinated services for children" and of course to ensure none slips through the net like Victoria Cimbie.
It is questionable if such a database would in fact have prevented her death, or that of baby "P", local co-ordination, lower case loads and effective working practices would almost certainly have far more impact and cost far less.
In the same way they try to uses the fear of terrorism to justfy a national ID database. It is well known thatID cards would never have prevented the London Tube suicide bombers. Or those who attempted to bomb busy London clubs and attacked Glasgow Airport.
This governemt though seems to have only one kneejerk reponse, cataloguing, regimentaion and control of the ordinary citizen - and it seems their children too.
It is terrifying to think of the numbers of people who will have access to what should be private details of our children. Will all council employees be vetted in the same way as youth workers? No. The potential vulnerability that access to this data lays children open to is truly concerning.
Then there is the potential to just loose the details releasing them into the public domain.
The way local councils have misused anti terrorist laws gives an indication they are not to be trusted with our children's details, that are effectively also our details. How long before they routinely check them to establish where you live for instance?
Those who take comfort that these are the twilight days of New Labour and hope the scheme will die a death with their electorial demise are probably fooling themselves. Once rolled out could an new incoming governemnet be trusted to remobve such a big state friendly tool of control?
Maybe the economic facts of life might make a difference. The database is currently slated to cost £224 million, as with all such things this will be underestimated by a whole order of magnitude. Perhaps in the end it will prove to be too expensive.
Thursday, 23 April 2009
Food for thought
The UK government and it's indirectly government financed “pressure groups” and “Charities” have been really pushing the anti obesity thing for some time now with talk of taxing certain food products plus having set minimum prices for alcohol and punitive taxes on it too.
If you are overweight you are not just morally reprehensible because the Puritanical socialist-patrician classes don't approve of you.
No from their tone you are not just a resource hogging criminal because you are personally destroying the UK's National Health Service.
Now it seems you threaten the whole planet, every last one of us, every creature and plant you are personally making “Climate Change” worse and you must be stopped.
If you are overweight you are not just morally reprehensible because the Puritanical socialist-patrician classes don't approve of you.
No from their tone you are not just a resource hogging criminal because you are personally destroying the UK's National Health Service.
Now it seems you threaten the whole planet, every last one of us, every creature and plant you are personally making “Climate Change” worse and you must be stopped.
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Arrested for filming changing of the guard?
Well that is interesting. It seems. The UK Government has been busy “protecting” us all from TERRORISM and ORGANISED CRIME again… oh so quietly.
Why quietly? Because as is usual when they are ”protecting” us It is at best a two edge sword, but usually just involves another mechanism that is curiously suited for oppression.
Even Dame Stella Rimmington former head of MI5 thinks the New Labour State is exploiting the fear of terrorism to restrict our civil liberties - and she ought to be able to spot it if anyone can.
So what have New Labour quietly sneaked in under the radar this time? Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act is what. It is supposedly there to stop TERRORISTS gathering intelligence on the police and Armed Services by taking pictures of them.
Now what did they do with Communists who wanted to take pictures of sensitive stuff and situations during the Cold War? Presumably arrested them for spying. They didn’t need such a law then. Presumably the government of the time had a greater regard for civil liberties.
Part of the blizzard of new laws that make it an offence to do things like commit murder on a Tuesday as opposed to say just committing murder. Then there would be committing murder on Wednesdays whilst wearing a hat…
So what does this effectively do? It gives the police the power to arrest anyone filming them or taking a picture of them, say for instance, when they are doing something that might lay them open to criticism.
It seems even the rank and file police officers feel this may be a step too far and their “union” the Police Federation have expressed concerns.
We have already had it repeatedly demonstrated that the New Labour Sate and their pet New Labour senior police officers can be relied upon to misuse any such legislation, practically as soon as it is passed to suppress political dissent and embarrassing revelations/facts. Even to the extent of having senior opposition ministers arrested.
And they have the nerve to criticise Mugabe, when he is only watching them and learning.
Why quietly? Because as is usual when they are ”protecting” us It is at best a two edge sword, but usually just involves another mechanism that is curiously suited for oppression.
Even Dame Stella Rimmington former head of MI5 thinks the New Labour State is exploiting the fear of terrorism to restrict our civil liberties - and she ought to be able to spot it if anyone can.
So what have New Labour quietly sneaked in under the radar this time? Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act is what. It is supposedly there to stop TERRORISTS gathering intelligence on the police and Armed Services by taking pictures of them.
Now what did they do with Communists who wanted to take pictures of sensitive stuff and situations during the Cold War? Presumably arrested them for spying. They didn’t need such a law then. Presumably the government of the time had a greater regard for civil liberties.
Part of the blizzard of new laws that make it an offence to do things like commit murder on a Tuesday as opposed to say just committing murder. Then there would be committing murder on Wednesdays whilst wearing a hat…
So what does this effectively do? It gives the police the power to arrest anyone filming them or taking a picture of them, say for instance, when they are doing something that might lay them open to criticism.
It seems even the rank and file police officers feel this may be a step too far and their “union” the Police Federation have expressed concerns.
We have already had it repeatedly demonstrated that the New Labour Sate and their pet New Labour senior police officers can be relied upon to misuse any such legislation, practically as soon as it is passed to suppress political dissent and embarrassing revelations/facts. Even to the extent of having senior opposition ministers arrested.
And they have the nerve to criticise Mugabe, when he is only watching them and learning.
Tuesday, 27 January 2009
New Labour State Reclassifies Cannabis
It seems the New-Labour State has, in the face of it’s own advisors best advice, decided to reclassify cannabis as a class b drug.
Given that this decision is not based on the merits of the case, especially as having it de classified saw a 4% drop in its use, the immediate question that arises is, “What is their agenda?”
Interestingly, they effectively plan to record a persons details on the first “offence” and fine them on the second “offence”.
I don’t know what the percentage of the UK population is that at some time has tried cannabis but I suspect it is very significant. I would imagine thousands of essentially law abiding otherwise non criminal users are detected by the police every year.
To give an idea of the numbers, when surveyed 10% of people asked actually admitted they had used an illegal drug in the past year, that is around 3,100,000 people. Given that many of the repondants may not have admitted using drugs and that the majority of drug use involves cannabis that is a huge pool of potential cannabis users.
One effect of these new rules is likely to be a massive increase in the number and rate of additions to the New Labour State’s disguised National DNA Database.
Another effect is likely to be a considerable increase in revenue for the State in the form of fixed penalty or so-called “on the spot” fines.
Could either of these considerations influenced a cash strapped government anxious to push through a massively unpopular national DNA database?
Then there is the matter of pretending to be ”tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime”…
Given that this decision is not based on the merits of the case, especially as having it de classified saw a 4% drop in its use, the immediate question that arises is, “What is their agenda?”
Interestingly, they effectively plan to record a persons details on the first “offence” and fine them on the second “offence”.
I don’t know what the percentage of the UK population is that at some time has tried cannabis but I suspect it is very significant. I would imagine thousands of essentially law abiding otherwise non criminal users are detected by the police every year.
To give an idea of the numbers, when surveyed 10% of people asked actually admitted they had used an illegal drug in the past year, that is around 3,100,000 people. Given that many of the repondants may not have admitted using drugs and that the majority of drug use involves cannabis that is a huge pool of potential cannabis users.
One effect of these new rules is likely to be a massive increase in the number and rate of additions to the New Labour State’s disguised National DNA Database.
Another effect is likely to be a considerable increase in revenue for the State in the form of fixed penalty or so-called “on the spot” fines.
Could either of these considerations influenced a cash strapped government anxious to push through a massively unpopular national DNA database?
Then there is the matter of pretending to be ”tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime”…
Tuesday, 20 January 2009
Welcom to A new US president
Today is the inauguration of President Elect Obama as the 44th President of the United States of America. Arguably one of the most powerful offices on the planet.There is an incredible optimism associated with this particular inauguration. It is seen as a sea change in US politics and society. It is doubly poignant as it comes after Martin Luther King Jnr’s day and is in many respects the realisation of his dream.
Everyone speaks of a black president. As someone pointed out to me it is largely in people’s minds. Barak Obama is in fact 50% black and that somehow makes him just “black”. You could use the same logic to say he was “White”.
Whatever, many people have invested a huge amount of hope in him. Maybe they should dial back on that just a little? He is human, not a superman. He does not have a magic wand.
If people build him up unrealistically in their minds they are likely to be correspondingly unrealistically disappointed if he can’t deliver on their every wish.
So here is a hope that people don’t expect too much and too fast and then get annoyed if he can’t do miracles. Especially with all the troubles the world is beset with right now.
Between Memorial Bridge and Arlington Cemetery, there is an inscription on the memorial to the Seabees, the U.S. Navy Construction Battalions. It says:
“The difficult we do immediately. The impossible takes a little longer.”
Tuesday, 13 January 2009
Quote of the Day
" The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason."Thomas Paine
" At least two thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious or political idols."Aldous Huxley
" Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."Martin Luther King Jr
" To those searching for truth - not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction - faith in fiction is a damnable false hope."Thomas Edison
Potential threat UKs food security in New EU Rules
There are the beginnings of worries for security and self sufficiency in a number of areas, especially energy security, as recently highlighted over the European dependency and vulnerability to continued supply of gas from Russia.
Now it seems the UK’s food security is threatened by the EU. Another area where the UK no longer retains sovereignty over it’s own laws. They are now dictated by the EU.
Though it never really saw light in the MSM the reason Gordon Brown could not reduce VAT enough to be any practical use was that he was not allowed to reduce it below 15% by EU law.
So how is our food security damaged by the EU? Because they are changing the rules on how pesticides and the like are assessed. They have decided that scientific assessment is no longer a good enough test. Now they want to base it the ‘rigorous’ test of "perceived hazard" instead. What next, consulting astrologers?
Presumably this plays well with the green lobby and will help drive up prices to aid the Organic producers, but it has the potential to seriously threaten many of the UK’s crops and virtually wipe out carrot growing in the UK.
The National Farmer’s union is opposed. Their deputy president Meurig Raymond stated: "The lack of sound science behind the plans is a major concern,"
"We cannot support measures which reduce the tools available to farmers and growers to produce crops and that could ultimately jeopardise future food supply and security."
One of the main problems is that because of the UK’s generally damper climate than Europe certain pesticides are much more useful to combat diseases particularly associated with wet weather like potato blight.
The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs are also concerned. A spokesperson stated: "We believe the proposals could hit crop yields without noticeable benefit for human health.”
"We've done our own impact assessment on the matter but the European Commission has not."
It is feared close to a quarter of produce will be lost in the UK if the plans go through, including the total carrot crop and a 20% reduction in cereal production.
Now it seems the UK’s food security is threatened by the EU. Another area where the UK no longer retains sovereignty over it’s own laws. They are now dictated by the EU.
Though it never really saw light in the MSM the reason Gordon Brown could not reduce VAT enough to be any practical use was that he was not allowed to reduce it below 15% by EU law.
So how is our food security damaged by the EU? Because they are changing the rules on how pesticides and the like are assessed. They have decided that scientific assessment is no longer a good enough test. Now they want to base it the ‘rigorous’ test of "perceived hazard" instead. What next, consulting astrologers?
Presumably this plays well with the green lobby and will help drive up prices to aid the Organic producers, but it has the potential to seriously threaten many of the UK’s crops and virtually wipe out carrot growing in the UK.
The National Farmer’s union is opposed. Their deputy president Meurig Raymond stated: "The lack of sound science behind the plans is a major concern,"
"We cannot support measures which reduce the tools available to farmers and growers to produce crops and that could ultimately jeopardise future food supply and security."
One of the main problems is that because of the UK’s generally damper climate than Europe certain pesticides are much more useful to combat diseases particularly associated with wet weather like potato blight.
The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs are also concerned. A spokesperson stated: "We believe the proposals could hit crop yields without noticeable benefit for human health.”
"We've done our own impact assessment on the matter but the European Commission has not."
It is feared close to a quarter of produce will be lost in the UK if the plans go through, including the total carrot crop and a 20% reduction in cereal production.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)