35 Inconvenient Truths - Lord Monckton, Science And Public Policy

A bit old, but a good reminder...

From scienceandpublicpolicy.org

The errors in Al Gore’s movie

A spokesman for Al Gore has issued a questionable response to the news that in October 2007 the High Court in London had identified nine “errors” in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. The judge had stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.

Al Gore’s spokesman and “environment advisor,” Ms. Kalee Kreider, begins by saying that the film presented “thousands and thousands of facts.” It did not: just 2,000 “facts” in 93 minutes would have been one fact every three seconds. The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have been substantially inaccurate. The judge concentrated only on nine points which even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit did not represent mainstream scientific opinion.

Ms. Kreider then states, incorrectly, that the judge himself had never used the term “errors.” In fact, the judge used the term “errors,” in inverted commas, throughout his judgment. Next, Ms. Kreider makes some unjustifiable ad hominem attacks on Mr. Stewart Dimmock, the lorry driver, school governor and father of two school-age children who was the plaintiff in the case. This memorandum, however, will eschew any ad hominem response, and will concentrate exclusively on the 35 scientific inaccuracies and exaggerations in Gore’s movie. Ms. Kreider then says, “The process of creating a 90-minute documentary from the original peer-reviewed science for an audience of moviegoers in the U.S. and around the world is complex.” However, the single web-page entitled “The Science” on the movie’s official website contains only two references to articles in the peer-reviewed scientific journals. There is also a reference to a document of the IPCC, but its documents are not independently peer-reviewed in the usual understanding of the term. Ms. Kreider then says, “The judge stated clearly that he was not attempting to perform an analysis of the scientific questions in his ruling.” He did not need to. Each of the nine “errors” which he identified had been admitted by the UK Government to be inconsistent with the mainstream of scientific opinion. Ms. Kreider says the IPCC’s results are sometimes “conservative,” and continues: “Vice President Gore tried to convey in good faith those threats that he views as the most serious.” Readers of the long list of errors described in this memorandum will decide for themselves whether Mr. Gore was acting in good faith. However, in this connection it is significant that each of the 35 errors listed below misstates the conclusions of the scientific literature or states that there is a threat where there is none or exaggerates the threat where there may be one. All of the errors point in one direction – towards undue alarmism. Not one of the errors falls in the direction of underestimating the degree of concern in the scientific community. The likelihood that all 35 of the errors listed below could have fallen in one direction purely by inadvertence is less than 1 in 34 billion. We now itemize 35 of the scientific errors and exaggerations in Al Gore’s movie. The first nine were listed by the judge in the High Court in London in October 2007 as being “errors.” The remaining 26 errors are just as inaccurate or exaggerated as the nine spelt out by the judge, who made it plain during the proceedings that the Court had not had time to consider more than these few errors. The judge found these errors serious enough to require the UK Government to pay substantial costs to the plaintiff

Read more at scienceandpublicpolicy.org

Obama's campaign trawls for Republican email addresses as his 'unfavorable' rating hits a high - Daily Mail

Can you say 'Spam"?

From www.dailymail.co.uk

With his popularity plunging to a new low in the polls, President Obama is trawling for more support – from Republicans.

The Obama campaign is collecting GOP email addresses by asking supporters to taunt their friends and political rivals.

The idea is that the Obama fund-raisers want to know which Republicans inspired their friends or associates to donate money to the president's re-election campaign.

Then – having obtained the Republican supporters name and email address – the Obama team will send a mischievous message 'letting them know they inspired you to make a donation to the Obama campaign.

Read more at www.dailymail.co.uk

A Voter's Guide To The Evil Republicans

Finally! The evils of the Republican Party clearly exposed! It's about time...

From www.youtube.com

See more at www.youtube.com

Biggest Fear is Big Government

Including a large percentage of Democrats.. And check out the graph at Heritage.

Personally, I only fear 'Big Business' when they are in cahoots with Big Government.

From blog.heritage.org

Americans’ Biggest Fear? Big Government.

Despite all the noise coming from the Occupy Wall Street crowd–and the rhetoric coming from President Barack Obama–it turns out that it’s not big business that most Americans fear, but big government. Gallup reports:

The 64% of Americans who say big government will be the biggest threat to the country is just one percentage point shy of the record high, while the 26% who say big business is down from the 32% recorded during the recession.

Interestingly, across party lines, fewer Americans are fearing big business, too. But those sentiments are a sharp contrast from those being voiced from Zuccotti Park in New York City, to the port protests on the West Coast, to President Obama’s speech in Osawatomie, Kansas. Read more at blog.heritage.org

Monckton to pursue fraud charges against Climategate scientists

Lord Monckton makes an effort to point the blame in the right direction. The police arrested the person who blew the whistle on the folks who committed the fraud and they ignore the real perpetrators.



Time to fix that.

From www.climatedepot.com

Fmr. Thatcher advisor Lord Monckton to pursue fraud charges against Climategate scientists: Will present to police the case for 'numerous specific instances of scientific or economic fraud' Visit Site

Making the police state work for you

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley in London

There is a good reason why the police have gone after the whistle-blower and yet have not moved against those whose far more serious crimes the emails he released expose. Though the University of East Anglia has complained to the police about the “thief”, no one has complained about the climate crooks whose crimes the University seems so zealous to conceal.

What offenses have been committed? Serious frauds, that's what. Some of the most prominent Climategate emailers appear, on the face of the evidence in the emails, to be engaged with each other and with others in an elaborate series of connected deceptions calculated to enrich themselves and their associates, impoverish everyone else and destroy key industries and national economies wholesale by systematically and often greatly exaggerating the supposed threat and costs of anthropogenic “global warming”, the certainty of the science that underlies the IPCC's claims, and the effectiveness of the various methods proposed for the attempted mitigation of anthropogenic “global warming”, while correspondingly understating the benefits of that warming and the costs of its attempted mitigation.

The true significance of “hide the decline”, for instance, is not at all evident on a superficial reading of the emails. The police will not, therefore, read the emails with our eyes, unless we help them to understand their shocking significance.

In the United Kingdom, the Fraud Act 2006 has given fraud a very detailed, statutory definition, which may be summarized as the obtaining of a temporary or permanent gain (whether by keeping what one has or by getting what one does not have) or the infliction upon another of a temporary or permanent loss (whether by not getting what one might get or by parting with what one has), the gain or loss being in money or other real or personal property (including things in action or other intangible property), with the intent either of obtaining a gain for the offender or for another or of causing loss to another or of exposing another to a risk of loss, whether by dishonestly making an untrue or misleading express or implied representation that the offender knows is or may be untrue or misleading; or by dishonestly failing to disclose to another person information which the offender is under a legal duty to disclose; or by dishonestly (by act or omission) abusing a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interest of another person. Read more at www.climatedepot.com

New law negates Constitutional protections of citizens

Who gets to say who is an enemy combatant? And what are the qualifications that would make you one?

From www.examiner.com

Anthony Martin Conservative Examiner

A new law approved by Congress and signed by Barack Obama yesterday essentially negates the 4th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, regarding unreasonable searches and seizures, the requirement for a warrant prior to arrest, and the prohibition of arrest and detainment without due process of law.

Called 'the National Defense Authorization Act' (NDAA), the new law allows the military to detain U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism indefinitely, without a trial. For the first time since the Civil War the U.S. military will have the authority to engage in the pursuit and detention of suspected criminals on American soil.

Although the specific language of the original bill does not expand the powers of the President to detain citizens indefinitely without a trial, proponents of the new law say that in its final form it is designed to codify recent court decisions that would do exactly that, giving the President the authority to designate citizens as 'enemy combatants' who could then be detained without a warrant or trial, and sent to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba along with some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world.

Read more at www.examiner.com

Unions Bully Teacher Who Publicly Supports Scott Walker

Public employe unions, in this case the teachers unions, are a cancer... They attack anyone who doesn't completely fit into their mold with the intent to destroy by any means that they can. To them it's not a question of right or wrong, but of power and money. They don't display anything remotely close to common decency.



Not to mention American ideals..
 

From www.breitbart.tv

See more at www.breitbart.tv