The distortion of science for ideological purposes has a long history, and the results are generally ugly.

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Tuvalu Facts

Nothing like a few facts to set things straight, is there?

"We want the islands of Tuvalu, our nation, to exist permanently forever and not to be submerged underwater merely due to the selfishness and greed of the industrialised world. This is why we had proposed right from the outset, for the establishment of a legally binding framework to set targets and timeframes for renewable energy given the direct link between energy and climate change

…Tuvalu therefore calls on the Summit to commit additional resources to implement, besides energy & climate change initiatives, other key focal partnership areas such as water & sanitation, transport & communications, health improvement, human resource development & capacity building, tourism & trade".

Address to World Summit on Sustainable Development by the Honourable Saufatu Sopoanga, the Prime Minister of Tuvalu [2002].

I thought the link was between CO2 and Climate Change not energy.

And I was unaware that climate had anything to so with the motives of the industrialised world when the largest assumed production of "energy" (or is it Greeny Gases) will come from the un-industrialised world which Tuvalu is part of.

I especially like the dream of the Honourable Saufatu Sopoanga, the Prime Minister of Tuvalu - "We want the islands of Tuvalu, our nation, to exist permanently forever".

In a geodynamically active world where areas once temperate become arctic, where the Greeks lived in Alexandria 8 metres under the sea in the Nile Delta, where Aceh was rendered asunder by a mere tsunami....

Stupid is, as stupid does.

Saturday, September 16, 2006


As is common during periods of credit expansion when the various Reserve Banks increase the money supply, prices rise, oil prices being no exception. And during those times Peak Oil theories are resurrected by the doomer-gloomers to prove that we are running out of oil.

One of the more interesting comments made by the Oil-Doubters is that of inventory irregulatories :

OPEC's "Spurious Revisions" AKA "Cooking the Books"

During the 1980s, several OPEC countries issued some rather "interesting" upwardly revised estimates of their proven reserves of petroleum. Ron Swenson, proprietor of the website explains:
Many OPEC countries have been announcing reserve
numbers which are frankly very strange. Either their
reported reserves remain the same year after year,
suggesting that new discoveries exactly match production,
or they have suddenly increased their reported reserves by
unfeasibly large amounts.

Source (You have to scroll down to find it)

On the 5th September it was reported that Royal Dutch Shell discovered a massive deep oil find in the Gulph of New Mexico (source) which could increase US oil reserves by 50%.

Now if current oil OPEC oil reserves are magically increased together with new oil finds being discovered 5 miles down, then the view of the HubbertsPeak site, that the oil producers are cooking the books might be completely wrong.

Instead we might consider the Russian-Ukrainian theory of Abiotic oil, popularised by the late Tommy Gold, but more accurately summarised here, then it is quite possible that Gold's deep hot biosphere is continually producing hydrocarbons which are continually replenishing the existing OPEC oil fields.

In fact recent statements made by oil industry executives confirm that we are not running out of oil and are possibly awash in it.

So why are oil prices so high (along with commodities). Apart from the Chinese and future Indian demand for raw materials, we must also look to the increase in the money supplies produced by the various central banks.

Saturday, September 09, 2006

Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
Thursday, 31 August 2006

(I sourced this viewpoint from here and Australian readers should realise that "Liberal" is a US label for socialist, here members of the ALP, Democrats and Greens, among others).

Doesn't it seem odd that the kids who started the 60s anti-establishment protest riots on college campuses with the Free Speech Movement (Berkeley, 1964) are the college professors or politicians today who most vehemently suppress free speech among their students or constituents in the name of political correctness?

How can this be? How can worshipping at the shrines of Diversity, Tolerance, and Multiculturalism result in trials and expulsions for students, or jail for citizens, who express ideas with which the worshippers are not in agreement?

The answer is the intimate connection between Subjectivism and Fascism.

The core metaphysical assertion of liberals is that there are no absolute truths, factually or morally. What's true for you may not be true for me, it's all a matter of perspective, who are you to say what is right or wrong, true or false.

Truth is a matter of subjective opinion, it is relative to the values of different people. This belief, which lies at the very center of the liberal view of the world, is known as Subjectivism or Relativism.

It's opposite, Objectivism, the assertion that there are in fact absolute truths, both moral and factual about the nature of reality regardless of anyone's opinion or desires, horrifies liberals. They think such an assertion leads straight to tyranny and fascism.

Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), the founder of Fascism as a political movement (after the Latin fasces, the bundle of rods used by Rome to symbolize strength through unity) vehemently disagreed.

In his 1921 essay Diuturna (The Lasting, that which endures), Mussolini made it clear that moral relativism was his rationale for Fascism:

If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, we Fascists conclude that we have the right to create our own ideology and to enforce it with all the energy of which we are capable.

Liberals follow Mussolini's conclusion to the letter. Preaching tolerance, they have no tolerance for anyone's opinions but their own. Anyone they disagree with they call �racist' or �sexist' or �homophobic' or some other denigration.

Liberal intolerance, of course, goes way beyond mere disagreement and name-calling. They want to criminalize the beliefs and actions of those with whom they disagree.

They succeeded this week in California. On Tuesday (August 29), Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law (SB 1441 sponsored by a lesbian actress turned state senator, Sheila Kuehl) specifically requiring "any program or activity that...receives any financial assistance from the state" to support transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality or lose state funding.

The Democrat-run California Legislature is passing an entire raft of such fascist laws. Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuez made it bluntly clear: "Our purpose is to outlaw traditional perspectives on marriage and family in the state school system."

He and his fellow Democrats have the Orwellian nerve to call their legislative fascism "tolerance education."

Liberal "tolerance" is forcing people at the point of a gun to believe and act as liberals demand. You don't get more fascist than that.

California's Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, is, however, trying. He is actually trying to criminalize disagreement on "global warming."

In his lawsuit against such prominent scientists as MIT Professor of Meteorology Richard Lindzen and Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas, Lockyer accuses them of being "climate skeptics," who are playing "a major role in spreading disinformation about global warming."

Until recently, Lockyer was positioning himself to run for California governor, challenging Schwarzenegger. They could have had a debate as to which one is more fascist than the other. (No one should be shocked by Schwarzenegger, by the way. He married a Kennedy!)

The only way to combat liberal lunacy like that on exhibit in California is to attack it at its source: liberal subjectivism leading directly to fascism.

It will do no good for liberals to bleat about religious absolutists, be they Christian or Moslem, who believe they have a right to force people into behaving as they want because that's what the Bible or the Koran says.

That's a red herring. Don't let liberals switch the issue. The issue here is the fundamental contradiction in their world-view, not anyone else's. Liberals cannot argue for relativism in morality and claim there are no moral truths, then claim their moral values magically have more validity than anyone else's.

When you argue there are no objective moral truths, the only way to settle a moral disagreement is at the point of a gun. Mussolini understood this, and he had the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Liberals understand it too, but they don't want to admit it, least of all to themselves. It still makes them fascists, nonetheless.

Demonstrating how and why liberals are fascists is their Achilles' Heel. Name-calling is a liberal specialty, and they are fond of calling their opponents "fascists." But using reason and logic to expose how they are demonstrably in fact fascists can be effective.

Combat liberalism by publicly exposing it as fascism. California would be a good place to start.

Blogger has moved to a new server and service.

So things will be interesting for the next few weeks and blogging will be stopped until it is all sorted.



May 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?