Wednesday, April 02, 2008

UK's Sir David King Embarrassed by Skeptical Scientists

Britain's Cambridge university has recently appointed Britain's chief climate alarmist to a prestigious position. Below is a letter written by Britain's Rupert Wyndham about the matter. The letter was in response to a request for donations from his University Master. Wyndham explains a few facts to the Master as to why donations might not be forthcoming this year

31 March 2008.

Lord Butler, Master University College Oxford

Dear Robin

Thank you for your letter last week on the subject of fund raising for the College. When last we exchanged correspondence about this, attention was drawn to the fact that contributions had been made on a number of occasions in the past, and I looked forward to gifting further in the future. However, as I also mentioned, just at this precise moment, I am already fairly heavily committed. In short, there are a dozen small (and now not so small) waifs in Chiangmai, orphaned by AIDS but not themselves carriers of the virus, who depend on me directly for a significant part of their welfare, especially educational.

There is, however, another factor, which I should like to draw to your attention. I ask your indulgence if this letter turns out to be a little long, but think you'll see why. Anyway, a little background history is called for.

Four years ago Dr. Andrei Ilarionov, then chief economic adviser to Vladimir Putin, decided to cross check the advice coming to him from the Russian Academy of Sciences on the subject of global warming. Its members had opined that it would not be significant and would pose no threat. To this end, and here I quote from an impeccable source, "he looked around for the sappiest, laziest, most acquiescent, most true-elieving government in the world, and settled upon the UK.."

The then Foreign Secretary was invited to a meeting avec entourage, including the then Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King. Unbeknown to them, six of the world's most eminent sceptical scientists had also been invited. Let me continue by further quoting my source:
"Sir David King, not realizing he had been ambushed, launched into his usual exaggerated, alarmist presentation (he actually knows remarkably little about the science of climate, and makes an ass of himself every time he opens his mouth on the subject).

The six sceptics heard him politely until one of them, who told me the story, could contain himself no longer. When Sir David said that the snows of Kilimanjaro were melting because of "global warming", my informant pointed out that, in the 30 years since satellite monitoring of the summit had begun, temperature had at no instant risen above -1.6oC, and had averaged -7oC (Molg et al., 2003); that the region around the mountain had cooled throughout the period (Cullen, 2006); that the recession of the glacier had begun in the 1880s, long before any anthropogenic influence (Robinson, Robinson & Soon, 2007); and that the reason for the long-established recession of the Furtwangler glacier at the summit was ablation caused by the desiccation of the atmosphere owing to the regional cooling. It had nothing to do with global warming."

Fortuitously, it just so happens that I am a child of empire, one of the last, and this rings a bell entirely personal to me. You see, as a small boy in either Kenya or Uganda, I remember Kilimanjaro (as well as what I now know to be the Furtwangler Glacier) being discussed at my father's dinner table. Of course, I do not remember the detail of the grown-up conversation nor would I have understood it all, but its essence I do remember. It was a speculation about the apparent diminution of ice at the summit. So, to return:
"Sir David King, embarrassed at having been caught out, said he had never been so insulted in all his life. He flounced out of the meeting, followed by the rest of the British delegation. To Dr. Ilarionov, two conclusions were evident: first, that the supporters of the "consensus" position had based their argument on known scientific falsehoods and were accordingly unable to argue against the well-informed sceptics; secondly, that, as he put it at the time, the British Government were behaving like old-style imperialists. The breakdown in relations between the UK and Russia began at that moment."

I will not comment on the conclusion contained in the last sentence, save to say that it wouldn't surprise me any more than would the indented part of paragraph 2 above.

So, what is the point of all this? The point is a simple one. It is that anthropogenic global warming, now spun to climate change, has not a scintilla of authentic scientific evidence to support it. Likewise, there is not a scintilla of authentic scientific evidence to support the plethora of catastrophic phantasmagoria which the likes of David King and Al Gore are determined to promote as fact. In other words, King, himself a distinguished chemist if not scientist, is content not simply to watch the corruption of scientific method, and therefore the scientific endeavour generally, but to act as an enthusiastic participant. This issue, we are admonished ad nauseam, is the defining challenge to the species in the 21st century.

Intellectually, however, it is no more than a vast inverted pyramid constructed on the summit of a sand dune. Let me go a step further and suggest that it is so manifestly shoddy, mendacious and corrupt that it is simply not possible for AGW science to be pursued disinterestedly and with honesty of purpose. At a macro level, Nigel Lawson has called for the dissolution of the IPCC. He's right to do so.

You may or may not agree with the proposition just put, but it represents my carefully considered conviction and, moreover, I believe it to be supremely important on many levels. I am not alone.

So, where does that leave us or, more accurately, where does it leave me? Well, I find myself confronted with an uncomfortable dilemma. In general terms, do I consider that donating to the University in one guise or another is `a good thing'? Yes, of course. Do I, on the other hand, really feel in good conscience that financial support should be given to an institution, which not only promotes the self-preening of a vain man, but actually goes further by installing him in a sinecure calculated to allow him to further his malignant proselytising endeavours.

No doubt, in the fullness of time, the ethical conundrum will resolve itself in my mind - perhaps to the benefit of the university and/or college, perhaps not. Either way, in purely monetary terms, the effect will be insignificant. In the long run, I am not so sure that that it will remain so with regard to the appointment of the Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at the University of Oxford. We shall see.

Yours sincerely

R.C.E. Wyndham


UK Muslim Bus Driver Kicks Passengers Off Bus...So He Can Pray!

I'm not sure this story is a good idea so soon after the Fitna flap that had Ace so exercised, but maybe this could act as a good test post. There is nothing wrong with objecting to unreasonable intrusions of religion in public life, and that's what, IMHO this is:
The white Islamic convert rolled out his prayer mat in the aisle and knelt on the floor facing Mecca. Passengers watched in amazement as he held out his palms towards the sky, bowed his head and began to chant. One guy whipped out his cell phone to videotape the special moment from outside the bus. The video can be viewed at The Sun Online.

"Eventually everyone started complaining. One woman said, `What the hell are you doing? I'm going to be late for work'."

After a few minutes the driver calmly got up, opened the doors and asked everyone back on board. But when the already unnerved passengers saw the driver's rucksack on the floor, they refused to get back on. "One chap said, `I'm not getting on there now'". "An elderly couple also looked really confused and worried.

"After seeing that no-one wanted to get on he drove off and we all waited until the next bus came about 20 minutes later. I was left totally stunned. It made me not want to get on a bus again."

Perhaps they were being paranoid. But as one person said in the comment section: "You can't fault anyone for not wanting to get back on after the rucksack came out - the London bombings are still very much with the general public and it is a legitimate concern that we all have to live with. The world IS a much different place post 9-11/7-7."

Also, judging from the comments, people would very much like to see this bus driver "sacked". I totally agree.


Britain introduces new visa system for highly skilled workers

Professionals and highly-skilled persons willing to migrate to Britain will have to apply for visa under the new points-based system which comes into force in India from Tuesday. The point-based system-Tier 1 (PBS-TO), which covers highly skilled migrants, entrepreneurs, investors, and graduate students, replaces the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme, the Entrepreneur and Investor schemes and the International Graduates. The initial visa will be granted for three years as against two years under the previous systems.

India, Britain's most important market for highly skilled migrants, will be the first country where the new visa regime is being introduced from tomorrow. "The roll-out for rest of the world will take place in summer," a British High Commission statement said.

The new system is expected to make the visa process easier for legitimate travellers and tough for those intending to cheat the system of immigration and ensure that unwanted outsiders do not enter Britain and settle there. Anybody trying to cheat the system will be banned from applying for a visa for 10 years.

Under the PBS-TO, visa applicants will need sufficient points to qualify. Points are awarded for objective criteria such as qualifications, previous earnings, age and UK experience, the statement said. "The new system allows those wanting to work in Britain to calculate, before they make their application, whether their points add up to entry as highly-skilled worker," British High Commissioner to India Richard Stagg said.


Immigration doesn't benefit Britain

By Philip Johnston

For those of us who have felt unsettled, or even alarmed, by the exceptional scale of recent immigration to the United Kingdom, there has been one argument that has been difficult to rebut. It was, indeed, the very justification for the Government's immigration policy, if it deserves to be so described: without the foreign workers who have poured in over the past 10 years, both legally and illegally, economic growth would have stalled and we would be a less prosperous nation.

The highest levels of immigration by far in our history may well have had other deleterious impacts, including that on the country's cultural cohesion and, self-evidently, on the public services and infrastructure, strained by the rising population, and even the reintroduction of some serious diseases, such as TB, which had all but been eradicated. But we were assured by ministers and proponents of large-scale immigration, including business leaders and union bosses, that these were more than outweighed by the economic benefits that have accrued to the nation

The problem with this argument is that it is not true, but it was difficult to prove its falsity because no authoritative study able to command widespread acceptance had been undertaken to test its veracity. Well, now one has. The economic affairs committee of the House of Lords will report tomorrow after a three-month inquiry. This committee includes Lords Lawson and Lamont, former Chancellors of the Exchequer; Lords MacGregor and Wakeham, former cabinet ministers; Lords Layard and Skidelsky, eminent economists; Lords Turner and Paul from the world of commerce and industry; and other former Labour ministers and senior politicians. They took voluminous quantities of evidence from a wide variety of parties, ranging from the Government to academics, demographers and pressure-group campaigners. Anyone who attended the hearings can testify to the rigorous nature of their investigation.

We already know the general tenor of their report, and it would be a surprise, given the evidence, if they were to conclude anything other than that the economic benefits of immigration to the country as a whole have been marginal, even non-existent. This is not to say that nobody benefits. Clearly an immigrant who earns far more than at home gains, and his remittances will help his family and his country's economy.

So, too, do householders who pay a plasterer/nanny/plumber half the amount they would to a domestic worker. So, also, does the employer whose costs are cut by using cheaper labour. I have never understood the enthusiasm of the trade unions for large-scale immigration since it depresses wages, but they may judge that more low-paid workers mean more members. Furthermore, there is obviously a need for foreign companies based in Britain to bring in their own skilled workers and managers to run their operations, which also adds to immigration, though these incomers rarely settle, but move back home or to another country.

While all these factors can be said to point to the advantages of immigration in specific spheres, it is not the same as saying that immigration benefits the country as a whole because some, usually the poor, lose out to the competition; and, as output rises, it is consumed by the larger population. Taking all this into account, the Lords committee is expected to conclude that "the economic benefits of net immigration to the resident population are small and close to zero in the long run".

This key conclusion demolishes the Government's case for large-scale immigration. If it has not been to the economic benefit of the resident population, what has been its purpose? The truth is that the Government simply lost control and then sought to make a virtue out of doing so by concocting a spurious economic case in its defence. Last autumn, in evidence to the committee, a joint study by the Home Office and the Office for National Statistics said immigration boosted GDP by œ6 billion in 2006, which sounds impressive but is irrelevant since it also added to the population. On a per capita basis, the increase in economic output could be measured in pence.

The Government report also said that migrants are more diligent and more reliable than British-born workers. This may be true and a lot of employers will concur. Yet with more than one million young people on benefits and out of work, should ways not have been found to get them into jobs first, by reforming welfare so that it does not pay to stay at home while a job is taken by a migrant worker? Most of the jobs created in recent years have gone to foreign workers, many of whom, since 2004, have been from the new EU countries in eastern Europe to which Britain opened its labour markets, unlike other major economies.

The only other justification for large-scale immigration is that it is good to have lots of different - and often very enterprising - people in the country from all over the world because they enrich our society. I would go along with that, though it is not difficult to do so living in London, which has always been one of the world's most cosmopolitan cities.

On a small and crowded island, boosting the population from 60 million to 70 million by 2030, almost entirely as a result of immigration, as official figures forecast, is a serious matter (especially when, as we report today, decision-making is hamstrung because we can't be sure it hasn't already happened). Did the Government take a decision in 1997 that the British population was not growing rapidly enough and that, for the long-term economic betterment of the country, it had to be boosted by roughly one sixth in just over 30 years? If so, it passed everyone by.

It was never debated by Parliament or put to the people in a general election. When there was an attempt to raise the issue in the 2001 election campaign, the Government cynically played the race card to close the debate down. Yet it could be argued that the changes to Britain engineered by mass immigration will be Labour's most enduring legacy.


NHS dentists not paid to work -- so they don't

Health service dentists have been forced to go on holiday or spend time on the golf course this month despite millions of patients being denied dental care. Many have fulfilled their annual work quotas allotted by the National Health Service and have been turning patients away because they are not paid to do extra work. This is despite the fact that more than 7m people in Britain are unable to find an NHS dentist.

Patients have been told they must either pay privately or return in April when the new work year begins. People suffering from toothache have been advised to go to hospital. Areas affected include Merseyside, Derbyshire, Birmingham and East Sussex. Eddie Crouch, secretary of the Birmingham local dental committee, estimates that up to a third of dentists in the West Midlands have run out of work or have had to reduce the number of NHS patients they treat. “Patients in pain have had to shop around to find a dentist that has not used up their quota,” he said.

The British Dental Association fears that other dentists have been unable to meet their quotas and will be forced to pay back thousands of pounds to the NHS. The health department says dentists should have managed their workload throughout the year.


Hopeless Brits still cannot run an airport terminal: "Five days after Terminal Five opened, ministers criticised anger at the chaos which has engulfed the multi-billion pound facility, while it also emerged that the turmoil had triggered a diplomatic incident. "It is extremely regrettable to say the least that passengers using T5 have had to suffer an unacceptably poor travel experience," Aviation Minister Jim Fitzpatrick told the House of Commons. British Airways - the only airline using the new terminal - cancelled another 54 flights on Monday after a nightmare weekend, while a spokesman said another 50 flights will be cancelled on Tuesday. "We continue to work towards increasing the number of services we are operating to and from Terminal 5 in the days ahead," he said. Terminal Five has been blighted by logistical troubles ever since it opened to much fanfare on Thursday, with problems compounded by a major computer glitch in the luggage handling system. The luggage backlog has so far grown to 28,000 bags, and could take up to a week to return them to owners, the minister said. Earlier BA said there were 15,000, while the BBC published photos of the bags piled on top of each other. BA chief executive Willie Walsh was forced to make his second apology in three days on Sunday, as the airline scrapped dozens of flights over the weekend."

1 comment:

JaaJoe said...

Have any of you guys hear what the New Jersey Nets are doing to in the fight against global warming? Not only are there games now carbon-neutral, but they traded Jason Kidd to the Dallas Maveriks for the a “better environment” also. Julianne Waldron explained to the media that Kidd was giving off to much Carbon dioxide. “Jason Kidd always hustles when he is on the basketball court, and we all admire that greatly. But all of that running up and down the court, pushing the team out on fastbreaks, expending extra energy just to make a few extra points and possibly win a game, caused all of the players to breathe a great deal more heavily and thereby expel extra amounts of carbon dioxide into the air, and we all know that is bad for the environment. We made the difficult decision to trade Kidd in order to save the planet.” Check out this article I found on it Environmental Activism is the Key to the Current Success of the New Jersey Nets