Thursday 30 June 2011

Tolerance

I am truly perplexed that so many of my friends are against a mosque being
built near Ground Zero.

I think it should be the goal of every American to be tolerant. The mosque
should be allowed, in an effort to promote tolerance.

That is why I also propose, that two nightclubs be opened next door to the
mosque thereby promoting tolerance within the mosque. We could call one of
the clubs (which would be gay) "The Turban Cowboy" and the other being a
topless bar "You Mecca Me Hot".

Next door should be a butcher shop that specializes in pork and adjacent to
that have an open barbeque pork rib restaurant, called something like “
Iraq o’ Ribs”?

Across the street there could be a very daring lingerie store called
Victoria Keeps Nothing Secret with sexy mannequins in the window modeling the
goods.

Next door to the lingerie shop, there would be room for an Adult Toy Shop
(Koranal Knowledge), its name in flashing neon lights, and on the other side
a liquor store, maybe call it "Morehammered"?

Then the Muslims could be allowed to show their tolerance. Problem solved.

Submitted by Lisa

Tuesday 28 June 2011

The British National Party General Members Meeting Report

GMM 26th June, 2011

It was so good to see our great leader Nick Griffin in fine form at the British National Party General Members Meeting held at St Helen’s Merseyside on 26th June, 2011.

Despite the protests promised by the ‘loony left’ there were only the party faithful who turned up in force to ratify the constitutional amendments to the party rules. These changes will actually make the party leader more accountable to the members thus becoming more democratic.

Several people who were unable to attend the meeting allowed Mr Griffin and other party officials to vote on their behalf by proxy and their wishes were faithfully carried out, in defiance of the few who may have initially sought to disrupt proceedings. It is obvious how much the membership in general trust Mr Griffin by allowing him to vote on their behalf in such large numbers particularly on such important issues and changes.

Whilst some debates may have been a little heated at times, everything was eventually settled in an amicable manner and quelled all hopes by outside forces that a break-up within the party was imminent. At the end of the meeting many apologised and all shook hands as the party united behind our leader to fight for the Nationalist cause.

There will be a leadership challenge for the party chairman within the next month and dates around the country will be arranged for hustings to take place so that all members may question the candidates before eventually casting their vote.

In conclusion, the changes were all agreed and this can only be described as a good thing. Admiration must be given to Nick Griffin for all the time and effort he put into drafting these proposals for the meeting to debate. I am very pleased to report that he was justly rewarded for his efforts by all his proposals being overwhelmingly passed.

As soon as the leadership election is over, we can then concentrate on the important job of increasing membership and fighting the war against Islam and the EU in the hope we can save our country before it is too late.


Submitted by LoscoePatriot

Sunday 19 June 2011

The Global Warming Myth

Dr David Evans' address in Perth, 23 March 2011

Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen.

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro thin half-truths and misunderstandings.

I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, I understand the evidence, I was once an alarmist, but I am now a sceptic.

Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying.

This issue is tearing society apart, making fools and liars out of our politicians.

Let’s set a few things straight.

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess which was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now cheat and lie outrageously to maintain the fiction about carbon dioxide being a dangerous pollutant.

Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whethercarbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.

Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

The disagreement comes about what happens next.

The planet reacts to the extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.

This is the core idea of every official climate model: for each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three – so two thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors), only one third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

I'll bet you didn't know that. Hardly anyone in the public does, but it’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements, lies, and misunderstanding spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism. Which is why the alarmists keep so quiet about it and you've never heard of it before. And it tells you what a poor job the media have done in covering this issue.

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot-spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10km up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above.

During the warming of the late 1970s, 80s, and 90s, the weather balloons found no hot-spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves the climate models are fundamentally flawed and they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.

At this point official “climate science” stopped being a science. You see, in science empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — this just happens to keep them in high-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbances, otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.

But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. Surprise - surprise, their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the US Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.

They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade – yet they have the gall to tell us “it’s worse than expected”. These people are not scientists. They over-estimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they cheat and lie to conceal the truth.

One way they cheat is in the way they measure temperature.

The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at wastewater plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewerage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in tenths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the US, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source. Nearly 90%! The photos of these thermometers are on the Internet; you can get to them via the corruption paper at my site,sciencespeak.com. Look at the photos, and you’ll never trust a government climate scientist again.

They place their thermometers in warm localities, and call the results “global” warming. Anyone can understand that this is cheating. They say that 2010 is the warmest recent year, but it was only the warmest at various airports, selected air conditioners, and certain car parks.

Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off.

So it’s a question of trust.

If it really is warming up as the government climate scientists say, why do they present only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results? And why do they put their thermometers near artificial heating sources? This is so obviously a scam now.

So what is really going on with the climate?

The earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after WWII, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 – 30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.

We are now at an extraordinary juncture.

Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory which is based on a guess about moist air and is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only way to curb emissions is to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!

A carbon tax?

Even if Australia stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the stone age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate tenfold – in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!

Sorry, but you’ve been had.

Finally, to those of you who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: sorry, but you’ve been had. Yes carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it’s so minor it’s not worth doing much about.

————————————————————————————

Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavour with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analysing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a sceptic.

Many thanks to Derek in Australia for submitting this article.

Monday 13 June 2011

Cameron pledges ANOTHER £814m towards vaccinating the world's poorest children (on top of £2bn we are already going to donate)

Britain will donate an additional £814 million to vaccinate more than 80million children against diseases such as pneumonia and diarrhoea, David Cameron announced today.

The Prime Minister said the money would help save 1.4million lives in the developing world over the next five years.

'Britain will play its full part,’ he said, adding that the money would save ‘one child’s life every two minutes.’

The UK has already pledged £2billion over the next 30 years towards the fund set up by the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (Gavi).

This is more than any other nation – including the U.S.

At a conference organised by Gavi in London today, world leaders, charities and philanthropists including Microsoft's Bill Gates were urged to give an extra £2.3billion by 2015.

Mr Gates promised to make a donation of £1billion over the next five years.

Mr Cameron acknowledged that the increased cash for vaccinations - part of the UK's goal of devoting 0.7 per cent of national income to aid by 2013 - would be 'controversial' at a time of cuts in spending on public services at home.

He told the conference: 'At a time when we are making spending cuts at home what we are doing today and the way we are protecting our aid budget is controversial.

'Some people say we simply can't afford spending money on overseas aid right now, that we should get our own house in order before worrying about other people's problems.

'Others see the point of helping other countries to develop, but they don't think aid works anyway, because corrupt dictators prevent it from reaching the people who really need it.'

But the Prime Minister rejected these arguments.

'I think there is a strong moral case for keeping our promises to the world's poorest and helping them, even when we face challenges at home,' he said.

'When you make a promise to the poorest children in the world, you should keep it.'

HOW ABOUT SPENDING OUR TAX-PAYERS CASH ON OUR OWN PEOPLE FOR A CHANGE!

All material published on these pages represents the personal views of the DERBY PATRIOT and should not be taken to represent any political party.