The Minority Report: Why I am a Climate Sceptic

I used to be a believer.

Up until about two years ago, I had taken the pronouncements of the IPCC and related bodies for granted. I trusted them. This was actually something very out of character for me; I've spent many years analysing the corrupting influences of political and media power, observing how vested interests frequently support one another. I should have known better.

The problem is, and this is a problem absolutely endemic to Western civilisation is this: I just don't have the time to analyse every pronouncement, every potential political or self-aggrandising agenda, every statement of scientific "fact". No one does. I had other things to focus on and, unfortunately, I let myself be led astray by the commonly promulgated idea that climate sceptics were just shills for vested interests. The problem is of course that we are fed an almost constant torrent of bullshit by the mass media. Every goddamn statement has to be analysed carefully if you care about the truth of it. I can quite understand sometimes why some people look at politics and decide to stick their head in the sand, or go insane and shoot loads of people. We're lied to almost non-stop and worse, we generally fund these people to do it. And even critical people can be easily brainwashed if the message is ubiquitous and repeated often enough.

About two years ago I decided to look at what the sceptics were actually saying, and it would be an understatement to say I was shocked. You don't have to be a climatologist to recognise foul play, nor to understand massive fallacies in presented arguments (especially when said arguments are presented by claiming that anyone opposing them is a loon). One area I do know plenty about is politics - and the corrupting work of a confluence of interests is very easy to spot. Where there is any such confluence, one is obliged to adopt immediate scepticism regarding any claims to truth.

I wanted to put together my particular thoughts on this as we are now reaching crunch time. The "Cap and Trade" bill in the U.S. has passed the House and is likely to get through the Senate also (once enough concessions have been made - not likely ones of principle unfortunately). This legislation will come at a truly horrifying economic cost for the Americans. And Britain will be following suit, adding costs to an energy infrastructure that is already close to breaking. And all of this on the back of an economic depression. One wonders if our leaders could possibly be any more criminally insane.

There are a lot of interrelated criticisms I have of this issue. I'll go through most of them in turn:

- The Minority Report

It's actually (not) funny how the behaviour of the "consensus" bullies plays out in a very similar way to the pre-crime in the film namesake. Some of these dirty tricks are outlined by various sceptical scientists in the report itself.

The Senate Committe Minority Report on Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims is by far the best resource I have seen yet on this topic, especially as it is updated periodically (and the number of scientists added to it increases continually). It is potentially your one-stop shop for debating with the climate consensus crew (hereafter to be referred to as "C3").

You can find the summary of the report here.

And the full report itself is here. It looks like quite a weighty document, however in practice you only really need to read to page 97 (out of 255), as the PDF file also contains the previous versions. Also, the URL takes a little while to resolve to the PDF file, so be patient with your browser.

The Minority Report is a source I'll regularly quote below. Do go and read the whole thing though - there's an incredible amount of useful information (and some experiences of the sceptics at the hands of their consensus crew pals will make your blood boil), there are a tremendous amount of links to sources too, which are also regularly updated on the website.

I defy anyone to read the report and come away with the belief that AGW is even likely, never mind a "consensus" view. The C3 probably won't take it seriously though, because they already know the truth.

- "The new Oil".

This alone should give one pause for thought. Traders in the City have begun referring to "Green" investments as "the new oil". Why might that be? Could it be because there is effectively free mana from heaven pouring from the coffers of the taxpayer? Could it be that, in the same way you could attract money to any project by citing the Cold War in the 80s, then T.W.A.T. in the noughties, now (not even out of the noughties), just give something a Greenwash and watch money fly towards you like shit towards a fucking fan. The metaphor is apt because that is exactly what is going to happen to most of this "investment". And you and me get to pick up the tab.

In fact, to call this "Green shit" would be an even more appropriate metaphor. We have diarrhea flying towards the fan, to be spread uselessly in all directions, all the while sucking vital nutrients from the body forced to produce it.

Climate sceptic, chemical engineer Bob Ashworth:

"The lesson to the world here is, when it comes to science, never blindly accept an explanation from a politician or scientists who have turned political for their own private gain. Taxing carbon will have absolutely no beneficial effect on our climate, will hurt the economies of the world, and will be harmful to the production of food because less carbon dioxide means reduced plant growth."

- The "shilling" vested interests are actually behind the consensus now.

Funny, I was recently accused of being a possible shill for big oil. Hahahaha. Oh dear. Let me quote one of the Minority Report researchers:

Chemist, Dr. Kenneth Rundt: "I am only a humble scientist with a PhD degree in physical chemistry and an interest in the history of the globe we inhabit. I have no connection with any oil or energy-related business. I have nothing to gain from being a skeptic."

Quite. And not having anything to do with the Earth sciences myself, being a humble technology researcher (by day, at night I take repeated punches to the head...), I have nothing to gain either. I just like to stick to the old fashioned dictum of my opinions changing with the facts!

The large energy companies aren't going to suffer particularly badly. It's win-win. Where they aren't subsidised by the public purse to make structural changes, they're being given free reign to pass on costs to the consumer. The C3 see this as good because horrifying energy prices are sure to force people to conserve massively. Never mind all of the people pushed into fuel poverty. Add to this the behaviour we saw in the last year, where Hedge funds were moving into Oil, and pushing the price up astronomically - which is likely to be repeated again now with the weakness of the dollar, and short to medium term at least, many conventional energy providers will be sitting pretty if they get their greenwash campaign right.

- The International Geological Congress (the "olympics" of Climatology and Geology):

Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC'

- Authoritative sources turn out to be authoritarian rather than scholarly.


Dr. James ("Hockey Stick Graph") Hansen, Gore's cheerleader in chief has shown himself to be a colossal and disingenuous fraud. Hansen - according to his ex boss Dr. John S. Theon, was an embarrassment to NASA and seems to be suffering a "bad case of megalomania".

Meanwhile, in Blighty, it appears the MET office also can't be trusted: "During a rather bad-tempered interview on Thursday evening... Read more’s Newsnight, Kirsty Wark asked Hilary Benn, the UK Environment Secretary, why local authorities were being told to use the Met Office predictions as a template for infrastructure planning when their report had not been peer reviewed and the authors had postponed publication of information about the methodology that they had used. She also told him that there was considerable concern among other climate scientists about the Met Office’s research."

That's also not to mention the fact that, suddenly, the MET office can carry out astonishing calculations that it claimed last year would require supercomputers one thousand times more powerful than we have at present. Now this is my scientific area, and despite some pretty astonishing breakthroughs in computing technology (many of which are yet to be commercially available), I can state with authority that in the space of one year, we don't have supercomputers that are 1000 times more powerful than their predecessors last year.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency censors internal dissent.

And that's not to mention Gore's behaviour. (See the section, 'The big lie and the big goddamn confluence' below).

- Several recent sceptics were on the IPCC panels

Take note C3 people:
- Environmental physical chemist, Dr. Kiminori Itoh
- Meteorologist Hajo Smit
- Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer, Dr. Philip Lloyd
- Professor of the Department of Atmosphere Sciences, University of Buenos Aires, Prof. Rosa Compagnucci
- Former head of Arizona State University's Office of Climatology, Dr. Robert Balling.
- Atmospheric chemist, Dr. Steven M. Japar.

And there are many others who took part in IPCC activities who reported serious foul play.

And, as mentioned in the minority report, the officially recorded number of climate sceptics is now 700 - more than 13 times the number of UN scientists who authored the IPCC 2007 report. Contrary to popular myth, the IPCC report wasn't cobbled together through thousands, or even hundreds of scientists. It was in fact only 52.

-Co-opting of the green movement.

This is a very serious issue that often gets overlooked. Rabid AGW supporters don't realise how much damage they are doing to the rest of the Ecological movement. Do I think there are serious environmental issues for us to address? Sure. Unfortunately because so many in the Green movement are into AGW, and its horribly statist and invasive so called "solutions", there is a seed of truth in the accusation of "Envirofascist". And a lot of people, after being harried and bossed around by the C3 won't have much patience for subtleties elsewhere.

The Greens are being used and many can't seem to see it. It's a bonanza for the corrupt elites who already screw most of us most of the time. Between the bogus "war on terror" and the bogus AGW agenda and the bogus (grand theft) financial "crisis", is there anywhere left for the 'little people' to turn where their lives are not dominated by fear, guilt and increasingly intrusive government diktat and hand in our pockets?

Senator Inhofe reveals how Scientists & Activists believe Global Warming has 'Co-opted' the environmental movement

- The "complexity defence"

Simply dealing with the core of the AGW argument leads to what I call 'the complexity defence'. This alone is enough to scupper the entire argument.

If we get into the meat of the AGW position, something absolutely fascinating happens. It generally follows this pattern:

Stage 1: Your opponent looks at you like you just said you'd stuffed his pet hamster up your arse and shat it out the window. This stage often takes some time to get through as you have to deal with the disbelief that you could possibly challenge the orthodoxy.

Stage 2: Restatement of the "basic facts", leading to Argument 1:

Argument 1: Green house gases, such as CO2, cause a measurable warming effect. Humans have been adding tons of CO2 to the atmosphere for decades, and there is a measurable increase in global temperatures. There is a correlation between rising CO2 and rising temperatures. Therefore, human activity is causing the rising temperatures.

Now many sceptical scientists have already pointed out issues with the actual mechanisms that might be involved here. However, we can give the C3 the benefit of the doubt on this and still hang them by their own petard.

They assert not only correlation, but a one way causative relationship between humans producing CO2, the actual level of CO2 in the atmosphere and rising temperatures. This, for many years, has been presented as an upwards, linear relationship.

So, what about the occasions when the correlation fails? This is supposed to be the very heart of the argument, so if say, we had a cooling trend for a sizable period, say around the last 10 years, then that indicates that this correlation is bunk.

This is when we reach....

Stage 3: The complexity argument

Argument 2 to the rescue!
Apparently, because the climate is so complex, indeed it is the "mother of all nonlinear dynamical systems", then other factors come into play, determining the global temperature.

Well, I quite agree with this. Yet, somehow, C3 like to add a silent premise - that human produced CO2 is still the dominating factor to this model. What? So when we see an upwards correlation, it is because of AGW, but when we see a negative correlation (because remember humans are still adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, and in increasing amounts, during these cooling periods), it is because of "complex factors" amongst which AGW still happens to - magically - be the major factor.

So when the earth heats up, it is AGW. When the earth cools down it is AGW.
Right.

Similarly, when ice melts in the arctic it is AGW. And when ice forms in the antarctic it is AGW. Got it?

Never mind all those other factors that you might want to consider if you invoke the "complex system" - Solar impact, Earth's precession, Variations in the Magnetic field, Water Vapour, Sulphur outputs etc etc.

Earth Scientist, Dr. Javier Cuadros: "Curiously, it is a feature of man-made global warming that every fact confirms it: rising temperatures or decreasing temperatures, drought or torrential rain, tonadoes and hurricanes or changes in teh habits of migratory birds. No matter what the weather, some model of global warming offers a watertight explanation."


- The big lie and the big goddamn confluence

It is crucially important to understand that the C3 lobby represents the confluence of perhaps the most powerful set of lobbies humans have ever seen. Not only are most national governments behind the "consensus" (notably absent China, India and Russia - but they're just "evil" right?), we also have the media, and a large swathe of compromised scientists who's very livelihood depends on the massive amounts of taxpayer funds being siphoned away to fund their research. People like Al Gore, and "Hockey Stick" Hansen have built careers on this. Plus, there are huge, structural interests now coming into place as Western governments are now preparing fundamental restructures of our economy around this mythology. A lot of organisations, including numerous energy companies, have a lot of public money to lose if the "consensus" is broken.

I'm also more than happy to point out how this is like the Nazi "big lie" written even larger. Now normally I would avoid such comparisons. However, really all I have to say is "fuck you" to the C3. I can think of few things more disturbing than the emergence and promotion of the term, "Climate change denier", with its very obvious and intentional parallel with "holocaust denial". Seriously, fuck you guys - this has already resulted in witch hunts and the destruction of the careers of perfectly good scientists.

Ecological modeler, Dr David Stockwell: "..the IPCC is just another review, and an unstructured and biased one at that. Its main in-scope goal is to find a human influence on climate, and the range of reasons for climate change are out-of-scope."

Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher, Andrei Kapitsa: the UN IPCC is "the biggest ever scientific fraud" - "A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace....As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact."

Award winning physicist, Dr. Will Happer, Physics professor at Princeton University: "I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly....I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy." [My emphasis]

Princeton University physicist, Dr. Robert H. Austin: "I was taught that any discipline with the word 'science' as part of its title is to be avoided, such as Political Science. Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science."

And, directly from the Minority Report:

Skeptical scientists are gaining recognition despite what many say is a bias against them in parts of the scientific community and are facing significant funding disadvantages. Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee, explained that his colleagues described “absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-‘consensus’ views.” In a March 4, 2008, report Briggs described the
behavior as “really outrageous and unethical … on the parts of some editors. I was
shocked.”(LINK) [Note: An August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. LINK A July 2007 Senate report details how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK & LINK ]
[My emphasis]

- The Manhattan Declaration

Never heard of it? That's no surprise! The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change is a vetted list of scientists declaring their scepticism towards the AGW consensus.

This declaration is well worth reading in full - its only a page long, however it makes quite a striking statement, especially as it has been signed by so many. And again, we have a body of scientists much larger than the IPCC disagreeing with the "consensus". I know its not all about numbers, but if you're going to have the cheek to claim "consensus"... well....

I'll finish with a quote from one of the IPCC "traitors" - Dr. Kiminori Itoh: Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history...When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists."

Quite. I hope the Righteous will be happy with their end result - fuel poverty for hundreds of thousands (if not millions) and forever tarnishing science and scientists with the same brush as politicians and investment bankers. Congratulations chaps.

For the Love of a Robot - why there won't be a robot takeover

These kind of accounts are very common, and actually made me get a bit teary when I first encountered them. I found them very touching.

Whilst stories like this are also very common with civilian robots (60% of Roomba owners name them, a third take them on holiday and a substantial number actually clean the floor before the robot to make it's life easier!), its the robot companions in war where the high emotion and fraught nature of the situation really brings it home.

I think they speak for themselves:

'The EOD soldier carried a box into the robot repair facility at Camp Victory, Iraq. "Can you fix it?" he asked, with tears welling in his eyes. Inside the box was a pile of broken parts. It was the remains of "Scooby-Doo," the team's PackBot, which had been blown up by an IED.

' "please fix Scooby Doo because he saved my life," '

'...the continued evolution of human-robot interaction is leading many robot operators to do things like "award" 'battlefield promotions' and 'Purple Hearts' [medals] to their machines...One unit in the 737th Ordnance Company, for instance, called their EOD bot Sgt.Talon; Sgt. Talon, in fact, got promoted to Staff Sergeant and received three Purple Hearts.'

'When one robot was knocked out of action in Iraq, an EOD soldier ran fifty meters, all the while being shot at by enemy machne gun, to "rescue it" '.

'Soldiers who work with damaged robots notice these attachments the most. Jose Ferreira descrived working at the repair yard in Baghdad as less like being a mechanic in a garage and more like being a doctor in an emergency room. "I wish you all could be here and experience the satisfaction in knowing you saved someone's life today. I wish you could see the fear in their eyes when they first walk in knowing that they could walk out with no robot. I wish you could see the smiles and feel the hugs and handshakes after they leave our shop knowing that their 'little Timmy' is ALIVE. Alive and well to go down range one more time." '

'It would walk through a minefield, intentionally stepping on any land mines that it found with one of its feet. Then it would right itself and crawl on, blowing up land mines until it was literally down to the last leg. When the system was put through military tests, it worked just as designed, but the army colonel in charge "blew a fuse"...Describing the tests as "inhuman," the officer ordered them be stopped. "The Colonel could not stand the pathos of watching the burned, scarred, and crippled machine drag itself forward on its last leg." '

From Wallach and Allen's 'Moral Machines' and Peter W. Singer's 'Wired for War'

Immigration and Intelligence - part 2

Following on from my earlier piece, I now turn more attention towards the role of the "intelligence" "services":

Another article, this time published in the Independent, and on the same day as the Times piece (coincidence?) cited in the previous blog post, focuses on the work of MI5 seeking informants in the U.K. - by blackmail.

The long and the short of the article is that MI5 have been accused of seeing "informants" through blackmailing them. Numerous British Nationals have alleged that they were approached by MI5 and told to cooperate otherwise they would be designated as terrorists.

Not only does MI5/6 have form on doing this both inside and outside the UK, it appears in fact to be their regular modus operandi for terrorist related investigations within the U.K. It seems MI5/6 don't mind who they chew up and spit out, especially if defending an innocent person (and a voluntary asset no less), would mean crossing the CIA. Pathetic.

A quote here from a related Independent article highlights my own thinking on the matter:

A spokesman for the Muslim Public Affairs Committee said: "MI5's entrapment methods are completely counter-productive. We are constantly trying to sell the idea of liberal democracy to young Muslims but when the security services act like this, it makes our job very difficult. Either MI5 are out of control or the Government has sanctioned this kind of behaviour. Either way we would like a full inquiry to uncover whether this sort of behaviour is being backed by the Government."

A question I have to ask is: If the Home Office, with at least some public and overt oversight is so mind-numbingly incompetent - in fact, scarily so - then what of the completely secret, unaccountable "Intelligence" "services"?

It is important to note that one of the reasons that we get to hear about these cases is that even MI5/6 grunts get sick of it and break ranks and brief the broadsheets anonymously:

"[The agents] fear they will be hung out to dry. This is not the first time that field agents have been made to carry the can even when there is a paper trail all the way to the top authorising the action and conduct of the agents," said the source.

They seem to be very bothered by people who are already British nationals, and in many cases born and raised here. The stream of fresh immigrants coming in on student visas via fake institutions though seem to get a free pass. While it is the case that the July 7th bombers were British nationals (though not quite so "invisible" to the "Intelligence" "Services" as we were led to believe), there is a prima facie case for being much more concerned about random individuals who enter the UK in their thousands with no traceable background whatsoever.

I feel obliged to ask what it is the "Intelligence" "services" actually achieve in real terms. Several cases they have gone public with have turned into farcical nonsense, such as the Ricin ring that wasn't and the recent raid on some Pakistanis here on student visas. Whilst I welcome the focus on people entering the country on student visas it seems too little, too late. Just querying the Home Office's CID system (for borders and immigration) in a smart way can yield a lot of information:

An anonymous commentator on Part 1 of this blog confirmed my own experiences and reminded me to note the fact that using the 'CID' system, one would often find the same address being used by many of these people. This was a fairly regular occurrence. Not only that but many would also share family names. So it was clear that many of the suspect educational establishments were being used to help bring entire families into the country. That this simple information never seemed to make it to "intelligence", resulting in appropriate raids and investigations still boggles my mind.

Immigration whistleblower, Steve Moxon, whatever you think of some of his other views, was right on many things where the Home Office is concerned. There is no other way to describe the immigration and borders agency as anything but so reckless, if you were able to truly grasp the extent of it your brain would bleed through your ears. One thing that was particularly apparent was how the organisation appeared to be very responsive to the tabloids. This was another piece of vein-bursting idiocy for me and was probably the final nail in the coffin securing my desire to resign.

There seemed to be a - roughly - three month cycle. For three months caseworkers would be whipped to focus on "quality" - this meant actually spending a more appropriate amount of time on each case. Although in practice this probably amounted to no more than an extra half hour per case, it did at least give the caseworker more time to check the validity of documents and institutions (assuming they had the desire to - there was no real requirement to do this!!). Suddenly a tabloid would report that there was a backlog of 1000s of applications waiting to be processed. Lo and behold, caseworkers were then told to throw "quality" out the window and get as many through as possible, with the most minimal of checks. Applications that I wouldn't spit on would be waved through. In these cycles, caseworkers were expected to process - to completion - an average of 6-8 cases per day. Now just how much time to scrutinise documents and particulars (and in particular, write out for more information) do you think this allowed? Not much - less than an hour per application in fact. And that includes all the time needed to write out and print all the necessary documentation and log the details onto CID.

After a few months of this, another tabloid headline would pop up, screaming (rightly) about lots of inappropriate applications getting through. Back to "quality" again. Rinse and repeat.

Now if you remember I mentioned the list of "approved" educational institutions had gone down from 15,000 to 1,540. Aside from the fact that it is just a tad fucking late to have done this, in what format do you think this - much more comprehensively vetted - list is to be found?

It's in the form of a shared excel spreadsheet.

You read that right. A fucking excel spreadsheet. The possible security of this nation rests on that list. (Oh, and never mind the fact that for years, more than 13,000 dodgy institutions were able to ship people through the system......)

Now I might be revealing too much here. Enough to get me in trouble certainly. In fact officials might want to have a word with me. Well fuck them. I'd welcome it in fact, because I have a few questions of my own.

Let's start with the assessment of other intelligence agencies shall we?

According to one former CIA operative, the UK is "an Islamist swamp". This is so serious that 40 percent of "CIA activity designed to prevent a new terrorist spectacular on American soil is now directed at targets in the UK."

"Britain is not part of the problem, Britain is the problem"

Now, do you think this may have a teeny-weeny bit to do with having - oh - 13,000 odd extremely suspect institutions fast tracking immigration applicants through a system that isn't fit to capture whale sperm?

It gets better. From a more recent piece:

""The British Pakistani community is recognised as probably al-Qaeda's best mechanism for launching an attack against North America.....The Americans run their own assets in the Pakistani community; they get their own intelligence. There's close cooperation with MI5 but they don't tell us the names of all their sources." [My emphasis]

So, at risk of snarling eachother's operations, the Americans won't risk revealing their sources to MI5. So we have a foreign power blatantly conducting massive operations on British soil, our major ally, and they are not willing to share this information with us. Could it be because they too have sussed that the British "Intelligence" "Services" and "Borders" and Immigration Agency are not fit to monitor a fucking ant-hill?

Hmmm....as if that wasn't enough, if Her Majesty's government deign to come knocking at my door, I have another tranche of questions to ask them:

The British end of the A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network.

In January 2008, the Sunday Times ran a front page story on ex-FBI whistleblower, Sibel Edmonds. It was the first time a mainstream British publication had touched Sibel's story in such a prominent manner. Importantly, Edmonds' testimony not only highlighted some important British links in the A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network, the Times also independently confirmed parts of her testimony through their own anonymous intelligence sources. They also did three follow up pieces. Edmonds had originally gone to the Times in frustration at the U.S. MSM's unwillingness to deal with her story. She had promised to reveal everything she knew to any of the U.S. MSM major news outlets, even to the point of seriously risking either prison, or a fatal visit in the night, on the promise that they would air her testimony unedited.

No one stepped up to the plate, so she approached the British media. The Times did a fairly extensive piece of coverage on Sibel's evidence. Whilst this initial article covered material that had already been revealed previously, it was the first time it had such high brow exposure here. I was expecting a flurry of media activity to follow on a Maddie madness scale. I was amazed and couldn't wait to see the rest of the British MSM take up the story and chase down all those juicy leads to British angles.

I was to be bitterly disappointed because other than a couple of minor comment pieces, the British MSM more or less wussed out - again.

This left me determined to fill the gap myself, so I immersed myself into research in the area - specifically the British links, for a year. This resulted in my having an article published on the matter in December 2008, which really only scratched the surface. At some point this year I plan to put everything online so there is a single authoritative source on the British side to the sordid story.

Now here is where it gets interesting. The two most prominent British nationals assisting the Khan network were father and son team, Peter and Paul Griffin. A few years prior to the Times story on Edmonds, the Griffins had won libel cases against both the Guardian and the BBC for suggesting that they were directly linked to the proliferation network.

This was amazing because not only did the 2005 Customs investigation into Peter Griffin confirm, in lurid detail, his direct association with Khan himself and intimate familiarity with the network's activities, but very recently, the U.S. added both Peter and Paul Griffin to the international Terrorist wanted list in association with the Khan network.

And yet, to the best of my knowledge Peter is still sunning himself, unharassed, in France, and Paul is still active in Britain. I find this nothing short of astonishing. I can think of nothing other than the darkest explanations, involving certain people in the British establishment having some serious 'splaining to do.

So, if Her Majesty's government want to chase me about revealing information about our laughing-stock-of-the-world and terrorist's paradise immigration system, well please do. I've got just as many questions for you you bunch of corrupt incompetent fucktards.

This issue incenses me so much I am currently seriously considering tracking down Paul and possibly also Peter Griffin (the former is more within my means) and carrying out a citizens arrest on camera and forcibly taking either or both of them to the nearest police station to face charges of conspiracy and treason, among other things. So - here goes another invite - Peter, or Paul, if you get wind of this you're welcome to take me on for libel. Please. I've got very little to lose. What about you and your establishment pals?


Adult debate on immigration in the UK simply isn't possible. Combining it with discussing the work of the "Intelligence" "Services" is strictly verboten. Not the least because "open borders" morlocks will immediately shut down debate by referring to you as a "right wing reactionary" or other such nonsense. I'm all for open borders at some point in the future. There's a long path between here and there though, including some mighty intractable problems involving economics, politics and demographics that have to be dealt with first. Before even discussing reform of the immigration system people should be clearly aware that it is not only unfit for purpose, it facilitates the entry of criminals and terrorists into the country, whilst our wonderful "intelligence" "services" appear to focus on British nationals, possibly manufacturing a few new radicals along the way.

In the meantime, our "intelligence", "customs and excise" and "immigration" "services" are completely farcical and somehow seem to end up serving the interests of the terrorists rather than those of the population they are supposed to be protecting. Even the dubious American intelligence agencies don't want to be seen hanging around with them any more.

What gives?

Mainstream media justifies its double standards

Anna, who "outed" the writer of the blog "Girl with a one track mind" has just written a justification of her actions, in light of the furore over Nightjack:

"As I found, you take on the bloggers at your own risk"

This girl - and she is a girl - makes some frighteningly authoritarian statements in this piece. I can't comment much more at present on account of being filled with white hot anger over her arrogance and all that is likely to result is swearing and threats of violence.

If you're a blogger yourself, make sure you read this article, this harridan is part of the upcoming new wave of talent, like Patrick Foster, in the media that is currently being nurtured for even "bigger" things. Its a warning of what's coming. This lot are nothing but a convention of shit sucking genetic defectives.

If you have some time on your hands, you could also do a lot worse than reading ex-FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds' excellent series, dissecting the U.S. MSM here