AID's and Enrichment

Cultural barriers and lack of outreach services have sent rates of
HIV/Aids among black African immigrants soaring

Tuesday 22 December 2009 15.00 GMT

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/22/hiv-aids-black-african-immigrants-uk


My research in the west Midlands with postgraduate student Betselot
Mulugeta, talking to groups of immigrant men and women from the
Ethiopian and Eritrean communities, has revealed serious
misconceptions about the nature of the HIV/Aids epidemic in the UK.
Lack of information tailored for different migrant groups, alongside
lower awareness of HIV/Aids through media coverage as a whole, is a
problem with real consequences.

Newly reported cases of HIV in the UK are higher than ever before.
Between 1995 and 2006, the rate of HIV infection among black Africans
in the west Midlands increased 100-fold, compared to a two-fold
increase among white people, a three-fold increase among black
Caribbeans and a six-fold increase among other mixed ethnic groups
(according to the region's strategic health authority figures).

Taking the Ethiopian and Eritrean population as one example: they are
predominantly young and single, tend to live alone and are often
sexually active. Their culture and language restrict the information
available to them. This group therefore represents a reservoir of HIV
infection which is both a concern for the immigrant community itself
and the host population. As social networks among the Ethiopian and
Eritrean communities in the west Midlands do not condone or tolerate
the discussion of sexual issues, external information networks are
crucial in raising awareness of the HIV situation in the west Midlands
and reducing stigma and discrimination of those who are HIV-positive.

The respondents in our study said they believed the UK was "civilised"
and therefore they could not contract HIV/Aids, that the problem had
been left behind in Africa. Some commented that they believed all
migrants were screened before being allowed entry, and that drugs were
available in the UK that would "cure" Aids. Perhaps most tellingly,
interviewees said that Aids wasn't talked about in the UK and no
information or warnings were provided, so they had assumed there
wasn't a problem. Culturally, condoms are a difficult issue. It is
considered unacceptable for either partner in a sexual relationship to
ask for a condom to be used, because it's thought to suggest the woman
is promiscuous or a prostitute, or that there is a lack of trust
between them.

One of the main reasons for this lack of appreciation of the HIV risk
environment in the west Midlands appears to be a lack of communication
and understanding between HIV-related service providers and immigrant
communities. In particular there are very few culturally sensitive
outreach sexual health promotion programmes aimed at different
immigrant groups from high HIV-prevalence source regions in the west
Midlands, with hidden groups such as failed asylum seekers and
irregular migrants often ignored.

The ruling by the UK court of appeal earlier this year that refused
asylum seekers and other "not ordinary UK residents" are not entitled
to free NHS treatment and care is creating a reservoir of HIV
infection in the UK. It is these marginalised and often hidden groups,
who are highly vulnerable to HIV infection due to their socio-economic
situation, that are being denied free medical treatment. Denying
unrestricted NHS HIV treatment to this group is a serious public
health issue which may well fuel the epidemic in the UK.

There is a desperate need to understand the social context of the
disease both in terms of the migrants' region of origin as well as in
their new UK communities. The British government is yet to address the
steep rise in rates of the disease among heterosexuals and a new Aids
awareness campaign targeted at those most at risk of spreading it is
imperative. It's a campaign they are reluctant to undertake because of
the sensitivities around immigration, race and perceptions of
neo-colonialism.

Sub-Saharan Africa is home to 67% of global cases of HIV/Aids, but it
is dangerous to think of the disease as just an African problem now
that we can travel easily between continents. Surely it is time we had
another UK national campaign to bring this deadly disease to
everybody's attention and to correct the misconceptions both the host
and migrant communities have of the HIV/Aids epidemic in the UK.

The Red Pill

http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/12/2010-food-crisis-for-dummies.html





Famine.

America.

Collapse.

Civil War.

Russia - The US attacks

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/6858882/Chechen-president-says-the-West-wants-to-destroy-Russia.html

Chechen president says the West wants to destroy Russia


Russia needs a military strategy to resist the United States and other Western powers, which are stoking disorder in the north Caucasus to destroy Russia, according to the president of Chechnya.


By Michael Stott, in Gudermes for Reuters. And Olga Petrova
Published: 3:24PM GMT 21 Dec 2009

Comments 5 | Comment on this article
Ramzan Kadyrov, the president of Chechnya, at his private offices near the town of Gudermes outside the Chechen capital, Grozny
Ramzan Kadyrov, the president of Chechnya, at his private offices near the town of Gudermes outside the Chechen capital, Grozny Photo: Reuters

Ramzan Kadyrov, a 33-year-old former rebel turned Kremlin loyalist, said that last year's attack by Georgia, which is a US ally, on the pro-Russian rebel region of South Ossetia was part of a Western plot to seize the whole Caucasus region.

"If they get control of the Caucasus, you could say they'll get control of virtually all of Russia, because the Caucasus is our backbone," Kadyrov said.

Related Articles

*
Assassination attempt on Yunus-Bek Yevkurov in Ingushetia
*
Russian rights activist Natalya Estemirova murdered
*
Kremlin 'authorises' Chechen president to 'torture' Ingushetia rebels
*
Kremlin-backed President of Ingushetia wounded by bomb
*
Russia stokes pro-Kremlin feeling in Ukraine

The conversation was conducted at his exotic private offices near the town of Gudermes outside the Chechen capital, Grozny. The complex features a zoo, a racecourse for his horses, two large golden lions guarding the entrance and an artificial mountain lit up in different colours at night.

"The Russian government needs to work out a strategy, it needs to attack," the Chechen president said.

"...Georgia, South Ossetia, Ukraine, all this will go on and on. It's Russia's private affliction. Why should we always suffer if we can eradicate this for good? We are a great power, we have everything - an army, technology. We need to attack."

Kadyrov's father Ahmad was a rebel mufti who switched sides in 1999 with his son at the outbreak of Moscow's second war in Chechnya. Ahmad became president in 2003 but was killed in a bomb attack the following year.

Ramzan succeeded him in 2007, crushing a rebel insurgency, rebuilding the shattered republic and imposing Islamic rule.

Kadyrov took pains in the interview to counter accusations by human rights groups that he had been involved in the murders of activists, journalists and opponents in Russia and overseas.

Dressed in a dark blue Ralph Lauren velvet-finish shirt, his hair and beard carefully groomed, Kadyrov smiled frequently but became animated when asked why many of his opponents at home and abroad had met violent deaths.

Human rights groups have linked him to the murders of campaigning journalist Anna Politkovskaya, activist Natalya Estemirova, opposition Chechen exiles in Austria and Turkey and rival Chechen clan chiefs shot dead in Moscow and Dubai.

Kadyrov, who was guarded by armed, black-clad militiamen wearing balaclavas embossed with his initials, said he had personally helped many of the murder victims and their families and was not their enemy.

"I don't want to kill," he said. "Who did I fight? I fought terrorists. Who did I protect? I protected the whole of Russia so that people in Moscow or St Petersburg ... could live in peace. ... They accuse me of killing women and children. It's not true."

Kadyrov dismissed a claim on an Islamist website that Doku Umarov, a fugitive Chechen rebel leader, was behind a bomb attack on November 27 which derailed a Moscow-St Petersburg train, killing 26 people. Umarov, he said, lived in a cave in the mountains and had no idea what was going on.

"Today there are very few (rebels) left," he said. "This year we destroyed a great many terrorists in (the neighbouring Russian republics of) Ingushetia, Dagestan and Chechnya."

Asked how many remained, Kadyrov replied: "If I knew how many and where, I would have destroyed them a long time ago."

Kadyrov said the remaining rebels were kept going by Western money and guns.

"The West is financing them," he said. "I officially declare this: those who destroyed the Soviet Union, those who want to destroy the Russian Federation, they stand behind them."

US President Barack Obama has offered to "reset" relations with Russia after a tense period during the presidency of George W. Bush, and Kadyrov said it would be good for Washington if the United States followed more friendly policies towards Russia.

"And if not," he added, "we have a very strong politician of global stature, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. There is no one like him on the world stage."

Kadyrov made several references to Putin, Russia's prime minister and its most powerful politician, during the one-hour interview conducted last week but did not mention the Russian president, Dmitrii Medvedev.

At pains to appear modest and show his loyalty to the Kremlin, Kadyrov shrugged off suggestions he might extend his responsibilities to cover the entire North Caucasus, as some Russian media reports have suggested, or run for a second term in Chechnya when his presidency ends in 2011.

Kadyrov said being president was a difficult job and he would prefer to dedicate more time to his seven children and the study of Islam. His official residence features a huge private mosque visible from the marble staircase of the main building.

"To get to heaven, you have to work very hard," he said. "I want to go to heaven so I will try to pray more."

Good Luck to The Reform Group

The decision of Chris Jackson and Mike Easter to join the NF is a welcome move.

At the moment the NF is led by Eddie Morrison, a man not motivated by wanting the best for the nationalist movement or the NF but a man motivated mainly by spite against the BNP and hatred for past fall outs with BNP officials.

When Morrison is 'retired' as the de facto leader of the NF and replaced by Chris Jackson ( after the unlawful forcing out of Tom Holmes who resigned yesterday ) which will be in about a week or so's time, we can hope that with Morrison out of the way that Chris Jackson is half the leader he thinks he is.

If he is half the leader he thinks he is, then the first thing he will do is demand that there will be no 'head to head' election battles with the BNP once he runs the NF.

If the NF decided under Jackson that they intend to enter elections, then he needs to demonstrate leadership and demand they do not do so in order to split the nationalist vote.

I am sure that the NF would not wish to split the nationalist vote, for if it was demonstrated that the intent behind recent events within the NF in relation to the Morrison cabal seizing control of the party was simply to ensure the NF can be used as a vehicle to undermine the BNP vote in forthcoming elections, that this misuse of the NF for such a purpose would not be looked upon kindly.

The leaving of Jackson and Easter is not unexpected, they are principled nationalists from an era when British Nationalism did not have to comprimise in order to survive.

In the political environment we exist within today, then those who put principle before pragmatism do not survive upon the battlefield.

Our aim is to survive, to evolve and to fight on, until such a time that victory is possible.

British Nationalism during the present time period cannot win a political struggle.

Therefore the aim of British Nationalists is to survive until such time as the political environment changes.

The BNP as a mainstream British Nationalist party is positioned politically in the mainstream of the European Nationalist movement as well as the British Nationalist movement, and the BNP are a party whose contacts and affiliations are Europe wide as being members of the European Nationalist Block.

By being within the EU this means we as a political party have responsibilities that also transcend the national level.

We are not just a British Nationalist party, we are also part of a fledgling European Brotherhood of sovereign nation states dedicated to the mutual defence of our European national cultures and European peoples.

As part of this EU block we work to form a Pan-European Network of Nationalist political parties whose powers can be pooled together in mutual defence - the living embodiment of the European ideal itself.

A Europe of Nations, not a Nation of Europe.

The alliances we have forged in Europe are the shield for our peoples future defence.

Out of the bloody carnage of the 20th century Brothers Wars which almost destroyed our people and continent, we must now arise anew and form a new nexus and a new idealism around which we can gather and unite.

European brotherhood is such an ideal, and the work the BNP does today in Europe is the basis of alliances for the future.

Therefore politics is merely one aspect of the many different struggles we must fight at the same time.

The BNP has the primary political struggle to fight in Britain, whilst the NF has a different struggle to commence.

Instead of seeking to expand as a political party, the NF needs to adopt a nationalist community building agenda and an active street presence.

If Chris Jackson can harness the energy of the NF and direct it into building a musical network, a community network, an educational network and a prison outreach programme for white prisoners in British jails and also build a powerful street presence for the NF around the country, then all the good for us in the BNP.

The Fare Left and the UAF have had the upper hand on the streets for far too long.

Having the EDL and the NF keep the UAF busy with active street presences will ensure they do not bother with the BNP as much.

The movement of UKIP into 'racist territory' with its attack on Islam will also require money, time, attention and action from the UAF also diminishing the capacity to target the BNP.

The Reform Group are sincere nationalists and if they do what is required then they could make a real difference to nationalism in this country.

The more nationalist groups that operate in the UK, then the less attention the BNP generates.

I just hope they dont use their leaving as an excuse to attack the party or its leader or officials or members.

They should just walk away and keep their criticisms to themselves.

If they are decent nationalists then they will put the interests of the nationalist movement first and just get on with proving to us all just how talented, efficient and leadership material they are by how much they improve the NF.

If they sit on Stormfront all the time bitching, pissing and whining about the BNP with the rest of the keyboard warriors that infest that site, like Tom Lindon and the NF cabal on their at the moment, then they will have proved themselves unsuitable for leadership.

The talented do not need to attack their peers, they demonstrate their credentials with successes.

Those that spend all their time bitching about the BNP, and who have demonstrated no sizeable rise in the level of electoral support of their party nor any organisational improvement of the organisations since they have joined, such as Tom Linden and Eddy Morrison since they joined the NF, should just shut up and get on with the job of promoting their particular organisation.

Those who rise above factions, prove their superior leadership skills.

Best of luck to Mike and Chris in the NF.

The Way of the Samurai

The way of the samurai is a sacred verse,
Where every is line is lived,
As the cutting song of a sword,
Or the sinister sigh of a bow,
A lonely path to the peak,
Where dawn arises, a delicate,
Red bud of cherry blossom,
Abloom upon nights black bough,
Perfect in its fiery moment,
A lifetime lived in every breath,
Where the only peace is war,
Upon the beauty of a battlefield,
Where honour is the highest virtue,
And immortality awaits a noble death.

Oh the Irony - The Law and Jewish Schools

The fact of the individual Jewish and Jewish community involvement in supporting, calling for and establishment of the Race Relations Legislation in the UK is a matter of historical record.

The first Race Relations Act was introduced in 1965 by Sir Frank Soskice, an immigrant Russian Jew.

The Runnymede Trust was founded in 1968 by Anthony Lester and Jim Rose, both Jewish, a few weeks after Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech in Birmingham.

The Jewish Chronicle of 17 January 1975 reported that "Section 6 of the Race Relations Act, 1965, dealing with incitement to racial hatred, may be amended and strengthened following representations made to the [Jewish] Attorney General, Mr. Sam Silkin, QC, by the Board of Deputies of British Jews. In the view of the board's Jewish Defence and Group Relations Committee, the weakness of the Section is its present requirement that ‘intent’ to stir up racial hatred must be proven for any prosecution to succeed." The Editorial expressed satisfaction with the result, but said that it "would better have been achieved by less publicised means." The Race Relations Act duly removed the need to prove ‘intent’ in prosecutions for ‘Incitement to Racial Hatred’ and was passed in the House of Commons with only 132 of its 635 Members being present.

In 1994, during a Commons debate to introduce further race relations legislation into law, Harry Cohen, Jewish MP for Leyton and Wanstead said, "In 1985, I introduced the Racial Harassment Bill under the ten-minute rule. It was the first Bill presented to Parliament to make racial attack a criminal offence."

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s Neville Nagler, a synagogue official, was the head of the Home Office department responsible for race relations matters. Whenever a Cabinet Minister made a speech on the subject, notes for the text were always drafted by Nagler, who routinely consulted officials at the Jewish Board of Deputies such as Geoffrey Bindman and Anthony Lester. The 1986 Public Order Act was placed before parliament by the Conservative Home Secretary, a Jewish immigrant from Lithuania, Leon Brittanisky, also known as Leon Brittan, assisted by his cousin, another another scion of Lithuanian Jews, Malcolm Rivkind, also know as Malcolm Rifkind. Official commentary on the law explicitly refers to the Runnymede Trust.

In 1998 a further raft of race law was introduced, overseen this time by a part-Jewish Home Secretary, Jack Straw. Around 27 offences carry increased penalties if the offence is deemed to be "racially aggravated." The maximum penalty for ‘Incitement to Racial Hatred’ was raised from two to seven years.

Many amongst the Jewish community have worked very hard for the establishment of the race relations legislation that the courts apply.

More information here ;


http://www.searchlight.org.uk/ross/racelaws.html



How pleased these architects of the Race Relations Industry must be with the latest court judgment on race and religion in the UK ;





http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/6840557/Our-human-rights-culture-has-now-become-a-tyranny.html


Strange things happen in the English law, but I have seldom read a stranger opening to a judgment than the following, handed down this week by Lord Philips of Worth Matravers, the President of the Supreme Court.

"The seventh chapter of the Book of Deuteronomy records the following instructions given by Moses to the people of Israel, after delivering the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai," Lord Philips began. Then he plunged into how God, having smitten the enemies of Israel – Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites – in a manner highly satisfactory to the Jews, now demanded that His people observe proper marriage customs in return.


How did a question which involved only God and the Jews, and which was decided roughly 3,500 years ago, come before Lord Philips and his eight fellow jurists sitting in 21st-century London?

The answer is that sacred text of modern times, the Race Relations Act of 1976. The Jewish Free School (JFS), a very successful secondary school in Brent, is run along Orthodox Jewish lines. A dispute arose about the admission of a boy known as M. M's mother became Jewish by conversion, but only after giving birth to M. According to Orthodox rules (see that chapter of Deuteronomy), Jewishness passes through the female line. M, therefore, was not Jewish, and so did not have the right of admission to the JFS.

The Supreme Court, however, decided by a majority of five to four that the decision to exclude M was in contravention of section one of the Race Relations Act. He was excluded on racial grounds, it held.

This is a rather big decision. Lord Rodger, one of the dissenting judges, said that it "leads to such extraordinary results, and produces such manifest discrimination against Jewish schools in comparison with other faith schools, that one cannot help feeling that something has gone wrong".

Actually, it goes wider than that. The court is effectively saying that a religion's way of defining its own membership, practised over 3,500 years, is illegal. This is an acute problem for Jews, who are at great pains to maintain their own rules while respecting the law of the land. It will also be used by anti-Jewish groups, which are growing in strength, to bolster their argument that Judaism is racist and that the state of Israel is the equivalent of apartheid South Africa. So the Race Relations Act, set up to help minorities, ends up punishing them.

I would argue that the judgment goes wider still. It is part of a current idea of equality and of human rights which, in the name of freedom, is beginning to look like tyranny.

When you set out general principles about equal treatment for all, regardless of race, religion, sex, age etc, people will tend to agree with them. It is a liberal principle that all are equal before the law, and a Christian principle that all are equal in the sight of God.

But when you frame endless laws according to these universal principles, you run into difficulties. It may be "discriminatory" for a Jewish/Catholic/Muslim school to prefer to employ Jewish/Catholic/Muslim teachers, but isn't it also reasonable? Isn't it fair and natural that a religious school should be free to prefer to admit children from the relevant faith, in order to maintain the ethos which is so important to its success as a school? By what morality are such things wrong?

The human rights culture which now dominates our law believes in its own morality. It sets itself above the varied experience of civilisation, and above the idea of independent nations. It decides that rights can be codified for everyone and can be applied everywhere. It is not a coincidence that our highest court has just changed its name from the House of Lords to the Supreme Court: it considers itself supreme indeed. This "human-rights" morality is much more coercive than it purports to be.

One controversial example is homosexuality. All the main faiths put heterosexual married love above homosexual acts, yet our human rights culture makes it illegal to do this. Catholic agencies are forbidden to handle children for adoption unless they will bestow them on gay couples as readily as married ones.

Another example relates to terrorism. Common sense would suggest that a nation which decides that a foreigner is trying to foment violence in this country should be free to expel him. But universal human rights, as now interpreted, forbid this if the suspect might be tortured in his home country.

A third relates to charity. Until 2006, it had been accepted from time immemorial that the advancement of religion or education was a charitable purpose. Under the Charities Act of 2006, however, this assumption was removed. All charities now have to prove that they serve a "public benefit", and the Charity Commission decides what that benefit is, according to criteria which it calls "modern". These are hard to understand, but they appear to involve social engineering. Woe betide the charity which provides fee-paying education.

Even a self-described "hairy Lefty" has noticed that something is amiss. In his interview with this paper a week ago, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, said: "The trouble with a lot of government initiatives about faith is that they assume it is a problem." There is now a strong secularist agenda working its way through our public authorities. There is a even a group of militant secularists, preposterously called "Brights", who want to drive religion out of the public sphere. Already you can see it in rows about a nurse who prays with a patient, or about sex education, or even about what to call Christmas. Government ministers flatter individual religious leaders – indeed, many Jews feel that the Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, who was given a peerage by Gordon Brown, has become too much of a No 10 favourite to defend his community properly. But it is this Government which has exalted secular human rights over all belief systems, and made laws to enforce them. And Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, has led a culture war against faith schools, especially Jewish ones, for their policy on admissions.

I am not pretending that these questions are easy. You need, for example, to resist Islamist attempts to advance the cause of sharia as a way of creating a parallel legal order (oppressive of women) in this country. But if you really do see religion as the problem in society, you are pulling out the threads which have until now held our culture together. You are undermining the largest single motive for providing schooling, nursing, child care and help for the old and poor. You are turning this country into a colder place, where it is "always winter, but never Christmas".

climate change and peak oil

Thanks to anynoymous for the tip on this one.

James Dellingpole is a good writer, a fine stand in for the irreplacable Mark Steyn



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/



This is a guest post by contributor Andrew30 (whose full name I’ll give you when he reminds me via email). He put it up in comments but it’s so interesting it really deserves a blog all to itself).

Why would a Middle Eastern kingdom be funding a British Climate research business?

Oman has just completed a massive investment in LNG, and developed and installed new CO2 removal technology in their process; this lowers the carbon footprint of their gas. So using their gas to drive electricity generation will be less costly once CO2 is taxed.
They have no problem with this whole thing.

Saudi Arabia, who have oil and not so much gas, are in a different position, they have a problem with this whole thing.

Just an observation; a 4 degree rise in temperature in the Sultanate of Oman or Saudi
Arabia would change it from really hot to really hot.

Maybe it is just good business.

http://www.omanlng.com/

Oman LNG L.L.C
Formed: Set up by Royal Decree in February 1994.
Location: Head office: Muscat; Plant: Qalhat near Sur (approx 340 km from Muscat)
Products: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).
Shareholders: Government of Oman 51 %, Royal Dutch/Shell Group 30%, Total Elf Fina 5.54%, KOLNG 5%, Partex 2% Mitsubishi 2.77%, Mitsui 2.77%, ltochu 0.92%.

The Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK was set up in 1971 with funding from Shell and BP as is described in the book: “The history of the University of East Anglia, Norwich; Page 285)” By Michael Sanderson. The CRU was still being funded in 2008 by Shell, BP, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex LTD (the nuclear waste people in the UK)

This is important to know, for two reasons.
Firstly, the key institution providing support for Global Warming theories and the basis for the IPCC findings receives funding from “Big Oil” and the nuclear power industry.

Secondly, the research from the institution which is perceived to be independent publicly funded research, is actually beholden to soft money, CRU is in fact a business.

The funders of the CRU are on the bottom of this page from their website:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080627194858/http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

So, there a business set up in the early 1970’s, so what?

I thought that this might explain a bit about how we got to where we are. I am not a conspiracy theorist but to me it looks like this may have been a very, very long term plan. Of course it could all just be coincidental, but it does seem to fit the observable information.

A few weeks ago I explained the apparent CRU fraud to a friend of mine, a believer in AGW; he said ‘Why would they do it?’ I indicated the Jones had received 22 million, etc, but he countered, ‘For a fraud this large, going on for this long, there would have to be billions of dollars to be made, not millions’. That made sense.

So I looked into it a bit. First this is no short term thing, it covers two or three decades, involves many countries and government on both sides of the isle, the US alone has had 4 different presidents and the UK a similar number of prime ministers, Canada the same. So is it not political in the partisan sense of the word.

If, and this is a big if, you make the assumption that the objectives were:

1. Provide a smooth replacement of the use of oil in power generation and transportation, so as to avoid a panic over Peak Oil.
2. Get people to buy into Nuclear Power so that base load electrical power generation would not consume the available fossil fuel supply.
3. Get the people to really want to pay for it all.

Note: The IEA put a date on peak oil production THIS WEEK, so if the CO2 scare does not pan out they are already starting to put the ‘Peak Oil’ story into play. It is also the 2020 date, why am I not surprised.

http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15065719

Then the following is not unbelievable.

The newer scrubber technology for coal fired plants was moving along well back then, and in fact today their scrubbers can remove pretty much everything except CO2. However there is really not much money in coal, it is abundant, easy to handle, local in most instance to the base load demand for electricity, and a coal fired power plant is not much more complicated, or expensive, then a good steam engine.

Since there was not enough money in coal it would not be financially rewarding to simply try to promote coal as a replacement for oil.

So they looked at the situation and realized that the difference between the different technologies to replace base load power generation was the amount of CO2 per kilowatt/hour.

At that point CO2 became the target. That happened sometime between 1985 and 1988.

Now, the environmental movement is comprised mostly of followers, you can look up ‘dihydrogen monoxide’ (water), on many occasions at environmental conferences comedians and light news organizations have managed to get lots of environmentalists to sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. So apparently they do not do a lot of independent analysis before making a conclusion, they are mostly followers.

So if you need a large number of followers, there is a ready supply, but you need people, a few leaders, to tell the followers what to think. The followers do not need to, or perhaps even want to, know the reason or the facts; they just need something or someone to follow.

Now you gain control of a climate research business, and begin the task of demonizing CO2, you realize that it will take years but that is OK, there are billions of dollars waiting at the end. Slowly over time you manage to get control of the worlds climate data and begin adjusting it, you use what you have been told by the marketing people to present the information needed in as clear and scary manager as is possible. Remember the two biggest motivators are fear and greed, and in this case, because of the number of followers greed will not work. There are simply too many followers to pay them all off.

So there we have it, a campaign of fear, based on non-science emanating from a few leaders that ultimately drive the followers to do something that would just not have been possible after Three Mile Island.

They are marching in the streets of Copenhagen in support of nuclear power. They do not know this of course, but that is what the plan on the table says. Check it out, look at exactly what are the big technologies being pushed at the summit. I will give you a hint, it is not windmills.

They are also marching in Copenhagen against big business, while supporting one of the biggest businesses possible, the World Bank. Is it not strange that the Dutch Text looks to have the World Bank control the trillions being put on the table? So they are marching against exactly what they are supporting, they are simply followers.

Perhaps you can fill in the blanks between the possible objectives I mentioned earlier and where we find ourselves today. Fill in the blanks, connect the dots and follow the money. Look at the funders, how many are involved in delivery, support, financing and maintenance of the movement of liquid energy and the generation of nuclear power.

I do not think this was ever about the environment.

There are lots of other things that may tie into this, like GE buying and now selling a
TV network, they needed then but do not need it now, a bit of a stretch perhaps but GE is a big player in gas and nuclear power generation. Look around, there are others.

That said; I do believe that the world does need to move to nuclear power for base load power generation, and I do believe that the Peak Oil problem is a real threat to stability.

So I agree with the objectives and encourage the outcome, I just do not like them messing with the science and trying, nay succeeding, in conning the masses to agree to it all.

Perhaps there was someone inside the CRU that felt the same way; the means were wrong regardless of the merits of the objectives, so they let slip the package in the hope that someone could figure out what they could not just come out and say publicly.

This thing would not need thousands of scientists to be involved. All that was need was for one or two people in perhaps five or six countries to adjust the raw data. Anyone using the data when making a comparison to CO2 would find the results that had been seeded into the data. The scientists would not be aware that they were being played. They would honestly think that their conclusions were correct. Only none of their predictions would ever be confirmed.

All the papers that used the data, and all the papers that used those papers for support, would therefore be invalid. In the vast majority of the cases I would expect that the authors are without blame, they made no mistake. The mistake was encoded into the base data before they even started.

Only the ones that actually were in control of the raw data and making the ‘adjustments’ needed to know of the exact requirements of the adjustment needed to seed the outcome into the data. When a scientist begins to say things like “the data must be wrong”, or “our monitoring is deficient”, perhaps they might not have been in on the ‘adjustments’ and they are likely frustrated because their model ‘works’ for the past and recent past. Think “We can’t explain the lack of warming”, perhaps the author of that email could not, but perhaps someone else could.

It would only have taken a dozen people in just the right places, and remember it took years to pull this off.

So who might have put these people in just the right place all those years ago, and why?