[science] the debunking of

I'm absolutely delighted that the Devil's Kitchen has moseyed on over to debunk the scientists because he saved me a job. For months I've been at it and to apply his own words to myself:

I have written thousands of words, highlighted huge numbers of studies, and I cannot be arsed to do it again: it seems to go in one ear and out the other anyway.

Here are some examples:

# Ian Appleby wrote on insufferable scientific arrogance.

# I wrote this on scientific ethics. And these:

# On science being used to prove rather than test, in direct contravention of Sherlock Holmes' maxim, from Wisteria Lodge:

I have not all my facts yet but I do not think there are any insuperable difficulties. Still, it is an error to argue in front of your data. You find yourself insensibly twisting them round to fit your theories.

# Further, on suspect scientific motivation, which DK also comments on in his excellent prion article:

Or, if we are being truthful, at all; however, that hasn't stopped a great many scientists making Doomsday proclamations with an ever-increasing desperation in order to secure vast amounts of public money.

Scandalously—and despite the consistent non-fulfillment of the dire death toll predictions, and the lack of success in replicating the infection path—this has not stopped the prion theory becoming the "consensus" amongst politicians and scientists either too ignorant to know or too greedy to care.

# On scientific veracity itself.

# Devil's Kitchen therefore concluded, about scientists:

You are quite correct: the opinions of those people count for nothing.

# Lord Nazh agreed but perhaps for different reasons. Referring to evidence of warming, DK went on to say:

Crap. As we now know, NASA's chief warming guy, James Hansen, was caught fiddling the figures. Actually, 1934 was the warmest year last century, and the four hottest years of last century all occurred in the 30s and not in the 90s, as previously claimed. I have a lot more to say, and a lot of links to insert but, you see, I just cannot be bothered.

Which is an interesting statement because I have a scientific answer to every argument DK could possibly bring up against climate change. The sceptic lobbies could then wade in with their 500 "eminent" scientists to counter my 500 "eminent" scientists.

So to Consensus

Scientists clearly can't agree. You see where this thing is headed, of course. Both sides are scrambling for the high moral ground and as the vast majority say there is consensus, then someone like Scott Burgess has to quote someone who says there's not. Lord Nazh, who says there's no climate change, is of course against the scientific community's consensus:

Consensus - you may just want to strike that word from your blog as it means NOTHING in science to have more people wrong than the other guy? :)

Now that Science is debunked

I'll always remember the girl at school who'd been force-fed pseudo-scientific rubbish by godless PC teachers and stated, as the gospel truth:

It's been scientifically proven that G-d doesn't exist.

Accepting that the scientists don't know what they're saying, are falsifying results, killing off wildlife and wasting billions of dollars, then the scientific consensus in schools and colleges against Intelligent Design becomes equally ludicrous - there is just no definitive proof of evolution occurring, at odds with the biblical version of events, which, by the way, was written much closer to the time. As DK says, in his usual inimitable way:

The most that we can say is that we just don't fucking know.

DK has come to the rescue at just the right time, it seems. As he says, if we can't trust scientists any more and the New Religion of Science therefore falls to the floor, then what is left? Well the other version of events of course, unchanged by fads and fashions, by renaissances, by reformations, by Darwinism, Marxism or any other -ism.

The simple assertion, backed up by countless fragments of evidence over the millennia, that there really is a Maker after all, no matter how much the irrational western Rationalists, in their cold, pitiless, indifferent world, try to snuff the idea out by taking over education, the arts and the organs of state power.

Scientific theory may come, scientific theory may go but the Lord keeps on truckin'.

[a good read] better than a good … er … drink

My goodness, Liz is a lovely blogger and I go there, as to an oasis. Also a sort of oasis is reading, as she reports:

Younger Son has been teased by his friend who says book-readers are gay. YS has responded by digging out some of his favourite books to try to persuade friend to read them. But he isn't optimistic; he shrugs as he says, 'He has no imagination.'

Isn't reading cathartic [using the term in its general sense]? Isn't it wonderful curling up on a Sunday or whenever and really getting into a book, drink at hand, turning the pages?

People, will you forgive me but the last post has depressed me enough to exit the net this evening, pray for the world and then curl up with either a book or a lady.

Have a lovely evening, good people and see you on the morrow.

If we're alive, that is ...

[greenspan] have to admire the cynicism - not

Pass over this post - it depresses me too and I'm sick of depressing topics.

I was trying to write a happy Sunday post when I came across this. This is the cynicism of these people, of whom Greenspan is one of the worst:

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil," he writes.

So the smart thinkers, having been leaked enough morsels three years ago that this was what it was all about, now feel vindicated, the anti-war mob are vindicated and everyone swiftly passes over the real reason - that it's about the intra-continental agenda for the next five years.

Abu Ghraib was just a sniff of the true state of affairs, the kill militsias were another. It was certainly oil in part but this arch cynic is only stating what everyone knows. He doesn't state what most people don't know [because they're looking in the wrong direction] that there is a whole other agenda in the U.S. and Britain being placed in the middle-east, geographically dead centre.

I'm not going to say another word because those who know won't speak up and those who don't see it wouldn't believe it. Sorry but these lowlifes really get under the skin with their arrogant mocking of the common man. I refuse to share their opinion .

[toque] birthday in regina

The hoodie in the blog steerage has had a birthday - seven hours late! He wishes to provoke us into fealous rits of jage and so:

At this juncture I’d like to show you some stunning photos of Regina - just to piss you off that I’m on holiday and you’re back in the YooKay - but sadly stunning shots are hard to come by in Regina given that it’s completely flat and 7°C and drizzly, so instead I’ll share with you this shot of the Saskatchewan Provincial Legislature under brooding skies.

[britain] standing up to russia or to the quislings?

Tu160-57 - not a bad piece of weaponry

May I make the position of this blog clear from the outset?

Though the blame for wars and conflict can be laid at the feet of the financial cabals who run them [and everyone from Teddy Roosevelt to Dwight Eisenhower recognized that], that's no reason to emasculate a nation's defences and only an idiot or a person with ulterior motives would suggest it.

Yet that is precisely what Gordon Brown and Tony Blair have done, kowtowing to the European Bloc. Man in a Shed gives an example of the nobbling of Britain:

I have said before that the Saxa Vord radar station should be brought out of mothballs (closed by the Labour government - thanks Gordon Brown).

Tony Sharp made the same point about a week ago - at the time I felt that other concerns were more important, like the Falklands, but now I'm not so sure. There is a definite ratcheting up of pressure from Putin.

MinaS's assessment of this was then necessarily astray, not being privy to the Russian mind. Essentially, the people in power over here are pragmatists who expand to fill a vacuum or else they mark time, recognizing current realities. This is part of the thinking behind the relatively old new Prime Minister.

Russia is part of the world economy and actually has been externally since Lenin and Trotsky's deals with the cabals which the former admitted and which forever damns them. Now the world economy has come into the fabric of Russian society and is expressing itself through massive building projects and credit for the masses.

The measured paying out in full of the Club of Paris and other loans by Russia not long ago was far more significant in the long term than Yeltsin's 1998 "we're not paying so that's that". And yet Yeltsin was far more the old Russia and Putin the new. Therefore an economist is the PM. Therefore Russia is committed to massive dealings with the EBRD and similar groups, in which I have a miniscule part.

Britain should rightly look askance at the Tu160 moves but should understand them for what they are. There's an election coming up and already one can feel the jockeying for position, not so much through party politics - Yedinaya Rossia is the only viable party - but through the candidates who get the nod. That's what this thing is all about. Who is the most patriotic and capable of restoring Russia's prestige?

Russia, in fact, has done what Tony and MinaS are calling for for Britain - Putin has responded to this massive loss of prestige following the disbanding of the Soviet state and the Red Army and he's giving the people something to cheer for in the middle of worrying and changing times over here. Fly a few long range planes towards Britain and everyone knows it's sabre-rattling - is Russia really going to pass up its contracts?

More than this, there are so many western conglomerates in here now and they, for a start, have only agreed to invest on the basis of sound economic management. This fear of Russia, militarily, is a non-starter.

On the other hand, Russian firms are springing up, copying and improving [in their eyes] on the western products and these days, that is not a laughable idea. Russians are capable of this, if not of learning from other mistakes.

All of this is not arguing that Britain should be left defenceless, as Tony says and as Blair and Brown have achieved. And to be fair, from a British point of view, a country which once had an Empire and even some pride during the Maggie era is not going to take kindly to Russian bully tactics.

Man in a Shed says:

If you intend to stand up to a bully you need to signal it early on. Lets be clear Tu160 "Blackjack" bombers patrolling in dash distance of Uk cities etc is not the act of a friendly country. A TU160 is nobody's Teddy Bear. A very serious piece of kit to deliver nuclear devastation with super sonic dash capability.

He adds, at Tony's place:

Surreptitious evil - I suspect Trident can't be used with US approval. There may even be technical reasons for this [this is certainly rumoured]. We really need a mid range capability, which doesn't require the use of strategic nuclear weapons, which are just politically unusable - and hence no deterrent to anything less than all out nuclear war.

When you ask why Russia can get away with this today but would never have tried it on in Maggie's day, the answer's clear - Blair/Brown have nobbled education, health, social services and the judiciary … and of course defence.

Just read Tom's post about the obscenity of Brown.

If you need some proofs of the progressive nobbling of defence, try James Cleverley's site.

If you need proof of how these despicable Bilderbergers have broken faith with their people, read this, from the Morningstar:

The Military Covenant is a mutual bond between the Nation and its Armed Forces. The Legion believes that the Nation has failed to live up to its commitments under the Covenant, with the consequence that some people have been left to struggle alone once they leave the Services.

You can't blame Russia for flexing its muscles before a vital election. You can blame the government of the Scottish Isles who have removed the capacity of a once great nation to respond and who refuse to look after the people they're supposed to represent.

B-1B in a tight banking manouevre [H/T Morningstar]

[housekeeping] home of the blogrolls

For the good people who have expressed surprise and might I add a little annoyance that the blogrolls have "disappeared", I assure you they haven't - they're just in the next room, awaiting your perusal and usage.

Click on the word "Blogrolls" in the golden navbar below the header andit will take you to the blogrolls.

If they fail to load quickly, well, that was the reason I had to split the site in two - blogrollingdotcom is having issues at this time and on their behalf I apologize. By the way, a major revamp of who's in which roll will take place this afternoon.

The format will stay the same. Have a good Sunday and there's a post coming later.