A genuine existential threat – and it’s not climate change



This post was prompted by the story on the front of today’s Weekend Australian.

I think it’s time to stop worrying about climate change and focus on something that is genuinely an existential threat to Western democracies.

While climate change is not making its presence felt in any significant way, the soldiers of Allah are marching across the face of the planet, in Africa, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and plenty more, murdering and butchering everything and everyone that stands in their way.

The threat posed by Islam is a subject that I have followed for about 8 years, from back in the day when it was a geeky, minority interest, and everyone thought I was just some racist lunatic. That was despite 9/11 several years earlier, which singularly failed to galvanise public opinion on the matter.

I have heard all the excuses over the years, and every one is complete bullshit:

  1. “Islam is a religion of peace”
  2. “It’s just a tiny minority of extremists”
  3. “The Koran says…”
  4. “You’re just a racist Islamophobe…”

As for (1), Islam is only a religion of peace when the whole world is Islamic, ruled by Sharia law and everyone submits to the will of Allah. Until that time, Islam’s sole aim is to achieve that state of affairs by violent means – jihad. Not by accident is the world divided into the “House of Islam” and the “House of War” – there is no third alternative.

This is what we see happening before our eyes in Iraq. Islam mandates that non-Muslims have the following options:

  1. convert to Islam;
  2. live a humiliating and degrading life as a third-class citizen (dhimmi), whilst paying a tax (jizya) prescribed in the Koran, to ensure they ‘feel subdued’ under Islam; or
  3. death.

ISIL in Iraq didn’t bother giving terrified Christians options 1 or 2. They went straight in with 3.

Similarly, the Middle East problems are all down to the aggression of Islam. The situation between Israel, Gaza and the West Bank is not about borders, or territory, or occupation or anything else. It is purely about the Islamic mandate to exterminate the Jews. Simple as that. Islamic nations surrounding Israel bring up their children to develop a visceral hatred of the Jews, whom the Koran describes as ‘descendants of apes and pigs’.

This isn’t me being a filthy Islamophobic bigot, go to Memri TV and watch actual videos of sickening indoctrination of children for yourself.

And this is why there will never be any negotiated settlement in the Middle East, and anyone who draws any equivalence between the situation in Gaza and Israel defending its people against a genocidal neighbour, has a moral compass that is seriously off-beam.

As for (2) a tiny minority of extremists, that is true – in a sense. The vast majority of Muslims living in the West are law-abiding citizens, but there is a stark difference between Islam and Muslims. Individual Muslims can choose how they live their lives, but there is no spectrum in Islam – it’s binary, on or off.

Again, this isn’t Islamophobia, that comes from Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, a devout Muslim who should know what he’s talking about when he said,

The term “moderate Islam” is ugly and offensive – Islam is Islam.

That said, however, there is still a large number of Western Muslims who remain conspicuously silent at the atrocities carried out in the name of their religion. At the indiscriminate rocket attacks on Jews, there is silence. At the genocide of Christians in Iraq, there is more silence. At the kidnap of schoolgirls for daring to try to get an education (education for girls is banned under Sharia law in case you weren’t aware), yet more silence.

But as soon as the Australian government takes steps to strengthen anti-terrorist measures to prevent such people threatening our cities, suddenly they find their voice – and it’s the victim mentality that is wheeled out: ‘we’re being picked on’.

You would have thought ‘moderate’ Muslims would wish to distance themselves vocally and forcefully from ISIS and Boko Haram and all those other extremist groups, and defend actions taken by Western governments to deter such groups from carrying out attacks at home. But no, it’s all weasel words and shouts of Islamophobia.

Sorry, folks, but this does not inspire much confidence in ordinary people about just how committed ‘moderate’ Muslims are to stopping terrorist attacks. Would they dob in a neighbour they knew was involved in a terrorist plot? Would they report hate preaching at their local mosque to the Australian police? Do their loyalties lie with their country of citizenship, or with the global Muslim umma?

As for (3), Western apologists for Islam will claim that violent exhortations to kill infidels are ‘taken out of context’. If that is true, then why are there so many Muslim ‘scholars’ who seem to get Islam wrong over and over again? Why is it that those who are the most intimately acquainted with the teachings of the Koran and the Hadith are the ones that always seem to misunderstand the ‘true’ peaceful nature of Islam?

Why is it only New York Times columnists and liberal academics who seem to understand this obvious truth, so apparently invisible to the scholars?

The simple answer, of course, is that the scholars are the ones who have got Islam right, and the rest of us are just deluding ourselves, because it’s easier than facing up to the truth – that Islam is a violent, genocidal, supremacist political ideology that is incompatible with Western democracy and values, and which threatens the very fabric of our societies.

As for (4), I am sure many who read the above will shout that I am a bigoted, racist Islamophobe. Those are all ad hominem attacks, to which I am completely inured, having written a climate blog for six years. But that is, unfortunately, the expected response. If you can cut the abuse and respond to the assertions above, then please do.

The vast majority of terrorist attacks carried out worldwide are carried out by Muslims. That is a simple fact. Why? Because their religion mandates the killing of infidels. That too is a simple fact. Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus and Jews all manage to live in peace alongside one another. Only Islam mandates the conversion or death of unbelievers, and unlike other religions, it has not been through any moderating reforms – Islam is a time machine back to the 7th century.

And before we get the usual guff about the Crusades, and how Christianity was violent in the past, let me just say that the Crusades were a defensive operation to regain Christian lands that had been invaded by Muslims. And yes, there are some violent passages in the Bible, but how many terrorists do you see holding up Bibles and Kalashnikovs and using Deuteronomy to justify acts of terror in the 21st century?

But don’t take my word for it.

If you are still cynical about what I am saying above, I suggest you follow a site like jihadwatch.org or the Religion of Peace for a week, read every article, and then see if you think the same. If you do, well, good luck.

If any good can come out of the horrific and shocking events in Iraq, it will be the West’s awakening, finally, to the threat of Islam to world peace, and that Western democracies, which have for so long played a shameful and cowardly game of appeasement, will at last begin to develop a concerted response.

So in conclusion, my question is this. Climate is such a trivial matter compared to the real dangers we face, that I feel that it is almost not worth wasting my energy on. There are bigger battles to fight. Your thoughts?

You’ve got (hate) mail!

Warm mail

Warm mail

The dazzling reasoning and logic behind the following email was enough to make me reflect and repent upon my sins. From the wittily entitled “Mike Hunt” (not real name, I imagine):

MATE! you are a fucking squeezer.

You need to re consider everything you have done with your entire life and go get your tubes tied to prevent any chance of your making more outspoken fuck wit children like yourself.

When the worlds dead – you and only you will be entirely to blame. [Really? Only me? - Ed]

Your [sic] gay.

Sorry, “MATE”, but a response like that just announces to the world that you’ve lost the argument. And probably the plot.

Actually, given the abuse, the swearing and the lack of grammar, perhaps it’s Mike Carlton…

US: “Billionaires’ club” controls environmental movement and EPA

All the money goes to the alarmists

All the money goes to the alarmists

But, but, but… it’s the sceptics that are bankrolled by the rich, right? That’s the only way they could possibly outwit the billions spent by governments on propping up the consensus.

Well, er, no.

It appears that the environmental movement is the one benefiting from the wealthy’s largesse, with a report by the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee shedding light on the shady goings-on:

This report examines in detail the mechanisms and methods of a far-left environmental machine that has been erected around a small group of powerful and active millionaires and billionaires who exert tremendous sway over a colossal effort. Although startling in its findings, the report covers only a small fraction of the amount of money that is being secreted and moved around. It would be virtually impossible to examine this system completely given the enormity of this carefully coordinated effort and the lack of transparency surrounding it.

The failure to openly acknowledge this force and the silence of the media with whom they coordinate further emphasize the fact that until today, the Billionaire’s Club operated in relative obscurity hidden under the guise of “philanthropy.” The scheme to keep their efforts hidden and far removed from the political stage is deliberate, meticulous, and intended to mislead the public. While it is uncertain why they operate in the shadows and what they are hiding, what is clear is that these individuals and foundations go to tremendous lengths to avoid public association with the far-left environmental movement they so generously fund.

Some of the most valued services activists provide the Billionaire’s Club includes promulgation of propaganda, which creates an artificial echo chamber; appearance of a faux grassroots movement; access to nimble and transient groups under fiscal sponsorship arrangements; distance/anonymity between donations made by well-known donors and activities of risky activist groups; and above all – the ability to leverage tens of millions of dollars in questionable foreign funding.

Foundations finance research to justify desired predetermined policy outcome. The research is then reported on by a news outlet, oftentimes one that is also supported by the same foundation, in an effort to increase visibility. In one example, a story reporting on a Park Foundation-supported anti-fracking study was reproduced by a Park-funded news organization through a Park-funded media collaboration where it was then further disseminated on Twitter by the maker of Park-backed anti-fracking movies.

Another service provided to the Billionaire’s Club is the manufacturing of an artificial grassroots movement where it is not the citizen’s interest that drives the movement; rather, it is part of a well-funded national strategy … (link – PDF)

I’m sure we can all look forward to the imminent outrage from ‘the Cause’ about this highly distorting and politicised funding of alarmism and environmental extremism, can’t we? Er…


The Pause: warmaholics tie themselves in knots

Anemometers at ten paces

Anemometers at ten paces

This is the awkward result when reality confronts ideology.

According to Un-Skeptical Pseudo-Science, the Pause is just a myth:

Climate myth… It hasn’t warmed since 1998

“For the years 1998-2005, temperature did not increase. This period coincides with society’s continued pumping of more CO2 into the atmosphere.” (Bob Carter)

No, it hasn’t been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn’t the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What’s more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.

And in case that turns out not to be correct, there’s always a fallback position:

“There’s also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on surface air temperatures when there are other, more useful [yeah, more useful all right... more useful to plug your agenda - Ed], indicators that can give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance — due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called ‘thermal mass’) — tend to give a much more ‘steady’ indication of the warming that is happening.  Records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there is no sign of it slowing any time soon…”

The now-famous ‘dog ate my warming’ excuse. Surface temperatures? We don’t need no stinkin’ surface temperatures… Please just ignore the fact that we obsessed over surface temperatures for the last 25 years, OK?

So how come, Un-Sk Ps-Sc, a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters (a peer-reviewed journal, note) acknowledges the existence of the Pause and tries to explain it?

In his new paper, [Shaun] Lovejoy applies the same approach to the 15-year period after 1998, during which globally averaged temperatures remained high by historical standards, but were somewhat below most predictions generated by the complex computer models used by scientists to estimate the effects of greenhouse-gas emissions.

The deceleration in rising temperatures during this 15-year period is sometimes referred to as a “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming, and has raised questions about why the rate of surface warming on Earth has been markedly slower than in previous decades. Since levels of greenhouse gases have continued to rise throughout the period, some skeptics have argued that the recent pattern undercuts the theory that global warming in the industrial era has been caused largely by human-made emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

Lovejoy’s new study concludes that there has been a natural cooling fluctuation of about 0.28 to 0.37 degrees Celsius since 1998 — a pattern that is in line with variations that occur historically every 20 to 50 years, according to the analysis.

But surely climate models were supposed to take account of natural climate variations, not just the effect of anthropogenic CO2? Why is it that the models failed to predict the Pause? Is it because the variables in the models are set such that CO2 has far too large an influence on the model output, and natural variations have been minimised? Just a thought.

In any case, just enjoy the embarrassing squirming and wriggling of the warm-mongers as they battle it out to explain (or ignore) the Pause.

Hypocrisy alert: Lewandowsky’s a climate scientist now?

Models fail

Models fail

Is there no end to this man’s talents? One minute an ‘expert’ on the conspiracy theories of ‘deniers’, the next, a climate scientist published in Nature!

Psycho-logist Stephan Lewandowsky has broken cover as second-listed author of a paper in Nature Climate Change entitled “Well-estimated global surface warming in climate projections selected for ENSO phase”, the abstract of which reads:

The question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections. Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution. Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations. We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.

All that guff translates as basically yet another desperate attempt to cover up the utterly woeful performance of climate models (see image). Lew also writes a lengthy post on Shaping Tomorrow’s World on the subject.

Just one tiny question, however, if I may: what the freaking hell is going on?

Surely Lewandowsky cannot have forgotten the golden rule of alarmists, oft repeated by his mates over at Un-Skeptical Pseudo-Science? Never take any notice of anything written by anyone unless they are properly qualified to write on the subject. That’s the reason they can continue to ridicule and ignore the views of dissenting commentators (who are not climate scientists) without having to deal with their arguments.

Or maybe he’s just a massive hypocrite. You decide.

Lew has no qualifications in climate or meteorology or anything relevant at all.  The abstract has nothing related to the psychology of climate science communication, conspiracy theories or consensus. So what was Lew’s role on the paper? Why is Naomi Oreskes, author of Merchants of Doubt which discredited anyone who dared question the ‘consensus’, listed as an author as well?

Applying the same standards to this paper that Lew and his mates apply to others with which he disagrees, his and Oreskes’ presence on the list of authors means we can all safely disregard this paper as the ignorant rantings of unqualified commentators with a vested interest and an agenda to plug.

Bin it.

UK: outgoing minister slams the ‘Green Blob’

Our very own Green Blob (© Bill Leak)

Our very own Green Blob (© Bill Leak)

Owen Paterson, who has been moved on from his post as the UK’s Environment Secretary, unloads:

I leave the post with great misgivings about the power and irresponsibility of – to coin a phrase – the Green Blob.

By this I mean the mutually supportive network of environmental pressure groups, renewable energy companies and some public officials who keep each other well supplied with lavish funds, scare stories and green tape. This tangled triangle of unelected busybodies claims to have the interests of the planet and the countryside at heart, but it is increasingly clear that it is focusing on the wrong issues and doing real harm while profiting handsomely.

Local conservationists on the ground do wonderful work to protect and improve wild landscapes, as do farmers, rural businesses and ordinary people. They are a world away from the highly paid globe-trotters of the Green Blob who besieged me with their self-serving demands, many of which would have harmed the natural environment.

I soon realised that the greens and their industrial and bureaucratic allies are used to getting things their own way. I received more death threats in a few months at Defra than I ever did as secretary of state for Northern Ireland. My home address was circulated worldwide with an incitement to trash it; I was burnt in effigy by Greenpeace as I was recovering from an operation to save my eyesight. But I did not set out to be popular with lobbyists and I never forgot that they were not the people I was elected to serve.

Indeed, I am proud that my departure was greeted with such gloating by spokespeople for the Green Party and Friends of the Earth.

It was not my job to do the bidding of two organisations that are little more than anti-capitalist agitprop groups most of whose leaders could not tell a snakeshead fritillary from a silver-washed fritillary. I saw my task as improving both the environment and the rural economy; many in the green movement believed in neither.

Their goal was to enhance their own income streams and influence by myth making and lobbying. Would they have been as determined to blacken my name if I was not challenging them rather effectively?

Every country has its own Green Blob. I think ours is Christine Milne…

ACM retrospective: a look back at six years of climate madness

The climate bureaucracy is reduced to rubble

The climate bureaucracy is reduced to rubble

This blog started in September 2008, when we were one year into the Kevin Rudd Labor government. It was Labor policy to introduce an emissions trading scheme (ETS), and as we approached the end of 2009, Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull was indicating that he would give it bipartisan support.

But Coalition backbenchers were stirring, as ACM reported on 20 October 2009:

Now is the time for all good men (and women) to come to the aid of the Party – in this case, the Liberal party. The backbenchers need to stand up for their principles and not be steamrollered by their worryingly green-tinged leader:

MALCOLM Turnbull is on a collision course with his own back bench after staking his leadership on a demand that they back his climate change strategy.Several MPs immediately refused to do so.If the partyroom refused to back his strategy of negotiating amendments to the government’s emissions trading scheme, Mr Turnbull said yesterday, the Coalition would “literally be a party with nothing to say … a party with no ideas”, and that was “not the party I am prepared to lead”.

Throwing down the gauntlet to his internal critics, Mr Turnbull said: “I am asserting my authority as the leader of the Liberal Party and the Leader of the Opposition.”

“If the partyroom were to reject my recommendation to them, that would obviously be a leadership issue. That’s perfectly plain, perfectly clear,” he told ABC Radio in Adelaide.

By 20 November, things were beginning to look very grim as Tony Abbott abandons his previous support for the ETS: [Read more...]


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,708 other followers

%d bloggers like this: