Thursday, 25 April 2013

Seems an enormously inappropriate juxtaposition of words doesn't it, NHS and Trust? We are continually getting headlines about some scandal or other within its ridiculously hallowed walls, usually involving unnecessary deaths, but a couple of things remain a constant.

Firstly there is the mystifying protection for those who are quite clearly responsible and secondly the absence of investigation into root causes. On the first point, we do have to ask why Health professionals are so protected? A nurse who highlights failings in a hospital is sacked and struck off the nursing register with a speed that is breathtaking. (Naturally, the failings are then quietly covered up and forgotten).

But if a hospital is adhering to standards of care that would have made the Scutari wards in the Crimea seem paragons of care and cleanliness, then no action is taken, no one cares and the only scramble is to find a way to make you forget or distract your attention.

Secondly, it is all too apparent that our hospitals are not just badly run by the legions of bureaucrats New Labour felt was what was needed in a modern health service, but that clinical decisions and standards have also vanished. It is as if all the doctors we used to be able to rely on were kidnapped one night and replaced by useless idiots.

Now New Labour couldn't be trusted to watch your pint while you went for a wee, but even I don't think they did the above. Introduced lower standards very probably and undermined good practice, but were not actually responsible for the high levels of ineptitude now apparent in the NHS.

Why, when my mother presented with strange symptoms, involving restricted movement, did the system decide it must be cancer and no other specialist should see her? So, having wasted 9 months in fruitless investigations she was passed to neurology who immediately correctly diagnosed her. The window for treatment had been missed, but worse than that she had spent 9 months in the NHS system, in their 'care'.

What this means in reality is the local hospital/care home allowed her to come to further harm and were negligent in regard to her welfare to the extent that she eventually had to be admitted to a general hospital due to dehydration. Of course, whilst there she acquired an infection which killed her. And naturally the death certificate didn't call it MRSA as that would have affected the statistics - that most important aspect of NHS operation.

So, the hospital would not admit to causing her death or even the real cause, meaning that she just died. Nothing untoward and not likely to appear as one of the unnecessary deaths. On a chart of statistics.

The system  is falling apart and I don't know why. It would seem that a series of unintended consequences may have brought us to a situation where doctors no longer seem to understand the basic remit of their role. This will extend to allowing poor students to progress into the ranks and nurses to walk away from their everyday role, without criticism.

The squalor in wards went on for months if not longer. How come no one noticed apparently, no one thought it wrong? The way it is reported it is as if a patient left in their own mess, or without food and water was a complete shock to the nurses who 'worked' on the ward. It also shows how completely disconnected the management was from the very job they were employed to fulfil. And how will it ever get cleared up, as the politicians seem very reluctant to act.

In a hospital that killed thousands how come no one is held responsible, let alone charged? This is the place to start. As with secret courts, when the medical profession is never held to account no matter how outrageous their behaviour, standards will fall to the floor. The same is true of our armed police, who operate to poor standards and are never blamed for stupid actions.

Maybe the reluctance of politicians to act is a recognition of truth; that they in all conscience cannot act against bad management and criminal behaviour in the NHS and other state institutions, because they themselves are no better. Perhaps that is where we need to start.

Remember, Remember

I do say at the top of the blog that these are thoughts as they drift through my head and this one does, every so often so I'm going to mention it. I really liked the film V for Vendetta. What I can't understand though is the setting. The writer would have been able to see out of the window and hear on the radio that very much of what he was writing was happening, at that moment in Britain.

Freedom was being deliberately eroded, the meaning of words changed, the state was seeking and acquiring more powers and often doing so by manufacturing 'crises'. But this was under a Labour government, which is what we would expect and the film decided that Britain would become a Stalinist state under a Conservative regime.

It is not that it chose a party I would side with (at present it isn't), but that it had no basis on which to rest. Britain has never had such leanings and even when the extremes of communism were becoming popular, Mosley didn't gain any traction.

Had the film chosen a snake oil salesman character as leader, who relied almost entirely on lies and was the leader of the Labour party it would have almost been a historical document.

Still entertaining though.

Thursday, 18 April 2013

Obvious Enough Yet?

Watching the funeral of Baroness Thatcher yesterday one thing was blindingly obvious; the Left just isn't right. Despite the best efforts of the BBC and Adam Boulton who wondered if anyone at all would turn up, the streets were crowded. And the multitudes who wanted to boo at a funeral were not present in the massive numbers they predicted.

They still sought them out to give airtime to their views though. Thatcher was 'divisive' after all. So we heard she 'destroyed the country' and much else from people who will have gained this insight no doubt, from the Left indoctrinated teachers at their schools and colleges.

Whether you agreed with her politics or not, there is no basis to say she destroyed the country, there simply is no evidence to support it. The previous Labour administration had had a good go mind, but even then it was only partly their policies and mainly the Unions, driven by communist leaders. Yes there was bad management in British Leyland, but that was because it was a nationalised industry as much as anything and the real damage was done by the strikes and the shoddy workmanship.

Do we still build cars in Britain? Yes. And are they rubbish and the factories frequently closed by strikes/ No. Are they state owned? No. Surely even a drama teacher can reach the correct conclusion? She destroyed mining communities by closing the pits, they squeal. But so did Wilson, would they like to comment? No? So just a communist inspired objection not a real one then.

She tried to help regenerate the areas but what did far too many of the miners do? Wallow in self pity and prove their stupidity by requiring someone else to look after them, like they were children. This recourse to childish behaviour of course, the adoption of victim-hood  was much praised and encouraged by Scargill, who cared not a jot for one of them. His was a political crusade, the miners merely his weapon.

The miners followed and supported the wrong man, even if it seemed a good idea at the beginning. It happens. Germany did it with the Nazis of course, though they do less whinging that it was someone else's fault that things went badly as a result. They then pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, accepted help where offered and didn't just wail and burn effigies of Churchill and Roosevelt, as if it was actually all their fault.

'Divisive' by the way means 'intending to make people angry with each other' which is not what Thatcher did by any stretch of the imagination, but is very possibly the aim of the BBC and Adam Boulton, who have agendas, of course.

La , La, Not Listening

Over on EU Referendum, Christopher Booker is pointing out that Mrs. Thatcher was never above admitting and rectifying her mistakes, hence her change of view on man made global warming. Her modified view was as a result of finding out about the issue rather than asking a biased advisor, as had been her previous choice.

He also points out that one of the ridiculous Tories of her latter time in office, William Waldegrave has recently commented about how global warming is man made because some scientists loudly shout that it is. They don't have any specialism in the subject, Booker points out merely the 'prestige' of holding lofty positions in the Royal Society.

Of course, the Royal Society has changed its stance too. It was once a bastion of scientific enquiry and is now a Left wing political lobby group. Booker suggests that Waldegrave would do well to emulate Margaret Thatcher and read up on the subject a sort of 'get out more' for an intellectual.

But that is the crux of the problem. The believers in the cult of Warmism are not looking for debate, they do not want to study the science, they just want more to believe as they do; they are missionaries. We on the so called sceptical side make the mistake, constantly of thinking that we should prove our case, that we must show our 'workings out'.

This is why we are sceptics, because we look to see, we are not big on blind obedience. Religion held back science before and a new one is trying to capture it wholesale. But it is a religion in support of the godless. The useful idiots like Sir Paul Nurse are being manipulated by the people behind the scam, the Left, anti-capitalist ideologues.

So, when you see the trolls getting super excited at the latest bit of climate change that they cannot explain, another activist is caught lying, or plausible explanations contrary to their beliefs crop up, don't be surprised. In their minds they are Dirty Harry with no bullets, but they will still bluff with the 'do you feel lucky?' line.

Sir Paul Nurse should use his eminence to spout off on something closer to his heart and tell the believers that Man never set foot on the moon. It wouldn't be true, but then nor is man made global warming, but at least he might be expected to know as opposed to a science he isn't involved in. And whilst you might say, so what a scientific mind, an intelligent man doesn't need to be a climate scientist to understand, I would agree.

I would agree all the way and then ask, so why does a 'scientific mind', an intelligent man of status say that there should be no further investigation, that the science is settled? If he doesn't hold to scientific first principles, why should I trust what he says?

Wednesday, 17 April 2013

Sky News - The Funeral

Just watching Sky News coverage of the Thatcher funeral. They have Left wing journalist Adam Boulton (married to Blair's former gatekeeper) who is still quick to get in the 'divisive' comment. I find this deliberate use of an abusive remark quite repellent. You may feel that, as Margaret Thatcher offered opportunity and a future to ordinary people and allowed companies to thrive and take on more staff, she would be feared by the Left. To counter her real success they had to create an alternative reality and thus there would be two sides to the Thatcher years.

This is disagreement, (not even clear who is responsible for the divide either), but only if Mrs Thatcher did the things the Left say and did them on purpose to cause harm, could she be described as 'divisive'.  It requires her to have deliberately set out to create a divide.

Now, the Unions would say she did and in some ways they would be correct. As the avowed aim of the Unions was the overthrow of government (as opposed to helping their members), then the government was very likely to take a different view. So the divide would be the same as a criminal would claim of the actions of the police, or a child screaming for sweets.

It is at the very least the politics of a spoilt adolescent rather than anything serious and yet, groups of very shallow people accept indoctrination and feel that a dead person deserves no respect. These people no doubt would be horrified if their own mean, malicious lives were in any way derided, particularly in death.

Tuesday, 16 April 2013

Observe, Debate

I know I'm banging on a bit about the Left at the moment, but it has become uppermost in my mind that we are in significant danger financially and as a society from communism. There is a panoply of lies surrounding every aspect of our lives, created by the Left and making proper political debate impossible.

There is undoubtedly a socialist angle that awaits discovery by brave souls. Areas of human existence that could be bettered by some clear thinking and definition. We need to accept that the human condition will always seek advantage, wants to strive for better. Even the current icon of evil, Mick Philpott worked at getting as much out of the system as he could, though by underhand means and by harming others.

More constructively, people can gain the very best education they are capable of and use it to get the best job and a career. So politicians should always have this in mind when considering how best to facilitate a society that fosters achievement but does no harm along the way.

All of this, conservatism, socialism and individual desires to do better are anathema to the Marxist. For them, control is the only goal. Marxism may mention the poor lot of the proletariat but only as the mechanism by which a revolution, a violent revolution can be achieved. You get the overwhelming impression that the real interest was to attack a certain group of people, a class they would insist on calling them, to destroy them. A kind of personal hatred by the author, Marx.

Has a movement really been formed based solely on the pathological ranting of a mentally disturbed man? Almost in the mould of that other authoritarian Leftie, Adolf Hitler. (You may have been instructed that he is far Right but what does that mean? In what way was Hitler at the other end of a scale from Stalin? They were almost identical).

The answer is yes, because it serves the motives of a group of people who seek violence as a leisure interest and the overthrow of an existing society merely to make themselves important. So much of what they do is secretive and also in no way constructive. They do not offer solutions just anarchy. They do not suggest an alternative society, just vague mentions of a society run from the centre. And they would be the centre of course.

There is no debate in this country among our politicians due to their being corralled by communist ideology, using such devices as Political Correctness and the indoctrination of teachers and thence the children. Why does a story exist that Thatcher was uniquely bad in British politics, when 'the sick man of Europe', Britain was turned around by her? Why does the story of her wrecking the coal industry and stealing milk from children paint her as a monster, yet she closed fewer pits the Labour's Harold Wilson, a Premier who also stopped school milk for secondary children?

It is because the Left incessantly create and retell lies and have access to do so. Which is why, morons like the 'drama teacher' don't understand history, just repeat an invention that turns her into a harpy, filled with hatred. Who knows, without the indoctrination she may be a very nice person. But as it is, pathetic drama is definitely her remit.

Of course, my fear and why I keep on about it, is that the Marxists are aiming for violent confrontation. The poll tax riots were organised for violence sake, a government policy just gave it a cover to hide behind. Violence at G8 summits is conducted by people who would love a world government, but rail against global corporates. What they hate is not the global bit, but that even though 'fat cats' do exist and are very wealthy, along the way they spread that wealth, creating jobs.

It may be unintentional, they may be no more altruistic than a Marxist, but happen it does. As we have seen with Gordon Brown, big government, state control and little choice ends up with a broken society and bankrupt treasury. Yet that is what the Marxists, be they the people behind Hacked Off, who want only their version of a story told, the EU or the mad mullahs like Galloway, want.

So, we need to recover our education system, which Gove is currently doing well with, challenge Marxism everywhere it raises its head and bring it firmly into public focus. Ed Miliband is not a socialist, planning the best for the people of Britain, he is a communist as was his father. So forget Labour or their other branch, the Lib Dems (and other nilhistic nutcases like the BNP and EDL) and refuse to accept an invented history designed to promote division and undermine proper governance, freedom and justice.

Reject the Left's attempts to promote racism with the 'black' organisations and multiculturalism. The Commission for Racial Equality is a cover for ensuring you don't think of people of a different colour as just other people, rather than any attempt at equality. You achieve that by not noticing colour, not by intentionally highlighting differences.

It is a vast and complex area, but centres around communist lies, so that is what our real politicians should confront, openly and noisily.  Don't forget, the model of Far Right and Far Left is a misnomer too. Both are extremes all right, but two sides of the same, authoritarian coin. Only the conservative, middle of the road approach works for the people, not the elites. So don't let them tell you their lies, their 'narrative' but think for yourself, observe and debate. You won't be right on everything, but Marxists will be wrong all the time.

Monday, 15 April 2013

Boston Bombing

Well, madmen who think that killing innocent people achieves something have struck again. Watching the scenes are shocking and perhaps too much is being shown. But in all the detail and with constant reruns it gives you a chance to see the whole event, looking at different aspects. What struck me was the reaction of the police.

You see ordinary people ripping off T shirts to staunch wounds, pulling at fencing that is impeding access and generally focused on the injured. Stewards, medical people, some military all are seen active in dealing with the aftermath.

The police are, pretty much just wandering around. It is seriously surprising. Here in the UK we see police officers go towards the issue, instinctively. But in the Boston video we see police officers wince, look, hand goes to gun and then they start to move away! Even when it is apparent what has happened they seem amazingly uninvolved. Am I seeing this right?

I appreciate that this kind of thing is very rare in America, but it does appear that the training of police officers in the US must be very different and hugely based on self defence.

However, I trust that the US will be as robust as they have ever been and whether a home grown nutter or some moron who claims to have some religious conviction stuck in the Middle Ages, they can be deprived of their liberty without end. People who do these kind of things are valueless.

Glenda Jackson

Glenda Jackson may be many great things, but she is not a fair minded person. For her, lead and a feather weigh the same if she says so. Ideology is all. Her recent witless (in every sense) rant in the House of Commons shows what a narrow minded and intrinsically unpleasant human being she is.

Margaret Thatcher may not 'be a woman' in her book, but a) what the hell does her gender matter? and b) only in Jackson's own mind has she been elected decider of all things. To view Margaret Thatcher as a politician and to debate the effects of her policies would be to enter the realm of politics. To decide to make ad hominem attacks and to invent a past that didn't exist are the necessary adjuncts of the ideologically led savant.

Because things demonstrably improved under Thatcher and that she was clearing up the mess of the Left meant that people like Jackson had to constantly demonise her. Otherwise it might go against them and people may understand how damaging her ideology is, how the Left are the enemy of the people.

Jackson doesn't strike me as one of the clever, duplicitous Lefties, out to destroy Western civilisation and usher in their Utopia of state control. No, I think she is an idiot.

Leftist Influence

The biggest threat to freedom, Western democracy and the continued success that capitalism brings, is the pernicious propaganda of the Left. Knowing they cannot win any debate they have decided to use the general apathy of the public to insinuate Left ideas into their heads, by repeated exposure and flat lies.

A key aspect of course has been education, where teachers can be relied upon to spout any nonsense, even where the children can see through it, to support the Left indoctrination they received whilst training. The media, long the home of insubstantial and grossly over paid types, has always been a hot bed of idiot ideology. The luvvies love to love. They live in a cloud cuckoo land only slightly adrift of the Miss World contestants who constantly held fervent hopes for world peace.

They of course are key to the daily dissemination of ideology. A BBC sofa girl hounding a government official asking what should a family cut back on, heating, food or school trips; the communist angle. She seems to imply that any money the claimant requires should be made available, so is completely without any kind of thought process to back it up. But I bet she loved sounding tough and it was only a Conservative anyway.

A reporter in a new shopping centre in Leeds (where obviously there is no money because Thatcher destroyed and impoverished the North) has opened and the discussion was about struggling retailers, not least due to the bad weather. The reporter casually drops in that weather is now 'more variable', part of the climate change cant.

It is in these small yet persistent and indeed insistent ways that the Left brings a population to believe some amazing things. Almost everything that is said about Margaret Thatcher for instance is wrong, often a deliberately constructed lie. And yet many people believe the lies and many others think there must be some substance to them. Once again the Left pulls its favourite stunt, they lie and the normal people have to try to re-establish the truth.

Underlying all of this and coming ever closer by the day, is the desire by very dangerous people to destroy the way of life you enjoy. The Left don't have an overwhelming desire to bring immigrants to Britain, but if it destabilises society they will support unchecked immigration. Homosexual issues are not a fundamental Right (or wrong), but they can be used to destroy the family as a social norm and a social unit. They need to do this because families are the bedrock of a functioning society.

The education system is being debased because an intelligent 'working class' would be aspirant, would know it can achieve better, which undermines communism. And we need to be clear, we are talking about communism, not socialism. The Labour party is no longer socialist, for they do not seek to help the poor and disadvantaged, they seek to maintain those groups to consolidate their power and to always have someone to do the menial tasks that the elite still need doing, to maintain their wealth and lifestyle. Communism is for the masses, not them.

The reason Hacked Off have pushed themselves into the decisions on how the Press operate is because they claim it is overwhelmingly Right wing and lacks a social conscience. The truth of course is that it is overwhelmingly Left wing (which is why so much of it is so bad) and the social conscience will be provided by a Left wing state who will tell you what to do.

Are the communists really up to no good? It is apparent in everything around us, when you look. But also it is in the way they operate. The Left are secretive, because they must be; generally the public don't like them. What communist state was ever voted in? Even the EU, their greatest and largest scale project wouldn't try to rely on democracy!

But the Left is also a Hydra, so that, should one head be cut off, all the others carry on. Go on, start looking into bodies, organisations, charities, think tanks and Quango's. See how many there are, related to climate change, renewable energy, Press regulation and any other area where taxpayers money can be soaked up to pay for more Left oriented propaganda.

This is where we must stand and fight, where the next great battle must take place. Who will be the next Thatcher, to slay this dragon? Someone a million miles from the dilettantish  uncomprehending, small thinker - Cameron. A real champion of the people, to not only oppose the Left, to tell things as they really are, but to also wield the sword and put it right..

Thursday, 11 April 2013

Science, Scientists And Method.

Should we not be applying scientific method to scientists? I ask because the Global Warming scam rolls on and more and more nonsense spews out, often from people who you think cannot just be doing and saying what they do to further the aims of Marxism. Clearly they are intellectual morons. But the man in the street is shielded from the fact because the legacy media, the traditional 'newspapers' no longer investigate stories and often are Left oriented anyway.

In a recent Horizon programme on BBC it was stated that the Apollo missions to the Moon cost £100 billion in today's money. From that we made the important step of setting foot on another body in space and along the way discovered a number of new techniques and products. Today though, even little old Britain is planning to take many times that amount and urinate it up against the wall, whilst pursuing the chimera of stopping the climate changing.

Politicians have committed this phenomenal sums of other people's money purely on the say so of a few scientists and a very large number of politically motivated activists. So shouldn't we at least apply some measure to the claims? The nearest we get are people like Al Gore who gets very close to the 'science', decides to support it and pushes remedies that, strangely, he has also set up companies to profit from it. Or Baron Deben, better known as John Selwyn Gummer, who is up to similar shenanigans here in the UK.

So, if we look for instance at the Met Office who not only number crunch to bring our daily weather reports, but also are at the forefront of the Climate Change 'science' output. I put the word science in commas because there is a doubt that science is what we are getting. We don't really check what we are getting for our money with the Met Office, but some of their output we can check.

Certainly the Met Office doesn't seem shy in boasting about its' abilities but when they actually make forecasts beyond what we have been able to do for decades, they get it spectacularly wrong. Yet we trust their computer models (there is nothing more to it, just computer programmes predicated on someone's idea of what happens in weather systems) to tell us to spend billions of pounds fighting a monster.

Basically it is their version of the old maps that had the legend 'here be dragons' on them, because they didn't know but they thought it likely. Of course, the passage of time and discovery proved different and now history is repeating itself but with much more damage attached and some very malicious people in tow.

If we treat the predictions of the Met Office as a scientific experiment and examine the results, we cannot but come to the conclusion that it is a very unreliable source. In short, not a science at all. The idea is fine but the level of understanding is not high enough and the computer modelling the weakest link; it is clearly of a woeful standard. Not least because it would appear that the result had been decided before the experiment was set. Rising CO2 will cause rising temperatures, now model how bad it will get.

Another test would be to run the models over weather we have had. It doesn't work, which is why climate scare 'experts' from Mann and his hockey stick to the University of East Anglia's emails stating that 'we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period' have sought to obscure the facts. It quite simply showed that their theory just wasn't right, so nor could any of their predictions be.

So, do politicians pay any attention to stuff like this, do they have any checks and balances on such an extreme and costly suggestion that, as the sandwich board man had said before the Met Office got there, the end is nigh? Do they hell as like, they are far too used to wasting your money without thinking let alone blinking. Perhaps they should be embarrassed into doing so. It seems the only thing that works with them (unless you come up with a lunatic and very costly scam, of course). Suggestions welcome!

Should Loud Succeed?

I'm sure most people are familiar with the kid, walking up and down the touchline behind the coach, constantly asking, 'can I go on yet, can I go on yet?' Eventually the coach gives in and puts the kid on. He is useless (which is why he wasn't playing before) and flails about pointlessly, taking up a position on the pitch and very possibly allowing the other team through to score.

But the embarrassment for him is limited to those present. To everyone who wasn't there he is known as a star. His footballing talents they understand are prodigious and his team mates hold him in awe. His view of the game is spectacular, he is talented in spacial awareness. His ball control and spot kicking are legendary. Because he has told them so.

Welcome to the way the Left operate. I caught a little bit of a Radio 2 programme where a woman was ranting wildly about things Margaret Thatcher was apparently responsible for. It came, evident from the slight check in her outbursts, as a surprise that the coal mines were in decline before Thatcher came to power. (She was outraged at the suggestion that the Unions were mainly responsible, feeling this palpable fact was a  slur on Unions that 'help the working man'). She didn't seem to need to scream about Wilson, during whose tenure more pits were closed than under Thatcher.

This woman and so many like her think the way they do because the Left 'kid' shouts about how bad those he opposes are, knowing that the majority of people won't know enough to disagree or bother to check. Of course, she may have been one of the shouters, but usually it is someone who has no idea what they are talking about, but feel the nicer option would be what the Marxist says. If they viewed him more like the chap with a bag of sweets trying to tempt a child into a car, they would be approaching the Marxist more accurately.

An Expert

Here is an expert for you. An expert who is involved in organisations that produce reports about rising sea levels and droughts and disasters, caused by Climate Change. Yes, I picked this one because it is an excellent (though not outstanding, there are others like it) example of what I don't think many people realise. Do what climate activists don't want you to do by all means, investigate, do your own research. But this is priceless I feel.

The following is about someone who is a member of the US National Climate Assessment panel. Of interest is the sheer number of associated bodies (and there are countless numbers of them, all sucking up taxpayers money), the things she evidently has impact on and that clearly the financial institutions, ever quick to spot opportunities to profit by misleading, are fully on board for reasons of self interest.

Finally, having all this say, we see on what grounding, what basis she holds these positions and has this input. Then ask yourself, if your CV was such a mismatch would you get the job? Ah, Mr Smith I see you are a carpenter, well as we need someone to teach biochemistry, I think you should fit in well.

Lindene Patton is Chief Climate Product Officer for Zurich Financial Services (Zurich). She is responsible for product development and risk management related to climate change.She is a project Board Member for the World Economic Forum Low Carbon Finance Initiative and the Forest Carbon Finance Initiative. She is an advisory board member for the University of California at Santa Barbara's Bren School of Environmental Science and Management. She is a member of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) for Sustainable Governments Adaptation Experts Advisory Committee.

Ms. Patton serves as the Vice-Chair of the Climate Change and Tort Liability Sub-Committee of the Geneva Association. Ms. Patton also serves on numerous government and non-governmental advisory boards, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Financial Advisory Board, the Bureau of National Affairs' monthly publication, the Environmental Due Diligence Guide, and the US EPA Environmental Technology Verification Program.

Ms. Patton is an attorney licensed in California and the District of Columbia and an American Board of Industrial Hygiene Certified Industrial Hygienist. She holds a Bachelor of Science in biochemistry from the University of California, Davis, a Master of Public Health from the University of California, Berkeley, and a Juris Doctor from Santa Clara University School of Law.

So we learn that Ms. Patton is working on climate related 'products' for Zurich Financial Services and serving on several US Federal panels to advise on climate issues. She studies risks and opportunities for her employer, in relation to the activities of government as it is effected by 'climate change'. An area in which she has input and at the very least being inside the loop, as it were, in government circles is well placed to 'help' her employer make 'rational' decisions.

And all this is based on her being an attorney with a qualification in Industrial Hygiene. So, if you aren't convinced we are all gonna die, it is not for the want of trying by a very large number of people with backgrounds unrelated to their jobs. I'm sure Ms. Patton is good at her job, which doesn't make Global Warming any more real, but does mean if your company is stupid enough to go along with the scam (and the government will be pushing you to), then the likes of Zurich Financial Services will have a product for you.

*Please note, I do not wish to infer that ZFS have a monopoly in this respect

Water Water Everywhere

A major scare report has popped up with lovely dramatic pictures of cities under water, due to rising sea levels, due to Climate Change. I wonder these people don't run around the streets, clutching their heads screaming, 'We're all gonna die, we're all gonna die'.

Anyway, it is a report by 'experts' apparently so we can be fairly comfortable ignoring it. Amusing is it not, that we are implored by 'scientists' to stop believing in God because it is so implausible, but then they tell us they believe in Global Warming (caused by Man). Of course, to the activists who run this scam it is important that it is Man made so a) we feel guilty, b) we must atone c) they can claim we can do something about it and d) they can impose capitalism destroying economic measures to achieve their real goal.

Imagine if we still lived in days when scientists discovered something and said, 'we think the earth is heating up and we think it is due to solar activity. If this is right it could lead to all sorts of problems and we cannot do anything about it'. Or maybe it will just be a bit of heating and everyone will feel a bit better, more crops will grow and it will be really quite nice. That would be science and more than that, science that served the people.

How would that serve the Marxists? In what way does that help destroy capitalism? When you are proposing a system of control (they would say government) that is known not to work, over a system that has worked very well indeed, you cannot do it through debate. (Otherwise you wouldn't need to demonise a successful politician and her policies, for instance).

It is customary in discussing revolution to see the enemy as a king or evil military ruler and this is certainly what the Left promote as a vision. But the enemy of the Left today is the people, for they have power to a large extent in a democracy and have resolutely rejected, repeatedly the ideas and ideals of Marxism. So the riots in Britain, exclusively the domain of the Left (to the extent that it was Left led police who were instructed to attack the peaceful countryside marchers), are aimed at the common people.

They terrorise the local population and destroy the property of innocent businesses, at random. The images on the television spreading the fear to communities fearful that it may visit them.

Now, these self appointed fund-suckers, these leeches on society may feel that their climate crap is a harmless bit of cant, that keeps them in work and they don't mean any harm, but they are doing the work of the Marxists. Doubtless some are with the cause but many I would guess are just useful idiots.

Wednesday, 10 April 2013

Fracking - New Light On The Debate

A report has concluded that ‘fracking’ or hydraulic fracturing of rocks, to gain access to shale gas deposits, does not cause earthquakes or indeed any sizeable seismic activity. A reporter from Bleeding Obvious News spoke to a group of experts. Nils Forktongue of the Institute for Checking Stuff said that fracking was not just the cause of massive earthquakes like the one that caused a tsunami on Boxing Day a while back, but also would lead to the industrialisation of the British countryside, falling house prices and noise pollution.

When it was pointed out that what he was referring to was Wind Turbines not fracking, Mr. Forktongue enigmatically answered, ‘that is just your truth’.  Because of the desperate need to reduce output of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) or ‘Carbon’ (C) as the experts like to call it, BON asked a different group of experts, who looked very similar to the last lot but with moustaches and glasses, if fracking would not help reduce the UK’s ‘carbon footprint’ as it had in America. The spokesperson, Fork Nilstongue said that shale gas was not actually combustible and people were being sold a lie by the energy industry, by a government that is overwhelmingly supportive of Big Oil and that even the BBC is ridiculously biased in its reporting towards denying Global Warming.

Fork said that if people wanted to learn the truth about fracking, Global Warming and that proven facts are quite often wrong then he had a leaflet available, free of charge by writing to him at the University of Tadcaster, Serious Climate Change Research, c/o WWF, London.

After the formal interview, the BON reporter asked, in a personal capacity, how it was that it had been warmer before, the Roman warm period, Medieval warm period and also extremely cold with mini ice ages, without the effect of Man’s CO2 or Carbon output playing a part? Unfortunately Professor Doctor Sir Fork Nilstongue said he had to rush away, answering his phone that was now on silent, apparently. One thing he was able to clear up though was a common misunderstanding. After proving by shouting it, that Global Warming is caused by Man’s activity he said that one thing he could absolutely assure us of, was that the Sun has absolutely no part whatsoever to play in heating the earth. This he told us, was a lie put about by druids.

*This article has been viewed by Hacked Off in accordance with their self appointed role as guardians of the truth, They asked us to also point out that it is now established fact that people who deny global warming catch painful diseases that kills them. 

Tuesday, 9 April 2013

Nothing New Under The Sun

In times less prone to sensational squealing by supposed 'scientists' we get this, measured, responsible view;

'In a report published in January (1966 US National Academy of Sciences, quote from the Britannica book of the Year 1967), the committee stated that while apparently reliable measurements of the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere showed an increase of the order of 10% during the preceding 50 or 60 years, the effect of this was considerably modified as a result of the absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans. Thus, contrary to earlier theories which had held that a relatively small increase in CO2 content would modify the earth's heat balance considerably and seriously raise the temperature of the troposphere, the 1965-6 investigators found the effect on the earth's temperature would be quite small.'

Also on the same page is a table of 'Weather Headlines' including for England -

Parts of England    April 1-2     Late season snowfall 12in; 5ft drifts     Blizzard winds in some localities; unexpected traffic hazards led to many accidents.

But Global Warming due to Man's output of CO2 is real, present and an impending disaster. Apparently. Only now it is from articles written by Green activists for the WWF rather than scientists reports of actual investigations.

The Left Partying

With the death of Thatcher we are being treated to two types from the Left, the useful idiots repeating tosh they have been fed about the nasty Tories and the clever ones rewriting history. Ken Livingstone said that Thatcher was responsible for the banking crisis and wrecked the mining industry. Quite spectacular inversion of the truth. In fact the Left using Bill Clinton, a politician every bit as dim as Tony Blair, brought about the banking crisis by insisting mortgages were given to people who couldn't afford them.

In Britain, Brown ensured that his friends (and big taxpayers) in banking were not troubled by the regulator, which was in effect, switched off. It's like the Hacked Off campaign for state control (or better still for them to run it) of the Press. What is being said up front is not what they are actually up to. They want to be able to use the media to spout Leftist propaganda and delete any criticism or investigation. (Look at how they are squealing having been caught lying themselves).

The Left claim that the Seventies and Eighties were disastrous because of Thatcher's policies. But the reason the Cortina Man supported her was because he prospered under her. (Benefits claimants didn't and it is they who are complaining now). But it was clearly the Unions who destroyed the country. The mining industry was wrecked by the strikes Scargill called and then dumped the loss of their industry in Thatcher's lap. In Suffolk, the Port of Felixstowe stayed resolutely at work and threatened at one point to throw a Union official into the river when he insisted they strike.

The Port went from strength to strength and it wasn't due to Left wing politics, it was due to hard work. That is what the Left don't want. For them, it is important that the Right doesn't succeed or that they can hide it through lies, because it means their assertion that only Left wing policies work, only the Left can help the poor and disadvantaged can be pushed. What they actually do of course, is create more poverty and disadvantage. If ever you feel that you would really like to destroy your country then vote Labour of Lib Dem, support the Socialist Workers Party. When you feel that other people owe you a living, you are Left wing.

Monday, 8 April 2013

Margaret Thatcher - RIP

With the sad news that Margaret Thatcher has died, I find myself unable to watch the BBC, knowing they will be struggling to hide their smirks amid endless whining. But Lord help us Sky News is a stream of miners strike, poll tax riots and morons like Derek Hatton given air time. Derek Hatton! The corrupting communist who is delighted he doesn't live in a communist country.

What seems to have been missed is the fact that Thatcher was elected because the country was fed up with yet another Labour government of incompetent and ignorant misfits, who had wrecked the economy and saw refuse piling up in the streets because Labour wouldn't confront their paymasters, the Unions.

Thatcher did take them on, as they would otherwise hold back her revolution and the communists such as Scargill realised they had to provoke a confrontation. So he set about winding up the poor miners who, already facing losing their jobs in a woefully broken industry supported by massive taxpayer input, he needed to riot. When any other business goes broke, its staff lose their jobs and though it is to be regretted, what should be, can be done? The Left claim, the State should pay. How is not explained.

So, under a proper, committed politician of stature the country prospered. The Left derided Yuppies, but who were Yuppies? The Left say they were selfish people, invented by Thatcher; the Me generation. But Yuppies were just people who had done well by working hard. Their ambition was not checked by taxes and rules and regulations, which is always the way of the Left. They were allowed to keep more of their money and spend it how they liked. Wealth redistribution based on effort not theft.

The Me generation had to wait for the vacuous Blair and his drive to become personally wealthy at our expense. He denied and derided ambition and insisted that if you want something you have to take it off someone else.

The Poll Tax was a bad idea in the way it was brought about, but it was a gift for the Left as it was particularly their supporters who had previously been able to dodge the tax man. Being accountable and being expected to contribute was such an outrageous idea to the Left apparently, that it became essential to riot and attack properties nearby. Attempting to murder police officers was also an acceptable political statement. This was how scared, how desperate the Left were to get rid of this clever, reliable, honest and committed politician heading a hated party. Hated by them, no one else.

It is a sign of how successful communist influences are within our institutions that today, people who know nothing about it, never experienced Thatcher's Britain, see her as someone who destroyed Britain and ruined lives. Schools and Universities ensured an endless stream of Left oriented propaganda was directed at the young to paint a picture that wasn't true, but a 'narrative' of the truth as the Left wanted it.

In short the Left were indignant that many of their supporters, traditional Labour voters had deserted them for the Conservatives, not as they saw it, because the Conservatives had made them and the country more successful, more wealthy, but because they were stupid and had been duped. Always the refuge of the Left when faced with their inevitable failure; to blame the people who were too stupid to realise the Utopia just around the corner, if only the Left could run everything with sky high taxes and very little private enterprise, if any. A Utopia like Albania.

What Thatcher believed was that, if someone worked hard they should be allowed to keep the vast majority of what they earned. Their efforts would make the country successful. As we have seen from the last bout of Labour government, what they offer is high taxes, reducing services, massive over-spending and growing national debt. People like Polly Toynbee who is rich and has several houses including one in Tuscany ranting about redistributing wealth through taxation, but not her wealth and companies acting immorally by not paying UK tax, without mentioning that her employer is one of those. With Thatcher you got opportunity, with Labour you get corruption and hypocrisy.

A great leader of this nation has died and we are a little diminished. It would be a fitting tribute to this conviction politician, if Tony Blair was convicted for the several crimes committed whilst lining his pockets as PM.