THE SPEED KILLS MYTH

Right so why do I insist that ‘Speed doesn’t kill – never has never will’, when according to Stig he and the rest of the world knows it does. Well there are actually three answers to this question and here they are.

1. First off we have to consider what is ‘Speed’? The Oxford concise dictionary defines it as ‘the rate at which someone or something moves’. It doesn’t refer to any particular value, such as 30mph or 90 mph, simply that something is moving. Therefore if the slogan ‘Speed Kills’ was accurate it would mean that as soon as something started to move it would die.
This would mean of course the instant extinction of every living thing, plant or animal, reptile or insect as soon as it moved, and since the world is still populated with plenty of living things this is proof that speed does not kill.

2. Then of course we would have people saying but this refers to vehicles, well the obvious answer to that is then it should say so. Either a statement is factually correct or it isn’t. Even then though the slogan is still incorrect. Why? Because it is undefined. What speed are you talking about? 2mph 60mph 1300mph? Until you quantify the word ‘speed’ it is meaningless. You might just as well say ‘Colours Kill’ or ‘Weather Kills’ or ‘Height Kills’ and so on, until you qualify what you are saying the slogan is meaningless.

Let us give the unbelievers a bit of latitude. Let us say that ‘Excessive Speed Kills’. But you still have a problem. What is excessive? Well if you are talking about vehicles most people usually assume, quite wrongly, that excessive speed is exceeding the speed limit. It’s not. In this context it is a speed that is inappropriate for the conditions prevailing at the time. What conditions? Well there are hundreds of variables, such as vehicle condition, road condition and so forth. Experienced drivers know that you can’t quantify excessive speed, there times when 100mph is fine and safe and there are also times when 10mph is not. So the safest thing is to define excessive as being inappropriate for the prevailing conditions.

So can we now say that ‘Excessive Speed Kills’. No because that would mean that every time someone drove at an excessive speed they would die, and quite clearly that doesn’t happen. You see the velocity of your vehicle is immaterial in deciding whether a death occurs. What is pertinent is whether your vehicles hits something, or to put it another way has an accident. So being ever helpful we further qualify our statement by saying “Excessive speed when the vehicle is in collision kills”. But of course we can’t. There are millions of incidents such as this where no one is hurt, for death to be a possibility an injury must be sustained.

This brings us to ‘“Excessive speed when the vehicle is in collision and an injury is sustained kills.’ The only problem is that is incorrect as well. I have been involved in several accidents, sustained minor injuries and I’m still alive. So what we have to do is quantify it further and then we end up with “Excessive speed when the vehicle is in collision and someone sustains injuries can lead on certain occasions to death’.

At last we have a statement that is accurate, bit of a journey from ‘Speed Kills’ wasn’t it? Speed cannot kill you, only injuries can do that.

And finally.

3. The legal document that should be issued on every death in the UK is the certificate issued by a doctor. This is taken to the registrar when the death is registered, and then a death certificate is issued. This contains such details as the full name of the deceased, age, address, who registered the death and most importantly the cause of death.

During my lifetime I have studied hundreds of these certificates and never have I seen the cause of death given as ‘Speed’. For anyone to maintain ‘Speed Kills’ the answer to proving their point is simple, get the Death Certificate and see for yourself, I am willing to bet £100 that they will never find one that lists the cause of death as ‘Speed’. The reason is quite simple really ‘Speed doesn’t kill – never has never will’.

SO WHAT THE HELL IS CO2, AND WHY IS IT SO EVIL?

Well the short answer is that Co2 stands for carbon dioxide and far from being evil it is vital to all forms of life on earth. Now this is a fact and we have the right to expect that people engaging in this debate have at least a very basic knowledge of what they are talking about. However listening to a young ‘environmentalist’ (whatever that is) on the radio the other day I was shocked to hear that according to him it would be far better for the planet if we could get rid of all Co2, which of course would turn the earth into a giant replica of the moon – but with less life on it.

So how much Co2 do we have in the atmosphere? Well listening to all the Climate Change Fanatics (CCF’s) you could well be convinced that it comprises just about all of it, this is in fact nonsense. It is present in such small amounts that it is classified as a ‘trace gas’, it comprises 380 parts per million of the total gasses making up the earth’s atmosphere. Now the problem with throwing labels like that at you is it is very difficult to relate to it. I mean do you know how much a million is? I know it’s a big figure but have no idea how big.

Try this, imagine a matchstick, now we all know how big one of those is. They are about 2 millimetres wide. Now if you lay 1 million matchsticks side by side you would have a row of matchsticks approximately one and a quarter miles long. I think many of us can visualise a mile and a quarter. Now count off 380 matchsticks, that is about 29 ½” inches long, about the distance from your armpit to the tips of your fingers. The length of you arm compared to 1 ¼ miles is the amount of Co2 there is in the atmosphere. However the vast majority of that 380 ppm is not manmade, it comes from natural sources. Mankind only emits about 3.4% of this figure, that’s about 1”. So you have 1 1/4" miles representing all the atmosphere, only an arms length of that is Co2 and of that amount only half a thumb length is manmade. But it doesn’t stop there; of that 1” only about half goes into the atmosphere, the other half is absorbed by plants and other surface level sinks that absorb Co2.
So to recap the amount of manmade Co2 that actually enters the atmosphere is the equivalent of a thumbnail compared to 1 1/4 miles! Not very much is it? Now according to the CCF’s this thumbnail is so powerful it can change the entire planet, it will causes mountains to fall and seas to rise, deserts to, well do something ( they’re not quite sure what) and fields to do something else. Oh come on. Let’s stop and think for a minute. One thing us humans are very good at doing is killing each other, and boy can we think up some interesting and varied ways to do it. I have seen myself the effect of explosives against tanks, seen huge lorries shredded by machine guns and men vaporised by explosives. Don’t you think that if a gas like Co2 could have so much power the arms manufacturers would have turned it into a weapon by now?
The fact is that Co2 is vital for life on earth (in spite of the US Supreme Court classifying it as a ‘pollutant’, what was that all about. Without Co2 nothing would live, no plants, no animals, no insects nothing – all dead, all gone.
Here’s something to think about, if all mankind vanished from the earth tomorrow, it would only take a few months for the additional plant life to make up the Co2 levels to what we were contributing.
Next we are going to take a look at Greenhouse Gasses, what are they and are they part of the axis of evil too?

Latest from the Do as I Say Club

REMEMBER how I told you about this exclusive club where the Climate Change Fanatics (CCF's) demanded that you must make sacrifices to save the planet – but of course that doesn't apply to them?

Well the latest bean feast in Copenhagen is well under way.

First off these are the people who are putting extra taxes on flights to stop the taxpayer having two weeks in Benidorm or wherever. This is just for the taxpayer, the CCF's carry on flying. The local airport is expecting an additional 140 private jets, bringing in the CCF's, in fact so many additional aircraft are coming in that there is no room, they land, discharge their CCF's and then head to neighbouring countries like Sweden to park up.

After landing you might expect the CCF's to head for their YMCAs or hostels either on a bike or walking. Not at all. Majken Friss Jorgensen, Managing Director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, usually has 12 such vehicles on the road. For the summit she will have over 200. She reckons that overall the CCF's will be using over 1200 luxury limousines. The French alone have rung up and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand; we're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden". By the way the total number of electric or hybrid cars in that total is just five!

Now don't forget this is for those CCF's who are already taxing you off the road if your vehicle is classified as a 'gas guzzler'. Anyway after being picked up in 12 cylinder luxury cars they are being hurried off to the very best hotels at £650 per night where they will feast on scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges. When where you last able to afford that? Most taxpayers I know can't afford £650 for two weeks all inclusive.

But surely when they get there they will calm it down a bit? I mean they will be wanting to do their bit to save the Planet? Well not really, we serfs are expected to shiver in the dark so that we have more money available to pay more taxes but the CCF's? Here are some facts.

Whilst at the summit all these people will be guzzling energy. The organisers will lay 900km of computer cable and 50,000 square miles of carpet. More than 200,000 meals will be served and visitors will drink more than 200,000 cups of coffee.

The UN estimates the emissions from both international travel and living costs will be in the region of 40,500 tonnes - the equivalent of around two thirds the CO2 the UK's biggest polluter, Drax power station, produced in a day in 2007. Or to put it another way the same carbon emissions as Morocco in 2006.

On the news yesterday it was estimated that over 34,000 people were travelling to Copenhagen for this summit – but don't worry serfs, they're not paying – you are!

Debate at last

May I just thank all those people who have taken the time and trouble to post their comments on here. It looks like we might just be having a debate at last, this is what I write the blog for, to get people to come up and give their opinions and views.

First off I think Paul was being a bit disingenuous saying that I was comparing Gordon Brown to Hitler, what I said was "Gordon Brown gave a perfect example of this kind of fanaticism the other day when, almost frothing at the mouth in fine Hitlerian style, he proclaimed anyone who didn't accept his point of view as being 'Flat Earthers', which means I was comparing his style to Hitler's not the man. However if I did cause a misunderstanding I apologise.

Richard has made some valuable comments in his posts, especially about how the IPCC work.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) does exactly this: it looks at all the studies that have been done, from people who's (sic) research has found man is not to blame, and from those that believe we are. They review the body of evidence and look at the overall picture."

If only that were true, unfortunately it is a matter of record that they did not do this. The IPCC relied heavily on information gathered by Working Group 1 under the chairmanship of Dr John Houghton (later Sir John Theodore Houghton FRS CBE bio here: www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Biography.php?ID=17) who was at that time Chief Executive of the British Met office. He founded the Hadley centre which later became very involved in selecting which scientists should be invited to contribute.

At first everything seemed above board and one passage in the Working Group 1 report read as follows.

"a global warming of larger size has almost certainly occurred at least once since the end of the last glaciations without any appreciable increase in greenhouse gases. Because we do not understand the reasons for these past warming events, it is not yet possible to attribute a specific proportion of the recent, smaller warming to an increase in greenhouse gases"

In other words greater warmings have happened before, we don't know why, but we can't blame greenhouse gases. A perfectly fair and balanced assessment of the situation. However when the report was issued all mention of not knowing why warming had occurred was removed. Prof R S Lindzen (bio here: www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm) writing in 1992 wrote:

"largely ignores the uncertainty in the report and attempts to present the expectation of substantial warming as firmly based science"

In other words "Hey hang on a minute this has changed from we don't really know to this is definite"

Lindzen went on to quote Houghton himself admitting that:

"whilst every attempt was made by lead authors to incorporate their comments, in some cases these formed a minority opinion which could not be reconciled with the larger consensus"

In other words if you don't agree with us you will not be heard. Shades of Copernicus and Galileo!

Professor F Seitz (obituary here: http://newswire.rockefeller.edu/index.php?page=engine&id=724)

Commented in 1996:

"in my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events which led to this IPCC report…if the IPCC is incapable of following its most basic procedures, it would be best to abandon the entire IPCC process"

Professor Seitz, distinguished physicist and educator who held key government posts for over three decades, received the National Medal of Science, the nation's highest award in science, in 1973 for his contributions to the modern quantum theory of the solid state of matter, presumably had a fair knowledge of the process of 'peer review'.

Whatever happened to Dr John Houghton for his starting the global warming ball rolling? Well the fact that he later received a knighthood might be seen by some as payoff, but of course I couldn't possibly comment! Two of his publications make interesting reading, Does God Play Dice? 1988, Intervarsity Press and of course the ever popular, The search for God; can science help? 1995, Lion Publishing.

The point is the fix was in, right from the start the IPCC made it quite clear that any scientist not agreeing with them would not be listened to.

How the CCFs tell the truth – but lie at the same time!

Imagine for a moment you picked up your newspaper and read the following:

CARIBBEAN ICE DOUBLES IN LESS THAN AN HOUR!!!!

Reports are coming in from the Captain of the SS Caribbean Cruiser that ice in the usually warm waters has doubled in less than one hour. Several ships officers noticed this phenomenon, and it was entered into the ships log. The Captain, speaking to his head office in London, said "In forty years at sea I have never seen anything like this before"

There is a consensus of scientific opinion that this is caused by Global warming. A spokesman said "It is quite possible that large icebergs breaking off from the Antarctic ice shelf are finding their way to the usually warm waters of the Caribbean. Scientists have long forecast that the effects of man- made global warming will have catastrophic effects worldwide.

(The article then continues repeating all the dire warnings we have read so many times)

Now I bet that the majority of people reading that will throw up their hands in horror at this latest 'proof' of AGW (man-made global warming). I'll now show you how the CCF's can publish stories like the above which whilst telling the truth, are in fact lies. By that I mean lead the gullible, (and there are a lot of them) to come to a totally wrong conclusion.

Imagine yourself cruising on the good ship SS Caribbean Cruiser. You stand at the guardrail sipping a cool drink and watching the heavens. In an idle moment you take an ice cube from your glass and drop it over the side, moments later you do it again. Now factually the ice in the Caribbean has doubled in less than an hour, but notice how the story doesn't dwell on the truth part of the story, but hurries on to regale you with the usual AGW nonsense. How do they do this?

I call it "fudging the baseline". The baseline is the actual fact part, but they are very clever not to give you any further details. For example a couple of years ago a paper ran with the headline that the incidence of malaria in the UK had tripled in the previous eight months. They were very careful however not to give you the baseline, which were the actual figures. The story was eventually exposed. There was one case of malaria in the UK, but two holiday makers returning from a brief break in The Gambia had not continued taking their anti malaria tablets on returning to the UK and fell ill with the disease. Factually the story was correct, there was one person with malaria, now there were three, but the impression that is left with you is that a disease normally associated with warmer climes ( though in fact malaria is not a tropical disease) is running riot in the UK, an impression that is far from the truth.

So whenever you see a story which is strangely vague about actual figures, be afraid, be very afraid. Such stories often use phrases like, doubled, percentage rise or fall, or since records began.

For example in September 2007 the BBC ran with a story "Northwest Passage (a sea route across the top of Canada normally not navigable because of ice) open for the first time in recorded history". Now this sounds very dramatic and surely proof of AGW. However if you notice they did not actually tell you how long recorded history was. Most of us facing that phrase might imagine a long period, possibly hundreds of years, which is exactly what the CCF's want you to believe. In fact in this case "recorded history" actually meant from 1978 when satellite surveillance made it possible.

Over the years the fabled North West passage has been free of ice on many occasions. Chinese maps of the 14th century show it navigable. The famous Arctic and Antarctic explorer Roald Amundsen, the chap who beat Scott to the South Pole, sailed a ship through it in 1903. The account of his voyage is contained in his diaries. The RCMP, the Mounties, ketch St Roch, made the trip several times between 1940 and 1944.

But the story doesn't end there. In September 2000 the St Roch II, the successor to the original patrol boat did the same trip in just three weeks. Hold on, some of you are saying, didn't the September 2007 story say that the trip had not been done since 1978? So were the details of the 2000 trip kept secret? Well no the Guardian had the story and there was a website giving the full details of the trip. So why wasn't it mentioned? Because the CCF's lied. They wanted a headline to show global warming so they told a lie; of course they also forgot to mention that in 2008 the Northwest Passage was once again frozen over. Of course they didn't bother to mention that as people might say "Whatever happened to this global warming?"

So be wary when reading stories or listening to people who fudge the baseline. If someone tells you this is the coldest/warmest since records began, ask them when that was. If someone tells you the ice has doubled/decreased ask from what amount? Put them on the spot; force them to tell the truth – the real truth!

Details of St Roch trip: http://www.vancouvermaritimemuseum.com/page122.htm

Details of St Roch II trip: http://www.athropolis.com/news/st-roch.htm

The inconvenient truth about climate change claims

BEFORE we continue I think it's only fair to acknowledge the contribution made by Albert of Mumbles when he commented on my posting, The Great Global Warming Scam, on December 5.

The first thing to notice is that I, unlike the CCF's, am not trying to stop you reading opposing points of view. In fact I encourage it, which is the way we get a debate started. You will not hear me say that I am right because so many thousands (and growing every day) agree with me, I will not stifle comment by declaring, "The debate is over", and I will never try to browbeat you by saying "The science is settled". I actively encourage people to take part in this debate, because believe me when the tax demands start dropping through your letter box you will wish you at least made a stand.

Let us look at Albert's comment. He says:

"Are you a scientist then Bob? Or are you one of these people who think Elvis is still alive?"

Now notice he doesn't try and debate with me, instead he tries to mock me, tries to belittle me and make me ashamed that I dared to question the Holy Writ of the CCF's. However his is an important comment because it shows just what sort of people we are up against. Let us look at his question "Are you a scientist?" The answer is no I'm not, but do I have to be? I have no knowledge of physics, or the intricacies of velocity – mass equations, but I do know that if I step in front of a train going at speed I am liable to come off second best!

Albert is just the sort of person the CCF's are looking for, someone who will unquestionably accept what his superiors tell him to accept. Five hundred years ago it was the church that played this role; today it is an unholy alliance of politics and science. Their aims are remarkably similar, power and domination over the serfs. People like Albert are the sort of people who used to torture people to death because their superiors told them to. Don't forget the majority of the guards in the camps were not made up of the elite they were taken from the inmates. But does Albert have a point; are scientist's people who should be believed without question?

Let's overlook the inconvenient truth that tens of thousands of scientists (number is growing daily) don't agree with the CCF's, and just look at scientists. Just how good is their track record?

Before Copernicus published De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543 there was a consensus (there's that word again) amongst the other scientists that the Sun transited around the earth. So just how valuable were their opinions? And of course we cannot overlook the views of Harvard educated Doctor Howard Aiken who forecast in the late fifties that there would only be the need for "one or two computers would suffice", Well I've got two on my desk, so does that mean I've got the entire worlds stock of computers in my office? No it simply means this scientist was wrong on this occasion. And of course let us not forget that wonderful example of scientists being spectacular wrong when it came to "The greatest threat to mankind" the Millennium Bug. Governments spent some $300 billion of taxpayers' money preparing for this crisis, special committees were set up and a lot of people made an awful lot of money out of this panic, which was supported by a consensus of scientific opinion. Sound familiar? Of course as soon as the second hand swept past midnight that particular gravy train came to an abrupt halt, never mind there's another one coming along straight away, this is the Global Warming/Freezing/Changing scam and just look how we are clamouring to jump aboard.

After the Y2K fiasco a national paper tracked down a well respected computer scientist who predicted correctly that there was not a problem. Asked why he didn't come forward before he showed documentary evidence that he had tried to tell the world there was nothing to worry about, but his papers were not published and he was sidelined, this sounds very familiar.

Of course we must not forget all those scientists who warned the world that it was heading for a new Ice Age, oops sorry, we mean the planet is catching fire, oh no it's not its uhhh, well changing. Haven't you noticed how the nomenclature has changed over the years as scientists come up with new scare stories? Global Freezing, Global Warming oh bug*er let's just say Climate change that should take care of everything.

Besides Albert you overlook the inconvenient truth that tens of thousands of scientists do not believe in anthropogenic (man made) global warming, AGW, so why can't we listen to them? Or do you insist that the only people we listen to are those who insist the sun goes round the earth, that only a handful of computers will be needed and that the Millennium Bug is the greatest threat to mankind? If so, congratulations you have shown yourself worthy of the title Climate Change Fanatic 1st Class.

I end by repeating what I said earlier, No I am not a scientist – but do I have to be? (Still not quite sure what Elvis has to do with it though)

The great global warming scam

TODAY we are going to be taking a look at some of the ways you can tell a CCF (Climate Change Fanatic).

You will find that because of their being brainwashed they will constantly utter the same phrases over and over, rather like a robot with a damaged thinking chip.

Some of the phrases you will hear are:

"There is a consensus"

"The Science is settled"

"The debate is over"

"The evidence is overwhelming"

These phrases have only one purpose and that is to bully and cow. They are trying to kid you that you are the only one who does not believe in manmade global warming, or to give it it's technical term Anthropogenic Global Warming or AGW, and therefore you better fall into line pretty sharpish or else! Let us have a look at these phrases and see how in fact they are totally meaningless.

CONCENSUS

My dictionary defines consensus as meaning 'a general agreement', which sounds pretty good until you start to pull it apart. The first thing you will find is that the 'general agreement' is only among those who agree with each other. Now that does sound a bit obvious, but that is what they are trying to con you with. The fact is there is no scientific agreement about AGW but so far you have only been allowed to hear from those who support it. Another thing to look at is that AGW should be a matter of science not politics. The difference is very important. In politics you can put a motion to the vote, and if there is a majority who vote yes the motion is carried. However that is not, or should not, be the way science operates. In science a thesis must be subject to experiment, and the important thing about these experiments is that they must be repeatable and always produce the same results. You cannot for example reproduce the experiment a thousand times, achieve the theoretical goal in 700 cases and say 'Case proved'. Science doesn't, or shouldn't, work like that. Let's say a scientist comes up with the theory that if you mix 1 gallon of cold water with 1 gallon of boiling water you end up with two gallons of warmish water. He will offer his theory in a paper, and in this paper he will give all the details of the experiment that he undertook to arrive at his conclusions, such as temperature of water at the start of the experiment and temperature at the end of the experiment. This will enable other scientists to reproduce exactly what he did, and if they all reach the same conclusion the theory is considered scientifically proved. If however 999 scientists come up with the same answer and just 1 comes up with a different answer then the theory is not proved and must be subject to further scrutiny. For example let us look at Cold Fusion.

Interest in the field was dramatically increased on March 23, 1989 when Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons reported that they had produced fusion in a tabletop experiment involving electrolysis of heavy water on a palladium (Pd) electrode. They reported anomalous heat production ("excess heat") of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes. They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium.[2] These reports raised hopes of a cheap and abundant source of energy.

Enthusiasm turned to scepticism as replication failures were weighed in view of several reasons cold fusion should not be possible, the discovery of possible sources of experimental error, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts. By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead. (Extract taken from Wikipedia)

Because the experiment could not be replicated the theory was eventually rejected. The fact is that the CCF's have not managed to produce any evidence at all that their theories are correct. When asked for their data so that others might check it the requests have either been ignored or the data has been destroyed. On several occasions there is evidence that data has been falsified. A recent leaking of thousands of emails from Hadley CRU showed this was exactly what had been going on for years. Don't take my word for it check for yourselves the information is out there. I do not ask that you believe me like CCF's do, all I ask is that you use what I say as a springboard to discover the truth for yourself.

THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED.

Well no actually it's not. It is settled between all those scientists who believe in it but there are tens of thousands of scientists who don't. Recently over 30,000 of them signed the Oregon Treaty, to say that they don't. The Daily Express for December 2 2009 led with a headline "THE BIG CLIMATE CHANGE FRAUD", which reports on the findings of Professor Ian Plimmer, so be very, very assured the science is far from settled.

THE DEBATE IS OVER

It's a bit difficult how the debate could be over when in fact no debate has ever been held on the subject. Those scientists who attended conferences to speak out about AGW were actually prevented from doing so. Not so long ago these scientists got so fed up with being muzzled that they took out full page adverts in all the major American Newspapers challenging the CCF's to debate the issue. The result? The CCF's declined the challenge because they said 'the debate is over'. Circular thinking if ever I saw it.

THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING

Well no actually it's not. The CCF's have yet to produce a single piece of evidence that any change in the climate is due to and only due to man. The evidence they have tried to slide past the public is often misleading and sometimes downright fraudulent. Here is an email that was recently revealed in Climategate.

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd (sic) from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline"

This was in response to hundreds of scientists pointing out a rather inconvenient truth that far from warming up, the planet is actually cooling down. That didn't suit the CCF's so they falsified the data.

This outrageous chicanery is evidence of just how far these despicable people will go to grab more of your money and stuff it in their pockets.

Next we will be looking at how the CCF's are all fully paid up members of the 'Don't do what I do – do what I say' club.

I thought we might need a logo. So here's one.

So come on folks, joint the SAS – Sane and Sensible. (With apologies to the Regiment)