April 12, 2011

Apostates And Recanters

I was over at Angry Exile's gaff and spotted his great piece on global warming climate change.

The short story is that a global warming climate change devotee has broken ranks and announced that it was all (Shock! Horror!) a big fat lie. They told lies, endless lies, just to make money. How shallow can one get?

David Evans is the latest to confess all. (See his CV below). AE has the full story, please go there and follow his links.

"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant."

And it struck me that we can fully expect similar statements from the "suddenly aware" in the future.

This sort of thing:


"The whole idea that second hand smoke is the main cause of all known diseases is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame anti-smoking scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that second hand smoke is a dangerous pollutant."

And this:


"The whole idea that Swine Flu was life-threatening to all and sundry was based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that Swine Flu will spread faster than the pox in a whorehouse."

And this:

"The whole idea that BSE was the main cause of anything was based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame, erm, cow scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that slaughtering millions of animals needlessly was an act of supreme cleverness."

And this:

"The whole idea that Al Qaeda (and NOT governments in the developed world) is the main cause of terrorism is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s all the bloody time. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame spooks, now outrageously maintain the fiction that Al Qaeda is a dangerous outfit, when in fact, no such group exists."

I'm sure you are getting the idea. (If you have any suggestions, lob them in).

 Here's one from The Cat:

"The whole idea that government is the main cure of all known social and political problems is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the entire sweep of modern history. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the politicos, and their knuckle-dragging, lickspittle hangers-on and camp-followers now outrageously maintain the fiction that less personal freedom and more governmental power and control is what we need."

And another from Richard:

"The whole idea that guns are the main cause of crime is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence. Rather than admit they were wrong, the governments and their tame spooks outrageously maintain the fiction that personal firearm ownership is dangerous when in fact the unprotected public are at the mercy of increasingly vicious criminals."

One more from the exalted AE:

"The whole idea that criminalising recreational drugs and the trade in them is a useful policy is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 19fucking20s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, reputations, and political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, their tame police and health advisors, and a legion of nannying prodnoses and killjoy busybodies now outrageously maintain the fiction that drugs must remain illegal."
More and more often we see these people pop up, having had their epiphanies, and now they are all to eager to spill the beans. Is this to purge their consciences, or is it an altruistic act? I don't know, and I don't care.

Just keep popping up, folks. You'll feel 100 times better when you do the right thing and turn your backs on the bacteria you were falsely loyal to. You owe us the truth, so speak up. There is no money in it, but redemption awaits.

C'mon, fess up!

Well done David. A lovely u-turn, given your previous employment.

David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The comments above were made to the Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally in Perth, Australia, on March 23.

Good on ya, cobber. Welcome to the right side of the Force.

CR.

23 comments:

Caedmon's Cat said...

"The whole idea that government is the main cure of all known social and political problems is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the entire sweep of modern history. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the politicos, and their knuckle-dragging, lickspittle hangers-on and camp-followers now outrageously maintain the fiction that less personal freedom and more governmental power and control is what we need."

Captain Ranty said...

Most excellent CC!

I have added it to the main post.

I had that "D'OH!" moment when I read it. I rail against the government so much that I should have thought of it myself.

Thanks

CR.

Katabasis said...

Great news CR.

Too many people I know still have the blind faith (though refuse to look into it for themselves, and immediately start with the insults when my questioning gets difficult). The problem is, even if they had an epiphany now it would be too late. The eco-loons have wrought their worst damage by stabbing our best energy sources in the back and we're guaranteed energy shortages this decade.

On this topic can I HIGHLY recommend this blogger, Sofia. Her work on climate hysteria is incredibly comprehensive and her latest work on the prospects of a cooling trend, in the face of all the propaganda the other way, is essential reading.

Captain Ranty said...

Thanks K.

Reading it now.

The sooner we "out" all of them, the sooner we can look at better energy solutions.

These arseholes support anything over nuclear or coal or oil, no matter how ineffective it is.

Isn't it lovely to discover that their reasons for doing so are NOT to save the planet but to line their own pockets?

CR.

Katabasis said...

It's amazing how this is oh so similar to the EU too isn't it?

Iceland is now on the receiving end of EU propaganda plus, funded of course by our taxes.

Let's hope they stay strong!!

Anonymous said...

definition of politic

1. artful or shrewd; ingenious: a politic manager
2. crafty or unscrupulous; cunning: a politic old scoundrel
3. sagacious, wise, or prudent, esp in statesmanship: a politic choice
4. an archaic word for political

George said...

Dear Captai

I go along with most of the above "rants". The one observation on "smoking" is that from my point of view "secondary smoke" is a pain in the arse. To be able to go into a restaurant without stinging eyes and a blocked up nose from other people's smoke is a real pleasure. I realise you are a "smoker". What I could never understand about smokers was that they "mostly) never smoke while they are eating: only after they have finished their meals. They never give a flying-fuck about the others around them who have not finished eating.

Captain Ranty said...

George,

I hear you.

What I cannot grasp is why they (TPTB) felt the need to ban smoking in every single restaurant/pub in the country?

Did the non-smokers really need them all to be smoke free just in case they popped in? 57,000 pubs and 45,000 restaurants and they couldn't leave a few of them for us? Really?

The whole thing could have been handled better, more fairly, without pitting smokers against non-smokers.

In fact, I have absolutely nothing against non-smokers at all.

It's the vile anti-smokers I detest. Freaks. Every fucking one of them.

CR.

George said...

While I'm on a roll and in a funny frame of mind I will run the following past you.

France is about to fine people for wearing the burkha.

At first my knee-jerk reaction was "about time too" etc. etc. Then I began to think about it and came to the conclusion that although I am anti-religion and don't think that anyone should be forced to wear certain clothes because of religion, I am also anti any government telling me what I CAN or CAN'T wear.

I suddenly had a vision of everyone on a demo or a court hearing insisting on wearing burkhas. That would cock-up the CCTV and plods photographers.

Anthony said...

George,
So you are ANTI any government telling you what you can or can't wear...

but PRO any government telling you where you can or can't smoke?

Rather than, you know, leave it to the individual choice of the wearer, the customer or the business owner?

Isn't that a tad hypocritical?
Anthony

George said...

Dear Anthony
You seem to be a little muddle headed and yes I am a hypocrite 7th Dan. I am against the government telling you where you can or can't smoke and I'm also against the government telling me that I can't discriminate against people. My view is i am an individual and I only respond to individuals not groups. I also believe that most people are reasonable and want to cause no harm to others. We then come to smoking. One smoker can cause discomfort to 50 people in a room whereas 1 non-smoker wouldn't even be noticed in a room of 50 smokers.
I watched two of my "smoking" cousins die of cancer. It's not a pretty sight. I also knew a man who fitted false limbs to people. I naturally thought most were caused by accidents but he assured me that most were caused by smoking. So I tend to get a bit noughty when people say smoking doesn't harm.

I wouldn't ban smoking the same as I wouldn't ban farting or being sick in a restaurant. In fact there should be a room for smokers. (hermetically sealed)

There is also a problem with the business owner being allowed to do what ever they like. This will be fine until one day an all night brothel and disco opens next to your house.

I also believe that people should be allowed to drive at 150 miles an hour in a built-up area as long as there is a rule that if they kill one of my family I can kill the driver and his family.

It's a strange concept freedom. Isn't it. Most people when they really think about it don't really want it.

richard said...

"The whole idea that guns are the main cause of crime is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence. Rather than admit they were wrong, the governments and their tame spooks outrageously maintain the fiction that personal firearm ownership is dangerous when in fact the unprotected public are at the mercy of increasingly vicious criminals."

Captain Ranty said...

Thanks Richard.

I have added yours as well.

Is this a first? A living, evolving blog post?

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

George,

"I watched two of my "smoking" cousins die of cancer. It's not a pretty sight. I also knew a man who fitted false limbs to people. I naturally thought most were caused by accidents but he assured me that most were caused by smoking. So I tend to get a bit noughty when people say smoking doesn't harm."

Just to be contrary (and absolutely honest), I know (and have known) thousands of smokers in my lifetime. None, to my knowledge, have died of, or suffered from, "smoking related diseases". The only two people I knew that contracted lung cancer were both life-long non-smokers.

My beef though, is with second hand smoke. I do not believe, not even for a nano-second, that it can harm anyone, with the possible exception of severe asthmatics. Even then, I am sceptical. I have read of cases where the afflicted had fatal attacks and SHS was blamed, but in both cases, the people had begun their fatal attacks long before they were exposed to tobacco smoke. This is never highlighted once the main headline "SHS Kills Asthmatic" has appeared. I also happen to know several asthma sufferers who use smoking to help their condition. During an attack, sufferers pant. They take many short breaths and that is why they feel as if they cannot breathe. Smokers breathe much, much deeper than non-smokers, generally, and this deep-breathing does as much to relieve the attack as the Ventalin, or whatever else is in the puffer.

There are more lies than truth surrounding SHS. The Righteous are famous for their lies. And why not? They get paid to lie.

But, my other point is this: governments who legislated against smokers did not do so on the grounds of health (the evidence simply does not stack up), they legislated against an odour. They were bullied into it by the Righteous Ones.

Can I ban garlic eaters now?

Wearers of cheap, shitty perfume?

Curry scoffers?

What about body odour?

It's the exact same thing.

CR.

George said...

Dear Richard and Captain.

The only reason guns are against the law is for the protection of the government.

An unarmed public is easily coerced by the force of the state.

Switzerland has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world and they don't seem to go around blasting everyone to kingdom come.

George said...

On the smoking issue I know a medical site where they actually say that smoking has some advantages. Evidently one of the better effects of smoking is the prevention of Alzheimers. So I'm not really a died-in-the-wool anti merchant. I'm just selfish. I have a friend who smokes and he announces that he's going outside for a "puff". I also reciprocate by going outside to fart. So we get on fine.
I also think hard drugs should be legal as this is the root cause of most crime. Why not have a restaurant where you can smoke, shoot-up Heroin and snort a line of coke. That would be an interesting venue. Just the place totake the wife and kids.

As for garlic, shitty perfume, curry and body odour I didn't realise you knew me.

Twisted Root said...

George,

Your point about freedom being complicated and untidy is a good one and is, as you say, why most people can't be bothered with it and gladly hand it over to the nearest psychopath.

However your thinking about the hypothetical brothel/gambling den next door is, if I may say so, a little statist.
First thing I would do is find out if they allow smoking, if so as would probably be the case it's a win for me.
If not, a live webcast of the street out of my front window would be in order. Next, it would depend on what I wanted to achieve. A few flyers locally advertising the site would see business drop off fairly quickly. More likely, I wouldn't advertise it at all and would gather some pretty incriminating stuff on most of the local politcians.
It might be the case that the brothel owners are not pleasant neighbours and would object - this where widespread gun ownership would instill a little politeness.

Your putative nightmare is my opoortunity.

Angry Exile said...

Thank fuck for that. I thought there might have been more pictures of Moonbat all blue and naked.

George, this Google Streetview pic is of Ladies for Gentlemen, one of Melbourne's licensed and legal brothels, in the inner suburb of Richmond. You can see that it was once a couple of houses and if you explore the area you'll find more like them that look like they're still residential use, as well as other more widely accepted businesses. This one is Gotham City in South Melbourne (before you ask I have no idea if they have a Bat Girl vs Harley Quinn mud wrestling arena, but I'd like to think so) and is also in a mixed residential/commercial area with peoples homes only a block or two away. I don't know for sure but I think the licensed prostitution business here views its legal status as being precious and worth not upsetting the neighbours, who in turn have got used to the idea and see it as an improvement over kerb crawlers and crack addled street walkers (you have to go to St Kilda for those).

My point? That knocking shops can coexist peacefully with their neighbours. So why not smokers? Needless to say Victoria's nanny state legislation banned smoking in the brothels, which might even have prompted some of the working girls back out of the fairly safe licensed brothel environment and back on to the streets or using their own homes if both they and their regular clients like a smoke afterwards. That was put to the then Health Minister at the time, but she more or less said 'tough shit' and went ahead anyway.

On the subject of prostitution:

"The whole idea that prostitution is inevitably a cause of social problems was based on the feelings of religions, NIMBYs and prudes, and was proved false by empirical evidence of everywhere past and present that has legalised and regulated the trade. But the political mileage was too big, with too many votes and eventually too many outreach jobs and political careers -ahem- riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong governments, parties and police now outrageously maintain the fiction that preventing women who wish to use their vaginas to make $300 an hour in clean and safe environments will somehow make the sky fall in."

Tomorrow's instalment will be drugs unless someone else does it first. It's shit o'clock in the morning here and I'm off to bed.

Captain Ranty said...

AE,

I was sorely tempted but went with something sensible instead.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

George,

"...I didn't realise you knew me."

So it WAS you behind me on the bus!

CR.

Anonymous said...

non smokers


http://youtu.be/w9ySCcnoo3c

Stealthy said...

I rather suspect that the smoking ban is nothing more than a way of maximising on live stock and its output. Increase the length of time people will be around to pay. Followed by a re-evaluation that justifies a release of more paper or debt.

Just a thought :P

Angry Exile said...

"The whole idea that criminalising recreational drugs and the trade in them is a useful policy is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 19fucking20s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, reputations, and political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, their tame police and health advisors, and a legion of nannying prodnoses and killjoy busybodies now outrageously maintain the fiction that drugs must remain illegal."