“I hope the German brothers were gonna blow up US-German bases in their country. We should do that here in Canada as well. Kill as many western soldiers as well so that they think twice before entering foreign countries on behalf of their Jew masters. . .When do I get to shoot a few Jews down for attempting to blow up dozens of mosques in America right after 9-11 … why f—ing target the Americans when the Jews are better?. . .the Jews are literally the most treacherous nation on the face of the Earth”. . .I hate the Jews. . .the filthy Jews carried out 9-11.”

And from within Canada’s most prominent “progressive” eco-chamber, the apologists bash away their keyboards. It’s just the National Post trying to “incite hatred against Muslims.”

It may not be a consensus, but the collective view of the world’s climate scientists is that humans are responsible for the bulk of the change observed over the last century. And the scientists concerned have now firmed up their previous statements on the matter.

One of the professional organisations to which I belong is the American Geophysical Union (AGU). Despite its name, the AGU is a truly international body, and you would be hard-pressed to find an active geoscientist who isn’t a member. No longer working myself as an atmospheric physicist, I keep up my subscription as the AGU is a mine of useful information and networking possibilities.

Just over a week ago the AGU released a statement updating its 2003 position on climate change. You can read the document here, and I recommend that you do so. Free of hyperbole and political bias, the statement is well-written, and perfectly comprehensible by sentient humans of average intelligence and above.

Here is an extract:

“In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change–an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters.”

The statement goes on to say that if this disruptive warming is to be avoided, then we will have to reduce our net carbon dioxide emissions by more than 50% this century. Note the use of the words “more than”. Fifty percent really is a best case scenario, and the chances are that the figure will have to be revised upwards as we learn more about ice dynamics and a number of other factors.

The statement goes on:

“Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.”

So now you know (if you didn’t already).

Nick Cohen on Martin Amis:

Amis is now fascinated by ideologues such as Eagleton and all those who have bayed along with him in the pages of the Guardian and Independent. Journalists have made knowing remarks about how the professor had a book out, and a controversy would do its sales no harm. Amis finds their explanation too shallow.
‘That’s just ordinary the cynical calculation. It’s a drag being a cynic, it’s like being a snob or a racist, you’re always on duty finding reasons for being cynical, but I can understand how that type of cynicism works, These kind of attacks are something more than “I’ve got a book coming out and I want a bit attention”. It’s a super-cynicism, the cynicism that says “sling the charges out there. It doesn’t matter if he didn’t really say it. It will stick them to him, and I will get the approval of my peer group.”
‘If you’re ideological you’ve got two people living with you the cheer-leader and the commissar, the frowning commissar. The cheerleader kisses you and the commissar pats on you on the back for doing what’s necessary to uphold the party line. To be ideological means to fear individuality. You must see safety in numbers, in the herd, so your vanity is always protected. The ideologue can’t live by himself; he needs the validation of the like-minded.’
If you know Amis’s world, you will also know that he’s right. Comedians who shriek ‘ohmigod he’s supporting Israel!’ expect only applause for defending the faithful against the heretic. They would be shocked if their own congregation doubted or cross-questioned them before concurring. Their condemnations are social, not intellectual.
I once asked Christopher Hitchens about the conformity of modern liberal life; why it was that when you talked to them you wouldn’t merely know their opinion on one thing but on everything. Hitchens thought the politically committed fear that if they stepped out of line on one issue, stopped believing that, say, that the comprehensive school system was a good idea they would indeed change their minds on everything; that their leftish political personality was like a rug which would unravel if one thread comes loose.

How. Much. Do. You. Despise. These people?

Personal note: I once spoke to Conway. He used to live in Sheriff Hill in Gateshead — I was canvassing before a general election that was due and knocked on his door — he was still a stupid posh cunt even then (just like every other fucker connected with his ‘party’/pressure group — vermin).

PS. Try getting a job of the like posh twat got from his dolt parent from this place — then find out what benefit having the correct upbringing and parental connections gives you. Scum — verily they are. Credentialism (which is another piece of crap in the job ‘market’ these days — even that isn’t going to get you started in this case — scumbags). They can fuck off as well.

Update: More evidence for the prosecution located here.

eg…hard at work — see the specimen …

and…