data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8baa5/8baa54b45cfc0ccdd3358e95f45f88ca9297ffeb" alt=""
"Look into my eyes. Count backwards from ten... very sleepy... there was no leak... nothing has changed... the naughty hackers must be punished..."
"I am by birth a free Commoner of England, and am thereby intailed or intituled unto an equall priviledge with your selfe, or the greatest men in England, unto the freedome and liberty of the Lawes of England." William Thompson, 14. of December, 1647
Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed."
Wow. Have the scales fallen from his eyes? Not quite. He then goes into a bizarre, laboured parody of the Protocols of Zion, to bolster up his faith, on the basis that, as he has seen no evidence of a conspiracy along such lines, all is well. Climate Gate only damages "the credibility of three or four scientists," he spins. But George, these are the very highest of priests in your cult! The CRU is your Vatican, and Phil Jones is your Pope!
'The lay public'? For a moment that raised my hackles, 'arrogant twit' I thought, then I realised he means it literally! The Church of Climatology is a religion now, so we really are the lay public.
(BTW, I've never seen so many comments deleted by the moderator. I wonder what we're missing?)
Ho ho ho. From the Guardian:
The computer files were apparently accessed earlier this week from servers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit a world-renowned centre focused on the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.
Climate change sceptics who have studied the emails allege they provide "smoking gun" evidence that some of the climatologists colluded in manipulating data to support the widely held view that climate change is real, and is being largely caused by the actions of mankind."
As reported in Boing Boing:
"Secretary of State Peter Mandelson is planning to introduce changes to the Digital Economy Bill now under debate in Parliament. These changes will give the Secretary of State (Mandelson -- or his successor in the next government) the power to make "secondary legislation" (legislation that is passed without debate) to amend the provisions of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988).
"Paris - A young woman was diagnosed with a crippling illness possibly linked to the vaccine being used protect the French public against swine flu, the health ministry said late Thursday.
The woman, who was only identified as a health worker, came down with Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) six days after receiving her swine flu vaccination."
Sometimes I write more on other people's blogs than on my own. Below is my final contribution at one of the pro-EU blogs that I have kept a periodic eye on, but since the theft of our referendum, there's very little to say to Europhiles. It seems futile to argue over the game, now they've picked up the ball and gone off home. But as I don't deign to continue the dispute, I will reproduce my parting shot, for the pleasure of my readers (yes, both of you!):
As for the case in point, I don’t care what the media says either way. It’s inaccurate in both directions, but without any democratic process, what difference does it make? Public opinion may be swayed one way or the other, but so what? The public doesn’t get a chance to express its opinion. The EU is going to have a President representing millions of people and not one of them will have voted for him.
I’m a libertarian and a nationalist, and I’m under no illusion of speaking for a majority of anyone. If I wanted a political party that endorsed my views, I’d have to start it myself. I am only one man, but in a democratic country at least I have a chance to argue the case one way or another, to call for the repeal a law I oppose, or the institution of a law I support, for more taxes or less taxes, for nationalisation or privatisation, to vote for the people I think will represent my views the best. Now, even this modicum of participation is being removed, replaced by something no more accountable than the Byzantine Empire."
To this, comes a response:
"I always find it intriguing that those who are pushing for referenda on the EU always make excuses when it’s suggested referenda are used more in UK politics for other matters, such as the UK becoming a republic, the voting system, our membership of NATO, greater devolution of power to local authorities, directly elected prime ministers, etc.
That the proposal is not a part of an existing structure means that the usual rules of transparency and reporting don't apply. Up to a point that is the right of those doing the negotiating, but it does make people suspicious, and it does allow speculation to grow unchecked."
The Register's take is that the secrecy has allowed speculation to grow to a feverish level. But what really ought to be the issue is that there are these secret negotiations in the first place. Still, I guess I'm one of those old-fashioned democrats, not yet adapted to the tyrannical New World Order of the near future.
It always seems to be *then* that they bang on about Parliament being the right forum to decide *those* matters rather than consulting the people. Pure hypocrisy."
This from someone who categorised me as 'hysterical' and 'rightwing'. I admitted the charge of hysteria, at least I may come across this way sometimes, but refuted the label of rightwing, which I am not. Nor have I ever made excuses with regard to holding referenda on other issues, such as the ones mentioned here, indeed I would welcome any or all of them. The problem in this country is certainly not one of having too much democracy.
This response bears out my view that there is nothing worth discussing with the pro-EU crowd. They cannot defend their position from the charge of being anti-democratic, because it's true and they know it, so they don't even try. It hurts their delusional self-image to realise how their chosen political system has - by their own professed 'liberal', 'progressive' values - not a shred of legitimacy .