Archive for the ‘Top 10 List’ Category

>The Discovery Institute’s wilful destruction of Christian values

>Last year I wrote a series of posts being a list of the Top 10 Institutions That Ruin The World.

#10 on that list was the Intelligence Design Movement, Discovery Institute, as outlined in the re-post below.

Without their multi-decade push, starting with Creation Science and transforming into Intelligent Design such loopy spokespeople as Richard Dawkins (who I used to admire tremendously; The Selfish Gene is a terrific book) and Karen Armstrong etc would not have been able to so successfully influence people against religion with the major negative consequence being that Christian values are increasingly dismissed as illegitimate.

Ben Stein’s recent movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, rivals the worst of Michael Moore’s error riddled, quotes out of context drivel.

The fact is that scientific theories need to be able to make predictions that can be tested. If they are tested and shown to be false then the theory falls over.

Intelligent Design makes NO PREDICTIONS that can be tested…!!!

It is therefore not science. Get over it.

The fact that science can not yet explain aspects of the world or universe does not validate crackpot theories like Intelligent Design any more than it does Scientology.

I’m sure that the Discover Institute and its supporters don’t understand, or even believe, the damage they are doing to Christianity. They also don’t understand how much power they give to the Euro-left, one of the most malign influences in the world.

#10 – The Intelligent Design Movement, Discovery Institute

Intelligent Design postulates that the world is too complex to have evolved naturally, that there seems to be an order to things and that this order was created by a Designer. Intelligent Design (ID) is a product of the Discovery Institute, a Christian think tank that aims to counter what it sees as today’s materialistic and immoral society through a recovery in the strength of Judeo-Christian values.

To the casual observer that might reduce to ‘Christians believe in God as the Creator’. Big deal. Unfortunately, it is a big deal and a really big one at that. Let me explain.

In order to garner public acceptance of Creationism (that the world is 6,000 years old and the Old Testament is the literal truth et blah) it was renamed Creation Science, with the term first being used way back in the 1960s. The Creation Science movement tried hard for a long time to establish its bona fides and even attracted some high profile scientists to argue for the cause. However, the oxymoronic name and fundamentalist dogma were simply too great a hurdle to overcome and so acceptance of Creation Science remained largely confined within the Christian evangelical movement.

Enter the Discovery Institute and Intelligent Design. Understanding that Creation Science was a dead duck, the Discovery Institute sought a successor, one that would not just be a rebadged version of Creation Science but would be promoted as having the same legitimacy as Evolution. In order to deal with its opponents, a set of arguments were prepared that strongly countered the criticism of Creation Science. The aim was to have ID taught alongside Evolution in the biology classes of America’s schools.

In 2004 the Discovery Institute was in a position to push ID into the school system and chose the Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania. In summary: it stacked the School Board, raised the concern of Evolution being taught exclusively, took advice from the Thomas More Law Center, advocated teaching ID alongside Evolution and put it to a vote, which was carried 6-3. The situation ended up in court and in September 2005 Judge Jones issued a 139 page finding of fact stating that ID was no different to Creation Science, that it was therefore unconstitutional and that the ID proponents were pretty much a pack of lunatics. It could not have been a worse result for the Discovery Institute.

The reason that the Intelligent Design movement is an institution that is ruining the world is that the case became so high profile it polarised people against Christianity that would have otherwise held neutral or respectful views. It became a lightning rod for the worst, and loudest, groups in society such as the ACLU to hold up as proof of a Christian conspiracy to take over America. For the devout non-believer in society whose major value is narcissism and who believes in this same Christian conspiracy the ID movement ensured that the Christian Values baby got thrown out with the God bathwater. The fact that there’s even a supposed Christian conspiracy is due to non-believers not being able to separate Christian values from Christianity and when they hear people talking about positive Christian values they equate that with God, which they’ve rejected.

Values are what bind a society together and without them we need to give government the task of making laws about how we’ll conduct ourselves. Every time government passes a law that forces us to act in a particular way we give up a piece of our personal freedom. This is one of the reasons socialism is so destructive. It’s no fluke that those countries with strong Judeo-Christian values made the greatest progress in the last two hundred years or that those that have rejected those values are now facing the greatest challenges. The difference between Western Europe and the USA in terms of societal values has never been starker. Europe is now almost completely secular, mostly socialist in the way it taxes society, passes laws seemingly as sport and has a birth rate that will see the population decline by 20-30% by 2050. No wonder countries like Germany and Holland have net positive emigration rates (i.e. more people are leaving the place than moving in).

The US and Australia retain their sense of cultural identity and values but there is always an ongoing battle against the socialist forces in society wanting to bring those down and replace them with the State. To people like me that are profoundly atheist (surprised by that?) who appreciate the strength of Judeo-Christian values, understand their role in making our countries great and wish to see society continue to be guided by their wisdom the Intelligent Design Movement’s decision to act in the way it did seriously harmed the public’s positive view of Judeo-Christian values – to our great detriment.

The Intelligent Design Movement and the Discovery Institute are #10 on my list of Institutions That Ruin The World.

(Nothing Follows)

Categories: Religion, Top 10 List

>10 Institutions That Ruin The World

August 20, 2007 1 comment
Categories: Culture, Top 10 List

>10 signs that you’re a Moral Idiot including #10 update

August 17, 2007 56 comments

>We live in an age of cognitive dissonance, of inverted values and of true Orwellian doublethink. The Left believes in, amongst other things, gay rights, women’s rights and rehabilitation for thieves while also offering moral support to radical Islam, which hangs gays, stones errant women to death and chops the hands off thieves. On the Right, we stand in bewilderment wondering why nobody has learned the lessons of the evil of socialism throughout the last century or understands the threat of totalitarianism in this one.

Given all of this topsy turvey-ness it seems to me that we need some sort of test, a guide, in order to establish whether your moral compass is tuned correctly. Therefore, I have prepared the following 10 signs that you’re a Moral Idiot and hope that it helps guide you towards good, solid values in life.

UPDATE – The original list called for ideas for the #10 sign. I’ve updated the list to include it.

1. You can’t tell the difference between Israel and her enemies*. This really is the ultimate test. If you are so dozy, so hopelessly indoctrinated with University-educated ignorance that you equate a democratic (and extremely left wing!) Israel, a country that has had to defend itself from attack for all of its existence, in which a million Arabs live peacefully alongside Jews, in which Arabs have the highest standard of living (by miles) of any country in the Middle East, in which Arabs serve on the judiciary, in which Arabs stand for, and are voted into, the Knesset (their parliament) with the suicide bombing, fanatical, genocidal, death cults known as Hamas, Hezbollah or Fatah then you are definitely a Moral Idiot and there’s no hope for you. Click here to go to a website of like minded and racist moral idiots.

2. You believe that the United States is the greatest threat to world peace. This sign is similar to the first sign about Israel. In order to hold this view you must forget that America fought a civil war to eradicate slavery, costing a huge number of lives, proving the moral strength that underpins its values even to this day. You must forget about America’s role in saving the Allies in WWII, rebuilding the Japanese and European economies afterwards and defeating socialism during the Cold War (probably something you’re still not too thrilled about anyway) and then going home afterwards when it could have annexed half of Europe. You must forget about the fact that the US is the largest provider of humanitarian aid on the planet, exceeding all other nations combined and is the first and only non-Imperial superpower in history (even France still has greater imperial influence than America). You must forget that its free market approach and entrepreneurship have driven the economies of the world forward in a way unlike the collective efforts of all nations through history. China is on the rise because of it, as is India and many others. The result? Vastly increased living standards and hugely longer life expectancy. How appalling! You must forget about the positive outcome of the civil rights movement that, while divisive and momentarily destructive, has led to equality of opportunity for all citizens of the United States. You must forget about the threat of the deranged regime of North Korea or the completely round the bend Islamic Revolution in Iran building nuclear weapons and you must laugh off their threats to annihilate their neighbours and Israel because ‘they’re not really serious’. You must forget about Al Qaeda’s declaration of war in 1996 on the US (before 9/11, imagine that!), as well as the Lebanon peacekeepers bombing, the attack on the USS Cole, the attacks on the embassies in Africa that left hundreds dead and the first World Trade Centre attack – and you must recast all of those events into a “it’s all due to US policies in the Middle East” and “we’ve brought it all onto ourselves” framework. You must magnify the smallest US mistake into the greatest sin, believe that Vietnam was the worst war ever, that Iraq is just a repeat of it and that we were all better off with the world’s worst living mass murderer, Saddam Hussein, who had killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens and was an existential threat to the world, still in power. In short you must believe that there is nothing exceptional about the United States at all and that its only intention is to rule the planet in spite of the fact that there is nothing in the evidence cupboard to support the argument. If you believe that the United States is the greatest threat to world peace then you’re a Moral Idiot.

3. You believe that all cultures are equally valid. This particular piece of hare-brained logic has its roots in secular multiculturalism. The loss of belief in God, particularly in oh so enlightened Western Europe, has resulted in a loss of societal values and along with that has gone the ability to differentiate good from evil and right from wrong. Cultural relativism dictates that equality is the order of the day and that all cultures are equally good. What a complete load of bollocks. If I go to Saudi Arabia I will behave exactly in accordance with their culture and customs, understanding all the while that they have certain harsh punishments for crimes that if they were committed here would result in a slap on the wrist compared to a complete loss of the wrist over there. If a Saudi comes here and enslaves his house keeper, beating her along the way such as is reported from time to time then he should expect to be given time in jail for something that isn’t even considered a crime over there. But, oh no, cry the cultural relativists. We can’t offend people with cartoons! We must respect their culture and bend over backwards to accommodate their disgusting values even if it means allowing Muslim women to wear the profoundly demeaning mask of oppression, the burqa, when in public here, giving moral support to the obnoxious and evil Sheik ‘cat meat’ Al Hilaly or agreeing to replace our own symbols for fear of offending a violent and backward religion. It demeans us and cheapens our culture. Congratulations, if you believe that all cultures are equally valid then you’re a Moral Idiot.

4. You believe that Iraq 2.0 is all about oil. “No blood for oil!” wailed the crowds of bra-less grandmothers and grey haired, pony tailed protesters as the US prepared itself to invade Iraq in 2003. The only reason that the US could have to go into Iraq was oil. Nothing else. It’s all about the oil. That it was the home to a terrorist supporting, brutal dictator with masses of the blood of his citizens on his hands after the repeated use of WMD against the Kurds, who was defying UN resolutions and whose daily activity included shooting at US aircraft patrolling the no fly zone protecting the Kurds is completely lost on people (by the way – if you believe the war was illegal then go and read the text of UN resolution 1441, which clearly states the consequences of non-compliance). Here’s a fact that people don’t know – 80% of the United States oil supply comes from itself, Canada and Mexico. Hmmmm. Bet you didn’t know that, did you? Now, here’s a really big question. I want you to concentrate really hard. Put on your tin foil hat if you think it’ll help. If the United States wanted Iraq’s oil then…why didn’t it just buy it? Would have been much cheaper. Because they’re warmongers and wanted it for free, you cry, thus demonstrating the terrific double standard you have that also supports socialist confiscation of western companies’ assets such as happened in Chile and Cuba, and is going on in Venezuela today particularly with foreign owned oil companies. If the US wanted the oil then they would have simply taken over the refineries and pipelines, rolled up the oil tankers and pumped away. Would have been much easier. Did that happen? No. If you believe that Iraq 2.0 is all about oil then you’re a Moral Idiot.

5. You believe that war is not the answer. The irony is that war was the answer when it was needed to protect your ongoing right to say that war is not the answer. It was the answer to defend Europe from Germany in both WWI and WWII. It was the answer when socialism threatened South Vietnam (and would have been the ongoing answer if Congress hadn’t cut off funds to the South Vietnamese Government). It was the answer in Korea. It was the answer in the First Gulf War. It was the answer in Kosovo. It was the answer in Panama. It was the answer in Grenada. It seemed to be a pretty good answer to the question of freeing the slaves in the South even if there were more Americans killed than in WWII. And I think you’ll find that Israel thinks it’s been a pretty good answer to 60 years of Arab aggression. Oooooooh, sorry. I completely missed your point. It’s only not the answer when the major nations like the United States, Australia or the UK go to war. Of course, how silly of me. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan you didn’t protest against that because it was obviously OK for them to cause the death of 1.5 million people. Not a peep when the Rwandans started a war that exterminated a million or more Hutus. Must have been the answer to something, surely? Perhaps their library books were overdue. Let me see here. Uh huh, no protests against the Iran-Iraq War with another million dead. No protests about Ethiopia or Mozambique or the 1.5 million killed in the Congolese conflict. Checks the history…nope, no protests against Cambodia and the 1.6 million dead there or the 2 million dead in the Second Sudanese Civil War. If you stay silent on totalitarian and socialist atrocities while advocating that for the good guys ‘War is not the answer’ then you’re a Moral Idiot (and a bloody dangerous one at that).

6. You believe that Fidel Castro has been a positive influence for Cuba and a role model for the world. This really is one of my favourites. Cuba used to have a vibrant, competitive economy and now has a stagnant, pitiful self-enriching dictatorship. But they have free health care for all, you cry, and free education too! Well guess what? So did the Soviet Union and look what a bastion of enlightenment and progress that turned out to be in its hideously murderous and repressive seventy-something year history. And guess what else? Cuba has been just as repressive and backward as it. Read Against All Hope and check out The Real Cuba and if you can look at the reality of the health care, education and living standard and still believe that Fidel Castro has been a positive influence for Cuba and role model for the world then you’re a Moral Idiot.

7. You believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Another particular favourite of mine. In order to believe this one you must first believe that America is rotten to its core and that it will do anything in order to promote its interests, including killing 3000 of its own citizens. Popular Mechanics profoundly debunks all of the hilarious and bogus claims about rate of building collapse, use of explosives, explosive pods on the 767s and the collapse of Tower 7. Even more hilarious than the 9/11 conspiracy sites are the ones that debunk the Popular Mechanics debunking. Here’s a question. If the administration’s goal (which had only been in office for eight months so obviously they were speedy workers) was to give it a cause to invade Afghanistan, and then Iraq, then why did it need four aircraft? Assuming that the conspiracy is true then one plane into the WTC might frighten people but not anger them into action so I can see that a second would be necessary. But a third? And a fourth? And why ‘bring down’ Tower 7 at all? It’s completely unnecessary to the overall plot. The key, for me, was the reaction of George W Bush when told of the attacks. He sits there looking like a stunned mullet without a clue what to do for nearly ten minutes. If it was a set up then he would have been immediately up on his feet, in front of a camera, marshalling the country and showing himself to be a man of action in time of crisis. Conspiracy theories always rely on thousands of people keeping quiet and the hyper-competence of government. In spite of proving itself to be less than competent on a near daily basis on a wide range of issues it’s still possible to believe that on this one issue it’s hyper-competent. Want more proof? If there was something in it then the traitors at the New York Times would have gone looking, found one of those thousands of people keeping quiet and exposed it to the world like they have with so many other national security secrets. So, despite a plethora of incontrovertible evidence you continue to be driven by ideological hatred and maintain your lunatic position. If you believe that 9/11 was an inside job then you’re a Moral Idiot.

8. You believe we should sign the Kyoto Protocol. Hmmm, you say, why is there a moral aspect to this? If you disagree with me then aren’t I just an idiot and not a moral idiot? Good question, I’m glad you asked. A fully implemented Kyoto Protocol (the US and Australia sign, China and India etc are exempt) would cost the world $20 trillion and save 0.1C by 2050 and, if you’re wondering, there’s not much argument on those figures from either side of the political spectrum. The moral aspect comes into play in that it is completely immoral to spend such a massive sum of money on a completely symbolic project when millions of people in the world currently don’t have access to clean drinking water, don’t get enough to eat, suffer from diseases that were eradicated in the West decades ago (malaria, polio, cholera etc), live in totalitarian African regimes and have an average life expectancy of about 35. When the environmentalist Bjorn Lomberg gathered representatives from countries affected by these issues and created the Copenhagen Consensus Centre they came out with a report ranking the priority that aid money should be spent (in their case they assigned a hypothetical $50 billion). The first of the climate change issues, the Kyoto Protocol, ranked 27th on their list of 40. If you want to hamstring the US economy (the greatest provider of humanitarian aid on the planet) and transfer money to China and Russia through carbon trading schemes (which is their net effect) while we have a here and now crisis in Africa then your values are inverted and you’re a Moral Idiot.

9. You believe that socialism is still the answer. The fact is that socialism is still surprisingly popular, especially among the world’s academics and others that suck at the public teat. And just as a point of clarification – Marx made no distinction between communism and socialism – which is why I always use the latter, more accurate term (after all, it was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). The theory is that ‘we just haven’t got it right yet’ and we still need to do some fine tuning. Well, Stalin fine tuned 20 million of his compatriots into early graves, but even he was left for metaphorical dead by Chairman Mao whose Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution and other assorted attempts at fine tuning socialism into something workable required the digging of 40 million graves in order to bury the evidence of failure. Those are extreme cases, you say, clutching feebly to the last straws of logic still left in your argument. Really? How many million did the Vietnamese knock off with their fine tuning? The Cambodians? And what about our current favourite socialists, those crazy North Koreans? The evidence against socialism is overwhelmingly stronger than the evidence in support of Global Warming but our pinko friends still reject the socialist reality while embracing wholeheartedly the results of computer climate models that have never shown to be remotely accurate even once. The European Union is the latest organisation to impose its socialist ideology. Do you know that the EU costs 600 billion Euros a year to operate? All it has done is add in a layer of unelected, totalitarian ideologues and detract spectacularly from economic development. Thus, the socialist EU is being completely outperformed by free market economies such as the US and Australia. But that’s OK because they’ll just keep fine tuning until they get it just right. How many millions of lives that costs is yet to be tallied. If you believe that socialism is still the answer then you’re a Moral Idiot.

10. You support the troops but don’t support the war. The people that are most vocal in their opposition to the war point to the goings on at Abu Ghraib, the killing of civilians by the US military and claim that it is all about funding Halliburton and Big Oil not to mention that it’s an ‘illegal’ war. Saying that they support the troops but not the war is a way of protecting themselves from claims of being anti-military. If you believe in the troops then how can you support them if they tortured and killed at Abu Ghraib? If you believe in the troops then how can you support them if they wantonly kill Iraqi civilians? If you believe in the troops then how can you support them if they’re really working for Halliburton and Big Oil? If you believe in the troops then how can you support them if the war is illegal in the first place? How can you support those troops that volunteered for service after the war started, after Abu Ghraib and in the ‘knowledge’ that it is a blood war fought for the profit of a few companies? If you claim to support the troops but don’t support the war then you’re a Moral Idiot.

* Thanks to Dennis Prager for the idea.

>10 More Questions For Climate ‘Scientists’

July 16, 2007 6 comments

>Following on from the ABC’s profoundly biased, unscientific hatchet job on The Great Global Warming Swindle I would like to ask another 10 questions to add to the previous 10 asked a couple of months ago.

1. If ‘the science is settled’ then why does the United Nations’ IPCC need 17 climate models when just one should do? (Do I really need to ask 9 more questions after this one?)

2. If ‘the science is settled’ then why don’t the 17 climate models deliver anything close to the same result?

3. If ‘the science is settled’ then why do the 17 climate models predict a 21st century temperature rise ranging from 1.1C to 6.4C rise? That’s between 50% and an amazing 765% greater than the warming observed in the 20th century.

4. In the ABC’s unbalanced discussion on The Great Global Warming Swindle, presenter Tony Jones got stuck into Martin Durkin for including a graph that ended in the late 1980s showing the correlation between solar activity and the earth’s climate but excluding the subsequent divergence. Why do the graphs the IPCC produce also exclude the divergence between rising CO2 levels and falling temperatures in roughly the same period?

5. Climate models predict that warmer air will hold more water and thus the climate will become drier and surface winds will be weaker leading to less water evaporating from the ocean, which counteracts the effect of warming. Models predict that worldwide precipitation — which must match the amount of evaporation — will increase by only 1-3% for each degree of future global warming. However, satellite data for the period 1987-2006 shows that the amount of water in the atmosphere, evaporation and precipitation all increased at the same rate, by about 1.3% per decade — or about 6.5% for every degree of warming. Surface winds increased, not decreased, with warming. Given that water vapour is the largest greenhouse gas (95%+) and is the most important feedback mechanism in models, what does the climate models’ inability to predict precipitation mean for future temperature predictions?

6. If the world started heating up at the end of the Little Ice Age in around 1850 (before the introduction of anthropogenic CO2) then obviously some forcing agent is at work. Why is that forcing agent not represented in climate models? Excluding whatever this background forcing agent is means that all of the 20th century warming is ascribed to CO2 and compromises models’ ability to forecast accurately.

7. Why is there no skill in climate model forecasting? In 2007, the IPCC’s Working Group One, a panel of experts established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, issued its updated, Fourth Assessment Report, forecasts. The Report was commissioned at great cost in order to provide policy recommendations to governments. It included predictions of dramatic and harmful increases in average world temperatures over the next 92 years. Using forecasting principles as our guide we asked, are these forecasts a good basis for developing public policy? Our answer is “no.”

8. Climate models predict that both Greenland and Antarctica should be losing ice mass, leading to rising sea levels. How is it, then, that both are increasing in ice mass?

9. Land use changes are logically going to have a large impact on climate, as they have the potential to alter surface temperatures, humidity, and energy fluxes, particularly during the warm, dry summer months. Land clearing is obviously the cause of Mt Kilimanjaro’s shrinking snow cover. Why do climate models not include land use changes and a prediction of future land use change?

10. And finally – and most importantly – why are climate models unable to predict past climate remotely accurately even when the rise in 20th century temperature is known?

>10 more questions for Muslims

>Following on from my 10 Questions for Muslims, here are 10 more to ponder.

I have a question for Muslims about those 72 virgins apparently waiting in heaven for ‘martyrs’ that die in suicide bombings or fighting against the Infidel around the world.

Rather than 72 virgins wouldn’t you rather have, say, 50 virgins and 22 beautiful women that, um, know a thing or two about the caper?

I would.

And another thing…

Why is it that the military history of Muslim nations over the last 200 years makes the French achievements look better than what Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great and George S Patton did all rolled into one?

And while I’m at it…

Is ‘jihadi’ an official job title in the Muslim world?

I’m not finished yet…

If ‘jihad’ truly means personal struggle then can you please point out when it’s been used with this meaning from, say, the year 610 onwards?

And still more…

While breastfeeding on a girl you’ve just met do you have to enter into a temporary marriage in order to get your rocks off or can you only get a Mohammaden golden shower from her instead?

Only half way…

If an Australian man and his wife are driving along in a secluded area in Saudi Arabia and the man has a heart attack then is his wife allowed to drive him to the hospital or will she get 500 lashes/be stoned to death?

But wait, there’s more…

Why do all Islamic studies department in universities, which are supposed to teach The Religion of Peace, include jihad (of the non-peaceful kind) so prominently in their curriculum?

Only three to go and I’m not even warmed up…

Why is it that when our ninny educators have Arabic/Islamic cultural events and kids dress up in veils, burqas, niqabs and whatnot that’s OK but when women in Muslim countries want to wear nice clothes and go to the hairdresser they must be killed?

It’s a shame there’s only two questions to go…

There would be a sum total of zero Muslim leaders that say anything other than Western society is decadent and immoral. Isn’t Islam on morally shaky ground when it says it’s OK for Mohammed to have had sex with his nine year old bride?

And the lucky last one…

If the Koran says that Jews are monkeys and apes then does that mean those primates are next in line to have a fatwa ordering their deaths as soon as you’re done wiping out the Jews?

Categories: Islam, Top 10 List

>Top 10 False & Misleading Documentaries Of All Time

>Documentary, nounA work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

So says the American Heritage Dictionary. Given that definition it’s probably somewhat surprising that so many blatant propaganda pieces are now self-described as documentaries in this morally inverted, opinion-as-truth day and age.

The glaring similarity between all false and misleading documentaries is the blunt approach they take to the truth. Threads of facts are linked together in a way that appears credible but fails to stand up to much scrutiny and, in many instances, it is left to the viewer to form an opinion as to the accuracy of what’s being presented. This device is always used in these sorts of documentaries. “If a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon then what did?” asks French 9/11 Nutjob Thierry Meyssan. The role of a real documentary is not to ask a question and leave it up to an audience that lacks knowledge and competence to provide the answer. The role of a documentary is to tell us, definitively, what happened.

I have a question for those that wallow in the culture of conspiracy theories. If you had to bet your life by being on the winning side of a case in a court of law then would you choose to side with the blunt truth approach of of Loose Change or the detailed forensic analysis of Popular Mechanics?

And without further ado, I present for you the Kerplunk Top 10 False & Misleading Documentaries of all Time.

1. Der Ewige Jude
– ‘The Eternal Jew’ is a famous 1940 Nazi propaganda piece produced at the insistence, and under the constant supervision, of Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Germany’s Propaganda Minister. Its aim was to justify the exclusion of Jews from society, and their ultimate destruction. The Jews are presented as corrupt, filthy, lazy, ugly, and perverse: they are an alien people which have taken over the world through their control of banking and commerce, yet which still live like animals. It states that rats are the parasite and disease carriers among animals and claims that Jews are their human equivalent. It’s available at Google Video and, while spending an hour of your life watching this remarkable piece of history, remember that it was part of a program that led to the death of six million innocent people. To give you some idea about its attitude to Jews, here’s what it has to say about the most famous one of the 20th century when presenting his photo, “The Relativity Jew, Albert Einstein, who masks his hatred of Germans behind his obscure pseudo-sciences.” It’s your moral duty to watch this documentary, as it’s only by understanding the environment preceding the Holocaust that we can hope to prevent any future ones. When you see what passes for truth in the Middle East (see #5 below) what with their ridiculous claims of Israeli occupation and Jewish inferiority along with Ahmadinejad’s attempt to recast Israel as the cause of all the region’s troubles, it doesn’t take too much imagination to believe that a second Holocaust could certainly take place.

2. Fahrenheit 9/11 – Michael Moore started his documentary career with Roger And Me, a movie about how General Motors was destroying Flint, Michigan. He claims that GM head, Roger Smith, wouldn’t meet with him. However, the tapes of the interview released by Smith prove otherwise. Starting with this low regard for truth, Moore developed a series of documentaries including Bowling For Columbine (also on this list) before producing his most flagrant fabrication to date – Fahrenheit 9/11. Taking the side of the ‘little guy’ has proven to be a very successful formula for Moore, as he now commands speaking fees in the tens of thousands, lives in a million dollar apartment in Manhattan and sends his kids to private schools. Like all good propagandists he is very good at what he does. He never quite says anything that is provably false, but creates false impressions indirectly. From falsifying a Florida 2000 election headline to claiming that Saudi nationals were allowed to leave the US before the flight curfew was lifted, Moore brilliantly ties half-truths and irrelevant facts together to give us Fahrenheit 9/11. Unfortunately, the whole premise is a complete lie. But, hey, that’s why it made this list.

3. An Inconvenient Truth – I often wonder whether Hollywood will look back in shame at having bestowed a Best Documentary Oscar on this hysterical, one-sided, scientifically flawed Apple Keynote presentation. According to the Oscars’ website, “Because the Academy numbers among its members the ablest artists and craftsmen in the motion picture world, the Oscar represents the best achievements of the year in the opinion of those who themselves reside at the top of their craft.” I presume that they’re all so wildly deficient in the use of PowerPoint or Keynote that they were completely wowed by Gore’s own Michelangelo-like mastery? By the way, it’s not just the Academy that will be embarrassed; it won 16 other best documentary awards at various film festivals. Not to be outdone by the IPCC, Gore dismisses their predicted 19 inch rise in sea levels by 2100, adds another 18-odd feet and wipes half of Manhattan off the map. He presents ‘helpless’ polar bears swimming in the sea while their habitat melts away but fails to mention that polar bear populations are now at record levels. He highlights the 2003 European heatwave in which temperatures hit 104F/40C claiming 35,000 lives but ignores the 1921 European heat wave that also hit 104F/40C not to mention how many die each year due to extreme cold. He implies that Hurricane Katrina was a result of global warming but forgets to tell you that the world’s foremost hurricane expert, Bill Gray, says that there’s no connection. He presents ice-core data showing a correlation between CO2 and temperature rise but fails to point out that CO2 rises occur after the temperature has risen. And, of course, the infamous Hockey Stick makes an appearance. From start to finish it’s a fabrication that even Michael Moore or Joseph Goebbels would be impressed with. A worthy inclusion here.

4. Loose Change – The video has apparently been downloaded more than a million times and is often referred to by 9/11 Nutjobs as being the definitive proof that 9/11 was an inside job. Unlike Fahrenheit 9/11, Loose Change makes the pernicious claim that the government actually fired missiles at buildings and attached bombs to civilian aircraft in order to kill its own people. Presentations like this one and Michael Moore’s feed into the denial philosophy that pervades the Muslim world in which some 80%+ of them not believe that Muslims carried out the attacks on 9/11 and that the Jews had something to do with it. It’s been so profoundly debunked that I don’t need to go into details here. What makes me really wonder about what sort of world we live in is that there are otherwise sane, rational, well-educated people that saw what happened on 9/11, have seen the debunking yet still walk around believing that, at the very least, the government knew it was going to happen or, at worst, orchestrated it themselves. Anyway, it’s crap of the highest order and it belongs on this list.

5. Horseman Without a Horse – This may not be one you’ve heard of but is, in fact, a documentary that helps maintain Arab hatred of the Jews and was a roaring success in the Middle East when it first appeared in 2001. The documentary ran for 30 weeks, involved more than 400 actors and had a budget of 8-9 million Egyptian Pounds. From the review in Egyptian weekly Roz Al-Youssu, “For the first time, the series’ writer courageously tackles the 24 Protocols of the Elders of Zion, revealing them and clarifying that they are the central line that still, to this very day, dominates Israel’s policy, political aspirations, and racism. The series’ first scene is set in 1948, after the retreat of the four Arab armies and the Zionist invasion of the land of Palestine. From this point, there is a flashback to the mid-19th century.” Hold on, you say, wasn’t the Protocol of the Elders of Zion a hoax perpetrated by the Russian secret police, the Okhrana, at around the time of the turn of the 20th century? That’s right but in the Arabic world, and increasingly in the whole of the Muslim world, cultural identity trumps truth. Therefore, the fact that ‘The Protocols’ comports with their own racist view of the world simply confirms its validity. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, while the culture of the Middle East remains one of denial and oppression in which documentaries like this can not only see the light of day but be received to such high acclaim, we will never be able to appease them, implement a two-state solution and achieve peace in the region.

6. The Corporation – As one reviewer (embarrassingly, an Australian) writes, “This is an extraordinary film about the creation of the American corporation, its legal organizational model, its global economic dominance and its psychopathic tendencies, and its incredible ambition to influence every aspect of culture in its unrelenting pursuit of profit. After viewing this film, it becomes all too evident that these large corporations have too much power, whose mandate is not the common good of the people, and who will go to any lengths, legally and otherwise, in the pursuit of profit and the bottom line.” That The Corporation only takes aim at American companies, which are described as ‘pathological’, should be the first clue that you’re watching a piece of anti-US propaganda. Naturally, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, SAP, Volvo, Airbus, Nokia, Toyota, Louis Vuitton, Honda, Samsung, Nescafe, Philips, Hyundai, L’Oreal, Zara, Armani, BP and Shell are only in business for completely altruistic reasons and don’t focus on making a profit like those greedy American companies. It must be just a fluke that they make all that money. One irony is that the documentary shows the genesis of the American corporation being in Europe. It lists layoffs, union busting, industrial accidents, and sweatshops among The Corporation’s human evils, adds in dangerous products, toxic waste, pollution, and synthetic chemicals to make sure poisons are covered and then rounds out with the effect of clear cutting, carbon dioxide emissions and nuclear waste on the environment to make it a slam dunk of Western socialist grievances. There’s a great irony in the film that its makers missed. In describing the corporation as being made up of malevolent, power hungry men who suppress the rights of workers so that they can’t achieve to their full potential, ruin the environment and present an existential threat to the rest of us they in fact describe…socialism. Human catastrophe, unparalleled environmental destruction and unrelenting global ideological projection are all signature effects of socialist states. American corporations fulfil the greatest moral good society expects from them – the provision of worthwhile employment to over one hundred million people – and they do it at a pay scale that tops the world.

7. Bowling For Columbine – If you think that An Inconvenient Truth’s 17 awards is mindboggling then where does this one fit with its 28 awards? I’ve outlined above Moore’s proclivity for bending the truth and he was at it again, big time, with this ‘documentary’ on the Columbine school shooting tragedy. As Moore-watcher David Hardy describes it, “Moore altered history, misled his viewers, and edited the footage and audio in such a way as to reverse the meaning. In one case, he took a speech of a person he desired to target; the problem was that the speech was in fact conciliatory and mild. So he spliced in footage from another speech, cut out paragraphs, and spliced the beginning of one sentence to the ending of another. In another, when he wanted to criticize a political advertisement, but it wasn’t as pointed as he wanted, he spliced together two different political ads, then added titling which was in neither.” The level of contempt for the truth Moore has is demonstrated by his use of NRA President, Charlton Heston’s, famous “I have only five words for you: ‘from my cold, dead, hands” remark, which is spliced in with news of weeping children outside of the Columbine school. The fact that Heston didn’t make the statement until 13 months later seems not to bother this morally malnourished, calorie over-nourished blight on humanity. Factually barren, ‘Bowling’ is another very worthy member of this list.

8. The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear – The premise of this documentary is that the perception of the threat of terrorism is greater than the reality due to forces in the government fanning the flames of fear in order to justify their activities. The Power of Nightmares seeks to overturn much of what is widely believed about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The latter, it argues, is not an organised international network. It does not have members or a leader. It does not have “sleeper cells”. It does not have an overall strategy. In fact, it barely exists at all, except as an idea about cleansing a corrupt world through religious violence. Clearly, the documentary’s maker, Adam Curtis, has not read Lawrence Wright’s definitive work on the subject of Al Qaeda, The Looming Tower, which last week won the Pulitzer Prize for general non-fiction. In The Looming Tower, Wright gives a complete history of the roots of radical Islam, starting with Sayid Qutb in the 1940s and working through to the formation of Al Qaeda, its time in Somalia and move to Afghanistan. The threat of Al Qaeda is all too clear and Curtis’ attempt to lower our defences is not only dishonest but downright dangerous.

9.The Men Who Killed Kennedy – One of the best known documentaries on the JFK assassination, it appeared in 1988 as two one-hour episodes and expanded into a nine hour series over the next five years. The whole thing has been done to death, of course. Think ‘grassy knoll’, think Dealey Plaza. Who was the ‘Umbrella Man’? The Single Bullet theory. Lee Harvey Oswald’s erratic personality. The Mafia (including the French Mafia). The Cubans. The Soviets. Jack Ruby’s shooting of Oswald… Gerald Posner’s brilliant Case Closed goes through all of the major claims supporting a conspiracy and comes to the only plausible conclusion that the evidence sustains – Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and assassinated the President from the 6th floor window of the Texas Book Depository. He had the correct training, weapon, motivation and psychotic personality to carry out the act and he did so. There are a veritable plethora of JFK conspiracy documentaries, books and websites. They all have the same meme and they’re all crap.

10. Super Size Me – Morgan Spurlock’s amusing yet hopelessly flawed documentary aims to demonstrate that McDonald’s food is bad for you. He chooses to chow down on the Golden Arches’ finest cuisine morning, noon and night for a month and, if asked whether he’d like to be Super Sized then he has to accept. He was also not allowed to walk more than 5,000 steps in a day (that’s probably about two miles) and eat McDonald’s salad every tenth meal. Unsurprisingly, Spurlock added 24.5 pounds and suffered all sorts of health problems. Also, the Super Size was only offered 9 times out of the roughly 90 meals he ate, which calls into question the validity of the documentary’s title. The reality, of course, is that if you eat 5000 calories of anything a day, including organically grown vegetables, then you’re going to look like the Michelin Man before too long. That obesity is referred to as an ‘epidemic’ is one of the great modern myths. There’s nothing epidemiological about people voluntarily stuffing their faces with thousands of extra calories a day, spending all of their free time sitting on the couch in front of the TV while also, paradoxically, chugging down a Diet Coke. We do no exercise. Of course we’re all carrying a bit of excess condition.

Categories: Top 10 List

>10 Lies About Iraq and the War

>1. Iraqis were better off under Saddam – The first sentence of the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office report into crimes and human rights in Saddam’s Iraq starts:

“Iraq is a terrifying place to live. People are in constant fear of being denounced as opponents of the regime. They are encouraged to report on the activities of family and neighbours. The security services can strike at any time. Arbitrary arrests and killings are commonplace” and continues “These grave violations of human rights are not the work of a number of overzealous individuals but the deliberate policy of the regime. Fear is Saddam’s chosen method for staying in power.”

Hundreds of thousands of people were killed in the most brutal way by Saddam’s regime. Those who opposed the war were not concerned with the welfare of the Iraqi people; they are only every concerned with their own well-being. The ‘stability’ option pursued so assiduously by governments around the world, and advanced as the answer to current problems in the Middle East by the Baker-Hamilton Commission, has resulted in the international community turning a blind eye to the truly gruesome actions of dictatorships and thugs not only in that region but in other problematic areas, as well, such as in Africa – in the name of stability. You need to have an irreparably broken moral compass to believe that Iraqis were better off under Saddam than they are now.

2. Abu Ghraib shows we’re just as bad as Saddam – There is no excusing the ridiculous and degrading things that went on at Abu Ghraib when the US used it to house captured fighters. In those circumstances where crimes were committed the culprits were brought to justice and punished heavily, a point always overlooked by those trying to make a moral equivalence argument between the Saddam regime and the US. One of the problems with the Left today is that it has not been taught how to think and that it’s wrong to make judgements about others which leaves them with no capacity to understand that in every issue of life there are grades of good and bad, and that things simply can’t be cast as either black or white. Ask yourself this question – would you have rather been tortured at Abu Ghraib by Saddam or by the US forces stationed there? I do not consider the following to be torture: sleep deprivation, bright lights, being forced to stand on a box with my arms outstretched and wires connected to me (as in the iconic photo), having excrement thrown at me, being forced to make a naked human pyramid or being humiliated by standing naked in front of women. That is not torture. That is degrading and stupid, and is certainly counter-productive from an intelligence gathering point of view. I definitely consider the following to be torture: gouging out of eyes, using electric drills on various parts of the body, high voltage electric shocks to various parts of the body and especially the genitals, beating the soles of a victim’s feet until they lose consciousness, and being slowly lowered into an acid bath. All of those were standard fare for the Saddam regime, as documented in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office report. The Iraqi intelligence documents released last year also showed that people were being fed feet first into wood chippers while their captors looked on and laughed. Wood chippers. Can you imagine? On one side we have stupidity and on the other barbarity. If you’re not prepared to recognise the difference then I’m afraid you’re part of the problem and not part of the solution.

3. The war has caused a million refugees – Again, according to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s report “Between 3 and 4 million Muslim Iraqis have abandoned their homes and sought refuge outside Iraq” and “Many hundreds of thousands of Iraq’s Muslims have been displaced internally. Estimates of 900,000 may be conservative.” The war clearly did not cause the refugee problem, though it certainly may have changed the refugees from Shites to Sunnis.

4. We went to war on a lie – “Bush lied, people died” goes the popular chant from the anti-war Left. The ‘lie’ being referred to was that we went to war because of WMD and because they weren’t found they never existed therefore it was a lie. David Kay led the CIA’s Iraq Survey Group and was interviewed by the NYT for an article that appeared on January 26, 2004, from which I extract the following (my bold):

‘I’m personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction,’ Dr. Kay said. ‘We don’t find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on. I think they gradually reduced stockpiles throughout the 1990s. Somewhere in the mid-1990s, the large chemical overhang of existing stockpiles was eliminated.’ Regarding biological weapons, he said there was evidence that the Iraqis continued research and development ‘right up until the end’ to improve their ability to produce ricin. ‘They were mostly researching better methods for weaponization,’ Dr. Kay said.

There have been more than 700 chemical shells discovered since the invasion, supporting Kay’s assertion that Saddam was looking to weaponize his chemical capability.

…As a result, virtually everyone in the United States intelligence community during both the Clinton and the current Bush administrations thought Iraq still had the illicit weapons, he said.

If you look at this list of quotes from politicians from both sides of the aisle in the US then you’ll find that it’s actually the Democrats that hold the strongest pro-WMD opinions. See if you can guess which senior Democrat made the following statements:

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” – December 16, 1998

“Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There’s no question about that.” – November 17, 2002

“I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. … Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons.” – October 10, 2002.

These quotes, all made well before the 2003 invasion and dating back to when Bill Clinton was in office were made by none other than – Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

…And the government became a victim of its own certainty. Dr. Kay said he was convinced that the analysts were not pressed by the Bush administration to make certain their prewar intelligence reports conformed to a White House agenda on Iraq. ‘All the analysts I have talked to said they never felt pressured on WMD,’ he said. ‘Everyone believed that they had WMD’ ‘The only comment I ever had from the president was to find the truth,’ Dr. Kay said. ‘I never got any pressure to find a certain outcome.’

Why would analysts need to be pressed by the Bush administration when it’s clear that the Clinton administration held the same view? Add into the mix the reality that Iraq held meetings with Niger in order to procure uranium yellow cake, as reported by British intelligence (Joseph Wilson’s false claims otherwise have been so totally discredited that even the NYT and Democratic Party don’t quote him any more) and you have a situation where any thinking person would assess that Iraq either had, or was procuring, WMD. And that was how it was. If you can’t tell the difference between being wrong and telling lies then you’re beyond help.

5. The war was illegal – This is one of those issues that tend to split down party lines. However, even the most cursory reading of UN Resolution 1441 (and its many predecessors that Saddam ignored) spells out the things that Iraq was meant to comply with and the consequences of not doing so. People will argue back and forth for years about the legality of the war and unless it’s ever tested in an impartial courtroom somewhere that will continue to be the case. To me it’s a complete no-brainer and non-issue. Saddam did not comply with this last chance Resolution and suffered the consequences. The US did not need Security Council approval to act unilaterally, as it is incumbent upon all UN members to enforce UN Resolutions.

6. We supported Saddam by supplying him with all of his weapons – US and British companies certainly sold weapons to Iraq. To the moonbat Left that means that we (the Coalition) are responsible for helping keep him in power and, by implication, the brutality of his regime. The fact is that combined US and UK arms sales to Iraq totalled less than 10% of Saddam’s arsenal. The 90%+ came from Russia, China and France. As an aside, would anyone like to guess which three nations Saddam had signed criminally profitable agreements with to develop his oil fields once the UN sanctions were lifted? The same three. How uncanny. Which UN Security Council members were agitating the hardest for the removal of the sanctions? China and France? Surely not! The US and UK are not countries that had traditionally strong links with Iraq in the way that countries like Germany did. Thus, it is not surprising to find that they are not the source of Saddam’s weapons.

7. The war was all about oil – This one makes it into my famous 10 Signs that you’re a Moral Idiot list but it’s worth repeating here. “Here’s a fact that people don’t know – 80% of the United States oil supply comes from itself, Canada and Mexico. Hmmmm. Bet you didn’t know that, did you? Now, here’s a really big question. I want you to concentrate really hard. Put on your tin foil hat if you think it’ll help. If the United States wanted Iraq’s oil then…why didn’t it just buy it? Would have been much cheaper. Because they’re warmongers and wanted it for free, you cry, thus demonstrating the terrific double standard you have that also supports socialist confiscation of western companies’ assets such as happened in Chile and Cuba, and is going on in Venezuela today particularly with foreign owned oil companies. If the US wanted the oil then they would have simply taken over the refineries and pipelines, rolled up the oil tankers and pumped away. Would have been much easier. Did that happen?” No it didn’t and that’s because the war was never about the oil. For France, Russia and China, though, who stood to lose lucrative oil contracts if Saddam was toppled, and senior UN officials that were making millions from the Oil For Food Program, it certainly was all about the oil.

8. Saddam was not involved in terrorism – How it is possible for people to not understand the link between Saddam and terrorism boggles the mind. I guess that the NYT, Guardian, BBC and CNN haven’t exactly given the matter much air time. Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations. Iraq provided shelter to many terrorist organisations including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization, the Palestine Liberation Front and the Abu Nidal Organization. In 2002 Saddam upped from $10,000 to $25,000 the payments to be made to the families of suicide bombers ‘martyred’ in Palestine whether they be from Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad or Fatah. You can work out for yourself how many suicide bombers Saddam’s $9 million bought. The links to Al Qaeda are very clear and were exposed in the November 16, 2002, edition of Babil, the official paper of the Iraq government, when it identified one Abd-al-Karim Muhammad Aswad as an “intelligence officer,” describing him as the “official in charge of regime’s contacts with Osama bin Laden’s group and currently the regime’s representative in Pakistan.” A man of this name was indeed the Iraqi ambassador to Pakistan from 1999 until the fall of the regime. In September, 2006, a deputy prime minister of Iraq offered a sharp contradiction of the conventional wisdom that Saddam and Al Qaeda had no connection before the 2003 war, flatly contradicting a recent report from the US Senate’s intelligence committee. In a speech in which he challenged the belief of war critics that Iraqis’ lives are now worse than under Saddam Hussein, Barham Salih said, “The alliance between the Baathists and jihadists which sustains Al Qaeda in Iraq is not new, contrary to what you may have been told.” He went on to say, “I know this at first hand. Some of my friends were murdered by jihadists, by Al Qaeda-affiliated operatives who had been sheltered and assisted by Saddam’s regime.” Iraq has been on the US list of terrorist supporting nations for over 20 years so it’s hardly a new idea made up by the Bush administration to justify the war.

9. More than 650,000 Iraqis have been killed – This lunatic piece of fiction from The Lancet did have one positive side effect – it separated those that have a grip on reality from the barking moonbats who’ll believe any rubbish as long as it’s anti-US/UK/Australia. I have noticed that those who quote The Lancet as being true also tend to be strong global warming advocates. No surprise there, I guess. Iraq Body Count is a left wing site that, to its credit, is calculating the civilian cost in Iraq using valid means. It’s response to The Lancet was devastating:

A new study has been released by the Lancet medical journal estimating over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq. The Iraqi mortality estimates published in the Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things, that:

  1. On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms;
  2. Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;
  3. Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq;
  4. Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued;
  5. The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive “Shock and Awe” invasion and the major assaults on Falluja.

I regularly point out that for The Lancet’s study to be correct then the number killed exceed those killed in the Stalingrad campaign in WW2. For those familiar with what went on in that bloody battle it defies credibility that The Lancet is correct, even allowing for the shorter timeline of Stalingrad.

10. Democracy won’t work and can’t be imposed – I am always surprised by the Left’s assertion that democracy won’t work in Iraq because it’s not in the Arabs’ nature or culture. Do they not understand how profoundly racist this position is? It’s like saying that slaves weren’t ready for freedom or women couldn’t handle emancipation. If democracy is not natural for them then how does it come about that the northern, Kurdish region of Iraq (protected from Saddam since Gulf War 1.0 by the US Air Force) is such a terrific success story? The mainstream media provides little coverage of what’s going on in northern Iraq because it demonstrates that Iraqis are fully able to prosper when they get the opportunity to do so, and that doesn’t fit with the Iraq-as-failure narrative of the media. It is a given that authoritarian states don’t abandon power voluntarily so there must have been force used at some point to give us the democracies we have today. This force rarely comes from inside a nation and, thus, it must be imposed by external powers. In just the 20th century we saw democracy imposed in Japan (where it had never existed), South Korea (ditto), Italy and Germany not to mention Panama, Granada, Serbia or Afghanistan. It is a complete lie to say that democracy won’t work in Iraq and can’t be imposed.

Categories: Iraq, Top 10 List

>10 Questions for Climate Fascists

March 14, 2007 18 comments

>1. When did the debate end? We have been told for some years now that the “debate is over”. When did this happen? Who determined it? If the “debate is over” then why are serious scientists arguing against CO2 as the cause of climate change? Are they ALL in the pocket of Big Oil?

2. How is the science settled? Leaving aside the arguments about the cause of global warming, if “the science is settled” then why are the predictions from the IPCC’s First Assessment Report different to the Second Assessment report different to the Third Assessment Report and different to the Fourth Assessment Report?

3. How do you explain this? The following graph plots temperature anomaly against CO2 Concentration and Sunspot Cycle Length. How do you explain the remarkable correlation with sunspots and why do you believe that CO2 is the main determinant of climate change?4. What the heck has happened to the Hockey stick? The IPCC Third Assessment Report introduced the world to the iconic Hockey Stick graph, which was used to underpin the arguments that 1) man made CO2 was the main factor in climate change since the start of the Industrial Revolution; and 2) the consequences of not addressing CO2 would be a huge rise in temperature of up to 5.8 degrees Celsius? Given all of the hype surrounding the Hockey Stick and the vigorous defence of its accuracy in spite of undeniable evidence of its statistical impossibility, why is it not prominent in the recently released Fourth Assessment Report?

5. Why believe climate models? Climate models have an appalling predictive record and could only model 20th century climate by applying more modifications than a Swiss Army Knife has gadgets, an exercise in back-fitting that would cause any first year statistician to throw their hands up in disgust. Climate models don’t factor in the effect of the sun, which seems a bit of an oversight given the graph above, or the greatest greenhouse gas, water vapour. Given that the two most major determinants of climate are missing from the models why do you believe their predictions?

6. Why is symbolism more important than effectiveness? The Kyoto Protocol has been shown by both sides of the debate to be an initiative that would make no discernible difference to our climate (around 0.1 degrees Celsius by 2050) and cost trillions of dollars. Those in favour of it claim that it is a ‘symbolic first step’ while the other side rejects its lack of effectiveness. Australia is leading the world in the development of clean coal technologies that, when exported to China and India, will make more difference than ten Kyoto Protocols. Why is symbolism more important than effectiveness?

7. Why the IPCC censorship? The IPCC reports are the result of a large number of scientists providing input with each section being overseen by a lead author. Many scientists have claimed that their work was ignored because it disagreed with the basic tenets being promoted by the IPCC. If the “science is settled” then why does the IPCC have to actively censor contributing scientists?

8. Why are all the predictions of only doom and gloom? From inundation of our coastal cities to increasing drought, famine and pestilence on a Biblical scale why are all of the predictions about a rise in temperature always bad when it’s clear that life on earth has historically thrived when the climate has been warmer than today?

9. What caused the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age? The MWP (~850-1250) was a period of higher than average temperatures. It is no coincidence that life on the planet thrived at this time. Greenland and Iceland were settled, the Arctic sea ice retreated and they even grew wine grapes in England. The LIA (~1350-1850) was a period of especially cold temperatures and it is no coincidence that life on earth had a particularly difficult time. In the winter of 1780, New Yorkers could walk from Manhattan to Staten Island across a frozen New York Harbour. In England the river Thames froze over giving the opportunity for people to hold ice fairs. In the Netherlands rivers and canals also froze over allowing skating and frost fairs to be held. Al Gore’s documentary clearly shows that there’s a relationship between temperature and CO2 with the implication that the latter causes the former. If CO2 is the main determinant of climate then where did it come from to cause the MWP and where did it go to cause the LIA?

10. Why the hooey about sinking islands? It strikes me as suspicious that all of the so-called evidence for rising seas comes from places so out of the way that the average person has no way of verifying the claims. Such is the case with Tuvalu which, it is claimed, is the canary in the global warming coal mine. However, to geologists the whole notion is absurd. Tuvalu sits on the crest of two tectonic plates and has been rising and falling throughout its history. After selling their .tv Internet domain name for $40 million the small population has clearly worked out that they can scam more money from rich nations by jumping on the global warming bandwagon. In PNG it’s the Takuu Islands and in India it’s the Sunderbans. All are affected by tectonic activity. Why the hooey about sinking islands?

>10 Questions for Muslims

March 4, 2007 6 comments

>Here’s another Kerplunk Top 10. This time it’s some questions that come to mind for Muslims to ponder the answers to.

1. Why is it Oil or Nothing? The combined annual GDP of the world’s Muslim majority countries is under $2 trillion. That’s less than 20% of the USA even though Muslims outnumber Americans by about four to one. Their GDP is about the same as that of Germany. The GDP of the major oil rich nations of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar combined is roughly equal to Thailand’s $430 billion. Remove oil and gas from the Gulf states’ exports and their export figure is below that well known exporting giant…Finland. What else do you do besides oil?

2. Why do you only account for 5% of the world’s economy? How does it come about that 25% of the world’s population is responsible for only 5% of the world’s GDP? And that percentage is falling. Where is your industry? Where are your global companies? Where are your world-leading scientists? Heck, why are you not even any good at any sport?

3. Why are Arab nations so underdeveloped? According to the United Nations’ Arab Development Report: Half of Arab women cannot read; one in five Arabs lives on less than $2 per day; only 1% of the population has a computer of which half use the Internet; 15% of the workforce is unemployed and that’s expected to double by 2010; and the average growth rate per capita over the last 20 years was only 0.5% which is worse than anywhere but sub-Saharan Africa. How do you blame the rest of the world (or the Jews) for that?

4. Why don’t you focus on education? The Muslim majority countries have less than 600 universities for 1.4 billion people. India has 8500 and the US 5800. In the history of the Nobel Prize, Muslim countries have produced only 8 Laureates from their billions of people. In the meantime, less than 12 million Jews have produced 167. That means it’s more than 2000 times more likely for a Jew to be awarded a Nobel Prize than one of Allah’s followers. In an age of increasing technological reliance how will most Muslim nations do anything other than fall even further behind?

5. Why do you do so poorly in prosperous nations? Essex University released the results of a study The incomes of ethnic minorities that showed the economic conditions of these groups in Britain. According to the report:

Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are easily the poorest groups in the country. High unemployment among men: low levels of economic activity among women: low pay: and large family sizes: these all contribute to a situation in which 60% of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are poor. This is four times the poverty rate found among white people.

Indian and Chinese people have high levels of employment, and their earnings are on a par with white workers. On these measures they can be seen to be prospering.

The survey also concluded that Pakistanis and Bangladeshis would be poor regardless of where they lived. Given the fact that Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians are the same people who had the same advantages of colonial Britain from which they were separated at the same time, why are the Indians so much more successful than the others? Indians are Hindus not Muslims. Why do Muslims do so poorly when others do so well?

6. Why don’t you denounce terrorism performed in your name? Thousands of violent attacks are undertaken in the name of Islam each year by Muslims against non-Muslims. Why do you not condemn terrorist groups like Hamas, Al Qaeda and Hezbollah? Why are there no senior Muslim figures denouncing these acts of barbarity against innocents? Instead, all that we hear is an excuse for violence and blame for the attacks placed on the victims. Why can’t you tell right from wrong? When will Muslims develop societal values that don’t belong in the 7th century?

7. Why are your countries not free? According to Freedom House of the world’s majority Muslim nations only Mali is free. One country from around 50! 60% are not free and 38% are partly free. Why do Muslim nations account for the majority of ‘not free’ nations? Of the 10 worst of the worst, 7 are Islamic states. Why is this? Are you born to be in chains?

8. Why the nutty Fatwas every time someone criticises Islam? Salman Rushdie, a Muslim of Indian descent, writes The Satanic Verses in 1988 and, for his efforts, has a fatwa calling for his murder placed on him by Iranian nutjob Ayatollah Kohmeini. Why is it that all who criticise Islam get the same treatment? Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer, Kola Boof, Khalid Duran, Naguib Mafouz…it’s a long list. Why was Hitoshi Igarashi stabbed to death in 1991? For the crime of translating The Satanic Verses into Japanese. Why can’t you learn to deal with criticism like the rest of the world did about a thousand years ago?

9. Why is truth optional? What’s the most popular book in Arab nations? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Readers may know that the book is an anti-Semitic fiction created by Russian secret police in around 1900. However, in the Middle East it’s presented as fact. Ridiculous, you say. Really? The Saudi newspaper Al Madina ran a series in 2005 confirming the truth of the ‘Protocols’, as the book is known. The series was broken down into separate articles such as Muslims must be familiar with the Protocols in order to know how to defend themselves and The Match between the Protocols and real events is the most convincing proof of their authenticity. Shortly after 9/11 a survey of Muslim countries reported that only 18% of people believed that Muslims were behind the attacks. These days they’re blaming the Jews. Last month Egyptian researcher Muhammed Al-Buheiri appeared on Nile Culture TV to claim that the Jews are still kidnapping Christian children, murdering them and using their blood in their Passover matzos. It’s as if the 9/11 Truthers were in charge of news. In an environment of such lies and denial how do Muslims expect society to advance?

10. What is it with the cartoons, anyway? Why did you go crazy in February 2006 over cartoons published in September 2005? Do you people have no sense of humour? Do you not understand the irony of violence for such a trivial matter? Do you not understand the concept of freedom of expression even if you aren’t allowed to practice it in your own countries? Are you so brainwashed that you don’t understand the self-harm you inflict by your over reaction?

Categories: Islam, Middle East, Top 10 List