Sweden Takes Fascist Turn

In Sweden, evidently, the state is everything, and everyone enjoys their freedom on the whim of the state. Well, they must be happy they agree with Hitler on something. (After all, we must remember Sweden found the "moral courage" to sit out WWII.)

Swedish authorities forcibly removed Dominic Johansson from his parents, Christer and Annie Johansson, in June of last year from a plane they had boarded to move to Annie’s home country of India. The officials did not have a warrant nor have they charged the Johanssons with any crime. The officials seized the child because they believe home schooling is an inappropriate way to raise a child and insist the government should raise Dominic instead.

“It’s one of the most disgraceful abuses of power we have ever witnessed,” said HSLDA attorney Mike Donnelly. “The Swedish government says it is exercising its authority under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child in their unnecessary break up of this family. In addition, the Swedish Parliament is considering an essential ban on home schooling. We have heard that other home-schooling families in Sweden are having more difficulty with local officials. We fear that all home-schooling families in that country are at risk.”

Swedish social services initially limited visitation to the child to two hours per week but now have curtailed that to one hour every fifth week and no visit at all for Christmas because the social workers will be on vacation.

Actually, even a perfunctory reading of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, shows that Sweden is in gross violation of it:

Article 7:

1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

Article 8:

1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.

Article 9:

1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.

3. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests.

It is clear the objection of the State concerns the religious views of the parents, and no charge of abuse has been levelled against them. That Sweden has determined that one hour of contact every fifth week counts as "direct contact with both parents on a regular basis" is nothing short of a sick joke.

Furthermore the actions of Sweden are in direct violation of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 26: 3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

The meaning is clear. The right of parents to decide upon the kind if education their children receive comes before the interests of the state. End of discussion.

The belief that the interests of state are always primary is the bedrock belief of fascism. It is also the motivating force here, thus justifying this action by Sweden as fascistic.

2009: The Year Of The Swin(dl)e Flu

Gaius points out what should be blindingly obvious by now, the "swine flu" wasn't all it was cracked up to be: Swine WHO?

The “pandemic” of swine flu killed something like 11,500 people, worldwide. (Well, until they take two years or so to cook the books, then it will be revealed that 78 zillion people actually died in less than a nanosecond). The US CDC estimates that 36,000 Americans die each year from “regular” flu.

A sure sign that all the hype, all the Obama-induced panic, all the money wasted on swine flu vaccines was crap from start to finish?

...The same hype, hysteria and fraud rules the global warming frenzy. Also a UN sponsored effort.

The linkage with AGW is quite apt. In both cases we see the desire of the rising global elite to fan the flames of fear in order to aggrandize their own power positions. In both cases we see the argument being put forward that some crisis require coordinated elite driven action, be it controlling the economy to limit greenhouse gas emissions, or rationing supposedly scarce health care services. The reality is there would have been no scarcity of "swine flu" vaccine were it not for the frenzy created by the powers that be. They scared so many healthy people into getting the vaccine that I wonder how many people with underlying health concerns (the ones dying most often from the flu, swine or regular) didn't get the vaccine as a direct result?

May God save us from bureaucrats.

Oh Yeah....

"Please Don't Criticize Our Evil Scumbag On His Birthday!"

Russia Communists: don't slight Stalin on his bday:

The Russian Communist Party asked the nation Monday for a daylong moratorium on criticizing Soviet dictator Josef Stalin as they celebrate his 130th birthday.

Screw that.

Stalin, was a punk; an irredeemably evil son-of-a-bitch who when given a chance embraced Adolph Hitler rather than opposed him. He was a worthless piece of shit who deserves no credit at all in defeating Hitler. In fact, Stalin's cowardice and obvious in-bred hillbilly stupidity led to the near annihilation of Russia by the fascists. Russia was ultimately saved by real soldiers like Georgy Zhukov, despite the moronic ravings of the quite possibly psychotic Stalin.

Luckily for humanity in general, Stalin has been burning in hell for 56 years.

I hope he likes the next few million years.

AGW As Antipathy To Democracy

Roger Pielke Jr makes a good point about the way the scientific process has been managed of late:

John Christy and David Douglass provide a detailed accounting of how a comment on one of their papers was handled in the peer review process (even more detail here). Their experience, with the gory details revealed by the CRU emails, show in all of its unpleasantness how activist scientists sought to stage-manage climate science from the inside.

Their story hits very close to home with me, as I went through a very,very similar process with respect to a comment and reply on the "shameful article" on hurricanes and global warming that I co-authored in 2005. (If my emails ever get hacked you'll see that ugly episode from the inside.;-) That situation had a positive outcome only because at the time I protested efforts to deny us a right to respond in accordance with journal policies and threatened to go public with the improper efforts at stage-management. I am sure that these sort of shenanigans go on in academia more than we'd like to admit, however that does not justify them.

What these episodes reveal is an effort by activist climate scientists to stage-manage the peer review process much like how one might manage a partisan blog for public consumption. [Go to Pielke's site for useful links.]

I resonded thusly over at Roger's place:

As a political theorist by profession it is hard for me to read these sorts of things and not see them as expressing a deep antipathy towards democratic values.

The following quote comes from Karl Popper "The Open Society and its Enemies: Vol II Hegel and Marx" (pp.217-218):

"Two aspects of the method of the natural sciences are of importance... Together they constitute what I may term the 'public character of scientific method'. First, there is something approaching free criticism. A scientist may offer his theory with the full conviction that it is unassailable. But this does not necessarily impress his fellow-scientists; rather it challenges them. For they know that the scientific attitude means criticizing everything, and they are little deterred even by authorities. Secondly, scientists try to avoid talking at cross-purposes. (I may remind the reader that I am speaking of the natural sciences, but a part of modern economics may be included.) They try very seriously to speak one and the same language, even if they use different mother tongues. In the natural sciences this is achieved by recognizing experience as the impartial arbiter of their controversies. When speaking of 'experience' I have in mind experience of a 'public' character, like observations, and experiments, as opposed to experience in the sense of more 'private' aesthetic or religious experience; and an experience is 'public' if everybody who takes the trouble can repeat it. In order to avoid speaking at cross-purposes, scientists try to express their theories in such a form that they can be tested, i.e. refuted (or otherwise confirmed) by such experience.

"This is what constitutes scientific objectivity. Everyone who has learned the technique of understanding and testing scientific theories can repeat the experiment and judge for himself. In spite of this, there will always be some who come to judgements which are partial, or even cranky. This cannot be helped, and it does not seriously disturb the working of the various social institutions which have been designed to further scientific objectivity and impartiality; for instance the laboratories, the scientific periodicals, the congresses. This aspect of scientific method shows what can be achieved by institutions designed to make public control possible, and by the open expression of public opinion, even if this is limited to a circle of specialists. Only political power when it is used to suppress free criticism, or when it fails to protect it, can impair the functioning of these institutions, on which all progress, scientific, technological, and political, ultimately depends."

I really believe it is the introduction of the expressly political into this process which is undermining it. But it isn't merely because it is political, but because it is a variety of the political hostile to the ideals of free inquiry in the first place. It is hard to believe in democratic ideals of free inquiry and speech and also support the turning of the "laboratories, the scientific periodicals, the congresses" into instruments of intellectual repression.

Maybe Voting Republican Brings Happiness?

Interesting: Happiest people live in Louisiana, survey shows

The happiest people in the U.S. live in Louisiana, according to a study published in today's edition of the journal Science....

The happiness ratings were based on a survey of 1.3 million people across the country by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It used data collected over four years that included a question asking people how satisfied they are with their lives.

Economists Andrew J. Oswald of the University of Warwick in England and Stephen Wu of Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., compared the happiness ranking with studies that rated states on a variety of criteria ranging from availability of public land to commuting time to local taxes.

Oswald pointed out that part of the survey occurred before Hurricane Katrina struck the state, and part of it took place later. Nevertheless, he said, "We have no explicit reason to think there is a problem" with the ranking.

Let's look at the Top 10 Happiest States and see who they voted for in 2008:

1. Louisiana - McCain

2. Hawaii - Obama

3. Florida - Obama

4. Tennessee - McCain

5. Arizona - McCain

6. South Carolina - McCain

7. Mississippi - McCain

8. Montana - McCain

9. Alabama - McCain

10. Maine - Obama

So a full 70% of the Top 10 happiest states are Republican in leanings.

Let's look at the Top 10 Unhappiest States next:

42. Rhode Island - Obama

43. Ohio - Obama

44. Massachusetts - Obama

45. Illinois - Obama

46. California - Obama

47. New Jersey - Obama

48. Indiana - Obama

49. Michigan - Obama

50. Connecticut - Obama

51. New York - Obama

Yep, that's 100% of Obama states as miserable bastards.

In one sense this isn't surprising, as if you were generally satisfied with life you might not feel the need to switch party leanings. Likewise if you were highly dissatisfied you would be more likely to vote for the folks who hadn't been in power of late.

However, if you look at the bottom 10 states all of the iconic Democratic bastions of the last 30 years (New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, California, Michigan) are represented. Also, if you look at the happiest states, only Hawaii could be said to be overwhelmingly Democratic over the same period. Of the unhappiest, only Indiana could be said to be overwhelmingly Republican.

If the people living in Democratic places are so unhappy maybe they should look at the people who have been ruling them for generations now.

Climate Talks Go Bust

What a shame:

Talks stalled overnight on procedure, after some developing nations and China rejected a proposal by the Danish hosts to break talks into smaller groups to speed up progress. They insisted that everyone should see Denmark's proposal.

"I fear a triumph of form over substance," said Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

China told participants it saw no possibility of achieving a detailed accord to tackle global warming, an official from another nation involved in the talks said. The official, who asked not to be identified, told Reuters the Chinese had instead suggested issuing "a short political declaration of some sort."

India's environment minister accused rich countries of planning a "propaganda campaign" to blame developing nations for any breakdown in negotiations. Developing economies are expected to add almost all future growth in carbon emissions.

"We are in the end game," said Jairam Ramesh. "It's only a matter of time before the blame game starts. Already some developed countries are accusing the G77 (developing nation group), Africa. This is completely, incomprehensively wrong."

European environment ministers said talks were in danger.

"We've got a serious situation," German environment minister Norbert Roettgen told Reuters.

I guess I should not say it is a shame. In reality it's a sham. Fundamentally, nothing has changed from 2005 when I wrote:

If the rest of the world wants to commit economic suicide they are welcome to it. What you will see is that the countries who refuse to go along with Kyoto, like the U.S., China and India, will still have thriving economies while the Kyoto countries make their headlong rush for the 19th century.

Of course that won't happen. Countries will start pealing off of Kyoto one by one as the economic realities pile up one by one.

Unfortunately for most of the world, the "leaders" gathered in Copenhagen are not interested in realities of any sort, economic, scientific or political. It is a serious question as to how we human beings have managed to have so many sophomoric leaders all at the same time.

Where have all the adults gone?

Think The "Climate Summit" Was About Science?

Think again: Hugo Chavez cheered

THE Copenhagen climate summit was pretty much summed up in the high-level segment yesterday when [Australian climate change minister] Penny Wong's speech was interrupted by whistles and chanting and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez got a standing ovation....

President Chavez brought the house down.

When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really and imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.

When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.

But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ - “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.

Hitler or Lenin couldn't have done it any better.

And the sheep listening to him couldn't be any dumber.

On Being Advocates Instead Of Journalists

And, really, if you want to be one you cannot be the other.

Who Is Reality Based?

This is kinda funny:

A new study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reveals some startling differences between Republicans and Democrats on issues of spirituality and supernatural phenomenon....

"Conservatives and Republicans report fewer experiences than liberals or Democrats communicating with the dead, seeing ghosts and consulting fortunetellers or psychics," the Pew study says. For example, 21 percent of Republicans report that they have been in touch with someone who is dead, while 36 percent of Democrats say they have done so. Eleven percent of Republicans say they have seen a ghost, while 21 percent of Democrats say so. And nine percent of Republicans say they have consulted a fortuneteller, while 22 percent of Democrats have.

There's more. Seventeen percent of Republicans say they believe in reincarnation, while 30 percent of Democrats do. Fourteen percent of Republicans say they believe in astrology, while 31 percent of Democrats do. Fifteen percent of Republicans say they view yoga as a spiritual practice, while 31 percent of Democrats do. Seventeen percent of Republicans say they believe in spiritual energy, while 30 percent of Democrats do.

This must be what comes of worshipping the earth goddess Gaia.

The U.N. Is A Fascist Organization

Watch this and tell me it isn't.



You have to step up to fascists when they arise. It's too bad these "scientists with values" have thrown their lot in with these enemies of human freedom.

IPCC Reports Based On "Double Secret Research"

Last week I mentioned how the IPCC report erroneously transposed numbers claiming Himalayan glaciers would disappear in 2035, when the research actually predicted 2350.

This week the IPCC is trying to claim 2035 is really correct because it is based upon secret research that only they are privy to.

Sadly, I'm not joking:

The IPCC relied on three documents to arrive at 2035 as the "outer year" for shrinkage of glaciers.

They are: a 2005 World Wide Fund for Nature report on glaciers; a 1996 Unesco document on hydrology; and a 1999 news report in New Scientist.

These are the references the IPCC report actually points to, none of which are themselves peer-reviewed literature (thus they shouldn't have been used in the first place.) The only peer-reviewed piece that talks about the disappearance of glaciers is the piece that puts the date at 2350.

But being on the IPCC means never having to say you made a mistake:

Murari Lal, a climate expert who was one of the leading authors of the 2007 IPCC report, denied it had its facts wrong about melting Himalayan glaciers.

But he admitted the report relied on non-peer reviewed - or 'unpublished' - documents when assessing the status of the glaciers.

This is not science, and anyone who is pursuing "science" using these "methods" should be removed from the discipline, as they are frauds.

Think Progress Uncovers "Probably Unpaid Intern-Gate" Scandal

Call the media! Fox News messed up a graphic! (It's a conspiracy!!!)

Last week, Fox and Friends showed a Rasmussen poll graphic revealing that a whopping 120 percent of the American public believes scientists may be falsifying research to support their own theories on global warming:

Quick! Someone inform the Pulitzer committee!

Obviously, the graphic was supposed to distill information from this Rasmussen poll into two categories; "at least somewhat likely" and "at least not very likely."

3* In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?

35% Very likely
24% Somewhat likely
21% Not very likely
5% Not at all likely
15% Not sure

Given Rupert Murdoch's public avowal of advocacy in favor of AGW (of the lunatic "Hurricanes will get huger" variety no less), if one were conspiracy minded you could argue the screw-up was intentionally added to divert people from the truly dismal nature of the numbers for the scientific profession.

Of course, the real answer is some intern probaly just screwed up.

I'm just hoping they were not a math major.

The Disinformation Continues

This time via CNN:

One of the world's leading authorities on climate change has dismissed the contents of controversial e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia as nothing more than friends and colleagues "letting off steam."

"Well, I can tell you, privately when I talk to my friends, I use language much worse than that. This was purely private communications between friends, between, colleagues, they were letting off steam. I think we should see it as nothing more than that," Rajendra Pachauri, the Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) told CNN.

1) This is a little like asking the head of a mafia family to comment about the arrest of one of his underlings.

2) Notice how Dr. Pachauri, who holds no degrees related to climate science, is casually described as "One of the world's leading authorities..." when many research scientists in climate science are merely called "skeptics" or "deniers" by the media when they don't spout the information the media already wants to hear. Just further proof what is being discussed here is politics, not science.

Hey "Scientist"! Your Slip Is Showing.

Finally, the can all know what the AGW crowd is really all about. Hint: it isn't about science:

Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency....

...Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries...

Yeah, well, thanks... but no thanks. Marx, Lenin and Stalin are dead, even if their wannabe 21st Century counterparts still live and breathe. I'll leave their "ideas" safely in the dustbin of history.

But, hey, if you really want to debate competing ideologies at least have the balls not to hide behind "scientist" lab coats.