That ol' Soviet feeling

Bishop Hill has been busy writing the book on the Hockey Stick saga. Getting knowledgeable people to review the book, however, proves to be a bit bothersome. In a post entitled Climate of Fear the Bishop shares a (redacted to protect the innocent) email he received from a contact:

Asked for names of potential writers, I feel like an early Lutheran asked to identify his fellow readers of English bibles and knowing that Sir Thomas Gore, sorry More, is reading my letters and tightening his thumbscrews in Chelsea. In other words, like you, I know lots of people who are on side privately but daren't say so publicly. The other day I bumped into ************** at an event and said something about his global warming views (sceptical) and he froze and said `I don't do that stuff now - people would not touch me if I did'.

And this is the 'Free West' we are living in? Where people are too afraid to give their independent opinion, for fear of social ostracism? When and how did this dreadful state of affairs come about?

[UPDATE001] Or how about this one: Andrew Revkin, NYT columnist and famous for his supporting role in the climategate emails, made some less then earnest remarks about the climate summit in Copenhagen. Promptly he received an email from climatologist Michael Schlesinger:

The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists. Of course, your blog is your blog. But, I sense that you are about to experience the ‘Big Cutoff’ from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included.

If anything, it is this exact attitude that made the Climategate emails so shocking. Not easy learning the lesson, apparently.

Full and (in)voluntary disclosure

Today in the Wall Street Journal a closer look at what the UN's chief of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri (the famous climatologist railway engineer), seems to think is the real agenda of the Copenhagen summit.

"Today we have reached the point where consumption and people's desire to consume has grown out of proportion," he told the Observer, also on Sunday. "The reality is that our lifestyles are unsustainable."

Leading the WSJ to the obvious conclusion that the UN, by way of Mr. Pachauri is only interested in the science as a tool to push a global collectivist agenda:

In other words, if Mr. Pachauri is sanguine about the undermining of the IPCC's scientific methods, it's because his chief concern isn't the science at all. Rather, to judge by his recent public statements, he is more focused on an ideological economic agenda in which climate change is little more than a useful tool. Given the cover-ups exposed by the leaked emails, we'll take Mr. Pachauri's remarks as a welcome instance of full and voluntary disclosure.

So, Copenhagen isn't about climate, but about 'spreading the wealth' around every dysfunctional regime in every hell-hole on Gods green earth, is it? Glad we got that sorted out.

[UPDATE001] From the unfinished business department: Last month, in the wake of the second Irish referendum, EURef did an item I'd been meaning to blog: The lust for "power". In that post there is a link to a document, the hyper-link text very aptly reading "end game", which is even more pertinent to what is being concocted in Copenhagen.

In light of van Rompuy's recent offhand comment about global governance, this is one read you may not want to miss. Click the link, print it out and make sure you sit down before you read it. Twenty years after the Berlin Wall came down, after the Velvet Revolution and the toppling of Ceausescu's the communists are on the verge of victory after all.

The dam has broken

Finally. Finally.

Climate gate is now 16 days old. For the last two weeks we have been wondering: Where the hell is our press?

Up to now, it was only the Telegraaf which reported some on the ongoing controversy. Other MSM newspapers, like NRC and De Volkskrant did their utmost to downplay the scandal as a side-show, with no bearing on the actuality of AGW.

Today, one other paper of the big four, Trouw, published a long article (NL) by renowned climate sceptic Hans Labohm, in which the many reasons to distrust the AGW hypothesis (Climategate, the fictional hockeystick, the many failed predictions by the IPCC, etc.) are meticulously described. The paper even has the courage to leave in the paragraphs in which Labohm is accusing various parties of abusing the AGW scare for their own, collectivist and freedom destroying, agendas.

The article is too long for me to translate. And anyway, it contains nothing new for those reading blogs like this one, or EU Referendum or WUWT (or De Dagelijkse Standaard, of your Dutch). But if you can read Dutch and want a nice overview of what the sceptic side of the debate is thinking you could do worse than to head on over and read the thing in its entirety.

Up until this weekend Trouw, like the NRC and De Volkskrant, was residing firmly in the camp of the warmists. Moreoever, where De Telegraaf is often dismissed as a right-wing rag for the (dumb) masses, Trouw has some intellectual credentials.

Hence, this article is a sign. The Dutch MSM is not able anymore to keep the lid on the climategate scandal. Trouw was the first to cave to the pressure. The dam has broken.

[UPDATE001] Via Sir Henry Morgan (thank you, good sir): Lord Monckton has written a 43 page pamflet entitled Climategate: Caugh Green-Handed (pdf). It delves into the leaked material and does a good job of explaining the significance and implications of what was found in the emails and the actual programming code used by the CRU team to 'hide the decline' (among other things).

[UPDATE002] Don't miss Christopher Booker covering 'the most influential tree in the world'. In the mean time, Canada's The Globe and Mail is warning investors with climate related issues in their portfolios to get out while they still can: 'How close are we to the unravelling of the global warming fad? I think it has started.'

The blue elephant in the room

Britain: Drink drive limit to be reviewed by expert.

The present legal-drink drive limit is 80mg of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, however there has been increasing support for a lowering of the limit to 50mg.

Ireland: Lower Blood Alcohol Levels Can Save Lives

[Secretary General Jack Short of the International Transport Forum] welcomed the proposal in Ireland to reduce blood alcohol limits to 0.5 g/l for general drivers, as is already the case in nearly all EU countries, and 0.2 g/l for young and professional drivers

The Netherlands: Safe Traffic Netherlands wants zero line alcohol in traffic

Given that [0.2 g/l] actually means even one glass is too much, we'd like to see this threshold for everyone.

Belgium: Stricter alcohol limit in Belgium.

Belgium will introduce a limit to alcohol of [0.2 g/l] for motorists, chauffeurs of trucks and buses and drivers with less then two years experience.

Coincidence? No, it's not!

This is an EU initiative. It goes right back to May 2004 when the EU decided it wanted common drink-driving limits. Only, instead of coming out in the open, it is pushing for each member state "voluntarily" to impose harmonised standards, and only then will it issue a Directive, claiming that this is simply to regularise a position that already exists.

The EU commission is well-aware that bringing out a harmonising Directive at this stage would trigger a huge wave of protest and anti-EU sentiment, so it is working behind the scenes, with a threat that, unless the member states comply "voluntarily" it will push for a new law.

The whole agenda was set out in 2002 (138 pages .pdf) - a project called "ESCAPE", which plans EU-wide traffic law harmonisation and common enforcement standards. The drink-drive limit is only one of the proposals. Standard speed limits, random breath-testing and uniform fines are all proposed.

(emphasis is mine - KV)

The starred blue elephant strikes again!

The science of AGW is now officially dead

"Poor Al Gore. Global Warming completely debunked via the very internet you invented"

If you're in a position where even Jon Stewart is turning on you, you have lost.

Over... And done with.

Goodbye!

Jim Hansen is the leaker?

EU Referendum suggested it first.

Although he might seem an unlikely suspect, in The Guardian today, he reveals his underlying motivation, telling the paper that it would be better for the planet and for future generations if next week's Copenhagen climate change summit ended in collapse.(...) This is a man with the motive and, from his elevated status in the "climate change community", he undoubtedly had the opportunity and the access.

By way of further confirmation that he dun it, it is highly suspicious that none of the emails released incriminate him or his Goddard Institute. And who else would have the knowledge to select such incriminating information from the mass of material that must be stored on the CRU computer?

JammieWearingFool thinks the suspicions merited. And now Hot Air and the Instapundit (Glen Reynolds) have picked it up.

So, is he?

Demise of science VI: WSJ on Climategate

Daniel Henninger in a Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled Climategate: Science Is Dying draws exactly the right conclusion from the Climategate scandal:

As the hard sciences—physics, biology, chemistry, electrical engineering—came to dominate intellectual life in the last century, some academics in the humanities devised the theory of postmodernism, which liberated them from their colleagues in the sciences. Postmodernism, a self-consciously "unprovable" theory, replaced formal structures with subjectivity. With the revelations of East Anglia, this slippery and variable intellectual world has crossed into the hard sciences.

This has harsh implications for the credibility of science generally. Hard science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons. But the average person reading accounts of the East Anglia emails will conclude that hard science has become just another faction, as politicized and "messy" as, say, gender studies.

His conclusion is one with which we completely and utterly agree:

Science is on the credibility bubble. If it pops, centuries of what we understand to be the role of science go with it.

Fjordman -- December updates

[ 4 - 12] On Brussels Journal: The Ancient Greeks and the Invention of Natural Philosophy

[ 2 - 12] On Gates of Vienna a follow up to The Coming Crash: Surving the Coming Crash.

I am increasingly convinced that some of the developments we are witnessing are deliberate and that there is a long-term goal among certain powerful groups of breaking down Western nations to facilitate the creation of a global oligarchy. The lies we are being served are virtually identical in every single Western country. I’ve had discussions about this with my Chinese friend Ohmyrus who thinks this is caused by a structural flaw in our democratic system.

RECENT FJORDMAN
The Ancient Greeks and the Invention of Natural Philosophy
Surving the Coming Crash
A History of Geology and Planetary Science - complete
Astronomy in Prehistoric Europe
A History of Geology and Planetary Science - Part 3
The Coming Crash
The Legend of the Middle Ages
Dying Not to Discriminate
A History of Geology and Planetary Science - Part 2
The Cold War Never Ended
IQ and Warfare
A History of Algebra
A History of Geology and Planetary Science - Part 1
Why Obama but not Osama?
Why Did Europeans Create the Modern World? - Complete
Music and the Rise and Decline of Western Civilization

More Fjordman Files here.

Follow the money

In the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens does what Woodward and Bernstein did in the 'good old days': Follow the Money.

Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.

Last year, Stephens writes, Exxon spent a grand total of $ 7 million on 'grab-bag of public policy institutes'. That is the sum total. Kinda pales in comparison with the $19 million for Phil Jones alone, doesn't it? The grand total spent on 'green' issues is vastly greater.

[T]he European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.

And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.

(emphasis mine - KV)

All this makes you wonder which side of the debate is actually in it for the money...

[Instant UPDATE] Here's a surprise (not!). From Fox News: Document Reveals U.N.'s Goal of Becoming Rule-Maker in Global Environmental Talks.

The purpose of the paper, put together after an unpublicized day-long session in Switzerland by some of the world's top environmental bureaucrats: to argue for a new and unprecedented effort to move environmental concerns to "the center of political and economic decision-making" around the world — and perhaps not coincidentally, expand the influence and reach of UNEP at the tables of world power, as a rule-maker and potential supervisor of the New Environmental Order.

This puts van Rompuy's recent utterings in a whole new, quite sinister light, doesn't it?

[UPDATE001] Very useful website: The Green Agenda.

But tell us how you really feel

Enjoyable post by Pam Geller: Europe Reaction: Swiss Accord? .... oui. It's a compilation of screenshots from on-line polls in the EUnion press about the Swiss referendum on minarets held last Sunday. And it paints a picture that is diametrically at odds with the bombastic condemnations of the Swiss people by the worlds leaders.

The overall picture is remarkably unambiguous: Around three-quarters of those polled agree with the Swiss referendum and its outcome. Three quarters! Apparently, there is a commonality among the peoples of the EUnion after all: their complete divergence from their political elites.

That is one signal that wise statesmen and women would heed. But we're all governed by the EUnion now, where wise statespersons are very, VERY sparse. Which means the clear and possibly worrying signal will go all but unheeded.

[UPDATE001] Gates of Vienna has more bombastic 'official' pronouncements.

Climategate: First heads to roll

Via EU Referendum: The Associated Press reports that Phil Jones, director of CRU, is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.

The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.

One down, many more to go.

Elsewhere, Australian liberal conservative leader Malcolm Turnbull was forced to step down after five of his MPs deserted him over his consent to the introduction of an emission trading scheme. Which makes Turnbull the first political head to roll in the wake of climategate.

And in the Netherlands? Hitting Google News gives 13 results, with only two of those related to an MSM outlet (both from De Telegraaf) and one a news service. And the links to the Telegraaf are by virtue of commenters referring to the scandal, not by Telegraaf journalists doing their job. That sound you hear is our MSM snoring (or is it: furtively looking away?).

We asked the question a few days ago. It is now CG day + 12, and the question still stands:

Where the hell is our press?

[UPDATE001] After East Anglia's CRU and Penn State, two more institutes are implicated in the Climategate scandal: New York State University in Albany and the Queens University in Belfast. Pajamas has the details.

[UPDATE002] In Australia the proposed Emission Trading Scheme was voted down in parliament 41-33.

The 41-33 vote followed a tumultuous debate in which the conservative main opposition party at first agreed to support a version of the government’s bill, then dramatically dumped its leader and switched sides after bitter divisions erupted within the party.

WUWT has more.

Drop dead!

During a plenary session of Second Chamber today, commemorating the handing over of the Netherlands to a foreign government, CDA MP Henk Jan Ormel proposed to fly the Euro blue (NL) from every government and parliamentary building.

As the Lisbon Treat is officially entering into force today, Ormel says, this means that 'national parliaments are now formally involved in European decision making'. This would make a good reason the fly the Euro blue, because "a flag speaks to many people".

This is the second time the Christian Democrats are pushing one of those constitutional symbols we were supposed to be rid of. Back in 2007 Labour didn't agree and the proposal was defeated. Ormel thinks he can do better this time.

"A flag speaks to many people". But what does it say? Many will not be able to walk past a Euro blue without remembering the treason perpetrated by the political elite, specifically in the CDA, without remembering the bald lies (perpetuated by Ormel during the plenary session) that giving over power to the EUnion organs somehow increases democracy, instead of destroying it.

Many will look upon a strange flag flying like and equal next to our own tri-color and see a symbol of foreign occupation. To such blatantly treasonous nonsense from a member of parliament, who after all is sworn to serve the Queen and the Dutch people, there is only one fitting answer: 'Mister Ormel, we sincerely invite you to DROP DEAD at your earliest convenience'.

Thank you

Saying goodbye

It is now 22:44 as I begin this post. In just over one hour and 15 minutes the Lisbon Treaty will come into force. With it, the Netherlands as a sovereign and independent nation, with a history that started all the way back in 1584 will come to an end. Much like the Lisbon treaty will end the sovereignty and independence of 26 other European countries that fell for the deceit of Claude Monet and his many disciples.

I guess it it not completely wrong to say that Monet is to nationhood what Le Corbusier (essay by Dalrymple. Highly recommended) has been to architecture: Megalomaniac, soulless, totalitarian and completely devoid of any humanity. We will enter into a vision of statehood founded on the socialistic ideals of a State that exists for its own benefits. One where citizens only exist for the benefit of the State.

No longer will we have a government that has power by consent of its people. We have a government, in the dual form of the European Commission and the European Council, which we can not elect. And one which we cannot dismiss. Moreover, Lisbon stipulates that the Commission, the Council as well as the 'parliament' exist only to further the cause of the EUnion.

Many have likened the EUnion to the EUSSR, others are referring to it as the Fourth Reich or the return of the Holy Roman Empire. I don't know what form this strange beast will be. But I fear it will not be pleasant. The way the EUnion is setting out to destroy any semblance of privacy, via biometric passports, road-pricing gps devices, electronic patient files and smart energy meters, does not bode well for the future.

Nothing lasts forever, of course. And neither will the EUnion. Simply because the EUnion is built on ideas that have already become outdated, unfit for these modern times of internet and instant communication. But until that time that we can stand up again as sovereign peoples we will have to live under its yolk. We will have to live with a government that does not so much govern us, as dictate to us.

And so we have to say goodbye to our old friend, the Dutch Lion, that symbol of our resilience and tenacity (and vicious bite, if provoked enough). The Lion is not dead, but the EUnions innate allergy to everything even hinting at nationalism means it will have to go into hiding, it will exist in the underground.

But one shiny day it will come out of hiding. In the arm of the province of Zeeland, the Lion is portrayed over the words 'Luctor et Emergo'. We too will one day overcome and establish ourselves as sovereign people, governed by those we elect, those we give our consent. But for now, we must bear the fact that we are handed over into the hands of a foreign government, an alien government. That is what Lisbon means.

Goodbye dear friend. Until we meet again.

I think I'll have a glass of fine single malt whisky to mourn the loss of my country. It is now 23:07. Less then an hour until EUnion servitude.

Further reading:
Lisbon’s Constitutional Revolution by Stealth
A dispatch from an occupied country
At midnight last night, the United Kingdom ceased to be a sovereign state

Your read for today

The American Thinker: Global Warming Fraud and the Future of Science.

A concise overview of the big and smaller scandals we've witnessed with regard to the 'science' of global warming. And a lament of the demise of science in general.

Scientists were once among the most trusted figures in Western public life -- similar to bankers, priests, and doctors, but in a real sense, standing above them all. Scientists were honored as truth-tellers, aware that their reputation for veracity and seriousness was their only real asset.(...)

That has ended. The concept of unblemished scientific integrity is now one with the scholastic monasteries and the academy at Athens. Scientists today are well on their way to becoming an amalgam of the cheap politician and the three-card monte dealer. They are viewed by the less educated as a privileged class making alarming and impudent claims for their own benefit. The better-informed find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of being unable to defend something we once admired.

The Swiss example II: Switzerland votes for ban on minarets

In the referendum in Switzerland on whether the building of minarets should be prohibited, the Swiss have, counter to polls published earlier, voted in favour of the ban (CH).

Surprise in the minaret initiative: The minaret initiative clearly passed with 57.5 percent. The polls in the run up to the referendum were still indicating a No.

Reporting in EN here, by way of AFP, who note the lengths to which the Swiss government and related organisation went to secure a rejection of the ban. Will they now order a second referendum (and a third, and a fourth) until the Swiss give the right answer?

Earlier:
The Swiss example

[UPDATE001] Quite unsurprisingly Geert Wilders tonight congratulated the Swiss on the referendums 'magnificent outcome' (NL).

What is possible in Switzerland cab be done here [in Holland]as well.

Wilders will call on the government to organize a similar referendum in the Netherlands. With our current government I'd say such a proposal has an even more dismal outlook then a snowball in hell. But kudos to him for trying.

[UPDATE002] For a Swiss perspective head on over to Pigilito. Esther is also on the case.

[UPDATE003] Lawrence Auster:

This vote by the Swiss people is an important sign that ordinary Westerners are starting to reject the suicidal liberal belief that Western society is defined by tolerance, even toward the intolerant; by non-discrimination, even toward cultures and peoples that are radically incompatible with our own; and by freedom of religion, even of religions commanded by their god to subjugate and destroy us.

The case for thinking in 'Good and Evil'

A thought provoking article in the American Thinker today: The Pathology of Evil in Politics. Assuming evil is a pathological disorder, Andrew Thomas, explores ways to 'recognize and ferret out the sociopaths and narcissists currently in power', ending with a handy list of pointers to identify good and evil in politics.

Good:
Love, honor, integrity, honesty.

Evil:
Corruption, greed, narcissism, lust for power.

Good:
The belief in individual freedom and liberty as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Evil:
The belief that individuals should be controlled and subjugated by the State -- i.e., socialism, fascism, communism, globalism.

Good:
The belief that in an environment of freedom and equality, individual initiative and entrepreneurial spirit is the strength of the nation -- i.e., capitalism.

Evil:
The belief that the ends justify the means; that lying, subterfuge, and the killing of innocent humans are acceptable in achieving political goals -- i.e., radical Islam and leftism.

In this light, the Turnip (and the forth-coming climate deal) are worrying developments, to put it ever so mildly. And where does that leave our intrepid PM, our government as a whole or indeed our current parliamentary system?

About that trick

.. to 'hide the decline'.

Mr. Richard North of EU Referendum has a good post up about the 'scientific' discussion, as revealed by the leaked Climate Gate emails, that led to the 'adjustment' of certain inconvenient temperature proxy records.

It one again leads to the inevitable conclusion

that the "consensus" produced for the IPCC report was a contrivance, unsupported by the raw data.

In the Telegraph, Christopher Booker is shining is own light on events of this week with regard to climate research. Heartily recommended!

In the mean time Lord Moncktons is calling for the UN to be shut down and for fraudulent peddlers of global warming propaganda like Al Gore to be arrested and criminally prosecuted.

Monckton said that the United Nations should be “closed down,” adding that he talked to a senior UN ambassador in Canada who told him that he no longer saw any purpose in the UN and it exists “only to enrich itself at the expense of the nations it claims to serve, it’s time it was brought to an end.”

Given the above, and everything else that came to light this week, that seems to be the only sensible, rational thing to do.

A video from Australia

Via WUWT, a video pointing the destiny of the road we are heading down: The servile state. Watch it!

The penalty that good men pay for not being interested in politics is that they end up being ruled by men worse than themselves.

Fjordman -- November updates

[28 - 11] On Gates of Vienna: A History of Geology and Planetary Science - complete

[25 - 11] On Brussels Journal: Astronomy in Prehistoric Europe.

[23 - 11] Two FFs today. First, A tentative piece as preparation for a more complete essay: The Coming Crash.

I get the feeling that tensions are building up and that something big is going to happen within the coming generation, probably within the next five to ten years. Since I have been writing about geology lately I will use an analogy from plate tectonics: The tectonic plates of the Western world are now about to make a big move.

Second, part three of A History of Geology and Planetary Science is up at Atlas Shrugs.

[18 - 11] On Brussels Journal: The Legend of the Middle Ages.

It is true that some ancient Greek texts were reintroduced to the West via Arabic, sometimes passing via Syriac or Hebrew along the way, but these were usually based, in the end, on Byzantine originals. The permanent recovery of Greco-Roman learning and literature was undertaken as a direct transmission from Greek, Orthodox Christians to Western, Latin Christians.

[ 8 - 11] On Gates of Vienna Fjordman has a short comment on the Fort Hood Sudden Jihad Syndrome shooting: Dying Not to Discriminate.

[ 4 - 11] On Gates of Vienna: A History of Geology and Planetary Science - Part 2

[ 3 - 11] On Brussels Journal: The Cold War Never Ended.

It is now almost twenty years since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War. But did it really end, and did we win it? Look at the situation in Europe today, where many of the former Communist countries in the eastern half of Europe are freer and safer than many of those in the western half of Europe. Instead of an Iron Curtain we now have an Iron Veil of Multiculturalism, and Western Europe is on the wrong side of it this time around. Did we trade the USSR for the EUSSR? If we really "beat" Marxism, how come Marxists and Leftists of all stripes virtually control Western media and academia a generation later, and why does the USA have a Marxist-inspired President Obama?

[ 2 - 11] On Gates of Vienna: IQ and Warfare

Islam is a very simple, even primitive, creed, but as such it can ironically carry certain advantages. From a strictly evolutionary point of view, if Islam didn’t enjoy any advantages it wouldn’t have become as large as it has. Muslims are absolutely convinced about the justness of their cause and the fact that they literally have a God-given right to conquer other peoples. They have no moral qualms whatsoever about doing so. In contrast, the modern West is full of self-doubt.

RECENT FJORDMAN
A History of Geology and Planetary Science - complete
Astronomy in Prehistoric Europe
A History of Geology and Planetary Science - Part 3
The Coming Crash
The Legend of the Middle Ages
Dying Not to Discriminate
A History of Geology and Planetary Science - Part 2
The Cold War Never Ended
IQ and Warfare
A History of Algebra
A History of Geology and Planetary Science - Part 1
Why Obama but not Osama?
Why Did Europeans Create the Modern World? - Complete
Music and the Rise and Decline of Western Civilization
Why Did Europeans Create the Modern World? - Part 4
Why Did Europeans Create the Modern World? - Part 3

More Fjordman Files here.

CG day + 8. Where is the Dutch press?

This is getting absolutely ridiculous. In Australia five Liberal MP's handed in their resignation after their leader agreed to an emission trading scheme in the midst of the AGW narrative coming apart loudly and violently. Calls are getting louder to sack Phil Jones, head of the CRU and remove Micheal 'I invented the hockeystick' Mann from the IPCC.

And in our swampy corner of the world? To their credit, the Friesch Dagblad (NL), a local paper for the nothern province of Friesland, published a commentary taking a critical view of the content of the emails. No white-washing of the information contained in the emails. No crocodile tears of the 'criminal' theft of the information from CRU. Just a good, critical analysis of the situation. They conclude:

Striving for reduced consumption of fossil fuels is right. Even if it only were to lessen dependency on unsavoury regimes that have gas or oil at their disposal. But world-wide billions are being spent to combat CO2 emissions, of which the effect on climate has not been unambiguously established. Isn't it about time to take a good look at the status of the alarming information? And to maybe consider other priorities for the world community? Poverty and hunger, for instance?

So there is at least one, all be it small and regional, paper in the Netherlands that still remembers what it is for, what its job is supposed to be.

The much larger NRC, considered to be one of the four big 'quality papers' headlines 'The hockestick is completely back' (NL), celebrating Micheal Manns new paper. Unfortunately, that paper is as flawed as were Manns previous attempt. WUWT found the same inverted proxy records at the heart of this paper as were used in previous papers. Yet another dud in an increasingly discredited array of pseudo-scientific work.

And that is it... It has been 8 days since the story of Climate Gate broke. Where the hell is our press?

[UPDATE001] On De Dagelijkse Standaard the same sentiment: Dutch Journalism is Dead (NL).

Journalism in the Netherlands looks more like a pot-bellied media spokesperson from some provincial burocratic organ. Well, sleep tight then.

Doubt about AGW? You're a flat-earther!

That is at least what minister of environment Jacqueline Cramer (she who defends a whistle blower only when it suits her) contends on her 'blog' (NL).

Finding the time to put up something slightly more coherent with regard to the leaked CRU material then her ramblings of last Tuesday, she still isn't able (or willing) to look beyond the 'criminal act' and drones on about climate skeptics selectively 'cutting, pasting and editing' the material until they find support for their views.

Complaining about one-sided, a-symmetrical information in the zip-file leaked over the internet, she suddenly, and with abundant clarity displays what she understands to be a 'healthy scientific discussion':

Everything is taken out of context and all sorts of characters that think the climate problem isn't so bad (and that the earth is flat) are running with it.

Got that? If you think AGW may not be as bad as the IPCC says it is, you MUST be the kind of primitive, superstitious troglodyte that believes in a flat earth. This sorry excuse for a cabinet minister was at one point a professor in Environmental Sciences. One would think that in that capacity she learned a thing or two about scientific discussion. In my experience at least, labelling the other side 'flat earthers' was not normally on the menu. Then again I wasn't a climate or environmental scientist, was I?

One wonders what fraction of the Dutch population (let alone the world population) our porcelain doll managed to offend with that unfortunate remark.

Be that as it may, prudent policy making should demand that any clues that the publics money (our money) is spent on pipe dreams is investigated seriously. The money we spend now on far-fetched (and hugely expensive) schemes such as carbon-sequestration or building more unprofitable wind parks cannot be spent on more useful (and needed) goals, like improving our health care and education (to name but two).

Minister Cramer has signalled her reluctance to seriously consider the evidence, instead offering up platitudes like 'taking the IPCC as an anchor', since their report is based on the work of 'thousands of scientist', or that the leaked material was 'shopped together selectively'. This callous approach to spending public money makes her unfit as a serious policy maker. And to put insult to injury, anyone not agreeing with her hallowed eco-religious views is labeled by this minister (and by extension then, the whole government) as a flat-earther. Can we please get rid of her now?

And the hits keep on coming

Hot on the heels of Climate Gate comes part II, from New Zealand. From WUWT: Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.

In New Zealand’s case, the figures published on NIWA’s [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century:

The caption to the photo on the NiWA site reads:

From NIWA’s web site — Figure 7: Mean annual temperature over New Zealand, from 1853 to 2008 inclusive, based on between 2 (from 1853) and 7 (from 1908) long-term station records. The blue and red bars show annual differences from the 1971 – 2000 average, the solid black line is a smoothed time series, and the dotted [straight] line is the linear trend over 1909 to 2008 (0.92°C/100 years).

But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result:

Gone is the relentless rising temperature trend, and instead there appears to have been a much smaller growth in warming, consistent with the warming up of the planet after the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850.

The Climate Science Coalition report is here (pdf). Reaction by NIWA and more on TBR.cc (h/t Geenstijl)

Starting to unravel?

One of the key elements in the deep denial that the warmists display over Climate Gate is their obsession with 'peer-review'. Pointing out the abundance of peer-reviewed papers that demonstrate global warming and the contrasting sparse appearance of papers demonstrating the opposite in peer-reviewed literature, they try to keep up the pretence that they have the truth on their side, despite everything.

James Delingpole tears apart the warmists obsession with 'peer-review' in a post on his blog today. He shows that the peer-review system in climate science has been irreparably, terminally corrupted by a handful of scientist that have set themselves up as the high priests of climate truth.

Neutral observers in this war sometimes ask how it can be that the vast majority of the world’s scientists seem to be in favour of AGW theory. “Peer-review” is why. Only a handful of scientists – 53 to be precise, not the much-touted 2,500 – were actually responsible for the doom-laden global-warming sections of the IPCC’s reports. They were all part of this cosy, self-selecting, peer-review cabal.

Along the way Delingpole makes a rather important observation:

In true Gramscian style they marched on the institutions – capturing the magazines (Science, Scientific American, Nature, etc), the seats of learning (Climate Research Institute; Hadley Centre), the NGO’s (Greenpeace, WWF, etc), the political bases (especially the EU), the newspapers (pretty much the whole of the MSM I’m ashamed, as a print journalist, to say) – and made sure that the only point of view deemed academically and intellectually acceptable was their one.

Readers of this blog, certainly the ones that follow us for Fjordman updates, will recognize the reference to Gramsci. In the past Fjordman has done number of essays exploring this beast we call multiculturalism, tracing its way back to the ideas of 'cultural hegemony' postulated by Gramsci. It more commonly known as cultural marxism. I'll give a list of links to Fjordmans and other essays on this subject for those who want to delve into the subject. Delingpoles observation points to what may be an implication of Climate Gate that goes beyond climate science per sé.

There seems to be a mechanism that is central to the many scares we've had over the last 20 years, as EU Referendum show in a highly readable post. Drawing an analogy with the difference between conductors and mere members of an orchestra, Mr. North writes:

Phil Jones is not just a labourer in the vineyard, but the conductor of a vast orchestra. He co-ordinates the output of fellow workers, forming the hub of an international nexus, ensuring they are all "on-message" and sing to the same hymn sheet.(...)

And that is the way the scare dynamic works. There is always a core group, from which the "orthodoxy" radiates, the rest of the work being derivative and highly dependent on the core hypothesis. Strip out that core, and there is nothing there.(...)

The real way to look at it though is as one vast orchestra. More players make for more volume, but they do not change the tune.

This mechanism is politically neutral in principle. But it is a particularly efficient weapon in the hands of those that are playing for power and nothing else. Whereas conservatives are mainly preoccupied with preserving freedom and (personal) sovereignty, progressives want to reshape the world in their image. To do that they need the power to enact the changes the seek. They need the power to coerce the unwilling. They need power, period. Hence, the 'long march through the institutions' is undertaken by progressives finding each other in every corner of society, setting themselves up and poisoning every organisation they get access to. Simply by virtue of ruthlessly applied dictat that 'the personal is political', i.e. everything is made political, every arena is a struggle for political power.

Climate Gate has demonstrated (and is still demonstrating) how far the tentacles of this type of cultural marxism have spread. It is shown in the continuing reluctance of the MSM on mainland Europe to confront the issues around the leaked CRU material. It is shown in the dogged insistence that a deal in Copenhagen must made and CO2 emission trading schemes must be implemented, despite the fact that much of the rationale for these has come into serious doubt. It is shown in the refusal of our government to address the issues the leaked emails reveal, while vilifying as 'criminal hackers' the whistle-blower(s).

This scandal is now a week old. Every day that passes with both MSM and the body politics studiously looking away is a further indictment of both. Up to now that could be understood as reluctance to admit being wrong about global warming. Or even embarrassment about the laughable but prohibitively expensive measures that were introduced and defended.

But the continuing silence and occasional pooh-poohing of what happened last week is increasingly suggesting something else: That governments and MSM is mostly made up of people sympathetic to the disgraced scientists of CRU. That the same forces that shaped the climate science community have corrupted much, much more of our society. Thus the already sizeable Climate Gate scandal may be only the prelude to the realization there is a much bigger scandal afoot. That of government, MSM, NGO's and academia conspiring to coerce all of us into their ideal form of society under false pretence.

In this light it is not by accident that climate change was so eagerly adopted as a cause celèbre by both the EUnion and the UN. As 'not my president' van Rompuy stated:

2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.

Of course this has been a suspicion for some time now, as the Fjordman posts linked to below will confirm. What must be shocking to many people, though, is the revelation this week, indeed the proof, that even supposedly hard science was not immune to the corruption of the cultural marxists. It is the contrast between the scientific ideal, the Popperian model, and the sleazy climate science practice that has jolted many out of their slumber. And the longer governments and MSM refuse to do what is expected of them, the more ordinary citizens will realize that something potentially sinister is going on. Ironically, it will be science, that quest for materialistic truth, that may prove to be the starting point of the unravelling of the grand designs of our Gramscian elites. The truth will set you free, and all that.

Further reading:

Fjordman
Political Correctness: The revenge of Marxism
What is the Nature of Multiculturalism?
The Background of Multiculturalism
The Rise of Glossocracy
A Communism for the 21st Century
Resisting 21st Century Communism
Why Transnational Multiculturalism is a Totalitarian Ideology

Other
The Origins of Political Correctness
Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology

[UPDATE001] Much better written, but the same basic premise: Melanie Phillips - Green Totalitarianism

Dutch MSM and government absent on Climate Gate

The Dutch governments first response to Climate Gate came to us via Minister of Housing, Zoning and Environment Jacqueline 'porcelain doll' Cramer (pictured). It was totally not disappointing in that it completely dismissed the actual content of the emails.

In a stroke of brilliant deflection she actually accused the leaker of 'cooking the climate numbers'. From Nu.nl (NL):

The hackers that hacked into the server of a respected British research institute on climate changes this weekend have 'cooked the numbers'.

This was said Tuesday by minister Jacqueline Cramer. 'They have hacked data and have shopped aroudn selectively', according to the minister. The hackers published thousands of private emails of British and American top scientists and wanted to show with those that data on climate changes has been manipulated by those scientists.

'This is just criminal. It is unacceptable', stated Cramer, who further said that the actions of the hackers did little among the climate negotiators who will meet in December in Copenhagen to forge a new climate treaty. She's is not unwilling to talk to climate critics, 'but not on these terms'.

The minister is convinced about the scenario sketched by thousands of scientists: warming of the earth by more then 2 degrees centigrade will be disastrous. 'I base myself on 1200 institutes and the scientists that belong to them. Our anchor is the IPCC', said Cramer, referring to the authoritative climate research desk of the United Nations

There are actually so many things wrong with this item, that I don't even know where to begin.

But one thing stands out: If our porcelain doll states that hackers have manipulated climate numbers, then she does not know what she is talking about. More worrying: Her staff doesn't know what is going on either. This story broke even before the weekend truly began. It is Tuesday. One would think the many civil servants employed by the ministry of Housing, Zoning and Environment would collectively have come up with a sturdier apologetic then the lame 'the hackers tampered with the numbers' when it is clear as day that the hackers (if it wasn't a leak after all) did not, could not have pulled off such a feat.

I am not in the habit of providing my opponents with ammunition, but wouldn't it have been more credible if the porcelain doll had dismissed Phill Jones et al. as aberrations, to be sacked at the English Queens leisure, but had maintained that the rest of the proof still stands? She'd be wrong, of course, but it would have looked like a half-way considered response. As it stands now, our environmental minister showed to the world (and the Netherlands in particular) she is nothing more then an highly overrated activist, with too little substance to redeem the monumental mistake of appointing her to her present position.

Elsewhere, the Dutch MSM is marked by a complete absence of any in-depth coverage of the scandal. Trouw (NL) put up an infantile rehash of an AP story featuring Kevin Trenberth, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado, crying into his beer about the injustice of the leaks.

"I personally feel violated," he said. "I'm appalled at the very selective use of the e-mails, and the fact they've been taken out of context."

This would be the very Trenberth that wrote in one of the leaked emails that "we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't".

NRC did a half-way decent story (NL), in that it at least acknowledged the potentially harmful contents of the leaked emails. That good effort is subsequently neutralized by the rather conspicuous apologetics written to 'explain' the contents of the emails. We already covered the puzzling contribution by Het Laatste Nieuws. According to De Zwijger (NL) this also was an AP rehash.

And that is about it... Once again there is a major story developing and our fourth estate is absent, AWOL, not doing the job they sanctimoniously maintain is their highest calling. It is but a very slight consolation that elsewhere the situation is equally dismal. What is there to do, but sigh...

Luckily we have Dutch blogs that are doing the job the Dutch MSM won't, to wit:

De Klimatosoof
Willem de Zwijger
De Dagelijkse Standaard

In the mean time, if you want a quick run-down of the explosive content of the leaked emails, I refer you to Glenn Beck (see below). Whatever you may think of him (many in the Netherlands think of him as a right-wing nut, with an emphasis on the large hard-shelled seed) he's is not wrong about the gist of Climate Gate.

[UPDATE001] Today (Thu 26 - 11) VVD (liberal conservative) MP Helma Neppérus hooked her claws (NL) into minister Cramer. In the not too distant past Cramer (back then a fully fledged activist) put her signature under a full page newspaper ad voicing support for a left wing anti-nuclear energy group breaking into the ministry of Economic Affairs and stealing plans for new nuclear energy plants in the Netherlands. Says Neppérus:

If someone steals dcuments on nuclear plants, we find her name under an advert offering support. Now that hackers are putting emails out on the street from which it is evident that global warming is exaggerated, they suddenly are 'criminals'.

In the past Cramer has been found somewhat milder. I regret that she refuses to look at the shocking facts. It's as if too her the aim justifies anything.

And that is surprising how, exactly? There used to be a time we would expect better from our cabinet ministers. But after the Turnip, road pricing and blanket smoking ban, does anyone really expect anything better anymore? But good for Neppérus that she takes our porcelain doll to task over her irredeemably weak response to Climate Gate.

... and counterpoint?

This is kind of curious: Belgian HetLaatsteNieuws.be (NL) has a short article up claiming the emails in the Climate Gate files were 'tampered with'. Now, Het Laatste Nieuws (HLN.be) is arguably a respected outlet of the Belgian MSM.

But in this case, there is something amiss. No source for the claim of tampering is given. There is an extensive quote from someone dismissing the whole affair as a conspiracy theory already overtaken by facts. But the quote is not attributed.

A short google session on my part also didn't turn up anything. In fact, they seem to be assertions without any backing source whatsoever. I've put up a translation on Page II of KV, if you want to read for yourself.

All in all this seems to be a slightly panicked and incredibly lame reaction to the Climate Gate affair. This is journalism? This is the counterpoint to Climate Gate? This is all they can muster?

(thanks to Esther for the tip)

Watching a conspiracy in action

You may remember the day when the Hockey Stick went poof. The story began when Steve McIntyre, the same researcher who was largely responsible for destroying Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph, turned his attention to a paper by Keith Briffa of CRU. This paper analysed tree ring data, including rings from an area called Yamal in Siberia. And quite the coincidence: CRU found another hockey-stick graph. Bishop Hill had a good account of the controversy here. In short: McIntyre's work appeared to show that Briffa had cherry-picked trees in order to get the desired outcome.

Powerline has found the Climate Gate e-mail correspondence between members of the 'hockey team' with regard to the Yamal implosion. Excerpts and analysis are here. It is astounding to read how these 'scientists' decided a priori that McIntyres results were 'bogus' and did everything in their power (up to and including sliming their way into the affections of NYT correspondent Andrew Revkin) to uphold their narrative. Nowhere in their correspondence the question is asked: But is McIntyre correct?

They knew the Briffa paper was flawed, but did nothing but be defensive about criticism of the paper. The did not correct Briffa, they did not redo the analysis. They went after McIntyre and tried to dismiss other critical voices.

Can we call it a conspiracy yet?

The story of the decade

Mrs. KV and I were away for the weekend with family. And wouldn't you know it? Cut off from any meaningful internet connection, I missed the breaking of the biggest story of 2009 (and probably the biggest story of the first decade of this, the 21st century).

Climate Gate, as the story has become known over the weekend, is on the road to become a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science.

An Elegant Chaos have put up a searchable database of the content of the material leaked onto the internet. Moreover, comments made by CRU staff indicate not all of the stolen material has been leaked, so we possibly may look forward to more revelations about the 'climate change consensus' and the bully boys that tried to enforce it.

Bishop Hill has a nice (and linked) overview of the most damning email correspondence. This is being downplayed in the MSM as 'colloquial' language that means something other then what it actually says. Be that as it may, the most damning, and seemingly least controvertible, are 1) an overview of grants given to CRU scientists and where these grants originate from and 2) the comments left in the code of some of the modelling software developed and used by CRU and 3) comments left in a work document of a hapless soul at CRU logging attempts to make sense of the data used by CRU.

It all adds up to a picture where analysis was done on irreparably corrupted data, using models that are purposefully 'adjusted' to give the desired result and (unethical, unbecoming and possibly illegal) attempts to prevent anyone from finding out the extent of the rot, the corruption that beseeches 'climate science', while being funded by stakeholders that have a vested interest in a certain outcome (and it isn't 'big oil' either).

These are scientists that are key players in the compiltaion and editing of those IPCC reports. To put it as succinctly as possible: The IPCC has been totally discredited. Global warming goes poof, indeed.

The jury is still out on whether the material was hacked or leaked, apparently. If it was leaked, we at KV have a new hero. If it was hacked, we do think justice must be served. But we hope the hackers are put in front of a sympathetic judge and jury. And we at KV still have a new hero.

(Thanks to DP111 for the heads up)

Ongoing tracking:
Climate Depot
The Air Vent
Watt's Up With That (of course)
The Heartland Institute
James Delingpole

[UPDATE001] Lord Monckton adds his voice: They Are Criminals

Finally, these huckstering snake-oil salesmen and “global warming” profiteers — for that is what they are — have written to each other encouraging the destruction of data that had been lawfully requested under the Freedom of Information Act in the UK by scientists who wanted to check whether their global temperature record had been properly compiled. And that procurement of data destruction, as they are about to find out to their cost, is a criminal offense. They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers.

I am angry, and so should you be.

[UPDATE002] US Senator Inhofe is calling for an investigation:

Senator Inhofe: Well, on this thing, it is pretty serious. And since, you know, Barabara Boxer is the Chairman and I'm the Ranking Member on Environment and Public Works, if nothing happens in the next seven days when we go back into session a week from today that would change this situation, I will call for an investigation. 'Cause this thing is serious, you think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with.

Melanie Morgan: So what will you be calling for an investigation of?

Senator Inhofe: On the IPCC and on the United Nations on the way that they cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not.

[UPDATE003] And to put insult to injury, reader Herman Benschop points us to a paper (pdf) arguing the Greenhouse conjecture cannot hold for planetary climate: It doesn't compute with thermodynamics.

Ceci n'est pas mon président

BBC item

EU Referendum: Commission 2 – Council 0

The hegemony of the commission is safe – the Commission have people in place that they control. The EU "leaders" may think they have been in the driving seat, but this is a "dual control" vehicle and the driver's side controls are not actually connected to anything.

And adding:

The forces of darkness are on the march.

Brussels Journal has details on the faux-president here.

Like Belgium, the European Union is an undemocratic institution, which needs shrewd leaders who are capable of renouncing everything they once believed in and who know how to impose decisions on the people against the will of the people. Never mind democracy, morality or the rule of law, our betters know what is good for us more than we do. And Herman is now one of our betters. He has come a long way since the days when he was disgusted with Belgian-style politics.

Herman is like Saruman, the wise wizard in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, who went over to the other side. He used to care about the things we cared about. But no longer. He has built himself a high tower from where he rules over all of us.

[UPDATE001] His Grace weighs in on Rompuy Stiltskin.

Herman Van Rompuy has succeeded precisely because he has no charisma, no initiative, no personality and no presence. In short, he has no teeth and is therefore no threat either to the Franco-German axis or to the omnipotent European Commission.

Something to ponder

... in the final days of our sovereignty.

Despite the amazing change 1989 and its aftermath brought to my life I feel no closure over the past and a sense of proportion in the way the fall of communism has been 'handled'. Today we should be looking back at the last 20 years counting the many communists who died in prison or are still rotting there... I can only hope that future generations will revisit the past and will have far lower tolerance of collectivism and totalitarianism. It may be a futile hope as today's teenagers have little knowledge of the world my generation grew up and my parents lived in. And so I am bitter and disappointed that people can say the word "communism" without spitting.

I am also bitter and disappointed because those who opposed communism have not won. It is still with us, in the idiotic juxtapositions of Nazism and communism, or socialism and free-market, used by those who aspire to communism and justify it by positing Nazism as the greater evil. It still raises its ugly head in those who despise free-markets and attempt to put a human mask on socialism by pointing out 'failures' of capitalism. Rather hard as socialism, like all totalitarianisms, has no face. It is the ultimate denigration of humanity, destruction of individuality, and subjugation of human beings to the vast merciless machine of control and power.

Read the rest (and the links) on Samizdata.

Oppression Watch: Road pricing in the Netherlands

Well, alea iacta est as they say. Last Friday our government decided for all of us that road pricing will be introduced by 2012. The government of course presents this new scheme as a blessing for all, to wit:

To make sure motorists are not worse off, road tax will be scrapped and the purchase tax on new cars will be reduced. Some 60% of drivers will be better off, the government claims.

The transport ministry said on Friday it expected fatal accidents will fall by 7% and carbon emissions would be down by 10%. Traffic jams will be halved and the amount of kilometres driven will go down by 15%.

After which it will proceed to cure cancer and abolish world hunger, presumably.

But there is a bit of trouble in paradise. The Telegraaf, vehemently opposed to the plans, is running a series of article, pointing out obvious issues with regard to privacy, or the completely draconian measures imposed on citizens (suspected of) tampering with this magnificent scheme.

The road-pricing scheme includes the obligation of installing a GPS device (which one has to pay for one self), which may never be turned off. Each car on the roads will be fitted with a GPS device which will use satellites to monitor where and when the car is driven and send the information to a central billing point. Hence, the government will know where you are (or at least: Where your car is) all hours of all days from the moment the thing is installed in your car and turned on. Not only that: Ones speed can be monitored in real time, preparing for real time enforcement of speed limits, another steady source of income.

The ministry said on Friday the information collected about motoring habits would be 'legally and technically' protected and would not be accessible to other government agencies. But today it was already forced to backtrack on that promise, admitting that data could be shared with other ministries and police forces (NL), of a situation required such.

If the "security of the state" is at risk, or in the case of "prevention, detection and prosecution of criminal activity", the police or the intelligence agency AIVD may [virtually] snoop around into your car.

For those that are of the opinion that Dutch government is rather meek in its punishing of offenders, there is good news. With road-pricing the government seems to have overcome its reservations against imposing tough sanctions (NL). The bad news is, of course, that this new found toughness is directed against the average citizen: Malfunction of the GPS device must be reported to the authorities within 8 hours, on pain of a a fine of €18,500 or a jail sentence of six months. That includes of course a criminal record that will last for 10 years. If deliberate tampering is detected, this may run up to €74,000 or four years in jail. Four years! What hardened criminals we must be, that such punishments are in order.

Missing from the reporting completely is the EUnion angle. As with the equally privacy-destroying 'smart energy meter', the whole thing is presented as a plan concocted by the christian-socialist cabinet of our would-be EUnion president. As usual the reality is even more grotesque. EU Referendum has done a series of posts in the past, explaining how road-pricing is the vehicle with which the EUnion will fund the Galileo project. Hence, this government is merely executing what their masters in Brussels have ordered. They are not our government, they are the representatives of the EUnion elite. This has been so for quite some time and will be so de jure when The Turnip comes into effect, December 1st.

We are becoming less free and poorer. Not because our own government (who we can dismiss) decided so, but because our supreme government in Brussels (who we cannot dismiss) ordered so. Freed of any accountability, they are in a position to rob us blind with impunity. What we are seeing here is the true meaning of the EUnion for us, mere subjects.

[UPDATE001] Isn't that just the coincidence: One year ago, to the day, I wrote:

Don't let yourself be fooled. Road-pricing will come, despite current protestations to the contrary. The EUnion needs it to justify the costs of the Galileo project and the EUnion will get it. Objections from parliament and assurances from Camile Eurlings and others are all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

And here we are, one year later. Being right isn't all it's cracked up to be, though... Would that I had been completely wrong.

[UPDATE002] For what good it'll do here's a petition against the governments plans for road pricing in the Netherlands: Kilometerheffing Nee