An auto-da-fé was the ritual of public penance of condemned heretics and apostates that took place when the Portuguese (or Spanish) Inquisition had decided their punishment, followed by the execution by the civil authorities of the sentences imposed. This time the Portuguese Grand Inquisitor J.M. Barroso did not have to impose the most severe punishment on the Polish heretic J. Lewandowski
(image by wikipedia)
The high priests of the climate global warming cult did not waste any time in silencing a prominent Polish heretic, who had dared to question one of its holiest dogmas.
The accelerated process started a few of days ago with the Dutch jesuitJoris den Blanken demanding immediate and forceful action against the EU budget commissioner Janusz Lewandowski:
"The commissioner should fully explain himself," Joris den Blanken a Greenpeace spokesman told the EurActiv website. "If not, the consequences for his role in the European Commission should be considered."
Based on the report from den Blanken, the council of the Brussels high priests issued a strong warning to the heretic, and demanded an immediate public apology.
In order to clarify misunderstandings, built on unauthorised quotations, taken out of context, here is my true position on the question of climate change:
• I acknowledge the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientific studies confirm the phenomenon of global warming.
• I have never said that climate change is not taking place neither that man made emissions are not contributing to this phenomenon.
• As a member of the College of Commissioners I fully subscribe to the Europe 2020 strategy, to its environmental goals as well as to the agreed CO2 reduction targets. I see it as my responsibility to ensure adequate funding in support of the Europe 2020 strategy in all its aspects in the EU budget.
• I do strongly believe that the success in efforts to stop climate change would depend on the concerted international actions including the biggest global emitters of CO2.
This was the original heresy:
"There is a view breaking through that the theory of coal-generated power as the main culprit of global warming is seriously in doubt"."Moreover, more and more often there is a question mark put over global warming as such."
JanuszLewandowski
(in Polish magazine Novy Przemysl, May 2011)
PS
As can be seen, not so much has changed in Europe since the first Inquisition ..... In the case of this heretic, the inquisitors did not actually have to work very hard in order to get him to repent. The word from Brussels is however, that should the crime be repeated by Lewandowski or any other Commission heretics, a much more severe punishment is to be imposed.
Nina Khrushcheva, the great-granddaughter of former Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and a senior fellow at the World Policy Institute inNew York, offers Russia´s present ruler, former KGB spy Vladimir Putin an excellent piece of advice:
Putin, however, would be well advised to listen to Biden, who is rumored to have offered him important international positions, such as chairing the International Olympic Committee, or perhaps even leading the United Nations. After all, Putin knows well the old Soviet playbook: the fate of previous KGB functionaries may await him. Dreaded secret-police chief Lavrenti Beria, who operated the machinery of repression under Joseph Stalin, was executed by the system he perfected, after being sentenced to death in 1953 for “spying against the state.” In his decade in power, Putin has consolidated and strengthened the security forces, intimidated and jailed opponents, and muzzled the media and courts. If he doesn’t step down or aside so that Russia can move forward, the system he has created may turn his own methods against him.
One wonders why Biden did not offer Putin a job at FIFA? If one looks at recent FIFA happenings, this organization would appear to be the ideal working place for somebody with Putin´s merits and background. One big advantage for Putin is that he already has extensive knowledge about how FIFA corruption works, having secured the World Cup 2018 for Russia.
But, of course, in reality neither the IOC nor the UN differ very much from FIFA in this regard ....
This is the energy picture the Danes like to project to foreign audiences
The Danes enjoy portaying themselves as world leaders when it comes to wind power and other "renewable" energy. During the last few years a great number of wind power companies have been established in Denmark, benefiting from generous government subsidies.
However, without these subsidies not one of the "world famous" Danish wind farms would be profitable. But not even the government largesse, courtesy of the taxpayers/consumers seems to be enough to keep wind power profitable in Denmark; Scan Energy, one of the major wind and solar energy companies, with production also in Germany and France, has finally called it a day. Among the major shareholders are a number of the biggest Danish farming estates. Now there is, according to the Danish daily Jylland-Posten, a real risk that some of these family estates, built up during centuries, will have to be sold as a consequense of the Scan Energy bankruptcy.
At the same time the big Danish wind tubine manufacturer Vestas is also having a hard time. It just lost a huge Swedish order to German Siemens.
The Danish reality should be an important lesson to businesses and investors everywhere: investing in something that is almost entirely based on government subsidies, is an extremely risky business and should be avoided, no matter how enticing the politically correct climate change offerings may appear!
“(A) close look at Denmark’s energy sector shows that its embrace of wind power has not resulted in ‘energy independence, nor has it made a major difference in the country’s carbon dioxide emissions, coal consumption, or oil use."
“Despite massive subsidies for the wind industry and years of hype about the wonders of Denmark’s energy policies, the Danes now have some of the world’s most expensive electricity … And in 2007, their carbon dioxide emissions were at about the same level as they were two decades ago.”
"Government is not the solution to ourproblem, government is the problem"
During this Reagan Centennial year a great number of interesting articles and speeches have been written about how Ronald Reagan - if he were still among us - would have tackled the economic and political woes that America is suffering today. Less has been said about what Reagan would have thought about the present state of the European Union.
Fortunately, Jiří Brodský,Deputy Director of the Foreign Affairs Department
in the Office of the President of the Czech Republic, has now written an excellent article, "Ronald Reagan and the Europe of Today", in which he offers some interesting thoughts about how Reagan would have looked at what is going on in Europe right now. The article was first published in Czech by the http://www.ceskapozice.cz/ website.
Here is now an English translation of Brodský´s article, published with the permission of the author:
Ronald Reagan and the Europe of Today
Ronald Reagan’s centennial this year is a good opportunity to remember what sort of a man he was, what he achieved and the era in which he lived. This is particularly true for Central Europeans. His contribution – which was a significant one – to the fact that the countries of Central and Eastern Europe live in freedom today should never be forgotten. Nor should we forget to commemorate his philosophy of life, his principles, his patriotism, his faith in God, his humbleness, his sincerity, his straightforwardness, his decisiveness, his sense of humour and his natural scepticism.
It is also appropriate to use this occasion to discuss the present. Reagan used to speak and write about what is and what will be, rather than about what used to be, although he did recall the past and draw lessons from it. He often reflected on James Madison and his warning in 1788 that, throughout history, “Freedom has been most often taken from the people not in armed clashes but in the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power” (Noonan 2002: 121). He also used to say that those who founded the United States believed that government should be as close as possible to the people, that it should guarantee national security and democratic freedoms, and that it should limit its intrusions into the lives of Americans. He said that the Founding Fathers “never envisioned vast agencies in Washington telling farmers what to plant and teachers what to teach.” (ibid.)
These words are apt for today’s European reality. To criticise what comes from the European Commission in Brussels is not Euroscepticism, nor is it anti-Europeanness, any more than Reagan’s criticism of the Washington administration was an expression of anti-Americanism. This is not to suggest that the European Union is or should be similar to the USA. Criticism of the fact that many things in the EU today are decided by unelected bureaucrats does not mean that they should be elected. It means instead that there should be as few of them as possible, that their powers should be radically reduced, and that no new institution – such as the European External Action Service – should be created, because any newly created department, agency, body or international institution will never cease to exist. Reagan used to say that a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth. “The bureaucracy once created has one fundamental rule above all others: Preserve the bureaucracy” (Ryan 2001: 72) The same is true for every new EU competence and only dreamers believe that they will ever be transferred back to the member states.
The same goes for union programmes, subsidies and funds. This is what Reagan wrote about his first year in office: “We started to restore the authority of states and municipalities, which had been taken away from them by the federal bureaucracy and we increasingly used the so-called aggregate subventions which enabled the teachers and local representatives to talk into the distribution of aid and limited the competences of the social engineers from Washington who were used to decide and prescribe through “earmarked” subsidies what the states and towns should do” (Reagan 1998: 259). It is the same in the European Union today. The bureaucrats from the European Commission in Brussels determine the projects for which the money from the EU budget will be used, and for which the regions, towns and municipalities can apply. In order to be able to apply, however, applicants often need to allocate up to 40% of the final sum of the Union subsidy to projects on which they did not decide and which therefore do not constitute a necessary priority for them. This means that they are spending money which could be put to better and more effective use on projects other than those which have been decided in the capital of another member state. Just before the 1964 election, Reagan said: “This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.” (Reagan 1964)
They do not like to hear this in Brussels. That is why, when they celebrate Reagan, they only recall his Berlin speech and the fall of the Iron Curtain. You will not hear from them about democracy, freedom or elections, let alone about the defence of capitalism or the free market. They are not saying the EU should do less, or that what Reagan used to say about the American federal government holds true for the EU as well: that it is often the problem, not a solution. They do not criticise the omnipotence of the European Court of Justice. They do not discuss the need to reduce EU legislation, the power of the Commission and the number of its officials. They compare their number with the number of government employees in the member states, and if they do want to reduce anything, it is the powers of the member states and their governments themselves. They do not aim at creating a federation: their ambition is to create a European Union without states, in which nations will be a historical relic. The very word “nation” is not politically correct in today’s European Union, because it relates to a clearly defined demos, with its historically given territory, its past, traditions, distinctiveness and uniqueness; an entity which has its own interests and with which the citizens identify. This is something of which Reagan was always proud and which he always awakened in the Americans.
The year of Reagan’s centennial is a year when politicians in the EU are trying to deal with the consequences of the economic crisis. They all celebrate Reagan, but they are tackling the crisis in a manner against which Reagan warned. They wrongly assume that the crisis was primarily a market failure, and that any future crises can be prevented by greater government intervention in the economy. The exact opposite is true. They are trying to cure the illness by prescribing what caused it in the first place. Reagan said: “The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.” (Ryan 2001: 141). Instead of abolishing useless restrictions and repealing thousands of pages of regulations and directives which stand in the way of the economic growth, they are trying to come up with new ones. The impacts of the crisis will not be minimized by greater amounts of redistribution, and the budgetary discipline of some eurozone countries will not be improved like this either. On the contrary, it will motivate some eurozone members to make irresponsible decisions and to rely on help from others, instead of taking responsibility for their own decisions. It is equally bad to increase taxes instead of cutting public spending. Reagan cut taxes because he knew that it would enable people to spend, invest and save more money: tax cuts help to revive the economy.
This year is also the year of the war in Libya. Ronald Reagan detested Colonel Gaddafi and he considered him “one of the worst terrorists in the world”. He did not hesitate to make it clear that it is unacceptable for Libya to break international law. He wrote the following words in his memoirs: “I sensed that we must do something with that clown in Tripoli. We had a range of plans, but realized that no matter what we were to do, we had to bear in mind that there were more than a thousand American workers in the oil industry in Libya. Gaddafi would certainly not hesitate and make them the victims of his anger” (Reagan 1998: 467). Reagan, however, was not among those who shook hands with Gaddafi or had their pictures taken with him in a friendly hug, only to call for his resignation four months later and send fighter jets against his troops. His dislike for Gaddafi, especially after the assassination of the Egyptian president Sadat, did not come from some momentous attempt to divert attention from domestic problems, or from an attempt to make himself more visible before an election campaign. For some politicians in Europe today, the war in Libya is a substitute topic. It does not originate in their contempt and long-term denouncements of Colonel Gaddafi. It originates in a feeling they did not have four months previously.
They present themselves as messengers and importers of the good. They decide about someone without him, just like the unelected officials in Brussels who do not have – and do not want to have – a programme which they would have to defend before the electorate. They are not accountable to the people, but they are convinced that they know what is best for them and they use the greatest efforts and financial means for media campaigns to try to convince citizens that this is the case. “Yet any time you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we are denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we are always ‘against’ things, never ‘for’ anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.” (Reagan 1964)
According to his former advisor, Peggy Noonan, “The biggest misunderstanding about Reagan’s political life is that he was inevitable. He was not. He had to fight for every inch, he had to make it happen.” (Noonan 2011) He did not believe in a destiny that will come about no matter what we do. He believed instead in a fate that will befall us if we do nothing. Today’s world is no less complicated than Reagan’s era. The difference is that there is so little of Reagan in it. There are plenty of short-sighted politicians and too few statesmen who have the backbone, ideals, long-term vision and sense of direction which were Ronald Reagan’s finest qualities.
Jiří Brodský is Deputy Director of the Foreign Affairs Department
in the Office of the President of the Czech Republic.
On July 1 Poland takes over the EU Presidency for a 6 month period. One has to wish them luck, although even a "succesful" EU Presidency will not be more than a touch up job in order to keep a rotten ship afloat for a while longer.
It is as such not suprising that Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and a number of other Polish decision makers are now praising the European Union as the main reason for the excellent ecomic growth the country has enjoyed for several years now. If you are a member of a club, you are supposed to sing its praise once in a while, and particularly if its your turn to be at "the helm".
But the truth is, that Poland has had good economic growth despite of the European Union, not because of it.
It is likely that the Polish growth would have been even faster, if the country would have opted for a close co-operation in the form e.g. of a free trade area with the EU, instead of membership.
In the next 10-15 years Poland could, according to its Foreign Minister, become the "new Norway" in Europe (thanks to shale gas). And, if the European Union does not prevent it through prohibitive regulation (this a real danger that the Poles must stave off at all costs!), the chances that this will actually happen, are excellent. Norway, of course, has not felt any need to join the "club", although they enjoy a very good co-operation with the EU. Non-membership offers Norway - and e.g. Switzerland - much better opportunities to shape its future, without the costly, bureaucratic and undemocratic EU straightjacket. This would be a much better solution for Poland, too. As the unraveling of the present EU continues, despite futile attempts to keep the already almost dead euro patient alive, Poland may actually have a good opportunity for real independence in the not too distant future.
Kumi Naidoo welcomed by fellow cultists in Amsterdam. The Great Leader deservedly spent a couple of days in police custody in Greenland. Now he is being celebrated almost like a new Mandela by his followers - and he clearly seems to agree with that view.
When the Danish police in Greenland recently - and quite rightly - arrested Greenpeace chief KumiNaidoo, after climbing an oil rig off Greenland´s west coast in an attempt to stop a Scottish oil company from quite lawfully drilling in Arctic waters, there was an uproar among the Greenpeace cultists. It did not take many hours before a number of "Free Kumi" sites began to appear on the web.
However, the Greenland officials most certainly did not need any "assistance" from these cultists: The Great Leader was duly fined and deported, and probably will think twice before entering the Greenland waters again anytime soon.
In addition to the "Free Kumi" people, Greenpeace´s own propagandists have, of course, been busy extolling the Great Leader´s excursion into northern waters. The Great Leader himself, who - to put it mildly - seems to have a somewhat overblown impression of his own importance, stated already befor the trip: "this is destined to become one of the defining environmental battles of our age".
One of the bloggers on the Greenpeace website has published a post called "Actions speak louder than words" in which he praises the work of the Great Leader. What is interesting, is not the blog post, but one of the comments. In fact, I think this comment is so much to the point, that it deserves to be re-published here:
Daithesci says:
"Actions Speak Louder than Words"
Absolutely.
Greenpeace words: "Move Beyond Oil"
Greenpeace actions: Spend 6 Million USD per annum on Oil. [1]
Greenpeace words: "Take Direct Action"
Greenpeace actions: Spend three quarters of all funds on expenses and administration. [2]
Greenpeace words: "Trust the science"
Greenpeace actions: Be very selective. Write the IPCC reports, but write lies about their nuclear equivalents.
[1]2009 accounts show over *6 Million Kg* of CO2 used for boats. @ 2.68 Kg of CO2 per litre of diesel = 2.2 MILLION Litres = £1.5 ($2.42) MILLION
Plus nearly *10 Million Kg* on "Business Travel". Assuming Plane travel @ 2.65 Kg per litre = *3.7 MILLION Litres* of aviation fuel @ $0.85 a litre = $3.14 MILLION
Plus other smaller amounts = $6M per YEAR *direct* to the Oil companies
[2] 2009 accounts in Euros. Total income: 199 Million. Expenditure on all Campaigns: only 54 Million. = 145 Million eaten by the Greenpeace machine.
Posted June 20, 2011 at 13:19
It is about time that the truth about the eco-fundamentalist cult, aka Greenpeace, is beginning to come out. Police and court actions against these people, who for so long have considered themselves above the law, are clearly on the increase in different parts of the world. This is a reaction that the majority of law abiding citizens all over the world warmly welcome.
PS
It is deplorable that the Reuters news agency has chosen to join Greenpeace in its propaganda campaign against the Harvard astrophysicist Willie Soon, who has had the courage to criticize the global warming religion´s "scientific consensus".
Flashback 2010: David Cameron on climate change and energy before the elections. Regretfully, on this issue Cameron has actually kept his election promises. The consequenses are described by James Delingpole below.
This is vintage James Delingpole - and so true:
Say what you like about David Cameron – and you’ll have noticed I do, quite a bit – but if there’s one thing he’s good at it’s being more slippery than a jellied eel in a tub of KY Jelly. And he’ll need this skill in spades if he’s not to go down in history as the Prime Minister who, in the name of a non-existent problem, presided over the devastation of the British countryside with bat-chomping eco-crucifixes for rent-seeking toffs (aka wind farms) and the destruction of the British economy thanks to the imposition of wholly unnecessary costs and regulations. The best of luck to you Dave. And I don’t wish it you for your sake but the sake of our country. It deserves better than this, really it does.
There is so much disinformation in the media about the environmental risks of shale gas exploration that it is useful to look at some of the facts, presented in the recentUK Parliament’s Energy and Climate ChangeSelect Committee (the UKPSC)report:
The perceived environmental risks of shale gas received the largest amount of attention from the UKPSC. This included consideration of the risks of aquifer contamination, the management and disposal of waste water from the fracing process, as well as potential strain imposed on local water resources by fracing. The UKPSC concluded that the fracing itself does not pose a direct risk to surface water or water aquifers and that it is the integrity of the well and the well casing which is paramount in preventing any leakages of fracing fluid and gas into water supplies. It would appear that a key factor in leading the UKPSC's to reach this conclusion was that it was persuaded that the process of drilling for shale gas (and of ensuring that aquifers and water supplies are not contaminated) is the same as in "conventional" oil and gas exploitation, where wells must also have adequate casing cemented into place. The fact that people have largely accepted the risks involved in drilling for "conventional" hydrocarbon resources is something which appears to have been all too often forgotten in the debate in the media as to the environmental impact of shale gas. As to water disposal, the UKPSC recommended that the toxicity of flowback fluids should be monitored by the Environment Agency and that all companies involved in hydraulic fracturing should declare the type, concentration and volume of the chemicals they are using in fracing fluids. The UKPSC recognised the potential problems that could be caused by the demands for water resources from the shale gas industry. On this, the UKPSC received evidence that an average fracing job for a well in the US was estimated to use 3.5 million gallons of water. However, whilst these quantities of water may sound alarming, to put it into perspective it was pointed out that four million gallons of water alone are used to irrigate a single golf course for 28 days. It was concluded by the committee that there is only a small risk that UK water supply will be affected by fracing.
The UKPSC report got the facts right, but the chairman of the committee, Tim Yeo should definitively have abstained from making this totally false comment on Poland:
Tim Yeo, questioned Poland's ability to maintain high environmental and regulatory standards without any EU-wide enforcement regime (describing Poland as "as one of the recalcitrant, backward-looking EU members in that respect")
Here is one way of looking at the coming presidential elections in Russia ..... (English subtitles visible only when watching on YouTube)
Vladimir Kara-Murza tells the sad truth about Putin´s Russia in an article in the Wall Street Journal:
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's recent statements about freedom and political competition have led many Western observers to hope for a new wave of democratic reforms in Russia. The Justice Ministry's denial of the Popular Freedom Party's registration papers last week shows that these statements are a fraud. --- Mr. Medvedev's eloquent, pro-democracy statements are meant primarily for Western audiences. The reality of today's Russia is that it remains a closed authoritarian system with a highly centralized executive, a tightly controlled media, a rubber-stamp parliament and a politically guided judiciary. With relatively high public support in the early years of Mr. Putin's rule, this inflexible system was able to survive. But with recent polls indicating that 50% of Russians disapprove of the current government, and 49% are ready to take part personally in street protests, the inability to change the ruling elites at the ballot box may have unpredictable consequences. Earlier this year, a group of prominent cultural figures, including writer Vladimir Voinovich and film director Edlar Ryazanov, signed an open letter warning the Russian authorities that "the attempt to conserve the current non-constitutional order can lead to serious socio-political upheavals in the nearest future."
PS
It is surprising to note how often western journalists still cling to the idea that Dmitry Medvedev would be challenging Putin in some way. Or perhaps it is not suprising at all - we all know that there have always been a great number of "useful idiots" in the West, when it comes to Russia/the Soviet Union.
This was to be expected: The "liberal" leftist New York Times is now, in co-operation with a number of eco-fundamentalist organisations, working hard in order to discredit the shale gas revolution, the best thing that has happened to the U.S. economy for a long time. The once great newspaper advertises its propaganda campaign in this way:
Drilling Down
Widespread Skepticism
Articles in this series will examine the risks of natural gas drilling and efforts to regulate this rapidly growing industry.
The latest installment in the concerted NYT attack on the shale gas industry is based on anonymous leaks from some dissatisfied employees in the Energy Information Administration:
In its annual forecasting reports, the United States Energy Information Administration, a division of the Energy Department, has steadily increased its estimates of domestic supplies of natural gas, and investors and the oil and gas industry have repeated them widely to make their case about a prosperous future. But not everyone in the Energy Information Administration agrees. In scores of internal e-mails and documents, officials within the Energy Information Administration, or E.I.A., voice skepticism about the shale gas industry. One official says the shale industry may be “set up for failure” .“It is quite likely that many of these companies will go bankrupt,” a senior adviser to the Energy Information Administration administrator predicts. Several officials echo concerns raised during previous bubbles, in housing and in technology stocks, for example,
In order to appear "objective", the paper allows, at the very end of the article, a spokesperson for E.I.A. say a couple of words in defense of its policy:
Asked about the views expressed in the internal e-mails, Mr. Schaal says his administration has been very explicit in acknowledging the uncertainties surrounding shale gas development. He said news reports and company presentations were included among a range of information sources used in Energy Information Administration studies. Though the administration depends on contractors with specialized expertise, he added, it conforms with all relevant federal rules. And while production from shale gas has not slowed down and may not any time soon, he said, a lively debate continues within the administration about shale gas prospects.
U.S. defense secretary Robert Gates tried in vain to stop the French sale of attack carriers to Russia already in the beginning of 2010.
Shame on president Nicolas Sarkozy and the French government! In order to save a few hundred jobs in the country´s crisis-ridden shipbuilding industry, the French have agreed the sale of two of its most modern Mistral attack helicopter carriers, equipped with advanced western military technology to Putin´sRussia, described by US defense secretary RobertGates as "an oligarchy run by the secret services":
France has transferred to Russia all the technology it asked for under a $1.7-billion deal for two French-built Mistral class amphibious assault ships for the Russian Navy, a Russian arms exporter said on Monday. Under the deal signed on Friday, the first warship will be delivered in 2014 and the second in 2015. "The French side has transferred all technologies, including the SENIT 9 [command and control] system, as well as two other systems," said Anatoly Isaikin, head of the Rosoboronexport state-controlled arms exporter.
No wonder that the Chairwoman of theUS House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen strongly denounced the deal under which France wíll transfer sensitive military technology to Russia for the first time since World War II:
"It is deeply troubling that France, a NATO ally, has decided to ignore the clear danger of selling advanced warships to Russia even as Moscow is taking an increasingly hostile approach toward the U.S., its neighbors, and Europe itself," she said in a statement.
"Many of our allies in the region, such as Georgia and the Baltic states, have experienced cyber attacks, severe economic pressure, and even invasion by Russia," she added.
Russia signed the long-awaited contract worth over a billion euros ($1.4 billion) to buy two French warships on June 17 despite alarm from its ex-Soviet neighbors and the United States.
Jamestown Foundation analyst Vladimir Socorgave some facts about the Mistral class assault carriers already when the deal was in its early stages:
The Mistral-class helicopter carrier, several of which France offers to sell and license to Russia, is the most modern French warship class. At 24,000 tons it is second only to the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle in size. The first Mistral-class warship entered service in 2006. The French Navy currently has two Mistral-class ships in operation and is building a third.
This warship is by definition a power-projection capability. The proposed sale, even without the most sophisticated technology, would endow Russia with a modern naval and amphibious warfare capability that Russia currently lacks. In Russian hands, the Mistral can be deployed for intimidating effect on Russia’s maritime neighbors in the Black Sea, Baltic Sea, or elsewhere.The Mistral carries 16 attack and landing helicopters (while allowing the operation of up to 30 on both decks), 900 troops, four conventional landing craft (also allowing the operation of two hovercraft), and 40 Leclerc tanks, or alternatively 13 tanks and 40 other vehicles (http://www.netmarine.net/bat/tcd/mistral/histoire01.htm). These are the figures for short-term operations, which are primarily relevant to Russia for possible actions in theaters nearby (EDM, September 18, November 2). --- By promoting the Mistral sale, France turns a blind eye to: Russia’s August 2008 invasion of Georgia, including the Russian naval operation and landing; the [President Dmitry] “Medvedev doctrine” on protecting arbitrarily defined “compatriots” beyond Russia’s borders, including their military “protection;” Medvedev’s decree (approved by the Duma) authorizing the president to order immediate military operations beyond Russia’s borders, in a wide variety of circumstances; Russia’s September 2009 massive, offensively-oriented military exercises near the Baltic States and Poland; and Russia’s October 2009 revisions to the draft military doctrine, now authorizing preventive military operations against neighboring and other countries. PS
With "allies" like France under Sarkozy, no wonder that U.S. defense secretary Robert Gates and many other American leading politicians and defense experts have begun to doubt the relevance of NATO.
The EU financed Euronews is always happy to spread all kinds of global warming propaganda
Alan Caruba makes an interesting - and true - observation:
Please, someone, please tell me the last time an international group of scientists did not get together and then announce to the world that some horrid future awaited everyone?
Caruba is referring to the latest doomsday scaremongering by a group of warmists, calling themselves International Programme on the State of the Ocean:
According to its website, the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) gathered at the University of Oxford, for “A high-level international workshop”, described as “the first inter-disciplinary international meeting of marine scientists of its kind… designed to consider the cumulative impact of multiple stressors on the ocean, including warming, acidification, and over-fishing.”
“The 27 participants from 18 organizations in 6 countries produced a grave assessment of current threats – and a stark conclusion about future risks to marine and human life if the current trajectory of damage continues: that the world’s ocean is at high risk of entering a phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history.” Please, someone, please tell me the last time an international group of scientists did not get together and then announce to the world that some horrid future awaited everyone? According to the IPSO geniuses, “We are looking at consequences for humankind that will impact in our lifetime, and worse, our children’s and generations beyond that.” The scientific panel concluded “that the degeneration in the oceans is happening much faster than has been predicted” and, therefore, all the coral reefs “could be gone by 2050.” Why is it that every one of these apocalyptic groups always predict something “could be”, “might be”, “is expected to”, and a whole raft of wishy-washy terms that add up to “We don’t know, but we want to scare the crap out of you just the same”?
Replace the word "ocean" with "population growth", "harvests", "food", "rainforests", "biodiversity", "glaciers", "polar bears", "arctic ice" et cetera, et cetera. Why should anybody believe that this new ocean scare is anything else than just an addition to the already long list of failed doomsday predictions ....
EU "poet" President Van Rompuy relaxing and enjoying "magical" Volga sunset
Putin´s Russia has again shown why U.S. defense secretary Robert Gates was right, when he described the country as "an oligarchy run by the secret services". By denying the registration of the new opposition party, People's Freedom Party, Russia clearly shows that it does not intend the coming elections to be openly contested, says a group of leading American Russia experts and opinion makers:
Russian authorities this week failed an important test of their commitment to hold free and fair elections by denying registration to a new opposition party. This clearly political decision indicates that the Russian government does not intend elections to the Duma in December and for president in March 2012 to be openly contested; instead it reflects a desire by a small group in power to try to determine the outcome of the elections in advance. This decision is inconsistent with Russia’s international obligations as a member of the Council of Europe and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to uphold democratic principles and the rule of law and needs to be reversed. Through its membership in the OSCE, Russia has agreed specifically to "respect the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political parties or other political organizations and provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on a basis of equal treatment before the law and by the authorities." In addition, Russia agreed that the conduct of its elections is a matter of “direct and legitimate concern” to other OSCE members, and committed itself to allow monitoring by domestic and international monitors. The rejection of the application by the Party of People’s Freedom, led by a group of prominent opposition leaders is unfortunately part of a trend. The Obama administration is on record that democracy and human rights are important to U.S.-Russia relations. If so, the administration, and the U.S. Congress, should respond vigorously with measures designed to support democratic rights and freedoms. President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin may believe that by denying opposition parties the ability to compete, they can remove democratic elections from the agenda. They should be proved wrong.
The leader of the People´s Freedom Party, former Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov knew what was coming already before the official decision not to register his party was announced:
"Over the past four years, eight parties have not been registered," he said. "We may become the ninth party. That means that the Russian authorities demonstrate that they have no respect for the Russian constitution, or for their international obligations, following from Russia's membership of the Council of Europe and the OSCE."
The American opinion makers are asking Congress to react to the deeply troubling anti-democratic development in Russia. Hopefully we will soon see some action from the U.S. Congress.
Action is what one would like to see from the European leaders, too. But, if one looks at what happened at the recent EU -Russia summit, the signs are not very promising.
This is what the EU "president" Herman Van Rompuy had to say, when he met the press, having made the more than €55,000 (tax payer financed) journey from Brussels to Nizhny-Novgorod:
Van Rompuy - the EU's top foreign policy representative, and a poet - began his press briefing by recalling "the magical sunset over the Volga yesterday evening." He added that "the EU-Russia relationship is enjoying its best dynamics for years."
Later during the press conference, maybe after being reminded by his advisers, he noted that "there are still strong concerns" in EU member states about human rights in Russia.
Not a particularly strongly worded "criticism" from the "poet".
No wonder that the Russian political analyst Lilia Shevtsova described the "cucumber summit" in this way:
Discussions at the recent Russia-EU summit mainly focused on Russia's import ban of vegetables from Europe - much less on human rights. Political analyst Lilia Shevtsova criticized what she called Europe's "cucumber policy" toward Moscow. "The European Commission in Brussels... did not discuss with Medvedev any standards or principles, nor the rule of law," she said. "They discussed the problem of cucumbers. And as far as I understand, both sides did their best to be as agreeable as possible to each other."
"We'll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state — like Somalia or Sudan — and living conditions will be intolerable." Ted Turner
Ted Turner and his fellow UN Foundation warmists have made a pilgrimage to one of the holiest places for believers in the religion of climate change:
After their annual Board of Directors meeting in Oslo, several directors traveled to Svalbard, the world's northernmost community. They journeyed up a fjord to the foot of a receding glacier with scientists from the Norwegian Polar Institute.
Turner told reporters on a teleconference today, "They pointed out to us while looking at the glacier that it is receding every year due to global climate change."
The trip by "several directors" to Svalbard of course left a huge carbon footprint. One wonders, how Turner´s eco-tourism squares with this statement on the UN Foundation´s website:
The United Nations Foundation is committed to addressing the problem of climate change due to human activity by reducing its carbon emissions and offsetting the emissions we cannot eliminate. Every year we calculate our cumulative carbon dioxide emissions at our Washington, DC, and New York City offices. We then purchase an equivalent amount of carbon offsets from a reforestation project in the Sierra Gorda Mountains of Mexico.
PS
If Turner really believes what he told reporters from Svalbard, that "this (global warming) is the most serious and complex problem humanity has ever faced", why is he making it worse by this kind of totally useless high carbon footprint eco-touring? He cannot possibly claim that the carbon emissions from his pilgrimage were of the kind that "we cannot eliminate"? No, Ted Turner is no different from Al Gore and the other climate change high príests, who think that what they preach to others does not apply to themselves. Turner´s eco-trips are in reality nothing but huge ego-trips.
One also wonders, why the "reporters", covering Turner´s ego-trips never seem to ask him about the "prediction" he made in 2008.After all, there are not so many years to go, until "most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals".
And this is a person, who is feted by the Norwegian royal family! :
Members of the Norwegian royal family, Crown Princess Mette-Merit, left, Queen Sonja, center left, and Crown Prince Haakon, right, join board members of the UN Foundation, including Queen Rania Al Abdullah of Jordan, center right, and UNF Founder and Chairman Ted Turner, center 2nd-row, Oslo, Norway, June 20, 2011
(caption to photo)
Absolutely.
Greenpeace words: "Move Beyond Oil"
Greenpeace actions: Spend 6 Million USD per annum on Oil. [1]
Greenpeace words: "Take Direct Action"
Greenpeace actions: Spend three quarters of all funds on expenses and administration. [2]
Greenpeace words: "Trust the science"
Greenpeace actions: Be very selective. Write the IPCC reports, but write lies about their nuclear equivalents.
[1]2009 accounts show over *6 Million Kg* of CO2 used for boats. @ 2.68 Kg of CO2 per litre of diesel = 2.2 MILLION Litres = £1.5 ($2.42) MILLION
Plus nearly *10 Million Kg* on "Business Travel". Assuming Plane travel @ 2.65 Kg per litre = *3.7 MILLION Litres* of aviation fuel @ $0.85 a litre = $3.14 MILLION
Plus other smaller amounts = $6M per YEAR *direct* to the Oil companies
[2] 2009 accounts in Euros. Total income: 199 Million. Expenditure on all Campaigns: only 54 Million. = 145 Million eaten by the Greenpeace machine.