Vladimir Putin has lost control of events in Ukraine, according to UK foreign secretary William Hague:
“There is every indication that the Russians have lost control of what they started in Ukraine,” said Mr Hague in an exclusive interview with The Telegraph. “President Putin seems to have unleashed forces that he cannot control. Armed thugs with modern weapons are stirring old tensions and stoking new hatreds. The deaths in Mariupol, Slavyansk and Odessa are a stark warning that this plan is spiralling out of control.” --
Mr Hague was particularly concerned by briefings he received from Ukrainian security officials in Kiev who presented him with credible evidence that Russian forces had been involved in stirring up anti-government protests in eastern regions of the country.
He was told that Ukrainian special forces had been surprised by the professional military tactics used by pro-Russian paramilitary groups, which have so far managed to shoot down a number of Ukrainian helicopters using shoulder-launched missiles – a feat that requires a high level of military training.
Ukrainian forces have also detained a number of Russian passport holders while attempting to regain control of territory held by pro-Russian militants.
“It is not just pro-Russian activists who are stirring up trouble in Ukraine – we actually have Russian forces in the territory,” he said. “We are seeing the same tactics that were used in Crimea, and we need to see changes in Russia’s behaviour if we are to avoid a deeper conflict.”
Time for the West to get tough on the mafia state dictator!
Pages
▼
Saturday, 10 May 2014
Friday, 9 May 2014
Finland's military officers ready to join NATO
The overwhelming majority of Finland's military officers are in favour of Finland joining NATO:
Finnish military officers are concerned about Russia’s intentions, according to a survey published in the leading newspaper Helsingin Sanomat on Saturday. Four out of five officers who responded to a poll by the daily believe that the military threat from Russia has increased.
A majority of those interviewed said that Russia’s foreign policy has become more aggressive since Vladimir Putin was re-elected as president in 2012.
Helsingin Sanomat and the Finnish Officers’ Union carried out a joint, anonymous survey of union members’ views on security policy around Eastertime. Of the union’s 6,000 members, 2084 responded to the poll. Two thirds of them are on active duty.
More than 40 percent of those who replied said that Finland’s political leadership should have acted more firmly in regard to the Ukrainian crisis. The results also indicate an increase in support for NATO membership, with nearly two in three saying this would be the best security option for Finland.
Finland's real security experts have made their position clear. Unfortunately, the country's laeading politicians, including president Sauli Niinistö, are far less clear. They still appear to be caught in the legacy of Finlandization.
Finnish military officers are concerned about Russia’s intentions, according to a survey published in the leading newspaper Helsingin Sanomat on Saturday. Four out of five officers who responded to a poll by the daily believe that the military threat from Russia has increased.
A majority of those interviewed said that Russia’s foreign policy has become more aggressive since Vladimir Putin was re-elected as president in 2012.
Helsingin Sanomat and the Finnish Officers’ Union carried out a joint, anonymous survey of union members’ views on security policy around Eastertime. Of the union’s 6,000 members, 2084 responded to the poll. Two thirds of them are on active duty.
More than 40 percent of those who replied said that Finland’s political leadership should have acted more firmly in regard to the Ukrainian crisis. The results also indicate an increase in support for NATO membership, with nearly two in three saying this would be the best security option for Finland.
Finland's real security experts have made their position clear. Unfortunately, the country's laeading politicians, including president Sauli Niinistö, are far less clear. They still appear to be caught in the legacy of Finlandization.
Wednesday, 7 May 2014
University of Oslo professor: "the IPPC has decided that the fear of the future is currently their most powerful weapon in the battle for public opinion"
Dr. Ole Humlum, professor of geoscience at the University of Oslo, has written another excellent article about some of the things the global warming establisment does not want to discuss. The article is in Danish, but I have translated these excerpts:
There have been many good effects of the observed warming until 2000, and a possible future warming (if it ever comes ) is also likely to have many positive effects. However, this aspect of climate change rarely gets any attention. According to the UN FAO, agriculture has increased its productivity as temperatures and CO2 have increased, partly because plants generally grow better with more CO2 in the atmosphere and at the same time increase their resistance to drought. FAO reports that global food production on this basis is expected to increase by about 55-60 % by 2050 with the IPCC predicted climate changes. If the temperature would not rise, or if it would actually sink, the results will unfortunately not be as good. Past climate history clearly shows that. However, from the IPCC - well backed up by various news media - we have heard an endless stream of potential climate threats, altough often without backing in the report's scientific section. It seems to me that the IPCC has decided that the fear of the future is currently their most powerful weapon in the battle for public opinion. --
There have been many good effects of the observed warming until 2000, and a possible future warming (if it ever comes ) is also likely to have many positive effects. However, this aspect of climate change rarely gets any attention. According to the UN FAO, agriculture has increased its productivity as temperatures and CO2 have increased, partly because plants generally grow better with more CO2 in the atmosphere and at the same time increase their resistance to drought. FAO reports that global food production on this basis is expected to increase by about 55-60 % by 2050 with the IPCC predicted climate changes. If the temperature would not rise, or if it would actually sink, the results will unfortunately not be as good. Past climate history clearly shows that. However, from the IPCC - well backed up by various news media - we have heard an endless stream of potential climate threats, altough often without backing in the report's scientific section. It seems to me that the IPCC has decided that the fear of the future is currently their most powerful weapon in the battle for public opinion. --
There are many more oddities related to the AR5. In this new report the IPCC for example almost totally ignores the lack of temperature rise during the last 16-17 years. Objectively speaking, this is very strange, since it is supposedly the fear of continued warming, which since the IPCC's creation in 1988 has been the main argument for the large apparatus, which in many countries has been initiated to address a continued increase in temperature. In particular, this apparatus has been directed against atmospheric CO2 that the IPCC considers as the main cause for the rise of the global temperature after 1975.
The fact that the temperature has not risen should therefore logically result in great joy with the IPCC. But it certainly has not been the case. Rather, it is my personal experience that the highlighting of this joyous situation often triggers irritation and anger, or at least a swarm of explanations of where the 'missing ' heat may hide. There is no will to discuss that the climate models could be wrong, even if that really should be the first question to be raised, when nature does something else than what the models predicted. At the same time, it is clear that climate models generally are not able to reproduce important natural climate variations, which according to the IPCC itself may be responsible for up to almost half of the past - but now stopped - temperature rise.
The fact that the temperature has not risen should therefore logically result in great joy with the IPCC. But it certainly has not been the case. Rather, it is my personal experience that the highlighting of this joyous situation often triggers irritation and anger, or at least a swarm of explanations of where the 'missing ' heat may hide. There is no will to discuss that the climate models could be wrong, even if that really should be the first question to be raised, when nature does something else than what the models predicted. At the same time, it is clear that climate models generally are not able to reproduce important natural climate variations, which according to the IPCC itself may be responsible for up to almost half of the past - but now stopped - temperature rise.
Tuesday, 6 May 2014
The US global warming establishment is cynically using children in their latest propaganda effort
In spite of years of government and MSM supported ecofundamentalist brainwashing campaigns, an overwhelming majority of Americans do not see global warming as a serious threat. The more and more desperate global warming establishment is now cynically using children in their latest propaganda effort:
Young people across the country are suing several government agencies for failing to develop a climate change recovery plan, conduct that amounts to a violation of their constitutional rights, says their lawyer Julia Olson.
Their futures are at stake, say the young plaintiffs.
“Climate change is the biggest issue of our time,” said 13-year-old Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez, a member of nonprofit Kids vs. Global Warming, a plaintiff in the suit.
“It’s not every day you see young people getting involved politically, but the climate crisis is changing all that. Every generation from here on out is going to be affected by climate change,” added Roske-Martinez, who founded environmental nonprofit Earth Guardians and organized successful actions in his hometown of Boulder, Colorado.
The federal suit, which has made its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, is part of a groundbreaking nationwide legal campaign spearheaded by youth and backed by some of the world’s leading climate scientists and legal scholars.
The case, filed by five teenagers and two nonprofits — WildEarth Guardians and Kids vs. Global Warming — representing thousands more youth, relies on the public trust doctrine, which requires government to protect resources essential to the survival of all generations.
“With the United States as the largest historic emitter of carbon dioxide, the atmospheric resource cannot be restored without government action,” Olson told Al Jazeera.
Supported by more than 30 environmental and constitutional professors, the young plaintiffs name six federal agencies in their suit — the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Energy and Defense departments.
Young people across the country are suing several government agencies for failing to develop a climate change recovery plan, conduct that amounts to a violation of their constitutional rights, says their lawyer Julia Olson.
Their futures are at stake, say the young plaintiffs.
“Climate change is the biggest issue of our time,” said 13-year-old Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez, a member of nonprofit Kids vs. Global Warming, a plaintiff in the suit.
“It’s not every day you see young people getting involved politically, but the climate crisis is changing all that. Every generation from here on out is going to be affected by climate change,” added Roske-Martinez, who founded environmental nonprofit Earth Guardians and organized successful actions in his hometown of Boulder, Colorado.
The federal suit, which has made its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, is part of a groundbreaking nationwide legal campaign spearheaded by youth and backed by some of the world’s leading climate scientists and legal scholars.
The case, filed by five teenagers and two nonprofits — WildEarth Guardians and Kids vs. Global Warming — representing thousands more youth, relies on the public trust doctrine, which requires government to protect resources essential to the survival of all generations.
“With the United States as the largest historic emitter of carbon dioxide, the atmospheric resource cannot be restored without government action,” Olson told Al Jazeera.
Supported by more than 30 environmental and constitutional professors, the young plaintiffs name six federal agencies in their suit — the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Energy and Defense departments.