Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

How many people has it killed so far?

A bit of honesty at last maybe?

The member reportedly said it may not even be possible for the panel to agree upon a consensus view

But, but, but, but – There’s a CONSENSUS…….

A spokesman from the Royal Society declined to respond, saying: "We will be issuing a release about this later on. It will be based on fact rather than speculation."

HAHAHAHAHAHA

That’ll make a nice change.

3 Comments

  1. JohnRS says:

    If the forces of reason can make headway in the RS then things have really started to change. It will make other, far less august, bodies take a close look at what they’re saying, their air cover is starting to disappear.

    So as the famed “consensus” starts to crumble what will all the warmists who keep insisting we have to believe in the Cult of the Green God because everybody else does rely on as their argument?

  2. Lynne says:

    I’m still trying to work out what the frig a climate agnostic is.

    A CACC agnostic I can get a handle on but a climate agnostic? FFS!

  3. John B says:

    Reality is up against strange desires and impulses of self destruction, and such engrained hypocrisy to achieve those ends, that I fear the end result will not be in accordance with common sense.
    It really makes me wonder what the true goals are, of those practising western liberal democracy destruction. What are they actually trying to achieve? One cannot excuse them by saying they are stupid because I am sure they are mostly very clever people.
    Forgive me if I include an piece on Israel and nukes? It is relevant in that the same stupidity (or rather malevolence) is being applied:

    Sunday, May 30, 2010 Israel Today Staff

    World tries to make Israel the nuclear ‘bad guy’
    The international community on Friday took another step toward reversing the roles of Israel and Iran, and turning the Jewish state into the Middle East’s nuclear “bad guy.”

    At the close of a month-long meeting in New York, the 189 member states of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty signed an agreement calling for a nuclear weapons-free Middle East. The document stipulates that in 2012 a conference will be held aimed at enforcing that decision.

    While that may sound like a reasonable idea, Israeli officials decried the fact that Israel was mentioned repeatedly both during the meetings and in the agreement, while Iran was not directly referenced even once.

    A statement released by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office at the weekend called the resolution “deeply flawed and hypocritical: It ignores the realities of the Middle East and the real threats facing the region and the entire world. It singles out Israel, the Middle East’s only true democracy and the only country threatened with annihilation. Yet the terrorist regime in Iran, which is racing to develop nuclear weapons and which openly threatens to wipe Israel off the map, is not even mentioned in the resolution.”

    US President Barack Obama also criticized the focus on Israel at the NPT meeting and in the resolution, but nevertheless gave his stamp of approval to the document and the 2012 summit, which will ultimately work to force Israel to declare its nuclear arsenal and open its nuclear facilities to inspection.

    Ha’aretz analyst Yossi Melman noted that the NPT meeting was only able to produce such a strong resolution because the Obama Administration had essentially betrayed Israel and its security. Melman noted that the same NPT signatories had tried to hold such a meeting in 2005, but were refused the cooperation of the Bush Administration. Without US involvement, the conference never happened.

    But Obama, notes Melman, is far more interested in his own agenda, even at the cost of Israeli security. Obama knew the focus of the conference would be Israel, and that it’s primary aim would be to strip the Jewish state of any nuclear weapons it may possess. In light of that, Obama’s criticism of the NPT’s focus on Israel comes across as far more hypocritical than the resolution itself.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: