United Nations

Why do people believe in conspiracy theories?

There are a great many conspiracy theories out there, the latest one being that I have something over John Key and Judith Collins.

It is being pushed hard by various nutters on the left-wing. It is hilarious to read the comments at places like The Daily blog, where special kinds of political retards reside and comment, same with The Standard.

But why do people believe these conspiracy theories?

Do people really believe such conspiracy theories? They do, and in disturbingly high numbers, according to recent empirical research collected by University of Miami political scientists Joseph E. Uscinski and Joseph M. Parent and presented in their 2014 book American Conspiracy Theories (Oxford University Press). About a third of Americans, for example, believe the “birther” conspiracy theory that Obama is a foreigner. About as many believe that 9/11 was an “inside job” by the Bush administration.

The idea that such beliefs are held only by a bunch of nerdy white guys living in their parents’ basements is a myth. Surveys by Uscinski and Parent show that believers in conspiracies “cut across gender, age, race, income, political affiliation, educational level, and occupational status.” People on both the political left and right, for example, believe in conspiracies roughly equally, although each finds different cabals. Liberals are more likely to suspect that media sources and political parties are pawns of rich capitalists and corporations, whereas conservatives tend to believe that academics and liberal elites control these same institutions. GMO conspiracy theories are embraced primarily by those on the left (who accuse, for example, Monsanto of conspiring to destroy small farmers), whereas climate change conspiracy theories are endorsed primarily by those on the right (who inculpate, for example, academic climate scientists for manipulating data to destroy the American economy).

Read more »

A besieged people

William Pollack discusses Israel in the wake of the killings by Palestinian terrorists in a synagogue in Jerusalem.

Just days ago, Barack Obama, the Commander in Chief and honorary Islamic Protectorate, stated the savage beheading of yet another American by ISIS, Peter Kassig, was not representative of “any faith, LEAST of all Muslim.” If Muslims are the “least” representatives of worldwide terrorism, whom might we expect to be more prominent, Lutherans?

Days ago and now vanished from the headlines, four Jewish worshippers in a Jerusalem synagogue and a security guard were viciously attacked by Palestinian MUSLIM terrorists armed with meat cleavers, axes and guns. President Obama’s all-too-common response was to make a moral equivalence between Israel, a nation of laws, and a band of cold-blooded murderers. The Palestinian Authority’s leadership response was typically indifferent, coughing up a statement of regret that “any” citizens were harmed,  then blaming Israel for everything under the sun.

Reminiscent of the Palestinians celebrating dead Americans following the 9/11 attack on the United States, Palestinians handed out candy in honor of killing men dressed in prayer shawls. This horrific event followed weeks of savage Palestinian attacks on Israelis, including ramming cars into bystanders. One of the numerous casualties was a child.

The United Nations, a wasteful and irrelevant piece of real estate, paused momentarily from their relentless condemnation of everything Israel to offer stoic regret. With the notable exception of the sincere and meaningful comments by Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, worldwide statements of sympathy for the slain innocents were matched by the obligatory nod for more peace talks; as if Israel has a Palestinian peace partner; which they don’t.

Read more »

Palestinians being evicted, houses blown up, why no outrage?

Some so-called Palestinian’s are being evicted from their homes and the buildings torn down, but there is no world wide media outrage.

Why?

Well, because it is the Egyptians who are doing it not the Israelis.

Once more, Gaza’s border is in flames.

Civilians  are being evicted from their homes, a curfew has been imposed, and a crossing that enables Gazans to leave has been closed. Yet the world is silent. Isn’t that strange?

Hundreds of residents along one of Gaza’s borders have suddenly been ordered to evacuate, on just two days’ notice. Their homes are to be demolished. There is no talk of compensation. Why isn’t the United Nations Security Council denouncing this outrage?

Because it is Egypt, and not Israel, that is doing the evicting. (See the New York Times, October 28 edition.)

The Egyptians have decided they need a buffer zone along their border with Gaza. They don’t trust the Hamas regime, which they say has been assisting terrorists who have been attacking Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai. Apparently Cairo does not accept the Obama Administration scripted fiction that the new Hamas-PA government is run by “technocrats.” Egypt understands that a Hamas-appointed “technocrat” is, first and foremost, a functionary of Hamas.

So the bulldozers are rumbling in Rafah. As a result of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty of 1979, the city of Rafah was split in half. Part of it is on the Gaza side of the border. Residents in the “Egyptian” part of town are now being evicted willy-nilly, in order to make room for a buffer zone that will be nine miles long, and with water-filled trenches that will be more than 500 yards wide — that’s half a kilometer, or five football fields.

Yet nary a word of protest from the White House, nor any suggestion of delaying any U.S. arms deliveries to Egypt.

That’s not all. In response to the recent attacks in Sinai, the Egyptians have imposed a dawn-to-dusk curfew all along the Egypt-Gaza border. In other words, no resident of Rafah can leave his or her home after dark, for any reason.\

Read more »

Rodney Hide on the myth that is child poverty

Rodney Hide slays a few lefty myths…like the existence of child poverty in New Zealand.

Leftists and troughers are working overtime to make child poverty the new reason for funding them and centralising control.

Their catchcry is 250,000 children living in poverty. Their problem is if it were true we would notice.

We know what child poverty looks like. Many of us have witnessed it overseas. All of us have seen it on TV. We don’t see it in New Zealand.

We see children neglected, for sure, and that makes us both angry and sad. But we blame the parents, not poverty. And, if personal responsibility makes us squeamish, we blame welfare for three generations of dysfunctional and non-existent parenting. It’s been public policy for years to sponsor child neglect.

Nonetheless the “child poverty” drums are beating. I was made aware of just how hard by the NZ Initiative’s weekly newsletter reporting classic journalistic over-egging and UN propagandising.

The UN should but out, and start preparing a defence against their global warming scam.

Fairfax’s Stuff.co.nz reported last week that Unicef had “slammed progress” on child poverty in New Zealand.

Really? I didn’t believe it and on your behalf put myself through the agony of reading yet another UN rubbish report. It doesn’t “slam progress” on child poverty. That news was made up.

All the UN report says about New Zealand is that along with the UK and US, we were “moderately affected” by the “Great Recession,” that our big change in the family benefit system was in 2012 to institute a “higher rate but lower income ceiling” and we are reported as middling along in various charts supposedly showing us where we fit in the child poverty stakes.

The news report is puffed out with various child poverty warriors beating the drum and Prime Minister John Key having to defend the government’s record against the false accusation that the UN had “slammed progress.” Such is the state of news reporting in New Zealand today.

Read more »

Christopher Booker destroys the Met Office

If only we had someone in the NZ media that could have a crack at NIWA like Christopher Booker has just done in the Telegraph to the Met Office over their wonky predictions over climate change.

Five years after we paid £33 million to buy the Met Office a new computer, we are now to pay £97 million to give them a “world-leading super-computer” – described by its chairman as “our integrated weather and climate model, known as the Met Office Unified Model”. That’s because it will not only “produce the most accurate short-term forecasts that are scientifically possible”, but can also predict how the Earth’s climate will change over the next 100 years.

I scarcely need remind readers of how the Met Office’s computer modelling has performed in the past 10 years. In 2004, it predicted that by 2014 the world would have warmed by 0.8C, and that four of the five years after 2009 would beat the 1998 record as the “hottest year ever”. In 2007, its computer predicted that this would be the “warmest year ever”, just before global temperatures temporarily plummeted by 0.7C, equal to their entire net rise in the 20th century. That summer in the UK, it told us, would be “drier than average”, just before some of the worst floods in living memory.

From 2008 to 2010 the models consistently predicted “warmer than average” winters and “hotter and drier summers”: three years when much of the northern hemisphere endured record winter cold and snow; while in the UK, as in that promised “barbecue summer” of 2009, we had summers wetter and cooler than usual. A particular triumph, in October 2010, was the prediction that our winter would be up to “2C warmer than average”, just before the coldest December since records began in 1659.   Read more »

Cat videos revealed as key recruitment tool for ISIS terrorists

Join ISIS or the cat gets beheaded next!

Join ISIS or the cat gets beheaded next!

Good to see the UN taking a break from chastising NZ for having worse child poverty than Romania, which strangely hasn’t shown up in the emigration stats as Kiwi parents rush off for a better life.

Catastrophic climate change reports are getting a little embarrassing and being kept quiet while some UN envoy has a hunt around to see if someone has found some somewhere, anywhere.

So the experts at the UN thinks foreign jihadis are joining medieval beheaders because they post fluffy kitten pics on the Internet.

Foreign jihadists from more than 80 countries have flocked to fight in Iraq and Syria on an ‘unprecedented scale’, according to extracts of a UN report.

Around 15,000 people have travelled to fight alongside Islamic State (ISIS) and other hardcore militant groups from ‘countries that have not previously faced challenges relating to Al Qaeda,’ it said.

The study found a new breed of terrorist was being attracted by the extremist group’s ‘cosmopolitan’ use of social media, pointing to examples when jihadists posted ‘kitten photographs’ on Twitter.   Read more »

Why international ranking charts on things like child poverty are b.s.

The left wing especially likes to trumpet international reports from places like the UN as gospel on things.

There is a recent report into child poverty that is currently being trumpeted by the left but no one bothers in this country to look beyond the report and the authors.

In the UK they have a somewhat more responsible and questioning press, which highlights why such reports are often nothing but b.s.

The British are a tolerant race, and we have long been used to having our deficiencies pointed out to us by self-important foreigners whose own countries sometimes leave a lot to be desired.

But there are limits. However broad our backs, there comes a time when we are entitled to question the motives of our critics — often highly paid United Nations’ officials fond of jetting around the world — and suggest as politely as possible that they should take a running jump.

The latest piece of idiocy does indeed come from the United Nations. A report by Unicef ranks Britain 25th in a child poverty table behind Chile (which holds the number one spot), Romania (12th) and even Bulgaria (20th).

Sounds dreadful. But is it?

Simple souls might imagine this suggests that children in our apparently benighted country are worse off than their counterparts in Chile, Romania and Bulgaria. It sounds shocking. My God, some will exclaim. This Coalition has a lot to answer for.

Of course it’s not true. The average income of a Briton is approximately three-and-a-half times that of a Chilean, over four times that of a Romanian, and six times that of a Bulgarian. Even poor children in this country have possessions which most middle-class children in these three countries wouldn’t dream of having.  Read more »

Child poverty is the new Global Warming

I know that seems an absurd statement.  But when I realised that the New Zealand parliament and the UK parliament were being hit about 25% of their respective nation’s children living in “poverty”, a light went on

A quarter of children in Britain are living in poverty, a controversial report by a United Nations agency claimed yesterday.

Millions ‘have fallen prey to the dangers of austerity’ during the recession years, Unicef said.

Britain was even ranked 25th on a child poverty league table of 41 developed countries – below Romania, Bulgaria and Chile.

Here comes the next left-win United Nations driven guilt trip that’s going to hit the “well off” in the pocket.

In the latest of a succession of highly critical reports about Britain by UN agencies, Unicef said child poverty in the UK increased by 1.6 percentage points between 2008 and 2012 to 25.6 per cent.

Topping a table of countries deemed to have best protected children during the recession was Chile, where child poverty was said to have dropped by 8.6 points.

Common sense tells us that New Zealand and Britain are not countries that have child poverty problems.  Yet this is a UN-driven invented problem!   Read more »

NZ wins Security Council Seat

All the bribes and threats and whatever else is needed inside the morally corrupt United Nations and despite the best efforts of our media and opposition to poofinger the bid has paid off, NZ has won its seat on the Security Council.

I fear however that John Key and Murray McCully have simply had an Underpants Stealing strategy.

1. Win seat on Security Council
2. ???
3. Finish up two years and move back to obscurity.

In a vote at the UN’s New York headquarters on Thursday local time (Friday morning NZT), New Zealand picked up 145 votes, claiming one of the “Western Europe and other nations” seats – ahead of Turkey and Spain – in the first round of voting.

New Zealand will take its seat on the council for two years, starting on January 1, 2015. The last time New Zealand sat on the council was 1993-94. It had earlier stints in 1953/54 and 1966.

It has been hailed a victory for small states by Prime Minister John Key, who said it came after hard work over a decade lobbying for the seat.

“We have worked very hard on the bid for close to a decade because we believe that New Zealand can make a positive difference to world affairs and provide a unique and independent voice at the world’s top table.

“It has been more than 20 years since New Zealand was last on the Council and we are ready to contribute again.   Read more »

Wheels coming off the global warming trolley

For sometime now it has become increasingly obvious that none of the predictions of the climate change alarmists have come true.

The models are hopelessly flawed, the glaciers aren’t disappearing, neither is the sea ice at either pole.

Basically pretty much everything is being shown to be a lie.

Now the statistics are unravelling as Judith Curry points out in the Wall Street Journal. The numbers simply don’t add up.

According to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, preventing “dangerous human interference” with the climate is defined, rather arbitrarily, as limiting warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures. The Earth’s surface temperatures have already warmed about 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1850-1900. This leaves 1.2 degrees Celsius (about 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) to go.

In its most optimistic projections, which assume a substantial decline in emissions, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that the “dangerous” level might never be reached. In its most extreme, pessimistic projections, which assume heavy use of coal and rapid population growth, the threshold could be exceeded as early as 2040. But these projections reflect the effects of rising emissions on temperatures simulated by climate models, which are being challenged by recent observations.

Human-caused warming depends not only on increases in greenhouse gases but also on how “sensitive” the climate is to these increases. Climate sensitivity is defined as the global surface warming that occurs when the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles. If climate sensitivity is high, then we can expect substantial warming in the coming century as emissions continue to increase. If climate sensitivity is low, then future warming will be substantially lower, and it may be several generations before we reach what the U.N. considers a dangerous level, even with high emissions.

The IPCC’s latest report (published in 2013) concluded that the actual change in 70 years if carbon-dioxide concentrations double, called the transient climate response, is likely in the range of 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius. Most climate models have transient climate response values exceeding 1.8 degrees Celsius. But the IPCC report notes the substantial discrepancy between recent observation-based estimates of climate sensitivity and estimates from climate models.

Read more »