Author: admin

Vancouver Green Police State Update 2

Email from a reader, last name withheld as per privacy request

Hi there Justin, I happened to come across your article posted on Dec 14, 2009 about the Vancouver Police Dept (VPD) giving you a ticket for leaving your car on idle. I came across it in a Google search as I just got ticketed for the same thing by the VPD yesterday. I started my car with an alarm auto-starter inside my house and maybe went outside 5 to 10 minutes later (I think, wasn’t looking at the clock). The VPD cruiser was waiting for me on the other side of the street….which I thought was not good, but decided to walk to my car. They got out and ask me if I was me (I guess they ran my plate already).

They told me it was illegal to have my car running unattended. I told them I was warming it up and it’s in front of MY House (my house is a house…it’s in a residential area of East Van that isn’t scummy! The road out front is pretty much, I guess unofficially assumed, for MY house). The VPD told me it was illegal and took my Driver’s License and gave me a $81 ticket telling me this is how cars are stolen. I didn’t argue it, but my car doors were locked, there’s a red steering wheel lock engaged at the time, and the alarm is armed, and the car turns off if anybody touches the foot pedals or gears. They must have seen me with the car keys in hand, and me deactivating the alarm & unlocking the doors with my remote.

I agree with your article mostly. The police I dealt with was professional, and I know they only enforce the law, not make them. The law is retarded and whoever made and passed it is an idiot in my opinion. I’m not going to blame the police for this.

But here’s the thing, I went to school in Chemical Sciences with my major in Environmental Chemistry, I’ve worked in the industry for 5 years, then I became an Senior Auto Adjuster for a private insurance company for 5 years. I remember when the Idling bylaw came out, some jerk neighbor told me it’s against the law to leave my car idling, which pissed me off because she said it’s killing the environment. This made me take a good look at the bylaw at the time. I agree with your assessment with Aircare (which is a joke & cash grab if you ask me, large vehicles like buses & semi produce way more Carbon Monoxide & etc and they’re not tested. Even a lab instructor saw problems with their testing & told the class this). Also Idle vs driving the car for the same amount of time is the same. I also went another step, I talked to an Auto Appraiser who worked for my company who has over 50 years in the auto industry (he’s since retired recently, but he knows the inside & out of vehicles and how they work better than any mechanic & bodyman, he’s highly recognized in our industry). He looked at the law and thought it was joke too, he suspects it’s to prevent people from loitering downtown.

Anyways, he says everything the bylaw said about not needing to warm up and such was all BS, that you CAN damage your car by not warming it up, that the oil has to heat up and circulate.

Anyways it gets better though, so after I got the ticket….I went out for awhile, but when I got home I looked up the violation I was ticketed for under the Motor Vehicle Act (I worked as senior auto adjuster after all, I know how this stuff works). My violation is for MV 191(2)(a). Here’s the link: http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/freeside/–%20m%20–/motor%20vehicle%20act%20%20rsbc%201996%20%20c.%20318/00_act/96318_05.xml#section191

It says:
Leaving parked vehicle

191 (1) A motor vehicle must be equipped with a lock or other device to prevent the unauthorized use of the motor vehicle.

(2) A driver must not permit a motor vehicle to stand unattended or parked unless the driver has

(a) locked it or made it secure in a manner that prevents its unauthorized use, and

(b) if the motor vehicle is standing on a grade, turned the front wheels of the vehicle to the curb or side of the highway.

Hey guess what, my vehicle was locked….and if it says it’s locked or secured in a manner to prevent unauthorized use….then it’s NOT illegal. Nothing about time length of running idle or such.

So what am I going to do about it? Well I called the VPD Constable & left a voice message for him to call me back to discuss this. If he doesn’t clear it up, I will dispute this. In my experience, I feel I should have a strong case in court if I can show my car was locked or secure at the time. I plan to prove this with pictures of my steerwheel lock, alarm, and alarm manuals. It will be dependent if they accept this evidence. Also I will question the attending constable in court if he checked the door to see if it’s unlocked & looked inside to observe the steering wheel lock. But I’m hoping it won’t have to go that far & he just fixes it now, as I’m going to talk to him all professional like….which I did at the time of the incident (doesn’t usually pay to freak out).

I’m telling you all this because you should check your ticket as well to see what you were ticketed for, as I don’t see any other Violations in the Motor Vehicle Act talking about idling when I scanned through it. Regardless if there is another Violation for Idling or not….It doesn’t matter as I was not ticketed for that, I was ticketed for supposedly not having my vehicle locked nor secure, but it was. If you know anybody else that has been ticketed for idling, you should tell them to check their tickets as well.

I hope you find all this helpful.

Thanks,

Henry

Also see: Scientist emails the City of Vancouver

Send your thoughts by contacting us.

Volcanoes, blizzards, and climate fools

At the same time as the scam in Fraudenhagen ended in an anti-climax for the idiots believing in manmade climate change, the eastern United States is preparing for a major winter storm moving up the Atlantic coast. Also, in Sweden as well as most of Europe we’re seemingly facing one of the coldest X-mases for many years. In my recollection only the year I was in the military can measure up for the cold we’ve seen the latest week. Granted I’ve been living in other countries for many years, but I’m usually home over the holidays. Several football matches have been canceled and people in south of Europe is freezing to death. Warmer climate eh?

I wish for a couple of degrees warmer, that would benefit humankind and as back in the middle ages we could grow grapes in Sweden again. However, the signs recently seem to indicate we’re heading for colder times. I’m only waiting for the New World Order alarmists to start warning for a new Ice-age.

Anyway, the second worst ‘pollutant’ we have in the world, far worse than all the factories, planes and ships put together, have shown its face again. Of course this foe was, and is, ignored by the scheming tricksters in Fraudenhagen, but people of the island Tongatapu, Tonga, has first class tickets. The volcanic activity in that area has recently put up a magnificent spectacle that should scare the living daylights of any climatologist. However, such eruptions throwing out hundred times more carbondioxid than any country are not as fun to blame as mankind. Humans can be controlled, be told how many kids to have and what cars to drive, it’s slightly harder to tell a volcano to: “stop polluting so we can own you”.

The insanity our elected masters and bought for scientists tries to sell us have been found out many times over. It’s not only climategate or thirty thousand plus scientists suing Al Gore; it’s not only Russian investigators saying how it is or NASA being found out lying, it’s so much more. And what about common sense? Since there’s not a single evidence for the manmade global warming hoax and since we actually know – scientifically proven – that the sun runs our climate almost alone, how can anyone out there actually listen to the alarmists’ claims?

Source By The Oracle

Obama Has Failed in Copenhagen, Minorities and Women Will Benefit the Most

Fortunately for humanity and the civilization that sustains it, Barack Obama stayed true to his record of incompetence and failure, messing up the talks at Copenhagen. The talks have ended with nothing more than yet another agreement to meet again in a few years’ time. His last ditch instructions to Hillary Clinton, which led to her offering $100,000,000,000 of taxpayer dollars each year to nations hard hit by climate change could not band-aid the gaping gash that is the rift between developing and developed nations. The root of the conflict is very simple: curbing emissions produced in the territory of poverty-stricken nations would require them to regress to a poorer state of being. The politicians ruling over these nations recognize that such attempts would probably inspire revolts that would topple them and earn them an appointment with a noose and a lampost. In the meantime, the politicians ruling developed nations also recognize that if they allow people living in the developing nations to produce CO2, that global economic production will simply be moved to those territories. And the newly unemployed will come after the politicians who screwed them over with pitchforks. By the time Obama landed in Denmark with his entrourage of bodyguards, the conference was doomed. The failure lay in the groundwork; having failed to prioritize effectively between his desire to take over the medical industry, the financial industry, the automotive industry and the manufacturing industries, and having spent money like a drunken sailor with a fist-full of Continentals, the Obama administration was in no position to offer a credible deal of any sort. Most politicians outside the U.S. recognize that the days of U.S. hegemony are almost over. The vast welfare state and creeping state takeover of industry have emptied the U.S. treasury, and the U.S. government is having an increasingly difficult time borrowing the money it needs to meet its current obligations. Had Obama eschewed the “spend-your-way-into-prosperity” approach of George Bush, the U.S. government might have been in a position to make credible offers both to curb CO2 production. Instead, he showed up at the conference with a track record of leading a government that had no backbone, a reputation for rhetoric over substance, and a fiscal state that is laughably shaky. Moreover, he also has been consistently lying through his teeth throughout his time in office. For these reasons, no promise or offer he could make would carry serious weight. If the AGW alarmists are correct, the situation involving the production of CO2is an externality; Those who produce CO2 through economic activity gain the benefit of the wealth produced while the costs of warming are suffered by everyone. Thus, those who decide not to produce CO2 suffer, while those who engage in production gain the benefit of of the wealth they create. The proper way to handle an externality is to internalize it: to establish a regime where the people who cause ‘harm’ suffer a loss commensurate with the harm the do. This is not simple with the atmosphere. The plan favored by most alarmists, which essentially amount to requiring nearly every source of CO2 to require government permission to operate, permission that in essence controls how much CO2 is produced, are functionally equivalent to the centrally planned economies of the now defunct Soviet block. In essence they recreate the crippling economic coordination problems that Ludwig von Mises identified in Socialism. Obama seems to be oblivious to the economic collapse he is dicing with in his attempts to build a more fair world. For this reason, I am grateful for his incompetence. The socialism that he and many of the delegates in Copenhagen were advancing has a demonstrated track record of creating incredible misery particularly for the masses that are not politically connected. As a result, we are fortunate that Obama’s incompetence has postponed the AGW alarmist juggernaut. By the time the next meeting is held, the temperature trend will likely give lie to the dire alarmist predictions that gave the alarmists much of their political momentum.By Tarran

Vancouver Green Police State Update 1

Email to Vancouver green nazi squad

FYI.
Some comments I wrote to a specialist email group, composed of mathematicians and various academics. Use any info as you wish.

Should any of the recipients in the Vancouver bureaucracy have any information that clearly indicates that carbon dioxide has an effect upon either global temperatures or the climate, please let me know.

Best regards,
Hans Schreuder
(retired scientist, mMensa)
Darsham England
—–
What I can say though is that until such time that the scientific community comes to realise that their pet theory of a greenhouse effect (based as it is on greenhouse gases) is unreal, until that time will the climate alarm continue.

I know not what else to write to convince them of this fallacy. Neither water vapour nor carbon dioxide are GHGs; if anything at all, they are superb anti-GHGs; they cool the atmosphere!

Monckton himself writes : “[…] The predicted phenomenon is startlingly and entirely absent from the observational record – No “greenhouse warming” signature is observed in reality” – from http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/whatgreenhouse/moncktongreenhousewarming.pdf pg 7.

Yet he admonishes me for my “ignorance” with regard the basic radiative transfer formulae?! All formulae relating to radiative transfer in our open-to-space atmosphere are chasing their own tail, but how can I prove it?

G&T did a splendid paper, now peer reviewed; my summary: www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Falsification_of_the_Atmospheric_CO2_Greenhouse_Effects.pdf
Then I wrote the layman’s guide to how the atmosphere works, with not one word of response by the RS. Nobody listens, nobody wants to know.

The GHE and the concept of GHGs are sacrosanct. Period.
Fact of life: both GHE and GHGs are fantasmas; exactly the same as phlogiston in its day.
Fact of life: no evidence for any hot-spot has ever been observed.
Fact of life: such a hot-spot will never be observed because it can not exist in the open-to-space atmosphere; only in lab flasks can it exist.

Alan Siddons summarised the behaviour of carbon dioxide rather succinctly yesterday:
The problem all along, of course, is that people jump to conclusions. Sure, concentrated CO2 exposed to infrared will get somewhat warmer than everyday air. But this only proves that everyday air (99.96% of which is nitrogen, oxygen and argon) is more transparent to IR and less apt to be heated that way. Air molecules, CO2 included, initially acquire heat by contact with warmer surfaces. Via mutual collisions and convective transport, this heat gets spread around within an airmass.

To some slight degree, CO2 also has the option of acquiring heat by radiative transfer. But, rather ironically, it cannot radiatively transfer this heat to the nitrogen, oxygen and argon molecules which surround it because, as said, they are largely infrared-transparent. As a result, an excited CO2 molecule is obliged to share its heat just like the rest of them do, by bumping into other molecules. In short, there’s nothing special about CO2 in a real-world context. Outnumbered 2500 to 1, CO2’s energy is lost in a busy buzz of collisions, its radiative properties wasted.

Moreover, any heated gas radiates infrared — and in this case 99.96% of the gas consists of molecules other than CO2. Yet no one seriously imagines that back-radiation from 99.96% of the air has a role in raising the earth’s surface temperature. Only when CO2 comes up do we lose touch with reality.

Here’s a succinct point: Immersed in the vacuum of space, the earth has but one means of losing heat: radiation. And what does carbon dioxide do? It radiates.

It’s amazing that so few people have bothered to give this theory a second look.
So, there you have it. In just a few sentences Alan manages to point out how impossible it is for CO2 to make the atmosphere warmer.

Yet Professors of Physics and UK MPs who have degrees in Physics are happily proclaiming that the atmosphere is warmer because CO2 “traps” heat.
—–

Nopenhagen: The Deal That Wasn't

As would be expected, the moonbat media all over the globe is hailing Obama’s “deal” as a triumph and “historic”, but in reality, it is paper thin and the absolute least that could possibly have been hoped for after twelve days of detailed negotiation. Furthermore, you have to ask how Obama managed to get the US, China and India, who, only a few hours ago, were so far apart you could drive a coach and horses between them, to agree to the deal unless it was completely watered down and vague, as the Sydney Morning Herald reports:

The agreement foresees US contributions of 3.6 billion US dollars in climate funds for the 2010-2012 period while Japan would contribute 11 billion US dollars and the European Union 10.6 billion. It also includes a commitment to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) — well short of the demands of island nations. But a decision on targets for reducing carbon emissions by 2020 was put off until next month, a European diplomat said. And unlike earlier drafts, the new accord did not specify any year for emissions to peak. (source)

And of course, it isn’t legally binding either. From a domestic point of view, this failure of Copenhagen to achieve anything significant demonstrates how misguided Kevin Rudd’s desire to pass the ETS beforehand really was. We all know that the only reason was self-promotion – to be able to turn up to Copenhagen with a “trophy” as part of his job interview for UN Secretary General. Thankfully, Tony Abbott put paid to that little dream. Any delay in this process is good news. The longer it takes for a binding deal to be reached, the more chance there is that the fraudulent science will be exposed for what it is. Once people start to question the untouchable status of the IPCC, relied upon so heavily by Kevin Rudd and so many governments around the world, I predict a house of cards. Indeed, the science is falling over everywhere you look. Just today in The Australian, there are reports that alarmism over the fate of the Barrier Reef was exaggerated, under the headline “Scientists crying wolf over coral”:

A SENIOR marine researcher has accused Australian scientists of “crying wolf” over the threat of climate change to the Great Barrier Reef, exposing deep division about its vulnerability. Peter Ridd’s rejection of the consensus position that the reef is doomed unless greenhouse emissions are checked comes as new research on the Keppel group, hugging Queensland’s central coast, reveals its resilience after coral bleaching. Professor Ridd, a physicist with Townsville’s James Cook University who has spent 25 years investigating the impact of coastal runoff and other problems for the reef, challenged the widely accepted notion that coral bleaching would wipe it out if climate change continued to increase sea surface temperatures. Instead of dying, the reef could expand south towards Brisbane as waters below it became warmer and more tolerable for corals, he said. His suggestion is backed up by an Australian Institute of Marine Science research team headed by veteran reef scientist Ray Berkelmans, which has documented astonishing levels of recovery on the Keppel outcrops devastated by bleaching in 2006. (source)

We will see that this is just the tip of a very large (global warming resistant) iceberg. Finally, with thanks to the SPPI Blog, just in case anyone doubted the political agenda behind Copenhagen, it’s here on show, for all to see: UPDATE: Just one further thought, extremist environmental groups may well see this result at COP 15 as a licence to take climate change action into their own hands (even more than they do at present), with civil disobedience and a bypassing of the democratic process. As evidence of this, here is a quote from Greenpeace UK:

It is now evident that beating global warming will require a radically different model of politics than the one in Copenhagen.

I sincerely hope that the rule of law prevails and that such actions are firmly resisted. Failure to do this would lead to anarchy. You have been warned.Source

Leaders, Activists Throwing in the Towel in Copenhagen!

NOPENHAGEN — Has Copenhagen collapsed?

By William La Jeunesse, Fox News

That seems to be the growing sentiment inside the city’s Bella Conference Center, where officials, environmentalists and even delegates to the international climate conference began streaming out Friday evening. What began with excitement and anticipation two weeks ago ended Friday night with disappointment and anger for thousands.

“This is a sad day for my country,” said Mama Konate, chief delegate from the West African nation of Mali. “We have worked very hard to reach this agreement. And now it seems over. Without a deadline, I don’t know if we will ever finish.”

The conference, the largest of its kind, attracted scientists, activists and human rights supporters from every corner of the globe, who believe that without a climate accord limiting greenhouse gases, glaciers will melt, oceans will rise and the weather will go so warm it could wipe out 50 percent of the Earth’s species. Until Friday, they saw Copenhagen as their last chance to stop it.

“You can scapegoat the process. That wasn’t it. It was the unwillingness of people to move around big issues: China on verification, the U.S. on deeper emission cuts,” said the head of an NGO that does relief work in Africa.

“Judging by the proceedings and the obvious gulf that remains, this is dead anything short of a miracle.”

That was not the sentiment early in the day when 25 U.S. congressmen showed up at the summit, flying in on a Boeing 757 with Speaker Nancy Pelosi at considerable taxpayer expense. The delegation joined President Barack Obama and nearly 120 world leaders for the conference’s final day.

“This president is very, very unusual,” said Congressman Charlie Rangel. “His power of persuasion and his eloquence somehow brings together how the whole world feels. I think we are very close. I am optimistic.”

But as the hours passed, hope turned to doubt.

What went wrong? To get more than 100 nations big and small, rich and poor, developed and not, all on the same page — over issues that go to the heart of their economies, their standards of living and that reach into the pocketbooks of the public — may have been a bridge too far.

The summit got underway with grand expectations. Many environmental groups said this was the last best chance to get a climate accord, while Obama still had considerable first-year clout in office and a Democratic majority in Congress. The upcoming 2010 congressional elections could swing the Senate to Republicans who are opposed to aggressive environmental legislation, they worried. And without the U.S., any climate treaty is meaningless.

Yet a deep lack of trust underscored the talks from the beginning. As rivals in business, neither the U.S. nor China wanted to agree to anything that would give the other a competitive edge.

“I am very skeptical anything here in Copenhagen is good for the average U.S. citizen,” said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Tex. “The process is falling apart.”

Barton said he was especially appalled by the requests for aid from Third World dictators like Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who said the U.S. owes the world for having raped the planet.

“I owe Hugo Chavez nothing. Nothing-zip-nada,” said Barton. “The U.S. in the last 50 years has given trillions of dollars to the Third World. But to say they are going to be ravaged by climate change and deserve ‘Greenmail’ strains credibility.”

The U.S. said China’s planned cuts in “carbon intensity” (CO2 as a unit of GDP) were insufficient

Other developing nations pointed the same finger at the U.S. Obama proposed a 4 percent cut in U.S. emissions from their 1990 levels by 2020. That compares to much larger promised cuts in the EU of 20 to 30 percent. Climatologists say a cut of at least 25 to 40 percent is required if the world is to avert a climate disaster.

One of the problems, according to another NGO representative, is that the draft agreement is complicated and interconnected. When heads of state tinker with the text, they may be editing out a clause that was negotiated for months, in a compromise on an unrelated point. And typically only those who are intimate with the text understand what was compromised to get that language in the first place.

What set Copenhagen up for disaster? When heads of state arrive, an agreement is usually 99 percent complete. Not this time. Because of procedural delays, caused in large part by China, the document was far from finalized, leaving ministers and heads of state over their head on some issues.

“I’m leaving,” said Yousef Diakite, a representative from the Pan-African Parliament. “I’m unhappy, disappointed, not glad. Everyone was waiting for Copenhagen. This was our chance. And today it is over.”

Source

Climategate 2 is front page news

Excerpted from The Daily Express

THE Meteorological Office was last night facing accusations it cherry-picked climate change figures in a bid to increase evidence of global warming.

UK climatologists “probably tampered with Russian-climate data” to produce a report submitted to world leaders at this week’s Copenhagen summit, it is claimed.

The Met Office’s study, which says the first decade of this century has been the warmest on record for 160 years, is being used to trumpet claims that man is causing global warming.

But experts at the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis say the British dossier used statistics from weather stations that fit its theory of global warming, while ignoring those that do not.

They accuse the Met Office’s Hadley Centre of relying on just 25 per cent of Russia’s weather stations and over-estimating warming in the country by more than half a degree Celsius.

Last night, leading global warming sceptic Dr Fred Singer, of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, said: “I have long suspected that this selective fiddle took place but have not assembled all the evidence.

“We know, and have published, that between 1975 and 2000 the number of weather stations was reduced from nearly 7,000 to only 3,000 with many of them in the former Soviet Union.

“The effect of this would be to produce an artificial temperature trend which we don’t see in the satellite data. So the warming of the past 30 years is likely to be an illusion.”

Professor Patrick Michaels, an environmentalist from the Cato Institute in Washington, said: “There is a significant lack of data coming from Russia in the last decade and a half.

“There will be many questions in the future about any reports that use what data there is. We want to know more about the Hadley Centre’s report but they won’t show us the raw data.”

The IEA’s report claims the Hadley Centre used incomplete findings from Russian meteorological stations “far more often than those providing complete observations” in order to build up a picture of overall warming.

It said the Hadley data overestimated warming in Russia by up to 0.64C between the 1870s and 1990s.

“Analysing the temperature trends received from Met stations, it is hard to get rid of the impression that they do not show any noticeable trend to warming in second half of the 20th and beginning of 21st centuries,” the IEA said.

It also said that since Russia was the world’s biggest country, any global theories drawn from its incomplete weather statistics would be invalid.

Russia’s semi-official RIA Novosti news agency said the Hadley Centre “probably tampered with Russian- climate data” by using statistics from only a quarter of available weather stations.

The Met Office data follows the row over hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia, seized upon by global warming sceptics as evidence that academics were massaging the figures.

On Monday the Daily Express revealed a dossier by the respected European Foundation think-tank detailing 100 reasons why global warming is a natural cyclical event.

And in a recent poll of readers 98 per cent said they believed they were being conned over global warming.

Source

Lord Monckton Knocked Out by Copenhagen Cop

So, the UN cops are now resorting to physical abuse to silence dissenters? Here’s what Monckton had to say about the incident.

Is the European police state going global?

Today the gloves came off and the true purpose of the “global warming” scare became nakedly visible. Ugo Chavez, the Socialist president of Venezuela, blamed “global warming” on capitalism – and received a standing ovation from very nearly all of the delegates, lamentably including those from those of the capitalist nations of the West that are on the far Left – and that means too many of them. Previously Robert Mugabe, dictator of Rhodesia, who had refused to leave office when he had been soundly defeated in a recent election, had also won plaudits at the conference for saying that the West ought to pay him plenty of money in reparation of our supposed “climate debt”. Inside the conference center, “world leader” after “world leader” got up and postured about the need to Save The Planet, the imperative to do a deal, the necessity to save the small island nations from drowning, etc., etc., etc. Outside, in the real world, it was snowing, and a foretaste of the Brave New World being cooked up by “world leaders” in their fantasy-land was already evident. Some 20,000 observers from non-governmental organizations – nearly all of them true-believing Green groups funded by taxpayers – had been accredited to the conference. However, without warning the UN had capriciously decided that all but 300 of them were to be excluded from the conference today, and all but 90 would be excluded on the final day. Of course, this being the inept UN, no one had bothered to notify those of the NGOs that were not true-believers in the UN’s camp. So Senator Steve Fielding of Australia and I turned up with a few dozen other delegates, to be left standing in the cold for a couple of hours while the UN laboriously worked out what to do with us. In the end, they decided to turn us away, which they did with an ill grace and in a bad-tempered manner. As soon as the decision was final, the Danish police moved in. One of them began the now familiar technique of manhandling me, in the same fashion as one of his colleagues had done the previous day. Once again, conscious that a police helicopter with a high-resolution camera was hovering overhead, I thrust my hands into my pockets in accordance with the St. John Ambulance crowd-control training, looked my assailant in the eye and told him, quietly but firmly, to take his hands off me. He complied, but then decided to have another go. I told him a second time, and he let go a second time. I turned to go and, after I had turned my back, he gave me a mighty shove that flung me to the ground and knocked me out. I came to some time later (not sure exactly how long), to find my head being cradled by my friends, some of whom were doing their best to keep the police thugs at bay while the volunteer ambulance-men attended to me.

I was picked up and dusted me off. I could not remember where I had left my telephone, which had been in my hand at the time when I was assaulted. I rather fuzzily asked where it was, and one of the police goons shouted, “He alleges he had a mobile phone.” In fact, the phone was in my coat pocket, where my hand had been at the time of the assault. The ambulance crew led me away and laid me down under a blanket for 20 minutes to get warm, plying me with water and keeping me amused with some colorfully colloquial English that they had learned. I thanked them for their kindness, left them a donation for their splendid service, and rejoined my friends. A very senior police officer then came up and asked if I was all right. Yes, I said, but no thanks to one of his officers, who had pushed me hard from behind when my back was turned and had sent me flying. The police chief said that none of his officers would have done such a thing. I said that several witnesses had seen the incident, which I intended to report. I said I had hoped to receive an apology but had not received one, and would include that in my report. The policeman went off looking glum, and with good reason. To assault an accredited representative of a conference your nation is hosting, and to do it while your own police cameramen are filming from above, and to do it without any provocation except my polite, non-threatening request that I should not be manhandled, is not a career-enhancing move, as that police chief is about to discover to his cost. Nor does this incident, and far too many like it, reflect the slightest credit on Denmark. We must make reasonable allowance for the fact that the unspeakable security service of the UN, which is universally detested by those at this conference, was ordering the Danish police about. The tension between the alien force and the indigenous men on the ground had grown throughout the conference. However, the Danish police were far too free with their hands when pushing us around, and that is not acceptable in a free society. But then, Europe is no longer a free society. It is, in effect, a tyranny ruled by the unelected Kommissars of the European Union. That is perhaps one reason why police forces throughout Europe, including that in the UK, have become far more brutal than was once acceptable in their treatment of the citizens they are sworn to serve. It is exactly this species of tyranny that the UN would like to impose upon the entire planet, in the name of saving us from ourselves – or, as Ugo Chavez would put it, saving us from Western capitalist democracy. A few weeks ago, at a major conference in New York, I spoke about this tendency towards tyranny with Dr. Vaclav Klaus, the distinguished economist and doughty fighter for freedom and democracy who is President of the Czech Republic. While we still have one or two statesmen of his caliber, there is hope for Europe and the world. Unfortunately, he refused to come to Copenhagen, telling me that there was no point, now that the lunatics were firmly in control of the asylum. However, I asked him whether the draft Copenhagen Treaty’s proposal for what amounted to a communistic world government reminded him of the Communism under which he and his country had suffered for so long. He thought for a moment – as statesmen always do before answering an unusual question – and said, “Maybe it is not brutal. But in all other respects, what it proposes is far too close to Communism for comfort.” Today, as I lay in the snow with a cut knee, a bruised back, a banged head, a ruined suit, and a written-off coat, I wondered whether the brutality of the New World Order was moving closer than President Klaus – or any of us – had realized.Source

Blizzard Dumps Snow on Copenhagen

THE GORE EFFECT STRIKES AGAIN!

Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) — World leaders flying into Copenhagen today to discuss a solution to global warming will first face freezing weather as a blizzard dumped 10 centimeters (4 inches) of snow on the Danish capital overnight. “Temperatures will stay low at least the next three days,” Henning Gisseloe, an official at Denmark’s Meteorological Institute, said today by telephone, forecasting more snow in coming days. “There’s a good chance of a white Christmas.” Delegates from 193 countries have been in Copenhagen since Dec. 7 to discuss how to fund global greenhouse gas emission cuts. U.S. President Barack Obama will arrive before the summit is scheduled to end tomorrow. Denmark has a maritime climate and milder winters than its Scandinavian neighbors. It hasn’t had a white Christmas for 14 years, under the DMI’s definition, and only had seven last century. Temperatures today fell as low as minus 4 Celsius (25 Fahrenheit). DMI defines a white Christmas as 90 percent of the country being covered by at least 2 centimeters of snow on the afternoon of Dec. 24.

Source