Friday 18 December 2009

Italian student tells of arrest while filming for fun | UK news | The Guardian












And it is still going on!!!!

Italian student tells of arrest while filming for fun
Tuesday 15 December 2009 20.39 GMT
Police community support officers (PCSOs) stopped Italian student Simona Bonomo under anti-terrorism legislation for filming buildings in London. Moments later, she was arrested by other officers, held in a police cell and fined. She talks Paul Lewis through the footage she recorded of her conversation with the PSCOs. Source: guardian.co.uk

An Italian student has described how she was stopped by police under anti-terrorist legislation while filming buildings, and later arrested, held in a police cell for five hours and given a fixed penalty notice.

Simona Bonomo, 32, an art student at London Metropolitan University at London Metropolitan University, filmed the moment on 19 November when she was approached by two police community support officers (PCSOs) in Paddington, west London.

When Bonomo was challenged by one PCSO, she said she was filming "just for fun". He replied: "You like looking at those buildings do you? You're basically filming for fun? I don't believe you."

Bonomo then declined his request to see what she had filmed. "I can have a look if I want to, if I think it may be linked to terrorism. This is an iconic site," he replied.

Bonomo then said she was an artist. "You're an artist? Have you got any proof or any identification?" he said. After accusing Bonomo of being cocky, the PCSO said she had been cycling the wrong way down a one-way street and threatened to fine her. After she apologised, the PCSOs departed, but returned moments later with about six police officers, she said.

I thought that the police had been told to back off doing this after the last fiasco!! OH! I see..PCSO!!



Italian student tells of arrest while filming for fun | UK news | The Guardian
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Sphere: Related Content

When Green's turn Nasty!

Checking through my usual sources this morning and this Copenhagen story seems to have been missed by the mainstream (lame stream) media.

Lord Monckton barred from Copenhagen Conference- Pushed to the ground by security.

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in Copenhagen at the SPPI blog:

Extracts

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 colourfully 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.

This incident, being pushed from behind by a uniformed police officer, could have resulted in a similar outcome for Lord Monckton as it did for Mr Ian Tomlinson, at the G20 Conference earlier in 2009 and clearly demonstrates the distance there is between law enforcement officers and the people they are suppose to protect.

Most of the comments were supportive of Lord Monckton apart from this little treasure from a prime example of the type of mindset behind the AGW agenda....

 Jackson (19:51:43) :

Good. The “Lord” deserves the boot. The obviously mentally challenged “Lord” has no place at the discourse of serious people.

By the end of COP-15, the Brit Lord, this site — along with its spew of science and math illiteracy spiced with meanderings of intellectual terrorism– will be on the path to the dust bin of history. What a weatherman’s sideshow. Congrats, you have had your 15 minutes of fame.

There is now a global consensus in both science and politics that will only grow stronger as the world is set right. If the U.S. Senate tries to stand in the way, it will be swept away by a supermajority in 2012 or 2014.

So, deniers and wacko Brit “Lords:” Go buy your gold and guns and take your religion based agenda into hiding. When the time comes, those will be stripped away too. The gold must go to those who need and deserve it for the sins of the past and to secure climate justice for our future generations.

The IPCC and real scientists triumph because they produce valid analysis of real data. The skeptics and deniers (yes, AGW deniers ARE intellectually very similar to Holocaust deniers) will be shown scorn and eventually eliminated from meaningful discourse and society.

Despite the attempted smokescreen of “Climategate,” — which is (pr “was” because it is dead issue) nothing more than specious out-of-context use of stolen data and quotes by people without scientific insight or talent (and who have an impure political agenda) — it is time for the winners (the world) to laugh and gloat!

Naturally, people do respond to this type of troll

 Kevin Cave (20:01:54) :

Jackson : your lack of civility and downright hostility are the perfect example of what all freedom-loving and tyranny-hating people need to fear. I’m glad the mods let your rant through.

If you think for one millisecond that “you” have somehow “won” , then I urge you to reconsider – if you are capable of this. There was no battle. There was no battle because you can’t fight a foregone conclusion – this being that there was going to be an agreement of some kind made regardless of the facts.

I can tell you now – this fight has not even begun yet.

barbara (20:06:37) :

jackson, thank you for a glimpse of where the world has been before.

There is nothing new under the sun except that which has been forgotten.

Thanks to what passes for school today.

Lord Monckton, persevere! And God bless you for your courage.

It is time for the United Nations to get out of my country, and be hosted by the despots it serves.

New york City should sell the prime real estate, and recoup some of the losses of 9/11 in terms of economic development.

Not to mention the fact that they would no longer have to put up with the arrogance of world “diplomats” in their city, a savings in itself.

This is the Grosse-Wannsee of our generation, and sorry kids, but it isn’t at ALL like the 60s some feel so cheated for missing.

It is more like the 30s, and many of you will die for nothing but a slogan.


 evanmjones (20:15:56) :

Jackson (19:51:43)

Appalling.

Anti-intellectual, anti-freedom, pro-oppression, and profoundly unliberal, all in one.


 Harry (20:24:58) :

@Jackon:

So…you really dont have any objections to police states as long as their brutality enforces your ideology. Is that pretty fair to assume?

“enlightened” “progressive” “socially moral”

Yep, that’s you guys alright.

 wayne (20:48:11) :

Is this “Jackson” posting THE Lisa Perez Jackson heading of the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) of the United States?

If so, citizens, it’s high time to purge D.C.


Reed Coray (20:58:59) :

Jackson (19:51:43)

As I see it, Jackson has one of three objectives. (1) He/She meant his/her comment to be sarcasm. (2) He/She wants to stir up anti-AGW emotion so he/she submits a comment so outrageous it can’t help but anger skeptics–possibly to action. (3) He/She expressed his/her true feelings. If (1), he/she did a poor job. To be effective, sarcasm must be recognizable as sarcasm by the audience. If (2), I don’t believe his/her “means” justify the “end”. If (3), he/she is not very bright because his/her rant did way more harm than good to his/her cause. If I were handicapping his/her intent, I’d give it 10%-30%-60%.


J.Hansford (20:59:22) :

Jackson (19:51:43) : …. Thank you Jackson, for briefly lifting the AGW rock so that we may observe the foul little creatures that reside beneath…

You certainly are an unappealing, vicious little being aren’t you.


 jackson (21:07:23) :

LOL!

1. I have Ph.D. in physics — but that would be arguing from authority (a logical fallacy) so I did not cite.

2. There is no means to an end — just wanting to celebrate a bit! Some fine organic wine is open.

3. And, btw… “handicapping” uses odds not percentages. A fine example of skeptics maths.

I do not doubt the sincerity of real scientists who test and refine CC data, but I resent the intrusion of lay people who castigate the life, work, honesty, and motives of hundreds and thousands of dedicated scientists..

It is you all who bring on the hate. I feel very sorry for you all, but the world needs serious people.

[REPLY - You are the erstwhile RW trolling under a fake name and email address. Therefore you self-accreditation is not credible. ~ Evan]


And so on.

What a self satisfied, condescending piece of Socialist Fascist drivel!

Wake Up People!

Don't allow these sorts of attitude take root or we might as well not bothered fighting WW2 and just invited the Fascists in by ferry.



Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Sphere: Related Content

Friday 11 December 2009

Is Global Warming really so complex that you have to leave it up to the experts? Oral Deckard (Bests comment I have read!)

This is a great comment taken from USAToday

Oral Deckard wrote: 8h 9m ago
As much fraud as the published Freedom of Information Act files reveals, many people are still left saying “One side says one thing. The other says another. How can I know what to think?”

The answer is to quit waiting for someone else to tell you what to think, and actually use that hat rack. It’s really not hard once you break out of the conditioning to leave it up to the experts.

After a brief look at the situation the average person grasps it quickly, and the dreadful scope of the scam starts to sink in.

First I want to very briefly restate their contention: Man made increases in CO2 is causing the Earth to become warmer by trapping solar heat.

HOW this so-called “trapping” occurs is treated like a clumsily guarded secret, but it’s done by CO2 not being quite as transparent to heat like it is to visible light. Instead of heat passing through to the ground, a very small part of it heats the CO2. Unfortunately for the Chicken Little’s out there, this microscopic effect can be calculated and measured. It is quantifiable. It doesn’t have to be treated like magic and accepted “Because We Say So.”

First, let’s look at the quantity: There isn’t nearly enough CO2 on Earth to even begin to warn the Earth.
Here’s how you know:
CO2 is a trace gas, measured in parts per million, 329 ppm according to Wikipedia.
That makes it 0.329% of the atmosphere at sea level.
If it were evenly distributed all the way to the top of the atmosphere it would be only 3/4 of an ounce for each square inch of the Earth’s surface. That’s not much.
(.00329×14.7 PSI x16 =.7738 ounces)

The amount of heat energy that 3/4 ounce of any gas can hold is minute. But CO2 is heavier than the two major gases, Nitrogen and Oxygen, which make up 99 percent of the atmosphere, and exists in only the lower two miles, making is much less than 3/4 of an ounce.

Now we get to the good part. From a conclusion you can tell what facts and assumptions produced it.
Here are the facts:
1. Oxygen and Nitrogen are transparent to heat, which passes through them without heating them.
2. Co2 is slightly opaque to heat, and is slightly heated by it. (This is described with complex crap about molecules vibrating, like CO2 is the only thing that vibrates when heated. Everything does.)

Now here are the assumptions that MUST be made to conclude that CO2 is causing a global temperature rise:
1. CO2 is the dominant Greenhouse gas.
2. There is enough CO2 to carry over heat from one day to the next, producing a build-up.
3. Only atmospheric gases are heated by the sun.

Yes, that’s right. Assumption #3 has to be made. You see, generally speaking, sunlight does not heat the air. It passes through the air and heats the ground. The ground then heats the air. And ground heat IS carried over to the next day, even doing some build-up. But it doesn’t get credit, because it isn’t man made.

When the ground is covered by snow, CO2 has its chance to prove its ability to trap heat from the sun. Instead, the air remains cold, with the snow melting slowly where it is clean and warmed only by the air. But where there is DIRT in the snow it melts much faster, because most heat passed through the CO2 and heated the dirt. When some ground is exposed the melting really speeds up, because the warmed ground warms the air. You can see it clearly in the melt patterns after this most recent blizzard not stopped by Global Warming.

Now consider the weight of 1 square inch of dirt extending down into the ground, and compare that with 3/4 ounce of CO2 extending upward, and how much heat energy can be retained by each. It’s no contest!

It is readily obvious that the ground has so much greater participation in the process that the CO2 doesn’t even deserve an honorable mention. Therefore, because CO2 gets all the credit, it has to be assumed that only atmospheric gases are heated by the sun.

Oh, for #1, do a search on Greenhouse Gases and click on Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas)
You will find the IPCC admitting that atmospheric water vapor has about four times the greenhouse effect of CO2.

Water vapor comes and goes. Sometimes more, sometimes less, and easily able to overwhelm the effect of CO2.

Now let’s go for an easy visual example:
In the fall when you are fearing your tomatoes will get frostbitten, you know if it will frost by checking the sky. If there is a little overcast, there cannot be a frost, because the slight cloud cover will block the heat trying to radiate out into space, and reflect it back. You never check the CO2 level, because you don’t even think of this super greenhouse gas having any effect..

But if there is a starry sky, the heat in your tomatoes can radiate out into space unimpeded, with CO2 just standing there with a dumb look on its face, not lifting a finger to help. Instead of blocking and retaining heat until dawn it lets it pass right on through, and lets the temperature drop like a rock.

Want another visual example? The same thing goes for frost on your car. If you depend only on CO2, you will be scraping in the morning. But if there is any cloud cover at all, you won’t.

These are things you already knew. So why did you let someone get away with blowing smoke up your backside? Assumption that they were the experts, and you weren’t qualified to think!

And when the ground heats up, more water evaporates, creating a cooling effect, carrying heat up with it for release into space, spreading out in a cloud that reflects heat from the sun back into space, and mops the floor with CO2’s but.

And when the temperature drops, the clouds fall as rain, once again letting sunlight in to warm the Earth. This is a natural regulating effect, so that no matter what CO2 might do, the clouds will adjust to make it not matter.

Want another example of CO2’s ability to absorb heat from sunlight vs. water vapor? Remember a hot summer day when the sun was hot on your skin, blocked by the trace gas CO2. Then remember when a cloud came over, showing what it could do. Case closed.

And for #2, the CO2 so-called theory does have to assume that there is enough CO2 to actually block and retain enough heat from day to day to heat the Earth. But by now it is clear that this is ridiculous.

What CO2 DOES do is become the physical body of our crops that feed the world’s hungry. The more CO2, the better the crops do, and the better people eat.

CO2 also helps trigger your next breath when you are not thinking about it, like when you sleep. Do a search on sleep apnea in relation to elevation (remember, it thins out at higher elevation.) Check out Boulder Colorado for instance.

And this trace gas is now listed as a pollutant? To be reduced?

But what about the thinning polar ice caps?

Well gee. Have you seen any photos of melt water standing on the surface of the ice?
If the ice were melting from warmer air, wouldn’t it melt from the top down?
Since it is not, it must be melting from the bottom up.
Can that be due to warmer air?
What about geothermal heat, like is melting the glaciers in Iceland.

Ah, but they don’t want to talk about that.

The real question should be how we ever allowed so much money to be spent researching CO2 for so many years, when we already knew everything I just told you.

And the answer is, drum roll please ….

Gullibility. Gullibility conditioned into us, and taken advantage of, by those who assume themselves to superior that we are “a sucker born every minute.” And why?

Money! And Power!

By pretending they are too ignorant to wipe our own buts they can con the public into putting them on perpetual welfare, at a gravy train rate, taking many years and hundreds of billions of dollars to research and discover … even when the truth is obvious at a glance. Sure beats working for a living. Right!

And maybe a nice fat juicy treaty, you know, the thing the US Constitution says supercedes all law, including the Constitution itself. A treaty that would severely limit how much energy we could use, thereby preventing an economic recovery, and taxing us to ruin, to be used to finance the UN’s new permanent authority over us.

As Benjamin Franklin said “Those who expect to be both ignorant and free, expect what never was, and never will be.”

Is Global Warming really so complex that you have to leave it up to the experts?

Oral Deckard
Terre Haute, IN
 

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday 5 December 2009

Climategate: Who pays?

Given the amount of money that the various Cap and Trade policies, speculated to generate, $45 trillion, and the amount of funding that the researchers have been allocated, $20 million in “research” grants, we need to be sure, before giving a 'artificial value' to one of the most abundant substances in the universe, CO2, and an essential building block of life, that the policies that are being based on true and accurate data, and that the scientists finding go through an honest, impartial peer review process, and that no materials related to the data and research are delete nor attempt to evade Freedom of Information requests.
It doesn't seem much to ask since we have paid and will continue to pay for all of it.

Climategate1a

and on Twitter, the whole world has an opinion.....

Climategate2a


Gordon Brown would have anyone who questions the 'evidence' as "flat-earthers" or "anti-science"..and Ed Miliband's considered response to doubts by the voters as "dangerous and deceitful."
















Would that include any scientists who disagree too?












Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Sphere: Related Content