Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

News Briefs 09-06-2005

I’m sorry if you’ve been waiting for today’s news briefs to appear. Things have been a little hectic at Castle Cernig this week.

Quote of the Day:

Look not mournfully into the Past. It comes not back again. Wisely improve the Present. In is thine. Go forth to meet the shadowy Future, without fear, and a manly heart.
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

  1. Kelly’s 00′ s
    Hi Cernig,

    What so difficult to believe in that story ? The fact that unnamed (!) persons hire a hit squad to eliminate dr Kelly , who had become a security risk (to the liars). They didnt use local spooks, those maybe crazy too, but not stupid, they know full well in a hi profile case as dr.Kelly the purpetraitors must never be found, ergo eliminated asap.

    Dr Kelly was murdered and whitehall tried to do its best to prevent any serious inquest, this man wasn’t a nervous wreck as supposed- in fact he’s job (s) demanded an extreme stabile personality profile, not to mention, his daughter was about to marry 2 months later. So why did the bbc cave in, death/bomb threats perhaps ?

    So why are the MI 5 & 6 making noise now, a month after glib tony’s re-election ? Could it be to remind him he’s to leave office asap now, and/or do they feel the heat of other agencies trying to extort privileges, or else.. (blow the lid ?)

    The story about the press being pro euro and therefor want glib tony in the sadle is another bull story, the city decides when they want to give up the right to set their own interest rates, and basicly print their own digital pounds. Which will be never.

    ” do unto others as you would have them do unto you “

  2. Crossing
    I thought when they nailed you to a cross, you would die of suffocation or such things. Sure, blood loss would not help, or blood clots, sun stroke, you name it. Sun of God or not, the guy died of being nailed to a cross – mainly for saying we should all be nicer to each other.

    So maybe we should keep up the hostility.

  3. Hogwash

    Hi Cernig,

    So I follow the link to read an article to see some example of “reports surface of oil company pressure and altered scientific papers on Global Warming”. But what I got was an editorial that looks like it was written by you. Oh, wait, it is an editorial written by you about a story in the New York Times. I can’t read it, of course, because I refuse to sign-up for the service, but the article can be read here:

    In the article, Mr. Cooney, chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, added the word “extremely” to a sentence and dumped a section on water availability because he said it was speculative. These were the only specific examples listed. This article also states that “Efforts by the Bush administration to highlight uncertainties in science pointing to human-caused warming have put the United States at odds with other nations and with scientific groups at home.” That’s a good thing – there are uncertainties in science pointing to human-caused warming. In fact, there is no scientific proof whatsoever that leads one to conclude that warming or climate change has anything at all to do with humans. Ice core samples show that the climate and global temperatures cycle regularly.

    The article also states that, “Yesterday, saying their goal was to influence that meeting, the scientific academies of 11 countries, including those of the United States and Britain, released a joint letter saying, ‘The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.’ Good – did someone say carbon dioxide? I don’t see it.

    I could go on but I let you read the rest for yourself. Your editorial alludes to a scandal. Where? For adding “may be” to a sentence? I don’t see that the American Petroleum Institute institute much of anything. This isn’t even a good rumor, much less a scandal. Hogwash. Forget the editorial – show me the science.


    1. Hi Bill
      The reason I linked to the Newshog post was that I was pushed for time and it brought the New York Times story together with the Guardian story about oil companies being intimately involved with the Bush administration’s response to Global Warming. I regard the latter story as the true scandal and the first as simply colour for it. I notice you don’t mention that one at all.

      Sorry if I offended you by trying to be economical with my time. That’s all it was. I’m having a really bad week here with family matters and really don’t need your snark about “what I got was an editorial that looks like it was written by you”. Yes, it was written by me because there was nobody else I could find putting the two together like that. If I had found one, trust me, you would have gotten theirs instead. Is it implicitly less trustable because “Cernig” wrote the linkage of the two?

      As you will see further down the comments, I also offended someone at the other end of the scale by not being conspiracy-minded enough.

      Some weeks I can’t win

      Regards, C

      1. Hi Cernig
        I ignored the Guardian story because, from the article, it appears that all Exxon Mobil did was lobby against Kyoto. That’s perfectly legal. So did I by writing my congressmen, senators, and President Bush and sending money. None of that is considered undue influence. That’s the way we do things; we all have that right here.

        Junk science always pushes my button, and GW is the worst.

        Sorry to hear about your family pressures. My family role has become one of shoveling money in their direction and keeping quiet.


        1. S’ok
          Hi Bill,

          The point of the Guardian article is that Exxon swore it hadn’t and then it surfaced it had. That may be legal but it ain’t nice and it’s now apposite to question their truthfulness on anything else they say.

          Thanks for your concern over the family matters – there’s a few spanners in the works right now and I am not always thinking calmly.

          Regards, C

    2. “Extremely” not the only change
      Actually, I read this story on the front page of the Guardian when the story broke.

      Yes, I actually had a real newspaper in my hand (no cyber tech there!)

      In that article, it did list a few other small, but significant, alterations that changed the tone and meaning of certain key sentences.

      I’ve just searched the Guardian’s website to find the original “printed” version of the story but I couldn’t find it. Suffice to say, though, that the one modification that you mentioned in your post wasn’t the only one.

      yer ol’ pal,

      (This post was brought to you by “Realm of the Dead”)

      1. Got an example?

        Hi Xibalba,

        I think you’re confused.

        I don’t know to what article you are referring. The Guardian article that was linked by Cernig referred to Exxon Mobile’s involvement in President Bush’s energy policy. The New York Times article that was linked by Cernig referred to Mr. Cooney, chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, who added the word “extremely” to a sentence and dumped a section on water availability because he said it was speculative. There are a couple of other insignificant changes mentioned. It’s hardly a scandal.

        Greenpeace contaminated the Guardian article for me. Since Greenpeace is involved, I don’t have any idea if they have contaminated the evidence with lies.

        Anything that mentions Greenpeace I usually ignore; Greenpeace freely uses lies and distortions for profit according to their co-founder. Former Greenpeace member Bjorn Lomborg exposes their fraudulent behavior and paranoia in The Skeptical Environmentalist. Quoting Greenpeace director Paul Watson, “The secret to [the late Greenpeace co-founder] David McTaggart’s success is the secret to Greenpeace’s success: It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true. You are what the media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth, and a myth generating machine.”

        Cernig was right about one thing – follow the money. Exxon Mobil is in business to sell oil for money. Greenpeace is in business to cause hysteria and panic for money. I do believe that Exxon Mobil lobbied against the Kyoto Treaty, but I also believe that Greenpeace would lie in a heartbeat.


  4. Texas sinking
    So if Texas sinks into the ocean, then I think we can be almost certain that America will never elect an idiot-monkey like George W Bush again, as Texas’ large number of college seats will no longer exist.

    yer ol’ pal,

    (This bright vision of the future post was brought to you by “Realm of the Dead”)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal