Crazy Islamist Watch

How crazy are the radical Islamists? Crazy enough to be outraged by the execution of the Bali murdering terrorist pigs, instead of outraged by their diabolical crime?

And how many crazy radical Islamists are there? Enough to fill the streets of Indonesia with rioters standing on the wrong side of human decency?

Let's remember what the three Indonesian terrorists facing execution in the next month -- Mukhlas, Amrozi and Imam Samudra -- are facing execution for: The murder of 218 individuals, most of them fellow Muslims. Many of the dead lingered through painful injuries until death overcame them; all left bereaved families. And many survived the blasts with injuries, physical and mental, that will be with them for life.

This puts them on a par with the most prolific serial killers in recorded history, Pedro Alonzo Lopez, who killed 300 girls in Peru, Columbia and Ecuador.

And how do they feel about all this? From the Sydney Morning Herald:

ONE of the Bali bombers has written from his Indonesian jail that he feels so "beautiful" on the eve of his execution that "no words can describe how good the feeling is". ...

"I would not trade how I am feeling now with anything else in the world," he said.

Mukhlas, a former Islamic preacher, has posted his writings on the Internet and he and Muslim cleric Abu Bakar Bashir are asking Indonesia's Muslims to turn out en mass when the three killers' appeals process grinds down and they are placed before a firing squad for their rendezvous with paradise Hell.

Not that they may not be out there ... somewhere ... but the paper doesn't quote any moderate Muslims who are urging the faithful to not stand by these despicable terrorist thugs.

When Timothy McVeigh was executed, the streets of America were not filled with people taking his side. Will Indonesia show the same civility and maturity ... or will it just be another frightening, disgusting example of Islamist insanity?

hat-tip: memeorandum

100 Scientists Attack IPCC, Bali

The Warmie bureaucrats are boarding their jetliners by the hundreds and flying home frm Bali, their carbon footprints trailing behind them like so many size 14s.

Behind them, mounds of paper spell out the paths the UN negotiations will follow as they lead to a replacement for the soon-defunct Kyoto treaty. Basically the US won, knocking off an EU proposal to hit specific greenhouse gas reductions by 25 to 40 percent by 2040.

In the global media's haste to cover these shenanigans left largely uncovered was a letter from 100 scientists to UN Sec Gen Ban Ki-Moon that calls the UN's effort to prevent global climate change "futile" and "a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems."

The letter accuses UN policy-makers of buy-in to a political, not a scientific, thesis:

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ­government ­representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts. (emphasis added)

Signatories make these points about these fallacies of the current UN global warming group-think:

• Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
  

• The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
  

• Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

Does it matter to the charging lemmings at the UN that the debate on global warming is definitely not over? Definitely not! Perhaps they see in global warming a threat to the world, perhaps not. But they definitely know a grand bureaucratic reason for being when they see one, with regulations and confabs and reports galore, easily enough to sustain even the youngest of them through the rest of their careers.

hat-tip: Greenie Watch