It really was only a matter of time

First we have the likes of the Guardian employing Winston Smith's in it's Internet version of Minitrue.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/ma...hest-level-greenhouse-gas (It has to be a record 7 consecutive peoples posts removed in the comments about 25 on page 1 of the comments alone)

Textspeak is the equivalent of Newspeak IMHO

At the beginning of April HMRC (Our IRS) went real time

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/making...-information-rti-for-paye

Today we have this

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_n...-gnws-standard-2013_05_11

The Orwellian Nightmare is now in not so great Britain

To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone--to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone: From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink

Greetings!

Dave

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt

Do you think I should apply?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/jobs/current-vacancies/002765

Pretty confident 1/2 way through given the longer term forecast

May 2013 will be the 5th month on the trot in the UK

I think my opportunity of ever working for the state sponsored UK Met Office have long since departed

Shame really as it is something of an obsession - you may have noticed .

I am as likely to get a job there now as I am of working of in Aldermaston's AWE.

I did get a offer of an interview at the AWE and when I explained to the [recruitment] agent why I couldn't work there he said "Well you went to Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan"

He couldn't see the difference between me helping kit out a new hospital (You know to save lives) and me working at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (to assist with potentially vapourising them in an instant)


Luckily I can


p.s. UK spelling with extra French derived U and a S instead of a Z - Google Chrome complaining bitterly.

Analysis: Warmist John Cook’s fallacy ’97% consensus’ study is a marketing ploy — ‘Cook’s study shows 66% of papers didn’t endorse man-made global warming Cook calls this ‘an overwhelming consensus’

'What does a study of 20 years of abstracts tell us about the global climate? Nothing. But it says quite a lot about the way government funding influences the scientific process...New paper confounds climate research with financial forces, is based on the wrong assumptions, uses fallacious reasoning, wasn’t independent, and confuses a consensus of climate scientists for a scientific consensus, not that a consensus proves anything anyway, if it existed. Given the monopolistic funding of climate science in the last 20 years, the results he finds are entirely predictable' -- 'The number of papers is a proxy for funding': 'As government funding grew, scientists redirected their work to study areas that attracted grants. It’s no conspiracy, just Adam Smith at work. There was no funding for skeptical scientists to question the IPCC or the theory that man-made climate science exaggerates the warming. More than $79 billion was poured into climate science research and technology from 1989 to 2009. No wonder scientists issued repetitive, irrelevant, and weak results. How hard could it be? Taxpayers even paid for research on climate resistant oysters. Let no barnacle be unturned'

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/16/analys...Depot+%28Climate+Depot%29