If the climate alarmists would apply the renowned principle that 'the simplest answer is often correct', global warming would fall to pieces!

OCCAM’S RAZOR, THE NULL HYPOTHESIS, AND ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING

For a sophisticated yet understandable introduction to the global warming debate, it is hard to beat this article by Professor Robert Carter at the American Institute for Technology and Science Education site. Dr. Carter notes that there is considerable common ground between the climate alarmists and the climate realists:

Though you wouldn’t know it from the antagonistic nature of public discussions about global warming, a large measure of scientific agreement and shared interpretation exists amongst nearly all scientists who consider the issue. The common ground, much of which was traversed by Dr. Hayhoe in her article, includes:

* that climate has always changed and always will,
* that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and warms the lower atmosphere,
* that human emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere,
* that a global warming of around 0.5OC occurred in the 20th century, but
* that global warming has ceased over the last 15 years.

I would add one more: that the amount of warming attributable to increased CO2 in the atmosphere based on scientific experiment is trivial, and one can argue for a dangerous global warming only by assuming positive feedback effects, e.g. involving clouds, that magnify the otherwise-harmless impact of increased atmospheric CO2. Dr. Carter continues:

The scientific argument over [Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming] is therefore about none of these things. Rather, it is almost entirely about three other, albeit related, issues. They are:

* the amount of net warming that is, or will be, produced by human-related emissions,
* whether any actual evidence exists for dangerous warming of human causation over the last 50 years, and
* whether the IPCC’s computer models can provide accurate climate predictions 100 years into the future.

I would add that there is also disagreement over whether the net effect of significant global warming would be good or bad.

In framing these disagreements, Dr. Carter starts with first scientific principles:

Science deals with facts, experiments and numerical representations of the natural world around us. Science does not deal with emotions, beliefs or politics, but rather strives to analyse matters dispassionately and in an objective way, such that in consideration of a given set of facts two different practitioners might come to the same interpretation….

William of Occam

Which brings us to the matter of Occam’s Razor and the null hypothesis. William of Occam (1285-1347) was an English Franciscan monk and philosopher to whom is attributed the saying ‘Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate’, which translates as ‘Plurality should not be posited without necessity.’ This is a succinct statement of the principle of simplicity, or parsimony, that was first developed by Aristotle and which has today come to underlie all scientific endeavour.

The phrase ‘Occam’s Razor’ is now generally used as shorthand to represent the fundamental scientific assumption of simplicity. To explain any given set of observations of the natural world, scientific method proceeds by erecting, first, the simplest possible explanation (hypothesis) that can explain the known facts. This simple explanation, termed the null hypothesis, then becomes the assumed interpretation until additional facts emerge that require modification of the initial hypothesis, or perhaps even invalidate it altogether.

Given the great natural variability exhibited by climate records, and the failure to date to compartmentalize or identify a human signal within them, the proper null hypothesis – because it is the simplest consistent with the known facts – is that global climate changes are presumed to be natural, unless and until specific evidence is forthcoming for human causation.

It is one of the more extraordinary facts about the IPCC that the research studies it favours mostly proceed using an (unjustified) inversion of the null hypothesis – namely that global climate changes are presumed to be due to human-related carbon dioxide emissions, unless and until specific evidence indicates otherwise.

So, what are the tests to which we can subject the anthropogenic global warming theory to determine whether it has more explanatory power than the null hypothesis?

The DAGW hypothesis that I want to test here is precisely and only “that dangerous global warming is being caused, or will be, by human-related carbon dioxide emissions”. To be “dangerous”, at a minimum the change must exceed the magnitude or rate of warmings that are known to be associated with normal weather and climatic variability.

What evidence can we use to test the DAGW hypothesis?

Many different lines of evidence can be used to test the DAGW hypothesis. Here I have space to present just five, all of which are based upon real world empirical data. For more information, please read both Dr. Hayhoe’s and my book.

Consider the following tests:

(i) Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming; over the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 10%.

Large increases in carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to produce dangerous warming, but failed to produce any warming at all. Hypothesis fails.

(ii) During the 20th century, a global warming of between 0.4O C and 0.7O C occurred, at a maximum rate, in the early decades of the century, of about 1.7O C/century. In comparison, our best regional climate records show that over the last 10,000 years natural climate cycling has resulted in temperature highs up to at least 1O C warmer than today, at rates of warming up to 2.5O C/century.

In other words, both the rate and magnitude of 20th century warming falls well within the envelope of natural climate change. Hypothesis fails, twice.

(iii) If global temperature is controlled primarily by atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, then changes in carbon dioxide should precede parallel changes in temperature.

In fact, the opposite relationship applies at all time scales. Temperature change precedes carbon dioxide change by about 5 months during the annual seasonal cycle, and by about 700-1000 years during ice age climatic cycling.Hypothesis fails.

(iv) The IPCC’s computer general circulation models, which factor in the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, project that global warming should be occurring at a rate of +2.0O C/century.

In fact, no warming at all has occurred in either the atmosphere or the ocean for more than the last decade. The models are clearly faulty, and allocate too great a warming effect for the extra carbon dioxide (technically, they are said to overestimate the climate sensitivity). Hypothesis fails.

(v) The same computer models predict that a fingerprint of greenhouse-gas-induced warming will be the creation of an atmospheric hot spot at heights of 8-10 km in equatorial regions, and enhanced warming also near both poles.

Given that we already know that the models are faulty, it shouldn’t surprise us to discover that direct measurements by both weather balloon radiosondes and satellite sensors show the absence of surface warming in Antarctica, and a complete absence of the predicted low latitude atmospheric hot spot.Hypothesis fails, twice.

One of the 20th century’s greatest physicists, Richard Feynman, observed about science that:

“In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation, to see if it works.

It’s that simple statement that is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.”

None of the five tests above supports or agrees with the predictions implicit in the greenhouse hypothesis as stated above. Richard Feynman is correct to advise us that therefore the hypothesis is invalid, and that many times over.

Dr. Carter goes on to talk about why the failure of the AGW theory is so little understood by the general public. Here we enter the realm of politics, and also high finance, as billions of dollars have been spent to enlist scientists in the cause, and to convince naive voters that dangerous anthropogenic global warming is something other than a failed and politically-motivated theory.

Images courtesy of Shutterstock.

Caring for the poor doesn't make you a communist, says Pope Francis

What's this Jesuit up to? This is definitely aimed at conservatives and the myth that liberals are all about helping the poor while conservatives are all about helping the rich. The liberals have had their way in America for decades and the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. Look at the 'war on poverty' and LBJ's 'great society'. Trillions have been spent over the fifty year period since the liberals initiated the so called 'war on poverty' and more people are in poverty than ever since then. so who benefited from all those trillions? The money didn't just disappear. There are more rich people now than ever before. Logic tells me that money went to the rich!  

Pope Francis: 'Caring for the poor does not make you a communist'

He made the comments in one of his longest speeches as Pope

KASHMIRA GANDER 

 

 

Thursday 30 October 2014

Pope Francis has once again rejected claims that his concern for the poor and criticisms of capitalism make him a communist, by declaring that he is merely following the Gospel.

In one his longest speeches as Pope, the Holy See outlined his views on a wide range of issues– from poverty and the injustices of unemployment to the need to protect the environment.

"Today I want to unite my voice with yours and accompany you in your fight," he said to participants at the World Meeting of Popular Movements, which is holding a three-day conference in Rome involving groups including trade unions, peasant farmers, and domestic workers.

Among those in the audience were Argentine "cartoneros," who live off the sale of recyclable goods they salvage from rubbish. As archbishop of Buenos Aires, then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was particularly close to the cartoneros; as pope he has maintained his support for their plight. Anticipating how his letter would be received by his critics, Francis declared that “land, housing and work are increasingly unavailable to the majority’ of the world’s population,” but said “If I talk about this, some will think that the Pope is communist.”

"They don't understand that love for the poor is at the centre of the Gospel," he said. "Demanding this isn't unusual, it's the social doctrine of the church."

In pictures: 'The many popes of Pope Francis'

1 of 12

• 

Next

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

 

His speech also further highlighted his concerns for the environment, as well as the rights of farmers to have land, and for young people to be employed – issues he said would be dealt with in his upcoming encyclical on ecology and the environment.

The address comes after right-wing US commentators said the Pope is a Marxist because he criticised capitalist excess and demanded that governments should redistribute social benefits to the needy.

Earlier this week, the Pope made headlines by declaring that scientific theories were compatible with the Christian belief of the existence of a creator, and said the theories of evolution and the Bing Bang are real.

Experts said the speech put an end to the “pseudo theories” of creationism and intelligent design that some argue were encouraged by his predecessor Benedict XVI.

Additional reporting by AP

The man killed was white, Obama doesn't get involved unless it's a black man killed by a white man. He would really be in a conundrum if an illegal killed a black. What would he do? Would he try to rile the blacks up like he does when a white kills a black? If he did he would upset the illegals and he doesn't want that. But that's not the case, it was just a white man killed by an illegal, what's the problem??? 

MOTHER OF MAN KILLED BY ILLEGAL: PRES ‘IGNORING US COMPLETELY’

on BREITBART TV

Mary Ann Mendoza, whose son, Brandon, was killed by an illegal immigrant slammed President Obama for having “no concern” for her or the families of others who have lost their loved to ones to crimes committed by illegal immigrants on Wednesday’s “Your World with Neil Cavuto” on the Fox News Channel.

“There seems to be no concern for what we're going through and the issues that we want to bring to him [Obama]. Thousands of us are waiting for at least an acknowledgment from him that he understands the pain that we are experiencing losing a loved one at the hands of repeat illegal criminals. He has taken the time to meet with them. He has addressed their issues, and he’s now doing something about it in this amnesty move that he’s going to make. When is he going to meet with the American people who have been affected by this? He is ignoring us completely, and this is what I want. I have met with other families who have been affected by illegals killing their loved ones. I mean, horrific accidents and horrific crimes, and we deserve acknowledgment just like these illegals who he is now going to do something for them.”

Mendoza added that tragedies like her son’s death are “going to keep happening because they're rereleased out on to our streets to commit more crimes. and the more of them that enter this country and realize that the stiff penalties are not going to apply to them and they'll be released out on our streets without jail time and not being deported, it's only a matter of time that they're going to repeat the crime.”

This reminds me of how the ISIS terrorist party operates.

Democrats bully non-voters: We know who you are

By Carl Campanile and Natalie O'Neill

October 30, 2014 | 4:50pm

Modal Trigger

Photo: Getty ImageDemocrats are telling voters that they had better head to the polls — or else.

The New York State Democratic Committee is bullying people into voting next week with intimidating letters warning that it can easily find out which slackers fail to cast a ballot next Tuesday.

“Who you vote for is your secret. But whether or not you vote is public record,” the letter says.

“We will be reviewing voting records . . . to determine whether you joined your neighbors who voted in 2014.”

It ends with a line better suited to a mob movie than a major political party: “If you do not vote this year, we will be interested to hear why not.”

The letter and accompanying post card was criticized even by party members, with one Democratic consultant saying it was the wrong way to inspire votes.

“It’s a threatening letter. It’s a scare piece that is unnecessary and inappropriate,” the insider said.

Brooklyn and Manhattan residents who received the note Wednesday were furious, calling it an attempt to browbeat them into showing up at the polls.

“I’m outraged. Whether I vote or not is none of your business!” said a Manhattan voter, who was so incensed that she complained to a local Democratic leader.

“The letter is ludicrous and menacing,” said the voter, who requested anonymity.

The woman also received a report card of her voting record, pointing out that she had failed to vote in two of the last four elections.

Overall, the notices were sent out to 1 million registered Democrats who had failed to vote in previous midterm elections, according to the group.

The committee — chaired by former Gov. David Paterson — defended the scare tactic, calling it standard practice throughout the country.

“This flier is part of the nationwide Democratic response to traditional Republican voter-suppression efforts, because Democrats believe our democracy works better when more people vote, not
less,” said Peter Kauffmann, a committee spokesman.

“The difference between Democrats and Republicans is they don’t want people to vote and we want everyone to vote.”

Paterson declined to comment.

The mailer has a phone number on it that goes to Election Protection, a nonpartisan voting organization.

The organization said it had received a “significant” number of calls about the letter.

Such attempts to shame people to vote — what politicos call “social pressure” or peer pressure — has become more common place and was used by the Obama campaign in 2012, sources said.

A Yale University study in 2008 found that voter participation increased substantially after lazy voters received letters telling them their spotty voting history was a public record that would be scrutinized.

The notice includes a “vote report card” rating New Yorkers’ voting records as “excellent,” “good,” “fair” or “incomplete.”

“Many organizations monitor turnout in your neighborhood and are disappointed by the inconsistent voting of many of your neighbors,” it says.

The letter came a week before heavily favored Democratic Gov. Cuomo faces off against Republican Rob Astorino.

Cuomo was not behind the shame letters, party sources insisted.

But Astorino scoffed, “Andrew Cuomo’s thuggish tactics just crossed the line into creepy territory . . . Threatening and intimidating people is not how honorable elected leaders operate.”

BREAKING: Ebola Nurse’s Ties to CDC Scrubbed From Website – Is Far Left Progressive & Obama Supporter

OK, I knew something was fishy about this nurse. You can be sure this is a planned psyops event by the Obama administration. The public's reaction to this nurses actions has not been supportive, she's seen as being selfish. How does this play into the government's plans? By making the public more receptive to medical emergency quarantines in preparation for their planned police state actions!  The timing of this outbreak, the government's reaction to it, and this nurses actions all point to the fact that martial law is coming!!!

BREAKING: Ebola Nurse’s Ties to CDC Scrubbed From Website – Is Far Left Progressive & Obama Supporter

Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, October 27, 2014, 12:12 PM

Well, what a surprise!

Quarantined Ebola Nurse, Kaci Hickox is a card carrying Progressive and CDC EIS Officer.

The Ebola nurse who attacked Governor Christie for putting her in quarantine after returning from Africa is a Progressive with ties to the CDC.

Her LinkedIn profile was scrubbed this weekend.
Natural News reported:

Kaci Hickox, the nurse who was quarantined in New Jersey over her high risk status as a possible Ebola carrier, has ties to the CDC which have been deliberately hidden by the mainstream media.

Right now, a war is waging between states like New Jersey, New York and Illinois — which have all decided to quarantine travelers at high risk of Ebola infections — and the federal government which is adamantly opposed to border security, medical quarantines and travel bans.

Kaci Hickox emerged in the center of this debate just yesterday when she complained of being “interrogated” and held in violation of her civil rights. Kaci’s LinkedIn.com profile, which described her links to the CDC, was scrubbed from the web earlier today, and even Google cache has strangely been cleared of her profile which previously detailed her ties to the CDC.

The now-famous DallasNews.com article [1] which published Hickox’s complaints failed to mention the nurse’s ties to the CDC.

It turns out that Kaci Hickox is a registered democrat and Obama supporter who works for the CDC. “The nurse currently quarantined in New Jersey is an employee for the Centers for Disease Control and a registered Democrat with a history of left-wing advocacy,” reports GotNews.com.

Here’s a look at Kaci Hickox’s LinkedIn account before it was scrubbed clean.

Kaci’s LinkedIn account has suddenly been expunged but not before Fire Andrea Mitchellwas able to procure a screenshot.

GotNews has more on the outspoken Christie critic.

Kaci Hickox’s ties to the CDC were not disclosed in a controversial anti-quarantine column she wrote for the Dallas Morning News. The CDC opposes quarantines or travel bans from Ebola infected countries.

Initially turned down for Doctors Without Borders, Hickox applied for a position with the Centers for Disease Control’s infectious disease unit. She received that position and began a two-year fellowship in Las Vegas, NV where she currently still works.

Rabbi Ahron Cohen on Israel, Judaism and Zionism

They are not synonymous despite what most have been led to believe. Zionism is rebellion pure and simple. It is against God's will.

"Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” Mark 10:9 NKJV It follows that what God has separated let no man join together. In 70 AD God separated the Jews from the Land of Israel and only God can join them together again. This is the essence of Zionism. The desire of the Jew to have a home in the Holy Land is natural but not by their own hands.

Nowhere in the Holy Bible does God approve of rebellion against His will, it is exactly opposite of what God accepts!

ISRAEL, JUDAISM AND ZIONISM
Talk By: Rabbi Ahron Cohen at Birmingham University, England 26th February ‘03
My friends, it is an honour to have the opportunity of talking to you today. I and my colleagues of Neturei Karta attend occasions such as this because we feel that we have both a religious and humanitarian duty to publicize our message as much as possible. So I hope and pray that with the Creator’s help my words and our discussions here today may be correct and true in their content and conclusions.
As you have already been told, I am an orthodox Jew (that is a Jew who endeavours to live his life completely in accordance with the Jewish religion). I am involved in ecclesiastical duties within the Jewish Community and am particularly involved in educating our youth and in helping them to achieve healthy and correct attitudes. It is therefore of particular interest to me to be able to talk to you, a student body, today. I have been asked to talk to you about Judaism and Zionism. This subject is of course tremendously relevant in the light of the current situation in Palestine, where you have - let’s face it - one side, the Zionists (who are also Jews), wishing to impose a ‘sectarian’ State over the heads of an indigenous population, the Palestinians. A confrontation which has resulted in horrific bloodshed and brutality with no end in sight unless there is a very radical change. My qualification to talk on this subject is by virtue of my being one of many orthodox Jews who absolutely sympathise with the Palestinian cause, and we protest vehemently against the terrible wrongs being perpetrated against the Palestinian People by the Zionist illegitimate regime in Palestine. The spearhead group among us who are involved actively in this matter on a regular basis are called Neturei Karta, which can be loosely translated as Guardians of the Faith. We are not a separate party or organisation but basically a philosophy representative of a large section of orthodox Jewry. Let me firstly state quite categorically that Judaism and Zionism are incompatible. They are diametrically opposed. The question must surely arise in the minds of many of you here today that there appears to be a paradox. After all everyone knows that Zionists are Jews and that Zionism is for the benefit of Jews. The Palestinians are the enemies of the Zionists. How come then that I, a Jew, can sympathise with the Palestinian cause. I would like to try to answer this question and to revert to the subject of my talk - Judaism and Zionism - on two levels, religious belief and humanitarianism. Bearing in mind that to be humanitarian is also a basic religious requirement. Firstly from a Jewish religious belief point of view. One has to take a look at some aspects of the history of the Jewish people and at their basic belief in the Al-mighty’s control of our destiny and what the Al-mighty wants of us. All as set out in our Religious teachings, our Toira, and as taught to us through the generations by our great religious leaders. Against this we also have to look at the history of Zionism, how it developed, what are its aims. Our religion is for us a total way of life. Showing us how to live a life in the service of the Al-mighty. It affects every aspect of our life from the cradle to the grave. We are taught that it was revealed to us by Divine Revelation, as described in the Bible, some three and a half thousand years ago, and that is when the Jewish People came in to being. All of our religious requirements, practical and philosophical, are set out in the Torah which comprises the Bible (the old testament) and a vast code of Oral Teaching handed down to us through the generations. As mentioned, our religion is a total way of life covering every aspect of our life. One area of our religion is that subject to certain conditions is that we will be given a land, the Holy Land, now known as Palestine, in which to live and carry out various parts of our service of the Al-mighty. Now, before I go any further, I wish to point out something which is very basic to understanding the difference between Judaism and Zionism and that is that the orthodox Jewish concept of nationhood is very different to the concept of nationhood held by most peoples. Most peoples understand a nation to be a specific people living in a specific land. The land is essential for the identity of the nation. They may or may not have a religion, but the religion is immaterial to the national identity. The orthodox Jewish concept of nationhood however, is a specific people with a specific religion. It is the religion that establishes the national identity. They may or may not have a land, the land is immaterial to the Jewish national identity. This is borne out by the fact that the Jewish nation has been without a land for 2000 years, but as long as they retained their religion they retained their identity. Now I mentioned earlier that we were given a land but under certain conditions. The conditions were basically that we had to maintain the highest of moral, ethical and religious standards. The Jewish People did have the land for approximately the first one thousand five hundred years of their existence. However, regretfully, the conditions were not fulfilled to the required degree and the Jews were exiled from their land. For the last two thousand years or so the Jewish people have been in a state of exile decreed by the A-lmighty because they did not maintain the standards expected of them. This state of exile is the situation that exists right up to the present day. It is a basic part of our belief to accept willingly the Heavenly decree of exile and not to try and fight against it or to end it by our own hands. To do so would constitute a rebellion against the wishes of the A-lmighty. In practical terms, although we have maintained our Jewish identity by virtue of our attachment to our religion, never the less exile for us means firstly that Jews must be loyal subjects of the countries in which they live and not attempt to rule over the established indigenous populations of those countries. Secondly, that we may not attempt to set up a State of our own in Palestine. This would apply even if the land would be unoccupied and it certainly applies when, as is the case, there is an existing indigenous population. This prohibition is a basic part of our teaching and we are forsworn not to contravene it and we are warned of the dire consequences of doing so. It follows, therefore, that Jews have no right to rule today in Palestine. Now let us consider the Zionist movement. This was founded approximately 100 years ago mostly by secular people who were discarding their religion but still retained what they considered as the stigma of being Jews in exile. They considered that our state of exile was due to our own subservient attitude - ‘the Golus (exile) mentality’ - and not by Divine Decree. They wanted to throw off the constraints of exile and to try and establish a new form of Jewish identity. Not religion based but land based. It was based on a typical, emotion driven, secular nationalistic aim, similar to that of most other nations. Their policy had as its centre pin the aim of setting up a Jewish State in Palestine. But they were forging a new kind of Jew. In fact not a Jew at all- a Zionist. This Zionist movement was a complete abandonment of our religious teachings and faith - in general - and in particular an abandonment of our approach to our state of exile and our attitude to the peoples among whom we live. The practical outcome of Zionism in the form of the State known as ‘Israel’ is completely alien to Judaism and the Jewish Faith. The very name “Israel” which originally meant what are known as the Children of Israel i.e. the Jewish People was usurped by the Zionists. For this reason many orthodox Jews avoid referring to the Zionist State by the name ’Israel’. The ideology of Zionism is not to rely on divine providence but to take the law into ones own hands and to try to force the outcome in the form of a State. This is completely contrary to the approach to the matter of exile which our Toira requires us to adopt, as handed down to us by our great religious teachers. I have spoken till now from the religious belief point of view. But let us consider the humanitarian point of view (and to do so is also a religious requirement as I mentioned earlier).The Zionist ideology was and is to force the aim of a State irrespective of the cost in life and property to anyone who stands in the way. The Palestinians stood in the way. We have a fact that in order to achieve an ill conceived nationalistic ambition, a shocking contravention of natural justice was committed by the Zionists in setting up an illegitimate regime in Palestine completely against the wishes of the established population, the Palestinians, which inevitably had to be based on loss of life, killing and stealing. Most Orthodox Jews accept the Neturei Karta view to the extent that they do not agree in principle to the existence of the Zionist State and would not ‘shed a tear‘ if it came to an end. There are however a range of opinions as to how to deal with the fact that for the time being the Zionist State exists. These opinions range from positive cooperation to pragmatic acceptance to total opposition in every way. The latter being the Neturei Karta approach. There was and is however, an additional Zionist phenomenon which confuses the picture. That is the Religious Zionists. These are people who claim to be faithful to the Jewish Religion but they have been influenced by the Zionist secular nationalistic philosophy and have added a new dimension to Judaism - Zionism, the aim of setting up now and expanding a Jewish state in Palestine. This they try to fulfil with great fervour. (I call it Judaism-plus) They claim that this is inherent in the Jewish religion. But the fact is as explained earlier that this is absolutely contrary to the teachings of our great religious teachers. Furthermore, from a humanitarian point of view, their ideology too was and is to force their aim irrespective of the cost in life and property to anyone who stands in the way. The Palestinians are standing in the way. This is all the more shocking as it is done in the name of religion. Whereas in reality there is a totally contrary requirement of our religion and that is to treat all peoples with compassion. To sum up. According to the Torah and Jewish faith, the present Palestinian > Arab claim to rule in Palestine is right and just. The Zionist claim is wrong and criminal. Our attitude to Israel is that the whole concept is flawed and illegitimate. We have another problem and that is that the Zionists have made themselves to appear as the representatives and spokespeople of all Jews thus, with their actions, arousing animosity against the Jews. Those who harbour this animosity are accused of anti-Semitism. However, what has to be made abundantly clear is that Zionism is not Judaism. Zionists cannot speak in the name of Jews. Zionists may have been born as Jews, but to be a Jew also requires adherence to the Jewish belief and religion. So what becomes abundantly clear is that opposition to Zionism and its crimes does not imply hatred of Jews or ‘anti-Semitism‘. On the contrary Zionism itself and its deeds are the biggest threat to Jews and Judaism. The strife between Arab and Jew in Palestine only began when the first Zionist pioneers came to Palestine with the express aim of forming a State over the heads of the indigenous Arab population. That strife has continued until this very day and has cost and continues to cost thousands and thousands of lives. The oppression, abuse and murder in Palestine is a tragedy not only for the Palestinians but for the Jewish people as well. And is in fact part of the dire consequences of which we are warned if we transgress our religious requirement not to rebel against our exile. I wish to add that the connection between Muslims and Jews goes right back into ancient history. Mostly the relationship was friendly and mutually beneficial. Historically, the situation frequently was that when Jews were being persecuted in Europe they found refuge in the various Muslim countries. Our attitude to Muslims and Arabs can only be one of friendliness and respect. I would like to finish with the following words. We want to tell the world, especially our Muslim neighbours, that there is no hatred or animosity between Jew and Muslim. We wish to live together as friends and neighbours as we have done mostly over hundreds even thousands of years in all the Arab countries. It was only the advent of the Zionists and Zionism which upset this age old relationship. We consider the Palestinians as the people with the right to govern in Palestine. The Zionist State known as “Israel” is a regime that has no right to exist. Its continuing existence is the underlying cause of the strife in Palestine. We pray for an end to bloodshed and an end to the suffering of all innocent people - Jew and non-Jew alike - worldwide. We are waiting for the annulment of Zionism and the dismantling of the Zionist regime, which will bring about an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people. We would welcome the opportunity to dwell in peace in the holy land under a rule which is entirely in accordance with the wishes and aspirations of the Palestinian People. May we soon merit the time when all mankind will be at peace with each other.