Shakespeare Weighs In On The Climate Change Hoax [Reader Post]

By 14 Comments 393 views

56370_wallpaper280How many ages hence, shall this our lofty scene be acted o’er, In states unborn and accents yet unknown!

Cries Cassius after the murder of Caesar. Shakespeare

Damaging emails have been leaked that detail the falsification of data by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The response of those who embrace the Climate Change Hoax of the Left has added to the loss of prestige and integrity normally associated with scientific research. They are citing tremendous pressures exerted from those who rightfully claim the science to be a false science, they were thus finding it ever more difficult to defend the concept of Anthropogenic Global Warming and the fact that no one knows how the leaked emails surfaced. Thus their defense is weak or nonexistent.

One of the more damning and flagrant violations of Real Science was an email sent by the head of the Climatic Research Unit Phil Jones. Jones’ email states, “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow- even I we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!” This statement has proved impossible to defend by even the most gifted propagandists of the Marxist Left. The best defense that the Left has been able to field is to claim that the data is stolen and that the fraudulent and manipulated data is insignificant when compared to the monumental proportions of the Hoax itself, thus they have accomplished nothing as far as defending the data or reestablishing their credibility and integrity of a scientific research effort.

In the United States, Senator Inhofe of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has written a letter to all relevant government agencies advising them on the nature and content of the emails.

While Obama’s Covert Marxist Government continues with its Cap and Trade legislation to compromise the wealth of the US citizenry with a degradation of lifestyle and ruinous taxes that will serve to benefit the UN officials and Leftist Despots in Third World Countries. The Marxist Administration has turned a blind eye to the evidence that repudiates and destroys any credibility of the false science that the Cap and Trade is based upon.

Of course if the people of the United States don’t stand up to the ruinous nature of The Cap and Trade Bill, their livelihood will be seriously downgraded or destroyed completely by a false science that has been used as a ruse by Progressive Socialists and Marxists around the world to gain power and control.

From Macbeth’s sudden cry we should take warning,

Can such things be
And overcome us like a summer’s cloud,
Without our special wonder?

This is not from the familiar quotations of Macbeth, but repeat the lines to yourself. Besides being from the greatest wordsmith that ever lived and the alliteration of o’s and u’s and the two w’s that are part of a glorious trick of verbal magic, these are prophetic words that are as significant now in our circumstances as they were 400 years ago.

A professional horseman for over 40 years, Skook continues to work with horses. He is in an ongoing educational program, learning life's lessons from one of the world's greatest instructors, the horse. Skook has finished an historical novel that traces a mitochondrial line of DNA from 50,000 years ago to the present. The book Fifty-Thousand Years is awaiting me to finish a final proofread and it should be sent to the formatter in a matter of days. I am still working, so it is not easy to devote the time I need to finish the project. The cover is a beautiful wok of art. I would put it up here if I could figure out how to make it work.

14 Responses to “Shakespeare Weighs In On The Climate Change Hoax [Reader Post]”

  1. 2


    Yes Buff, many resignations are in order, but I am hoping for criminal prosecutions. The money that has been swindled and the money that Bozo wants to swindle from us is staggering. Amounts so large that Madoff looks like an amateur. Yet our fool in chief and his yes boy Gibbs see nothing wrong in the fraud, because it is only money that will be stolen from the US and given to petty thieves in the UN and Marxist thugs around the world. This Bozo’s main objective, anything to bankrupt and ruin America.

    Hopefully, the numbers will increase exponentially, Buff. The sooner we get rid of these carnival barkers the better.

  2. 3

    Lady MacFact

    Before you shackle Shakespeare to your fossil-fuelled, carbon spewing denial bandwagon you may want to consider that you have just quoted an illegitimate war mongering king who is trying to suppress an insurgency by dismissing the fact that all the natural omens are against his rule. (It does sound kind of applicable to a recent American administration, but not the one you were talking about.)

    In case that isn’t enough to convince you that Shakespeare believed that humankind was often at nature’s mercy and not vice versa, here are some picks from the wider cannon by Mark Rylance, an artistic director of the Royal Shakespeare Company:

    “Great Floods have flown from simple sources”
    (All’s Well that Ends Well – 2, 1, 142)


    “And with thy daring folly burn the world”
    (Two Gentlemen of Verona – 3, 1, 155)


    “Therefore the moon, the governess of floods,
    Pale in her anger washes all the air,
    That rheumatic diseases do abound;
    And thorough this distemperature we see
    The seasons alter: hoary-headed frosts
    Fall in the fresh lap of the crimson rose,
    And on old Hiems’ thin and icy crown
    An odorous chaplet of sweet summer buds
    Is, as in mock’ry, set. The spring, the summer,
    The childing autumn, angry winter change
    Their wonted livieries, and the mazed world
    By their increase now knows not which is which;
    And this same progeny of evils comes
    From our debate, from our dissension.”
    (Midsummer Night’s Dream – 2, 1)


    “These late eclipses in the sun and moon portend no good to us. Through the wisdom of nature can reason it thus and thus, yet nature finds itself scourged by the sequent effects.”
    (King Lear – 1, 2)

    The next time you try to claim climate change isn’t anthropogenic, please consider Julius Caesar: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.” (Julius Caesar, 1,2)

    And while you’re at it, the next time you’re trying to deny the people of Iraq or Afghanistan the right to live free from despotism and injustice, the poor the right to health care, or the LGBTQI community the right to equality before the law consider a quote by that other great Anglophone fiction writer Matthew – “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21)

    Additionally, the next time you’re whining about that ‘Marxist’ Obama, think of the people living under genuine communist oppression in China, Venezuela, North Korea and Russia, and how much they would kill for even a fraction of the civil liberties your movement enjoys seemingly without even thinking about, much less without putting any effort into being factual and measured about. Finally, know that if America is respected around the world as a beacon of freedom, it’s because of Obama and the Democrats and the moderate Republic’s commitment to economic regulation, social security and civil liberty – and not Bush’s tax breaks, cash splashes, gag rules and french fry boycotts. One of the miracles of your free society means that you don’t have to agree with your current government, or anything they do, as well you shouldn’t. But know that when you try to deny climate change, or falsely claim your governments are Marxists, the rest of the world mocks you like clowns and spurns you like they spurn rabid dogs.

    I wish you a safe, happy and reflective new year.

  3. 4

    Donald Bly


    In case that isn’t enough to convince you that Shakespeare believed that humankind was often at nature’s mercy and not vice versa,…

    Do you even comprehend what you wrote?

    If you believe climate change is anthropogenic, I’ve got to believe you’d envy a box of rock’s IQ numbers.

    If you believe Obama isn’t trying to fundamentally change this country and move it towards the marxist model, I’ve got to believe a night light is brighter than you.

    If you believe health care is a “right”, I’ve got to believe you don’t have a clue what the Constitution is all about.

    If you believe Matthew was an “anglophone”, I’ve got to believe you are even stupider than I first thought. please bookmark this website.

    Put down the Shakespeare and pick up Frederik Bastiat’s “The Law” you might learn something.

    Can I get you another glass of kook-aid?

  4. 5



    I’m throwing away all my physics books, solar data, and chemistry info because obviously Shakespere had it right all along.

    Time for a drive in the 500horse Camaro, in FatBroad’s honor.

  5. 6


    Donald, you have a keen eye and a rapier’s wit. If I had time, I could translate your response to 17th century prose and give old William a good laugh: for you have demonstrated the type of humor that kept people attending performances at the Globe while they walked past carts bearing dead from the Bubonic Plague, the public decapitations (the heads used in the plays were fresh), the dog fights, the bear and bull baiting, the public displays of torture (torture of women was a real crowd pleaser), and the brothels (especially The Rose, located directly behind the Globe and made immortal with the line A Rose by an other name, thus punning on the reference to a woman’s most intimate anatomy, the brothel, and the flower). Yes, Will found the silliness and weaknesses of the human spirit to be a great source of satire. As you well know, to use and understand satire, you must be able to comprehend logic. Too many quote the sanitized versions of Shakespeare and miss the lustiness of the original writing. Many of Shakespeare’s plays would be censored, even though sanitized versions are played in every high school drama class without knowledge of the puns and the innuendo, FA in the original. (too funny)

    To keep a certain sense of decorum, I will offer these mild lines before resorting to the more cruel lines that William would have used to eviscerate this witless specimen.

    For the witless and deluded, the Bard left a description that portrays the Quasi-Marxist in the White House.

    Twelfth Night Act 1, Scene 3

    Sir Andrew Aguecheek (pox infested buttocks) and Sir Toby Belch (fart) are getting sh*t-faced, while Maria is serving beer and sexual puns to match those of the two reprobates. Sir Andrew (or Sir Barack) is a witless moron, whose lack of insight is matched by his lack of balls.

    In the Bard’s time, an effeminate male was not seen as a homosexual; but, as weak and impotent, and overly dominated by women. Thus the image that Bo projects to the world of masculine men and intelligent women is that of an effeminate 17th century man, a man without substance or backbone.

    Sir Andrew (Bo) I’ll ride home tomorrow, Sir Toby.

    Sir Toby Porquoi…?

    Sir Andrew (Bo) What is Porquoi? Do, or not do? I would I had bestowed that time in the tongues that I have in fencing, dancing, and bear baiting. O, had I but followed the arts!

    Sir Toby Then hadst thou had an excellent head of hair.

    Sir Andrew (Bo) But it becomes me well enough, does’t not?

    Sir Toby Excellent, it hangs like flax on a distaff, and I hope to see a housewife take thee between her legs and spin it off.


    Sir Andrew (Bo) I’ll get mine end away tomorrow, Sir Toby.

    Sir Toby Porquoi?

    Sir Andrew (Bo) What is this Porquoi? To have sex or not to have sex? I wish I’d spent as much of my spunk on the clitorises of women as I have in bearing the weight in the sex-act (being the woman). O (deleted, lewd reference to the female genitalia) if only I’d followed my arse!

    Sir Toby You used to have an excellent lewd arse, prick-head and pubic hair.

    Sir Andrew (Bo) The pubic hair serves me well, don’t you think?

    Sir Toby Most lewdly excellent, it hangs like the hairs round a prick. (too funny) I hope to see a whore take you between her legs and get you off.

    Lady McZero of Duncemore, if you want to dabble in treacherous waters, without knowing how to swim, be my guest. I am perfectly willing to let Willy do my arguing until spring and beyond. Be forewarned, like Willy, most of my writing employs double and triple entendres.

  6. 7

    Lady MacFact

    An open response: 

    How nice of you to have replied. I really just wanted to defend Shakespeare and ram a few points home, but I would hate to leave anyone with the impression that I would rather bury my head in a book than tackle these important issues -many of them global- in a direct and factual manner. I also recognise that I got a little sanctimonious, so I’ll try to be as measured as possible. 

    I do happen to believe in anthropogenic climate change, and I am pretty comfortable when backed up with the certainty of the 1000+ scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ICCP). 

    I happen to feel though, that whether or not climate change is anthropogenic isn’t the point.  It is undeniable that the temperature patterns are changing and causing more havoc internationally, from the snow storms that closed the Eurostar over Christmas to the rampant bushfires in Australia which created the highest deathtoll they have had in a normal fire season for more than a decade According to several prominent scientists including Tim Flannery,  natural disasters are also becoming more frequent and ferocious, as the Boxing Day Tsunami affecting Indonesia and the Pacific and costing more than 200 000 lives, and your own Hurricane Katrina have demonstrated. I happen to think that this kind of disaster relief  should be planned for in annual budgets so states don’t have to extend the decificit – a pretty conservative view, by the way. This idea is supported by the precautionary principle, (number 15 in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, for which the US was instrumental in drafting and lobbying.) The precautionary principle, in case I need to explain, basically binds governments to act in cases of climate-based disaster whether they think  their responsibility for it is scientifically proven or not. 

    I’m not really sure what your movement means when it tries to claim Obama is turning your country into a ‘Marxist’ country. By Marxism, do you mean dialectical materialism? I’m not a rabidly leftwing person, but I don’t think the idea that history is propelled by class struggle is necessarily wrong – it would be where your beloved right to private property comes from, an attempt to protect the French petit bourgeoisie from the great unwashed after the first revolution. Is ‘Marxist country’ the expression y’all use because you know you can’t say communist, for reasons alluded to in my first post? 

    Semantics aside, I assume you’re talking about two things. The first, is the massive industrial bail-outs that have happened since the financial collapse, right? I think propping up Freddie Mac, Fannie May, General Motors etc. hardly qualifies as ‘seizing the means of production’. Softening the impact of the subprime mortgage crisis and helping people to stay in privately owned homes is also a pretty capitalist-friendly policy. Even if it were an attempt to create Stalinst pogroms for the poor, though, it would still be a bipartisan effort. The Bush Administration started the bail-out. The Obama Administration can hardly take credit for this apparent ‘Marxism’ alone. 

    I assume the second ‘Marxist’ thing is the Health Care bill that just went through the Senate.  Thanks to Joe Liebermann, I understand there is no longer a public option, so you can hardly call it a ‘Marxist’, ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’ policy. The state-based system of health care that was looking to be repealed by original drafts of the bill may have been more Marxist in its original form – but with its border protections, and ties of health care to employment, unique across the world, it certainly seems hugely anti-competitive. 

    You may be entirely right that I know nothing about the constitution. I am, after all, only a lawyer. But let’s have a crack at the ‘right to health’ anyway. I agree that rights are pretty nebulous, and this one is especially. But I think it’s implicitly guaranteed in your Constitution & Bill of Rights in a few different ways. Let’s look at the means -taxation- before the ends -health. The first implicit licence for federal healthcare is Article I Sections 1 and 8 which clearly vest legislative powers, including control over fiscal matters, in Congress.I don’t think this is contradicted by Article 4, the Articles of Confederation, or the 10th Amendment, which all spell out limitations on power. In fact, as far as I understand, the 16th Amendment allows the Federal government to collect income tax without dealing the states in. The fact that the vast majority of the scheme is being funded by a tax on elective non-medical cosmetic surgery means this argument isn’t necessary. The the right to health in the American Constitution is not spelled out, but implied in the first and eighth amendments guarantee a right to life and a freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. I think you can argue that the lay worker -or the professional, to evoke Tom Hanks- who is sacked because he has AIDS is having both these rights violated. Bowers v. The State of New York would have established this principle, if it hadn’t been dismissed and ended in an out of court settlement. Finally, the fact that the US has signed but not ratified the International Covenant Against Economic, Social and Cultural Rights means it can still be reasonably expected that the legislature take the spirit of these laws into account. In Europe, Latin America and in some cases Africa, regional courts would take this into account and deliver more binding judgements, as ever, the US is unique. 

    I’m so glad you mentioned Bastiat! If you’d mentioned a serious economic like Friedmann or Hayek I might have felt like I had to go into detail, but with ‘The Law’ we’re fine. I have happened to have read it, in French, for shits and giggles – and I thought it was cute, really. I particularly like the way Monsier Bastiat bastardised his thesis about the role of government from Rousseau, and then tried to disguise it by denigrating him. I find it particularly interesting that he’s opposed to public education – does he expect everybody’s grandfather to die and leave him a great fortune so they can go on to become great (if forgotten) philosophers? Haven’t you also noticed that some of his obsessions – private property, wealth etc. are typical of a post revolutionary society? If ‘La Loi’ was published in the early fifties it was probably written in 1848. How silly we are! To think people remember Victor Hugo and Les Miserables from this period instead! But seriously, like the Second Amendment, you can’t expect his lessons to be worth anything for a country not plunged in civil war. In terms of  relevant economic scholars and moral philosophers, you really can’t go past Keynes and Russell. 

    Finally, you are entirely correct that Matthew himself was not an Anglophone person. But since the most circulated editions of the Bible are currently  the Good News, the New Internationalist (sadly not my favourite, The King James) I felt justified in refering to that Gospel extract as an Anglophone work of fiction. Maybe it’s really faction, like Dave Eggers, Norma Khouri or James Frey. But I certainly can’t read the originals in Latin or Arameic so we’ll just have to settle. If you feel I am wrong about this I can only reiterate that I’m perfectly happy to be – I tend to read law, science and journalism, not fairy tales. 

    Oh – one more matter of detail. You seem to be having trouble with my screen name. It was Lady MacFact, a reference to the character in the Scottish play and the need to be honest about this whole raft of issues. I can only ascribe the mispelling two three things:
    -A series of typos
    -The implication that I’m fat

    I’m going to assume it was the last one. Since the USA is the nation with the highest rate of obesity on earth, I can only assume you were  both generously trying to make me feel at home in your online community. Thank you for your kindness – and enjoy the rest of the Obama Administration.

  7. 8



    Ms. MacFact:

    AGW is entirely the issue. The fact that climate changes, and has since the planet has been in existence, is not in question. What is reprehensible is the onerous “solutions” the int’l community proposes via carbon trading scams and global controls on industry…. all in the name of a very common emission naturally called CO2.

    BTW, I see your own Rudd’s admin isn’t making much headway on his proposed Emissions Trading Scam… er… Scheme either. Apparently your Parliament didn’t feel the imagined chaos of global warming was so pressing they needed to destroy the Aussie economy further, since they defeated his proposals in your upper house Senate early this month. How’s that working out for ya…. I wish you much love and happiness with the loser you happen to have at the helm. We should both be glad that our governments provide for elections, and we can kick these losers to the curb for poor performance and general ill will.

    As for your “precautionary principles” that “bind” governments to act in the wake of disasters, perhaps you will point out a time when the US has not stepped up to the plate to aid the rest of the world when disaster strikes. Then you might try to find a time when these nations have deigned to say “thank you” in between their denigration of this country. A skill, I might add, that you demonstrate very well.

    Perhaps your southern hemisphere domain needs mandates to be charitable to fellow mankind. We, however, do not. And that is proven by our history.

    You are, at least, correct on one point. Despite your arrogant attempt at superiority as a “lawyer”… which, in this neck of the woods, is usually one of the three critters you find when you kick over the rocks… you do indeed know nothing of the interpretation of the US Constitution’s General Welfare or the Necessary and Proper clauses, and how they relate the limitations of federal powers laid out by the Founding Fathers, and it’s infringement on 10th Amendment rights. However if you are interested in expanding your limited interpretation to the English root, from whence the Constitution and original Bill of Rights were born, here’s a few links to peruse. If you learn nothing else, you will discover that what you proclaim from afar is so clear cut, is far from it.

    Cornell’s Spending for the General Welfare, Scope of the power


    Since you decided to run the gamut in your criticism and disdain for my country, let’s address one more thing. US housing… it does not behoove the citizens when government attempts to reinflate the US housing bubble, and prop up the foreclosure market with stays of execution while maintaining the toxicity of the assets instead of allowing them to deflate as necessary. In short, our political bozos in Congress and the White House have have merely kicked the can down the road, and those chickens are in flight, back to the roost. 50% of the mortgages in the US are being held by FHA… of which virtually all of those mortgages are borrowers with only 3.5% of their own equity into the homes. Yeah… that’s an improvement over the subprime days. But it sure looks good on paper… for now, at least. A whole new ballgame when Bernanke raises rates. (which is long overdue for the value of the dollar)

  8. 9

    Donald Bly

    Ah… where to begin.

    Let’s start with the screen name… You may have noticed I use no pseudonyms, I stand behind everything I write.

    1. Typo – Mc from Mac… that was a typo
    2. Dyslexia – nope not that one
    3. The implication that I’m fat – I don’t have enough information to “assume” you are physically obese. I find it a waste of my precious life energy to debate from a position predicated on assumptions, which I see is something to which you are not adverse (probably not something in which a good lawyer would engage). However, there is ample evidence in your writing to indicate you haven’t a real grasp of what constitutes a “Fact”, hence I felt at liberty to use the spelling divergence as a way of illuminating the obvious over inflation of your ego.

    Now, had I really wanted to provide you with a moniker of more apt tone, I would have dubbed you: Sir Richard Cranium.

    Now to the grist…

    I do happen to believe in anthropogenic climate change, and I am pretty comfortable when backed up with the certainty of the 1000+ scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ICCP).

    My kids used to believe in Santa Claus too! And you claim to be a lawyer? “Your Honor, I’d like to call the co-conspirators to testify on behalf of my client.” I guess you never said you were a good lawyer! The CRU emails pretty much cast your experts as perjurious.

    Disaster relief… I’m all for it. It has nothing to do with massive transfer of wealth from industrial nations to developing nations that is advocated by the IPCC. Nor does it have anything to do with the phoney baloney carbon tax credits and offsets, which are simply a means of further taxing US citizens, albeit through an indirect means.

    Let’s move on. As I’ve said before, I’m not too keen on squandering my life’s energy, which is pretty much what I’m doing in responding to your flawed logic.

    Ya know…. after writing that last sentence, I’ve realized that I do have much better things to do with my time. I think there’s an online poker tournament beginning in 10 minutes.

    When you learn that plain talk and solid logic will get you much further in life than a plethora of pompous verbage about tangential issues that are not germane, come back and we might have a meaningful discussion.

    And if you are wondering what i meant by Sir Richard Cranium… I’m certain some other FA reader will eventually enlighten you! I bid you adieu.

  9. I really don’t understand Lady MacBeth at all. I know the words she uses are from the English language but they are constructed in a way that causes me confusion when clarity is desired.

    Donald already nailed her (not literally) on the point that AGW is a belief system to her. I would just expand on that by pointing out that the 1,000 “scientists” she cites are really a much smaller number who have coordinated much of the IPCC process and are now caught conspiring to punish any heretics who fail to match their hysterical zeal.

    It’s as I said in a previous post a few weeks back: The matter reminds me of the Inquisition launched against Galileo for daring to oppose the then current orthodoxy that the Earth was the center of the universe. These “scientists” with which Lady MacBeth is so enamored are nothing more than the high priests who have persecuted men, and women, throughout history for daring to oppose powerful oligarchies.

  10. 12

    Donald Bly

    @Sir Richard Cranium aka Lady MacFactless

    I had to take a moment from my visceration of your illogic to qualify for the National League of Poker’s weekly championship. Which of course, I did.

    I’ve been pondering your lengthy and incoherent babble concerning Frederik Bastiat’s work “The Law” or “La Loi” which you describe as “cute”. The Law is one of the driest assemblages of words put to parchment that I’ve experienced. To call it “cute” makes me wonder what the hell you were really reading. Perhaps someone switched book covers and slipped you a french translation of a Harlequin romance novel while you were refilling your glass with chardonnay!

    I find it particularly interesting that he’s opposed to public education – does he expect everybody’s grandfather to die and leave him a great fortune so they can go on to become great (if forgotten) philosophers? Haven’t you also noticed that some of his obsessions – private property, wealth etc. are typical of a post revolutionary society?

    Anyone that has read The Law and actually understood it would not find Bastiat’s opposition to public education particularly interesting since the taking of wealth from any individual by the government to fund some benefit for another is central to Bastiat’s belief that such activity is nothing more than theft. Are you sure you actually read the book? Concerning private property and the accumulation of wealth, what makes this “typical of a post revolutionary society”? Bastiat is very clear in his thesis that government’s use of law to redistribute wealth is theft, plain and simple and it is theft regardless of whether it occurs pre or post revolution.

    You then wander off on yet another tangent about the Second Ammendment, which makes me pause, scratch my head and think…. what the hell does the Second Ammendment have to do with Bastiat. Then you threw in some Victor Hugo to go with your previous mention of Rousseau the meaning of which I couldn’t quite decipher. What exactly does “…bastardised his thesis …” mean?

    I’ll bet your friends think you are quite the intellectual. I’m also betting that you don’t have any friends that ever question your bullshit for I am certain… wait… wait… I’m getting a clairvoyant moment here…. wait… I am certain that you don’t tolerate anyone to remain within your circle that would dare to deflate your ego by pointing out that you’re chest deep in bovine feces.

    I’ll have to finish up the visceration tommorrow…. rebutting your lunacy is easy but the poker tournament was a bit mentally taxing and I need to get a bit of shut eye. I’ve got 1200 folks to do battle with across the green felt tomorrow. It’s a wealth accumulation thing… I’m sure you wouldn’t understand.

  11. 13


    Defending Shakespeare? Now, that is rich! Who among us is equipped to attack the greatest Wordsmith that ever lived? Who among us is equipped to defend him? And from what?

    Perhaps for being cruel? Yet Shakespeare ridiculed the cruelty and barbarity of man, no that one wont fly.

    For exploiting the sexuality of women? Actually, the Bard could be considered the second prominent man to speak up for women, Jesus was ahead of him on that one. For only in the last hundred and fifty years or so have Western women not been considered chattel, similar in essence to the plight of Muslim women. He was sort of an avant garde type spokesman for women.

    Can we criticize his prose and poetry? Four hundred years of censorship and repression along with challenges by Nobel Morons like Gore and his poetic attempt at gibberish and nonsense has managed to only increase the fascination and appreciation for the Bard’s intellect.

    Sorry, your Lady M call sign was hardly effective, the original managed to drive her husband ever deeper into the realm of madness and she was incapable of defending anyone. However, defending The Bard is as ambiguous as defending AGW: for different reasons, with Shakespeare all the facts are open to the public and have been under scrutiny for four hundred years, with AGW there are no facts nor has there been scrutiny. Manipulation and suppression of data while refusing to accept conflicting data is the norm for the CRU who provides the data for the IPCC. Thus defending the indefensible is nothing more than an ideologue’s attempt at parroting propaganda or a fool’s errand.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *