My name is Taluka Byvalnian and I have run this blog for several years. It has been called TALBYV from the first three letters of my names and also as an anagram for
Think
A
Lot
Before
You
Vote.
I believe that Mr Rudd lied his way into government by pretending that he was John Howard Lite. He said that he was
• an economic rationalist - wrong;
• he said that he would control petrol prices - wrong;
• he said that he would control grocery prices - wrong;
• he said that he would turn back the boats - wrong
During his shortened term as PM, he told many porkies:
• he lied about a special deal for the Tamils on the Ocean Viking;
• he lied about being or not being a socliaist;
• he lied about his father's death;
• he lied about his family being immediately thrown off the share-cropping farm;
• he lied about the Brian Burke meeting in Perth
• he lied about renting a house owned by his wife;
• he lied about his drunken escapade at Scores Strip club;
• he lied about the fake ANZAC day dawn service;
Well, for the time being, Mr Rudd has left the leadership but has not ruled out a challenge. Now Ms Gillard and her deputy Wayne Swann are lurching from lie to disaster to lie to under-the-carpet sweeping manoevers.
Surprisingly, for all her lies and lurches, the two party preferred is still 50/50.
(Labor is on 35, the Coalition 42 and Greens on 14) Obviously, some are not concentrating!
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Saturday, September 25, 2010
It's the Sun, Stupid
Anthony Watts in a posts titled: Climate science solar shock and aweinforms us of a story in New Scientist headed: The Sun joins the Climate Club.
Where has New Scientist been hiding?
A week before, Science Now published an article entitled SAY GOODBYE TO SUNSPOTS reporting on a paper -Long-term Evolution of Sunspot Magnetic Fields Authors: Matthew Penn, William Livingston submitted 3 September, 2010 to the International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 273, an online colloquium.
Astronomers have been observing and counting sunspots since Galileo began the practice in the early 17th century. From those studies, scientists have long known that the sun goes through an 11-year cycle, in which the number of sunspots spikes during a period called the solar maximum and drops—sometimes to zero—during a time of inactivity called the solar minimum.
The last solar minimum should have ended last year, but something peculiar has been happening. Although solar minimums normally last about 16 months, the current one has stretched over 26 months—the longest in a century.
Where has New Scientist been hiding?
A week before, Science Now published an article entitled SAY GOODBYE TO SUNSPOTS reporting on a paper -Long-term Evolution of Sunspot Magnetic Fields Authors: Matthew Penn, William Livingston submitted 3 September, 2010 to the International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 273, an online colloquium.
Astronomers have been observing and counting sunspots since Galileo began the practice in the early 17th century. From those studies, scientists have long known that the sun goes through an 11-year cycle, in which the number of sunspots spikes during a period called the solar maximum and drops—sometimes to zero—during a time of inactivity called the solar minimum.
The last solar minimum should have ended last year, but something peculiar has been happening. Although solar minimums normally last about 16 months, the current one has stretched over 26 months—the longest in a century.
Are Monbiot and the Guardian Deniers?
What The Guardian first printed and then deleted. I saw this comment just after mine. Now it isn't there. THE CENSORSHIP by the Guardian really makes them deniers, doesn't it?
In his usual abusive and ad hominem style, Georgie Moonbat has an article in the Guardian under the heading: "Are the climate change deniers with no evidence just naturally gullible?". Piers Corbyn put up a reply in their comments section which the paper deleted. The comment is below:
George, YOUR "poser" must be applied to yourself!
You ask: "Are people who entertain a range of strong beliefs for which there is no evidence naturally gullible?".
Well you are a person with a strong belief in man-made(CO2) Global Warming / Climate Change, and there is no evidence for it. So are you naturally gullible?
If you have observational data evidence for the theory - using available data for the last hundreds, thousands and millions of years - let's have it. We don't want your usual opinion-polls, bluster, innuendo and opinion of peoples' attitudes, vibes and mental states we want EVIDENCE-BASED SCIENCE.
There are three key points which must be be understood:
1. The theory of Man-made Global Warming & Climate Change is failed science based on fraudulent data. IT JUST DOESN'T ADD UP!
All the dire predictions of the UN (IPCC) since 2000 have failed. CO2 does not cause extreme weather. The world is cooling not warming. There is no evidence in 600, 600,000 or 600million years of data that changes in CO2 levels in the real atmosphere drive world temperatures or change climate; indeed it is temperatures which generally drive CO2 levels. - See http://bit.ly/9UKlBD . Extra CO2 has ZERO effect, and any concession to the notion there is somehow some 'weak' effect waiting to happen falls into the trap the Climate hype industry machine has set for the ill-informed and the usual Appeasement brigades who surface in all political conflicts.
2. The driver of all important weather extremes is solar activity.
In the end it is extreme weather that matters rather than averages and this is controlled by Jet stream shifts and extra activity of weather fronts, and These are driven by changes in solar activity and largely predictable – See ongoing discussion in Comments as link above, http://bit.ly/bpZDlp - espec comment Aug 8th concerning predicted changes in the jet stream + records of the solar activity that caused them.
3. MORE CO2 is GOOD not bad.
CO2 is plant food and more CO2 increases the productivity of agriculture. Carbon fixing policies are madness which if carried out in the name of ‘Clean coal’
[NB Smoke from coal is easily removed and should be, but that is another issue]
would double the cost of electricity and double the amount of coal used to produce power because carbon fixing (‘sequestration’) is very energy intensive.
In his usual abusive and ad hominem style, Georgie Moonbat has an article in the Guardian under the heading: "Are the climate change deniers with no evidence just naturally gullible?". Piers Corbyn put up a reply in their comments section which the paper deleted. The comment is below:
George, YOUR "poser" must be applied to yourself!
You ask: "Are people who entertain a range of strong beliefs for which there is no evidence naturally gullible?".
Well you are a person with a strong belief in man-made(CO2) Global Warming / Climate Change, and there is no evidence for it. So are you naturally gullible?
If you have observational data evidence for the theory - using available data for the last hundreds, thousands and millions of years - let's have it. We don't want your usual opinion-polls, bluster, innuendo and opinion of peoples' attitudes, vibes and mental states we want EVIDENCE-BASED SCIENCE.
There are three key points which must be be understood:
1. The theory of Man-made Global Warming & Climate Change is failed science based on fraudulent data. IT JUST DOESN'T ADD UP!
All the dire predictions of the UN (IPCC) since 2000 have failed. CO2 does not cause extreme weather. The world is cooling not warming. There is no evidence in 600, 600,000 or 600million years of data that changes in CO2 levels in the real atmosphere drive world temperatures or change climate; indeed it is temperatures which generally drive CO2 levels. - See http://bit.ly/9UKlBD . Extra CO2 has ZERO effect, and any concession to the notion there is somehow some 'weak' effect waiting to happen falls into the trap the Climate hype industry machine has set for the ill-informed and the usual Appeasement brigades who surface in all political conflicts.
2. The driver of all important weather extremes is solar activity.
In the end it is extreme weather that matters rather than averages and this is controlled by Jet stream shifts and extra activity of weather fronts, and These are driven by changes in solar activity and largely predictable – See ongoing discussion in Comments as link above, http://bit.ly/bpZDlp - espec comment Aug 8th concerning predicted changes in the jet stream + records of the solar activity that caused them.
3. MORE CO2 is GOOD not bad.
CO2 is plant food and more CO2 increases the productivity of agriculture. Carbon fixing policies are madness which if carried out in the name of ‘Clean coal’
[NB Smoke from coal is easily removed and should be, but that is another issue]
would double the cost of electricity and double the amount of coal used to produce power because carbon fixing (‘sequestration’) is very energy intensive.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Monbiot plants foot in mouth
Boy! Does the Moonbat know how to put his foot in it? You bet he does.
On his blog - link in title - he does it continually!
He starts:
Are the climate change sceptics with no evidence just naturally gullible?
Point one: "Climate Change Sceptics". Who are the Climate Change Sceptics? I know most people I associate with are greatly sceptical of the "Science" of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) but are very aware that climate changes, that climate has changed since the beginning of time.
We know that there have been periods of warming and periods of cooling. We know that there have been Ice Ages and Inter-Glacials. We know that in the current interglacial that there has been warmer periods than the late twentieth century. The Minoan Warming, the Roman Warming, The Medieval Warming.
Even CRU's Phil Jones admitted that there was nothing unusual about the late twentieth century warming. Therefore no Climate Sceptic who I know could be called a Climate Change Sceptic.
On the other hand, the Alarmists wanted to erase the medieval warm period to show that the late twentieth century warming was unusual (Overpeck to Deeming) and so the fraudulent "hockey stick" graph was created. M & M showed that putting phone numbers from the Canadian phone book into the Hockey Stick code still produced - quel surpris! - a hockey stick. AND why the hockey stick? To show there is unusual warming in the late twentieth century. Denying the fact that climate changes!
The Alarmist, therefore, are the true Climate Change Deniers!
So, back to Monbiot's Heading - Are climate change sceptics with no evidence just naturally gullible? OR
Are the Alarmists, the true climate change deniers with no evidence just naturally gullible?
Point Two. No evidence?
Let's ask the Alarmists where is the evidence that AGW is caused by Carbon Dioxide. I have been asking this question for a decade. There is no evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emission are causing AGW.There is however evidence from the Vostok Ice Core sample to show that warming precedes rise in atmospheric CO2 by 800 +/-200 years.
So, I suppose we can ask: Are the Alarmists with no evidence just plainly gullible.
On his blog - link in title - he does it continually!
He starts:
Are the climate change sceptics with no evidence just naturally gullible?
Point one: "Climate Change Sceptics". Who are the Climate Change Sceptics? I know most people I associate with are greatly sceptical of the "Science" of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) but are very aware that climate changes, that climate has changed since the beginning of time.
We know that there have been periods of warming and periods of cooling. We know that there have been Ice Ages and Inter-Glacials. We know that in the current interglacial that there has been warmer periods than the late twentieth century. The Minoan Warming, the Roman Warming, The Medieval Warming.
Even CRU's Phil Jones admitted that there was nothing unusual about the late twentieth century warming. Therefore no Climate Sceptic who I know could be called a Climate Change Sceptic.
On the other hand, the Alarmists wanted to erase the medieval warm period to show that the late twentieth century warming was unusual (Overpeck to Deeming) and so the fraudulent "hockey stick" graph was created. M & M showed that putting phone numbers from the Canadian phone book into the Hockey Stick code still produced - quel surpris! - a hockey stick. AND why the hockey stick? To show there is unusual warming in the late twentieth century. Denying the fact that climate changes!
The Alarmist, therefore, are the true Climate Change Deniers!
So, back to Monbiot's Heading - Are climate change sceptics with no evidence just naturally gullible? OR
Are the Alarmists, the true climate change deniers with no evidence just naturally gullible?
Point Two. No evidence?
Let's ask the Alarmists where is the evidence that AGW is caused by Carbon Dioxide. I have been asking this question for a decade. There is no evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emission are causing AGW.There is however evidence from the Vostok Ice Core sample to show that warming precedes rise in atmospheric CO2 by 800 +/-200 years.
So, I suppose we can ask: Are the Alarmists with no evidence just plainly gullible.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Climate change alarmists ignore scientific methods
WALTER CUNNINGHAM in the HOUSTON CHRONICLE on Aug. 14, 2010 wrote:(link in title)
The question of human-caused global warming should not be resolved on the publicized opinions of influential journalists, but in the court of scientific inquiry based on the scientific data. The interested public can find legitimate and easily understood empirical data online. None of it supports the alarmists' belief in human-caused global warming.
It makes good sense to look at the history of climate science.
Empirical data, collected over several centuries, led to a provisional theory of climate change. Scientists have long known that the sun, oceans and variations in the Earth's orbit are the principal drivers of climate change. Although we don't fully understand all of the mechanisms or interactions involved, this theory has stood the test of time. In the process, it became the de facto theory of climate change.
It is the job of science to develop the theories that explain our natural world. Scientific theories, even those that evolved over centuries, are subject to challenge and change — when supported by the appropriate scientific data. This enables new hypotheses to modify, or even replace, currently accepted theories.
It is interesting that Walter and his correspondents seem to know more about climate science than most of the MSM.
Some comments on the Chronicle site:
Regarding "The best science indicates humans causing warming" (Page B7, Saturday), Robert Curl is making two invalid assumptions. First, he assumes the administrators of the National Academy of Sciences represent the opinions of their 2,480 members. In fact, there is no document that any representative number of these 2,480 members have signed expressing their opinion that the hypothesis of human-caused climate change is valid.
Second, he assumes there is some "best science" out there that prevails over the body of opinion represented by Walter Cunningham ("Climate change alarmists ignore scientific methods," Page B10, Aug. 15). In fact, neither Curl nor any of the proponents of human-caused climate change can demonstrate a valid hypothesis to support their opinions.
If a hypothesis makes any incorrect prediction, the hypothesis is wrong. It does not matter if you have a Nobel Prize. If the prediction is wrong, the hypothesis is wrong. An overwhelming body of science has proven the hypothesis of human-caused climate change is wrong.
— EDWIN BERRY,
Bigfork, Mont.
Wrong logic
In regard to "The best science indicates humans causing warming" (Page B7, Saturday), climate change is happening and global warming is happening — but it ain't being caused by us pesky humans. Robert Curl's verbiage points a crooked finger directly at me and you, and it shouldn't. Award-winning scientists such as Professor Curl are prime suspects for marching with a flute in their hands, leading an innocent group of followers down a path of believable logic (albeit wrong). If humans cause global warming how do you explain the constant, steady pattern of ice age-then-warming, ice age-then-warming, that is documented over the past 500,000 years? The problem with those who believe in human-caused global warming: They only cite references that support their theories. No one looks up anything, and Curl gets another award and probably a pay raise from Rice University.
— DAVID WALTON,
Houston
The question of human-caused global warming should not be resolved on the publicized opinions of influential journalists, but in the court of scientific inquiry based on the scientific data. The interested public can find legitimate and easily understood empirical data online. None of it supports the alarmists' belief in human-caused global warming.
It makes good sense to look at the history of climate science.
Empirical data, collected over several centuries, led to a provisional theory of climate change. Scientists have long known that the sun, oceans and variations in the Earth's orbit are the principal drivers of climate change. Although we don't fully understand all of the mechanisms or interactions involved, this theory has stood the test of time. In the process, it became the de facto theory of climate change.
It is the job of science to develop the theories that explain our natural world. Scientific theories, even those that evolved over centuries, are subject to challenge and change — when supported by the appropriate scientific data. This enables new hypotheses to modify, or even replace, currently accepted theories.
It is interesting that Walter and his correspondents seem to know more about climate science than most of the MSM.
Some comments on the Chronicle site:
Regarding "The best science indicates humans causing warming" (Page B7, Saturday), Robert Curl is making two invalid assumptions. First, he assumes the administrators of the National Academy of Sciences represent the opinions of their 2,480 members. In fact, there is no document that any representative number of these 2,480 members have signed expressing their opinion that the hypothesis of human-caused climate change is valid.
Second, he assumes there is some "best science" out there that prevails over the body of opinion represented by Walter Cunningham ("Climate change alarmists ignore scientific methods," Page B10, Aug. 15). In fact, neither Curl nor any of the proponents of human-caused climate change can demonstrate a valid hypothesis to support their opinions.
If a hypothesis makes any incorrect prediction, the hypothesis is wrong. It does not matter if you have a Nobel Prize. If the prediction is wrong, the hypothesis is wrong. An overwhelming body of science has proven the hypothesis of human-caused climate change is wrong.
— EDWIN BERRY,
Bigfork, Mont.
Wrong logic
In regard to "The best science indicates humans causing warming" (Page B7, Saturday), climate change is happening and global warming is happening — but it ain't being caused by us pesky humans. Robert Curl's verbiage points a crooked finger directly at me and you, and it shouldn't. Award-winning scientists such as Professor Curl are prime suspects for marching with a flute in their hands, leading an innocent group of followers down a path of believable logic (albeit wrong). If humans cause global warming how do you explain the constant, steady pattern of ice age-then-warming, ice age-then-warming, that is documented over the past 500,000 years? The problem with those who believe in human-caused global warming: They only cite references that support their theories. No one looks up anything, and Curl gets another award and probably a pay raise from Rice University.
— DAVID WALTON,
Houston
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Climate Sceptic candidates to announce their vision for Northern Water diversions to SA Murray River irrigators
Press Release
Climate Sceptic candidates to announce their vision for Northern Water diversions to SA Murray River irrigators
Aug 13th
On Monday Aug 16th at 10 am The Climate Sceptics will announce their Northern Australia Water diversion vision at Berri next to the River Murray.
Several Irrigator groups have been invited to attend the announcement and discuss the idea which Barker Candidate Steve Davies and Senate candidate Leon Ashby will explain.
Leon Ashby says "Australia has one of the world flattest inland landscapes that would lend itself to having the most efficient water diversion scheme in the world - if anti progress Green ideology was overcome."
The environment award winner says: "I lived in North Central Qld for a decade and saw the massive amounts of water that northern rivers have at times. I was runner up for a Qld Landcare research award which moved water gravitationally over a 10,000 acres rather than let it flow down several creeks) It was a mini version of what can be done across Australia."
The Senate candidate says "There are 4 areas in Australia where water diversions should be properly investigated (provided most of the water was used for irrigation and city purposes) which then pays for the scheme.
1) The Clarence River in Northern NSW north of Coffs Harbour (which has flooded 3 times in the last 18 months);
2) The Johnson, Tully, Herbert and Burdekin Rivers dammed up at Hells Gate
and then run through a tunnel to the western side of the great dividing range. (The cost of the dam was $750 million last time it was researched);
3) A diversion from the Flinders, Normanton and Gilbert Rivers down the west side of the Great dividing range; and
4) A pipeline from Lake Argyle in the Northern Territory across to Qld.
Mr Ashby adds: "In 1980s the Bjelke-Petersen government commissioned its own study. Bringing together four of Australia’s best-known hydraulic engineering firms - Gutteridge, Haskins & Davey; Monro & Johnson; McIntyre & Associates and Cameron McNamara - the State government formed the Bradfield (Northern Rivers) Study consortium in 1984.
This report was never released!"
Mr Ashby pledged that if elected to the SA Senate he will champion a visionary Northern River diversions system transparently pricing and evaluating each on their cost/ benefit ratio of volume water provided versus setup cost, and built in stages and structured so water and land sold as part of the scheme then paid for the building costs over time.
He concludes "Water could flow via gravity from Hells Gate in North Qld to Murray Bridge or almost anywhere in the Riverina if we desired it.
23% of Australias runoff (in other words 6 times the water in the Murray Darling) flow runs out into the Gulf of Carpentaria each year.
Only 3% of the water in Lake Argyle is used each year. There is oodles of water if we are not brainwashed into the anti progress green ideas."
It is a plan that would stop Riverina farmers losing their water rights and bring greater prosperity to rural communities inland.
Climate Sceptic candidates to announce their vision for Northern Water diversions to SA Murray River irrigators
Aug 13th
On Monday Aug 16th at 10 am The Climate Sceptics will announce their Northern Australia Water diversion vision at Berri next to the River Murray.
Several Irrigator groups have been invited to attend the announcement and discuss the idea which Barker Candidate Steve Davies and Senate candidate Leon Ashby will explain.
Leon Ashby says "Australia has one of the world flattest inland landscapes that would lend itself to having the most efficient water diversion scheme in the world - if anti progress Green ideology was overcome."
The environment award winner says: "I lived in North Central Qld for a decade and saw the massive amounts of water that northern rivers have at times. I was runner up for a Qld Landcare research award which moved water gravitationally over a 10,000 acres rather than let it flow down several creeks) It was a mini version of what can be done across Australia."
The Senate candidate says "There are 4 areas in Australia where water diversions should be properly investigated (provided most of the water was used for irrigation and city purposes) which then pays for the scheme.
1) The Clarence River in Northern NSW north of Coffs Harbour (which has flooded 3 times in the last 18 months);
2) The Johnson, Tully, Herbert and Burdekin Rivers dammed up at Hells Gate
and then run through a tunnel to the western side of the great dividing range. (The cost of the dam was $750 million last time it was researched);3) A diversion from the Flinders, Normanton and Gilbert Rivers down the west side of the Great dividing range; and
4) A pipeline from Lake Argyle in the Northern Territory across to Qld.
Mr Ashby adds: "In 1980s the Bjelke-Petersen government commissioned its own study. Bringing together four of Australia’s best-known hydraulic engineering firms - Gutteridge, Haskins & Davey; Monro & Johnson; McIntyre & Associates and Cameron McNamara - the State government formed the Bradfield (Northern Rivers) Study consortium in 1984.
This report was never released!"
Mr Ashby pledged that if elected to the SA Senate he will champion a visionary Northern River diversions system transparently pricing and evaluating each on their cost/ benefit ratio of volume water provided versus setup cost, and built in stages and structured so water and land sold as part of the scheme then paid for the building costs over time.
He concludes "Water could flow via gravity from Hells Gate in North Qld to Murray Bridge or almost anywhere in the Riverina if we desired it.
23% of Australias runoff (in other words 6 times the water in the Murray Darling) flow runs out into the Gulf of Carpentaria each year.
Only 3% of the water in Lake Argyle is used each year. There is oodles of water if we are not brainwashed into the anti progress green ideas."
It is a plan that would stop Riverina farmers losing their water rights and bring greater prosperity to rural communities inland.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
UK Guardian - So Right and yet So Wrong
The UK Guardian praises Sceptics. What you say? I repeat, the UK Guardian praises Sceptics.
Scepticism is a healthy attitude to adopt to many, if not all, untested propositions. Sceptics throughout history, by applying their reasoned judgment and hard-headed critical faculties, have exposed lies, delusions and superstition.
Well, that's right. We have looked at the flawed hypothesis that man-made CO2 emissions are causing runaway global warming, picked at it, looked at both sides of the argument and found it wanting.
So, does the Guardian agree with us? No.
"Which is why scepticism is entirely the wrong word to apply to those who deny that emissions of carbon dioxide from human activity are leading to rises in average global temperatures, with potentially disastrous consequences. True sceptics respond to evidence."
Then the Guardian goes on to say:
"Research, led by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, drew on data from 11 possible indicators of climate and found that each one suggested warming consistent with expected effects of rising concentrations of greenhouse gases."
Call me a Sceptic and I may be wrong, but, reading the report three times through, I didn't see any mention of "rising concentrations of greenhouse gases." I did see mention of the el Nino/La Nina as a cause.
But CAN WE BELIEVE THE REPORT?
Well, if we look to both Jo Nova and the SPPI we find a different story.
Joanne Nova says: "As usual, the official taxpayer-funded report is full of half-truths and strawmen. Arctic sea ice is shrinking (no mention of the Antarctic), the world is undeniably warming (yes, so? what’s causing that warming?). There’s the compulsory allusions to “consensus” — 300 scientists, blah blah blah (trust us! we’re experts).
The interesting thing is that the seven different responses are all quite different, yet all skeptical, even though there was no coordination behind the scenes to create that. There are so many holes in the NOAA document, that seven commentators could fire ad lib, and for the most part, all find different targets."
From the SPPI report, we find:
Craig Idso: NOAA is rewriting history.... The Vikings were never forced out of Greenland due to the nasty cold spell called the Little Ice Age.
Dennis Ambler: Are sea-level rises accelerating? No sir.
David Evans: 250 years of warming but not so not much lately
Plus Lord Monckton, Joe D'Aleo and Chip Knappenberger.
So Guardian Editors, Seven critiques of the NOAA report. Seven examples of Reasond judgment and hard-headed critical faculties. And where did we come in?
Scepticism is a healthy attitude to adopt to many, if not all, untested propositions. Sceptics throughout history, by applying their reasoned judgment and hard-headed critical faculties, have exposed lies, delusions and superstition.
Scepticism is a healthy attitude to adopt to many, if not all, untested propositions. Sceptics throughout history, by applying their reasoned judgment and hard-headed critical faculties, have exposed lies, delusions and superstition.
Well, that's right. We have looked at the flawed hypothesis that man-made CO2 emissions are causing runaway global warming, picked at it, looked at both sides of the argument and found it wanting.
So, does the Guardian agree with us? No.
"Which is why scepticism is entirely the wrong word to apply to those who deny that emissions of carbon dioxide from human activity are leading to rises in average global temperatures, with potentially disastrous consequences. True sceptics respond to evidence."
Then the Guardian goes on to say:
"Research, led by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, drew on data from 11 possible indicators of climate and found that each one suggested warming consistent with expected effects of rising concentrations of greenhouse gases."
Call me a Sceptic and I may be wrong, but, reading the report three times through, I didn't see any mention of "rising concentrations of greenhouse gases." I did see mention of the el Nino/La Nina as a cause.
But CAN WE BELIEVE THE REPORT?
Well, if we look to both Jo Nova and the SPPI we find a different story.
Joanne Nova says: "As usual, the official taxpayer-funded report is full of half-truths and strawmen. Arctic sea ice is shrinking (no mention of the Antarctic), the world is undeniably warming (yes, so? what’s causing that warming?). There’s the compulsory allusions to “consensus” — 300 scientists, blah blah blah (trust us! we’re experts).
The interesting thing is that the seven different responses are all quite different, yet all skeptical, even though there was no coordination behind the scenes to create that. There are so many holes in the NOAA document, that seven commentators could fire ad lib, and for the most part, all find different targets."
From the SPPI report, we find:
Craig Idso: NOAA is rewriting history.... The Vikings were never forced out of Greenland due to the nasty cold spell called the Little Ice Age.
Dennis Ambler: Are sea-level rises accelerating? No sir.
David Evans: 250 years of warming but not so not much lately
Plus Lord Monckton, Joe D'Aleo and Chip Knappenberger.
So Guardian Editors, Seven critiques of the NOAA report. Seven examples of Reasond judgment and hard-headed critical faculties. And where did we come in?
Scepticism is a healthy attitude to adopt to many, if not all, untested propositions. Sceptics throughout history, by applying their reasoned judgment and hard-headed critical faculties, have exposed lies, delusions and superstition.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Our Australia
BY DR EARNEST TAYLOR (Ret) WHO MIGRATED TO AUSTRALIA
I emigrated to Australia just over 45 years ago – On the ship there were Poms, Italians, Yugoslavs and Greeks, (Note – All European people!!) all looking forward to starting a new life in Australia. I arrived with 42 pounds in my pocket and that’s all I had to my name. Did I put my hand out?? Of course not – I got a job and paid my way just like everyone else who came to this country back then.
Now, it’s my taxes that subsidize these people who think they have God's given right (read Allah) to come here and criticize those of us who have worked for the country we now call home.
If I didn’t like what I saw when I got here I would have gone home – they have the same option. If they don’t want to become an Australian, they can…………….GO BACK TO WHERE THEY CAME FROM – WE DON’T NEED THEM HERE!!!
Our Australia
When will this stop,
They want two of their own public holidays, because Christians have Christmas, Easter & good Friday,
They force our children to eat Halal Meat Pies and Sausage Rolls from the school canteens, so the Muslim kids can feel more Aussie, we were not consulted about this change, they went ahead and just did it.
Our foods are slowly all becoming Halal foods, our Bega cheeses, Cadbury chocolates even good old Sanitarium foods show the halal logo
Our Government is ALLOWING this to happen, it has to stop now, while we still have some people power to be able to stop it.
Regarding Our National Anthem
I am sorry, but after hearing they want to sing the National Anthem in Arabic - enough is enough. No where or at no other time in our nation's history, did they sing it in Italian, Japanese, Polish, Irish (Celtic), German, Portuguese, Greek, or any other language because of immigration. It was written in English, and should be sung word for word the way it was written.
The news broadcasts even gave the translation -- not even close.
I am not sorry if this offends anyone, but this is MY COUNTRY - IF IT IS YOUR COUNTRY SPEAK UP ----and please pass this along
I am not against immigration -- just come through like everyone else. Get a sponsor; have a place to lay your head; have a job; pay your taxes, live by the rules AND LEARN THE LANGUAGE as all other immigrants have in the past -- and LONG LIVE Australia !
PART OF THE PROBLEM. Think about this: If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone-----YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM !!!!
Will we still have our Country of Choice and still be Australian if we continue to make the changes forced on us by the people from other countries who have come to live in Australia because it is their Country of Choice??
And by our politicians who are allowing this to happen.
Think about it!
IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.
It is Time for Australia to Speak up.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Penny Sackett and Climate Hoax Policy
Our chief scientist, Penny Sackett, at the climate change conference on the Gold Coast this week seems to be confused.
From the Chief Scientist's Website: The Office of the Chief Scientist supports the Chief Scientist for Australia in her role of providing independent advice to Government on a wide range of scientific and technological issues and her engagement with the science, research and industry communities, learned societies and other governments.
My interpretation is that, by independent advice, it would mean reviewing all science as it applies to Australia and not just science as it relates to the Labor Government's AGW policies. Ms Sackett has been known to say publicly that there are no peer-review papers against the hoax hypothesis of AGW. This is despite her knowledge that they do exist. Therefore she pushes the Labor Government line.
Prof Sackett said: "Often a scientific argument for climate change, and the ways in which humanity has contributed to it (AGW), is confused with political or economic arguments for or against a particular course of action to mitigate or adapt to climate change."
Well, Ms Sackett, practise what you preach!
AUSTRALIA'S chief scientist, Penny Sackett, says polarising debate on which policy is best to address climate change is often unhelpfully confused with the scientific argument for global warming.
At a climate change conference on the Gold Coast this week, Professor Sackett told The Age acting on climate change should be the role of all Australian political parties.
It was the responsibility of politicians, scientists and the public to engage with each other on the issue, she said.
Advertisement: Story continues below
''Often a scientific argument for climate change, and the ways in which humanity has contributed to it, is confused with political or economic arguments for or against a particular course of action to mitigate or adapt to climate change,'' she said.
''The consensus within the scientific community about the main points of the science is strong, whereas the consensus within the political community - and those who elect them - about what to do about it is less strong.
She continued:"While it is unfortunate that Australian politics and a large fraction of the citizenry may be polarised with respect to the best course of climate action, it would be not only unhelpful but tragic if this polarisation led to a societal divide in our commitment to act."
Well, Ms Sackett is polarised on the hoax hypothesis and will not looks at the evidence against the hoax.
''My expectation as a citizen is that every political party would be engaging in learning about more the science, so together they can, in Parliament - where everybody has one voice regardless of their political party - make the most of an opportunity to make the best policies for Australia,'' she said.
Why, oh why does she not practise what she preaches. Why does she close her mind to the overwhelming evidence that CO2 is innocent?
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Green Activist Defends Climate-Change Skeptics
IN the Atlantic Wire in an article headed: Green Activist Defends Climate-Change Skeptics Heather Horn writes about a faulty article and makes her own mistakes. Take her first two sentences:
A new study claims to show that the few scientists who doubt human-caused global warming are less expert than their climate-change-believing peers. In other words: the climate skeptics aren't just in the minority--they're not very good scientists, either.
I will look at the flawed study in a moment, but "the few scientists who doubt human-caused global warming.." Really Heather! If you wanted to talk about few, that is the number that wrote the flawed IPCC Assessment Reports. Less than 100! But Heather, look at Senator Inhofe's list....more than 400; Look at the Petition Project...31487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9029 with PhDs.
Then she goes on to say "they're not very good scientists, either." Well, sorry, Heather, but the "not very good scientists" are the IPCC scientists who, instead of being objective and looking openly at results, but instead tried to prove man-made warming then wondered why there was no current warming and then tried to HIDE THE DECLINE
Heather, go to and find out how flawed your original list is!
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Climate Consequences with Anthony Watts
Climate Consequences with Anthony Watts
Renowned Meteorologist Anthony Watts is including Newcastle in his Australian Tour
The Government has postponed the ETS but is still spending 2 billion dollars of your money ‘solving’ climate change. Find out why that money is not well spent.
Date: Thursday June 17 2010
Time: 6:00pm
Location: Newcastle City Hall King St, Newcastle
Entry: General: $20
Concession: $15
Speakers:
Anthony Watts – A television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air, operates a weather technology business, and runs one of the most popular science blogs on the internet. http://www.wattsupwiththat.com.
Anthony will present advance results on his Surfacestations project to photographically survey every one of the 1221 USHCN stations in the USA, and talk about how the ‘official’ temperature record is unreliable.
David Archibald – an Australian–based scientist operating in the fields of climate science, cancer research and the author of Solar Cycle 24 – David will talk about the role of the sun, why the world will continue cooling and why carbon dioxide won’t make a detectable difference.
Dr David Stockwell – Former Climate Effects Scientist living in Emerald QLD & author of the book Niche Modeling, David will talk about what we do know about climate change, how that contradicts warming models and how the CSIRO has got it wrong.
For enquiries call 0412474916 or visit www.climatesceptics.com.au(link in title)
Renowned Meteorologist Anthony Watts is including Newcastle in his Australian Tour
The Government has postponed the ETS but is still spending 2 billion dollars of your money ‘solving’ climate change. Find out why that money is not well spent.
Date: Thursday June 17 2010
Time: 6:00pm
Location: Newcastle City Hall King St, Newcastle
Entry: General: $20
Concession: $15
Speakers:
Anthony Watts – A television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air, operates a weather technology business, and runs one of the most popular science blogs on the internet. http://www.wattsupwiththat.com.
Anthony will present advance results on his Surfacestations project to photographically survey every one of the 1221 USHCN stations in the USA, and talk about how the ‘official’ temperature record is unreliable.
David Archibald – an Australian–based scientist operating in the fields of climate science, cancer research and the author of Solar Cycle 24 – David will talk about the role of the sun, why the world will continue cooling and why carbon dioxide won’t make a detectable difference.
Dr David Stockwell – Former Climate Effects Scientist living in Emerald QLD & author of the book Niche Modeling, David will talk about what we do know about climate change, how that contradicts warming models and how the CSIRO has got it wrong.
For enquiries call 0412474916 or visit www.climatesceptics.com.au(link in title)
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Et tu, Julie?
Today, the NZ Herald reported that "Kevin Rudd has suffered the biggest boot in the pants of any Prime Minister in the past 20 years."
They report that voter satisfaction with the PM has plummeted from 50 per cent to 39 per cent and then go on to say "money backing an election victory for Opposition Leader Tony Abbott began flooding in...."
Well, here's an even more worrying scenario. Although the ides of March have come and gone, what if, like Julius Caesar, The Ruddud gets knifed in the back, and mouths the words: "Et tu, Julie?" Can you imagine, Julie Gillard gets the PMship months before the election. Still in her honeymoon period and with the assistance of the MSM cheers squad, she annilhilates Tony Abbott wins the election and the Australian Government moves even further to the left.
Horrible thought!
They report that voter satisfaction with the PM has plummeted from 50 per cent to 39 per cent and then go on to say "money backing an election victory for Opposition Leader Tony Abbott began flooding in...."
Well, here's an even more worrying scenario. Although the ides of March have come and gone, what if, like Julius Caesar, The Ruddud gets knifed in the back, and mouths the words: "Et tu, Julie?" Can you imagine, Julie Gillard gets the PMship months before the election. Still in her honeymoon period and with the assistance of the MSM cheers squad, she annilhilates Tony Abbott wins the election and the Australian Government moves even further to the left.
Horrible thought!
Friday, April 30, 2010
What Rudd Government didn't achieve
The Wall Street Journal describes Kevin Rudd as Australia's climate moralist-in-chief. (Link in title) This is an obvious reference to his previous "greatest moral challenge of our times" statement. They go on to say:
• Mr. Rudd's about-face raises serious questions about the courage of his political convictions;
• In November, Mr. Rudd declared it would be "absolute political cowardice" to delay cap-and-trade.
•Little wonder the Rudd government tried to bury cap-and-trade by announcing a big crackdown on tobacco companies yesterday.
They are right about him trying to bury the ETS with his great big new tax on tobacco, but this tax also will bring in the billions that he threw at the states to get them to agree to his Titanic-Deck-Chair-like shuffle of the financing of healthcare.
Meanwhile, closer to home, a letter writer, Shane Budden to the Australian has also accused Mr Rudd of moral cowardice.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/goodbye-to-the-greatest-moral-challenge-of-our-time/story-fn558imw-1225859617325
• Mr. Rudd's about-face raises serious questions about the courage of his political convictions;
• In November, Mr. Rudd declared it would be "absolute political cowardice" to delay cap-and-trade.
•Little wonder the Rudd government tried to bury cap-and-trade by announcing a big crackdown on tobacco companies yesterday.
They are right about him trying to bury the ETS with his great big new tax on tobacco, but this tax also will bring in the billions that he threw at the states to get them to agree to his Titanic-Deck-Chair-like shuffle of the financing of healthcare.
Meanwhile, closer to home, a letter writer, Shane Budden to the Australian has also accused Mr Rudd of moral cowardice.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/goodbye-to-the-greatest-moral-challenge-of-our-time/story-fn558imw-1225859617325
Saturday, April 24, 2010
What has the Rudd government actually achieved?"
Guest Post by Ian Christensen.
What has the Rudd government actually achieved?"
Here's the list so far:
1 Said Sorry several times.
2 Ratified Kyoto as it is about to expire without successor.
3 Organised "best and brightest summit" - if anything useful came out of that, I missed it.
4 Set up "fuel watch", a costly fiasco since abandoned.
5 Set up "grocery watch" another costly fiasco since abandoned.
6 Established the Australian Social Inclusion Board. This rarely heard of bureaucracy was set up because "Every Australian should have an opportunity to be a full participant in the life of the nation. Unfortunately, too many Australians remain locked out of the benefits of work, education, community engagement and access to basic services. This social exclusion is a significant barrier to sustained prosperity and restricts Australia's future growth". If there is any evidence to support this argument it wasn't included in the announcement. The Board has been described as "the biggest waste of tax dollars imaginable, towards some more Rudd-style feel-goodism". That was in May 2008. It probably did seem a big waste of tax dollars then, but it's been turned into a drop in the ocean by what's happened since.
7 Set up the home insulation program - what a disaster! It was a disaster because Rudd so wanted the Feds to be able to claim the credit he gave it to his Dept of Environment. This feel-good department, whose Minister's previous experience was lead singer with a rock band, is full of environmental scientists and climate change disciples with zero experience in dealing with the real world or delivering real programs. Four deaths, a minister demoted, (not sacked or had his salary reduced) and $50 million to former union heavy Greg Combet to fix it, and Combet says that may not be enough. And the claimed environmental benefits were grossly exaggerated. Rudd said he took full responsibility but I don't think he knows what that means - he's still PM, he's still drawing his salary and privileged superannuation benefits.
8 Set up SIHIP (Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program). This program was initiated by a Memorandum of Understanding in September 2007. In July 2009 the ABC (hardly a hot-bed of opposition to the ALP) reported on its Lateline program that it was yet to build a single house. That was despite $45.54 million of its $672 million budget having been spent. A government report dated August 2009 said the program was being criticised as: too slow to deliver; its governance was overly bureaucratic; the program is too costly in terms of unit cost of housing and administration. The revised program budget is still $672m with each new house expected to cost $450,000 or $529,000 after factoring in a proportion of administration costs and "contingencies". As at 1 February 2010, 2 of a target of 750 houses and 70 of 2,500 refurbishments had been completed.
9 Sent money direct to taxpayers and non-taxpayers to spend on large screen imported TV's to stimulate the economy and avoid the effects of what Rudd and Swan called the worst depression since the 1930s. In fact unemployment was 11% in 1991 and in 2009 didn't get to 6%, which not too many years ago would have been regarded as virtually full employment. Remember Beattie's target 5%? But if you can't maintain your popularity rating by sending money to voters what can you do?
10 Promised that every child in every school in Australia would get a computer. This program is moving so slowly that most of the people who were high school students at the time of the promise will have left school before they see a new computer.
11 Set up the $70m green loans mess - people gave up their jobs, paid $3,000 for qualifications and insurance to be trained as assessors, only to find the demand for green loans had been grossly exaggerated, many more assessors were trained than the program envisaged, and there was no work for most of them. The Courier-Mail reported on 2 Feb 2010 that: "The Federal Government predicted up to 200,000 home-owners would take up the loans and only 1,000 have done so ....instead of training 1,500 to 2,000 well-qualified assessors the Government permitted a blow-out and it is now estimated there will be up to 11,500 well-qualified assessors". The program has now been transferred to Penny Wong's department - that should fix it.
12 Turned a good budget surplus into such a huge debt that our grandchildren will have so much trouble servicing it that our population will have to increase rapidly. Blamed the global financial collapse while steadfastly refusing to give any credit to Howard or Costello for leaving them an excellent budget position to work with.
13 Didn't include any major infrastructure in the stimulus package because the effects would be felt too slowly (except for duplicating school halls and gyms).
14 Set up the home solar hot water initiative which was abruptly ended three weeks early with eight hours notice. This caused chaos in the industry, and many people intending to lodge applications missed out. Peter Garrett blamed a cost blow-out from the original estimate of $150 million to $750 million a year for the cut-back.
15 Disbanded "Work Choices". He had to do this because it was the unions' self-funded campaign against it that got him elected. Replaced it by giving back powers to the unions and re-instating the Industrial Relations Club. Set up Fair Work Australia with what seems to many as an over-representation of people with union backgrounds.
16 Changed the previous government's immigration laws so successfully that the exponential blow-out in illegal boat arrivals created a need for a lot more accommodation on Christmas Island.
17 Has recently suspended the processing of applications for permanent visas until after the election. presumably hoping there won't be a dramatic build up on Christmas Inland and that the electors will forget about the whole situation by the next election.
18 Said "the science is in on climate change" and claimed the Emissions Trading Scheme would fix it. Labelled sceptics as deniers.
19 Attempted to railroad the ETS through the Senate before Copenhagen for no other reason than it would have allowed Rudd to strut the world stage.
20 Went to Copenhagen taking 114 government free-loaders with him (one of the largest of the 190 delegations), at huge cost to the Australian taxpayer and the world's environment. I haven't seen any announcement of the cost of the junket (and I doubt I ever will), but I'm sure that whatever was going to be achieved, at least 100 of the free-loaders were superfluous to requirements. And it was fairly predictable that nothing would be achieved.
21 Refuses to debate the use of nuclear power generation to reduce pollution because it's against ALP and union policy.
22 Has opened one of 2,650 promised "trades training centres", one of 260 promised child care centres in schools and TAFEs, and 2 of 31 promised GP Super Clinics.
23 Attracted 752 retired nurses back into the profession using a return-to-work bonus. When they announced this scheme Labor hoped 7,750 would take up the offer.
24 Removed Labor's original election 2007 promises from the ALP website.
25 Promised to take Japan to court on whaling, but now says that will not be until November, probably after the election. As time goes on, I find I'm becoming less convinced about who is really at fault here, Japan for fishing in international waters, or the protesters for disrupting a legitimate commercial operation.
26 Has so far kept the Henry tax review secret for political reasons. Last week Rudd was saying it wouldn't be released until after the election. Wiser heads have since made him realise people won't vote for a new tax system when they don't know what's in it. And there must be something nasty in it, either unpalatable to the voters or inconsistent with ALP policy, or it would be heralded as another triumph for the Rudd government.
27 Announced he will keep 30% of the state's GST to fund 60% of their hospital costs. The 60% funding will have strings attached. The states have not been given any of the details, just the executive summary, and he expects them to agree to the proposals without knowing what the strings are, or what he might take back with the other hand under the Henry tax review. The announcement doesn't explain how it will improve delivery of hospital services, but it will probably add another layer of bureaucrats to the health system. Australia already has 450,000 bureaucrats looking after 290,000 health professionals. The announcement was hurriedly made in March 2010 after it had been pointed out that he had imposed a June 2009 deadline on himself for reform of the hospitals system. Perhaps this explains the lack of details. Refer back to the criticisms of SIHIP above. I think it'll be deja vu all over again. Rudd said if the states block his plan he will take it to a referendum, which of course is just grandstanding.
28. Turned Gillard loose with $16.7 billion to give building contractors, states and bureaucrats a feast in return for COLA.s and unwanted libraries and gyms – the insulation racket all over again in spades.
29 Last week he trotted out five senior ministers to criticise the Senate for being "obstructionist". The 5 were Jenny (SIHIP) Macklin, Penny (ETS) Wong, Lindsay (clean nose) Tanner, Nicola (new hospital system) Roxon, and Greg (Mr Fixit) Combet. I think Rudd is lucky the Senate has been obstructionist because if it wasn't he'd have more failures to add to his already impressive list. I noticed Julia was too smart to join the line-up of losers, and has managed not to be associated with too many of the above "achievements" – actually lying low while the schools building fiasco and criminal activities are unfolding. But watch your back, Kev.
As you might have guessed, I think Rudd's a dud. But everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and if I've missed some real achievements I sincerely apologise.
I can't wait to hear how he will try to turn these "achievements" into something which will encourage the Australian electors to give Labor and, equally important, the unions another chance!
Of equal importance will be what the Liberals put forward to convince the electors that they will be any better. They will have plenty of cheap shots to fire but that is NOT the main game from an opposition seeking to become the government. They need to develop and put forward sound, well thought out and costed policies to get Australia out of the mess into which Labor has dropped us.
Feel free to add to or edit this list before you decide whether or not to send it on.
What has the Rudd government actually achieved?"
Here's the list so far:
1 Said Sorry several times.
2 Ratified Kyoto as it is about to expire without successor.
3 Organised "best and brightest summit" - if anything useful came out of that, I missed it.
4 Set up "fuel watch", a costly fiasco since abandoned.
5 Set up "grocery watch" another costly fiasco since abandoned.
6 Established the Australian Social Inclusion Board. This rarely heard of bureaucracy was set up because "Every Australian should have an opportunity to be a full participant in the life of the nation. Unfortunately, too many Australians remain locked out of the benefits of work, education, community engagement and access to basic services. This social exclusion is a significant barrier to sustained prosperity and restricts Australia's future growth". If there is any evidence to support this argument it wasn't included in the announcement. The Board has been described as "the biggest waste of tax dollars imaginable, towards some more Rudd-style feel-goodism". That was in May 2008. It probably did seem a big waste of tax dollars then, but it's been turned into a drop in the ocean by what's happened since.
7 Set up the home insulation program - what a disaster! It was a disaster because Rudd so wanted the Feds to be able to claim the credit he gave it to his Dept of Environment. This feel-good department, whose Minister's previous experience was lead singer with a rock band, is full of environmental scientists and climate change disciples with zero experience in dealing with the real world or delivering real programs. Four deaths, a minister demoted, (not sacked or had his salary reduced) and $50 million to former union heavy Greg Combet to fix it, and Combet says that may not be enough. And the claimed environmental benefits were grossly exaggerated. Rudd said he took full responsibility but I don't think he knows what that means - he's still PM, he's still drawing his salary and privileged superannuation benefits.
8 Set up SIHIP (Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program). This program was initiated by a Memorandum of Understanding in September 2007. In July 2009 the ABC (hardly a hot-bed of opposition to the ALP) reported on its Lateline program that it was yet to build a single house. That was despite $45.54 million of its $672 million budget having been spent. A government report dated August 2009 said the program was being criticised as: too slow to deliver; its governance was overly bureaucratic; the program is too costly in terms of unit cost of housing and administration. The revised program budget is still $672m with each new house expected to cost $450,000 or $529,000 after factoring in a proportion of administration costs and "contingencies". As at 1 February 2010, 2 of a target of 750 houses and 70 of 2,500 refurbishments had been completed.
9 Sent money direct to taxpayers and non-taxpayers to spend on large screen imported TV's to stimulate the economy and avoid the effects of what Rudd and Swan called the worst depression since the 1930s. In fact unemployment was 11% in 1991 and in 2009 didn't get to 6%, which not too many years ago would have been regarded as virtually full employment. Remember Beattie's target 5%? But if you can't maintain your popularity rating by sending money to voters what can you do?
10 Promised that every child in every school in Australia would get a computer. This program is moving so slowly that most of the people who were high school students at the time of the promise will have left school before they see a new computer.
11 Set up the $70m green loans mess - people gave up their jobs, paid $3,000 for qualifications and insurance to be trained as assessors, only to find the demand for green loans had been grossly exaggerated, many more assessors were trained than the program envisaged, and there was no work for most of them. The Courier-Mail reported on 2 Feb 2010 that: "The Federal Government predicted up to 200,000 home-owners would take up the loans and only 1,000 have done so ....instead of training 1,500 to 2,000 well-qualified assessors the Government permitted a blow-out and it is now estimated there will be up to 11,500 well-qualified assessors". The program has now been transferred to Penny Wong's department - that should fix it.
12 Turned a good budget surplus into such a huge debt that our grandchildren will have so much trouble servicing it that our population will have to increase rapidly. Blamed the global financial collapse while steadfastly refusing to give any credit to Howard or Costello for leaving them an excellent budget position to work with.
13 Didn't include any major infrastructure in the stimulus package because the effects would be felt too slowly (except for duplicating school halls and gyms).
14 Set up the home solar hot water initiative which was abruptly ended three weeks early with eight hours notice. This caused chaos in the industry, and many people intending to lodge applications missed out. Peter Garrett blamed a cost blow-out from the original estimate of $150 million to $750 million a year for the cut-back.
15 Disbanded "Work Choices". He had to do this because it was the unions' self-funded campaign against it that got him elected. Replaced it by giving back powers to the unions and re-instating the Industrial Relations Club. Set up Fair Work Australia with what seems to many as an over-representation of people with union backgrounds.
16 Changed the previous government's immigration laws so successfully that the exponential blow-out in illegal boat arrivals created a need for a lot more accommodation on Christmas Island.
17 Has recently suspended the processing of applications for permanent visas until after the election. presumably hoping there won't be a dramatic build up on Christmas Inland and that the electors will forget about the whole situation by the next election.
18 Said "the science is in on climate change" and claimed the Emissions Trading Scheme would fix it. Labelled sceptics as deniers.
19 Attempted to railroad the ETS through the Senate before Copenhagen for no other reason than it would have allowed Rudd to strut the world stage.
20 Went to Copenhagen taking 114 government free-loaders with him (one of the largest of the 190 delegations), at huge cost to the Australian taxpayer and the world's environment. I haven't seen any announcement of the cost of the junket (and I doubt I ever will), but I'm sure that whatever was going to be achieved, at least 100 of the free-loaders were superfluous to requirements. And it was fairly predictable that nothing would be achieved.
21 Refuses to debate the use of nuclear power generation to reduce pollution because it's against ALP and union policy.
22 Has opened one of 2,650 promised "trades training centres", one of 260 promised child care centres in schools and TAFEs, and 2 of 31 promised GP Super Clinics.
23 Attracted 752 retired nurses back into the profession using a return-to-work bonus. When they announced this scheme Labor hoped 7,750 would take up the offer.
24 Removed Labor's original election 2007 promises from the ALP website.
25 Promised to take Japan to court on whaling, but now says that will not be until November, probably after the election. As time goes on, I find I'm becoming less convinced about who is really at fault here, Japan for fishing in international waters, or the protesters for disrupting a legitimate commercial operation.
26 Has so far kept the Henry tax review secret for political reasons. Last week Rudd was saying it wouldn't be released until after the election. Wiser heads have since made him realise people won't vote for a new tax system when they don't know what's in it. And there must be something nasty in it, either unpalatable to the voters or inconsistent with ALP policy, or it would be heralded as another triumph for the Rudd government.
27 Announced he will keep 30% of the state's GST to fund 60% of their hospital costs. The 60% funding will have strings attached. The states have not been given any of the details, just the executive summary, and he expects them to agree to the proposals without knowing what the strings are, or what he might take back with the other hand under the Henry tax review. The announcement doesn't explain how it will improve delivery of hospital services, but it will probably add another layer of bureaucrats to the health system. Australia already has 450,000 bureaucrats looking after 290,000 health professionals. The announcement was hurriedly made in March 2010 after it had been pointed out that he had imposed a June 2009 deadline on himself for reform of the hospitals system. Perhaps this explains the lack of details. Refer back to the criticisms of SIHIP above. I think it'll be deja vu all over again. Rudd said if the states block his plan he will take it to a referendum, which of course is just grandstanding.
28. Turned Gillard loose with $16.7 billion to give building contractors, states and bureaucrats a feast in return for COLA.s and unwanted libraries and gyms – the insulation racket all over again in spades.
29 Last week he trotted out five senior ministers to criticise the Senate for being "obstructionist". The 5 were Jenny (SIHIP) Macklin, Penny (ETS) Wong, Lindsay (clean nose) Tanner, Nicola (new hospital system) Roxon, and Greg (Mr Fixit) Combet. I think Rudd is lucky the Senate has been obstructionist because if it wasn't he'd have more failures to add to his already impressive list. I noticed Julia was too smart to join the line-up of losers, and has managed not to be associated with too many of the above "achievements" – actually lying low while the schools building fiasco and criminal activities are unfolding. But watch your back, Kev.
As you might have guessed, I think Rudd's a dud. But everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and if I've missed some real achievements I sincerely apologise.
I can't wait to hear how he will try to turn these "achievements" into something which will encourage the Australian electors to give Labor and, equally important, the unions another chance!
Of equal importance will be what the Liberals put forward to convince the electors that they will be any better. They will have plenty of cheap shots to fire but that is NOT the main game from an opposition seeking to become the government. They need to develop and put forward sound, well thought out and costed policies to get Australia out of the mess into which Labor has dropped us.
Feel free to add to or edit this list before you decide whether or not to send it on.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Obama's New Nuclear Policy
I had to look at the date when I read this article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100406/wl_afp/usnuclearpoliticsobama
Tue Apr 6, (Definitely not April 1)
WASHINGTON (AFP) – President Barack Obama unveiled a new nuclear policy on Tuesday declaring the United States would use atomic weapons only "in extreme circumstances" to defend national interests or allies.
Hello, does this replace the old "use nukes for frivilous reason?" Go-o-lee, I'm a little bit unhappy with the Dutch for removig troops from Iraq! Bob them!
What if we Bomb Iran?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIUizoA7Dnc&feature=related">
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100406/wl_afp/usnuclearpoliticsobama
Tue Apr 6, (Definitely not April 1)
WASHINGTON (AFP) – President Barack Obama unveiled a new nuclear policy on Tuesday declaring the United States would use atomic weapons only "in extreme circumstances" to defend national interests or allies.
Hello, does this replace the old "use nukes for frivilous reason?" Go-o-lee, I'm a little bit unhappy with the Dutch for removig troops from Iraq! Bob them!
What if we Bomb Iran?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIUizoA7Dnc&feature=related">
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
US TV Forecasts Global Cooling
From Leslie Kaufman - The New York Times:
The debate over global warming has ..... created tensions between two groups that might be expected to agree on the issue: climate scientists and meteorologists, especially those who serve as TV weather forecasters.
Kaufman is reporting on a study by George Mason University:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/gmu-wto032910.php
Many of the weathercasters said that having access to resources such as climate scientists to interview and high-quality graphics and animations to use on-air would increase their ability to educate the public about climate change.
However, despite their interest in reporting more on this issue, the majority of weathercasters (61 percent) feel there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about the issue of global warming. Though 54 percent indicated that global warming is happening, 25 percent indicated it isn't, and 21 percent say they don't know yet.
More than a quarter of the weathercasters in the survey agreed with the statement "Global warming is a scam," the researchers found.
Meanwhile, The New American reprots that " Global-warming Alarmism Dying a Slow Death."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/3211-global-warming-alarmism-dying-a-slow-death
Alex Newman writes:
"Scandals
The climate alarmists were already doing poorly in the United States before the Copenhagen failure. An October 2009 Pew poll showed that only 36 percent of Americans even believed in man-made global warming. The issue consistently ranked last among public priorities. Commentators referred to the movement as a “cult,” and critics ridiculed the theories and dangerous “solutions” all over the Internet. And that was before the proverbial hitting of the fan late last year."
He goes on to elaborate about the Climate Gate e-mails, followed by Glaciergate, Amazongate,Africagate, Chinagate, and the False claims about Netherlands.
He also says that, backed into a corner, Alarmists are fighting back.
And Alex's his last word?
Scaremongering to swindle the public out of money and freedom is an old trick. But hopefully, people will know better than to fall for it again next time.
The debate over global warming has ..... created tensions between two groups that might be expected to agree on the issue: climate scientists and meteorologists, especially those who serve as TV weather forecasters.
Kaufman is reporting on a study by George Mason University:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/gmu-wto032910.php
Many of the weathercasters said that having access to resources such as climate scientists to interview and high-quality graphics and animations to use on-air would increase their ability to educate the public about climate change.
However, despite their interest in reporting more on this issue, the majority of weathercasters (61 percent) feel there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about the issue of global warming. Though 54 percent indicated that global warming is happening, 25 percent indicated it isn't, and 21 percent say they don't know yet.
More than a quarter of the weathercasters in the survey agreed with the statement "Global warming is a scam," the researchers found.
Meanwhile, The New American reprots that " Global-warming Alarmism Dying a Slow Death."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/3211-global-warming-alarmism-dying-a-slow-death
Alex Newman writes:
"Scandals
The climate alarmists were already doing poorly in the United States before the Copenhagen failure. An October 2009 Pew poll showed that only 36 percent of Americans even believed in man-made global warming. The issue consistently ranked last among public priorities. Commentators referred to the movement as a “cult,” and critics ridiculed the theories and dangerous “solutions” all over the Internet. And that was before the proverbial hitting of the fan late last year."
He goes on to elaborate about the Climate Gate e-mails, followed by Glaciergate, Amazongate,Africagate, Chinagate, and the False claims about Netherlands.
He also says that, backed into a corner, Alarmists are fighting back.
And Alex's his last word?
Scaremongering to swindle the public out of money and freedom is an old trick. But hopefully, people will know better than to fall for it again next time.
Monday, February 22, 2010
We'll all be inundated
The seas are rising, We'll all be inundated.
Yesterday, on the Insiders, the following conversation took place between Climate Alarmists David "we'll all fry" Marr and Fran Kelly.
Marr: "This week the Australian had a nice bloke from Bondi who'd been swimming at Bondi for years..... They had his picture on the front page saying, you know, I've been swimming at Bondi for 30 years and I haven't noticed the ocean come up."
Kelly: "Nonsense!"
Marr: "Complete Nonsense!"
Meanwhile, on the same day, over in the UK, the Climate Alarmist Newspaper Guardian had an article headed: Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown
The article concludes:
In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.
"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."
In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for "bringing these issues to our attention".
Meanwhile, the World's leading Sea Level expert, Nils-Axel Morner maintains that sea levels are not rising. "...we can see that the sea level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-1940. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year; 1.1 is the exact figure. Not more.
So, we have this 1 mm per year up to 1930, by observation, and we have it by rotation recording. So we go with those two. They go up and down, but there’s no trend in it; it was up until 1930, and then down again. There’s no trend, absolutely no
trend."
Yesterday, on the Insiders, the following conversation took place between Climate Alarmists David "we'll all fry" Marr and Fran Kelly.
Marr: "This week the Australian had a nice bloke from Bondi who'd been swimming at Bondi for years..... They had his picture on the front page saying, you know, I've been swimming at Bondi for 30 years and I haven't noticed the ocean come up."
Kelly: "Nonsense!"
Marr: "Complete Nonsense!"
Meanwhile, on the same day, over in the UK, the Climate Alarmist Newspaper Guardian had an article headed: Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown
The article concludes:
In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.
"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."
In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for "bringing these issues to our attention".
Meanwhile, the World's leading Sea Level expert, Nils-Axel Morner maintains that sea levels are not rising. "...we can see that the sea level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-1940. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year; 1.1 is the exact figure. Not more.
So, we have this 1 mm per year up to 1930, by observation, and we have it by rotation recording. So we go with those two. They go up and down, but there’s no trend in it; it was up until 1930, and then down again. There’s no trend, absolutely no
trend."
Friday, February 19, 2010
Climate sceptics are all red herrings and quackery
Climate sceptics are all red herrings and quackery....At least according to Penny Wong.
In an article in the National Times today, Ms Wong (in an address to the first national forum on coasts and climate change) said: "The reality is that the Copenhagen Accord is an important and welcome step toward an effective global agreement on climate change.
It saw, for the first time, leaders agree to hold any increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius."
Oh, are they gods? Can they control the multi-facets of climate? The Vostok Ice-core samples show that temperature precedes rise in CO2 by 800+/-200 years. Can Ms Wong and her very large Climate Change Department change climate? It reeks of quackery to me!
She goes on to say: "Remember the people who have been barrackers for policy failure at home and abroad are the same people who have been peddling misinformation and misleading information about the science of climate change."
I almost agree with MS Wong on this one! Mind you, I would make a few small changes to her statement: Remember the people who have been barrackers for a Cap 'n' Trade scheme, both home and abroad, are the same people who have been peddling misinformation and misleading information about the science of climate change.
She goes on to issue some misleading information: "....facts like that 2009 was the second hottest year on record in Australia and the fifth hottest globally, and that 2009 finished the hottest decade in recorded history." She relies on the IPCC for her support but the IPCC AR4 has been greatly disputed. One of the lead authors of the IPCC, Mr Phil Jones, would dispute the statement that 2009 was the second hottest year on record.
There is a section on the Government's Climate Change Website called "Science - facts and fiction." Having read through that section, I could see the fiction but couldn't find the facts.
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/climate-change/science.aspx
In an article in the National Times today, Ms Wong (in an address to the first national forum on coasts and climate change) said: "The reality is that the Copenhagen Accord is an important and welcome step toward an effective global agreement on climate change.
It saw, for the first time, leaders agree to hold any increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius."
Oh, are they gods? Can they control the multi-facets of climate? The Vostok Ice-core samples show that temperature precedes rise in CO2 by 800+/-200 years. Can Ms Wong and her very large Climate Change Department change climate? It reeks of quackery to me!
She goes on to say: "Remember the people who have been barrackers for policy failure at home and abroad are the same people who have been peddling misinformation and misleading information about the science of climate change."
I almost agree with MS Wong on this one! Mind you, I would make a few small changes to her statement: Remember the people who have been barrackers for a Cap 'n' Trade scheme, both home and abroad, are the same people who have been peddling misinformation and misleading information about the science of climate change.
She goes on to issue some misleading information: "....facts like that 2009 was the second hottest year on record in Australia and the fifth hottest globally, and that 2009 finished the hottest decade in recorded history." She relies on the IPCC for her support but the IPCC AR4 has been greatly disputed. One of the lead authors of the IPCC, Mr Phil Jones, would dispute the statement that 2009 was the second hottest year on record.
There is a section on the Government's Climate Change Website called "Science - facts and fiction." Having read through that section, I could see the fiction but couldn't find the facts.
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/climate-change/science.aspx
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Catholics and Climate Change
According to a Post called: Challenging the climate sceptics By: Ellen Teague (Link in Title)
Posted: Wednesday, February 17, 2010. Sir John Houghton: "argues that Christians and other faith communities must keep up the pressure for more action on climate change at the next UN climate meeting in Mexico in December 2010. He suggests that many of the voices of scepticism have been orchestrated by vested interests, especially in the United States, with the intent of discrediting and silencing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
Sir John says the climate sceptics, (of whom I am one), "have been orchestrated by vested interests."
Now, I will admit here that I have no vested interest except for the good of humanity.
Sir John also is quoted as saying: "....with the intent of discrediting and silencing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." (IPCC).
Well, with all due respect, Sir John, We sceptics don't have to do a thing! The IPCC has been very efficient in discrediting itself.
Meanwhile, because atmospheric CO2 has increased, the world has been able to feed the increasing population. Sir John and the rapidly crumbling IPCC have been advocating a reduction in CO2 - a reduction in the world's ability to feed itself.
They also have been advocating planting bio-fuel in food crop fields and planting trees in fuel crop fields to create a carbon sink. Again, these people are reducing food crops to push their crazy unproven hypothesis that
a) the globe is warming (even one of their Lead authors admits that it isn't!)
b) CO2 is causing the warming. It has been proven that it isn't!
Posted: Wednesday, February 17, 2010. Sir John Houghton: "argues that Christians and other faith communities must keep up the pressure for more action on climate change at the next UN climate meeting in Mexico in December 2010. He suggests that many of the voices of scepticism have been orchestrated by vested interests, especially in the United States, with the intent of discrediting and silencing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
Sir John says the climate sceptics, (of whom I am one), "have been orchestrated by vested interests."
Now, I will admit here that I have no vested interest except for the good of humanity.
Sir John also is quoted as saying: "....with the intent of discrediting and silencing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." (IPCC).
Well, with all due respect, Sir John, We sceptics don't have to do a thing! The IPCC has been very efficient in discrediting itself.
Meanwhile, because atmospheric CO2 has increased, the world has been able to feed the increasing population. Sir John and the rapidly crumbling IPCC have been advocating a reduction in CO2 - a reduction in the world's ability to feed itself.
They also have been advocating planting bio-fuel in food crop fields and planting trees in fuel crop fields to create a carbon sink. Again, these people are reducing food crops to push their crazy unproven hypothesis that
a) the globe is warming (even one of their Lead authors admits that it isn't!)
b) CO2 is causing the warming. It has been proven that it isn't!
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
The Late George Carlin on Global Warming
I think I posted this beforebut well worth a revisit.
For tender ears, there is some language.
For tender ears, there is some language.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)