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)

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!

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

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.

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">