Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Left’s shrillness has helped Abbott

March 1, 2015

Triggs helped Abbott  —  Turnbull helped Abbott  —  Hicks helped Abbott  — the ABC’s leak obsession helped Abbott  —  Muslim appologists helped Abbott.  The Left understands nothing and this also helped Abbott

The dramatic rise in the polls for Tony Abbott is heartening. The Left, as usual, does not understand why.  Abbott is changing. He is appeasing the Left less and standing on principle. They hate him with a loathing and this drives them mad and reminds people why they got rid of Labor a year and a half ago.

The Prime Minister pointed out the bias and the disgrace Gillian Triggs has brought on herself and the Human Rights Commission. Voters understood, in spite of the reactionary support from the ABC, the ALP swinging handbags, Fairfax and the Left generally.

The Prime Minister’s honest comments about the pathetic claim by the same media that David Hicks had somehow been vindicated for joining, not one, but two terrorist organisations and shooting machine guns at the Indian Army shows that the electorate likes straight talking.

The Prime Minister’s honest comments about Muslims and the double standards of the commentariat in the name of multiculutral harmony may be at an end. People are aching for a leader to speak up and call out the traitors in our midst. They know what “Je suis Charlie” actually means.

Malcolm Turnbull’s honest comments about Triggs and a while back about the  ABC’s balance was a timely reminder to  Abbott supporters and Liberal backbenchers exactly what he does stand for.  This is probably sufficient to blow his chances for leadership clear out of the water. Thank God and thanks Malcolm.

What an irony that Fran Kelly thinks quite the opposite. The poor woman is deluded into thinking that voters are turning back to the Liberals because Turnbull looks a shoe in to roll Abbott. Even Michelle Grattan scoffed at Fran on air, “a bit far fetched” she thought, for suggesting such an implausable idea. A priceless exchange from from “Their ABC”.  

This stridency from the media makes people sit up and notice. I always think back to the 1988 Referendum, which invited us to vote ‘Yes’ on four questions. Supported by both parties and most of the media, the Australian people, smelling a rat with such collusion, gave all four of the propositions a resounding ‘No’, with their collective upturned finger. That reassured me immensely about Australian democracy and our plain ordinary, reliable common sense.

In other words, when things in the media become too shrill people become suspicious.

Tricky Triggs report hopelessly emotional

February 19, 2015

“Wild accusation, colourful paraphrasing and repetitively themed doomsday imagery are the hallmarks of political emotionalism, a persuasive doctrine that undermines realism as the evidentiary standard in Western academe, law and government. It is accompanied by the use of anecdote and emotion in the place of objective fact and causal reasoning.”

Jennifer Oriel.

An outstanding analysis of Australian Human Rights Commissioner Jillian Trigg’s report on Children in Detention should be read, marked learned and inwardly digested. It is scandalous that something so shabby and biased gets produced with such fawning approval by the ABC and Fairfax.

Apart from the plain political bias and intention to embarrass the Abbott Government when it has vastly improved the situation of detained children from the ALP disaster, the emotionalism, methodology, and generally superficial nature of its analysis is laid out clearly in Oriel’s stringent criticism.

In the absence of a scientifically valid method to demonstrate causality, the inquiry yields data that is largely known, namely that some people report ill health during immigration processing and some commit harm to themselves or others.
The most serious allegations of child physical and sexual assault receive curiously little attention, with a note that they have been referred to a government department. If child abusers are in the general population of immigration centres or have been given residency in Australia, why doesn’t the commission recommended their deportation?

Suggestive but fallacious implications about ill health and abuse are made:

The research indicates complex causality underlies reported ill health among aspiring immigrants, which may include experiences before arrival. It also may include vested political interests, as we learned from recent reports refugee advocates were coaching self-harm among immigrants in detention centres. The inquiry did not study complex causal pathways, and the systemic statistical bias arising effectively nullifies the validity of its conclusions.

In conclusion, this is not a pursuit of justice:

It is clearly unacceptable that emotionalism should supplant impartial inquiry and objective truth in the pursuit of justice. The National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention fails the test of scholarly objectivity, political impartiality and public reason that distinguishes the free world of liberal democracy from its tyrannical counterparts. In so doing, it fails the Australian public, genuine refugees and children who deserve so much better than to be used as political fodder in a tired old game.

Economics of optimism

February 11, 2015

Or how the UN, government bureaucracy and the wicked word ‘sustainability’, along with no less than 1,000 NGOs, can undermine good work and waste money

Bjorn Lomborg, working with his Post-2015 Copenhagen Consensus group, is refining his daring idea of working out what projects gives the world the best bang for each dollar spent on global development for the poor. An article republished on his own website from the Economist quotes Belland Melinda Gates on just how much progress is being made in a world of seeming total pessimism.

“THE lives of people in poor countries will improve faster in the next 15 years than at any other time in history. And their lives will improve more than anyone else’s.” So predict Bill and Melinda Gates in their annual letter, published on January 22nd. The wealthy philanthropists expect the rate of infant mortality to halve by 2030, from one child in 20 dying before turning five to one in 40. They also forecast the eradication of polio and perhaps three other deadly diseases. Improvements in agriculture will mean that Africa will be able to feed itself. Financial security will improve as the 2 billion people who do not have a bank account start storing money and making payments using mobile phones. And affordable online courses will open up huge educational opportunities for poor people, especially girls.

That’s the good news. However, the United Nations is introducing what it calls “Sustainable Development Goals”. The dreaded S word in the title with its massive baggage of ideology, guarantees billions of wasted money, myriad targets and no accountability.

On January 17th action/2015, a coalition of over 1,000 NGOs and celebrities, began a campaign for SDGs that are inspiring, properly financed and monitored with good data—sound principles, but ones that will not help much in winnowing down the number of goals and targets.

However, the one change that would improve poverty reduction by a factor of up to one hundred for each dollar spent over other targeted spending, is simply free trade.

As for the UN push for data development — think bureaucrats — there is increasing scepticism. Lomborg points out:

gathering data is hugely expensive, at around $1.5 billion per SDG target; measuring all 169 proposed targets would eat up 12.5% of total international development aid.

Naturally, Lomborg and his team question money for climate change as being virtually useless in the context of development targets, but the idea of 169 targets “is like having no targets at all”.

ARAB OIL ERA OVER ?

February 8, 2015

The Arab oil era is over, and so is the destructive power of the Persian Gulf ‘s oil dictatorships. 

So much rubbish has been written about peak oil, like most predictions by environmentalists about our future.  Just the other night we saw the three wise men, Tim Flannery, David Karoly and Will Steffen, offering their gold, frankincense and myrrh, peddling their alarmism. Always there for a free pass on the Their ABC, does anyone really believe these empt vessels any more?

Not only did peak oil not happen — I remember Bjorn Lomborg showing a graph of peak oil alarms going back to 1920 — he also made the insightful remark that the bronze age did not come about because the stone age ran out of stones.

Now a barrel of oil is basically half the price it was just a few months ago. This is a radical game changer overlooked by most commentators. It could well be a profound game changer equivalent of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

An interesting editorial appeared in an Israeli paper, which looks at the magnitude of what might be happening.

 The most dramatic news in 2014 almost went unnoticed: The United States lifted the restrictions on American oil exports, and as of the first day of the new year it has begun exporting oil to the world.

No one believed this would happen so fast, but the US is already the world’s biggest oil manufacturer, bigger than Saudi Arabia , thanks to the oil shale technology which changed the world of energy ……

This means that oil prices will continue to drop, as the US is already competing against other manufacturers. As a result, Russia will be crushed, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf states will fall flat on their face, the cartel will collapse, and all the dictatorships which were mainly based on oil – like Iran – will face a gloomy future …

The Arab oil era is over, and so is the destructive power of the Persian Gulf’s oil dictatorships. These dictatorships have disgracefully controlled the failing Europe: Buying politicians, bribing companies, taking over the economy and gaining political power which was also used against Israel …

It seems too good to be true, but let us hope the geopolitical equation is changing.

Extreme Greens dangerous

February 4, 2015

No one but the Greens could want to decriminalise hard drugs and yet outlaw pâté.

I thought the Australian Greens were pretty unrealistic and were in the habit of taking their fantasies for reality, but the Brits are not bad either.
From wanting the society to become poorer, to being the worst in managing local councils, and wanting to cut back on defence spending whilst making membership of ISIS legal, this British Party, headed up no less by an Australian, seems even crazier than our Greens.

Yet,  even with policies that will deliberately make society poorer, the British Greens appears to be the fastest-growing party in Britain.

The litany of madness is as boundless as is their total misunderstanding of how the world works. An editorial in the Spectator observes that the three main parties have been happy to cast accusations of extremism at Ukip, yet they have missed the real extremist party in their midst.

[The Green’s website states] that the party wants to pay every-one a ‘Citizen’s Income’ — which has since been put at £72 a week — in order to allow ‘current dependence on economic growth to cease, and allow zero or negative growth to be feasible without individual hardship should this be necessary on the grounds of sustainability’ …

Brighton, the one council they run, languishes at 306th out of 326 English councils for its recycling rate. Only a quarter of its rubbish was recycled in the last year, compared with two-thirds for the best authorities. For a supposedly green party, this is an astonishing failure.

It is a proud aim of the party to reduce international trade, something which absurdly they seem to think can be done without harm to developing countries.

Only the Green party could propose to shrink our armed forces, end the arms industry and simultaneously make it legal to be a member of Isis or al-Qaeda. No one but the Greens could want to decriminalise hard drugs and yet outlaw pâté.

A splendid article worth reading.

Dreaded backlash ??

January 24, 2015

“What happens when those imported cultures involve more than mere fancy dress, when they arrive with their own power relationships, their own political ideologies and a parallel legal system, all of which is incompatible with Australian norms and traditions? What happens when new arrivals have no intention of relinquishing these features of their cultures and integrating into the mainstream? What happens when the intent is first to modify the host culture and, ultimately, to replace it?”

FRANK PLEDGE : The Left’s Unholy Alliance with Islam

.

Yet another clarification concerning the Islamisation of the West has developed in the recent “backlash” — yes, at last — with protests in Germany and Denmark in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo assassinations.

We might call it the ‘long feared backlash’ announced and dreaded by the sensitive “i’ll ride with you hashtag” Left and the ABC who announced their fear of the rise of the European right  as being a more dnagerous than plain good old Islamic fascist murder.

This backlash of anti-immigration protesters, who call themselves PEGIDA (Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West) in Germany, apparently claimed simply that they wanted protection for German culture, and felt that asylum-seekers from Muslim regions were abusing Germany’s welcoming policies toward refugees.

The censorious commentators piled in.

“This is truly a vicious cycle,” explains Brian Forst, a professor of justice, law, and criminology at American University. “Anti-immigration sentiments aimed primarily against Muslims in the West breed alienation among Muslims, and alienation breeds extremism and acts of terror, which only aggravate anti-Muslim sentiments and behaviors…Terrorism succeeds when the victim reacts badly.”

Really? This is after the West has clamped down on free speech and where the media dare not utter a single truth, the truth that is standing in front of us in plain sight. 

In Aarhus in Denmark, where a similar protest took place, it was met with a predictably violent attack from the Left in the name, of course, of tolerance and diversity.

Police said about 200 to 300 people from Denmark, Britain, Germany, Sweden and Poland took part in what was billed as a “European counter-jihad meeting” to protest what they called the Islamization of Europe. They were met by a 10-times larger counter-demonstration by left-wing groups under the banner “Aarhus for Diversity.”
The anti-Islamic rally started with a moment of silence for the seven people killed by an al-Qaida-inspired gunman in France.

Both demonstrations were peaceful until a group of black-clad, mask-wearing youth from the counter-demonstration tried to break through police lines, but officers in riot gear held them back.
After the rally finished, protesters hurled rocks and bottles at a bus carrying the far-right sympathizers as police vans escorted it out of the city center.

The violent Left always reminds me of the excellent book by Nick Cohen I reviewed several years ago concerning the Left’s love affair with fascistic Islam.

Cohen’s message is blunt: the left, through its uncompromising hatred of America and self-loathing for Western democracies, has managed to back and support Islamic clerical fascism and other vile regimes around the world that would have been anathema to the left in earlier times

Throughout the book he asks why the left supports fascists ‘who believe in the subjugation of women, the killing of Jews, homosexuals, freemasons, socialists and trade unionists’. He asks … why Palestine is a cause for the liberal-left but not China, Sudan, Zimbabwe, the Congo or North Korea. In short, ‘why is the world upside down?’

So, is there not a clear choice: to shut up and say nothing, or speak up and be accused, incorrectly, of bigotry. Where is the balance?

Up until now, adding to the frustration and backlash, has been of course the obsequious nonsense about Islam being only a religion of peace that all our leaders sing out in unison, or perhaps Renaissance polyphony, at each and every atrocity. It is this dhimmitude and cowering that has produced the frustrated backlash, not the standing up to it.

Surely the claims of the protesters are understandable. It has been exactly what has been on the minds of most people in Western democracies for several years now and of course it is building.

The hardening of the voices against unreasonable demands on Western culture, whether through creeping sharia, the failure of so many to integrate, or the many international surveys showing persistent retrograde and intollerant anti democratic values held by often a majority of our new immigrants, can only get louder.

And the sooner the better. This can only be healthy for debate.

PRETZEL LOGIC

January 14, 2015

fallible, twisted or circular resaoning that when dissected is wrong, does not make sense or does not explain the situation rationally.

The denials of reality by President Obama, Prime Minister Cameron and most shamefully, of French President Hollande in the very city where the slaughter of the Charlie Hebdo 12 took place, along with several Jews for being Jewish in a Jewish supermarket, have been well answered by George Packer of the New York Post,

The murders today in Paris are not a result of France’s failure to assimilate two generations of Muslim immigrants from its former colonies. They’re not about French military action against the Islamic State in the Middle East, or the American invasion of Iraq before that. They’re not part of some general wave of nihilistic violence in the economically depressed, socially atomized, morally hollow West—the Paris version of Newtown or Oslo. Least of all should they be “understood” as reactions to disrespect for religion on the part of irresponsible cartoonists.

This article is a refreshing read on the current, fashionable politically correct pretzel logic. Packer concludes:

But the murders in Paris were so specific and so brazen as to make their meaning quite clear. The cartoonists died for an idea. The killers are soldiers in a war against freedom of thought and speech, against tolerance, pluralism, and the right to offend—against everything decent in a democratic society. So we must all try to be Charlie, not just today but every day.

WHY CLIMATE SCIENCE HAS FAILED

December 17, 2014

Would you bet your paycheck on a weather forecast for tomorrow? If not, then why should this country bet billions on global warming predictions that have even less foundation?      Thomas Sowell

A concerned friend wrote to warn me of a scientific mistake I was making in a recent post I made of the nonsense that this year was already the hottest on record.

I thanked him for what I took to be a constructive criticism and yet again pondered why there is such a breakdown between the two sides of the debate on climate change.

I have also been struck by the futility of both sides hurling cherry-picked contradictions at each other on almost every possible detailed point in the science, mainly because the science is diabolically complex and most or us are not scientific experts. It always ends up as an exhausting and ultimately futile tit for tat way to proceed, particularly between friends.

So I thought I should respond to my friend by finding questions of fact that we could agree on and then explore the answers to see if we could come to some better understanding. The distinguished science philosopher Karl Popper once said that “no one can give us more service than by showing us what is wrong with what we think or do, and the bigger the fault, the bigger the improvement made possible by its revelation”.

It was in this noble spirit I embarked on this piece.

The most important question that needs to be asked is: why, after so many billions of dollars of research by leading science institutions throughout the world is it that the warmists have failed to convince me and half of the rest of the world of rapid and catastrophic climate change?

The first problem I have is with all the hundreds of failed claims. Here is a short list of five. I ask therefore, why should I now trust any predictions about future weather from anyone in our climate science community?

FALSE PREDICTIONS

1. Whilst not a climate scientist himself, Tim Flannery was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the Australian Government to tell us “that the science was clear”, that all the major capitals in Australia would run out of water. He was successful. Our governments believed him and spent billions of dollars on now useless mothballed desal plants.

2.   Similarly, the BOM and CSIRO both claimed the science showed that the long drought we had at the turn of this century was the sign of a new climate — “so get used to it” — due to anthropogenic climate change. Later, when the rains returned, they themselves admitted they were wrong.

3. In March 2000, Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia said that the science showed that within a few years winter snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.  The British Met Bureau concurred and spent the next few years spectacularly predicting warmer winters that ended up bitter and snow bound.

4.  Michael Mann produced a Hockey Stick graph, used in at least two IPCC reports as definitive proof of spectacular and unusually rapid warming due to man-made climate change, only to be found to be a fraud by a US Senate Committee. The Hockey Stick was quietly dropped from the 5th IPCC Report and is now no longer used.

5. On the ‘mistake’ reported by my friend, on the “hottest year on record, this turned out to be a trivial claim. Matt Ridley, a British science writer in The Times observed “that the World Meteorological Organisation … issued a press release which confirmed that this is likely to be the warmest year in a century or more, based on surface temperatures. Yet this predicted record would be only one-hundredth of a degree above 2010 and two-hundredths of a degree above 2005 — with an error range of one-tenth of a degree. True scientists would have said: this year is unlikely to be significantly warmer than 2010 or 2005 and left it at that.”

These five points indicates gross errors, admissions of errors down to trivial conclusions about 1/100 of one degree temperature rises. This is not reassuring and essentially no warmist will address any of  these points honestly when asked.

THE IPCC CONSENSUS

To understand clearly what scientists mean by a “consensus” the IPCC 5th Summary Document for Policy Makers. September 2013 is essential reading.

It is a key document which reflects the most recent thinking from our international climate scientists.

1. The IPCC admits that insignificant warming has occurred in the last 15 years.

2. The IPCC admits that in 34 years there has been no new assessment made as to the effect a doubling of CO2 will have on temperature.

3. The IPCC admits a “low confidence” that damaging increases will occur in either drought or tropical cyclone activity due to climate warming.

4. The IPCC admits uncertainty to the positive or negative radiative effect of clouds [the most important green house gas].

All of these statements were made in the report and yet there is a baffling claim of settled science and 95 percent certainty in the consensus view of the science. I have never heard anyone in the ABC or Fairfax admit the uncertainties expressed here in the report itself.

CLIMATE MODELS  HAVE COMPLETELY FAILED

As a result of these uncertainties and the failure to address them, it has now been realised that the Climate Models are seriously wrong. IPCC scientists themselves have now admitted that they cannot explain why their climate models did not predict the present 17-18 year pause in warming. According to one independent climate scientist, former NASA scientist Dr Roy Spencer, almost all of the climate models used by government agencies and scientists to calculate and predict this century’s weather are completely wrong, going back to 1975.

One look at this graph shows why:

Therefore, I ask, on what basis is anyone to believe a thing these people say when it is from these models that they issue their dire warnings.

GLOBAL WARMING VERSUS CLIMATE CHANGE

Evidence shows that the world has been warming for the last two centuries but this proves nothing about what is causing it. Up until about 2008 my superannuation fund was also rising but then it stopped. I am mildly panicking but should I blame the Earth’s temperature pause.  On the other hand, my house has gained in price as has the CO2 content of the atmosphere. Should I thank carbon di-oxide?

This may sound silly or trivial but correlations are important, and at the moment there is a stronger correlation between these things than temperature to CO2.

Nobody that I know disagrees that the Earth has been warming; both warmists and sceptics agree, although most warmists don’t know this. The only reason that sceptics constantly bring attention to the pause in warming is simply because it exposes ALL the predictions listed above to a failure of the theory. This is why Global Warming became Climate Change.

I asked my friend, given the above facts, whether it wasn’t reasonable to be at least a little sceptical about the certainty claimed by climate scientists?

Uncertainty and the desire to test theories by falsification is one of the fundamental demarcations of science claimed by Karl Popper in his Logic of Scientific Method. He was a highly critical falsificationist and urged scientists at a methodological level not to evade refutation of their theories. It is this systematic failure of climate scientists to willingly question their assumptions or even begin to consider the legitimate questions of sceptics that has brought them to the present failure. As the Chinese proverb says, “To be uncertain is to be uncomfortable, but to be certain is to be ridiculous”

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

After writing this, I received in the post this morning the most timely of Christmas presents: a new, comprehensive book on climate change, Climate Change: The Facts 2014It addresses the problems I raise here in great detail.

Published by the Institute of Public Affairs, it is edited by Alan Moran. It has brilliant contributions from a range of the best Australian and international climate scientists and journalists. A delightful, entertaining and informative read. I urge anyone grappling with the issue to have a read over Christmas. It is the perfect reference book. I hope copies have been sent to all ABC producers and journalists.

ANOTHER UPDATE

In a blog today, Andrew Bolt, a contributor to the book, gives a detailed list of the crazy false alarms that warmist scientists and the media have promoted. When will the veil lift from the warmists’ eyes?

THE INTOLERANT LEFT

December 13, 2014

“They were almost all absolutist, whining liberal lefties, whose capacity for intolerance is unbounded.”

There was an outstanding piece in The Speccie [29 November] on divorce by British journalist Rod Liddle about the intolerance of the Left. This basically means intolerance towards whatever it is they disagree with.

Conservative in Australia knows that saying almost anything that is heartfelt, obvious or true at a dinner party leads to a chill in the atmosphere, followed by accusations of being ‘controversial’ or ‘provocative’ and then ostracism. This leads over time to a gradual loss of friends. Same process in Great Britain: it is in the nature of the bird.

A recent survey of attitudes towards Ukip found that people believe it to be a ‘toxic’ party, with nearly a quarter of those surveyed admitting that it would be “hard to remain friends with someone who felt warmth and fellowship towards Nigel Farage”. Liddle observes that it says more about this quarter of those surveyed than it does about Ukip: “They were almost all absolutist, whining liberal lefties, whose capacity for intolerance is unbounded.”  That description of certain people would of course be familiar to those of us who watch the ABC in Australia.

Liddle continues with a delightful description of this intolerance that is worth sharing:

Another survey, a year or two back, suggested you were also likely to be ‘defriended’ on Facebook by lefties if you disagree with something they say — far more likely than you are to be defriended by a right-winger for daring to suggest that, say, slavery perhaps had its downsides, all things considered. These people have the tolerance of the ADHD toddler, pre the administering of several thousand ccs of Ritalin. In essence, they are as flexible of mind and as democratic of spirit as the Islamists to whom they are habituated to offer sympathy and even solidarity. They may not actually chop your head off but — as the writer David Goodhart discovered when he wrote a book which was mildly challenging of the liberal mindset on immigration — they may prevent you from appearing at the Hay-on-Wye literary festival. I suppose, on the grand scale of things, that’s less incommodious than being separated from your own head. But the principle is the same.

ABC CONTINUES TEDIOUS CLIMATE PANIC

December 7, 2014

Because of global cooling it was an even-money bet whether England would survive until the year 2000

1969 Paul Ehrlich

The doomsayers never stop, one way or the other. The ABC was full of the news of the hottest year on record. There were headlines everywhere. The warmists were so relieved with this new piece of reassurance. There was no thought or possibility by the orthosphere that this might be an exaggeration or, dare I say it, totally wrong.

Jo Nova has a very clear version of what is happening:

When will the Bureau of Meteorology discover satellites? How many years will it take to train the ABC journalists to ask the BOM if satellite measurements agree or disagree with their highly adjusted, altered, deleted, and homogenised ground stations?

I used exactly no tax dollars to email John Christy of UAH, get the latest data, and graph it to show that in Australia 2014 was not the hottest spring, and not the hottest winter, summer or autumn either. Why can’t the BOM or the $1.1 billion ABC do that?

If the BOM served the public, they would make sure the public knew that these records depend entirely on their choice of dataset and on their mysterious homogenization procedures. …

It’s as if the BOM were working for Greenpeace instead of us …

Quelle surprise!   Nova also provides some interesting graphs.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.