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.

Are we really all Charlie?

January 10, 2015

No, no and shamefully no, says Andrew Bolt

Following the horrific events in Paris there has been a massive amount of commentary on the West and its continual appeasement of Islam.

There is much agreement that the Western media, our politicians and the Left commentariat are in a continual state of dhimmitude, starting with the White House which issued a statement that the attacks in Paris on Charlie Hebdo were not Islamic followed by the obligatory “Islam is a religion of peace”.

These events clarify just how political correctness and timidity over the years has got us into this mess. Remarkably, a few months ago, Tony Abbott performed an incomprehensible back-down on his promise to scrap our anti-freedom of speech laws just at a time when our freedoms to express honestly held opinions are most under attack. This muzzling encourages precisely the very extremism that the political elites deplore and against which they all vainly protest.

Gerard Henderson is lucid as always on the successful aim of the terrorists:

The jihadists in our midst do not want to provoke us. Rather, they want to silence us — from winding back freedom of expression to changing foreign policy with respect to the Middle East and on to the eventual establishment of Sharia law …

Just as fear spreads, Henderson also calls out the stupidity of journalists who are more worried about the growth of right wing parties in Europe rather than the Muslim extremists with the Kalashnikovs who actually brutally kill citizens.

… on ABC radio’s The World Today, Australian-born journalist Annette Young, described a possible growth in support for the National Front, and its leader Marine Le Pen, as the “big worry” following the attack on Charlie Hebdo.

UK commentator David Aaronovitch raises a very clear point on the role criticism plays in the context of tolerance for religion:

The same tolerance that allows Muslims or Methodists freedom to practise and espouse their religion,” he wrote, “is the same tolerance that allows their religion to be depicted, criticised or even ridiculed. Take away one part of the deal and the other part falls too. You don’t like it, go somewhere else.”

AYAAN HIRSI ALI  tells the ABC on ABC television what it is failing to do:

You are still continuing to self-censor because you have not published or republished cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. You have not honoured Charlie Hebdo the way they need to be honoured, which is they took a risk, they took a risk to stand up for the core values of Western civilisation. And you, the media, are letting them down. You have drawn and published caricatures of the terrorists, but you have not published caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.

Brendan O’Neill spells out what freedom of speech entails and how it has been captured by the politically correct:

Tragically, many in the West, including those who call themselves liberal, had forgotten the importance of free speech, and the benefits of blasphemy itself, long before this week’s horrific assault.

Across Europe over the past 30 years offensiveness has been turned into a crime. In every European country, hate-speech laws have been introduced to control and punish the expression of certain beliefs.

…It’s just that where politicians think offensiveness is only an imprisonable offence, theCharlie Hebdo killers think it deserves capital punishment.

So the barbarism in Paris has not taken place in a vacuum. It occurred on a continent where anti-offensiveness is written into law and stamped into many campaigners’ hearts, and where liberals all too often side with the offence-takers over the offence-givers, the speakers or writers who have uttered the unutterable.

Incandescent with rage and frustration is MARK STEYN about useful idiots like President Hollande — and like President Obama and British PM Cameron — who claimed against all the evidence that “those who committed these terrorist acts have nothing to do with the Muslim religion”.

Yeah, right. I would use my standard line on these occasions – “Allahu Akbar” is Arabic for “Nothing to see here” – but it’s not quite as funny when the streets are full of cowards, phonies and opportunists waving candles and pencils and chanting “Je suis Charlie.” Because if you really were Charlie, if you really were one of the 17 Frenchmen and women slaughtered in the name of Allah in little more than 48 hours, you’d utterly despise a man who could stand up in public and utter those words …

They tested the foe again this week: They assassinated the senior editorial team of the only publication not willing to sign on to the official “No Islam to see here” line. And they were rewarded for their slaughter with the président de la république standing up in public insisting there’s “No Islam to see here.

And here to finish is an outstanding piece by Andrew Bolt that covers all the various points raised above and more. Unless something turns around, it would appear that things will only get worse:

The West’s political leaders have already told Muslim leaders they agree that mocking Islam is a sin, and have even passed laws — in France, too — making it unlawful.

They have attacked the very few journalists and politicians who dared warn against the Islamist threat.

Anything for peace, even if it means submission.

And for all the protests this past week, submission is what you must expect.

 UPDATE

Yet another wonderful piece by Henry Ergas in today’s Australian:

The reality is that there is a problem with Islam. To say that is not to deny Islam’s immense diversity, impugn the millions of Muslims who abhor the horrors being wreaked in their name, or dispute the enduring value of religious faith in a secular age.

But it is undeniable that Islam’s distinctive features make it especially vulnerable to being used to incite religiously motivated ­violence.

Those features include the glorification of battle, with Mohammed mounting 65 expeditions against unbelievers in his decade-long rule in Medina, and personally commanding nearly half of them; the duty to wage jihad and “terrify the enemies of God”, fighting unbelievers until “the religion is God’s entirely”; the aspiration to impose Sharia law and restore the caliphate, an Islamic concept without parallel in the other Abrahamic religions; and the cult of martyrdom, with Mohammed himself being quoted as longing to be killed in jihad only to be resurrected and then killed fighting again.

Cate Blanchett and the modern day Luddites

January 3, 2015

If the scientists have the future in their bones, then the traditional culture responds by wishing the future did not exist.     CP SNOW

Cate Blanchett made her self satisfied, self promoting oration at the ABC/ALP funeral extravaganza only a few weeks ago, where on the television screen I swear her nose grew a few centimetres, explaining the extraordinary benefits she had gained by all the free university education she had received through the Whitlam Government — aka Australian taxpayer — largesse.

On its heels comes another triumphant self-justificatory explanation of the value of an Arts Degree for our national future, nay, the future of humanity, this time delivered at the North Ryde’s Macquarie University Faculty of Arts.

Tim Blair covers the travesty brilliantly:

Blanchett said: “I’d like to posit today that it is the arts that have always been the driver for innovation and exploration. I chose these words precisely because they are always credited to science.”
Quite right. What do scientists know about exploration? We all remember arts graduate Neil Armstrong’s thrilling dissertation on lunar inequality and post-modernism during his landmark 1969 moon tutorial.

You get the drift. It reminds of my rediscovery only a few years ago of CP Snow’s “The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution” that I had studied along with so many others in the early 60’s at school.

I very quickly realised in this quote that Snow was talking about the self-indugent narcisistic dreamers of the Left, the culture that disregards and distains wealth creation and industry, a culture with a total ignorance of economics and a culture made up of preachy environmentalists that basically have little understanding of science.

Snow understood the difference between the Arts and Science; the moralising and the creating; the seeming and the doing.

“Most of our fellow human beings, for instance, are underfed and die before their time. In the crudest terms, that is the social condition. There is a moral trap which comes through the insight into man’s loneliness: it tempts one to sit back, complacent in one’s unique tragedy, and let the others go without a meal . . . As a group, the scientists fall into that trap less than others. . . . If the scientists have the future in their bones, then the traditional culture responds by wishing the future did not exist. It is the traditional culture, to an extent remarkably little diminished by the emergence of the scientific one, which manages the Western world . . . It can be said simply, and it is this. If we forget the scientific culture, then the rest of Western intellectuals have never tried, wanted, or been able to understand the industrial revolution, much less accept it. Intellectuals, in particular literary intellectuals, are natural Luddites. . . For, of course, one truth is straightforward. Industrialisation is the only hope of the poor.”

Christian murders top 100,000 a year

December 30, 2014

Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you  — 1 John 3:13 

 No doubt the ALP and the Greens will protest loudly regarding the persecutions of Christians. In Australia we worry ourselves to death about the ‘bad’ feelings we have towards the antics of some of our Muslims and other minorities in this country, terrified of backlashes against them, despising ourselves for our wretched racism and intolerant ‘White Man’ superiority, but somehow fail to notice what is happening elsewhere in the non-White world.

According to the International Society for Human Rights, a secular group with members in 38 states worldwide, 80 per cent of all acts of religious discrimination today are directed at Christians.

The US Center for the Study of Global Christianity has estimated that 100,000 Christians die every year because of their faith.

The Washington-based, non-partisan Pew Research Center has said that Christians today face some form of discrimination in 139 countries – almost three-quarters of the world’s nations.

There are Christians in jail for blasphemy in Pakistan.

Churches are being burned and worshippers slaughtered in Nigeria and Egypt, which has seen its worst anti-Christian activity in recent years.

The most violent anti-Christian pogrom of the early 21st century saw upwards of 500 Christians hacked to death in 2008 by machete-wielding Hindus at Orissa in India.

In Burma, Christians are routinely imprisoned and tortured.

Persecution of Christians in China is said to be on the increase.

In North Korea a quarter of Christians live in forced labour camps for refusing to join the cult of the state’s founder Kim Il-sung.

UPDATE

I hesitated in titling the above blog with a quote from the Koran — about it being tolerant and all that. But, then appeared a few days later this powerful piece from Quadrant-Online, Allah-cadabra! Islam’s Hate Vanishes by the excellent Peter Smith.

The article quotes Alexis de Tocqueville, who had studied the Koran a hundred years ago, and concluded:

“I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad,” he wrote.

With the systematic killing of Christians as enumerated above and which passes today almost unnoticed by Western dhimmis, it is a very perspicatious observation by Monsieur de Tocqueville.

American success is a result of experiment not design

December 30, 2014

A free society is one that is willing to place millions of small bets on persons unknown and things unseen.

A fascinating end of year reflection on the sometimes forgotten creative power of American individualism and freedom comes from Bret Stephens in the Wall Street Journal. Essentially based on private property rights, Stephens asks what we might consider to the be the most influential innovations in the early 21st century, the equivalents of the Model T Fords, the Wright brothers and Penicillin in the last century?

On the top of his list is fracking. It has made America the world’s leading oil and gas producer, turned the energy markets upside down and paradoxically, reduced the US’s greenhouse gas emmissions to below 1995 levels. And for good measure, it has undermined the success of renewables. .

Fracking happened in the U.S. because Americans, almost uniquely in the world, have property rights to the minerals under their yards. And because the federal government wasn’t really paying attention. And because federalism allows states to do their own thing. And because against-the-grain entrepreneurs like George Mitchell and Harold Hamm couldn’t be made to bow to the consensus of experts. And because our deep capital markets were willing to bet against those experts.

This is a paean to free markets, individualism and anarchic creativity.

Innovation depends less on developing specific ideas than it does on creating broad spaces. Autocracies can always cultivate their chess champions, piano prodigies and nuclear engineers; they can always mobilize their top 1% to accomplish some task. The autocrats’ quandary is what to do with the remaining 99%. They have no real answer, other than to administer, dictate and repress.
A free society that is willing to place millions of small bets on persons unknown and things unseen doesn’t have this problem. Flexibility, not hardness, is its true test of strength. Success is a result of experiment not design. Failure is tolerable to the extent that adaptation is possible.

This is the American secret …We are larger than our leaders. We are better than our politics. We are wiser than our culture. We are smarter than our ideas.

Climate science still doing its best

December 30, 2014

How many bad predictions does it take to disbelieve climate scientists? 

In a published letter in Nature Climate Change on 22 December, it was report that global warming is already slowing yield gains at a majority of wheat-growing regions throughout the world. The researchers tested 30 computer models … to establish the most likely scenario.

But in the real world it is reported that:

Global wheat production set new records in 2013 and 2014 …Not only are global wheat yields not declining, they are rising at a spectacular pace. According to objective US Department of Agriculture data, global wheat yields have risen by 33 per cent since 1994.

But the Nature Climate Change report with its 30 computer models assures us:

In recent decades, wheat yields had declined in hotter sites such as in India, Africa, Brazil and Australia …

But in the real Indian world it is reported that:

Indian farmers are poised for a record wheat harvest this year of 96 million tonnes, up some 3.5 million tonnes year on year and beating the previous record of 94.9 million tonnes set in 2012, the US Department of Agriculture’s New Delhi bureau said.

And Brazil?

Harvest of the 2014 wheat crop is almost concluded. Early official estimates point to a bumper crop of almost 7.5 million tonnes, or 30 per cent above last year’s good level and record …

And Africa?

Wheat production in Egypt has quadrupled during the past three decades, with the past 10 years producing the 10 highest wheat crops in Egyptian history … Africa’s second largest wheat producer, Morocco, produced its largest wheat crop in history in 2013 … South Africa also produced record wheat yields in 2014 …

And finally Australia?

This year’s Australian wheat crop … is nearly four times as large as the 1972 wheat crop.

Oh dear. What to make of those pesky models and climate science?

Pope’s misunderstanding of economics

December 27, 2014

“Inequality is the root of social evil”   Pope Francis

Interestingly, The Age, in its summer break, is letting through some interesting think pieces. The latest, by British columnist with London’s The Daily Telegraph, Allister Heath, calls out the Pope, whose hostility to capitalism he feels is tragically misplaced.

He has repeatedly savaged free markets and aligned himself with the views of Thomas Piketty, the far-left intellectual who obsesses about inequality and advocates crippling taxes on income and wealth.

Apparently, the Pope believes that the absolute autonomy of markets is a new form of tyranny.

It was a strangely inaccurate vignette of the modern economic system, which is characterised by not-so-free markets that are routinely bailed out, subsidised, taxed, capped, fettered, regulated and distorted by activist governments and their monetary and fiscal policies. North Korea is a genuine tyranny; free trade and genuine free markets are anything but.

The Pope’s fundamental error, as is that of socialist thinking generally, is that “inequality is the root of social evil”. This logic leads to directly to the idea that it is:

“evil” for the likes of Sir Richard Branson to have been allowed to keep the money he earned by providing the public with goods and services, and that we need immediate equalisation through punitive taxes. Such an extreme approach would have catastrophic consequences, annihilate incentives to work, save and invest, and halt the progress of human civilisation.

Heath points out facts that many seem to ignore; that human prosperity has increased astronomically worldwide and absolute poverty has been halved in a few decades. It reminds me of Matt Ridley’s The Rational Optimist, which outlines just how extraordinary has been human progress in wealth creation, for everyone, everywhere.

Heath concludes,

But unthinkingly to fight capitalism – the greatest alleviator of poverty and liberator of people ever discovered – makes no sense. The sooner the world’s great religions learn to love the wealth-creating properties of the market economy, the sooner they will be able to harness them to make the world a better place.

An enlightened Q&A

December 18, 2014

A delicious unease and embarrassment in the studio at Q&A

Just occasionally one tunes into this leftist stacked and undemocratic debate on ABC’s Q&A with Tony “Can I Interrupt You” Jones. One can never tell what surprises might be in store.

The show on the 24th November started out inauspiciously with predictable topics — political lies, the government narrative, Rupert Murdoch, and understanding terrorism — and the loudest and smuggest panellist ever seen on the show: the self-proclaimed Marxists and passionate spokesman for animal rights, James “He-who-dares-to-be-an Artist” Cromwell. He is an American actor, here in Australia to appear in David Williamson new play about Rupert Murdoch.

Other panellists were Noel Pearson, Chairman, Cape York Partnership; Amanda Vanstone, Former Liberal Senator; Holly Ransom, Youth Advocate and Co-Chair G20 Youth Summit; and Waleed Aly, Host of RN Drive and ABC in-house expert on Islamic terrorism.

With this glum line up, and dread in heart, there was a surprise performer nevertheless, Noel Pearson.

Cromwell, after giving a particularly sneering run-down on Rupert Murdoch’s multiple short-comings — things like supporting racists, bigots and war-mongers — Tony Jones turned to Noel Pearson and suggested, in fairness, that he might have a different take on Murdoch. Well, he certainly did, and Pearson became the surprise performer of the evening with views we had never heard expressed before on the ABC.

He went straight to it, and the more he went on, the more an eerie silence filled the studio.

Yeah. I mean, without the support of The Australian over the last 15 years, I don’t think we would have made the ground we have in Indigenous affairs. I think a reorientation in Indigenous affairs was necessary and, quite frankly, The Australian was the only national media vehicle that got behind that. I also think that in prospect, such as with constitutional reform, recognising Indigenous Australians, that quite frankly, Rupert Murdoch is probably one of, I would say, five or six people who are absolutely key to a successful referendum. I would count Paul Keating and John Howard as the other two white Australians who are key to that success, as well as Patrick Dodson and Lowitja O’Donoghue. So, I understand the whole critique of News Corporation and Murdoch and so on but when it comes to Indigenous affairs in this country, Murdoch has a history that goes back to the Stuart case for the Adelaide Advertiser in 1959, the fight against the death penalty for Max Stuart and his flagship paper, in particular, has been completely assiduous in its support of what I would say is the right set of radical centre politics. Now, that might not be beautiful music to the ears of people on the left but I would argue that the radical centre policies that we are trying to prosecute here are absolutely essential for Indigenous people.

After recovering from this enormous elephant in the room, Cromwell blathered out a feeble:

“Well, you know, I’m playing a character called Rupert Murdoch who has this journey in the play. It’s not Rupert Murdoch. I have no idea what goes on in Rupert Murdoch. I don’t understand this. His voice certainly is louder than anybody else’s voice …[???]

He finished this part of his diatribe by talking about the Native Americans, ‘ripped off’, dominated by the the ‘Anglos who surround them’ and appealed for the need of a dialogue for them. “Everybody has to have a voice”.

Pearson then explained very calmly what it felt like not to have a proper voice.

Go Noel:

Well, some of our most gut-wrenching fights for the rights of our people in relation to land and the ability of our people to develop and have employment and so on have been supported by Murdoch’s papers solely. Not a word from the ABC. Not a word from Fairfax. The Murdoch press has argued for our right not to live in poverty and they’ve supported us in the fights. They’ve also supported justice for deaths in custody, the Mulrunji case in Palm Island. The Australian newspaper left every other outlet for dead in advocating Mulringi’s case in the death in custody at Palm Island. So, I detect in Murdoch, and I have met him a number of times, I detect basic Australian fealty to the Indigenous people. There is a human being under the mogul and I think that whatever he might do in the United States, the way in which he has influenced his outlets here in Australia, I can’t be more thankful for the support they give us and our causes. People might not agree with the causes I advocate but they are causes about land rights, human rights but also about welfare reform and economic development. We’ve got to have both and we’ve got to combine those two things in an intelligent way because it can’t just be that we live off a leftist prescription and abandoning the right’s prescription. We have got to bring the two together.

What a brilliant reply. What an iconoclastic view for our ABC and its audience. There was a palpable sense of embarrassment and silence in the studio.

The caravan moved on eventually to the tricky problems concerning our Muslim minority and terrorism. The question from the floor was about whether or not the Government had done enough to understand the point of view of these people or is our reaction to ISIS simply producing ever more radicalised individuals?’

After some unsatisfactory waffling from the ABC’s Waleed ‘Nothing-to-See-Here’ Aly, Tony Jones at this point turned to Noel Pearson with a beautiful slime question, the quality for which he is an expert:

I’d actually quite like to hear from Noel Pearson on this. It is not a subject we often hear you talking about but it’s occupied a huge amount of space in The Australian newspaper, for example, which you obviously read.

Noel decides to talk about Assimilation and the Enlightenment. Pure gold.

I can’t speak directly to it. I can only speak about my thinking about assimilation. I came upon the idea that, you know, assimilation is a bad thing. It has been utterly opposed by Indigenous people. We don’t want to lose our identity, religion, culture, traditions but there is one thing in which – in respect of which a process of assimilation is unavoidable and that is assimilation to the enlightenment. And I think the problem we are grappling with in Australia, as throughout the West, is that the enlightenment has been conflated with kind of western culture, white fellas. Associated with white fellas, when the enlightenment was a human achievement. It wasn’t a western achievement or a British achievement or an English achievement. It’s a human achievement contributed to by people from the Arab States and China and India. All over the globe have contributed to the enlightenment and I think we’re on a wrong course here in Australia when we insist on Muslims assimilating on the basis of “Well, you’ve got to be like the white fellas of Australia” when, really, the essential – and the same goes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. The only assimilation, if I might use that very untrusted word – the only assimilation that should ever be a kind of requisite of citizenship, is assimilation to the enlightenment.

TONY JONES: And what do you do when something – a phenomenon pops up like ISIS, which is sort of the antithesis of the enlightenment?

NOEL PEARSON: Yes, and absolutely it’s got to be opposed and I think that but the way in which we deal with our own citizens who might be attracted to radical ideologies like that is not to hector them about the superiority of the white enlightenment but the human achievement of the enlightenment, which is as much a heritage of Muslims and Indigenous Australians as it is for Anglo Australians.

An outstanding night for Q&A and for the clear headedness of Noel Pearson.

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.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.