JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Finkelstein — Yes please. Just try it…

Welcome to Australistan.

I haven’t read the whole 400 page Finklestein report, but Mark Steyn tells me that the Chinese government likes it. What more do you need to know?

As Steyn says, this is not a left-right thing, it’s a free-unfree thing.

Tim Andrews at Menzies House launches a New Free Speech Campaign: “This is a proposal that would seem right at home in North Korea or Zibmabwe. I never thought – as dark as things seemed- we could stoop this low here in Australia”.

People asked me if this would “affect your blog”. Ha ha, I laughed, Will it? Right now, I’m discussing whether I’d need to move to Fiji, or Florida, or become a citizen of the Dominican Republic in order to express my views. Could I split my blog into a different domain name each day to avoid being “monitored”? ( I could have 365 blogs: joannenova1.com.au, joannenova2.com.au… it would play havoc with the search engines.) Alternately, perhaps I write 100% satire, cartoons, irony, and the exact opposite of what I mean? Ho Ho. Who has the rule book on the Soviet black market for ideas? What can we learn and how does it translate in this Internet era?

If all this legislation achieves is to force me to invite Tim Flannery to do a post here, all I can say is Yes Please. Bring it on. But we all know that requirement would mean that instead of gaining “balance” we would gain silence. Because Flannery only has to say “Sorry I’m busy for  a decade” and what, Joanne Nova has to hold all her posts until he finds the time? Paradoxically, though we could use the legislation to force the ABC to mention the unmentionable — except that in the end, selective enforcement by an unelected Big Brother team would decide what information was “safe” for Australians to read. And that pro-big-government team already thinks the ABC provides enough skeptic content (i.e. almost none).

They pretend it’s about serving the public. But the Finklestein report is aimed at skeptics and disabling the Murdoch newspapers, and the submissions were mostly from professional lobbyists. The “bias” category lists skeptic crimes according to well known warmists. Eighty-six percent of the 10,000 submissions the Inquiry received  were boilerplate copies from Avaaz (foreign group),  GetUp or “NewsStand”. GetUp support Avaaz, and NewsStand turns out to be a front for GetUP. All of them say they are for “Free speech” (as long it’s pro left-green speech). Avaaz and GetUp betray their lack of principles,when  they run open “hate media” type campaigns against Murdoch papers.

Simon at Australian Climate Madness points out the futility of trying to stop an international information flow. “The Australian government cannot legislate regulations to take effect over media organisations outside Australian jurisdiction, without bipartisan agreements between those other states. I do not foresee this happening – for example in the US, the First Amendment prohibits any law infringing on the freedom of speech or the press.”

But then, if the government control the fibre-optic cables, perhaps they really can block overseas sites. Is that why the Labor Party thinks renationalizing Australian telecommunications into the NBN (National Broadcast Network) is “good value” so they can bring sanitized propaganda to every home? Will skeptics laugh at the toothless tiger from overseas sites, or end up broadcasting from moving vans via CB radio? Will anonymous twitter-hack networks spring up to defeat the ruling? Either way, the nation spends more of its intellectual wealth fighting a bureaucratic maze instead of fighting lies, half-truths, and Gongo-ideas.*

The power of one voice

I finally met The Man (Mark Steyn) last night at his Perth speech. Brilliant, brave, inspiring, and it absolutely made-my-day (in a career highlight kind of way) that he knew straight away who I was. He had quoted my Climate Money paper in 2009, and he spoke of it immediately. Forgive me for the shameless brag.  Some days I wonder if an audience of 5,000 readers a day matters, but then I find a famous cartoonist, author, or member of parliament who reads the site, and all the work seems worthwhile. I’m reaching the people that matter.

I almost never reveal the names of the influential readers. (It’s not like I’m doing them a favor by telling the world). Lately there have been many, and I met another last night. As I dryly commented to this particular policymaker who’d come up to praise me and shake my hand: Thankyou. I’ll add your name to the list of people who I can’t say reads my work!

But this is the key isn’t it? The power of the internet is such that one person out of 7 billion can speak a truth that was unspoken, and the message spreads and silently reaches those in the highest circles of influence. Free speech is the greatest of gifts for humanity. It unleashes the best of billions of brains. The internet is changing the power-structure of societies, and the ruling class don’t like it at all. The fact that their ideas are so weak and that they are so defenseless against sharp observations, is is exactly why they have to regulate it.

Bob Brown, we know you are afraid to let Greens policies be debated. Actions speak louder than words.

 How much of our right to speak will they take away? As much as we let them.

We must aim for the total absence of an Independent Media Commission. Their current ambit claim will be watered down, 15,000 hits a year will be negotiated to 150,000 hits a year and it will still be a noxious, nasty, evil piece of work.

Free Speech is free speech. It doesn’t come with a limit.

 Please sign the petition at Free Speech Australia.

Menzies House is pursing this legislation.

Prof Bunyip calls it the Finko and Rickety Review. (Streuth, this is the kind of ruling they want more of?)

Prof Bunyip (Speak up while you still can) recommends (as do I) that we start sending letters to University Chancellors to ask them to remove any lecturer of journalism that endorses censorship (lest their institute be exposed for a patsy lap-dog government entity). See his post for details.

————————————-

*And you thought I just made up that word. Actually I did. But then I discovered it means something and Gongo-idea is my new favourite term.  Gongo stands for Government-Organized Non-Governmental Organization. Used by undemocratic governments… 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (140 votes cast)
Finkelstein -- Yes please. Just try it..., 9.5 out of 10 based on 140 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/79wyaqd

440 comments to Finkelstein — Yes please. Just try it…

  • #
    Winston

    I feel a strange kinship with my Orwellian namesake right now! I knew I took up the nom de plume for a reason! Gillard can gag me, tie me up, beat me with sticks and kick me into the gutter, but it won’t make her any less hopelessly incompetent for preventing me from saying it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Interesting that a high income lawyer thinks that the ABC is unbiased, and therefore climate sceptics, and anyone giving them a chance to heard, need to be silenced.

    It can’t be that the Federal Government is incompetent and out of touch, it must be a conspiracy to bring down the Government. A fair indication of the sort of people who comprise the ABC audience, and their self belief in their own superiority to the other 90% of the population.

    With that view it is only a matter of time before the migrant detention centres are emptied to make room for people like you and I. But what will they call them? Swanheim? Juliawitz? Stalag Arbid?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Treeman

    The Fink has been copping it from Kangaroo Court of Australia since last September.

    Raymond Finkelstein QC, better known as The Fink will go down in history as one of the greatest fools to ever be appointed a judge, an absolute legend. This is a man who tried to hear his own case which was before the court. It does not get much worse than that.

    Today there is more.

    Make no mistake, it is a political document designed to protect corrupt politicians and dodgy policies from scrutiny and outing by the media. If The Fink’s recommendations had already been in effect we would not of heard about a lot of the dodgy dealings of the politicians because the reporting would have been closed down in record time.

    The recommendations by The Fink would make any communist dictator proud.

    Thank goodness for the degree of sophistication the internet gives us today. Without it we could not effectively negate this nonsense.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Treeman

      And now it’s Pinkie Finkie!
      James Delingpole today:

      let’s allow lefties like Pinkie Finkie and Gillard and Tim Flannery and Bob Brown their hour in the sun because the longer they stay there, the more damage they do and the more damage they will be seen to have done. This is important. (The same applies to Obama’s US; sadly it’s not going to work here, not with Cameron poisoning the wells for Conservatism for ever). If Australia is to get the government it needs (and deserves) it must first experience the full horror of the government it doesn’t deserve. The more easily ordinary people can see just how authoritarian, petty-minded, bullying, meddling and grotesquely biased the left can be when it holds the reins of power, the more enthusiastic they’ll be about throwing the bastards into the croc pit come 2013. (Or sooner, if we’re lucky).


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Ally E.

    This foolish attempt at censorship will have even MORE people talking about what and why.

    There will certainly be more complaints about government policy and green idiocy when the carbon tax comes in. When those good folk who aren’t already yelling begin doing so – then find they will shortly not be allowed to – heck, I see governments coming down. The people are not going to be happy with this attempt.

    I’m with Winston (above), except the last bit. Gillard will NEVER prevent me from speaking up for truth and honest science!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Treeman

      Ally

      This goes deeper than green idiocy. It attempts to prevent us from exposing corruption at the highest level.

      Shane Dowling writes:

      The federal MP Craig Thomson is accused of ripping of the Health Services Union. In my previous post it says the below:

      “The union’s accusations were reported by The Sydney Morning Herald in April 2009.In response, Thomson initiated defamation proceedings against both the Health Services Union and against the publisher of the Herald, Fairfax Media. In pretrial proceedings in the New South Wales Supreme Court, Fairfax Media claimed that subpoenaed records showed that details of Thomson’s driver’s license had been noted on the credit card receipt, that phone records showed that Thomson’s phone had been used to call two phone numbers associated with a Sydney escort agency and that mobile phone records showed that Thomson had travelled from his constituency to Sydney on one of the nights on which one of the impugned charges to the credit card had been made.”

      It’s all here


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Greg

    ” I do not foresee this happening – for example in the US, the First Amendment prohibits any law infringing on the freedom of speech or the press.”

    Which the gov’t ignores from time to time, having written a few censorship bills, which thankfully didn’t pass. These guys have been very important in stopping such things: https://www.eff.org/

    Prior to Rush Limbaugh there was an FTC rule that basically dictated speech over the radio. Reagan (I think) killed it and talk radio became a reality.

    The point is that people at the top find free speech to be inconvenient and will do what they can to work around it. Given our Democrats saying that they don’t look to our Constitution and Obama saying he will bypass Congress… Well, I wouldn’t be surprised to see free speech regulated here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Gee whiz!

    I can’t wait for our favourite Q & A presenter to get Minister Conroy & shadow minister Turnbull to dance around this.( preferably backed up wit B Joyce & a GetUp hack)

    Turnbull’s defence in the Peter Wright “Spycatcher” case would be well worth quoting in framing an internet/text question.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Popeye

    These BUMS put Goebbels to shame.

    For those that are interested see below for Goebbels Propaganda Principles.

    “1. Propagandist must have access to intelligence concerning events and public opinion.

    2. Propaganda must be planned and executed by only one authority.
    a. It must issue all the propaganda directives.

    b. It must explain propaganda directives to important officials and maintain their morale.

    c. It must oversee other agencies’ activities which have propaganda consequences

    3. The propaganda consequences of an action must be considered in planning that action.

    4. Propaganda must affect the enemy’s policy and action.
    a. By suppressing propagandistically desirable material which can provide the enemy with useful intelligence

    b. By openly disseminating propaganda whose content or tone causes the enemy to draw the desired conclusions

    c. By goading the enemy into revealing vital information about himself

    d. By making no reference to a desired enemy activity when any reference would discredit that activity

    5. Declassified, operational information must be available to implement a propaganda campaign

    6. To be perceived, propaganda must evoke the interest of an audience and must be transmitted through an attention-getting communications medium.

    7. Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda output should be true or false.

    8. The purpose, content and effectiveness of enemy propaganda; the strength and effects of an expose; and the nature of current propaganda campaigns determine whether enemy propaganda should be ignored or refuted.

    9. Credibility, intelligence, and the possible effects of communicating determine whether propaganda materials should be censored.

    10. Material from enemy propaganda may be utilized in operations when it helps diminish that enemy’s prestige or lends support to the propagandist’s own objective.

    11. Black rather than white propaganda may be employed when the latter is less credible or produces undesirable effects.

    12. Propaganda may be facilitated by leaders with prestige.

    13. Propaganda must be carefully timed.
    a. The communication must reach the audience ahead of competing propaganda.

    b. A propaganda campaign must begin at the optimum moment

    c. A propaganda theme must be repeated, but not beyond some point of diminishing effectiveness

    14. Propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans.
    a. They must evoke desired responses which the audience previously possesses

    b. They must be capable of being easily learned

    c. They must be utilized again and again, but only in appropriate situations

    d. They must be boomerang-proof

    15. Propaganda to the home front must prevent the raising of false hopes which can be blasted by future events.

    16. Propaganda to the home front must create an optimum anxiety level.
    a. Propaganda must reinforce anxiety concerning the consequences of defeat

    b. Propaganda must diminish anxiety (other than concerning the consequences of defeat) which is too high and which cannot be reduced by people themselves

    17. Propaganda to the home front must diminish the impact of frustration.
    a. Inevitable frustrations must be anticipated

    b. Inevitable frustrations must be placed in perspective

    18. Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.

    19. Propaganda cannot immediately affect strong counter-tendencies; instead it must offer some form of action or diversion, or both.”

    Sounds like Gillard/Brown governemnt to me.

    I WILL GLADLY SPEND TIME IN JAIL BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT SHUT DOWN MY FREEDOM TO SPEAK.

    Time to invoke “Rule 303″

    Cheers,


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Kevin Moore

      I agree with the thrust of your post but I would be interested in learning of the source for your Goebbels’ quotes.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Popeye

        KM

        Link here

        Very interesting read.

        Cheers,


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Kevin Moore

          This man also had a knowledge of how to lead the general public in the required direction and did.

          Propaganda by Edward Bernays [1928]

          http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html

          Contents
          I. ORGANIZING CHAOS
          II. THE NEW PROPAGANDA
          III. THE NEW PROPAGANDISTS
          IV. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PUBLIC RELATIONS
          V. BUSINESS AND THE PUBLIC
          VI. PROPAGANDA AND POLITICAL LEADERSHIP
          VII. WOMEN’S ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
          VIII. PROPAGANDA FOR EDUCATION
          IX. PROPAGANDA IN SOCIAL SERVICE
          X. ART AND SCIENCE
          XI. THE MECHANICS OF PROPAGANDA

          CHAPTER I
          ORGANIZING CHAOS

          THE conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
          We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.
          Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet.
          They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership, their ability to supply needed ideas and by their key position in the social structure. Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons—a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million—who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world…..


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    I once worked for a QANGO – quasi autonomous non government organisation.

    Stop voting for them. They need us,we don’t need them.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    gnome

    They will back off as soon as the law of unintended consequences is pointed out to them.

    Redress is always only an election away.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    RoHa

    Breaking up the Murdoch and Fairfax empires would be great, but not this way.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    My Mum is now (well) into her 80′s, and still going strong. In 2001, she was awarded an OAM for services to the Community with three organisations.

    I am her firstborn, and she (sometimes) regales me with the story of my birth.

    She was only 22, and when I was shown to her after coming to greet everyone on the ‘outside World’, her first words were, ‘It looks like a skun rabbit.’

    She distinctly remembers (and often tells me) the name of the Doctor who delivered me, one of his first deliveries.

    Doctor Finkelstein she told me his name was.

    Suddenly, I feel even less important.

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Amr Marzouk

    Attended mark Steyn in Sydney- great night. He didn’t know me but I have read all his books/articles since the 90s.
    Of-course he would know about you.
    Amr


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    and of course Alan Kohler doesn’t see too much to worry about til the final paras:

    5 March: BusinessSpectator: Alan Kohler: Why Finkelstein is not Judge Dredd
    The reason publishers’ and editors’ stomachs would have lurched at the thought of this is that all the nutters might have to be taken seriously…
    Also, decent publishers and editors would have nothing to fear: they already happily publish corrections and apologies.
    The worst thing about the Finkelstein Report is the proposed threshold for roping in news websites – 15,000 ‘hits’ per annum.
    This is a very silly number and suggests that Finkelstein and Ricketson didn’t do enough work on understanding online publishing. Even a tiny news blog would get that many page views in a week, or even a day; Business Spectator gets that many on a single story, before lunch, hopefully on this piece too. Pass it on.
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Finkelstein-report-News-Media-Council-regulation-pd20120305-S3RVE?opendocument&src=rss

    re Mark Steyn: heard him on ABC RN’s Counterpoint this afternoon, which i was listening to in case the interview recently done with Andrew Montford (Bishop HIll) was on. unfortunately Bish wasn’t on, and wasn’t mentioned for next week’s program, but hopefully it will get on eventually. Bish did say it was for future broadcast.

    anyway, when Steyn was asked about the republican race in the US, i was disappointed he managed to mention Romney, Santorum and Gingrich, but not Ron Paul. when people say they are about freedom and liberty, i’d like to see it translate to their politics.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    is this his guy Finklestein for real? Itll be Frankenstein if he tries to get this past.

    Also

    Mark Steyn tells me that the Chinese government likes it. What more do you need to know?

    This is crap. In China you can criticize any govt policy in fact they are very sensitive to it and laws have been changed due to public criticism. What you cant do in China is organize a group to overthrow the govt (try that here too). So there are limits on organised criticism. Different philosophy different rules. Before u judge http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/ listen to Eric Li.
    The West isnt China and China isnt the West. Much as the West (mainly USA, UK and France, imperialists of empire) wants to make the whole world like it and destroy all the other cultures.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      gbees

      Except the Chinese government controls the media, the internet and the messages. The Chinese view of capitalism is an interesting one. One where the workers are expendable and in fact the workers know that and expect to be considered expendable.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        BULLSHIT have u been there?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          gbees

          yes. and probably to places you haven’t been to. This situation is covered in Loretta Napoleoni’s book Maoonomics. “Workers are nevertheless so abundant that replacing them does not represent a problem: for every poisoned worker forced to leave, there at least ten younger ones ready to take their place”. Some people’s work days involve living in cramped quarters, long hours 8am to midnight, 7 days a week. Although I will concede that the attitude is changing even if the compensation for workers killed in accidents falls way short of anything we would be used to.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Wayne, s. Job

    OT Jo during the course of this year I will have some ground breaking science to announce.

    I would like you to be the first cab of the rank, I can tell you more but not here yet.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    In a master – servant situation where the public [masters] want their public servants [politicians] to perform according to their will, then a petition [plea] is the reversal of the master – servant position.

    The general public are so brainwashed that they look on government as if they were their parent from whom they ask privileges – licences are also merely privileges.

    Tell government what you want, don’t beg for it [though government is a bad word - it means ruling the mind].


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MikeW

    Its great that even the $CAGW$ advocates that are here all the time are aware how dangerous and undemocratic this legislation is..
    Hello????
    cricket noises..
    Amazing.. :)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    So Prime Warden Gillard is upset that people say nasty things about her. Well boo effin hoo Julia. Quit politics and it will stop.

    Those who haven’t read it might like to read “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” by Robert A. Heinlein. Seems appropriate for the situation in which we find ourselves.
    Simon Jester is as good a symbol for the Resistance as any.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Was introduced to Mark Steyn by John on Friday night in Brisbane.

    Told Mark of my plan to get on the litigation gravy train. Going to change my name to Gay White Nigger Jew. Should keep the money rolling in for the rest of my life.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    So the government gets offended sometimes. You mean – like this?

    If the ABC Was Relevant (Part 47)
    (The Honourable Member.)

    [Scene: A supermarket. BRYAN is looking for laundry powder. He is approached by JOHN.]

    John: Got some dirty washing have we sir? Don’t suppose you’ve ever tried Labor’s “White-A-Wash”?

    Bryan: “White-A-Wash”? I haven’t even heard of it…

    John: As advertised – on the ABC. Ever watch Current Affairs? News? QandA?

    Bryan: Yes, I remember now – it’s the only brand they flog. Is it any good?

    John: University tests show that it turns your Reds into Greens. It contains activist ingredients.

    Bryan: Wow – so“White-A-Wash” can even make my Browns look sparkling white!

    John: Yes Bryan, and with repeated use, “White-A-Wash” eliminates 99.9% of all valid criticisms. Plus, it contains a longer-lasting fragrance to have you come up smelling like roses.

    Bryan: But is it any good for character stains?

    John: See for yourself – here’s one we made earlier. Do you know of the hard-working member for Dobell…

    Bryan: Craig Thomson? I know the story. Having some horizontal recreation when he got his finger caught in the till…

    John: Figuratively speaking Bryan – but it also left him with some stubborn stains on his character and some black marks against his name.

    Bryan: So what will you do?

    John: Well, firstly, we’ll soak him overnight in some Little White Lies™, then it’s a once-over with Labor’s “White-A-Wash”.

    Bryan: In hot water?

    John: He certainly is.

    Bryan: And a heavy spin cycle?

    John: Very much so Bryan. And now – [Demonstrating to BRYAN] – Craig Thomson’s reputation – spotless once more!

    Bryan: But you’ll still need to hang him out to dry, I suppose?

    John: Only if the Police get involved Bryan.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    what would Finkelstein say about ABC doing a Saibai Island report that is not based on facts, and it moves about the Internet as much as this one has?

    5 March: Yahoo!7: Relocation fears as ocean swallows Torres Strait islands
    By Hagar Cohen for Background Briefing, ABC
    According to climate projections by the CSIRO, the situation will get worse as the region becomes warmer and sea levels rise further…
    http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/13077884/relocation-fears-as-ocean-swallows-torres-strait/

    2 March: ABC AM: Sinking islands to be abandoned?
    Hagar Cohen reported this story
    http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3443958.htm

    2 March: ABC The Drum: ‘Normal life’
    Hagar Cohen interviews Saibai resident Herbert Warusam
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-02/hagar-cohen-interviewing-saibai-resident-herbert-warusam/3865310

    also on radioaustralia, ABC RN Offtrack, ABC Online Indigenous, weatherzone.com.au

    3 March: ABC Open: My island home Saibai
    By Open Producer Brad Marsellos
    I recently travelled to Saibai Island with Radio National journalist Hagar Cohen who was gathering content for a Background Briefing program on how the residents of Saibai are coping with the consequences of climate change. My role was to take photographs to accompany the radio feature…
    Saibai Island is just above sea level. All that protects the islands homes, school, medical centre and food store from the ocean is a small seawall built in the 1980’s…
    http://open.abc.net.au/openregions/qld-wide-bay-71AY7Fz/posts/my-island-home-saibai-25qd8go

    does ABC have to allow those with the facts space to reply on all these websites, on air, etc?

    btw, why has the Weather Channel had a nonstop Alert “March Flood Crisis” for some days now? March has just begun!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Winston

    My reply to Catamon being so flippant about the ramifications of this proposed legislation to strangle dissent on the previous thread but more appropriate for this one…

    Catamon
    While I don’t agree with almost every opinion you have ever espoused on this blog, I would nonetheless be very concerned if a Liberal or other conservative government came to power and used legislation like this to gag your legitimate rights, Cat, to express your opinion here, no matter how wrong headed, nonsensical or lacking in logic any such opinion might be.

    If your arguments are weak or make no sense, then it will only ring true to 1 or 2 leftist nutjobs and the rest of us will quietly ignore you and that will be that, so where’s the harm in that? By promoting an agenda like that which is being proposed, it is open for abuse by any government of any persuasion immoral enough to exploit it to suppress any dissent or even honest appraisal of its failings.

    Surely you can see that this sword has two edges and could easily be used against you or those of your belief, or are you so myopic that you cannot detect the potential danger in this sort of proposal? If George W Bush was running this country right now, you would be bleating to high heaven about the moral injustice of it all. Fortunately for you, most of the conservatives on the other hand would vigorously defend your right to free speech regardless of your ideology, realising that the opposition of competing ideas is an important factor in providing a vital and energised society.

    Did the society of Orwell’s “1984″ seem to you to be a paradise where humanity was able to fulfill it’s best expectations and promise? To my reading it was the death of everything I hold dear in the human condition, and the end game for us as a viable species. So, as much as your opinions may annoy me, and while some “harm” may come from you expressing them, it pales into insignificance compared to the harm of not allowing you to say it. So do you really think it is intelligent to be so flippant about an issue so potentially important and frought with potential pitfalls. I look forward to hearing your opinion……


    Report this

    00

  • #
    jorgekafkazar

    Ruhe macht frei.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      When I was much younger, and working in Europe, we had a question:

      “Why do the Stasi go around in threes?”

      The answer:

      “Well one can read, and another can write, and the third one is there to watch the intellectuals.”

      Peace does make you free. But freedom does not always bring peace.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Think the US of A sint getting more troublesome look here ..

    A bill passed Monday in the US Congress and Thursday in the Senate would make it a felony—a serious criminal offense punishable by lengthy terms of incarceration—to participate in many forms of protest associated with the Occupy Wall Street protests of last year. Several commentators have dubbed it the “anti-Occupy” law, but its implications are far broader.

    The bill—H.R. 347, or the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011”—was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, while only Ron Paul and two other Republicans voted against the bill in the House of Representatives (the bill passed 388-3). Not a single Democratic politician voted against the bill.

    The virtually unanimous passage of H.R. 347 starkly exposes the fact that, despite all the posturing, the Democrats and the Republicans stand shoulder to shoulder with the corporate and financial oligarchy, which regarded last year’s popular protests against social inequality with a mixture of fear and hostility…
    By Tom Carter

    source
    http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/03/05/us-congress-passes-authoritarian-anti-protest-law/


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John from CA

      You need to read the Bill. It relates to restricted Government buildings and grounds with the intent of protecting Government officials.

      It has nothing to do with freedom of speech or the right to assemble.

      excerpts:
      ‘‘(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;
      ‘‘(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
      ‘‘(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or
      ‘‘(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;
      or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).


      Report this

      00

      • #
        ghl

        So the obvious first question is, what defines a building or grounds as “restricted”? Can it be declared by a deputy sheriff with no notice?
        The Occupy movement is interesting. Who has the breadth of organisation to spread such a sudden and aimless movement
        around the world so fast?
        So, another six months without forensic accountants in the trading banks, and now a law restricting freedom of assembly in public places. Somebody’s happy.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          … what defines a building or grounds as “restricted”?

          The definition of a restricted building or ground is given in the Bill – it is essentially government (federal and state) property.

          Who has the breadth of organisation to spread such a sudden and aimless movement around the world so fast?

          Oh, I dunno, perhaps Reuters, Associated Press, UPA, Aljazeera, Washington Post International, Bloomberg … They all reach a world audience if you have access to your wire service of choice (and most businesses and NGO’s do).

          Oh yes, and there is also Twitter, and Facebook, and Google+ …


          Report this

          00

        • #
          DirkH

          AdBusters, Canadian based, Soros/TIDES funded org. Experienced rabble rousers, same people as behind the protest circus assembling on G20 meetings. Here in the EU, we have the Black Bloc for that.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      John from CA

      “popular protests against social inequality ”

      You also need to read up on the protest. They were not popular but were popularized by the press — it was a media circus. The protests didn’t state any single goal in fact it was the lack of goals that made them a complete joke.

      What’s the point in protesting if there aren’t any objectives?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        Agreed with the non result of the occupy. They were taken over by creepy facilitators and hijacked in the end by the very globalists that they were against. Yes they had no demands, therefore got nowhere.
        The section(2) could STILL be used to stifle protests. SO therefore why isn’t anybody allowed to protest against any official function? Isn’t it a duty to protest against criminal Govts?


        Report this

        00

  • #

    I for one hope Finks recommendations get through and Labor and the Greens announce the legislation with glee.
    It’ll be the final nail in both their filthy coffins for generations to come.

    No amount of law will shut people up. Shut down one blog and another will sprout up. Shut down a person from owning a blog and she (Jo) will post her articles in someone elses blog.

    WE CAN NEVER EVER BE SILENCED.

    On a brighter note, Mark Steyn will appear on Q&A tonight. I’m waiting with bated breath to see how pooffo pinko commo Tony Jones will handle him.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Truthseeker

    Jo – This is important!

    Back to the Carbon Tax, you should all write to your State MPs expressing your WILL that they challenge the Carbon Tax legislation on the basis of section 114 of the Constitution (emphasis mine).

    Australian Constitution – Section 114 – States may not raise forces – Taxation of property of Commonwealth or State

    A State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, raise or maintain any naval or military force, or impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth, nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a State.

    Most of the “dirdy polluders” are power stations owned by State Governments. This is clearly not allowed. The language is not in any way ambiguous.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Sonny

      I heard most of the polluters aren’t directly involved in fossil fuels at all.
      Apparently they are mostly food producers and food transporters. And a few universities.
      But the exact list is a big big secret. Don’t worry, the government departments are flourishing. Didn’t you hear about the new “Innovation Department”?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Dave

        Thanks for that one Sonny – here’s another one-
        Low Carbon Australia (was the Australian Carbon Trust) even has its own board, website etc etc etc.

        Breeding like rabbits? Need a Great Big Wall around them!


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Sonny

          Dave,
          The problem is that these are normal people. A lovely girl I went to school with is now working for the ATO in the marketing department. She will be responsible for propoganda going out to businesses to get them to cut their carbon footprint. However she told me that they don’t use the words “global warming” or “climate change” anymore as it is too polarizing. They prefer “sustainable” and “energy efficient”.

          Interesingly her dad is a staunch climate realist and she doesn’t even believe the hype herself. She is just doing her job!!!

          And therein lies the beaurocratic tragedy of modern humanity.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Popeye

          Dave,

          Thanks for the link to Low Carbon Australia.

          Initial grant of $100 million from the Fed – and this is part of what they do (my bolding).

          Low Carbon Australia CEO Meg McDonald said that to attain carbon neutrality Republica Coffee had offset its freight and logistics, and its electricity and waste emissions across its global footprint.

          “The company has successfully reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by recycling paper and cardboard, changing the company vehicle to a more efficient model, reducing lighting usage, purchasing an energy efficient photocopier/printer and turning off computers when they are not in use,” she said.

          These people and the most incompetent government running these programs are FN INSANE if they think we believe they are “carbon neutral” (whatever that term means).

          Cheers,


          Report this

          00

    • #
      memoryvault

      At least now we know why the previous NSW State Labor government was in such a rush to try and sell off all the power stations before they got turfed out.

      It would seem to suggest that they knew what was coming, and it was necessary – in the socialist grander scheme of things – to ensure S 114 could not be used (at least in NSW) by virtue of the power stations being privately owned.

      Now, here is the 64 million dollar question, and I ask it because I have genuinely forgotten.

      Did the NSW State Labor Government’s unseemly rush to sell off the power stations (even at a loss) come before or after JuLIAR’s “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead” promise?

      The reason I ask is simply this: If it came after, then it was understandable – unforgivable, but understandable.

      If, however, it came before, then it would tend to imply that NSW State Labor KNEW that a carbon tax was in the pipeline, BEFORE JuLIAR made her “promise”. That, in turn, would suggest that far from being something she was “forced into” as a result of the alliance with Bob Brownshirt and the Greens, the introduction of a Carbon tax was very much planned and in the pipeline, and JuLIAR’s “There will be no carbon tax . . . ” line was a deliberate, dishonest ploy to steal the election based on a known falsehood.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Michael

        It might be why the Queensland government is attempting to sell their power stations,to stop NSW and Queensland uniting ina High Court Challenge.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Winston

        If it was the latter (ie. Before), would that mean that the NSW Labor government defrauded those to whom it was selling these assets through a “failure to disclose” information germane to the sale of these goods, or could it even be an example of insider trading? Just asking.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          I know that this is off the main topic, but I hope Joanne and the Moderators allow me some leeway here.

          This sale of State owned power plants has pros and cons.

          Kennett in Victoria sold off his power plants, and got a premium price for them.
          Bob Carr in NSW saw that and went Hmm! That’ll get us out of a hole here too. So, in 1997, he attempted to sell off the NSW plants that the Government owned, also asking a premium price. That failed when the Unions shot it down.

          Carr tied again ….. and again, always failing.

          Later, Morris Iemma tried again to divest those plants at Premium Minus Heaps, and he too failed when the Unions blocked it, and he resigned.

          Rees tried at Premium minus heaps and heaps, and he failed as well.

          Kenneally did end up selling them at fire sale give away prices, and now those plants are quoted at almost back to their original price in asset value, way way higher than what dear Christina sold them for. Those plants value is soon to be slashed with the introduction of the CO2 Tax/ETS.

          Now, I’m a little at odds as to behind the scenes happenings here.

          Perhaps Kennett was just looking for a huge payout to get Victoria out of the, er, hole that Labor put the State in.

          Perhaps Carr even envisaged the same thing, and you can bet that’s the excuse he would offer.

          I suspect (careful choice of words here) that perhaps Carr saw the writing on the wall, even as early as 1997, and thought that if ever an ETS, (even being talked about back then) would be embarrassing with what would effectively see a State Labor Government as the largest emitter in the State, because, post Kyoto, CO2 emissions were becoming something to have in, er, someone else’s court and not as a stick with which to beat a ‘pure as the driven snow’ ALP.

          Now, there are some actual pros in this sale of those power plants. A major condition of the sale was in fact cast iron contracts for the sale of electricity long into the future.

          So, now, Labor has been caught out by a problem of its own making.

          They have these plants owned by private Companies, so the CO2 emissions are now NOT a weight on their own backs, but they now have these cast iron contracts, so any means to look good by attempting to close those plants is hamstrung by those contracts, meaning to close those plants will result in massive compensation payments.

          So, enter the ETS, an effort to force those plants to pay huge amounts that might put them into stress. They cover this in the Legislation with electrical power security measures, but if that happens, see now how it makes those plants beholden to the Government.

          A sly backhanded way to marginalise those contracts.

          I know there may be some readers who see ‘conspiracy theory’ in all of this, but you need to understand the chain of events here.

          Hey, it all becomes moot as soon as they do actually shut down that first power plant.

          The absolute anarchy that will eventuate when that happens will see Labor consigned to the dustbin of history.

          These Politicians who are doing this have absolutely no idea whatsoever.

          Tony.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Ally E.

          This is very important, Winston, I think you are onto something.

          What does it take to get this government thrown out?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            NicG.

            Though I like this line of thought I suspect that the burden of proof would come into play. Unfortunately, you would have to prove that they ‘knew’ and didn’t just guess well, then show evidence and not just the circumstantial kind. I wish you the very best of luck with that!

            Cheers.
            NicG.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        mareeS

        Now that, memoryvault, is a very interesting question, particularly in view of s114. I would put nothing past Labor, particularly Sussex St. Machiavelli would bend his knee to these people.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Treeman

        Memory Vault

        I’m certain it was well before Juliar’s lie, at least a year before and one or two NSW premiers before. One thing is certain, behind the scenes the State and Local Government bureaucrats meet regularly to discuss and develop strategies to manage climate change and to better control developments on the coastline, for example. I know this is fact because my work is impacted. My success depends on good relationships with Council and State bureaucrats who tell me why they’re unavailable. It’s a real eye opener.

        One can safely assume that the top tier bureaucrats meet regularly with Federal and State politicians and that there is a strong overlap from Fed into state politics. Anna Bligh was after all the ALP National President


        Report this

        00

      • #
        mobilly1

        Sorry off topic , MV I ask you is this correct.

        Australian Constitution
        Casual Vacancies
        Section 15 of the Constitution provides that a casual vacancy of a State senator shall be filled by the State Parliament. If the previous senator was a member of a particular political party the replacement must come from the same party, but the State Parliament may choose not to fill the vacancy, in which case Section 11 requires the Senate to proceed regardless.

        My reading of this is, Arbib has to be replaced by the NSW Parliment.
        Not Federal Government


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Mark

          Mobilly1:
          That is correct, the NSW (in this case) will determine the replacement. But! …ahh, there’s always a “but” isn’t there…a constitutional amendment was carried by referendum on April 27 1977; the “Senate Casual Vacancies” amendment.

          This had the effect that the replacement Senator would always be from the same party (generally the next candidate down the list) but left open the option that that party could nominate another candidate.

          Yes, the relevant State could decline to fill the vacancy but that could be seen by the electorate for what it is, bastardry, and duly punished at the subsequent election.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Nah Truthseeker, they don’t make such schoolboy errors. IANAL, but…

      The event which causes CO2 to become an emission is the same event that causes it to stop being the State’s property; It is disposed out the top of the chimney, just like your rubbish is no longer your property when you put your bin out on the kerb.

      Nice try, but you have to flap your wings pretty early in the morning to catch this particular bunch of worms.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Truthseeker

        Andrew,

        Incorrect. They are imposing a tax on a State owned entity. The CO2 is not paying the tax, the State owned entity is. It is about who is paying the tax, not what the tax is for.

        It is not a school boy error, it is just a complete disregard for the Constitution which is par for the course for this mob.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          You’re right and you’re wrong. Okay I admit I didn’t see on first reading that the wording of “property” could include a corporate entity, so that part does work if property means “anything that can be owned”.
          I interpreted the CO2 as the property, like real estate.

          Actually if you apply that clause to the carbon emissions credit as a property right, I’m not even sure that would mean anything because you can’t make a capital gain on carbon credits even if the price rises over the year, yes? I don’t see how they can say the carbon credit becomes a private property right if you’re compelled to hand them all back for free every year.

          However you forgot the escape clause. They got the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth. By deception and skullduggery, yes, but they got it.

          There is no easy answer here. We have 3 months left until the cost of erasing this stupidity escalates into the billions, which would put Australia further into debt but maybe costs less than the ETS will over the next 5 years. Everybody’s dancing like the GleickGate thing means a damn but here we are still stuck with the global hairshirt and nobody in our Parliament is doing a thing to stop it. ie Tony Abbot supports the carbon tax by his silent assent and the lack of LNP backstabbing shows the rest of the “Liberals” support it too.
          We may have to wait until electricity price rises 40% and hope that provokes a popular revolt. Only then might we get a Royal Commission into the scientific basis.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Truthseeker

            Andrew one of the real problems with this Carbon Tax legislation is that it confers the Carbon Credit as property which means that if you try and repeal the legislation, you have to pay compensation to the “owners” of the carbon credit. This was done to stop a LNP government simply repealing the law when they got into power. So it definitely is property and it cannot be taxed by the Commonwealth when owned by the State.

            Your point about the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth is in relation to what a State can do or not do with respect to “raise or maintain any naval or military force, or impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth”. The limitation of the power of the Commonwealth is not qualified in any way.

            Tony Abbott said, and a number of Liberal MPs echoed this, that repealing this tax was “a commitment made in blood”. Of course you did not hear that from any MSM source …


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Kevin Moore

            But if the LNP just paid the printing cost of the credits that would be enough compensation.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark

            Andrew, I can understand your cynicism with Abbott and the coalition re this iniquitous suite of legislation.

            However, I have heard both Abbott and the hapless, helpless and hopeless Greg Hunt all but swear a blood oath to repeal or neuter it. I’ve actually heard the ****head Hunt state that he subscribes to the “accepted science” of AGW but that there are other ways of tackling it.

            Whatever, they seem to offer a better alternative than “ueber liars” Gillard and Swan.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark

            Truthseeker:

            Be damned if I can find it now but I have read a legal opinion that property rights created by way of licence(s) would not be regarded by the High Court in the same way as normal property rights.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            TS,
            I interpreted the parliament clause to apply to the whole sentence.
            If they had used mathematicians or business analysts to write the Constitution instead of lawyers we would not be having these ambiguous interpretation problems! :)


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Truthseeker

            Andrew,

            Try this if you do not believe that Tony Abbott will get rid of the carbon tax.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      MargaretO

      Most of the power stations have been sold off to private entities. I do not think the argument will work…but I still think that this thing can be challenged in the High Court.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    KeithH

    There is a stench of corruption about this Labor Government and many of its ex-Union MP’s which will not go away. Much of that stench stems from events in which Julia Gillard had an intimate involvement which have never been adequately explained by her or anyone else, surrounding the huge fraudulent misuse of AWU funds for which the perpetrator has never been bought to justice. Track the events, persons involved and the subsequent appointment of some of them to various high positions by members of the Gillard Government, and ponder the reasons why. It is certainly not “old news” as ramifications of those events are still being felt and various events are still occurring as a result.

    Remember the Government calls for drastic censorship and restriction of freedom of speech arose soon after these matters surfaced again last year. Ponder also why Shane at kangaroo court hasn’t been sued off the face of the earth.
    As I always say, do the research and make up your own minds minds!

    “To get a concerns notice off Julia Gillard and then for me or another blogger to publish it would be highly embarrassing to her for starters. She never would or could initiate defamation proceedings because then I would utilise discovery and subpoena documents which would be very damaging to her without a doubt.

    But under the new media laws she would not have to make a complaint to me. She could make a complaint to the News Media Council who could then make a decision without a hearing and without giving reasons demand that I take my posts about her down. If I did not comply they could then take out a court order and if I did not comply with that I could be found in contempt of court and be sent to jail. And even if there was a hearing I would never be allowed to cross-examine her.”

    http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2012/03/05/the-fink-media-report-with-the-gillard-and-thomson-protection-recommendations/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    brc

    I dunno. Call me cynical but the media report and Swans monthly essay seem like a two-pronged attempt to move the conversation past the leadership troubles, and are both designed to galvanise the flagging lefty voting core – shutting people up and class envy are always guaranteed to get the small-minded out of their holes and assembling at a protest somewhere.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    terrific new thread up at Bolt:

    Andrew Bolt Blog: The warmists’ straw man: “We never said it wouldn’t rain”
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warmists_straw_man_we_never_said_it_wouldnt_rain/


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Sonny

      Melbourne Water website confirms that the CSIRO still to this day links climate change with lack of rain. What’s more they grossly distort the statistics and cannot even perform basic math.

      http://www.melbournewater.com.au/images/water_storages/Annual_Inflow_Chart_Hi-Res.gif

      “What does this graph show?
      Annual inflows into Melbourne’s 4 major reservoirs since 1913. While ups and downs are a constant feature, the average has dropped rapidly by almost 40% in the past 15 years. This included a devastating drop in 2006, which the CSIRO had forecast could occur under a ‘severe’ climate change scenario in 2050.”


      Report this

      00

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        So now that Vic has major flooding..you think theyd alter their thinking? NOT


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Thank heavens the Bracks Government legislated for the Heritage Rivers Act in 2006.

          He found the best place for a National Park was the same area Jeff Kennett proposed for the Dam on the Mitchell.

          Gee, that sure was fortuitous.

          I see the Mitchell is now in major flood again, for the umpteenth time in the last three or four years.

          I wonder how much these numerous floods on the Mitchell are costing the State.

          I’ll bet all those people downstream just love Labor. Hey no worries for them, as they can’t get Insurance anyway. They have to rely on the Government handout pittance in flood relief. Who cares about them anyway. None of them vote Labor anyway.

          Still, desal is way better.

          Yeah! Right!

          Tony.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            MargaretO

            Then there is the Welcome Reef Dam which was not built because Carr wreck did the same thing. The amount of rain that we have had in the region where the dam would have been built has been quite heavy…… and of course Sydney is continuing to expand but there have been no new dams built to cope with the increase in population.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Sonny

      Let’s assess the claim of 40% drop in average inflow.
      This data comes directly from the link above.

      Long term average inflow (1913-1996)
      615 gL/year

      15 year average inflow (1997-2011)
      406 gL/year

      Therefore the difference is a 33.98% drop NOT a 40% drop as stated above.

      Why are they fudging the numbers?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Sonny

      Find the full link here.

      http://www.melbournewater.com.au/content/water_storages/water_report/water_report.asp

      I’m going to see if I can get the full data series and see what other interesting anomalies prop up by using a 15 year average… What’s the bet I can find a period with similar low inflow??


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Ross James

      Pat,

      I do not write and respond to you normally.

      I doubt the good rains will continue. It is still in LA NINA window affecting our present climate.

      There are three tiered layered understandings when it comes Global Warming causing droughts and lack of water for Australia.

      CLIMATE + WEATHER + VARIABILITY +/- = CLIMATE SHIFT (Change)

      CSIRO stated that EL NINOS would intensify preconditioning Eastern Australia to greater dry spells.

      We are presently in the years of boom (rains returned for a season or two – climate scoped within variability – double dip LA NINA) returning to DOMINANT EL NINO (sustained drought, hotter conditions, less rain) in late 2012/2013 and intensifying for the next decade at record temperatures and impending drought returning.

      I often think of the Genesis story of 7 years of FAT COWS and “FAT” WHEAT followed by SKINNY COWS and “SKINNY” WHEAT. It is easy to forget the dust storms, the dead trees, the dead cattle stick when the land appears to be giving forth its bounty.

      Yes the rivers are flowing – and everything is green but any farmer in Western QLD will tell ya – it is cyclic but unfortunately those cycles will become polar opposite extremes as PREDICTED by Climate Modelling.

      CSIRO is correct about those extremes. We have witnessed them first hand. Even the rains in QLD were predicted at that intensity but the time (weather event) is hard call on the models. I refuse to attack such a credible and wonderful organisation. Even the modelling indicated probability of unprecedented downpours located Western / Eastern mid-QLD as rainfall belt shift and drift from the normal band of the Capricorn regions going Northern. It is found in the QLD Climate Report – released Nov 2010.

      You show a distinct fail in your understanding boom (rain) and bust (drought) in this country. the last thing this country needs is INTENSIFYING droughts caused by global warming.

      What happened to some predictions of no water etc etc……….simply Climate Scientists even back in 2000 were not aware as much as they now just what an impact EL NINO/LA NINA interplay on Australia’s continent and reliable rainfalls.

      The models (primitive) by todays standard back in 1998 did not have resolving power they do today whereby we can create virtual earth with grass, tree cover, clouds, EL NINOS, LA NINAS etc and interplay CO2 estimates against the virtual world experiment drawing data and information from the real earth.

      Ross J.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Popeye

        Ross,

        Absolute CRAP!

        Climate change has been around FOREVER – I don’t give a tinkers cuss what models they use – THEY WON’T CHANGE THE CLIMATE.

        How come she didn’t need models over 100 years ago to know what you and the CSIRO still have a problem with?

        Interested to hear your response!

        Cheers,


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Ross James

          Climate change has been around forever BUT….not at such a rapid rate of shift in our own generation.

          It would be irresponsible not plan for the future. Many other former civilizations of mankind have been wiped out through careless disregard to the environment and not knowing climate change shifts and estimates of water impacts on the land.

          That is why we build dams – CSIRO helped in regard. See those off shore plants converting seawater. That was based on the science of hydrology and the fact we were running out of water. Now just suppose the rains did not return. Sure – we can plead the cycles of brown and green on our sunburnt country but the last great Australian droughts placed unprecedented pressure on a population FIVE times what it was.

          And some folk have the nerve to criticise Government for trying to head off what could have been a water supply catastrophe. The nerve of some to imply that this effort was some conspiracy just to waste money and cause unnecessary fear. We are going face this same thing again and God help us if it is worse then in the next cycle as MODELS predict [developing LATE 2012 through to 2022].

          It is expedient for all Governments to plan, mitigate and protect our population. Balancing books from accountant perspectives in the present is not the way to protect a growing Australian population. Cancelling projects in years of plenty is counter productive when years of famine come back.

          Remember when Australia was 5 million. Sure we had droughts and years of plenty with floods. But what I read and have sighted in climate models worthy of perusing and reading is frightening – we need the wisdom Solomon.

          Extremes will continue all this century – with record downpours and floods in one cycle and records prolonged drys in the other spectrum. It is utter rot to attack CSIRO for not advising Governments of these extremes and totally irresponsible. Every citizen should be informed. The Government should be reporting such. But noise in the climate debate such as the wanton disregard and attack on these findings highlights human nature’s desire to not want to know through fears held deep within them.

          Ross J.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Sonny

            Utter Bullshit Ross.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Ross,
            you mention here:

            See those off shore plants converting seawater.

            Again, another stark example of how you’ve gone off half cocked again, without even bothering to find out the facts.

            Let’s look at the huge Victorian Desal Plant Ross, this absolute necessity of yours to ensure that your precious bloody climate change/global warming doesn’t wipe us out of water.

            That desal plant, once on line and running will consume electrical power to keep producing that water. In fact dear Ross, that desal plant is as much ‘liquid electricity’ as those accursed (to use their lingo) aluminium smelters.

            Ross, that wonderful desal plant, just to convert salt to fresh will consume huge amounts of electricity, and will need that electricity 24/7/365.

            To achieve that, then it only stands to reason that the dastardly (to use their lingo) Hazelwood power plant will need to stay open for at least decades to come. Not only that, because it consumes so much electricity that was once available to the grid, then new plants will need to be constructed.

            That’s new plants that actually can operate 24/7/365 Ross, so renewable plants are out of that particular equation.

            So, Ross, dear old feller, what’s it to be mate, fresh water or CO2 emissions.

            Enlighten us Ross, pleas. You tell us you have all the answers.

            Oh, and Ross, don’t go off half cocked again about how we need to close Hazelwood. They have cast iron contracts to supply out to the mid 2030′s

            Spin Ross, Spin! That’s all you’ve got.

            Go get some facts before you act so high and mighty with us.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            The Black Adder

            I concur….

            Utter bullshit Ross!!!


            Report this

            00

          • #
            MargaretO

            the problem with the crap that you spout is that you do not take into account that Australia has always had the flood-drought cycles.

            There is no change in the rate of the cycles. That is total mushroom fodder.

            Let me give you some examples:

            1. The set-in rain that we have had during the past fortnight is very similar to the same set-in rain that was experienced at the same time of year in 1978. I refer here to rain in NSW (although I am presently living in Canberra). In 1978 I was living in the Windsor-Richmond district when the Nepean-Hawkesbury river flooded after the rain and Warragamba dam opened the floodgates. The flood was devastating with several deaths recorded at the time.

            My point though is that there is an obvious cycle that is to be taken into account.

            2. Let’s look a little more closely at those high temperatures, especially the ones experienced in 2009 followed by the deadly bushfire. I am going to discount the bushfires in WA from November-December last year because they were started by humans.

            The temperature that was experienced in 2009 was no greater than the temperatures that were experienced in both 1959 and 1939. In 1959 around 19 January it reached 110F, and the 1939 temperature was hotter. It was in the following year that Oodnadatta set the record high temperature which has not to this date been beaten. The 1960s were in fact quite warm. In Victoria we also had drought conditions, complete with dam water levels getting low, water restrictions and having to water the garden with buckets. Most of all, I remember the very warm nights of the 1960s.

            So here again there is evidence that there are temperature cycles, just like there are rain cycles.

            As far as rain is concerned, yes it is true that we have not really had a wet winter since the 1990s. However, that is also something that goes in cycles. From memory, the 1970s were a lot wetter in the winter than the 1960s.

            As far as the northern part of Australia is concerned, though there are just two seasons, the wet and the dry, and it does not rain in the dry season that coincides with winter.

            Whilst my recollections relate to more recent weather patterns, it is most certainly recognized that Australia is a land of drought and flooding rains…. Dorothea McKeller wrote about that in the early 1900s with her poem My Country.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Sonny

        Hi Ross,

        So if I’m understanding you correctly, if it’s a drought then we can blame it (wholly or partly) on climate change, but if it’s rainy and cold you can invoke some natural explanation.

        The problem is that your precious CSIRO and the BOM are mindlessly parotting the prognostications or “projections” of the UN IPCC when it comes to projected temperature rise, sea level rise etc…
        As if global trends have any relevance whatsoever to local policy and planning.

        The CSIRO is an absolute disgrace. They are simply another government department disseminating vile climate propoganda.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Sonny

          Another thing Ross,

          In previous posts I highlighted how Melbourne Water quoting the CSIRO rounded up the number 33.98% to 40% when evaluating the drop in average inflow into resoirvoirs in the past 15 years compared to the previous long term trend.

          WHY ARE THEY FUDGING THE NUMBERS ROSS?!


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Sonny

        Ross said:

        What happened to some predictions of no water etc etc……….simply Climate Scientists even back in 2000 were not aware as much as they now just what an impact EL NINO/LA NINA interplay on Australia’s continent and reliable rainfalls.
        The models (primitive) by todays standard back in 1998 did not have resolving power they do today whereby we can create virtual earth with grass, tree cover, clouds, EL NINOS, LA NINAS etc and interplay CO2 estimates against the virtual world experiment drawing data and information from the real earth.
        Ross J.

        Ross mate, you are living in a virtual reality.
        You really expect us to believe that models in 1998 which were remarkably unskillful have suddenly become more reliable because they apparently consider a “virtual earth with grass, tree cover, cloud, el ninos, la ninas etc.. Drawing data from the real earth?”
        Does this model consider solar and lunar cycles?

        Which model are you referring to Ross? Is this a CSiRO model or an IPCC model?
        What prediction does this model provide and what is the resolution?


        Report this

        00

      • #

        Ross,

        you keep coming here with your tired old hackneyed ‘Aww! They’re picking on me’ arguments.

        I was wondering how you reconcile what you euphemistically refer to as modeling with actual physical data.

        Here in Australia we have a Long Range Weather Forecaster Hayden Walker.

        He is the fourth generation, and going back before him, we have his father Lennox Walker, who took over from Inigo Jones, who took over from Clem Wragge.

        These 4 men have been doing what they do for more than 130 years with detailed data going back to the early 1800′s.

        Data, Observations, and Science, Ross.

        They have a success rate of 80%+

        That’s months and months and Months into the future Ross.

        The BOM can barely manage a 50% success rate for 12 HOURS into the future.

        These 4 men have been relied upon for generations to predict the Weather into the future for the farming community. Even machinery sales have suffered because of their (correct) reports.

        Now, here’s what I find hard to believe.

        If as you say this CAGW hoax story has been around since the late 80′s, nearly 30 years now, why haven’t these reports from Hayden Walker started to go awry.

        Why are they still just as accurate?

        If the Weather, and by extrapolation the climate is changing so drastically, then his reports would be going wrong.

        They aren’t Ross, and he still has an 80%+ success rate.

        He doesn’t use modeling Ross, and then make asumptions from that modeling Ross.

        He uses almost 200 years of actual data Ross. He uses Science Ross.

        Ross, why is what he does referred to as mumbo jumbo that needs to be discounted as crackpotism, and what you refer to as Hard Science, real science, any better, when it has proved so disastrously wrong in that same period.

        He uses data Ross, not theoretical modeling.

        Tony.

        Link to History of Walkers Weather


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Ross James

          Tony,

          Climate Change models do not predict weather like Lennox did. That is the confusion often stated by guys like yourself.

          Climate Change models predict or rather are projections of LONG TERM IMPACTS and climate shift and drift.

          Weather is short term.
          Variability is the noise in the CO2 signal that is often counter intuitive and often gives false short term implied trends leading to many a Dog Tail Way climate hypothesis.

          Climate Change and models

          attempt to capture real world sustained trend over at least 30 years that becomes a distinct signal of consistent change/shift, weak or strong.

          Ross J.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Sonny

            Yep
            And so far they are completely useless in providing predictions of global and or regional trends. Oh, but they’ve become fancier and now include grass and tree cover you say? Well that makes all the difference!

            Who do you think you are fooling Ross?


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Then Ross,
            how come those models have been so dramatically wrong over that ten year time frame you quoted in your first comment, in fact, so completely and utterly wrong, they change the original predictions to suit what is actually happening, eg, Climate change modelling proves everything that is happening.

            In the same breath, Hayden just goes along, doing what he always has, and with an 80%+ accuracy rate.

            Same old same old from you.

            Odd thing is that your modelling is used to predict the WEATHER, and yet gets it totally and utterly wrong.

            The BOM uses the modelling to predict WEATHER.

            If they cannot get it right for 12 hours into the future, then why should we believe them when they say that ‘X’ is going to happen 25 years into the future, and ‘X’ + + is going to happen 100 years into the future.

            Hey Ross, what’s the difference between Climate Modelling and Hayden Walker.

            Well for on thing, Hayden gets it right.

            Spin mate, spin! That’s all you’ve got in your comments.

            Tony.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Ross James

            Tony and others interested in this thread within a thread regarding rainfalls.

            There are those here who don’t even bother to read up on these AUSTRALIAN Climate reports and become informed.

            Herein are two reports with a briefing on both:

            A recently-released report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS, 2010) concludes that “Extreme precipitation is likely to increase as the atmospheric moisture content increases in a warming climate. Typical magnitudes are 3–10% per degree C warming, with potentially larger values in the tropics, and in the most extreme events globally.”

            The IPCC has also recognised the relationship between water vapour and temperature. Specifically, the IPCC states that:

            • “In the boundary layer 1, the increase in water vapour with temperature in proportion with the Clausius-Clapeyron relation
            is uncontroversial” (IPCC 2001, ch 7.2).

            • “Observations are consistent with the physical understanding regarding the expected linkage between water vapour and temperature, and with intensification of precipitation events in a warmer world… consistent with rising amounts of water vapour in the atmosphere, there are widespread increases in the numbers of heavy precipitation events and increased likelihood of flooding events in many land regions, even those where there has been a reduction in total precipitation” (TS3.4 in IPCC 2007).

            In simulations of climate change scenarios, global mean precipitable water and column water vapour increase with global mean surface temperature at a rate of ~7.5% K−1 (O’Gorman and Muller 2010; Schneider et al. 2010 and references therein), while global mean precipitation and evaporation increase more slowly (2-3% K−1) with temperature (Schneider et al. 2010).

            Whilst there is a strong dependence on latitude and whether rates of change are expressed with respect to regional or globalmean surface temperatures, values for column water vapour (red solid line) for latitudes that bound Queensland (vertical black dashed lines) are similar to that of the global mean (~7.5% K-1), with values of ~6-7.5% with respect to global temperature, and ~7-8% with respect to zonal-mean temperature.

            http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/pdf/sag-report.pdf

            http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/climatechange/science.html

            The Hadley cell is a circulation pattern that transports excess heat from the equator towards lower temperate latitudes. It can be thought of as a conveyor belt, with warm moist air rising into the atmosphere in the tropics and moving southward (in the southern hemisphere) to the mid-latitudes where it cools and descends. The air is then returned to the tropics along the surface. The descending arm of the Hadley cell results in a band of high pressure known as the Sub-Tropical Ridge (STR). The Hadley cell also impacts on the easterly trade winds.

            There is also a link between major Queensland droughts and El Niño events, which occur when the sea-surface temperature rises in the eastern Pacific Ocean and cools in the west around Indonesia (DPI 2009). The validity of a model is tested against the historical climate record. Once the ability of the model to accurately represent past climate has been established, the model can be refined to project future trends.

            Now for the statement CLEARLY projecting the floods we had!

            Climate change is also likely to affect extreme rainfall in south-east Queensland (Abbs et al. 2007). Projections indicate an increase in two-hour, 24-hour and 72-hour extreme rainfall events for large areas of south-east Queensland, especially in the McPherson and Great Dividing ranges, west of Brisbane and the Gold Coast. For example, Abbs et al. (2007) found that under the A2 emissions scenario, extreme rainfall intensity averaged over the Gold Coast sub-region is projected to increase by 48 per cent for a two-hour event, 16 per cent for a 24-hour event and 14 per cent for a 72-hour event by 2070. Therefore despite a projected decrease in rainfall across most of Queensland, the projected increase in rainfall intensity could result in more flooding events.

            Above paragraphs taken from the following report in Nov 2010 – BEFORE those floods hit.

            http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/pdf/climate-change-in-queensland-2010.pdf

            ___

            So what is it! Only a fool thinks that Climate Change does not also increase precipitation and events of floods.

            So there you have it. All plain as day and readable and knowable. Just depends where your getting your information. Perhaps from bloggers in Alaska or some heartless think tank.

            Oops!

            Ross J.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            The Black Adder

            Ron, err, Rob, errr Ross,
            You really are superficial!!

            Are you aware of the comment ….

            ` Its a travesty that we cannot find the warming….`

            and by the way can you prove CO2 is a pollutant?

            Dear Ross, give Up!


            Report this

            00

          • #
            cohenite

            Ross James is a superior troll but still returns to the official sources for his sustenance. The ultimate source, the IPCC, is the source for his first pronouncement:

            1

            “In the boundary layer 1, the increase in water vapour with temperature in proportion with the Clausius-Clapeyron relation
            is uncontroversial” (IPCC 2001, ch 7.2).

            In fact the Clausius-Clapeyron relation defines the POTENTIAL of the atmosphere to retain more water as its temperature increases. In real life that potential may be confounded by a number of factors.

            Firstly, as Franks et al shows increased temperatures do not increase evaporation. The reason for this is as Franks explains:

            During drought, when soil moisture is low, less of the sun’s radiant energy goes into evaporation and more goes into the heating of the atmosphere which causes higher temperatures.

            “Most importantly, the elevated air temperatures do not increase evaporation but are actually due to the lack of evaporation and this is a natural consequence of drought.

            Given this the source of the supposed increase in rainfall, AGW caused increase in evaporation, can’t be happening.

            Secondly, this assertion by James is not true:

            In simulations of climate change scenarios, global mean precipitable water and column water vapour increase with global mean surface temperature at a rate of ~7.5% K−1 (O’Gorman and Muller 2010; Schneider et al. 2010 and references therein), while global mean precipitation and evaporation increase more slowly (2-3% K−1) with temperature (Schneider et al. 2010).

            Globally, as shown by a plethora of official sources and papers SH is NOT increasing: NOAA,
            and various papers by Soloman, Pierce, Paltridge, Isaac, Wang, Vonder Harr etc.

            2 The Hadley system is not changing, nor is the Walker. The STR is more likley to be affected by the SAM and its effect was predicted to cause more droughts with no mention of less frequent but increased rain. In any event the BOM could not even short-term forecast the QLD flood event as JO has posted so how could any notice be taken of its long-term predictions; the word fluke comes to mind.

            Pretty pathetic really.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            MattB

            COhers: “In any event the BOM could not even short-term forecast the QLD flood event as Jo has posted so how could any notice be taken of its long-term predictions; the word fluke comes to mind.”

            Umm Hi there mr weather forecaster, let me introduce you to Mr Climate Forecaster. “How can they predict climate they can’t even always get tomorrow’s weather correct” is the oldest and worst anti-AGW line – it is years since I heard anyone actually use it it is so lame.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Juliar

    Listening to the radio, a much better alternative of this would be an industry run media watchdog. Government controlling media is very dangerous. Goebbels would be very proud of you Bob Brown, Stephen Conroy & Ray Finkelstein.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Alexej Buergin

      There is something really disquieting about reading the names of Goebbels and Finkelstein in the same sentence, being on the same side of the issue.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    The big problems I have with this are:

    1) there is never ever such thing as an independent appointed body when it comes out of a political process – to assume otherwise is being extremely thick;
    2) it uses the excuse of a few bad apples to taint the whole cart;
    3) it also assumes everybody else is unable to use their mind to assess the ‘worth’ of what is being written or communicated. It’s almost like we need protecting from the ‘evil media’ like a lot of new born babies with dummies in our mouths – darn insulting I say.

    This will do absolutely zip to improve the quality and variety of reporting. Its an attempt to put the lid back on the free form discussions and sharing of opinions that blogs like this support. The government should be proud of blogs like this winning awards and getting international praise – instead they are trying to strangle it – shame on you and roll on the election!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John M

    A light-hearted look at life under a possible Gillard-Brown Totalitarian Regime…….. :-)

    - Only green hard-left political parties allowed. All others banned and followers jailed.
    - All internet communication filtered and screened to allow only approved green content.
    - Books burned and history re-written to reflect past Liberal waste and debt, and Labor surpluses
    - Only wind and solar power legalised for public use (government access to fossil fuel allowed)
    - Port Arthur re-opened …
    - All dams removed to restore natural environments. Only desal and rainwater available
    - Eating of meat punishable by death
    - All livestock farming banned and farmlands authorised for organic vegetarian only use.
    - All religion banned except for compulsary Gaia worship.
    - Motor vehicles banned and all roads converted to cycleways.
    - All clothing made using hemp and provided by government with compulsary sandal footware.
    - Only SBS and ABC FTA media allowed.
    - Only studies in Green science and the arts allowed in schools and universities
    - All non-terrace style housing banned.
    - Male ballet compulsary
    - Pregnancy only via test tube process
    - Heterosexual relationships banned and punishable by death.
    - Forced, compulsary same sex marriage

    Time to run away……………. :-(


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Huxley

    I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion on climate change.

    I am not going to advocate for either side of the climate change debate. I find the whole climate change debate to be irrelavent.

    I advocate for a cleaner world. Yes I believe toxins are bad news for the environment and all living things. So weather Co2 emmissions are causing climate change or not I believe the fact that they are toxic means we should do all we can to avoid Co2 emmissions. To do anything else is the equivalent of shitting in your own nest!

    Therefore unless there are skepticts that believe toxins are good, we need to avoid toxins. And in case you missed my main point this essentially makes the climate change debate irrelavent.

    Jo, you are obviously a talented journalist and I encourage you to put your effort into something that is far more holesome and benificial to the community than oposing climate change. For example you could spend your time exposing companys that produce toxic products, or pollute the environment in the production of products.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      I encourage you to put your effort into something that is far more holesome and benificial to the community than oposing climate change.

      Here is a thought Huxley, how about Jo puts her time and effort into WHATEVER THE HELL SHE WANTS without wannabe do gooders like you assuming you are wise enough, talented enough and hubristic enough to advise her.

      By the way, since when is CO2 toxic? If it was technically possible, fools like you would advocate for this “toxic” substance to be scrubbed out of the atmosphere, hence destroying almost all living things on the planet.

      I’m hubristic enough to give you some advice. Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Speedy

        Humbug

        I like your restraint – taking lectures on being “holesome” by people who can’t even spell “wholesome”. You are above the simple reference the quality of their education and schooling in moralistic principles.

        Love your work.

        Cheers,

        Speedy


        Report this

        00

      • #
        John Huxley

        Speedy, please find a spelling blog so you can be relavent to the topic.

        And sure Baa Humbug, Jo has the right to do WHATEVER THE HELL SHE WANTS. I have encouraged many people to do things that benefit the community. For example become a volunteer. Are you saying there is something wrong with that? If Jo chose to use her talent to make a positive contribution to the community I would respect her more, not just for her talent.
        I have a high regard for anyone that chooses to do things that benifit the community. I think Jo could do better tings with her talent, if that is her choice.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Speedy

          Relevant, I suppose you mean? And that would be a benefit, I take it – or is it a “benifit”? Some”tings” wrong with your communication – maybe the poor spelling is just a symptom of a lack of time, concentration or (perhaps) another fundamental flaw in your skill set?

          Perhaps you should try fixing up your own communications before you critique others. For instance, thoroughly read a few more of the comments on this blog. You will find many of them contain well constructed arguments, complete with structured grammar and correct spelling. May I also suggest you, too, put some time and effort into what you say, and, perhaps, dare I say it, think for yourself. Do you believe the world would be a better place if Jo decided to join the hacks at the Drum? Perhaps she’d be great on QandA in front of the cheering, sandal-wearing audience?

          No, Jo is doing just fine where she is. Please refer to the logo near the top right hand side of the page – the one that says “Winner – Best Blog – Australia NZ”?

          Cheers,

          Speedy


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Bob Malloy

        Baa, surly john would be better served if he campaigned against Dihydrogen Monoxide, a true pollutant, than worry about co2.

        http://www.dhmo.org/
        http://www.dhmo.org/truth/Dihydrogen-Monoxide.html


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        By the way, since when is CO2 toxic?

        Baa,

        CO2 does indeed become toxic above a certain concentration. Problems can start at about 2% concentration and above 5% it’s directly toxic.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      cameronH

      Are we to believe that you really think CO2 is toxic. The gas that you breath out with each breath. The gas that plant life converts into organic matter that sustains the whole of the planets food chain. You can not be that stupid. Surely you are being sarcastic. If not then I hope your immediate family and freinds have removed all sharp objects from your reach.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        John Huxley

        Yes cameronH I do believe Co2 is toxic in higher concerntrations. Co2 found in the atmosphere and we all breath is a relatively low concerntration. As with most things that are toxic in high concerntration, a small amount has little or no effect. If you are so positive Co2 is not toxic try breathing a concerntration of >7% Co2. You will be unconcious within an hour, if not within minutes. However before you go ahead and try breathing a 7% concerntration of Co2 to proove me wrong I suggest you do a bit of reasearch or you may find yourself flat out on the floor.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          John,
          well here mate I have to agree completely with you.

          Umm!

          I just have the one small question for you.

          The current concentration of CO2 in the Atmosphere is 392PPM

          7% is, er, 70,000 PPM.

          So, umm, John, how soon before the Atmosphere gets to that 70,000PPM mate.

          I might need to update my Life Insurance!

          Tony.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            John Huxley

            Yes Tony you are right about the levels in our atmosphere. And dont go rushing to update your insurance, I cant see levels in the atmosphere reaching 7% in your lifetime. Just avoid situations wher Co2 levels are concerntrated. Did you know levels as low as 1%, or 10,000ppm could cause drowsiness? Thats pretty close to the 8000ppm found within US subs.
            The other fact many overlook is Carbon dioxide emmissions as produced by the combustion of fossil fuels comes with other toxic gases, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons are the main offenders. Again breathing the levels currently in our atmosphere is not going to have much impact. But I would not suggest you put yourself in a more concerntrated atmosphere, like running a generator in a room.
            At the end of the day the topic of climate change fact or fiction makes no difference to the fact that we should be avoiding many toxins, not just those created by the burning of fossil fuels.
            Surely nobody here is advocating an increase in toxins? If there is anyone who thinks more toxins are good, be my guest, go right ahead and increase your intake!


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Oh, please,
            I just had to reply to this one.

            But I would not suggest you put yourself in a more concerntrated atmosphere, like running a generator in a room.

            Let’s see now.
            My room is 3.6M X 3.1M X 2.8M.
            A coal fired generator is 12M X 4M and could weigh up to 1300 Tonnes. Then I’ll need the turbine to drive it, the boiler and the furnace, and the pulveriser, and the coal loader. then the chimney, the water supply, the cooling stack.

            Hmm!
            Tight fit.

            Running a small generator in my (existing) room will not emit anything whatsoever.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Sonny

            John,

            So if human caused climate change is imaginary we should still spend trillions of dollars expanding the powers of international government, enriching international bankers, increasing the local cost of every good and service, shutting down all productive industry, and all at the expense of other health risks such as fuel poverty and starvation (read about bio fuel crops in aFrica…)

            Sorry mate but if humans don’t cause climate change we should invest our money into genuine health issues (including real pollution).

            CO2 is completely harmless and beneficial to life. You believe it is a toxin, a pollutant and a threat because you have been the easy victim of government funded indoctrination and propoganda.

            You have been brainwashed! Wake up!


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Sonny

          John, CO2 levels are not toxic in the atmosphere (as you have admitted) and will most likely never reach levels near toxicity in all of human history. That’s why the debate is not about CO2 being toxic but rather about CO2 causing global warming via the greenhouse effect.
          You may be interested to know that CO2 levels have been significantly higher in past times and somehow plants humans and animals have evolved and thrived.

          Therefore calling CO2 a “toxin” is completely disengenious, misleading and innapropriate.

          Guess what… Water (H2O) can be toxic if you drink too much of it.

          Go on John start “advocating” for reduced water vapor emissions.
          If you do your research you will find out that water vapour is the most significant and abundent greenhouse gas, yet strangely it’s concentration in the atmosphere is decreasing while CO2 is increasing which disproved the fundamental positive feedback assumption in climate models.

          Therefore


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Numberwang

          John, try breathing pure oxygen for any length of time and see what happens. Ignorance like yours is the most toxic substance known.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Sonny

      John,

      Firstly, CO2 is not a “toxin”.
      Without carbon dioxide dear friend, no plant or animal or human would be alive today. Fact.
      Did you learn about respiration and photosynthesis at school? Or have you been subjected to post normal education?

      We breath out CO2 and plants breath it in. Isn’t it beautiful?!
      The vegetables and fruit you eat are grown in greenhouses which are pumped full with up to 6 times the carbon dioxide concentration than in the atmosphere!

      You are obviously a newbie when it comes to promoting climate change. To be an effective warmist you will need to first brush up on some basic skills and knowlege. Please come back and try again!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      KeithH

      John Huxley
      March 5, 2012 at 9:14 pm · Reply
      “So weather Co2 emmissions are causing climate change or not I believe the fact that they are toxic” .

      And your evidence for CO2 toxicity and being ‘bad news for the environment and all living things’ is exactly what?

      If you feel so strongly about it John, you can do your part anytime simply by not exhaling any more of it, though I wouldn’t recommend it if you want to keep living!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      memoryvault

      Thanks for your input, but you’re about a quarter of a century out of date.

      A very sizable proportion of the regulars here are middle-aged or older, and we were active in the “environment movement” possibly even before you were born. In fact, for many of us, the very reason we are here is because we have seen the good work we were trying to do in cleaning up the planet, hijacked by the “ban CO2 and send the world back to the stone age” movement.

      WE are the people who campaigned for clean air, which is why your city is no longer buried under a cloud of smog every morning.
      WE are the people who campaigned for cleaner waterways, which is why you can now catch a trout again.
      WE are the people who campaigned for responsible industry, which is why any new application for mining needs an approved “environmental management plan”.
      WE are the people who held hands in front of the bulldozers and stopped the wholesale clear-felling of vast swathes of Australian bushland, and started the whole concept of “responsible land management”.

      Many of us were campaigning for these things a quarter of a century ago. Are you so naive and brainwashed that you think Bob Brownshirt and the Greens accomplished it all by themselves in the last five years? Truth is, they are just opportunists who jumped on the bandwagon of the hard work done by others for a generation.

      Come back and lecture us when you have grown some fuzz in your nether-regions sonny. Until then, you’re operating out of your depth.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        MattB

        “Are you so naive and brainwashed that you think Bob Brownshirt and the Greens accomplished it all by themselves in the last five years? Truth is, they are just opportunists who jumped on the bandwagon of the hard work done by others for a generation”

        Come on – credit where it is due, Bob has been campaigning since 1972. Hardly a bandwagoner. Half the people on this site would be furious for the things you say you’ve done… like trying to stop nice farmers from making best use of their land. I call bullshit that you’ve done a day’s environmental give-a-crappery in your life.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Dave

          Bunnings have a shovel on special – they are right next door to BWS!

          See here to start.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          The Black Adder

          …Come on – credit where it is due, Bob has been campaigning since 1972. Hardly a bandwagoner…

          bwwaahaahaahaaahaaa…

          thats the funniest thing I have seen yet Mattybrobrow…..

          Bob Brown is a dangerous individual…`nuff said!


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Dave

          PS. PS. MW has done more for environmental gains in mining and exploration in Australasia over 20 years than you have had bicycle rides on the Perth bike ways!

          You are very angry MattyB – aren’ you? Still smarting after your Plan C?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            memoryvault

            You are very angry MattyB – aren’ you? Still smarting after your Plan C?

            You’re getting ahead of yourself – and MattB, Dave. He hasn’t even come up with a “Plan B” yet.
            Mind you. you have to admire the balsiness:

            Half the people on this site would be furious for the things you say you’ve done… like trying to stop nice farmers from making best use of their land.

            Nice little dig there, don’t you reckon Dave? I mean, do you have any idea what he’s talking about, ‘cos I sure don’t. That’s the beauty of it. Unsubstantiated, meaningless bulls*t. But it sure sounds serious. I MUST be a nasty guy.

            And then we have this:

            I call bullshit that you’ve done a day’s environmental give-a-crappery in your life.

            I suppose if by “environmental give-a-crappery” MattB means doing a Bob Brownshirt or an Al Gore and telling everybody else to “do as I say, not as I do” then I suppose he is right. I am lacking.

            On the other hand, if he means buying 40 acres of over-cropped sheep-wheat farming land, owner-building a stone house on it almost entirely out of products sourced off the land, fencing out the sheep and planting and nurturing 8,000 trees down the water-course that ran through the middle of the property, having the property “keylined” according to Yoeman’s “Water For Every Farm” techniques, and planting out the property in accordance with Bill Mollison’s original “Permaculture” techniques, all at my expense, with every dollar earned by me, and not a dollar of government subsidy, then I am prepared to go head to head with MattB and even Brownshirt Bob.

            Perchance MattB will grace us with what he, personally, at his own expense and labour, has similarly done to make some little corner of the world a better place. Perchance he will also enlighten us about Brownshirt Bob’s similar contribution.

            Personally, I won’t be waiting up. Like MattB’s “Plan B”, it’s not going to happen.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            MattB

            MV – you said “WE are the people who held hands in front of the bulldozers and stopped the wholesale clear-felling of vast swathes of Australian bushland”

            yet it is not long ago that this very blog championed some farmer in QLD I think who was having his rights to clear his land curtailed… because of people like you.

            As for your land rehabilitation claims – well as I say credit where it is due that’s a decent effort.

            Point still stands that your claim that Brown has been a bandwagoner jumping on board in the last 5 years is way off the mark.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Sonny

      Jo,

      I encourage you to print John Buxom’s comment, give it three gold starts and attach it to your refrigerator.

      In all seriousness though, this puerile tripe is the outcome of our current education system in which science is being whittled away by government propoganda.

      This is why we need to keep up the fight – for the minds of our children!

      I’m so depressed.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Markus Fitzhenry

      ‘John Huxley
      March 5, 2012 at 9:14 pm · Reply

      I advocate for a cleaner world. I believe the fact that they are toxic means we should do all we can to avoid Co2 emmissions 9sic0.

      Therefore unless there are skepticts that believe toxins are good, we need to avoid toxins.
      ———————-

      Eeer; Toxins.

      The Pasteurella pestis bacterium caused is a toxin. It was the cause of the Black Death and later epidemics on the entire European continent over a period of 400 years.

      Modern strains, G. pestis would probably reside in the urban environments. Most modern spreading occurs between rodents and Eco-urban Environment Greenies. Once infected group contamination occurs rapidly between Eco-urban Environment Greenies, a mutated bacterium also reinfect rodents making them even more toxic.

      As Eco-urban Environment Greenies live in close proximity to rodents, the rodent is domestic. Every infected animal with G. pestis, can transmit the infection to humans by sharing eco-urban environments.Humans can also spread the bacteria to other humans through immoral behaviour, sharing needles, lack of hygeyne , or direct contact with infected tissues. In addition, Y. pestis can spread from the urban environment into the workplace.

      Extreme symptoms include eco-warrior tendencies, irrationality and delusion. Milder symptoms include worship of unattainable energy reductions, and willingness to pay for imaginary climates. Continued reinfection will result in the Eco-urban Environment Greenie morphing into;

      A DIRTY RAT.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Byron

      John Huxley ,

      when levels of Your “toxic” CO2 drop below 200 ppm , most plants stop growing/start dying

      Current levels of “toxic” CO2 in the atmoshpere are 380 ppm

      In many commercial greenhouses Your “toxic” CO2 levels are enhanced to 1500 ppm as this is regarded as the optimum for healthy growth for most plants

      During the Carboniferous period , when life on this planet was at its MOST prolific , “toxic” CO2 levels were 1500+ ppm

      Operational levels of “toxic” CO2 in US submarines are round 8000 ppm , not a sign of any ill effects

      Without Your “toxic” CO2 life on the planet STOPS DEAD . You are a “toxic” carbon based lifeform

      And John , In case you haven`t worked it out already , the use of quotation marks in this post is meant to imply not merely dripping with sarcasm but positively gushing it .


      Report this

      00

      • #
        John Huxley

        You are talking about very low concerntrations,7% will cause unconsciousness within 1 hour if not within minutes. If you dont believe me do your own reasearch but I would not try breathing a high concerntration as part of your reasearch, it may be the lastbreath you take.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Hey John!

          Look in the mirror.
          See that red face?

          You beginners are so easy.

          Tony.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            John Huxley

            Took a look in the mirror Tony, and I can assure you my face is no where near as red as yours! Mate, if your going to make another red faced comment you should upload a another photo. You look like your competing with a lobster in the current photo. Oh well, you will have put that comment down to a learning experiance.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            The Black Adder

            Took a look in the mirror Tony…

            Oh dear Mr Huxley.

            If you take a look in the mirror you might see Bob Brown….

            Just like your climate change policy, your english is up shit creek….

            bwahahahahaha…


            Report this

            00

        • #
          BobC

          John Huxley
          March 6, 2012 at 1:06 am · Reply
          You are talking about very low concerntrations,7% will cause unconsciousness within 1 hour if not within minutes.

          So, how long do you estimate we have, John, before this catastrophe overtakes us?

          Since you seem to not have much feel for numbers, I’ll work it out for you:

          1) The current rate of atmospheric CO2 increase is ~0.5%/year. (The rate has been between 0.45% and 0.5% for the last 54 years.)

          2) At 0.5%/year CO2 will double in log(2)/log(1.005) = 139 years.

          3) To get to 7% (70,000 ppm) it will take log(70000/380)/log(2) = 7.525 doublings

          Hence it will take 7.525*139 = 1,046 years of the current rate of increase to reach 7%. Of course, we would run out of fossil fuels before reaching even 1 or 2% of that value (even assuming that it is anthropogenic emissions that are responsible for the increase — there is significant evidence that this isn’t the case).

          So, how fast do we need to move on this, John? A real crisis, right?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Aw …

            John’s long gone. Dum, dum, dum, another one bites the dust …


            Report this

            00

          • #
            AndyG55

            Can’t find at the moment, but there are studies that show that the highest concentration we could possibly reach under a continued fossil fuel burning regime is somewhere in the 1000-1500ppm area. ie.. pretty close to perfect for plant life.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Bob @33.8.1.2,

            You appear to be mixing percentage and parts per million. If as you say at first, CO2 is rising by 0.5%/year then it takes less than 14 years to reach 7%.

            Your actual log calculation is good but increasing by 0.5%/year? :-)


            Report this

            00

          • #
            BobC

            Roy Hogue
            March 7, 2012 at 12:35 pm
            Bob @33.8.1.2,

            You appear to be mixing percentage and parts per million. If as you say at first, CO2 is rising by 0.5%/year then it takes less than 14 years to reach 7%.

            Your actual log calculation is good but increasing by 0.5%/year?

            I was considering a geometrical increase — each year there is 0.5% more CO2 than the year before, based on a numerical fit to the 12 month smoothed Mauna Loa data (Matlab code available on request). (Actually, that is the maximum rate over the last 54 years.)

            Hence, if today’s concentration is X, then next years is X*1.005, and the year after is (X*1.005)*1.005, the year after that is ((X*1.005)*1.005)*1.005 = X*(1.005^3).

            After N years the amount will be X*(1.005^N).

            So, in 1046 years the quantity increases by 1.005^1046 = 184.37 (In other words, 1.005 times itself 1046 times gives you 184.37.)

            Current concentration is ~380 ppm. 380 * 184.37 = 70,062 ppm.

            The log calculations arise from solving the equation 380*1.005^N = 70,000 for N.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Makes sense. I stand corrected.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          crakar24

          John,

          We as humans breath out 40,000 ppm or 4% of CO2 for every breath we take, our bodies produce CO2 as a means of transferring oxygen from red blood cells into muscules. The fiures you quote (7 or 8%) are for confined spaces like a submarine or if you are ever trapped in a lift.

          I hope you are just taking the piss out of everyone here for if you are not then as a nation i hope God has mercy on our souls for we are already a lost cause.


          Report this

          00

          • #

            crakar24,

            that’s what is so disconcerting about John’s comments.

            He has no concept whatsoever other than the initial comment, and the scare associated with that.

            It’s a worrying insight into what the ‘average’ person is either being told, or what they believe.

            It’s OK for all of us here to discuss and debate, something they are not getting anywhere else, but if this is the way those average people think, then we are indeed in serious trouble.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            MargaretO

            being trapped in a mine shaft is a better example :)

            It is the enclosed spaces, not the open spaces where running out of oxygen is so dangerous. It is certainly not the case in our own homes etc. etc…. good point thanks.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Kevin Moore

          John Huxley

          We can easily get rid of CO2 toxins. Howabout I print up a few billion dollars worth of tickets called carbon credits then you could arrange for everyone to buy them off me.

          Or would that be called counterfeiting because only the crooks who are regarded with high respect in society are allowed to print money?


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Llew Jones

      If you check you will find that high concentrations of oxygen are also toxic to humans.

      “Oxygen toxicity is a condition resulting from the harmful effects of breathing molecular oxygen (O2) at elevated partial pressures. It is also known as oxygen toxicity syndrome, oxygen intoxication, and oxygen poisoning. Historically, the central nervous system condition was called the Paul Bert effect, and the pulmonary condition the Lorrain Smith effect, after the researchers who pioneered its discovery and description in the late 19th century. Severe cases can result in cell damage and death, with effects most often seen in the central nervous system, lungs and eyes.”

      wiki

      Seven percent CO2 is 70,000 parts per million and is exceptionally high and irrelevant in terms of the present atmospheric CO2 concentration. Prolonged exposure to 30,000 ppm or 3% should do the trick of killing off most humans. That’s the sort of concentration that cave explorers and some miners can experience.

      Safe Work Australia in the following standard lists safe exposure to work place CO2 at 5000 ppm for 8 hours. That is 0.5%. The present average atmospheric concentration of CO2 is about 390ppm or 0.04%. It it were possible by any means to increase that to say 1600 ppm or 0.16% it would still be well within a tolerable level for humans (and be very good for the growth of all sorts of vegetation including food species).

      WORKPLACE EXPOSURE STANDARDS
      FOR AIRBORNE CONTAMINANTS
      DATE OF EFFECT: 22 DECEMBER 2011

      The bottom line is that no one really knows how much of the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last two centuries is due to CO2 being released from the oceans by natural warming, change of land use or from increased fossil fuel CO2 emissions. It is important to note that annual emissions from the use of fossil fuels are two to three times greater than the average annual increase in atmospheric CO2 which tells us, at least, that the biosphere is converting or absorbing most, if not all human CO2 emissions.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      AndyG55

      CO2 is NOT a toxin,

      CO2 is a highly beneficial plant growth trace gas, and nature flourishes when it is in abundance(500-2000ppm). We need more of it in the atmosphere, not less.

      Industry does try very hard to limit the production of other real toxins.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Bob Massey

      I’m sorry John but you’re completely wrong!

      Jo and most of the people who post here do not oppose Climate Change because we know it is futile and a vast waste of resources.

      The Climate will change no matter what humanity does or does not do.

      What we do oppose is self righteous morons who think controlling the weather is something we can do and then instigate a useless Tax and legislation saying that we can change the Climate.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Ally E.

      CO2 is not a toxin, it is plant food and essential for life on this planet. Don’t turn to your masters for confirmation of this, they have an adenda to follow and don’t want you to find out for yourself. Don’t take it on faith, either. Look it up independently.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      I believe the fact that they are toxic means we should do all we can to avoid Co2 emmissions. To do anything else is the equivalent of shitting in your own nest!

      Believe in starving the poor plants ..do we? tsk tsk!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Exaggerated on climate science, ignorant of toxicology, and wrong with the authoritarianism. Wasn’t a great first post here, was it John? Perhaps it was just an attempt to throw a spanner in the works out of journalistic envy.

      I suspect why you’re misguided on the science of CO2 is because for you the scientific knowledge is not even important. Science was a convenient excuse for as long as it held up, which wasn’t long. In the words of Tony Montana from Scarface: “The communists, they always try to tell you what to do.”


      Report this

      00

    • #
      brc

      Co2 is toxic?

      Well, that’s a new one to me. My god, I’m a toxin emitting organism. Run for your lives!!!

      Reducing pollution and toxin emissions is all well and good, and you’ll get support from most people for that.

      However, and let me speak slowly here:
      co2 is a foundational building block of life on earth. It is an odorless, harmless, colorless gas, without which we would not exist.

      How about you stop telling others (including Jo) what to do and mind your own freaking business?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      MattB

      Dear God John – I just read this assuming that you were being unfairly lampooned… however it has to be said that CO2 is not toxic, at least not at any sort of concentration that is at all likely to occur even if we were to burn every last ounce of fossil fuels. If AGW were to be bunkum (which is not my opinion) then there would be zero reason to limit emissions of CO2.

      The argument for a cleaner world is all good and well, but if CO2 is not causing global warming then you’d not spend a cent reducing emissions as it would be money wasted when there are countless actual environmental issues to worry about.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      MargaretO

      you dopey person. The air that we breathe out is not toxic. It is plant food. Have you ever heard of the process of photosynthesis?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    oops..take.. should read..take me to a Gulag.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The Black Adder

    Jo….I think it`s already started.

    Since posting controversial statements about the hoax that is Man Made Global Warming, on your website, something strange has been happening!

    I am being followed by strange looking Men in Black Driving a Toyota Prius…

    What should I do?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Sonny

      Convert to green energy.
      Adopt the precautionary principal.
      Cut out red meat from your diet.
      Offer to buy the prius with carbon credits.

      In other words “REPENT”


      Report this

      00

    • #
      memoryvault

      I wouldn’t worry about any MIBs driving around in a Toyota Prius.

      Unless, of course, by “black” you mean a fancy little cocktail dress with black fishnets, a la Alexander Downer.

      Even then I would say it had more to do with the bars you frequent, rather than your political views.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Get a decent car and they won’t be able to catch you!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      BobC

      Buy a large Dodge truck. If you can’t outrun them (or take it off-track where the prius would get eaten by one of your crocs) you could always run over them!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        The Black Adder

        Ha Bob,

        The Crocs are big up here now!

        The Guvment wont let us shoot them anymore!

        They are more important than people….

        But the Prius would be Morning Tea, the Dodge Lunch and then the Holden Statesman Caprice would be dinner…:)


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Angry

      Maybe it was Bob Brown wearing a Black cocktail dress, Black fishnet stockings and Black high heel shoes…..


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Michael

    I almost want the Labor party to try and get this enacted into law. There is no way that it would survive a High Court challenge. In the case of Lange v The Australian Broadcasting Corporation 1997 (the ABC winning a case 15 years ago that will result in their inability to silence those they wish to silence now is just poetic) the High Court ruled that Australians have an implied Constitutional right to free speech in regards to any issue that might affect the outcome of an election and an extended right to free speech in general regarding politics. Trying to control what they print might destroy the lovefest that Fairfax has with Labor.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gary Mount

    I don’t know if you are aware of this, but somewhat recently the Quebec government toyed with the idea of requiring journalists to be licensed.

    http://www.torontosun.com/2011/08/27/corrupting-journalists


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike Fomerly of Oz

    Why, oh why must Australia follow the same stupidity that’s found here in the Ameritopia? Fairness doctrine? Really? It’s as though all the leftists are reading from the same playbook.

    Australia, that bastion of common-sense people, surely can knock this nonsense on the head before it launches.

    Come on, Australia, don’t fall into the same quagmire of Orwellian horror that’s happening in America. It’s not a pretty sight.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    dave ward

    “Or end up broadcasting from moving vans via CB radio?”

    Back in the 80′s I was a keen shortwave listener, and Radio Australia was my favourite station. So much so that I visited your country twice, and was made most welcome by the staff at RA. At the time they were fairly independent of the ABC, and were a reliable source of information for millions around the globe. I know that’s (sadly) no longer the case, but if government attempts at controlling the web continue, I can see the old fashioned methods coming back into play…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    More pointers as to why Gillard, Conroy, Shorten and Co., commissioned the ‘Frankenstein’ Media Control Report. There is no doubt the Bruce Wilson/AWU fraud is still a sleeping giant that could wreck the careers of many current Labor MP’s, some with Prime Ministerial ambitions!

    THe Lies And Deception of Media Watch And Host Jonathan Holmes in Defence of Julia Gillard!

    http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2011/09/19/the-lies-and-deception-of-media-watch-and-host-jonathan-holmes-in-defence-of-julia-gillard/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    1DandyTroll

    At least you didn’t do a complete “gleick-review” of it. :p

    I bet they’ll try what the self-proclaimed rulers, aka the corporatizts, of the EU commission does when the good folks protest with conservative reason, which is not to scrap what they ultimately have decided to force upon everyone but instead rewrite it in absurdum ad nauseam until enough accepts it.

    What’s ironic is that even the bong lefties gets all conservative when their free speech is threatened. :p


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    harking back to ABC’s Sarbai Island (Torres Strait Islands) program, like all CAGW stories, it involved taxpayer money, with $22 million being asked for to build a new sea wall, . based on a claim of climate change.

    altho i can’t find it in a transcript, the audio on ABC’s Background Briefing page should still include the odd endnote, saying ABC has put in a Freedom of Information request to the Govt to, presumably, uncover if the Govt has a relocation policy:

    5 March: Yahoo!7: Relocation fears as ocean swallows Torres Strait islands
    By Hagar Cohen for Background Briefing, ABC
    University of New South Wales scientist Donna Green has researched climate change in the area and says the inundation that is happening only a few times a year now, will become much more frequent.
    “Projections would suggest that one of their worst high tides, for example, a one in 100 year event, may occur as much as once in every few days in 40-50 years from now,” she said…
    The Torres Strait Council followed Angus Gordon’s recommendation with its own four year strategy paper, costing the required works on the six islands at $22 million.
    According to the council, this solution is not permanent but will give the communities an extra 20-30 years.
    However this paper was shelved in Canberra and ignored…
    Meanwhile, people in Saibai have started wondering whether plans are quietly being made for them to be relocated.
    Torres Strait Mayor Fred Gela says that is unacceptable and would be resisted.
    “We’ll be waiting to see which government is going to come into the Torres Strait to look at relocating my people. Because they’d want to bring an army,” he said…
    http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/13077884/relocation-fears-as-ocean-swallows-torres-strait/

    Donna Green has been pushing this story for a while it seems:

    May 2009: ABC: Message Stick: Talking Stick: Climate Change
    MIRIAM COROWA: And in terms of northern parts of the country, you’ve recently been up to the Torres Strait, I understand. And what sort of impacts are happening there? It’s quite a different situation, I think, you know. The Murray, there’s not enough water, and in Torres Strait, there might be a bit too much.
    DR DONNA GREEN: Yeah, well, for the Torres Strait, it’s the high tides which are the main issue. You’ve got several low-lying islands there and the community’s living right on the edge of the coast, a metre or two from the edge. When you get a high tide at the beginning of the year, you actually have the community underwater. You’re up to your knees in water for a good two or three hours every day. If it happens during the day, in the middle of the day and there isn’t too much strong wind, that’s the worst that you get, that you see, visually, the water. But if it happens at night, it’s really scary, cos people don’t know what to do. The remote area, the evacuation procedure really isn’t known. We wouldn’t know how to get people out of there at the moment. The communities are concerned, because they don’t feel they have the resources to actually take adaptation measures. They know they want a seawall that’s better, but they can’t actually access the money at the moment to help with the studies, to get the feasibility to design a proper seawall, so that they can stay there for longer…
    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/messagestick/stories/s2573308.htm

    so many feeding off the CAGW scam, and not about to give up the religion, tho it’s a pity some are involved in TEACHING:

    Dr Donna Green is a senior lecturer and researcher at the Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC), University of New South Wales (UNSW) in Sydney, Australia
    http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~donnag/


    Report this

    00

    • #
      gnome

      There’s a thousand of them and they need a $22M seawall to keep their real estate values up. All they need to do is throw in $22,000 each. Not so much compared with the cost of houses anywhere else in Australia.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Catamon

    “This is a proposal that would seem right at home in North Korea or Zibmabwe. I never thought – as dark as things seemed- we could stoop this low here in Australia”.

    Well there’s some typical over the top lets get the Tea Bagging right revved up crap from that well known self satire site Menzies House. Thank-you for sharing that!

    Having read some of the report there are a few passages i found of particular interest.

    2.93 There is particular concern when the government seeks to regulate the media.
    The concern is that if government regulates the media it will do so in its own interest
    by limiting or preventing the media from carrying out its fourth estate function on the
    operations of government.

    There is another view. Greenawalt has pointed out that ‘owners and editors of newspapers
    and television stations and other private individuals with huge influence over the
    dissemination of ideas will also have their own objectives to pursue’.
    He goes on to say ‘private influence is a far cry from outright suppression. No private
    enterprise can prevent others from speaking.”

    2.94 This is the situation this Inquiry must address: how to accommodate the increasing
    and legitimate demand for press accountability
    , but to do so in a way that does not
    increase state power or inhibit the vigorous democratic role the press should play
    or
    undermine the key rationales for free speech and a free press.

    In the context of the issue that the report was considering, well, it sounds like they actually have come at it from a pretty reasonable and rational perspective.

    11.44 – 11.69 Recomended Model

    Worth a read in detail people.

    11.69 Another aspect of jurisdiction concerns how the News Media Council will exercise
    its power over all internet publishers. Foreign publishers who have no connection with
    Australia will be beyond its reach. However, if an internet news publisher has more than
    a tenuous connection with Australia then carefully drawn legislation would enable the
    News Media Council to exercise jurisdiction over it.

    So don’t move overseas just yet Jo. :)

    Was interesting reading this stuff tonight and watching Media Watch’s treatment of it. I think that they have probably gotten the numbers wrong as far as blog sites and the numbers of page views. Setting the numbers that low would swamp any regulatory body as whatever position on anything a blog site puts out there, there WILL be some nut-bagger conspiracy theorist troll who makes a complaint. As far as i can see at the moment this report provides a pretty good basis to start framing some kind of reasonable, publicly accountable regulation of a sector that because of its influence on the body politic should have it. Its a long way from a report like this though, to workable legislation and it will be interesting to see where it goes.

    The woe is us, this means the end of the free world, oh my god the MIB are at the door right now, you have to pry the keyboard from my cold dead hand crap is just a joke though. Yup, the world is changing, and ANY legislation that regulates something as important as the News Media is important and needs to be carefully considered as to its implications. That doesn’t mean that there are not problems, right now, with our media and we should not be frightened of looking at how to deal with them given that self regulation is pretty much a joke.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Gee Aye

      Catamon,

      there are at this moment 6 people who gave you a thumbs down. Since they are responding to the analysis of someone who has actually read the report, if I assume that they are in honest (ie they also read the document) disagreement with your views, then we should see their analysis, complete with evidence that they read the document, some time soon.

      I gave you a thumbs up for the effort you put into your analysis.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        crakar24

        GA,

        It is possible that they gave Cat a thumbs down because he/they reduced a 400 page report down to a few random quotes and then passed a favorable judgment on it.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Winston

      Because they recognise and admit that the legislation has the potential to be exploited by governments to suppress dissent doesn’t mean it won’t be used for exactly that purpose. Acknowleging, it is just a way of pretending to give lip service to the legitimate concerns that overzealous regulation of speech and ideas is frought with danger- they pass it off with “we understand the concerns of the people”, “we have factored this in to our considerations” and other such nonsense. Best just not to go there- period. Personal expression of ideas, and thoughts, and speech should be SACROSANCT!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        catamon

        Personal expression of ideas, and thoughts, and speech should be SACROSANCT!

        Well, maybe not quote the bollocks it appears at first read. And its interesting that the report did speak to the similarities/difference between free speech and free press. Free speech should not be without some limits. I think that in a free society you HAVE to deal with what the limits to freedom are. Otherwise, law of might is right prevails. In terms of “free speech” the only ones with it end up being the large corps and anyone with deep enough pockets to sue their opponents out of existence.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      KeithH

      Catamon.
      Your interest in reading the report and providing an analysis from your perspective is to be commended.

      Australia is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which includes :

      Article 19.
      •Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

      I’m not a lawyer but it seems to me any attempt to implement the Finkelstein Report recommendations would have every prospect of being able to be successfully legally challenged.

      Given redress is available through our existing defamation laws, I’m also curious to know why you and the majority of posters at ABC’s “The Drum” and similar sites feel new regulations such as those proposed are necessary?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Winston

        Answer is Keith, because Catamon and his ilk don’t like to be forced to argue the validity of their somewhat ill-conceived ideology, because their ideas often don’t stand up to rigourous scrutiny. The Left (for want of a better box to put them in) have never been very adept at providing practical or workable solutions to various life problems- their strength is in identifying issues of inequality or conscience, and they are valuable for that alone. Solutions, however, are not their forte, nor is thinking through the ramifications of their actions. They can easily be manipulated by people with a sinister agenda because they are blinded by the righteousness of their beliefs.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          catamon

          Winston, what planet are you from?

          [Catamon and his ilk don’t like to be forced to argue the validity of their somewhat ill-conceived ideology]

          Something like the recommendations in the Finklestrein report being implemented would actually make it easier balanced debates and discussions happening.

          They can easily be manipulated by people with a sinister agenda because they are blinded by the righteousness of their beliefs.

          Funny, i consider a lot of the posts here by the “give me freedom or give me…..a platform to whinge from” brigade in much the same light.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        catamon

        Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

        And where in all this report is there any talk of censorship that would impact on free speech that might in any way make the above relevant?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          crakar24

          Cat,

          They are all wonderful words but really are you looking at this with boths eyes open?

          Here are some “other” quotes

          Concern was also expressed by several politicians and others that certain of News Limited’s papers (The Australian and the Daily Telegraph) were biased in their reporting on particular issues. Climate change and the National Broadband Network were given as examples

          Trust appears to be allied to perceptions about accuracy and bias. Television—and especially ABC television—is more widely perceived to be accurate than other media. Newspapers are generally not perceived to be as accurate. Similarly with perceptions about bias: the picture is mixed, but generally television and radio are seen to be less biased than newspapers.

          There is a lot more of this in the report, now Cat firstly is it possible the carbon tax policy is in fact crap and certain newspapers know it is crap and where are the figures from the AGE and the ABC? Where are they Cat? I am sure they would be a reverse of the figures above therefore if this was truly an “independent” report it would also show the bias for the policy not only the bias against and it would go on to say that all media is bias in both directions. But no what we have here is an orchestrated attack on the media in this country that refuses to toe the government line.

          Dont be an idiot and stop trying to justify this complete waste of my/yours/our tax payer money. The sooner we get rid of this terribad government the better.

          One of his case studies concerned coverage of climate change policy and his findings mirrored those of the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism. Professor Manne’s research found that articles unfavourable to action on climate change outnumbered favourable articles by a ratio of four to one.

          In his response to Professor Manne’s work, Paul Kelly who is The Australian’s editor-at-large, did not refute Manne’s statistics23. Instead, he argued that Manne’s position was based on a ‘rejection of debate’ about the science of climate change:
          One reason for the public’s backlash making carbon pricing so unpopular was the precise attitude [Manne] took. While pretending to be rational his rejection of debate was really faith-based dogmatism and the Australian public didn’t like being told what to think by patronising experts.

          and this rather long one is my favorite so far

          In December 2011, the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism published a report on media coverage of climate change policy in Australia. In A Sceptical Climate, the Centre analysed 10 Australian newspapers in the period from February to July 2011. It analysed 3,971 articles, including comment pieces, editorials, features and news stories. It looked at the use of language in an article, the framing of the article and the first three sources quoted. .
          Its headline finding was that, overall, negative coverage of government policy outweighed positive coverage by 73 per cent to 27 per cent. Broken down by reference to major media outlets, the Centre found that negative coverage across News Limited papers (82 per cent) far outweighed positive coverage (18 per cent). For Fairfax Media papers, the ratio was 57 per cent positive coverage to 43 per cent negative coverage.

          One of the conclusions reached in the report was this18
          The two biggest News Ltd tabloids—the Herald Sun and the Daily Telegraph—have been so biased in their coverage that it is fair to say they ‘campaigned’ against the policy rather than covered it.

          Evidence in this report suggests that many Australians did not receive fair, accurate and impartial reporting in the public interest in relation to the carbon policy in 2011. This suggests that rather than an open and competitive market that can be trusted to deliver quality media, we may have a case of market failure.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            crakar24

            Stupid formatting this statement should be at the end of the comment

            There is a lot more of this in the report, now Cat firstly is it possible the carbon tax policy is in fact crap and certain newspapers know it is crap and where are the figures from the AGE and the ABC? Where are they Cat? I am sure they would be a reverse of the figures above therefore if this was truly an “independent” report it would also show the bias for the policy not only the bias against and it would go on to say that all media is bias in both directions. But no what we have here is an orchestrated attack on the media in this country that refuses to toe the government line.

            Dont be an idiot and stop trying to justify this complete waste of my/yours/our tax payer money. The sooner we get rid of this terribad government the better.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Winston

            Yes, Crakar, apparently the “Love Media” are OK, but the “Hate Media” are biased and evil and should be gagged and suppressed. Who is the arbiter of who is biased, who is offensive, who is misrepresenting the facts? The political ascendant of the day that’s who. One man’s offense or misrepresentation is another man’s righteous indignation and unrecognised truth. I believe the “Love Media” are just as bad if not worse than the target of this sort of legislation- “Keep the bastards honest” as the wise man said.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          catamon

          Funnily enough Crakchild, yup i do look at this with both eyes open. Did they cite some of the reporting on climate change matters? Good on em! Could it be that your indignation is based on the situation where despite the best efforts of the side of politics with which you identify, you lost this particular debate and the legislation went through?

          if this was truly an “independent” report it would also show the bias for the policy not only the bias against and it would go on to say that all media is bias in both directions

          LOL! So it cant be “independent” because it doesn’t say what you’d like it to. Toughen up princess and stop whining.

          But no what we have here is an orchestrated attack on the media in this country that refuses to toe the government line.

          No, its not an orchestrated attack. Its a first step in regulating an industry that frankly, badly needs it. I mean, you only have to read some of the garbage spewed out by the likes of Bolt and Ackerman to see that surely?

          Hey, under a regulatory system such as has been proposed, even Bolt and Ackerman are free to write WTF they want. Its just that they may have to be a bit more polite and attentive to facts.

          Maintain the rage in the monkey cage Crak. But remember to wash your hands afterwards?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Winston

            Its a first step

            Indeed- the thin end of a very long wedge no doubt. You’re so predictable.

            garbage spewed out by the likes of Bolt and Ackerman to see that surely?

            So clearly since these people are of a different opinion that Catamon, they should be silenced- so to answer my question above- Catamon is to be the sole arbiter of what is offensive or erroneous or misleading or just plain not appealing to his personal taste.

            even Bolt and Ackerman are free to write WTF they want. Its just that they may have to be a bit more polite and attentive to facts.

            You would think you were referring to writers representing the Ku Klux Klan or the National Front, rather than 2 respected conservative journalists who are always polite in my experience (as opposed to the vitriol sometimes seen from left wing media)and merely expressing their interpretations of events as based on their reading of the situation from their point of view- because you don’t agree with them doesn’t mean they need to be “regulated” any more than you do. Your rant above just proves everything the posters say about the aims and the “evil” of this legislation- QED, well done. It’s not about protecting anything other than the weakness of your arguments, the incompetence of the current government and stifling debate and dissent. Also, define “facts”- would that be whatever spin the current government would like to have the public believe?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Dave

            Cattymon,
            You say:

            I mean, you only have to read some of the garbage spewed out by the likes of Bolt and Ackerman to see that surely?

            Use your own advice!
            LOL! So it cant be “independent” because it doesn’t say what you’d like it to. Toughen up princess and stop whining.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            Cat,

            Crakchild? Gee whizz we are scrapping the bottom of the proverbial barrel arent we.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            ghl

            Jo
            Please regulate Catamon. You know you want to, and he agrees with your right to do it.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            Poor old Cat, loses the argument so now has to resort to belittlement and name calling, how the mighty have fallen.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          KeithH

          Cat, you have not answered my question. Let me put it another way. IMO, Jo’s site is a shining example of what freedom of speech and freedom of the press should be. Providing one complies with her very reasonable guidelines, anyone can post instantaneously on any subject.

          Just as with everything written anywhere by anyone, the reader is totally free to either agree or disagree with the point of view expressed and each is entitled to openly express their opinion in reply should they choose to do so.

          My question was: “I’m also curious to know why you and the majority of posters at ABC’s “The Drum” and similar sites feel new regulations such as those proposed are necessary”?

          In other words, what exactly is it you and the others I mentioned are frightened of and why would you even consider imposing any regulation that had even the most remote chance of interfering with the freedoms outlined?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Catamon

            “I’m also curious to know why you and the majority of posters at ABC’s “The Drum” and similar sites feel new regulations such as those proposed are necessary”?

            Because currently I consider a lot of what is in the media, particularly in the political reporting to be crap, spin and in some cases (like during last weeks events) inexcusably wrong and possibly just complete fabrication. It was a bit the same with some of the reporting around the Home Insulation Scheme and BER as well.

            Reasonable regulation may get us better, more accurate and less agenda driven news reporting.

            In other words, what exactly is it you and the others I mentioned are frightened of and why would you even consider imposing any regulation that had even the most remote chance of interfering with the freedoms outlined?

            Who’s frightened?? I’m not of the ilk who seem to thing that any kind of regulation is going to lead to the death of a free society. Unlike some, i’m quite comfortable with tackling the problems we have before us, trying to work out reasonable, fair and effective boundaries that will work. Remember , the only place any freedoms are absolute is where life is nasty, brutish and short.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Catamon

            Just realized something.

            IMO, Jo’s site is a shining example of what freedom of speech and freedom of the press should be.

            How do you square that with:

            Prof Bunyip (Speak up while you still can) recommends (as do I) that we start sending letters to University Chancellors to ask them to remove any lecturer of journalism that endorses censorship (lest their institute be exposed for a patsy lap-dog government entity).

            From the esteemed OP??

            It seems a direct call to pressure peoples employers to cast those people out of their employment because they express and opinion in conflict with one the OP holds.

            A toot toot of the hunting horn to all the “good” little running doggies out there maybe?

            Damn those lecturer’s if they don’t believe regulations bad then hound them out!!!

            LOL!


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Dave

            Cattymon

            You stated:

            Because currently I consider a lot of what is in the media, particularly in the political reporting to be crap, spin and in some cases (like during last weeks events) inexcusably wrong and possibly just complete fabrication. It was a bit the same with some of the reporting around the Home Insulation Scheme and BER as well.

            Use your own advice!
            LOL! So it cant be “independent” because it doesn’t say what you’d like it to. Toughen up princess and stop whining.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Catamon
            March 6, 2012 at 7:42 pm says

            currently I consider a lot of what is in the media, particularly in the political reporting to be crap, spin and in some cases (like during last weeks events) inexcusably wrong and possibly just complete fabrication.

            Crap and spin: So what if some news articles are crap or spin. It’s not as if we don’t get crap or spin from our pollies, our employers and even friends and neighbours. What’s crap and spin to some may be music to others ears. WHO IS TO JUDGE? YOU? Some politically appointed poindexter?

            Why is it that pooffo pinko leftards can’t seem to accept that INDIVIDUALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT’S CRAP AND WHAT’S SPIN and THEY ARE CAPABLE OF DOING SO WITHOUT THEIR HANDS BEING HELD BY SOME LAWMAKERS OR DOGOODERS.

            inexcusably wrong and possibly just complete fabrication:

            We already have laws against libelous/fabricated material. What evidence have you that we need more laws?

            Reasonable regulation may get us better, more accurate and less agenda driven news reporting.

            Better: In whos eyes? yours? What’s “better”? Better for whom? Who decides? Pooffo pinko mollycoddled easily offended princesses like you? Wayne Swan? Bob frigging Brown?
            ARE YOU SO HOPELESSLY RELIANT ON OTHERS THAT YOU CAN’T TURN A PAGE, SWITCH A CHANNELL OR SPEAK UP FOR YOURSELF THAT YOU NEED SOME LEGISLATION TO PROTECT YOUR SENSIBILITIES?

            You poor diddums, life must be tough since your mommy stopped wiping your AR$E at age 15.

            More accurate: Diddums Catamon and the other pooffo pinkos can’t decide for themselves what’s accurate and what’s not. He needs some Estate Agents or Lawyers who’ve become politicians to decide what’s accurate for him.
            Next thing you know diddums Catty will declare he believes in Global Warming….Oh wait!

            Less agenda driven news reporting: Diddums Catty here believes he can recognise agenda driven news reporting, but others in the community can’t, so a Real Estate Agent turned politician must legislate to protect the dumb saps from agenda driven news reports.
            That’s big of you Catty, protecting us from evil news empires with agendas. Have you thought about bottling your $hit and selling it as perfume? You believe it smells of roses…obviously.

            Unlike some, i’m quite comfortable with tackling the problems we have before us, trying to work out reasonable, fair and effective boundaries that will work.

            Here is some food for thought for you diddums Catty. I want you to take it to your mommy and ask her to explain it to you.

            When a group of pooffo pinkos think some additional boundaries will be good for all, you have less room to move, less space to breath and live in.

            Then when the pooffo pinkos are ousted at elections and some right wing red necks take over, they’ll want to introduce some more boundaries for the good of all, JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN. Still less room for you to live your life.

            Then when the watermelon socialists get power, they’ll want to introduce some boundaries for the good of your children.
            And so on. GET IT?

            Dearest diddums Catty. No matter how you word your beliefs, no matter how you explain yourself, in the end what you are saying clearly and unequivocally is that YOU NEED SOME PEOPLE BETTER THAN YOU, SOME PEOPLE WITH MORE INSIGHTS THAN YOU, WITH BETTER UNDERSTANDING THAN YOU, TO CREATE BOUNDARIES FOR YOU, TO CONTROL WHAT YOU SAY, WRITE, DO AND EVEN THINK.

            Sad sad mollycoddled helpless Catty in need of direction in life, in need to be led, coralled and guided in life, just like his mommy did for him for so long.

            IT’S TIME YOU GREW UP CATTY, IT’S TIME YOU STOPPED LOOKING FOR SURROGATE MOTHERS.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Catamon

            Wow Baa Hum, you are cranking tonight me mate!

            Have you ever been told that your world view might, just possibly be a bit, well, out there??

            I mean, you got in 5 instances of “pooffo pinkos” in there. That kind of repetition makes it look like you have some kind of obsessive thing going on, or perhaps your just a bit thick, thought that was a particularly good line and worth repeating?

            Oh, and you may need to clean the froth and spittle off the keyboard mate.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            LMFAO Is that all you’ve got diddums Catty?
            You’ve just been confronted by a homophobic bigotted red neck and the only response you can muster (all by yourself) is to highlight the “pooffo pinko” bits? ROFLMFAO

            What’s the matter diddums Catty, until the Fink laws are in place, you’ve got nowhere to run and complain to like you ran to the principle at school, or to mommy at home or to a union at work?

            I’ts so clear why you support such draconian undemocratic proposals. Poor helpless diddums Catty needs someone to run to as soon as he is confronted head on by a person who uses colourful descriptors to slap his pooffo pinko face with the truth. OUCH!! THE TRUTH HURTS MOMMY.

            It’s OK to use descriptors such as ‘red neck’ ‘shock jock’ ‘homophobic’ etc etc ad infinitum because some pooffo pinko leftard watermelon commo hasn’t placed those words in a legislation that CONTROLS OUR EXPRESSION eh diddums Catty?

            How about you get over my descriptors and respond to the body of my reply to you. There is paragraph after paragraph describing who you are and what you support and what that means in the real world away from your protected home and workplace in a protected suburb of a protected city powered by fossil fuels.

            ps Ask your mommy why she condemned you to a life of mediocraty and reliance on others by raising you as a pooffo pinko leftard commo.
            Then come back and ask me how you can rise above all that and taste a little freedom. You may yet feel like a man (or woman, feel free to choose) :) pc enough for you diddums?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            catamon

            Baa boy. If you want to keep adding to the body of work here where you define yourself as a cranky, abusive, twerp, thats fine with me. The frothing abuse coming form yourself, well, its all part of the rich tapestry of opinion one finds around the intertubes.

            A bit sad though that you seem to define freedom mainly as opportunity to be nasty and abusive?

            You last posts actually say a bit more about you than me mate.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KeithH

            Catamon @ 43.3.2.3.1

            March 6, 2012 at 7:42 pm

            Q.“I’m also curious to know why you and the majority of posters at ABC’s “The Drum” and similar sites feel new regulations such as those proposed are necessary”?

            A.’Because currently I consider a lot of what is in the media, particularly in the political reporting to be crap, spin, ………blah,blah,blah…..’ and from my superior position (of being an expert in crap, spin, things inexcusably wrong and possibly complete fabrication) I believe no one else out there has sufficient intelligence to decide for themselves, so alternative views must be legislatively controlled so others won’t be exposed to any other way of thinking than my own!

            There Cat. Finished what seems to be the thrust of your message for you. I thank you for clarifying your position but you really are one sad closed-minded individual and I feel genuinely sorry for you. However, you have still gone down in my estimation considerably which won’t, and I guess shouldn’t, worry you one jot! I just hope there are not too many more who think as you do otherwise the future of Australia is in even more trouble than I thought and after nearly eight wonderful decades of living in what is the greatest country in the world that is really sad!


            Report this

            00

          • #
            catamon

            Jeeze Keith, i hope you weren’t such a frightened reactionary git for all of those nearly 80 years?

            That would be sad. Anyway, there is an election in 18 mths and then we all get a chance to cast or vote on whatever criteria we decide to. If your fear of the govt having power is greater than your fear of the media owners power then fine, vote accordingly. Meanwhile, thank you for being such an amusing amusing participant. I’d send you some steak knives, but, not sure that its really safe for you and some others like Baa Hum and dah Crakchild to be around sharp objects unsupervised……. :)


            Report this

            00

    • #
      KeithH

      As the old saying goes Cat, I’ve been frightened of no man and very few women in those nearly 80 years! Neither have I ever been frightened of, nor tried to restrict anyone’s freedom to say, read or write whatever they wished and will resist with any means I can any attempts to do so by you or anyone else frightened of exposure to all sides of debate!
      Voltaire and all that!

      If you believe such a man is a “frightened reactionary git”, most would agree that says more about you than me! I do vote at each election for the Party I think best suited to do the job at the time and that has varied over the years. There’s no doubt for me next time!

      One gets to deal with many sm..t ar..s in such a long life time but believe me , try as you might, you’re still well down in the rankings of the best. For marks in that field (and all others)I have to give you a Fail: Try harder!

      Keep your steak knives – you may need them to try and wound someone ’cause your B…….S words don’t have any effect!

      I graciously leave the last “cutting” remarks to you (with a steak knife perhaps?). I’ve wasted enough time on you.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    The left-right paradigm is an out-moded 20th century relic. There is only tyranny or freedom.

    Look at the so-called lefist parties around the world. The very politicians who have built a base on freedom of speech and freedom of association have abandoned that platform for a bizarre montage of socialism, crypto-fascism and the technocratric pyschopathology which has infiltrated our homes, schools and churches in the most insidious institutionalisation of every facet of our lives and livelihoods.

    There is fast coming a day when secession from the Commonwealth of Australia is a very real option for those who wish to live a free and peaceful existance.

    Here’s the financial silver-lining in this sad tale: Usenet, advanced cryptography and applications built for next generation open-source operating systems.

    Also, the primary outcome of this degenerate behaviour by our governments will be the establishment of peer-to-peer internet. I’ve been following the advances in this area for some time. The new wireless technologies which are emerging look very promising. While no comparision to an optical fibre network, the ability to phase shift and apply unique encryption syphers between individual nodes on handshake, make it impossible to be interfered with by a centralised command structure.

    That, or we can always rediscover newpapers’ origins as locally distributed political flyers with advertising on the back.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Our missing colleague Lionell Griffith has often input a quote which would be appropriate here:-

    Those who are free never submit & those who submit are never free.

    (I hope I have got it right)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    How much of our right to speak will they take away? As much as we let them.

    Not only the right to speak, but all rights. Statists always try to reduce the rights of the governed to the least possible amount. You have already let them take your guns, a prime target of all statists (and without any detectable effect on firearm crimes) — why are you surprised now that they are after your right to speak?

    I sincerely hope that a great many — otherwise law-abiding Aussies — have ignored your gun laws (as is apparently the case in Canada). I would be less worried about your future.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      The Black Adder

      Hey Bob,

      I grew up on a farm in South Australia, on the River Murray at a place called Loxton.

      I grew up with a slug gun,

      then went to a rifle .22,

      then went to a shot gun!

      then the guvment told me I could no longer do that.

      then I went to a shanghai… haven`t evolved much have we??!!


      Report this

      00

  • #

    [...] authoritarian it makes the Leveson Enquiry look like a model of balance, sanity and restraint. (According to Mark Steyn – via Jo Nova – the Chinese have been eyeing Pinkie Finkie's report with gobsmacked admiration, wondering [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Heywood

    Sorry fellow blogsters for being slightly OT.

    In case you haven’t heard,

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/coal-activists-strategy-exposed/story-e6frg9df-1226289933461

    A COALITION of environmental activists has developed an extraordinary secret plan to ruin Australia’s coal export boom by disrupting and delaying key projects and infrastructure.

    It outlines a pitch for up to $5.92 million that would be used to fund litigation to stop coal port expansions, major rail lines and new mines; to wage a “battle of Galilee” to stop “mega-mines” in central Queensland’s Galilee Basin and expose it as a “globally significant carbon bomb”; and to discredit the NSW government’s planning process for land use in the Hunter Valley that aims to determine how to allow mining and agriculture to co-exist.

    $5.92 million… So an organisation throws nearly $6 million at disrupting the mining industry in Australia, the industry that’s keeping our economy ticking, and that’s OK? But if Heartland pay the expenses of a couple of skeptics that’s evil?

    Queue the Leftards outrage………………………………………tumbleweeds rolling past…………


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Bulldust

      Just came across this article myself. Makes Heartland look like small potatoes doesn’t it? Just another example of how disproportionate the funding is in the climate debate. The “Green” organisations wield billions in their war on the human species.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        brc

        Heartland is small potatoes.

        The fact that their voice is heard internationally shows an organisation punching multiple divisions above their weight.

        Frankly, I’m astounded at their reach. But I suspect their success comes from annoying extremely well funded interest groups who hate them. So well-funded groups use all their media time complaining about the little minnow in a classic case of their hate getting in the way of their brains.

        A bit like the Labor party talking about Tony Abbott every other sentence. The guy has got brand recognition way beyond his actual political impact (so far).


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Winston

      One of my daughter’s friends, an otherwise highly intelligent young woman, was recently being recruited by Greenpeace activists at a local shopping centre, who outlined their plan to start attacking coal ships in various Australian harbours in similar fashion to the anti-whaling protestors in the Southern Ocean. The zealotry of the unthinking becoming ever more extremist and irrational! And of course, this isn’t being mooted toward oil companies activities, only coal!- does anyone else smell a Big Oil rat amongst all this revolutionary zeal directed towards coal?- classic misdirection playing right into the Oil Czars’ hands.

      Exxon puts a pittance into skepticism because they have the particularly bad name due to the Alaskan Oil spill, meanwhile Shell and Mobil simultaneously invest in renewables they know won’t be an effective alternative- these companies must be laughing so heartily that they have been so readily able to use the Green Agenda driven lunatics to INCREASE their share of the spoils in the world’s energy provision, literally without firing a shot in anger, all the while driving the price up for their product with artificial scarcity of “Peak oil” to render it a precious commodity- Priceless!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Bulldust

        Wow… simply wow. Gioven the choice between a simple explanation and an extremely contrived conspiracy, you hop on the latter train of thought? Destination Crazytown … all abooooard!


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Winston

          I don’t underestimate anyone’s capacity for ruthlessness, subterfuge and corruption. It wouldn’t be the first time that such companies colluded to get rid of their main competitors to entrench a monopoly. That being said, it is probably not the case, just putting it out there as a thought bubble, BD- do with it what you will. Toot Toot!


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Bulldust

            Here’s another thought bubble. People come and post crazy ideas on Jo’s web site pretending to be sceptics, just to make the sceptics look like the loony fringe.

            Posting conspiracy theories lowers the impact of this web site.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            BD where the heck did THAT come from?

            Holy cow I can name 5 others that ALWAYS post conspiracy crap and you are mute.

            Must have been a bad day at the office…..


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Bulldust

            This one just jumped out at me at the time. Got to admit it was right up there with some of the silliest stuff around. I haven’t been spending as much time at this web site as I used to, partly because of this type of thing. I prefer to spend time at WUWT because outrageous arguments get the appropriate treatment from fellow posters.

            This is pretty much a self-moderated sandpit, so a lot of silly stuff gets through. People from both sides of the debate take advantage of that fact. With the signal-to-noise ratio becoming low, it rapidly diminishes the attractiveness of the site.

            You might say I don’t have to read the whacko comments, but that isn’t the point. I still have to wade through a lot to get to the odd gem here and there. But then I increasingly find most blogs degenerate like this – ABC Drum/Unleashed is a classic example. It is worse than useless anymore (that’s assuming it was every useful … probably debatable).

            Just saying…


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Winston

            BD, I’ll cop that.

            The part about my daughter’s friend and Greenpeace is true, only happened a few days ago- I find it disturbing. I was musing about why coal and coal generated power in particular seems to attract a lion’s share of vilification, while oil companies do not, the carbon tax even excludes transportation, does it not. The post was not meant to represent something as hard core fact, and is clearly written that way. I do think that the Oil companies will end up the big winners if the coal industry is rendered unprofitable or uncompetitive. By all means have a go at me if you’d like- I’m a big boy, I can take it.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            I agree fully that Jo (and other blogs) need to be careful because some people DO salt BS conspiracy stuff. That said Winston has a pretty clean record! There is a good bit of wisdom wrapped up in this (albeit cynical) comment:

            I don’t underestimate anyone’s capacity for ruthlessness, subterfuge and corruption.

            Whether or not there is a conspiracy today, we KNOW the history of Standard Oil. Ruthless, subterfuge and corruption are apt descriptors. We’d be smart to keep an eye out for similar behavior today.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Bulldust

            I appreciate the candour. On the same topic, here’s something to really worry about. The UN is willing, no eager, to help Australia decide how to best protect the Barrier Reef from the evil (my insertion) coal expansion projects:

            http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/curb-coal-gas-to-save-great-barrier-reef-un/story-e6frg8y6-1226291267250

            Pure coincidence this is happening just as Green groups are strategising to cripple the coal industry?


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Bruce of Newcastle

          I’d agree with you Bulldust, but this is exactly what Chesapeake Energy did with its (then) secret USD26M support of the Sierra Club.

          What would be interesting is to know the views of oil companies to coal-to-liquids projects. As I understand it, CTL is profitable at about $60/barrel vs current $107 WTC and $124 Brent. Main thing stopping CTL projects now is green tape.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            MargaretO

            I am not a conspiracy theorist but I have to say that you need to look at the man or men behind the curtain. Winston has latched on to something and Bruce has named another one of interest.

            When I did some searching over this subject because of the controversy with the XL pipeline I discovered that there was one name…. I just gave the wrong family name.. my bad. The big name in oil is Rockefeller. If you check out the history of the Rockefeller family, how they got their billions, the enforced break-up of their empire, and what they do with their billions today… it is hard not to think that there is a conspiracy.

            However, like Winston, this is exactly what leapt out to me, because big OIL has been paying billions to Greenpeace and Climate research. Even people like Boone Pickens have been putting money into this effort. The Rockefeller name is behind the major oil companies such as Exxon Mobil, Amoco, and yes even BP has links to the Rockefeller family.

            Big Oil is a cartel. They enjoy what is known as an oligopoly situation, which is little different from a monopoly. They control the energy resources. They do not want coal being a competitor for a reason. I think that Bruce has just hit on another reason which is research relating to turning coal into oil.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        MargaretO

        Consider the name behind Exxon…. Rothschild…. I will say no more than that….


        Report this

        00

  • #

    Well, I’ve actually read all the way through the proposals and I wouldn’t exactly call it a gripping read. The good news is, I only did so to find a way around, over or through every one of the proposed regulations. All those interesting, slightly weasly outs, exist. Like all good hacks, it’s about thinking outside the box and using their regulations against them.

    For instance. On the “must give them a chance to gainsay whatever you’re proposing” front, the funniest solution is probably the most effective. I’ll start a blog that’s a real eco-fascist wet dream.

    I’ll pile in lotsa population control via strict rules on who can have children and how many, who can have a car, who can take a jet to go on holiday, what food you can eat (defo no meat btw) and how many hours a day you should be allowed electricity. I’ll even do the restricting internet access thing. A cherry on top, will be no booze or smokes for anyone and Waltzing Matilda to be banned.

    Under the regulations, I’m sure Jo will utilise her right to reply to my extremist arguments (don’t be too rough on me girl).

    Pointman

    ps. Any suggestions for the new blog title anyone?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Pointman,

      How about these as suggestions for such a blog title?

      “Left is right”
      “Logic is lying”
      “Red is green”

      Not too subtle I know but subtlety is not the strength of the activist.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      memoryvault

      Actually Pointman,

      Apart from banning Waltzing Matilda, you’ve pretty-much described the Australian Greens’ website and policies.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        They wouldn’t dare ban Waltzing Matilda because it would draw attention to the lyrics which involve the enforcement of private property rights and an Aussie battler resisting the encroachment of the State even at cost to his own life. They wouldn’t want to risk revitalising the Jolly Swagman into a modern martyr figure, let alone stoking nationalist resistance to UN treaties.

        Don’t mention Matilda. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it!


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        …additional to previous comment….

        During his clean sweep debate at the National Press Club last year, the MoB alleged a high degree of similarity between the Australian Greens Party manifesto and Marx’ original Communist Manifesto. I’ll confess to being too lazy to check Monckton’s claim about that, mainly because it isn’t about the science, but did anyone else check the similarity at that time? Did the Greens change the content of that document in any way after the MoB made this claim?

        Just hoping to “crowd source” an answer there.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Ally E.

      “Bog-a-Blog”?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      Pointman, theyre (eugenicists) doing that already.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Come on guys and gals. We gotta come up with something that offends 100% of humanity, which is about 14.2875% of Australians (see, I’m getting into role already). My own suggestions –

      SwineThatYouAre (nicked from Rab C Nesbitt, one of my heroes)
      KissMyDamnPinkie (Summat for the Damn Yankies to be offended by, let’s be international)
      ScrewYouAndYourStockade (Only you inbred locals will understand that one. Getin’ into role again)
      YourDayWillNeverCome (Guaranteed to offend everyone of even vaguely Celtic origin, even Welsh gits)
      GleickTheRight (One for home team)

      Btw MV, banning Matilda stays because whatever it is, it’s gotta offend the crustacians.

      Pointman


      Report this

      00

      • #

        BTW. Forgot. Christmas goes the way of Matilda. Swagmen, being jolly, rhyme with golly(men) so they’ll be zapped as well, coz everyone knows what that means.

        Pointman


        Report this

        00

      • #
        memoryvault

        Pointman

        I think you’re relying too much on words – the internet is also visual.

        For the past thirty years the worst political sleight in this country has been to brand someone a “right wing extremist”, followed by “anti-semitic”. These are followed by “being anti the environment”, anti indigenous people, and lastly anti-religion. We also have a very strong, politically correct, feminist movement. So here goes my suggestion:

        Site’s name is “Xtreme Righters”. Title is bold white letters on a black background to convey a “white over black” message. This occupies the left half of the header.

        The right half features a photoshopped pic of a crazy, tattooed skinhead simultaneously chain-sawing through a tree and a cute blonde chained to it. Cute blonde is dressed only in torn tee-shirt, scanty knickers and stockings with high-heels, plus she is wearing a Star of David emblem around her neck. Just discernible on what’s left of the torn tee-shirt is the Greenpeace Panda symbol with “SAVE THE WHALES” under it.

        In the background a mate of the skinhead is attempting to light a fire under a pile of Korans using pages torn from the Bible.

        I think that pretty-much covers everybody.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        1DandyTroll

        You need the name to have the proper association from start, so as not to mislead people, so I suggest, The Green International Socialist Society, or just giss (dot au) for short.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        MargaretO

        good grief Pointman… I love the reference to the stockade….

        Perhaps you can work Eureka into the name….

        For what it is worth, I think that the Eureka Stockade incident is overrated… but then I am a descendant of a soldier from the regiment that was attacked by the miners.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      “Big Brother” is kinda traditional


      Report this

      00

  • #

    [...] authoritarian it makes the Leveson Enquiry look like a model of balance, sanity and restraint. (According to Mark Steyn – via Jo Nova – the Chinese have been eyeing Pinkie Finkie's report with gobsmacked admiration, wondering [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Belasarius

    Finklestein’s Monster, made from ‘left’ over parts of the body politic….


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Yes pointman,

    I’m ready to be a drone for Queen bee Jo any time.
    And yes if any ass driver tries putting a related party type provision in the legislation I’m ready for that too.

    Garth Wenck.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Truthseeker

    Something I got from a comment made on Andrew Bolt’s blog.

    I believe we are signatories(?) of the UN “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. We certainly voted for it when it passed in the UN General Assembly. In that document, I would like to direct everyone’s attention to Article 19.

    Article 19.
    •Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

    I think there is quite a bit of delicious irony in using the UN to torpedo this plan …


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Ally E.

      BRILLIANT! Jo! Look here. LOOK HERE!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Kevin Moore

      There always seems to be a proviso in UN speech. As per usual, so it is with article 19. Freedoms are limited by law as determined by legislators.

      Article 29.
      •(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
      •(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
      •(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Kevin Moore

        “All animals are equal – BUT – some are more equal than others”

        George Orwells’ “Animal Farm”


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        So basically… they’ll use Article 29 to swap your Article 19 for an Agenda 21.

        10-4.

        10-10.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Ally E.

        I don’t think it gives them an out.

        “•(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.” [italics mine]

        The above does NOT say we must accept censorship in the recognition of rights of others. It does NOT say we have to sacrifice freedom of opinion because others want us to. To me it says you can exercise your rights and freedoms but not through violence or public disorder, or ramming your ideas down the throats of others (what the alarmists are doing to us, incidentally).

        A lawyer could decipher the precise meaning more accurately, I’m sure, but this is not a reversal of article 19.

        IS THERE A LAWYER IN THE HOUSE???


        Report this

        00

  • #

    Correction I meant to include Name of my website would be : noosa nova tells.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Uber

    “I’m reaching the people that matter.”
    Ok, get stuffed then. Just send emails to the important people and stop wasting time blogging.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    Popeye @ 26.1.1.2
    March 6, 2012 at 7:25 am · Reply
    Dave,

    “Thanks for the link to Low Carbon Australia.Initial grant of $100 million from the Fed – ”

    Popeye.

    A prime example of the monumental waste of money by Gillard and Co., on the fruitless idiotic quest to “stop or control climate change”. Sceptical scientists (and indeed all AGW sceptics) have long argued it would be far better any monies available should be spent on mitigating the effects of natural disasters we know for certain will continue to occur.

    An example came from an insurance body the other day. The town of Roma has been devastated by floods three times in the last couple of years but $9m dollars would have floodpoofed it. This is only about a third more than Gillard has thrown away on Tim Flannery and the “Climate Commission” to simply spread rehashed alarmist propaganda to support her carbon dioxide tax scam!

    No question there about which would have been the better investment. Stupidity reigns (or more aptly “rains”) supreme!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Popeye

      KeithH

      Yes – it’s downright bloody CRIMINAL the waste and the hypocrasy of this mob.

      Never let it be said they were were thrifty in their spending (of our taxes)

      Cheers,


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Dave

        KeithH & Popeye,

        There’s more. Have you looked at this one The ORER The Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator – even has its own web site as well!

        Amazing this department are still offering solar hot water rebates when Julia has already said NO! One hand doesn’t know what the other is doing! A huge waste of my money!

        The search for REC’s in the REC Registry – this is another body that looks after all the invalid, scamming, crooked etc Renewable Energy Certificates?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Dave

          Here’s one example of a REC – from 2006 to now and still being SOLD & SOLD etc – Is this a scam? This one is on it’s 4th owner. Just keep on trading people?? What a joke – and this is supposed to reduce the levels of CO2 in Australia?

          Certificate Number : 000506-BEBGVC09-2006-000327
          Certificate Details
          Creator (Registered Person Code) : 506
          Accreditation Code : BEBGVC09
          Generation Year : 2006
          Serial Number : 327
          Certificate Creation Date : 03/11/2006
          Fuel Source : Agricultural Waste
          Created By : Charles I.F.E Pty Ltd

          Heres the history of it:
          20/1/2009 10:08:46 Hydro-Electric Corporation (B) from Charles I.F.E Pty Ltd (S)
          10/2/2010 15:05:42 Ausgrid (B) from Hydro-Electric Corporation (S)
          1/3/2011 15:37:02 TRUenergy Pty Ltd Own Use Account (B) from Ausgrid (S)
          NB: (B) is Buyer and (S) is Seller

          Current Owner : TRUenergy Pty Ltd Own Use Account
          Current REC Status : Registered


          Report this

          00

    • #
      KeithH

      I’ve lost the relevant link but let’s not forget the massive amount of money thrown away not only in setting up the huge useless and unnecessary Department of Climate Change but the colossal waste following the Copenhagen fiasco and Rudd’s failure to implement his beloved costly ETS. From memory, because they then essentially had nothing to do the public servants were diverted to the task of trying to clean up the massive and costly pink batts rort so grossly mismanaged by Peter Garrett!

      Considering each new bureaucracy this disastrous Labor (mal)-Administration sets up becomes it’s own unproductive self-perpetuating Public Service empire, the final tally of financial waste (if actually now capable of being calculated) will be staggering.

      You are spot on Popeye and others. I have no doubt history will record these Labor years as the most wasteful period since Federation and a time of wilful if not criminal lost opportunities for this nation.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Jazza

    I’m fuming at the blatant hypocrisy of all this
    While it is obvious that the Murdoch press and any commentator who defies the group think on climate change are the intended target, the confab that it is about providing us balance is just rubbish.

    IF it were, Finkie would have demanded that Fauxfax and the ABC also present “balance” and we all know apart from an odd comment on the insufferable Drum, and one letter each quarter in the Age,that tried to show argument to the contrary of the alarmism or tax racket, the presentation about CC has been an unmitigated outpouring of alarmist pseudo scientific crap!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Slabadang

    Democracy is suffocationg in deep green fascist shit!

    Why taxes and control of the media? Have you relized that commugreens are looking at state byraucracy as thier platform to force thier ideology upon you.
    The taxes are for thier salories and jobs. They want to be an unelected permanent advocacy organisation within the state.

    Have you realized that hiding behind different fake organizations and fasades are thier only chans to hide who they really are? Do you know that the “Socialist international” for decades has encuraged thier members to act this way aware of that you never would vote for them, thats thier strategy to get power and influense.

    A free media can reveal thier lies that why you have Mr Frankenstein monster report. The plan how to muzzle free speach and opposition.

    I love your Australia. And its a tragedy to relize that you are the country in the world who has gone closest to be the Green dictatorship. Your Labour party is a sick and perverted organization! Guillard invited and spread the commis inte the party during the ninties. Now they taken over the party completely!!

    “Seek positions of power in media and authoroties.Thats where you can influense politics and opinion. You can get influense power without beeing elected.- We can help each other”

    Do you think they gonna stop! No not until you find the moral strength to stop them. They are organized well funded and in the lap of the Labor and Green party.
    You are unorganized waiting for someone else to to your job. Sorry but that someone vill never come so you have to act if you want to live in a free country with free speach and free press.

    The Frankenstein gouvernment media control has allready benn considered to be feasable, thats how close you are to be living in a dicatorship.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    Notice this has come out at a time when the ruling government coalition is extremely vulnerable to a free people’s review and vote. In the USA we have similar groups seeking to impose the falsely named “Fairness Doctrine” on public airwaves that whose purpose is the exact opposite. It seems these so called moderate left governments are, when push comes to shove, hardcore anti-freedom.
    Good luck fighting this terrible assault on freedom and basic liberty.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Streetcred

    ‘Scientist’ behaving badly … More about the NZ temperature record

    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool

    Cherry-pick and then massage the data until it does what you want. Talk about a “happy ending” !


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The discovery that the country hasn’t experienced global warming …

      That is because New Zealand is cool …


      Report this

      00

      • #
        crakar24

        Yeah been there Rereke, saw my first ice berg at swan island (well it looked like an iceberg hard to tell as the -20C wind shear was making my eyes water a bit) and i can tell you NZ is not cool it is effing freezi………….oh sorry you meant cool as in “hey man hows it goin” kinda cool………….yeah its cool like that aswell i suppose. Well only the bro’s not the Kiwis they are a little stiff shirted if you know what i mean.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        MargaretO

        Rereke it was so cool when I was there that I could not see Milford Sound properly….!!!!

        I agree New Zealand is cool with a few hot days in between.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Nearly bed time kiddies.

    Yes, I know there are big hairy monsters under the bed, and hiding in the wardrobe, and probably in your left shoe as well.

    But that is the same as every night, and you always fall asleep eventually, and you never get eaten.

    It is the same with this report. It is being floated to judge the reaction. We, the sheeple, are being sounded out to see what our tolerance is to restrictions on free speech.

    Depending upon how much of the yelling and foot-stamping penetrates into the political bubble, a time frame will be planned for another poke at our freedoms, to see if we are still awake.

    Such is the way that extreme factions progress. They do it a bit at a time. Drip, drip, drip, wears away the rock.

    They want a reaction of, “Yeah, whatever”, and they will get that from a large portion of the “not yet politically aware” population. But the people who actually think, and run companies, and employ people, and run the productive sector in the economy, will give them a reaction of, “You what?”

    And a lot of the latter group have historically voted Labour, and they will probably will start to feel a little uneasy over this.

    And some of the Greens, who are actually in the movement because they genuinely want to save the whales, or the snails, or puppy dog tails, will also start to feel a little uneasy if they have to pass the censor every time they want to organise a rally of their mates via their home-grown web site.

    My summation, right now, and with no further information is (drum roll, please): Epic Fail.

    They had the wrong person, writing the wrong report, on the wrong subject, with the wrong brief. But it sure got a reaction.

    In Australia, I believe the expression is, “Throwing water on the chooks”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Huxley

    Cheers to everyone, for or against who has contributed to this blog. I thank you all for your contribution. I guess the genral comment I made is the reason many have returned genral comments.
    All those who think my spelling sucks, you are right, however at least you all worked out what was meant. I have seen this critasism of many people elsewhere and every time the critics knew exactly what was being said. Having said that I definately need to work on my spelling, something I should have done long ago.
    I am still not a fan of the climate change debate because I think for the most part it a is fairly narrow debate. ie Co2 & coal genrally. At least my comment has expanded the debate a bit.
    The main point of expanding the debate is to try and get people to understand the climate change debate is not the only one reason to reduce consumption of fossil fuels. As previously stated the burning of fossil fuels comes with a coctail of chemicals, not just Co2- further more in the right concerntration they are definately harmull. I hope you all do a bit of reasearch on exhaust emmissions and the associated gasses. I can assure you all if you put yourself in an enclosed space, exhaust emmissions have the potential to kill you. DO NOT PUT A SMALL FOSSIL FUELED GENERATOR IN A ROOM or poorly ventilated area. I am led to believe that you may die from carbon monoxide poisioning- thats one of the gasses emitted from the exhaust. Last year a man who had his house flooded used a generator in a room to start repairs on his house. He tradgically died as a result.
    Now if we expand the debate a bit more we need to look at the mining processes involved in and the production of fossil fuels. The massive oil spll in the US a good example. If we look at the Hunter Valley many of the residents are suffering resporitary problems, as has been well documented by a local GP. What is even more amazing is I hear plans to frack the Hunter Valley now. I have been informed this problematic process emits unburnt gasses into the atmosphere which are far worse than the coctail of emmissions from burnt gas. Let alone the many well documented problems that fracking has revealed in the US.
    Are you all getting an understanding why I think we need to expand the debate so people see the full picture. When the full picture is considered I hope you all understand why I advocate for the reduction of toxic chemicals and potentially harmfull industrial processes involved in the production of potentially harmfull chemicals.
    Thank you all once again, your comments are appreciated! It has quite enlightening and interesting. I apologise if I offended anyone. I wish you all a happy and healthy life and sincerly hope none of you suffer as a result of exposure to toxic chemials, even if you have opposed anything I have written.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Check the trends at the EPA website. http://epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html

      Air is getting cleaner and has been for decades.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Gee Aye

        If only everyone in the world lived in “the country” referred to in the link.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Dave

          Gee Aye,

          No thanks!
          You’d have nearly 750 people per square kilometer?
          On every bit of land in the US?
          That’s a bit crowded?
          I’ll stay right where I am!


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Gee Aye

            My point is that the statement about air getting cleaner is completely parochial, as though the only air is that to be found in the USA. I’m sure that global air is trending to cleaner but there are plenty of localities where it is not.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      KeithH

      Gotta luv u John, you’re obviously such a simple but genuine soul – I think! I do love the fact that you think you have expanded the debate here and even stated the bleeding obvious for us in CAPITAL LETTERS no less: “DO NOT PUT A SMALL FOSSIL FUELED GENERATOR IN A ROOM”! James Hansen would love you and you could perhaps get a real welcome there but I don’t know how you feel about the nuclear option.

      Oh God! I don’t know whether to laugh or cry and I still haven’t really worked out whether you are just pulling our legs. Cheers and good luck anyway. You can be assured you’ve brightened the day for many here – one way or another!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Mark D.

      John Huxley, Just so you know;
      co2 (carbon dioxide) = virtually harmless and green plants love it.

      co (carbon monoxide) = deadly toxic gas in fairly low concentrations.

      You are right, no one should use any device that emits carbon monoxide indoors or anywhere with poor ventilation.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      John,
      please mate, please, check things before you make a comment. You say here:

      DO NOT PUT A FOSSIL FUELED GENERATOR IN A ROOM or poorly ventilated area.

      You clearly have no concept of how electrical power is generated.

      Go back up the page and read 33.2.1.1.2 again.

      You cannot fit a generator of this scale in a ‘room’.

      The generator does not emit anything whatsoever.

      The emissions come from an enclosed furnace and are exhausted up the (tall thin) stack.

      What killed that person during the flood was a tiny little petrol engine driven unit that would be lucky to generate enough power to run a fridge, and those units come expressly with warnings of just that nature.

      You also say:

      At least my comment has expanded the debate a bit.

      You ….. expand the debate. We’ve been attempting to have this debate for years now, here and elsewhere. What you introduce here is right back at square one.

      Give me strength.

      Tony.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        MargaretO

        Tony, you beat me to that one… the only person to die in cyclone Yasi was a young man who used a petrol generator in an enclosed room.


        Report this

        00

    • #

      Now lissen ‘ere young Aldous, dis ‘ere ol’ farmer is gunna git you some ejucatin’.

      You sez..

      DO NOT PUT A SMALL FOSSIL FUELED GENERATOR IN A ROOM or poorly ventilated area.

      I sez..

      I’ve ‘ad a cast iron wood burner for years, and I’m still ‘ere to be ejucatin’ ya. It’s the chimney wot helps. Don’t be in a room with a burner with no chimney, coz you won’t be wakin’ up in da mornin’ to collect da chook eggs.

      You sez…

      At least my comment has expanded the debate a bit.

      I sez…

      Nah, all you’ve dun is introduce noise. We don’t like noise ’round these ‘ere parts. To expand a neighbourly discussion, you gots to introduce somethin’ new, somethin’ interesting, but you ain’t dun that ‘ave ya?

      You sez…

      I do believe Co2 is toxic in higher concerntrations.

      I sez…

      You musta come down in the last shower boy. Almost anything in high concentrations is no good fer ya. let me demonstrate fer your eddy fication

      You sez…

      If you are so positive Co2 is not toxic try breathing a concerntration of >7% Co2. You will be unconcious within an hour,

      I sez…

      Tell you what youngen, I’ll sit in a room with 10,000 ppm CO2, and you stick your head in a bucket of water. After 15 minutes, we’ll compare notes over a beer.

      Do you want to ban water too? too much of it is no good fer ya.
      You wanna ban wives? Too many wives no good for a man, take it from me.
      You wanna ban food? Too much food is no good fer ya.

      I think you gets the idee by now.
      That’s enuf ejucatin’ fer now. You run along now. next time you pass by, don’t introduce noise, you hear me?

      p.s. When we’re visitin a neighbours place, we don’t insult our neighbour by sayin’ things like “I encourage you to put your effort into something that is far more holesome and benificial to the community than oposing climate change.”
      he may not take kindly to bein’ advised by a pup still wet behind the eers.

      I hope this holesome advice was benificial fer ya young Aldous.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      brc

      I’m going to call John Huxley an attempt at trolling.

      As Tony says ‘Give me strength’. Indeed.

      Nobody is really this uneducated. No way. I can forgive poor spelling, pass the poor grammar, but this creation doesn’t look to have made it past year 5 science.

      Of course generators give off carbon monoxide – everything that you burn does. The alternative is to go without heat.

      Thankfully, us humans have invented exhaust pipes and chimneys so we can have our heat and warm with it too. We’ve also harnessed electricity so we can burn stuff a long way away and use the clean electricity energy in our houses.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Speedy

        BRC – Sorry to be picky, but it’s CO2 – carbon dioxide, not CO, carbon monoxide.

        Though, technically, due to chemical equilibrium, there is a background trace of CO in the exhaust, the bulk of what comes out of your average genset is just nitrogen, CO2 and water vapour (in that order).

        It’s only a subtle difference, but if the earth’s atmosphere was 400 parts per million (ppm) CO, we’d all be dead.

        Cheers,

        Speedy


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Sonny

      John,

      Thanks for the polite and lengthy explanation. It seems however that despite being given forthright and detailed explanations you have not yet learned anything here. I’ll try one more time and provide you with some take home messages you can reiterate to your friends.

      CO2 is not a toxin (at levels encountered in the atmosphere)
      Man made climate change is a lie. (it’s all about money, politics and ideology, NOT science)
      We all want to reduce toxins (providing we understand what is and is not a toxin, CO2 is not.)

      If you feel at all confronted by the comments you have received it is because we are genuinely concerned that despite demonstrating minimal undertanding of the issues at hand, you come to this forum with a condescending and superior tone – like we havn’t heard all this before.

      The climate change movement globally is not about reducing toxins (although they use this as a convenient back up argument since it is more easily digested and accepted by idiots).
      It is about control of energy and financial resources for the purpose of the enrichment of a small political hierarchy.

      The same labor government in Australia that is penalizing the “big polluters” is allowing coal to be exported to China where it will be burnt in much dirtier power plants.

      The same labor government that speaks of a “clean energy future” has just cut the solar hot water rebate.

      I same politicians who speak about sea level rises buy fancy mansions right on the water.
      (look where the Greens headquarters are in Tasmania)

      Are you beginning to get it John? (I doubt it)


      Report this

      00

  • #
    denis

    Does a High Court case ruling in favor of free speech,even the political type of free speech thats gone into overdrive the last couple of years having any bearing on any type of legislation they see fit to introduce?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      In most jurisdictions based on the Westminster model, the legislative process does not need to take case law and judicial determinations into account.

      Legislation determines the law.

      The judiciary interprets and applies that law, and in some cases will interpret the law in a way that the Government of the day does not like. In these cases, the Government will just amend the law to close the “loop-hole” created by the judiciary, to prevent the same argument being applied again.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        denis

        Yes,of course i didnt mean to suggest that the HC would or could stop them from passing legislation,its not their function.I guess my comment did not come out the way i intended.The point i was trying to make was that in 1997 the HC heard a case LANGE V ABC and in the determination found in favor of the ABC thus setting a precedent,it found that Australians have an implied constitutional right to free speech in regard to any issue that might affect the outcome of an election and an extended right to free speech in general regarding politics.Also legislation is law,black letter law to be precise it does not determine the law,an example of determination of law is LANGE V ABC,common law.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        MargaretO

        not necessarily. The law can overturn any legislation that is deemed to be unconstitutional.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          denis

          Sorry,i was just trying to be more specific on my previous comment,and please forgive me but your reply is confusing.Can you elaborate/example,thanks Margaret.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Ross James

    I think it would be good that the fair go existed in every nook and cranny of Internet and NEWS media in traditional forms – but to put it bluntly it does not.

    Prohibition does not work – that is banning something for an implied higher good so that the social fabric of we humans is not corrupted.

    It is only in extreme cases of abuses that any good comes from banning and intervention.

    The rule of a dictatorship and its whole home bred propaganda is to utterly replace the information flow to the general public with a distortion of truths in a re-constructed narrative.

    There was recent case on Fox cable in the US where you were held in suspense at the latest findings of the Grace ice global mass measurements. Be right back – but there’s nothing to worry about was the commentator’s throw away line. Once back on airing with this wonderful case of distortion the commentator went on say the Himalayas had gained ice on some of the highest mountains in the world. Without a blink he went on say this: So there nothing to worry about when it comes the polar ice caps.

    Clearly anyone who did a cursory glance of the Grace data would know this was a distortion of the findings.

    I do not like heavy handed intervention as it will backfire. What we need is demand PROPER representation of the facts. This could be achieved in the first instance by balancing any think tank, media outlet with a reply – even balancing the employment of such in such critical media industries with those who are green, labor, liberal and libertarians (the new neo-cons of the 21st century).

    From my perspective This site represents a minority crying out for their voice to be heard. Some of it is radical – even with an under current of anarchists.

    Because I do not follow a herd mentality around here I am constantly being placed in moderation – held in suspension until the gods that control this little tiny universe decide its okay to lift the veil on my right of reply. I have rarely personally attacked anyone but if this crippled right of reply is a gauge of how such web sites of minorities are run then clearly there is some merit in that intervention.

    (We have been over this discussion behind the scenes.You know why you been placed in moderation and why you are still there.Stop complaining and try posting comments that are reasonably on topic and self moderated) CTS

    And this observation: Some are going to have clean up their act around here. All some are doing is adding fuel to fire for this heavy handed government intervention that I do not want either. Moderate yourselves please!

    When the deputy opposition woman calls a Prime Minister a Slimy Sleazy Slippery Snake something is a miss. It appeals to the lower mentality of us all. We think we can get away with saying anything by calling folk childish names when it all does is make a reptilian brained idiot out of you.

    Ross J.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Ross,

      I certainly agree that prohibition does not work in terms of preventing something from happening, but it does have the benefit of keeping thousands of public servants employed, trying to enforce the rules, which does wonders for the unemployment figures.

      Both sides of the climate debate use the tactics of “If A then obviously B”, when there is no causal relationship between them. Don’t let it worry you. It doesn’t worry me. I just give the people who make those basic errors the credence they deserve, and I do this regardless of their qualifications and academic standards. A plonker is still a plonker, irrespective of whether they are an educated plonker, or not.

      I suspect, and in fact suggest, that you are sometimes placed into moderation because you might have made comments that the moderators saw as personal attacks on other commentators (we have a politeness rule). Or you may have used the “D” word ill-advisedly (that is one of the very few banned words), or said something that was libellous (nobody wants Jo to be sued).

      So I agree with you. Nothing is gained by calling people names. We can, and do, often agree to disagree, but that is the true nature of science, is it not. One only learns by having ones ideas challenged. But it can, and should, be done in a different way. I have discovered that the trick is to not let your anger flow down your arms, into your fingers, and then onto the keys.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      memoryvault

      Because I do not follow a herd mentality around here I am constantly being placed in moderation

      Back spewing your crap again I see Ross.

      The MAIN reason you are on moderation watch (as I understand it) is because you regularly insult our host Jo. But there are several secondary reasons. You post blatant untruths (as demonstrated by your statement above). You post comments so O/T the rest of us are left shaking our heads wondering what the hell you are on about. You argue in circles, and you love to drop in on an old post and make it appear like you had the “last word” – both as evidenced in our exchange here:

      http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/fakegate-beats-deniergate-in-google-war-desmog-disaster-spreads/#comment-999341

      Perhaps, maybe, it’s because at the end of the day you are an insufferable bore who treats everyone else like a stupid child.

      [MV, thank you for saving me from typing what I put in bold above.] ED


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Ross, let me help you with a few things …

      I think it would be good that the fair go existed in every nook and cranny of Internet and NEWS media in traditional forms – but to put it bluntly it does not.

      The “fair go” is actually not the responsibility of the publisher. Free speech allows them to publish whatever they want as long as they do not infringe the legal rights of others. The “fair go” is achieved by having a choice. Even the biased MSM can be ignored because we have sites like this and even within the MSM there are oasis’s like Andrew Bolt who attract a large following because they are offering a higher quality product. This is what choice does. Remove choice and you remove the “fair go” for the average user of the media.

      Prohibition does not work – that is banning something for an implied higher good so that the social fabric of we humans is not corrupted.

      It is only in extreme cases of abuses that any good comes from banning and intervention.

      Well done Ross. You have actually said something that makes perfect sense. Let’s see if we can’t build on this.

      The rule of a dictatorship and its whole home bred propaganda is to utterly replace the information flow to the general public with a distortion of truths in a re-constructed narrative.

      Correct again. We are making real progress now …

      There was recent case on Fox cable in the US where you were held in suspense at the latest findings of the Grace ice global mass measurements. Be right back – but there’s nothing to worry about was the commentator’s throw away line. Once back on airing with this wonderful case of distortion the commentator went on say the Himalayas had gained ice on some of the highest mountains in the world. Without a blink he went on say this: So there nothing to worry about when it comes the polar ice caps.

      Clearly anyone who did a cursory glance of the Grace data would know this was a distortion of the findings.

      Oh dear … and you were doing so well. Maybe the reporter (or whomever actually wrote the words they were to speak) actually knew that there was nothing really wrong with global ice measurements. Someone says something you disagree with and they are doing something wrong? Let me tell you something Ross. Free speech is like that. Get used to it.

      I do not like heavy handed intervention as it will backfire.

      Much better …

      What we need is demand PROPER representation of the facts.

      Damn … back off the rails. Who defines what is “PROPER”. You can go to most sites for free and some you pay for … if you choose. Same with the MSM. Some of it is free and some of it is not. You choose to use their output or not. What is “PROPER” is a reader/listener/watcher choice, not the responsibility of the author – who has free speech – remember?

      This could be achieved in the first instance by balancing any think tank, media outlet with a reply – even balancing the employment of such in such critical media industries with those who are green, labor, liberal and libertarians (the new neo-cons of the 21st century).

      Epic fail. How do you choose who is “green”, “labour”, “liberal”, etc? How free speech works Ross is that everyone gets to say what they believe to be true (respecting the legal rights of others) and the consumer of that media output chooses what they will use or not. Free speech means no regulation, no enforcement of “a reply”, nothing. I can see that this free speech concept is little difficult for you, isn’t it Ross …

      From my perspective This site represents a minority crying out for their voice to be heard.

      Minority Ross? I think you are referring to yourself. This site was popularly VOTED the best blog for Australia and New Zealand. Hardly evidence of a “minority”.

      Some of it is radical – even with an under current of anarchists.

      Radical? I do think that word means what you seem to think it means. Here we talk about evidence, observation, actual science (not the pseudo science of computer models), democracy, free speech, respect for others. Only viewing the world through watermelon colour glasses could you see this site as “radical”.

      Because I do not follow a herd mentality

      Actually Ross you do follow the herd. The herd of those who cannot see logic and scientific evidence regardless of how clearly it is presented to them.

      around here I am constantly being placed in moderation – held in suspension until the gods that control this little tiny universe decide its okay to lift the veil on my right of reply. I have rarely personally attacked anyone but if this crippled right of reply is a gauge of how such web sites of minorities are run then clearly there is some merit in that intervention.

      I am not a moderator and have never been “moderated” on this site as far as I can recall. All moderations that I have seen have been given a reason although I have not seen the original offence. Warnings are almost always given and you ignore them at you own risk.

      And this observation: Some are going to have clean up their act around here.

      Um … that means YOU Ross. You need to lift your game.

      All some are doing is adding fuel to fire for this heavy handed government intervention that I do not want either. Moderate yourselves please!

      Another epic fail. Self moderation will mean that your comments will stay. Regardless of the moderation policies of this or any other site, the government should NOT get involved. It’s that free speech thing again. You are just not getting the concept, are you Ross?

      When the deputy opposition woman calls a Prime Minister a Slimy Sleazy Slippery Snake something is a miss.

      No Ross, that is a politically motivated insult. It is that free speech concept again. With free speech, not everything that is said will be what you agree with. Please try and concentrate Ross, this is important.

      It appeals to the lower mentality of us all. We think we can get away with saying anything by calling folk childish names when it all does is make a reptilian brained idiot out of you.

      Finally I think you have stumbled upon the point I am making. You evaluate what is said and make your own judgements. You see that insult as demeaning to whomever spoke the insult. Fair enough. Others will agree with it and say it needed to be said. That is fair enough to. The point, Ross, is that NO-ONE gets to control what you say or how others will perceive that statement. That is what free speech is all about.

      Here endith the lesson.

      [Excellent work. If only Ross would listen.] ED


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Ross James

        Truthseeker,

        The “fair go” is actually not the responsibility of the publisher. Free speech allows them to publish whatever they want as long as they do not infringe the legal rights of others. The “fair go” is achieved by having a choice. Even the biased MSM can be ignored because we have sites like this and even within the MSM there are oasis’s like Andrew Bolt who attract a large following because they are offering a higher quality product. This is what choice does. Remove choice and you remove the “fair go” for the average user of the media.

        Andrew Bolt does not play fair with his reporting. When an attempt to pass comment on his blog is made by me – he bans it or censors it. This gives an false impression that his blogs and commentary are supported by a majority when it is not. He often takes things out of context to hone a narrow point of view unsustainable and out of context most of the time when properly investigated. This is not a Fair go – it is censorship in a narrow bigoted universe where my world is not his world. His large [implied] following is a vocal minority group that shout down any opposing thought. I have followed this Bolt person for over six years – when interviewed he often verbalises opposition to his ideas. That is the fair go I am referring to here. I have it on good authority his banning of opposing thought is typical of this profile.

        Maybe the reporter (or whomever actually wrote the words they were to speak) actually knew that there was nothing really wrong with global ice measurements. Someone says something you disagree with and they are doing something wrong? Let me tell you something Ross. Free speech is like that. Get used to it.

        A thorough survey was done of Fox followers which have there TVs in the USA fixated on this news network. The findings indicate that progressively the watchers and followers of this tabloid TV news rubbish are the least informed of any media watcher. Fox is not the place for fair reporting and appeals often to the base mentality of the worst side of human nature. I equate their reporting with the way – “Newscorp/Newsspeak” reports globally.

        Newsspeak:

        Bellyfeel means a blind, enthusiastic acceptance of an idea or implied presented factoid on the news. Any good Oceanian should be able to internalize the Party doctrine to the extent that it becomes a gut instinct – a feeling in the belly.

        Compared to truthiness.

        Blackwhite ..this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline [herd mentality] demands [or implies] this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. Orwell’s blackwhite refers only to that caused by fear, indoctrination, or repression of one’s individual critical thinking (“to know black is white”), rather than caused by laziness or gullibility. A …member could automatically, and without thought, expunge any “incorrect” information and totally replace it with “true” information. If properly done, there is no memory or recovery of the “incorrect” information that could cause unhappiness to the Party member by committing thoughtcrime. See also Cognitive dissonance Fanaticism Propaganda

        Crimethink is the Newspeak word for thoughtcrime (thoughts that are unorthodox, or are outside the official government platform), as well as the verb meaning “to commit thoughtcrime”. Goodthink, which is approved by the Party, is the opposite of crimethink. My Words: Now it depends whom you trust and this is based in a political idealogolgy. In America the government is becoming more captive to large global corporations such as Pharmaceutical Corps, Manipulation of Crop breading, Trillions of $ wealth transferred to Oil, Giant Mining Corps and monolithic media moguls. So Government is no longer the culprit. The greater wealth is held in the hands of a very few now and its not Government. It is rather a form of ultra Capitalism which has traits of the real Big Brother. And he has a big stick like full page ads because of they have the clout to sway public opinion. It is becoming a Fascist monolith with coalition of Government to big business in our modern society.

        Duckspeak is a Newspeak term meaning literally to quack like a duck or to speak without thinking. Duckspeak can be either good or “ungood” (bad), depending on who is speaking, and whether what they are saying is in following with the ideals of Big Brother. To speak rubbish and lies may be ungood, but to speak rubbish and lies for the good of “The Party” may be good.

        Goodsex is any form of sex considered acceptable by the Party; specifically, this refers only to married heterosexual sex for the exclusive purpose of providing new children for the Party. All other forms of sex are considered sexcrime.

        Ownlife refers to the tendency to enjoy being solitary, which is considered subversive. Winston Smith comments that even to go for a walk by oneself can be regarded as suspicious. Citations to Wikipedia on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Newspeak_words

        Um … that means YOU Ross. You need to lift your game.

        This site when about Climate Change carries in its contents very little science and it aren’t balanced. The mentality here is to often argument science but all I see here is mainly character assassination and assault ending the argument because of this disagreement. There is no excuse for this behaviour. It should be moderated more. Outrageous statements are often founded in emotional rage and fear. For all understand that we need to deal with these basic raw human emotions in more constructive responses. You lift your game and that applies to others whom you even chided yourself with the term….Oh dear….

        Self moderation will mean that your comments will stay. Regardless of the moderation policies of this or any other site, the government should NOT get involved. It’s that free speech thing again. You are just not getting the concept, are you Ross?

        The requirement by law shall be to provide balanced debate on all major blogs like this. When satire goes too far and is believed – this enrages the fear factor already resident in the followers even more. Many are elderly and in due respect for them I think slightly lifting the game plan around here would go much farther then you think. This is concern as this aligns with George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four in the way media or blogs can present only opposing viewpoint and highly charged negative distorted narratives.

        It is that free speech concept again. With free speech, not everything that is said will be what you agree with. Please try and concentrate Ross, this is important. Politically motivated insult. It is that free speech concept again. With free speech, not everything that is said will be what you agree with. Please try and concentrate Ross, this is important.

        With freedoms comes responsibility. Denigrating like the Deputy Opposition is a worrying sign of our times. It is the behaviour of gutter talk to make a point. She not only denigrated the Prime Minister but also her own office. She was fool in saying that. A little bible quote for you: “use not your freedom as an occasion for the base human nature such as rage, party spirit, violence, insult etc etc but by love serve one another….AGAINST SUCH THERE IS NO LAW” – Galations New Testament. Attacking ones character is like this in Newsspeak in raw form.

        The point, Ross, is that NO-ONE gets to control what you say or how others will perceive that statement. That is what free speech is all about.

        Free Speech does not allow me to get on the Internet and say anything. Those freedoms must not be abused. Behaving like children in a playground brawl may well require the headmaster to step in. Remember that violence is not just one act of the physical. It can also be verbal and that consists of internet commentary as well. Cyber Bullying – the new playground past time.

        Ross J.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Truthseeker

          Ross,

          You really do not understand the concept of free speech do you? Nothing in the drivel that you have posted here is in any way relevant to the concepts I tried to explain to you in simple English.

          Andrew Bolt does not play fair with his reporting … blah blah blah …

          Thank you for proving my point. I have had on-topic comments not appear on Bolt’s blog as well and I am not paranoid enough to think that it is censorship. It is up to the moderators of the blog and they have other issues to consider. Remember, it is a blog and therefore controlled by the blog owner and their moderators. The same comment censorship occurs at Sceptical Science, Science of Doom and other climate activist websites. This does not mean the government needs to step in. I just ignore those blogs because they offer nothing of value to me. They have just as much right to post their crap as Andrew Bolt has to post his. Having the choice is what gives the user of the media the “fair go” you seem to want. The better the product, the more users that media outlet will have. It is called free speech and free market Ross.

          A thorough survey was done of Fox followers … blah blah blah

          More irrelevant drivel. It does not matter who likes or does not like a media outlet. It only matters that we have a choice of which media outlet(s) to use and each media outlet has the freedom to express themselves so that we have a real choice to make.

          This site when about Climate Change carries in its contents very little science and it aren’t balanced.

          Ross, a little proof reading and basic grammar will help. This site has a higher proportion of political content to science content compared to say WUWT, but that is the choice of the person who owns the blog, in this case Jo. You don’t like Jo’s choice Ross? Go somewhere else then Ross, please.

          The mentality here is to often argument science but all … blah blah blah

          Ross, you clearly have not been reading the comments that use the big words then. For the science topics there is quite a robust scientific debate. However, since you never seem to offer any observational or evidence based science in your comments you are not included. Some people do not suffer fools gladly and it seems that you get some backlash because of that.

          The requirement by law shall be to provide balanced debate on all major blogs like this … blah blah blah

          Ross this is just more proof that you do not understand the concept of free speech. Free speech means that people can say things that you do not agree with. Making any “requirement by law” is putting a knife into the heart of free speech. You cannot improve a freedom by restricting it.

          When satire goes too far and is believed – blah blah blah

          Yet more irrelevant drivel. How do you define when “satire goes too far”? Satire is satire Ross, sometimes it is funny and pertinent and sometimes it isn’t. You as the reader/listener/viewer get to make your own judgements on it. No one has the right to make that judgement for you. Damn, it’s that “freedom” concept again. The one that you seem to be having so much trouble with.

          With freedoms comes responsibility.

          The responsibility of freedom Ross, is the respect the freedom of others. You do not seem to want to respect the freedom of others to express their opinions.

          Denigrating like the Deputy Opposition … blah blah blah

          Let me give you a quote that is actually relevant.

          I do not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it – Volatire (1694 – 1778)

          Free Speech does not allow me to get on the Internet and say anything. Those freedoms must not be abused.

          We have defamation laws that protect the freedom of others from what is said publically. We do not need any other laws or protection.

          Behaving like children in a playground brawl may well require the headmaster to step in. Remember that violence is not just one act of the physical. It can also be verbal and that consists of internet commentary as well. Cyber Bullying – the new playground past time.

          Ross, I am an adult and can look after myself. You seem to consider yourself a child that stills needs a parent to protect you. Bullying only occurs to people that cannot stand up for themselves. This can mean that intervention is required where children are involved, but as an adult I can use my wit to respond to verbal thuggery.

          I think I now know why you feel so vulnerable …


          Report this

          00

        • #
          John Huxley

          Some good debate here on freedom of speech. In refering to Andrew Bolt you say he does not play fair with his reporting. I know little about Bolt, I watched about 10 minutes of his tv show and cant say he was my cup of tea, however my observations of many is they play the game on both sides of the coin.
          Freedom of speach is an essential part of our world, and I would hope peoples point of view is not altered, unless there is a valid reason-ie offensive.
          From what I have seen in the media the concern raised is some have loads of money to put their point of view and others dont-ie those with the money have more clout.
          What do people here think about it. Q1- Do both sides of the coin behave simmilarly? Q2- Do those with the money have an advantage?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            MargaretO

            I nearly ticked this positive, but you lost me in the last paragraph.

            Money has nothing at all to do with the right to freedom of speech.

            At the moment you have the right to start a blog on blogger or at wordpress.com to name two sites, and to state your opinion. You do not have to accept comments from clowns if that is your desire, because you are expressing your own opinions. It takes no money to set up a blog.

            Advertising is another matter, but let’s deal with organizations such as Planned Parenthood, Greenpeace, and similar. They have billions of dollars to use in order to influence what the world believes. They use it to make false claims and raise alarm over things that are simply not going to happen any time soon. Yet everyone cries about a Gina Rinehart or a Clive Palmer spending a little bit of their own money…. hardly fair is it, to try and prevent those people from having their say… yet that is what you want with all of this hypocritical bleating about money.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Angry

          “Ross”,
          Do you ACTUALLY enjoy being RIDICULED on a daily basis by spewing forth your MORONIC DRIVEL here???

          Seriously, get a grip on reality instead of living in some COMMUNIST UTOPIA inside your own head!

          Obviously you lost out in the gene pool lottery…..


          Report this

          00

      • #
        mobilly1

        Truthseeker
        A brillant dissection of mr James`s Post .
        Great post Truthseeker.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Winston

      Ross
      I hate to disappoint you (no, really!), but the ONLY media outlet that I’ve seen that can claim to show balanced reporting of late in the political sphere is Sydney’s Sunday Telegraph. With Paul Howes, Peter Van Oserlen, Piers Ackerman, Cardinal Pell, Miranda Devine and others often writing wall to wall about the same issue from different perspectives, especially including some side by side columns which I really like with two polar opposites giving the ‘FOR’ and ‘AGAINST’ cases in direct opposition to one another- Yet to see anything similar in the SMH- yet this is the self-same Murdoch “hate” media! Murdoch is by no means my favourite person on God’s green earth by a long street, and I’d rather watch test pattern than Fox News (sorry to those I offend in saying that- just my personal viewpoint), but this particular format of reporting is streets ahead of Fairfax, where singing in unison and flying in formation is the norm. And yet this is the target of legislation like this to make media more balanced?? The irony of this is I’m sure not at all lost on you, now is it Ross? Also, I would guarantee you this approach improves Murdoch’s circulation figures and is certainly a model/template others should follow.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      …green, labor, liberal and libertarians (the new neo-cons of the 21st century).

      LOL! What MSM talking head gave you that idea? The neo-cons hate libertarians. Haven’t you been paying attention to what has been happening to Ron Paul?

      It appeals to the lower mentality of us all. We think we can get away with saying anything by calling folk childish names when it all does is make a reptilian brained idiot out of you.

      It’s always fascinating to see someone find a worldview which explains all the problems with the world and try to inject it into an otherwise rational conversation. It is particularly interesting when that worldview is malthusian eugenics.

      Judging by your willingness to share links that are wildly off topic I would say you’ve discovered this secret within the last couple of months.

      But don’t worry, every true believer that drops by this blog is a misanthropist so, we’ve grown a tolerance to arguing against false claims and insulting turns of logic.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Well geez, I think the Prime Warden is one of those people you meet now and again who would rather tell a lie than the truth even when the truth is of advantage to her.
      Not just a sociopath but a stupid one to boot.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      MargaretO

      mushroom fodder.

      First of all, everyone neglects the existence of the Rural Press who own quite a number of the publications. You might want to check them out some time.

      Second, there is plenty of what I consider biased opinion in the Fairfax papers.

      Third, people make deliberate choices when it comes to what news they read. It just happens that when we see what the Age is printing, we prefer not to read that garbage.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Truthseeker

    Hey everybody,

    WUWT has got a post about a new annual prize being offered – The Matt Ridley Prize for Environmental Heresy. The annual prize is £8,500 which is the amount that the person offering the prize gets from a having a wind turbine on his property which he does not want. The rules are simple. We invite pieces from 1,000 to 2,000 words in length, to gore one of the sacred cows of the environmentalist movement. It is open to all. A panel of judges will select the best from 6 finalists.

    Full details can be found here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    RANK FRANK - S y d n e y

    The only Election thats on at the moment is QLD.
    Can some competent journalist ask Anna Bligh if she supports
    or does not support this. ( remember keep the questions simple!)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Popeye

    Slightly off topic (sorry Jo)

    I found this CLASSIC while searching for something else earlier this evening.

    These a holes are SHAMELESS

    Cheers,


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Markus Fitzhenry

    Rinehart meets Fairfax management on home turf
    Staff Reporters
    March 6, 2012

    Rinehart

    Just visiting … Gina Rinehart was taken on a tour of the Fairfax Media offices yesterday.

    THE richest Australian, Gina Rinehart, has met senior management of Fairfax Media for what is believed to be the first time since taking a significant stake in the company.

    Fairfax, which boasts The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age among its stable of mastheads, welcomed Ms Rinehart into its Sydney offices this afternoon, where she is believed to have met the chairman, Roger Corbett, and the chief executive, Greg Hywood. Ms Rinehart was also taken on a tour of parts of the building by Mr Hywood.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/rinehart-meets-fairfax-management-on-home-turf-20120306-1uigx.html#ixzz1oLFUokFe


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Augustine O'Brien

    Jo,

    I’de love to sign the petition but I am an American resident in England and that rules me out of voting for anything even in the USA except for anybody but obama.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brett_McS

    Saw this at American Digest:


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brett_McS

    Hmm doesn’t show the image. Try this!


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    kramer

    Gotta love the left. They are such control freaks that they want to control speech in order to gain control of the world.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    check out Bob Brown giving Chris Uhlmann a lesson in …. (not sure what)
    http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3447217.htm

    CHRIS UHLMANN: That’s right, Bob Brown, you won’t get any of those things without the mining tax, you won’t get any of those things without mining. Actually, if you shut down the industry you won’t get any tax at all and none of those things will be available to you.

    BOB BROWN: If you add to the votes, we might get the Government, but we’re not any time soon going to be the authority… we’re not going to have the Treasury benches that’s going to allow that to happen. So in the meantime, these mining billionaires ought to be paying their fair taxes, and they’re not doing that. And remember this: the coal they’re digging out of the ground which threatens the future of this economy, it will knock six per cent to 20 per cent off our gross national product by the third or fourth quarter of this century if we don’t deal with climate change; that money ought to be coming from the coal barons in a fair amount, because the coal’s owned by the people of Australia. And I should add to that, despite the billions they’re getting, most of the money from this industry which threatens the manufacturing sector in Australia, Mr Palmer’s mine alone – according to his own consultants – will suck 2,000 to 3,000 jobs out of manufacturing and agriculture in this country. We need that money…

    Maybe the word is obfuscation …


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Kevin Moore

      I wonder how Greens’ supporters will respond, when they wake up and discover the truth.

      That their party’s deal with Labor on the mining tax will have the opposite result of what they were told.

      I wonder what will they say, when they discover that the Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) will not result in the kind of wealth redistribution that was touted, a “fair share of our mineral wealth for all Australians”.

      That instead, it will result in the Big 3 multinational mining companies … getting bigger. And richer. And more powerful.

      And the government’s budget digging even deeper into the red.

      When PM Gillard and Treasurer Swan went behind closed doors with the Big 3 miners to thrash out a hasty “fix” to former PM Rudd’s Resource Super Profits Tax (RSPT) debacle, thinking folks knew it would not end well.

      Except for the big miners, that is.

      Rather than scoring a vital goal for her “decisive” new leadership before the 2010 election, the secretive deal always looked more likely to result in yet another decisive Labor own goal.

      And indeed it has……..

      htp://barnabyisright.com/2011/12/22/gilswan-conned-mining-tax-the-greens-pit-of-despair/


      Report this

      00

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      Herr (Sieg Heil) Brown would knock the whole population out of work if he could..it’d sure save the environment..


      Report this

      00

    • #
      MargaretO

      It is more like Bob Brown has been on the wacky tobaccy again and that his brain just cannot comprehend simple things in economics.

      The man is a total moron and he is without a moral compass…. just saying….


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #
    val majkus

    Here’s an interesting piece on the Fink report which I picked up from a commentator at Bolt’s blog
    http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/03/legal-advice-sinks-bloggers-finkelsteinian-nightmare/

    it’s an examination of the constitutional power (if any) of the Aust Govt to regulate print radio and online media and individual bloggers

    Surprisingly, nowhere in the report’s 400-odd pages does it acknowledge the vast constitutional mountain the regime would have to climb in order to be lawful against bloggers, which is set out clearly in the above submission. Maybe someone should let His Lordship know.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    sorry, I see Jo’s mentioned it in her post; well worth reading


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    Off topic but here we are anyway.

    https://theconversation.edu.au/climate-and-floods-flannery-is-no-expert-but-neither-are-the-experts-5709

    No dammit the topic is media and this is in the media. Sorry lame.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    why i’m still voting informally:

    7 March: Brisbane Times: AAP: Clean energy body to be based in Sydney
    Labor’s $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation is to be based in Sydney.
    The corporation, part of the government’s carbon price package, will support renewable energy projects through loans, guarantees and equity investments…
    The prime minister said Sydney was the right place for the headquarters of the finance corporation, which will create 40 jobs.
    The city offered financial and professional networks, it was the home of major investment businesses and it had the expertise from a number of universities and the CSIRO’s energy centre, she said.
    ***NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell welcomed the announcement.
    Asked how he reconciled it with his opposition to the federal government’s carbon tax, Mr O’Farrell replied: “As a parliamentarian I respect parliament.
    “The legislation has been passed, it’s a decision by the federal government to allocate funds to this corporation, and I’m delighted the corporation and its jobs are coming to NSW,” he told reporters at a joint press conference with Ms Gillard…
    http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-national/clean-energy-body-to-be-based-in-sydney-20120307-1uje9.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    and our politicians and MSM are silent:

    7 March: AFP: Aviation agency asks EU to delay airline carbon tax
    MONTREAL — The head of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) on Tuesday urged the European Union to delay rolling out a carbon tax on air travel next year, warning it could provoke trade wars.
    “Non-European states see it as a direct attack on their sovereignty,” the IATA’s director general Tony Tyler told a forum on international relations in Montreal.
    “That is easy enough to understand when European states essentially would be pocketing taxes for emissions by non-European carriers over the sovereign territory of non-European states,” he explained.
    Tyler warned the tax could provoke a trade war…
    The EU has said the carbon tax will help the 27-nation EU bloc achieve its goal of cutting emissions by 20 percent by 2020 and that it will not back down on the plan…
    Tyler said the EU should embrace a “global approach” to airline emissions and thus allow the ICAO to set a solution. Such “cannot be achieved in Brussels,” he said…
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hDW0U393wpVwO66lqhjUtYFxrPmg?docId=CNG.f6e2bcf973ed6c8290bbd6d1bc39f23a.e41


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    7 March: Brisbane Times: AAP: Activists paint coal carrier in Gladstone reef protest
    Greenpeace activists have painted “reef in danger” on the hull of a coal carrier in Gladstone ahead of a visit by UN officials…
    Greenpeace spokeswoman Julie Macken said she and seven other activists used inflatable boats to paint the message on the ship around dawn.
    She said the group had been detained by police, who were deciding if they would be charged…
    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/activists-paint-coal-carrier-in-gladstone-reef-protest-20120307-1ujbo.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    observa

    And where would you expect to find a plethora of Gongos? Down at the zoo naturally Possums! You know, the ones that have the iconic symbol of the WWF among all the other taxeating critters.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Talking about Arctic scares here’s a funny story about the Arctic Institute which has been found by WUWT to be set up in a one room apartment in a building with a bed bug problem

    http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/climate-alarmist-money-train-attracts-rent-seeking-sockpuppet/#comments

    and yes its website has a support button

    The story is about an individual called Malte Humpert (readers of Viz magazine may immediately be thinking ‘crazy name, crazy guy’) who is the founder of this august body, but has been posting comments on WUWT using at least three different names – none of which are his own. The story is explained on WUWT,


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    could this be more convoluted?

    7 March: Climate Spectator: Tony Wood: Surrender to the charge
    Tony Wood is Energy Program Director at the Grattan Institute
    In recent weeks a range of industry figures have criticised the federal government’s decision to introduce a ‘surrender charge’ as part of the coming emissions trading scheme. They say that such a charge is an unfair impost that not only hurts business, but unjustifiably increases the cost of meeting Australia’s emissions reduction targets…
    A surrender charge is a charge on businesses that purchase emission reductions units overseas, at a price below the floor price set in the Australian scheme. The charge would top up the cost of purchasing the emissions reduction overseas to ensure that it was the same as the floor price and therefore did not undermine it…
    In Europe, the carbon price under its emissions trading scheme has been trading at historically low levels for an extended period. There are several reasons for this. However, the European Parliament has responded by proposing market intervention to withdraw permits to rebalance supply and demand. In a similar move, the UK is introducing a floor price to provide greater certainty for investors…
    The government’s second policy decision is to allow international units to be used to meet domestic emissions liabilities in the flexible price period. This will be limited to 50 per cent of annual liabilities until 2020, and the restriction will be reviewed in 2016 by the Climate Change Authority.
    This decision also reflects the government’s attempt to reach a careful balance. The climate is indifferent to the location of emission reduction on the globe. Therefore, it makes economic sense to be flexible about where emissions reduction occurs. For Australia the ability to use international units reduces the overall cost of meeting its emissions reduction targets. On the other hand, relying entirely on international permits to achieve our targets could be unwise until international agreements and linkages are much more developed, and the integrity of those permits is assured…
    Criticism of the surrender charge as being a subsidy from consumers to the finance sector is mischievous, if not self-serving. Of course, those with a liability for emissions in Australia want to minimise the cost of meeting this liability, and the ability to access international units is intended to provide that flexibility. However, once the benefits of a price floor were recognised in the climate change legislation, the need for the surrender charge follows as night follows day.
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/climate-emissions-trading-carbon-tax-Australian-go-pd20120307-S62KP?opendocument&src=rss


    Report this

    00

    • #

      That’s where Australians are being increasingly not told the truth.

      The Government was very very careful to introduce a floor price of $15 per credit, to cover the contingency if the fundament fell out of the price.

      So, even if the price drops dramatically, then no matter what, the emitting entity will have to make up that cost to the $15 if the Oz price collapses, or if they purchase overseas credits.

      So, wrt the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism, Australian entities can invest in those overseas Companies, and all they get from that is the Credits equivalent to the amount those credits are worth in those overseas Countries.

      Be aware also that overseas credits are not the equivalent of Australian credits on a one for one basis.

      So at the time when the credits need to be handed in, then they add up that entities Oz credits, (original) traded Oz credits, (calculating their worth, at purchase time, and if below that floor, then make up price is charged as extra) then the International credits and again the same applies, only multiplied by the percentage factor, and then adding the extra to make that number up to the floor of $15.

      See now how this has nothing whatsoever to do with actually lowering emissions, but is just a revenue raising facility that ensures work for Labor apparatchiks in little rooms doing sums related to incoming money.

      This is a con of the absolute highest order, that no one from the Labor side will tell the public.

      And those credits that the emitting entity has to pay for. Well, almost all of that will be passed directly down to the public.

      This Legislation, all 18 pieces of it, is a farce. No wonder Swan says he can produce a balanced budget.

      Trust me, that first year will give Labor a huge war chest to give away in the election year.

      That’s why they are so desperate to hold off on the election till after next year’s CO2 Tax money comes in.

      Lower CO2 emissions. Ha! Not a chance!

      Tony.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    MattB

    I honestly don’t think there is anything to worry about here. If one thing is certain this government will implement about 1% of the recommendations (eg: Henry Report). It was a knee jerk report so they could bee seen to be doing something after the UK tabloid debacle.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      catamon

      Interestingly Matt, it also gives them something to hold over the heads of various media organisations to encourage them to self regulate in a more appropriate fashion. Like, not writing as much crap, and actually owning it when they do.

      How far they actually go in the near / mid term future may be influenced by just how hard and far Murdoch falls in the UK and USA. Still a bit to play out there i think.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Ross James

      I agree with that statement Matt.

      Ross J.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Truthseeker

      MattB, Ross James agrees with you. If it was me, I would take that as a good indication to seriously re-consider my position.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Tel

      “… this government will implement about 1% of the recommendations (eg: Henry Report).”

      Yeah, the stupidest 1% of the recommendations (eg: Henry Report).


      Report this

      00

  • #
    • #

      There’s another thing that is coming to light about Wind power.

      Originally, the theoretical hope was that these Towers with their basically inaccessible nacelles (some more than 105 Metres off the ground) on top of them would have a life span of 25 years.

      What is happening now is that some of them are barely making it to 15 years before becoming economically unviable, and some are not even making it to ten years.

      Now, what that does is considerably lessen the time that Plants of this nature have to recover their original cost.

      From that, the cost of the electricity they sell to the grid then rises considerably.

      Because of that, Governments then have to pay more money to subsidise that wholesale cost of the electricity they produce. (now lowered because some are not in operation)

      On top of that, consumers will also have to pay more as well.

      The proverbial triple whammy.

      These things may be monstrosities, they may chop up birds and bats, they may cause health problems, that (because this is supposedly environmentally good) are categorised as psychosomatic in nature, but by far the biggest thing that should be concentrated upon and highlighted is that they cannot deliver.

      They will NEVER (and see how that is in bold) replace coal fired power.

      Tony.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        mobilly1

        Just to add to the wind turbine false facade, The load on the front Bearings would cause massive friction(no counter balance) the Bearing would have to replaced often ,Otherwise dead Turbine .Look at the blade design on these wind turbines ,Just like an airplane propeller ,Designed to be Driven by a motor and cut through the air.
        Look at a windmill or sail boats ,Designed to harness the wind,Notice the Sail area or the windmill vane area, Go Figure.
        These wind turbines are designed to fail , not to produce adequate amounts of electricity, Anyone who thinks these Wind turbines are workable ,Go talk to an
        Engineer preferably with history behind them ,Even a Clockmaker.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          crakar24

          Mobilly1,

          You know i never looked at it like that but now that you mention it you are right they are not designed to catch the wind but to drive through it.

          There is another factor that we need to consider, as these wind famrs work like a aircraft prop but in reverse are they subject to over torque?

          With a helicopter you create high and low pressure points around the blade as it travels through the air if you move it too quickly from side to side the blade can drive through a low pressure point leading to over torque.

          A wind mill could do the same thing as the wind itself is not constant, if the wind suddenly decreases could the blades speed up even fpr a second or two and over torque the motor sorry generator?

          Cheers Mobilly1


          Report this

          00

      • #
        MattB

        I was fishing on the weekend at Sand Patch in ALbany, which is below the Albany Windfarm. I have to say I don;t share your opinion that they are ugly, or pose any threat to wildlife, or cause health problems. I find them quite beautiful feats of engineering. The only disappointment is that indeed they appear to be useless at generating much electricity:)


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Ah yes, a beautiful feat of engineering.

          Here we have a generator, a CSD, and all associated equipment with respect to direction speed etc, all compactly situated inside a nacelle, the weight of which has to evenly match the weight of the blades on the other side.

          The place all this on top of a 105 Metre concrete pole.

          A truly wonderful engineering feat.

          How aesthetically pleasing.

          Almost like a sculpture, say, like Michelangelo’s David, only useful.

          Now, if you will, imagine that like every mechanical thing, that needs regular servicing. In most cases this is accomplished with helicopters, and it’s two three times a year. The costs are horrendously high, and the safety aspects are frightening.

          Then with respect to the Health issues, gee, wasn’t it odd also that the Government spent tens of millions of dollars and more investigating so called electro magnetic radiation from power lines and discovering that this was indeed something to mount a scare campaign over.

          Fancy that. Who would even imagine that there would be a magnetic field surrounding a current carrying wire, and that the magnetic field could be so dangerous (sarc off now Tony) That scare campaign kept lawyers in money work for decades. All proven too, and tut tut, how awful.

          Now all of a sudden any health indicators associated with wind towers are scoffed at as imaginary, and being purely psychosomatic.

          It’s so transparent.

          No MattB, you can make all the nice statements you like about them.

          They are utterly useless in every respect, a permanent blot on the landscape.

          People are blatantly using these things because it’s a guaranteed source of Government subsidised money.

          If they had to pay their own way, you would not see one of them.

          A really beautiful feat of engineering is Concorde. Now that WAS sculpture.

          Wind Towers. I’d rather watch synchronised swimming!

          Tony.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          MargaretO

          then you have a very serious problem because the wind turbines that I see close to Canberra are an absolute blight upon the landscape.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Dave

            MattyB
            The hole is 1,500 cubic meters (10 backyard swimming pools) of concrete – this is damaging to the land and natural water seepage! They are a blight on the landscape and surrounding environment. BIG BIRD KILLERS!

            If you reckon these are attractive – then you probably think buses are sexy!


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Mark D.

        Tony says:

        What is happening now is that some of them are barely making it to 15 years before becoming economically unviable, and some are not even making it to ten years.

        Amazingly poor engineering then! With the energy production standing at a fraction of nameplate ratings, these things should be lasting multiples of years LONGER than their design life. Unless, the operators are overloading them (when the wind IS blowing) to bring up their dismal production performance numbers? This might make sense if they are subsidized based on output too.

        I wonder if the engineers involved in designing the early failing units used MODELS to calculate MTBF (mean time before failure)?


        Report this

        00

  • #
    KeithH

    “It was a knee jerk report so they could bee seen to be doing something after the UK tabloid debacle.”

    No other comment needed IMHO. The C & P below pretty much says it all!

    “It’s an astonishing fact that of the 10600 submissions received by the inquiry no fewer than 9600 were boilerplate submissions from left-wing pressure groups, led by Avaaz “a global civic organization launched in January 2007 that promotes activism on issues such as climate change, human rights, poverty and corruption.” (See Andrew Bolt for further details)

    This bias is certainly evident in its attitude to climate change. It cites a December 2011 report by the left-leaning Australian Centre for Independent Journalism on media coverage of climate change policy in Australia. The report – A Sceptical Climate – had found that “negative coverage of government policy outweighed positive coverage by 73 per cent to 27 per cent” and that the preponderance of negative coverage was even greater among Murdoch-owned newspapers.

    To which the only sane and sensible response is: “Yeah? And???” Of course a left-wing think tank is going to find climate scepticism objectionable. Of course it’s going to seize every opportunity to have a dig at papers owned by Rupert Murdoch. But had Pinkie Finkie been wearing his scrupulously neutral wig of blind justice – rather than his I HEART George Soros hat – it might have occurred to him that there was a much more plausible reason than media bias as to why the Gillard Government’s carbon tax got such generally negative coverage.

    Maybe the carbon tax was just a bloody stupid idea and everyone with an ounce of sense could SEE it was a bloody stupid idea!

    Pinkie Finkie, however, takes the view that any newspaper that takes a firm line against an iniquitous, wrong-headed, economically suicidal, unscientifically-based, activist-driven, morally bankrupt new carbon tax system must perforce be in need of stricter regulation.

    4.38 However, to have an opinion and campaign for it is one thing; reporting is another, and in news reporting it is expected by the public, as well as by professional journalists, that the coverage will be fair and accurate.

    4.39 Nonetheless, there is a widely-held public view that, despite industry-developed codes of practice that state this, the reporting of news is not fair, accurate and balanced.

    “Widely-held public view”. Yes, well I suppose it really is “widely-held” if you ignore the fact that 86 per cent of those submissions were the result of leftist astroturfing, much of it – not unlike the Leveson Inquiry – motivated mainly by a desire to get Murdoch.

    (Lest you doubt it, here’s what Avaaz said to its mob: (H/T Andrew Bolt)

    The media inquiry we fought hard to win is under threat — Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers are working to discredit and limit the investigation into his stranglehold on our media. But a flood of public comments from each of us will set an ambitious agenda and save the inquiry.)
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100141570/why-i-owe-aussie-qc-raymond-finkelstein-a-pint/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    gbees

    The Czech republic with Valclav at the helm may be a good place to host blog servers if this evil goes ahead ….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    a good part of the $10 bn to be doled out by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is for Wind! read and weep and wonder when the MSM in Australia is going to expose this insanity:

    7 March: Bishop Hill: Chronic wind
    The latest GWPF report – on the subject of wind energy – is published today. It makes pretty grim reading.
    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/3/7/chronic-wind.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce D Scott

    I agree with you Jo, x2. I liked the Get Stuffed thing. I hope we will be allowed to say that in the Traditional Labor Values Totalitarian Socialist Utopia, going forward.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I have fair guess. This is what we in Sweden call a “Test Balloon”. It is written so that it can be attacked and withdrawn. It will come back in a slightly watered down form. “Look, we listened, we changed it”. Eventually some parts of it is implemented. Then slowly over the years it will be worked up to almost its original form. Give them a finger and they will slowly start churning on your hand.
    Have no doubts! I have seen it happen in Sweden with the law that allow the Swedish Intelligence Agency to read our emails.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    gbees #89
    You are correct there! Vaclav Klaus is the only politician in Europe that I look up to! He is the only one that really stands up for Democracy, Freedom and Capitalism. I would say that his country is also one of the “New Tigers” of Europe.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    for the record:

    5 March: RTCC (Responding to Climate Change): Press Release: CDM applications soar in February
    The UNEP Riso Centre reports that 250 proposals were submitted last month – 19 fewer than the previous record set in November 2011.
    The CDM is one of three key market-based instruments introduced as part of the Kyoto Protocol to enable states to reduce their carbon emissions…
    Over 872 million CERs have been issued since the CDM’s birth with projects in China accounting for nearly 60% of the total number of credits handed out to date.
    The scheme’s popularity has risen dramatically over the past year – although there are still concerns that Sub Saharan Africa is missing out on this huge source of funding, with just 2.6% of current CDM projects deriving from the region.
    http://www.rtcc.org/business/cdm-applications-soar-in-february/

    is this ridiculous or what? and we sell our coal to China, but aren’t allowed to build more coal-powered stations for ourselves! believe me, this is the talk on the street where i live. it is nothing short of outrageous.

    also i have previously posted how African people are finding it too complicated to apply, so any talk of the poorest countries benefitting from any of this rubbish, is just talk.

    nice pic of some wind turbines accompany the above article!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Wayne, s. Job

    Thank you girls and guys this was an interesting read about freedom and the possibilities of stopping the lunacy. I was also impressed by your and the moderators responses to Ross, he is like a bad case of mould, very hard to get rid of without severe treatment. You all did this very well, with a good kicking. Perhaps if he stayed on subject and made some short to the point statements we could see the opposite view without his inane ramblings.

    The man is a legend in his own lunch box.

    [Thank you Wayne. I've taken the liberty of making part of your post bold in case Ross reads it.] ED


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Ross James

      Wayne,

      I did not start this tired tirade on drought verse rain etc here. It was originally in response to a post that misunderstands drought and rains in the context of climate change.

      The words you used were an unnecessary. An off topic response to her and me was all that was required.

      You do not fault just one person. Your comment is however noted. Now tell the others the same please.

      Ross J.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    the law that allow the Swedish Intelligence Agency to read our emails

    I suppose that you have to write them in a big font use simple words to avoid suspicion. ;-)

    Are you still allowed to use encryption to protect the contents? If so; encrypt everything. When you have nothing better to do, paste some text from a random location, encrypt and send it somewhere. Even more fun if you use an online translation engine; translate to a language with a different root; then translate back to the original language using another engine before encryption. The vodka is good but the meat is rotten.

    Another option is non-text emails. Make up some graphic images with words/syllables in different sizes and compose your message by links to the graphics in the email. A human will be required to read the “ransom note” every time. Graphically, you can also use the “microdot” message in vectors, with your text in a really small font (with strokes converted to segments), on a full-sized page showing a vector drawing with big text – like a birthday card.

    There are dozens of other ways of passing messages “secretly” in emails. And there are hundreds of ways in which monitoring can be frustrated by feeding the watchdogs more useless “tidbits” than what they can possibly digest.

    That works just as well for blogs. All one has to do is to include a few choice words or phrases and the watchdogs will try to eat the whole thing. The Chaos Computer Club had a presentation on “anti-forensics” last year, should you run out of ideas.

    The real bad guys know all that stuff; or pay somebody who does.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bernd Felsche!

    Oh Yes, there are many ways to avoid getting inspected. The bad guys already know how. The only people that will be hit are the honest people, the bandits know how to get by. If I was a advisor to the mob and the terrorists I would suggest to hide messages within a piece of MP3 music. Its simple, the total amount of MP3 data is staggering so finding secret messages in voice format would be impossible.
    But then, this is another matter. I was just using it as an example of how bad regulations is being implemented. Now we are talking about the free word. Not passing secret messages.
    We must fight ALL attempts to put restriction on the free internet. People who abuses the free internet can be prosecuted within the legal framework that exists today.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    funkybarfly

    You may have acquired your 5001st reader a day with a nice post from Kathy Shaidle.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JMD

    You do realise that if the government didn’t ‘control our money’, they wouldn’t have had the money to pay this Finkelstein to produce a 400 page report?

    And I bet they paid him handsomely, as a former Federal Court judge would expect to be paid.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross James

    This is directly related to media control issues as it is related to the Internet. How best do we handle it?

    In a talk yesterday, Zuckerman* quoted this somewhat analogy in reference to political and scientific misinformation.

    You can think of the dissemination of misinformation as someone akin to someone being shot.

    Once the bullet [misinformation, propaganda] has been fired and the victim hit, you can try to run to the rescue and stanch the bleeding [correcting the “true facts,”] usually several days later.

    However psychology tells us that approach can be limited, even ineffective — and to continue the analogy, it might be a lot better to try to secure a flak jacket for future victims.

    Ross J.

    * MIT sponsored by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard and the MIT Center for Civic Media and entitled “Truthiness in Digital Media: A symposium that seeks to address propaganda and misinformation in the new media ecosystem.”


    Report this

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      Using your analogy Ross, it would appear that crazy people are running around my grandchildren’s school armed with machine guns shooting off thousands of rounds of AL Goracle propaganda bullets.

      Furthermore, schools now being “closed shops” any semblance of first aid for the wounded is banned.
      What do you suggest, Ross James?

      Where can I get them flak-jackets, Ross?
      And do you think they will be allowed to wear them?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Catamon

    Good to see free speech is alive and well.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Shevva

    My usual once a week visit to catch up with my Ozzy mates and they give me my word of the year ‘Gongo’ love it.

    You must understand that the Ozzie people are some of the freest in the world and it’ll take a lot of change to suppress that but they will try if you let them.

    Sorry I’m a drive by reader at lunch time so I’m not sure what the penalties are? I guess a large fine as you cost money if they lock you up.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John from CA

    And now there’s this from David Suzuki on the HuffPost : (

    Deny Deniers their Right to Deny!
    David Suzuki | Posted: 03/ 9/2012 7:51 am

    “This public responsibility is especially important in light of the stepped-up efforts to deny the reality of climate change, or the role humans play in it. Cases in point are illustrated by the “denialgate” scandal revealed by the release of Heartland Institute documents and the revelation that Ottawa’s Carleton University hired Tom Harris, a PR man for a number of “astroturf” groups with a mechanical engineering background, to teach a course on climate change.

    “There are many credible sources of information, and they aren’t blog sites run by weathermen like Anthony Watts, or industry-funded fake science organizations. One place to start is at Skeptical Science. Click on the tab that says “Arguments” for scientific responses to all the main climate change denier talking points.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Ho Ho. Who has the rule book on the Soviet black market for ideas? What can we learn and how does it translate in this Internet era?

    Go to your local Gypsy Joker tattoo shop and ask about getting some stars on your knees. Who knows? Might get popular :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Myrrh

    I nearly heaved when I first read about this. The attempts to curtail free communication on the internet through one ploy or another, the pretence of royalties and so on, the backdoor approaches, are insidious and frightening for the knock on effect as these are slipped into legislation without most people noticing, but this shows such confidence..

    What I have been noticing on your and other Aussie blogs is discussion on the Constitution. Constitution be damned if legislation is enacted which is clearly treason – against the people. These are Common Law crimes.

    I’ve been thinking about the history of such things, and it appears to me that by the time it gets to ‘mindless violence’ against the system as people kick back, it is too late, because those conditions always play into the hands of those who are in control/want to be in control – and the thing that keeps coming up is that what is lacking is any ‘what do we put in its place’. The only people who have really successfully had such a thing was the Americans out of which came their Bill of Rights and Constitution.

    The problem is the basic tenet on which these were built isn’t understood anymore, and people think, and they have certainly been manipulated to think such, that these are the government giving people these rights, i.e., therefore having the power to take them away. Which is completely antithetical to the original premise.

    What is necessary is that we all get back to the original premise through education, but it is imperative, imho, for Australia to do so now, and quickly. Until everyone, and I do mean everyone, knows and understands what Common Law is, on which was built the US system and the bedrock of the Australian, then people generally won’t know what is being taken from them by these acts of legislation. And will have nothing to put in its place which always plays into the hands of power grabbers, and these now are adept at appearing to be one thing and being another..

    In other words, please, do stop arguing about the detail of the Constitution, you’re tying yourselves up in minutae that plays to the controllers. Spread knowledge of Common Law.

    Common Law is also called Natural Law, it is freedom, the freedom of each man and woman, it is not something that can be given by government, government can only either protect it or trash it. At the moment all our governments with Common Law are trashing it by legislation – in Britain and Ireland sovereignty has been given away to the unaccountable to the people EU organisation run by the bankers, put in place so deftly over several decades that the strings are difficult to unravel, but in OZ they’re fast forwarding to a set takeover and the now more knowledgeable population does have access to behind the scenes string pullers – the infiltration of the Fabians for example, the manipulation of the bankers, but, all these are here and now a distraction and distractions always play into the hands of those doing the manipulating.

    Here, as in all such totalitarian systems, they play with words, the word that has been played with for several decades of this manipulating is “democracy” – democracy is not freedom for the people, it is rule by tyranny of the majority, or those who can manipulate to get into power through a majority vote. False flags are a common means of getting the majority to acquiesce to draconian legislation against Common Law – your gun laws came into being after a strange massacre and after Dunblane in Britain likewise, resistance to, critical thinking about, the subsequent gun laws was absent. This finkelsteinian proposal however, has done away with all that, they, the powers that be, clearly no longer see it necessary to tip toe around the people.

    If the Constitution has been trashed and is being manipulated, then voting for another will not solve the problem, will only distract from it. Distract from the real problem that your Common Law rights have been trashed. All those who voted for such legislation against the people are criminals. Acts against Common Law rights are real crimes, because Common Law is the only real Law. All legislation are “acts”, they are not LAWS. You must get that difference clear if you’re to find your way through the maze of the disinformation about this.

    Any judge not upholding the rights of free people according to Common Law is ruling unlawfully, and that is a crime. They have manipulated the system to create a different class of ‘person’ and a ‘person’ as a ‘corporation’, this though is complicated, but when investigating it bear in mind, they can pretend that by answering, say in a court case, that this means you have accepted their definitions, but since they have never clearly given you the choice to understand what things mean in their legal language then it is simply a fraud. Fraud is unlawful in Common Law.

    Background reading material:
    http://www.britsattheirbest.com/freedom/f_british_constitution.htm

    But again, don’t get distracted on the detail, it’s the basic premise that has to be thoroughly understood and taught, the inalienable rights of people everywhere in Common Law cannot be usurped.

    This was understood in the Act of Settlement in Britain –

    “6) THE ACT OF SETTLEMENT 1701

    The Act of Settlement affirmed that Common Law is the birthright of the people and may never be taken away. The Act declares that the British people are restored to the full and free possession and enjoyment of their religion, rights, and liberties, by the providence of God. The Act makes one essential idea absolutely clear –

    Government cannot grant freedom to the people because freedom belongs to the people by birthright. Government exists not to give the people liberty, but to protect their liberty.”

    “8) UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS

    Freedom of speech is one of the “free customs” and unwritten traditions that belong to the people. It is not specifically described in these crucial documents (aside from allowing free speech in Parliament) because it is viewed as a “free custom” that has always belonged to the people. It is an ancient tradition of the islands.

    This did not mean a person would not get in trouble for saying or publishing something which those in authority did not wish said. But if you were arrested, you could push back, as William Penn did, and be defended by a jury.

    Most of the time you were not arrested because the great majority of the British people understood that freedom works – it makes people more prosperous and science more inventive, literature more interesting and life more brilliant and happy.

    Just as you know your family’s traditions without writing them down, you understand and value your traditions of freedom, which men and women before you defended with their lives.

    IN CONCLUSION

    The British Constitution that we have described is largely the Constitution which John Adams knew and admired. Its structure of government checked and channeled and balanced power and increasingly defended the people’s liberties. Today the British Constitution is in peril. It may not survive. The biggest threat to its future is clear –

    John Adams warned that if a legislature seized executive power that executive power will corrupt the legislature as necessarily as rust corrupts iron. . .and when the legislature is corrupted, the people are undone.”

    http://www.britsattheirbest.com/freedom/f_british_constitution.htm

    But again, please don’t get distracted by “Constitution” arguments, we really need at this time, all of us, to get back to familiarity with the basics of Common Law – we don’t need governments of any kind, but without the principle of a free person being thoroughly understood, we can’t create governmental systems to do our will according to Common Law.

    “Government cannot grant freedom to the people because freedom belongs to the people by birthright. Government exists not to give the people liberty, but to protect their liberty.”

    If a government has stopped doing that it is doing so unlawfully, against your Common Law rights. The police especially should be taught this..

    Education, education, education, in Common Law.


    Report this

    00