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

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Tyrants always want to silence the critics

Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.

Two hundred and fifty years ago the pamphleteers were the bloggers of the day. The Finkelstein plan in Australia is a modern version of the License of the Press under George III. Another excuse to tell people what they are allowed to read.

One John Wilkes was elected MP for Aylesbury in 1757.  George III soon-to-be-crowned King, arranged for his friend the Earl of Bute to get the job of PM. Wilkes wasn’t too happy with that. He thought Bute was incompetent, and so when one supporter of Bute started a newsletter called The Briton, it was only eight days later that Wilkes started his own newsletter, called the North Briton in response. Wilkes wrote anonymously each week, but his 45th edition was too much for George III and Wilkes was charged with Libel for accusing the George of lying, and he was tossed in the Tower. He challenged the arrest and won (eventually). His speeches during the trial became famous and had people chanting “liberty and Wilkes” in the streets. Sadly troops fired on the protesters, killing seven, in the Massacre of St George’s Field. The cry of “45″ (from the 45th edition) became synonymous with freedom of speech. Wilkes fled at one point to France, but was imprisoned again. The North Briton was then published by William Bingley, who also ended up in goal, and spent two years there without trial. Risky practice, what, speaking your mind.

John Wilkes, The North Briton, Edition 1 1762

(Click to enlarge)

Britain has a proud history of democracy, but true democracy is such a fragile construct. Wilkes was initially protected by his position in Parliament, but it didn’t last. Apparently he was also challenged to a duel which left him wounded, expelled from the House of Commons, and though he was re-elected three times, the result was overturned repeatedly by Parliament. So much for the choice of the people. Sheer persistence, and masses of protestors meant eventually Wilkes took his place, and went on to create legislation to stop the government from punishing people who wrote political commentary.

Partly thanks to Wilkes, I can write without fear of being tossed in the Tower. But lest we forgot how fragile that freedom is, we ought revisit the struggle. Andrew Bolt may not face gaol, but he is not free to write his considered opinion either. The Irish voted against the EU so the referendum was rerun, but the British haven’t even had the chance to vote once yet, as apparently it’s beyond the United Kingdom’s elected reps to arrange one. The Australians voted against a Carbon Tax, and got one anyway. And just as it was 250 years ago, the tool of pillory keeps many people from speaking their mind. Political correctness being just another form of bullying opponents.

Recently I was lucky enough to handle an original bound volume of these newsletters. The quote below comes from page 1 of the first. I’ve transcribed the first page here (errors are all mine). Click on the image to read the original.

Thanks to Mark

THE NORTH BRITON

Numb. I. Saturday, June 5, 1762

The Liberty of the press is the birth-right of a BRITON, and is justly esteemed the firmest bulwark of the liberties of this country. It has been the terror of all bad ministers; for their dark and dangerous designs, or their weakness, inability, and duplicity, have thus been detected and shewn to the public, generally in too strong and just colours for them long to bear up against the odium of mankind. Can we then be surprized that so various and infinite arts have been employed, at one time entirely to set aside, at another to take off the force, and blunt the edge, of this most sacred weapon, given for the defence of truth and liberty? A wicked and corrupt administration must naturally dread this appeal to the world; and will be for keeping all the means of information equally from the prince, parliament, and people. Every method will then be tried, and all arts put in practice, to check the spirit of knowledge and enquiry. Even the court of justice have in the most dangerous way, because under the sanction of law, been drawn in to second the dark views of an arbitrary ministry, and to stifle in the birth all infant virtue. From this motive, in former times, the King’s-bench has inflicted the most grievous punishments of fine, pillory, or imprisonment, or perhaps all three, on some who have stood forth the champions of their country, and whose writings have been the honour of their age and nation.

Under the government of a STUART, which has been so fatal to ENGLAND, the most daring encroachments have been made on the favorite liberties of the people, and the freedom of the press has been openly violated. Even a License of the press has been appointed. Nothing but the vilest ministerial trash, and falsehoods fabricated by a wicked party, had then the sanction of this tool of power; nor of consequence could any production, breathing the spirit of liberty, have a chance of being ushered to the light. The imprimatur of the minister was scarcely ever given, but to compositions equally disgraceful to letters and humanity. I do not however recollect that any of these hirelings have ventured, as the BRITON of last Saturday has done, magnificently to display the royal arms at the head of their papers. Does this author mean to intimidate? Or is it to insinuate that this new paper comes forth, like the GAZETTE, by authority, and that he is fighting under the ministerial banner? All opposition therefore to him, according to this idea, is to be considered as an indignity offered to the administration and an affront to the higher powers, who may be supposed to protect, perhaps to pay him. This is surely too stale a trick now to pass. I rather think the royal arms are prostituted by a mercenary scribbler….

Spartacus: John Wilkes.

Wikipaedia: John Wilkes.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (82 votes cast)
Tyrants always want to silence the critics, 9.2 out of 10 based on 82 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/8h34otg

130 comments to Tyrants always want to silence the critics

  • #
    Anthony Watts

    Welcome back Jo.


    Report this

    443

    • #

      Hey Anthony, may be you can help Jo here… If not ‘tyrants’, what do you call people who publish the contact details of their critics?


      Report this

      219

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        I thought that worms live in holes in the ground.

        Why would Anthony bother publishing that?

        kk


        Report this

        52

      • #

        Coming from a splendidly foul-mouthed family, I could suggest any number of words for such people. And Jo, as a member of a splendidly foul-mouther nation, will I am sure have many phrases to hand.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        what do you call people who publish the contact details of their critics?

        Perhaps a “vocal proponent of the scientific method”, or even a “political visionary”…

        Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed–and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment– the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants”–but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

        - President John F. Kennedy, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City, April 27, 1961.


        Report this

        91

        • #

          Let me help you, Andrew (since you do not appear to understand the purpose of my question)…

          People who complain endlessly about supposed Ad Hominem attacks being made against them and then publish the contact details of their critics are quite literally unbelievable hypocrites.


          Report this

          225

          • #

            Martin,

            Let me help you, (since you do not appear to understand the meaning of logic).

            Although ad hominem translates literally as against the man or at the man I can understand your confusion. It has nothing to do with actions involving the physical attack against a person or the committing of an act that is morally or ethically questionable. An ad hominem fallacy is an attack against the person rather than their argument.

            By the way, I clicked on the link to your page. So you have an MA degree in environmental politics? It amazes me that such a well-educated man could make such an ignorant statement as you did at 1.1.2.1.


            Report this

            271

          • #
            Winston

            Eddy,
            It is precisely because Martin has an MA in environmental politics that such an ignorant statement is made. Unfortunately, Martin believes because he has been educated that somehow he is anything other than a trained parrot, and his opinions are his own. I’ve got news for you Martin, regurgitating verbatim what you were taught does not make you intelligent, recycling the viewpoints of the opinion makers masquerading as learned professors of philosophy or enviro-science doesn’t make you an independent thinker.

            No matter what you may believe about CAGW, Anthony Watts has been nothing but consistent, polite and considered in his approach to the debate. He has, however, been relentlessly vilified by ignorant people wishing to shut down debate, when Anthony has an inalienable and incontrovertible right to hold that opinion and express it to its fullest extent. Do you deny him that right to free speech, Martin?

            What you hate about him is that he has been so spectacularly successful in highlighting the failings of his opponents’ logic, the gaps in and manipulation of their
            data, and deconstructed a false paradigm and shoddy papers for all to see. Even assuming AGW were a reality (CAGW has been falsified!), the fault in someone like Anthony pointing out their failings lies ENTIRELY with the hopelessly incompetent scientists pushing the alarmists barrow. But rather than look in the mirror at their own statistical and methodological mistakes, they seek to vilify their critics, shoot the messenger and generally avoid addressing their own deficiencies of logic and weaknesses of their argument.


            Report this

            332

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Hi Martin,

            Since you have an MA in Environmental Politics, perhaps you can explain the conundrum that surrounds Kevin Trenberths reversal of the Scientific Results provided by Chris Landsea within the UN IPCC process leading up to AR4.

            From the link above, to quote Chris Landsea, my bold for emphasis.

            It is certainly true that “individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights”, as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth’s pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost.

            Three questions.

            [1] Do you think that the reversal of scientific results is the right thing to do when authoritative voices of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming community present to the Media?

            [2] Has the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming community harmed it’s credibility by supporting (their has been no internal sanction of Kevin Trenberth) the communication methods (Results Reversal) displayed by Kevin Trenberth?

            [3] Given that even the UN IPCC in it’s 2012 Special Report on Extremes finds, to quote

            “The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados

            Do you find it an appropriate strategy for the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming community to continue Kevin Trenberths method to claim a link between current weather extremes and CAGW?


            Report this

            141

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            My sincerest apologies, Martin.
            It is now obvious in hindsight that you were attempting to communicate your accusations of ad hominem tactics and hypocrisy without actually typing or implying either of those phrases.
            My mental telepathy module has been out at the cybernetics workshop since last week for its regular 6000 meme overhaul, which was long overdue. Sorry it was not back in working order again in time for your bleating pot shot.
            I would not suffer such disconnects in meaning if I had only seen fit to join the CAGW sheeple and be united with Gaia as one hive mind.

            There’s no excuse for straight-up verbal abuse, but contact details could be used for so much more. Climate charlatans rely on co-opted institutional protection and dislike the idea that they ought to be able to individually withstand rational and evidenced arguments if their position is indeed true.

            Here is your chance to stay in the kitchen.

            Catastrophic:
               1a) Which evidence shows even a single period in Earth’s history had a massive biodiversity loss immediately after a 2.1°C warming in climate? OR,
               1b) Which evidence shows that any marine species critical to the human food chain is incapable of surviving a -0.15 pH drop in sea water?

            2. Anthropogenic:
               2a.) Which evidence shows that the majority of late 20th century warming was caused by human activity and NOT by a combination of UHI biased measurements, statistical fraud, and natural cycles? AND
               2b.) How did the global warming rate of 1912 to 1942 equal the global warming rate of 1975 to 2005 before the majority of modern deforestation had occurred and before the majority of industrial CO2 has been emitted?

            3. Global:
               3a.) Which evidence shows the Medieval Warm Period was isolated to Western Europe as opposed to being a global period 0.25°C warmer than today? AND
               3b.) Which evidence shows that the Greenland Ice Sheet has ever completely melted in a climate of +0.3 above the 1980-2010 baseline in spite of the GISP2 ice cores showing a continuous uninterrupted ice formation record over the last 10,000 years that included periods 0.5°C warmer than today? AND
               3c.) Why was the low record of Antarctic ice melt in 2009 ignored by alarmists, how can the downturn in global sea ice be anthropogenic if it occurred only very recently whereas GHG warming is logarithmic wrt CO2 concentration and sea ice is affected by multiple factors such as circulation patterns? AND
               3d.) If Arctic sea ice melt is so worrisome because the sea exposed to more sunlight acts as positive feedback for ocean warming caused by GHGs, why should we worry when the two largest oceans, the Indian and Pacific, have not warmed in 20 years?

            4. Warming:
               4a.) Where is the IPCC-endorsed physical radiative mechanism to explain why there will be 2 degrees of warming from a doubling of CO2 in spite of there being no significant global warming in either land temperature or OHC measurements for 15 years during a time of record CO2 emissions?
               4b.) Where is there a global circulation model which can closely hindcast the previous 50 years of global temperatures and also forecasts more than 0.3 degrees per decade from now until 2050 in a business-as-usual scenario?

            You wouldn’t deny natural climate change would you? No pressure.


            Report this

            131

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Geez Andrew…

            Your being really tough on Martin!

            Mind you – it could be argued that CAGW is not even science, as it has poorly defined, and hard to find falsification criteria.

            Of course, Martin, with his MA in Environmental Politics will have at his fingertips, the clearly defined, empirically measurable, falsification criteria, which if they were to occur, would promptly disprove the central hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 and other GHGs will cause catastrophic global warming, and would cause Martin to declare the central hypothesis to, indeed, be false.

            Of course, Martin will be the first to affirm that the absence of such clearly defined and commonly stated criteria from any hypothesis, renders that hypothesis outside the boundaries of science, and he will no doubt be ready to articulate a powerful defense that the CAGW hypothesis is indeed science – and not a pseudoscience – by stating the falsification criteria.


            Report this

            50

          • #

            Well Tony, time again to bite the bullet and make a comment on the Science, (or ask a question about it anyway) and again show up my lack of knowledge.

            Andrew says above in 3d.)

            If Arctic sea ice melt is so worrisome because the sea exposed to more sunlight acts as positive feedback for ocean warming caused by GHGs…..etc

            This so called concerning aspect of Melting Arctic ice has always puzzled me.

            If, as we know, it is Sea Ice, then its melting will have no effect whatsoever on sea levels. (You know, the old Archimedes Principle thingie, and yes I can see the replies now mentioning salt water fresh water etc.)

            So, what really is the problem if all that sea ice does melt?

            I’m willing to bet that most people actually do think it will lead to (catastrophic) sea level rises, but is the actual problem that, (as Andrew somewhat facetiously suggests might be the thinking that Warmists would like us to believe) it might lead to (overall) Ocean warming?

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            These replies are astonishingly vacuous. However, to answer ex-Warmists 3 questions:

            Whatever you think Trenberth did, AR4 has proven to be woefully optimistic. I prefer to deal with the real world; and in the real world the positive feedback mechanisms AR4 did not include are establishing themselves faster than even those whose opinions were struck from AR4 thought possible.

            The Greenhouse Effect is not a hypothesis; and seeking to dismiss the inevitability of the enhanced greenhouse effect by using labels such as CAGW may make you feel better; but it does not change the nature of reality.

            You wouldn’t deny that climate change can be artificial too, would you?


            Report this

            316

          • #
            Winston

            Martin, Martin, Martin,

            The only thing that is vacuous is your reply, or lack of it, to particularly Andrew’s questions. How can AR4 have proven to be “woefully optimistic”, when global temperatures have trended below Scenario C levels (when CO2 emissions have Increased above business as usual levels- ie Scenario A levels) is a triumph of illogic over observations. Additionally, CAGW is alarmists own terminology not some derogatory label given by skeptics, so that is a pretty lame attempt to rewrite history there, Martin.

            You still haven’t directly responded re Anthony Watts’ right to free speech. Like most alarmists you don’t respond directly to a straight question with a straight answer, so why would you think we would perceive you as anything other than one of the endless series of mindless acolytes who chant from the IPCC hymn book, while cherry picking from the experts they wish to believe, and simultaneously ignoring any experts that contradict their beliefs?

            You don’t bring anything substantive to the table, Martin, remembering that the onus of proof lies squarely with you. You don’t deny that climate changes naturally, do you?


            Report this

            101

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Martin says…

            These replies are astonishingly vacuous. However, to answer ex-Warmists 3 questions:

            [1] You have a strange meaning for the word vacuous. I thought that both (a) the evidence that I presented, and (b) the questions asked were direct, specific and charged with content. How would you define “vacuous”. Might I suggest that you are unable or unwilling to directly answer my questions, and that you have labelled them as “vacuous” simply as a rhetorical tactic to avoid engagement with them.

            Whatever you think Trenberth did, AR4 has proven to be woefully optimistic. I prefer to deal with the real world; and in the real world the positive feedback mechanisms AR4 did not include are establishing themselves faster than even those whose opinions were struck from AR4 thought possible.

            [2] The questions that I raise about Trenberth go directly to methodology. That is the content of the questions – I question the methodology. What you seem to be unable to engage with is that the methodology underpinning your ideological position is flawed. You also do not answer my questions, you ignore them, and then go off topic, and proceed to make assertions of positive feedbacks without any evidence.

            Might I make some observations.

            (a) Your epistemological method is unable to identify and correct fraudulent statements. When presented with a clear contradiction between what Trenberth said, and the scientific evidence as presented by Chris Landsea, – you fail to process the fact. You also fail to take into account the current 2012 UN IPCC SREX document. Which means that your current intellectual position is not even grounded in the generally accepted (within the official climate science community) UN material, and that you are therefore on the Alarmist fringe…

            (b) Given your demonstrated incapacity to identify falsehoods, and disavow fraudulent material, why should I or anyone else give what you assert any credibility? Does the phrase “Fruit from a Poisoned Tree” mean anything to you?

            (c) Are you able to offer a single accepted scientific peer reviewed paper that deals with physical evidence (not computer models) that can demonstrate that the Climate System is subject to a NET POSITIVE FEEDBACK to increased concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs.

            The Greenhouse Effect is not a hypothesis; and seeking to dismiss the inevitability of the enhanced greenhouse effect by using labels such as CAGW may make you feel better; but it does not change the nature of reality.

            You wouldn’t deny that climate change can be artificial too, would you?

            [3] I didn’t mention the Greenhouse Effect, nor did I deny it’s existence. Please stop projecting your misconceptions onto me. Let me straighten this out for you.

            (a) The Climate Changes – this is a fact.
            (b) The Climate has a history of natural variation over the the duration of life on this planet within a set of boundaries conducive to life that has lasted in excess of 600 million years.
            (c) Prior to the last 40 or so years, it was the generally accepted scientific Hypothesis that climate varied in accordance with natural forces, such as (but not limited too) changes in the Earth’s orbit and variation in Solar output, etc.
            (d) In recent times, the alternative “Hypothesis” that climate change is now primarily driven by human emissions of CO2 and other GHGs has been proposed.
            (e) The problem for the new Hypothesis is that there is no compelling physical evidence that demonstrates that the climate is varying iaw the human emissions of CO2 and other GHGs – in fact, the available physical evidence demonstrates that human influence on the climate is trivial.

            You have a couple of options. (a) continue to hang around and spout off, and carpet bomb the post with what amounts to spam, or (b) actually make the effort to engage in debate, and have the intellectual and moral courage to question your assumptions and provide measured, empirical evidence from reliable, calibrated instruments to back up your assertions.


            Report this

            100

          • #

            Winston, Winston, Winston – Are you really still going down the up escalator?

            Cyclical solar activity (variation in total solar irradiance [TSI], sunspots, or anything else) cannot explain the ongoing warming of the last 150 years.

            However, it can (along with consideration of the cooling effects of other industrial pollutants, volcanic eruptions, etc) explain why the warming that has occurred – and is occurring – has not been consistent.

            This is why it is not up to me to prove the validity of the scientific consensus. On the contrary, those who dispute its reality must have a workable alternative hypothesis that explains:
            – the long-term changes in global average temperature, thawing permaforst, melting glaciers, sea level, and pH of seawater; and
            – the increasing frequency of extreme weather events of all kinds; and
            – the fact that more heat/drought records are being broken than cold/wet ones.

            This you quite simply do not have, which is why you resort to ad hominem attacks and hypocrisy.


            Report this

            114

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Ill informed alarmist comment based on other ill informed “science” should be avoided at all costs.

            The idea that Global Warming or Climate Change is man made is laughable when considered from a true scientific position and the widespread belief in this looming catastrophe is evidence, not of scientific discovery, but of the success of political scheming and avarice.

            The Politics of sustainability would have us believe that the Earth’s weather has always been stable and predictable but that is not the case.

            In just one area, sea levels, it may surprise many who have been mislead by the Global Warming alarmist movement to know that 18,000 years ago the Earth’s oceans were 120 metres lower than now. Locally this places the shoreline about 19 kilometres off Newcastle.

            During the big melt after the last ice age, the seas rose 120 metres to approximately their present level and have remained there for the last 5,000 years with occasional fluctuations of a metre or so.

            Many people are rightly concerned about pollution of the environment and I am wholeheartedly in favour or clamping down on dangerous chemical pollution by companies that have no concern for our future. In this area Governments are strangely very lax and the focus on harmless Carbon Dioxide seems to be a convenient way of distracting from the real pollution issues.

            People could give some thought to the fact that they are being mislead over so called “Carbon Pollution”. If nothing else besides the billions of dollars thrown at the “problem” it is a great vote catcher.

            Martin, as a geologist you would have to be aware of the truth of the outline above regarding sea levels and yet you would have us swallow the Warmer line that the oceans have been absolutely stable until humanity started to infest the planet’s surface and burning things to make CO2.

            As a scientist I resent being categorised by MA’s in Pseudo-Psycholo-Politics as being “In Denial” about man made climate change and saddened that science has become associated with the comfort of group think rather than the strain of individual effort and testing.

            ref : http://joannenova.com.au/wp/2012/09/bingo-were-back/#comment-1130045

            kk :)


            Report this

            52

          • #

            If you think that acceptance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and/or the concept of Entropy is the basis for an ideology, there really is no point talking to you. I know you did not mention these things (I did), but this is what your assertion that I am espousing some kind of agenda or ideology amount to…

            The reason I am not prepared to discuss flaws in the scientific methodology of Trenberth (or anyone else) is that they are rapidly becoming irrelevant (i.e. being overtaken by events). These matters have been repeatedly investigated; and the scientists have been repeatedly exonerated. Continuing to insist otherwise is to admit you are a conspiracy theorist.

            You need to stop looking for evidence of malpractice and start engaging with reality: There is simply no evidence for a left-wing conspiracy to over-tax and over-regulate people (so as to make everyone poorer). Whereas, there is a great deal of evidence for a right-wing conspiracy to under-tax and under-regulate industry (so as to make a few people richer).

            Your conspiracy is an illusion; whereas mine is a historical fact.


            Report this

            113

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Ah Martin

            You seem to have a well developed capacity to imitate others as exhibited in your reply to Winston.

            That’s great up to a point but then when you need to go it alone and think for yourself, it becomes a

            habit hard to throw off just like copying and repeating the warmer lines we get from the University of

            SkS; show me the references, give me your proof, 5 million Climate Scientists agree that ….. blah

            blah.

            IT IS NOT SCIENCE; it is copying.

            Can you pick the difference? Scientists think for themselves.

            Your comment that “it is not up to me ” to prove CO2 based AGW just confirms that you are

            scientifically illiterate when it comes to Scientific Method and equally to the Physics, Chemistry and

            Thermodynamics of the Atmosphere.

            kk :)


            Report this

            71

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Just to illustrate my point Martin you seem to have provided an inbuilt contradiction in your comment about “thawing permafrost”.

            Doesn’t that mean that there must have been a period, long ago when the area being ” thawed” was so warm that the the vegetation now being exposed in the tundra was able to grow?

            Little steps.

            Permafrost thaws.

            Exposes vegetation which rots.

            Invites the question: How did it get there?

            Answer: Either Algore planted it there or it grew during a period of Warmth long ago.

            kk


            Report this

            51

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Eddy Aruda et al,

            I’m amazed that there even is such a nonsense degree as Environmental Politics. That’s the explanation for Martin’s problem I think. The train of higher education has derailed. Underwater basket weaving would be more useful.

            How could we go so wrong?

            Martin Lack is a guy who needs a useful job.


            Report this

            51

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Martin says…

            Winston, Winston, Winston – Are you really still going down the up escalator?

            Winston Says…

            when global temperatures have trended below Scenario C levels (when CO2 emissions have Increased above business as usual levels- ie Scenario A levels) is a triumph of illogic over observations.

            [1] Martin – you did not address Winston’s statement. It has been obvious that temperatures have been more or less flat over the last 14 years, while CO2 concentrations have continued to rise. How long does this have to occur before the hypothesis that CO2 concentration is an important driver of global warming is falsified?

            Cyclical solar activity (variation in total solar irradiance [TSI], sunspots, or anything else) cannot explain the ongoing warming of the last 150 years.

            [2] Your assuming that the warming of the last 150 years is outside the boundaries of natural variation, and therefore requires another explanation, and yet you have no physical evidence that the warming that has occurred as we have left the Little Ice Age is unusual. Also how on Earth (no pun intended) do you get man made global warming in the mid 1800s during the nascent phases of the industrial revolution? Here is a link to assist you to understand the scope of natural climate variation over the last 1000 years.

            However, it can (along with consideration of the cooling effects of other industrial pollutants, volcanic eruptions, etc) explain why the warming that has occurred – and is occurring – has not been consistent.

            [3] No physical evidence provided – do you actually have any, or are you relying on models without predictive skill?

            This is why it is not up to me to prove the validity of the scientific consensus.

            [4] You have not overturned the original hypothesis that climate changes in accordance with natural variation. First you must show that this hypothesis “natural variation” does not hold, before you can argue for a replacement. You have not done that – please go back to square one. You can’t just say “my new Hypothesis is true, you must prove it false.” You must first provide physical evidence that current climate is outside the boundaries of natural variation before you can go any further, and since you have not done that – you can go no further.

            On the contrary, those who dispute its reality must have a workable alternative hypothesis that explains:
            – the long-term changes in global average temperature, thawing permaforst, melting glaciers, sea level, and pH of seawater; and
            – the increasing frequency of extreme weather events of all kinds; and
            – the fact that more heat/drought records are being broken than cold/wet ones.

            [5] Your still assuming that the warming of the last 150 years is outside the boundaries of natural variation, and therefore requires another explanation, and yet you have no physical evidence that the warming that has occurred as we have left the Little Ice Age is unusual. You need to check you assumptions. In addition you also make claims such as

            increasing frequency of extreme weather events of all kinds

            That are clearly refuted by the current 2012 UN IPCC climate science

            This you quite simply do not have, which is why you resort to ad hominem attacks and hypocrisy.

            Winston says…

            so why would you think we would perceive you as anything other than one of the endless series of mindless acolytes who chant from the IPCC hymn book,

            [6] I could find no hypocrisy in Winstons comments above, perhaps you fail to understand what hypocrisy is? However, the “mindless acolytes who chant from the IPCC hymn book” does not apply to you – you ignore the science from the UN IPCC, and describe it as “woefully optimistic.”. Apart from that caveat, there is nothing in Winston’s comment that is not an apt observation.


            Report this

            80

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            You need to stop looking for evidence of malpractice and start engaging with reality: There is simply no evidence for a left-wing conspiracy to over-tax and over-regulate people (so as to make everyone poorer). Whereas, there is a great deal of evidence for a right-wing conspiracy to under-tax and under-regulate industry (so as to make a few people richer).

            Your conspiracy is an illusion; whereas mine is a historical fact.

            Martin,

            You’re really good at telling your neighbor he has a speck in his eye while you have rock in yours. Please, the debate isn’t about conspiracies. It’s about facts. Those evil right-wing conspirators are not working to squelch free speech. Your side of the debate is doing that. And that is a fact, pure and simple with no wiggle room for argument. The illusion is yours.

            Your historical fact is only fact if historical is spelled h-y-s-t-e-r-i-c-a-l.


            Report this

            90

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Martin says…

            If you think that acceptance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and/or the concept of Entropy is the basis for an ideology, there really is no point talking to you. I know you did not mention these things (I did), but this is what your assertion that I am espousing some kind of agenda or ideology amount to…

            [1] The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is an excellent example of a scientific concept. It is in principle falsifiable, while I have enormous confidence in the 2nd law, if (and only if) someone was able to demonstrate a perpetual motion machine – it would be falsified. With that example of falsifiability in mind. Could you please state what the specific, measurable, empirical events are that qualify as falsification criteria for the hypothesis that increasing CO2 concentrations in the Atmosphere are going to cause catastrophic global warming.

            [2] I am not claiming that you have an agenda. Everyone has an ideology (?) that’s not the issue. What I am claiming is that the methodology that you are using to establish your ideological position with specific reference to CAGW is incompetent to determine what the actual facts are.

            The reason I am not prepared to discuss flaws in the scientific methodology of Trenberth (or anyone else) is that they are rapidly becoming irrelevant (i.e. being overtaken by events).

            [3] The methods by which the climate science artefacts are generated that you are so concerned about are at the core of what matters. Nature does not give up her secrets to the poorly prepared, if you want to know what the facts are, then your methods must be rigorous, detailed, rational, empirical, transparent and repeatable – these elements are missing from the methodological canon of the CAGW climate science community.

            These matters have been repeatedly investigated; and the scientists have been repeatedly exonerated. Continuing to insist otherwise is to admit you are a conspiracy theorist.

            [4] When was Kevin Trenberth questioned or sanctioned? Evidence please?

            [5] I don’t believe in conspiracies in CAGW. Occams Razor suggests that incompetence, irrationality, greed, intellectual laziness, and rampant unchecked confirmation bias are the far more likely root causes of the generation and longevity of this particular meme.

            You need to stop looking for evidence of malpractice and start engaging with reality:

            [6] How do you know what reality is, without a rigorous method of inquiry? Malpractice goes to method.

            There is simply no evidence for a left-wing conspiracy to over-tax and over-regulate people (so as to make everyone poorer).

            [7] I couldn’t agree more. There is no such conspiracy – conspiracies are secret, and there is no secret that left wing politicians advocate taxes and regulations. In all honesty – your definition of what constitutes “over-” is not clear. Could you please quantify that?

            Whereas, there is a great deal of evidence for a right-wing conspiracy to under-tax and under-regulate industry (so as to make a few people richer).

            [8] The left – right political distinction is weakly grounded and superficial. The superior dimensioning of the political arena is in terms of the concentration or dispersal of social authority, and the capacity to legally coerce behaviour.

            [9] So the conspiracies that you believe in are true… just not any that you disagree with… and you know this – how?

            Your conspiracy is an illusion; whereas mine is a historical fact.

            [10] See points [5] and [9] above.


            Report this

            90

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Ex

            Brilliant piece at 17

            Covers everything.

            Politicians of all persuasions are draining the coffers of our taxation systems and when there is

            nothing left they borrow to leave a parting “gift” to future generations.

            Global Warming is just one of many subterfuges used by Big Government to transfer funds.

            kk


            Report this

            30

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Martin says…

            Whereas, there is a great deal of evidence for a right-wing conspiracy to under-tax and under-regulate industry (so as to make a few people richer).

            [1] Have you not heard of legislative and regulatory cooption?

            [2] It is a feature of established, large corporations to buy political, legislative and regulatory influence. This is not controversial, it is a standard strategy and results in monopoly control of markets that disadvantage new players and entrench the incumbents.

            [3] Your simplistic view of more regulation = good, less regulation = bad is just that – simplistic. The aim of an entrenched, incumbent player in the market is to co-opt the regulatory power of Government to enforce the market to continue to buy the goods and services that the player offers at a price favorable to the player. The operation of co-option strategies result in regulations that are favorable to the player, not to “more” or “less” regulation.

            [4] The operation of co-option strategies is not political. Everyone who is a player in the marketplace attempts to gain control of the monopoly of legal coercive force that governments possess.

            [5] Your assumption that the left-right political distinction is both useful, and meaningful is false – you need to question it.


            Report this

            20

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Thanks KK.

            Cheers ExWarmist


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Scott

            Ease up guys, without AGW, Martin’s MA in environmental politics would be worthless.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    geronimo

    Jo, I think you’ll find it’s “gaol” not “goal”. Gaol was the original word for jail, the new spelling probably came back from the colonies where there were great efforts to spell words how they were said. “Gaol” went out of fashion as a spelling for “jail” in the uk in the 1960s.

    Damn proof reader’s in Alaska. Ta! – Jo


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    It’s happening here too! Unless there’s a big change in the political winds I think the First Amendment is in for some rough going. Freedom is indeed a fragile thing.


    Report this

    130

    • #
      ExWarmist

      The default political form for humanity is Tyranny and Enslavement. That’s why we keep slipping back into it. To have something better requires, hard work, intelligence, vigilance, courage, team work, commitment, etc…


      Report this

      180

  • #
    bananabender

    Stephen Conman the Oztrian Minister for Propaganda announced yesterday that he has unfettered control over the press.


    Report this

    140

  • #
    Mark

    Terrific to see ya back Jo.

    Pedantic point: KGIII did not come to the throne until 1760. His political machinations may well have taken place after that year but the article’s wording does leave an inaccurate impression.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    John in France

    Jo, you’ve certainly come back with an almighty bang!

    Last sentence: (…) too stale a trick (…) (?).


    Report this

    10

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi John

      “too” is hard to explain but it is not “at” or “a” as in French.

      To get an idea can rephrase it as “too stale a trick” close to but not the same as:

      * such a stale trick

      * an excessively stale trick

      or

      * a really stale trick.

      Can anybody help?

      kk :)


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      John in France,

      It’s an unusual word order in English and is not consistent with the rest of English. As you would be aware, English has been cobbled together from French and German over the centuries and is internally inconsistent in dozens of rules, even at the best of times.
      I recognise that form of phrase and I have used it myself in the past. I’m sure I’ve seen it used like: “This event is too great an opportunity to miss.”

      Just re-order the words of the noun phrase until it makes sense:
      [that is] too stale a trick [to pass].
      [that is] a trick too stale [to pass].

      Your alarm at this Old English is a bit like climate alarm: We are told this event is UNPRECEDENTED and WORSE THAN ORIGINALLY THOUGHT, but a bit of careful analysis with respect to history shows it not to be so. ;)

      Since the Royal Arms were used by the BRITON newsletter to pretend any opposition to their opinion was worse than was really true, you could even say….
      Wilkes had just finished writing about BRITON’s stale trick to hide the benign.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Apogee

    Great to see you back Jo.

    And a very pertinent article, We ignore those imposing on our freedom at our peril. “Those who will not learn
    from history will be forced to relive it”. Don’t know who originally said it but they were right.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    pat

    jo,
    no criticism intended, but -

    in para beginning “Britain has a proud history of democracy” relected should be re-elected;

    and in the final para: “Recently I was lucky enough recently” – drop one “recently”.

    otherwise, we need to insist on our right to express our opinions, organise against the govt’s draconian data retention proposal and new media regulations in the wake of the finkelstein and convergence reviews.

    freedom is a precious thing.

    thanx jo for providing a platform.


    Report this

    50

  • #

    Thanks John and pat, fixed… appreciate the history fact checking Mark


    Report this

    60

  • #
    handjive

    Look no further than the recent appearance of Anthony Watts on PBS for an example of the jackboot brigade.
    !8,000 people signed a petition to shut down any opinions except theirs.

    Donna Laframboise has a piece titled “The Anti-Free-Speech Brigade” about this.


    Report this

    190

    • #
      Otter

      Yes, but how many of those signatures are even valid?


      Report this

      111

      • #
        Steve C

        Even if every last one of them is valid, they’re still a fair way behind the 31000+ actual qualified scientists, working in climate-related fields, who signed the Petition Project a few years ago. Plus who knows how many who didn’t, and all in the US just like the howling mob of anti-free-speechers. Take heart!

        Great to see your site back up, Jo.


        Report this

        90

    • #

      The correct link is here.
      The statement that people signed up to is that PBS

      Immediately investigate the NewsHour segment featuring climate change denier and conspiracy theorist Anthony Watts for violations of PBS standards on accuracy, integrity, and transparency, and recommend corrective action to ensure that such reporting never again occurs on PBS.

      Donna Laframboise points out it is an incorrect statement. Watts is neither a denier of climate changing, nor is he a conspiracy theorist. Like with many groups throughout history, those who demand censorship in the name of freedom, accuracy, integrity, and transparency are by those who fall down most on such measures.


      Report this

      40

  • #

    The Irish patriot, Patrick Pearse, who was shot in the aftermath of the 1916 Easter Rising, said an interesting thing with regard to oppression, before his execution by firing squad. The only way they can win, is if they can put an idea up against a wall and shoot it.

    Pointman


    Report this

    160

  • #

    Excellent article. It’s only in the colonies that anyone cares about Britain’s “proud history of democracy”. As a point of history, I believe New Zealand and Australia had universal suffrage (at least for whites) several decades before Britain.


    Report this

    60

    • #

      Not surprising thet the colonies preceded after independence. They didn’t suffer the direct burden of inertia.


      Report this

      30

    • #

      Geoff,

      It might only be in the colonies that Britain’s “proud history of democracy” is being remembered, but this may be soon eradicated according to an article in the Australian.

      JOHN Howard has re-entered the culture wars, describing the Gillard government’s national school history curriculum as “unbalanced, lacking in priorities and quite bizarre”, and accusing it of marginalising the Judeo-Christian ethic and purging British history.


      Report this

      60

      • #
        Dennis

        John Howard is a wise man, the socialists’ agenda is always long term planning and in the case of education, rewriting our history and introducing indoctrination and left side of politics propaganda to school students.


        Report this

        71

  • #

    Excellent post Ms Nova.

    In late Elizabethan England there were clever London reporters who sent the same news-letters regularly to a number of customers, still writing them by hand although printing had indeed been invented long before. The reason these did not explode into a wider ‘printed’ readership was due to the fact that the printing of ‘domestic political news’ was totally prohibited in England; the ban was not lifted until the liquidation of the Star Chamber in the 1640′s. One could buy pamphlets on the latest apocalyptic prognostications, strange tidings of earthquakes, raining frogs and the like, but coverage of domestic government & politics was forbidden.

    The exception was news from abroad, and between the years 1589 to 1593 a series of news pamphlets were printed which covered the latest developments in France and the low countries, where the wars of religion were busy causing the implosion of the French state. These ‘news quartos’ sold like wildfire to a populace thirsty for news; offering their readers frightening current accounts of Henry of Navarre and his battle with the Catholic League, as well as offering us today a fascinating glimpse into the burgeoning market for printed material and the complexities of early journalistic writing.

    Many of these quartos carry sensational headlines and copy; The Miserable estate of the citie of Paris describes terrible suffering in the starving city:

    “They are enforced to eate Horses, Asses, Dogges, Cattes, Rattes, Mice & other filthie and unacustomed thinges for their sustenance, it is said they are enforced to feede one upon the other.”

    Although starvation was a common military tactic, printed non-fiction pamphlets describing such wholesale suffering was another matter entirely.

    The literate populace of London lapped it up, and the printshops did a roaring trade. Quarto after gruesome quarto presented images of slaughter and rapine:

    “For it may be said truely, that fewe of all the women and maydens that are fallen in their hands, have hardly escaped dishonesting, and those that resisted their violence, insomuch that they could not force them, have bin massacred. Nay, it is known that some women being hurt to death, and ready to yeeled up their ghosts, and these villains desirous to enjoy their companies, departed out of this life, even as they play under them.”

    Journalistic objectivity was notably absent in the news articles, and sensationalism was the order of the day; a palpable double standard existed between the reported ‘heroic deeds’ of the protestant Navarre -dripping with bravery and courage- and the deeds of the Catholics, where no horrific detail is spared in the telling. Some things never change, nor has it ever been otherwise!


    Report this

    130

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      orkneylad,

      You give me hope for the future with what you said. When you have trouble it’s always easy to lose your objectivity about things. Yes, it ever has been so.

      Thank you!


      Report this

      41

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Today I Learned: the word “trash” is not merely a recent Americanism.

    The people of the 1760s did not face any force as destructive as Predator drones, nor as insidious as surveillance and sanctions on our communications and monetary transactions. The powers of old European kings were trivial compared to powers taken for granted today – by both regulators and proles. The greater imbalance in power between the individual and the regulator today makes the democratic rule of law commensurately more important. We can take heart that the regulators would not be so concerned with silencing critics and sowing noisy misdirection if there was no chance a unified mob could effect change.

    Perhaps Jo ought to have a spare printing press in the shed on the off-chance the Internet gets switched off.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Annie

    A very good article Jo. Thank you.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    tckev

    Welcome back Jo,

    Tyrants always want to silence the critics

    For example Marcel Leroux on Wikipedia – as flagged up by http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/marcel-leroux-wikipedia/ certain parties would appear to be trying to remove https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Leroux page (or at least edit him down to nothing).
    He was a man that publish a few papers criticizing the AGW theory and offered other explanations for climate events. Should he be removed?

    Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose indeed.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    agwnonsense

    If there was any free speech or democracy in Australia we wouldn’t have a [snip] for a pm

    [take it easy please. mod oggi]


    Report this

    70

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    This is a very timely piece.

    Now nearing the end of the Labor Government’s reign we need to tally up the damage and look to what we can do, and while this blog is primarily about climate change, it is appropriate to talk about the money because that is what climate change is about too.

    Damage first:

    Terry McCrann describes the expenditure of $44 billion during the year after the GFC and calls it “fiscal

    insanity not seen since the Whitlam years”.

    If you are one of the beneficiaries of this redistribution of our tax money to the “bruvvers” then you will be quite happy in this “lucky country” of ours.

    I wouldn’t mind holding up a Stop – Go sign for $100,000 a year, stress free.

    If you are one of the taxpayers not benefiting from bloated salaries “won” by the unions for very basic work in the construction industry or some of the other scams then you aren’t doing that well at all.

    You and your children now have a government borrowings debt of $6,000 per man woman and child in Australia that has supported this lavish disbursement of cash.

    Your contribution, in advance, has been appreciated.

    As to the solution while the other mob have always seemed to be better at keeping the till full there are still issues.

    As we know, Tony has not been too clear about how he perceives the Taxes, ETS’s and schemes attached to “Global Warming” but he does know that the public can be empowered to force change as witness the outcry over big Malcolm’s failed attempt to install Goldman Sachs as the Australian treasurer.

    This shows it can be done.

    It seems that the redistribution in this area, saving the Earth, is too much of a good thing to put aside so where do we go.

    Truth is, we have lost control of our Representatives and those of us here would like that to change.

    Bringing about that change is not going to be easy.

    Ideas?

    KK


    Report this

    51

    • #
      CameronH

      We have lost control of our representatives because they have lost control of the regulating classes in the Public Service. The Public Service has now become so infiltrated with socialists and collectivists that it is now the Public’s Master and the elected representatives seem to be powerless to stop them.
      I believe that the only way to deal with this is to repeal all legislation enacted over the past twenty years and to then remove all senior public servants and all stall associated with administering that legislation.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Dennis

        The public service at state and federal levels has grown faster than the population they serve, it is the Union Labor way to provide jobs for unionists and to ensure that they are partisan players who will do the government’s bidding and leak if there is a change of government. Who in their right mind would agree to pay for six lawn mowing contractors to do the job one contractor has been doing? That’s public service, primarily in administration areas of government.


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Dennis

          It should also be noted that public servants’ wages are paid by private sector taxpayers, the taxes paid by public servants out of their gross earnings is not new revenue for governments, it is money returned to the public purse. Public service is very important but over staffing is at the expense of all Australians, governments do not have money, they manage our money and borrow money in our name and we pay the interest and other costs.


          Report this

          40

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Actually I think it’s more like $9,800 per head.

      Based on the level of $227billion borrowings out of the permitted public borrowings limit of $240 billion, which wasn’t enough for Labor even though they claimed this year there would be a surplus. See the (very) small print in the budget. They wanted another $25 billion (just in case?).

      The difference is from the “off balance sheet” items, such as the National Broadband etc.

      Still it’s only (your) money.

      I think that Julia will be favourite for the title of “Australia’s worst PM” even though you (KK) might disagree, but in sporting parlance Wayne birdbrain is the only horse in the race for “Australia’s worst Treasurer”..


      Report this

      10

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi Graeme,

        That was just an off the top of my head estimate and thanks for the more accurate figures.

        Also true I may be tempted to put Whitlam ahead of Jules but man it’s hard to pick it, they are both such strong contenders.

        As for Wayne he has done very well to get $227 billion plus the initial surplus that was left (was that $20 bill?) out to the places it was needed most and is no doubt a very popular bloke in some quarters.

        How can we not have them arrested for this?

        KK :)


        Report this

        00

      • #
        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Wow

          They sure are good at it.

          kk


          Report this

          00

        • #
          ExWarmist

          A simple per capita split is incorrect.

          The debt can only be honestly paid back by productive work, and the number of people in Australia that are Net Value Producers (NVPs) who produce a surplus of value beyond their own consumption, is, I strongly suspect, less than 50% of the actual population, and with an aging demographic the proportion of NVPs will continue to shrink until the Baby Boomers, as a population cohort, are passed through our community.

          The dishonest pay back options are default and hyperinflation where the economy gets smashed (temporarily) and the creditors take a big loss.

          There is also the option of never paying it back, and instead moving into a perpetual debt trap where the Australian population is broken on the wheel of excessive, unpayable debt, where we are left with a bare subsistence while any value over and above what we need to live in poverty is extracted from our economy by off shore creditors. (But of course, this technique perfected on third world nations, could never happen here…/sarc)


          Report this

          20

  • #
    Myrrh

    Glad to see you back, Jo.

    “Democracy” is, I think, promoted by some in the US as a distraction from what the US really has, which was the thousand years or so of Common Law from Britain in their Constitutional Republic:

    V UNWRITTEN, COMMUNITY-WIDE PRINCIPLES, WHICH SUPPORT BRITAIN’S CONSTITUTION

    1) Your rights and liberties are your birthright.

    They are not the gift of government, and government has no right to take them away. Government exists not to give us freedom but to protect our freedom.

    http://www.britsattheirbest.com/freedom/f_british_constitution.htm

    Bush with his Patriot Act and Obama with his, gosh, what can be said about his understanding of the US Constitution? He’s supposed to have studied and taught it, but it appears he was taught some something else as he has the wrong end of stick on the very basic principle premise.

    But if some in the US are having a very difficult time trying to get people see that their constitution is being trashed, and most don’t help by confusing the issue with their own personal beliefs extrapolated, how do you in Australia get back your due rights and liberties under Common Law?

    In Britain it’s also a struggle, Common Law is the still the only law of the land and police should know the difference between “law” which refers only to Common Law, and “statute law”, which are acts of parliament and so on, but they are being trained as “police officers”, henchman of the Corporation UK which is working to actively suppress Common Law.

    It wasn’t all plain sailing in the thousand years of so of establishing Common Law, but I think this is our biggest battle to date, to keep it from being hidden entirely.

    We really do need to get back to the basic premise, to make it so well known that statutes infringing on our rights wouldn’t get passed.

    There are ‘ancient rights and liberties’, ‘undoubted rights and liberties’, ‘the rights and liberties asserted and claimed’, and ‘the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom’. Clearly the people knew these ancient rights and liberties so well they didn’t have to spell them out.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Steve C

      “They” are beginning to notice the Free Men On the Land, lawfulrebellion and others. Check DMBM512750 from HMRC on how to deal with “obscure responses from customers”, which sends the front desk staff scurrying off to (redacted) internal offices when they receive anything more threatening than “Yes, Sir”.

      But you’re quite right. Your rights and liberties are your birthright. And that puts the fear of God in them, lest too many of us realise it.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Richard Schaefer

      Obama has a very good understanding of the U.S. Constitution. He understands that he has to get rid of it to achieve his ultimate goal of nationalising the U.S. and aiding the rise of a global Govt. The real problem is that he just another useful idiot and, knowingly or not is aiding in the rise of a world caliphate. The most recent rumor(?) is an executive order that will impose SOPA like restrictions on information exchange and give the Govt. a strangle hold on freedom of speech. This will, undobtedly be attributed to a need to stop people from maligning Islam and Allah as in the ridiculous video that has been blamed for the attacks on us consulates world wide and the murder of our citizens in Libya.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Richard Schaefer,

        Obama is much as you said. However he’s really on a mission to cripple his country’s ability to “oppress” the rest of the world. He’s the last anti-colonialist. That’s his mission. All else is a side issue unless it fits into what he’s dedicated himself to do.

        Should you doubt his real motivation I recommend reading his book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER, and then the book, THE ROOTS OF OBAMA’S RAGE by Dinesh D’Sousa.

        And the headline on my home page this morning reads

        Obama within reach of 2nd term

        And he just may be…

        …intelligent by all the evidence, shrewd, determined and dedicated, as dedicated a fighter for what he wants as I’ve ever seen…and it’s all wasted in an utterly amoral man with no scruples whatsoever…a narcissist of monumental proportions…a shameless liar (provable)…a man without a clear vision for anything but carrying out his father’s failed crusade…a man faking his way through life and his presidency…an empty and failed human being…and probably the most dangerous man in the world. And he has the support of very powerful people. America does not know what’s just around the corner.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      “Democracy” is, I think, promoted by some in the US as a distraction from what the US really has, which was the thousand years or so of Common Law from Britain in their Constitutional Republic:

      Myrrh,

      Exactly as you said. Most think this is a democracy yet they don’t understand either democracy or republic. If they did they would prefer a republic and would guard what they have much more closely.

      But we’ve failed in many things and now we pay the price, not just in America but around the world. Tyrants have taken advantage of every open door. And it’s now nearly impossible to lock those doors again.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    As Thomas Jefferson said: “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that you will not need it until they try to take it away”. (ie: When the Founding Fathers foresaw tyrants, they were worried about the domestic kind, not foreign.)


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Cole Pritchard

    Great to see you back up and running Joanne!


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Barry

    I find it disappointing that so many ‘mainstreamers’ (people who are not leftists) refer to there being free speech in Australia, as this is most definitely not the case.
    Here are some of the things that curb political freedom of speech in Australia:
    1. Judges can sue for defamation if someone criticises their decisions;
    2. The federal government is of course going to create a media censor. And the important thing to remember is that these things are meant as a threat. They are as much about discouraging you from expressing opinions as they are about punishing you for your opinions;
    3. The Left introduced vilification laws to shut down debate on immigration;
    4. The Australian Electoral Act requires that any comment that is likely to influence the outcome of a federal election (in other words, any comment at all about federal politics) must be accompanied by the name and address of the person making the comment. The main reason I don’t have a blog is that I know that hate-filled leftists will target my person and my property for my views. Don’t believe it: that’s why the ACT changed its electoral act so that only a name need be provided. And just look at what the Left did at rallies held by One Nation in Queensland: bashings and the throwing of urine-filled balloons at people attending the rallies;
    5. Then there is the ostracising of people who do not conform with the ‘party line’. Just look at how the government uses its funding to reward those who support its global warming alarmism and exclude those who do not.
    But there is another reason we don’t have freedom of speech, and this reason transcends all others: it is that while the Left actively censor us the Liberals are too cowardly to do anything about it. Howard had 11 years in which the roll back the Left’s social agenda, and he did next to nothing. Even though he had control of the Senate (something that is unlikely to happen again for a very long time) he did not use the opportunity to remove section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. And just look at how it is being used today as a tool of censorship – AS WE ALWAYS KNEW IT WOULD, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE REASON FOR IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
    Which Liberal state governments have rolled back their vilification laws? NONE.
    The cause is lost. The Left have won. This country is ruined.


    Report this

    80

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      Thank you Barry, for saving me the effort.

      My son started high school in the latter half of the Howard years. In his first year the “history” component of his social studies consisted of a 40 something page photocopied document. The first three pages were not about aboriginals. They covered “everything else”. The rest of the document was a diatribe against the “crimes of the filthy white invaders”. Five years later nothing had changed.

      WA has had a “conservative” government for a while now. Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” is still being shown as a “documentary” in schools there. Ditto for NSW, VIC and QLD which now all have “conservative” governments.

      Representative democracy in Australia ended when Menzies retired in 1966. Since then our parliaments have been full of pigs whose only aim in life is to keep their snouts firmly in the feed trough. It is said that one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. For nearly 5o years Australians have been electing alternating LIB/LAB/NAT governments and expecting things to change.

      .
      Talk of the “right to free speech” or any other “right” for that matter, is meaningless for people who have no way of enforcing these supposed “rights”. There are only two ways for people to enforce their claim to these “rights”. The first is legal redress, which can only exist under a system of Rule By Law. The second is by Force Of Arms when Rule By Law is supplanted by Rule By Might.

      Rule By Law died in this country when the Ruling Class granted themselves the power of Retrospective Legislation, whereby at some point in the future something one did yesterday which was perfectly lawful at the time, can be nonetheless declared a crime.

      The opportunity to oppose Rule By Might with Force Of Arms was stripped from this country when the civilian population was disarmed.

      John Howard and the Liberals were responsible for both.

      .
      Possibly the greatest misquote of all time is the line that goes:

      The pen is mightier than the sword.

      It is only half a quote. The full quote is:

      Under the rule of men truly great,
      The pen is mightier than the sword.

      .
      We no longer live “under the rule of men truly great”.
      The pen (free speech) is no longer mightier than anything.
      .
      And the other side have all the swords.


      Report this

      171

      • #
        Mark D.

        And the other side have all the swords.

        “Free speech” is a worthless notion once you give up the ability to fight and retain it.

        One must be completely mindful of that reality before they can be qualified as “pro democracy”.

        So many leftists try and fail this test and therefore cannot be “pro democracy”.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    pat

    as an informal voter, i was sad, but not surprised, Anders Holmdahl lost his case. hope he does carry on the fight. until there are politicians worth voting for, i don’t see why i have to attend the polling booth in order not to be fined:

    23 Sept: Yahoo from ABC: Candice Marcus: Minchin backs man’s compulsory vote fight
    A man who has lost a Supreme Court challenge against Australia’s compulsory voting system says he plans to take his legal fight to the High Court.
    Anders Holmdahl, 65, has argued voting at federal and state elections is a right, not a duty…
    A full court of three Supreme Court judges has unanimously dismissed his appeal.
    Mr Holmdahl said that was to be expected but his fight would continue…
    “We are actually contesting the meaning of the word vote, which is a free choice.
    “The constitution gives the citizens the free choice. We don’t have that at this stage. Compulsory voting is definitely unconstitutional and even the electoral provisions doesn’t really tell people to vote, just to turn up at a polling station, but if you don’t do that you are prosecuted and fined.”
    Mr Holmdahl has argued adults should have freedom to choose.
    “What is the difference by putting in a blank vote, as 730,000 people in the last federal election did … [and] not turning up at all? The result is exactly the same,” he said.
    “I do believe we are getting a bit like a totalitarian state here at the moment. Why shouldn’t we be treated as adult people and make a decision if we want to vote or not?
    “Since 1924, hundreds of thousands of people have turned up at the polling booth only because they want to avoid a fine and [they] have no interest, no real knowledge of what they want to vote for.”
    He said he had found much support for his view across Australia…
    Former Liberal senator Nick Minchin attended the Adelaide hearing to lend support to the legal challenge.
    “I’ve always said that compulsory voting is an infringement of the democratic rights of Australians, so I’m delighted this case was brought to court,” he said.
    “I’m sorry that the matter has been dismissed at this level, but I hope it will be taken to the High Court.
    “I think the Commonwealth Electoral Act’s requirement on Australians to vote, whether they want to or not, is wrong and I think it should be tested in the High Court.”
    http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/article/14941151/minchin-backs-mans-compulsory-vote-fight/


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    the smugness of this Fitzgerald guy, who writes a column 3 times a week on anything and everything, is disgraceful:

    30 Sept: Stockton Record Calif: Michael Fitzgerald: Believe it or not, climate change is a reality ag must face
    In the past few days, the media reported that climate change threatens Valley crops. What is interesting about this is most Valley farmers don’t believe in climate change.
    Farmers are realists; but most Valley farmers reject (what I believe to be) global warming reality. Something in the Valley’s conservative mindset impels them to.
    “The climate does change,” said cherry grower Bruce Fry. “It’s not, in my opinion, because of humans. Look what volcanoes can do.”
    Fry does not believe greenhouse gases are causing the greenhouse effect. Rather, he believes the Earth’s vast weather cycles bring changes naturally.
    It doesn’t change his mind that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has warned Valley farmers to prepare for climate change by finding warmer-weather crops.
    “The problem is I don’t trust Uncle Sam,” Fry said…
    Nor does it persuade him that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree the Earth is warming.
    The state Department of Water Resources, for example, said spring runoff has declined 10 percent over the past 100 years; double that in recent years.
    A recent University of California, Davis, study found Valley “chilling hours” – cold temperatures required by many crops (including cherries) – have declined up to 30 percent.
    “Usually there’s two sides to the scientific data, too,” Fry said. “Just like in statistics, you can manipulate that one way or the other.”
    ***Fry has been keeping records of chilling hours back to the 1990s. His data shows no warming trend.
    ***”This year we had a beautiful crop,” Fry said.
    Global warming denial would seem to set Valley agriculture up for a huge fall. Ag needs to be preparing for climate change by testing warmer-weather crops, finding new chemicals and devising new water policies.
    So why deny?
    Of course, reasonable people can disagree; climate skeptics may be right. But I believe they are wrong, and more, that their wrongness says something about the Valley.
    “Conservatives tend to be individualists,” writes Chris Mooney, author of “The Republican Brain,” “meaning, essentially, that they prize a system in which government leaves you alone. …”
    Global warming implies free market failure. It implies dumb, heavy-handed Uncle Sam must intervene with regulation. It means leftist environmentalism…
    Moreover, conservatism appeals to people who, by definition, resist change, Mooney writes.
    So conservative’s psychological and political leanings cause them to reject facts that, if accepted, would change the world in ways they see as deeply wrong.
    How does this work?
    Our beliefs exist in a web, said Ray Rennard, associate professor of philosophy at University of the Pacific. Most beliefs exist in logical relation.
    “But the web is broad enough that there can be inconsistent beliefs,” Rennard said.
    When incompatible beliefs are brought to the fore, cognitive dissonance – holding conflicting opinions, beliefs or values – occurs, and must be resolved.
    There are ways to do this.
    “One of them is to deny,” said Rennard. “Another is, … we seek evidence that confirms our beliefs. We ignore evidence that disconfirms our beliefs.”
    Bias confirmation requires a “feedback mechanism,” someone or something that affirms a person’s bias.
    In this context it’s interesting to note that earlier in 2012, The Union of Concerned Scientists studied 40 Fox News segments on global warming.
    The scientists found 37 of the 40 segments – 93 percent – misleading.
    None of this is to discredit Valley farmers. On the contrary. They created a world-class farming region. They did so in part by being remarkably adaptive.
    Ultimately, I believe, they will accept the evidence – especially when it hits their pocketbook. Probably they will innovate in a way that sets the standard for the world. Perhaps all humans stumble along with thought processes inadequate to the complexity of the world. But the specific weaknesses define different groups. In the Valley, people hate inconvenient truth.
    http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120930/A_NEWS0803/209300317


    Report this

    23

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      I would back the farmers, they are out there every day checking.

      Fitzgerald’s use of the term Climate Change is a dead giveaway, he thinks it is going to warm up in the near future. From what I can see, and I bet those farmers are even better informed, the next 30 years will show cooling, not warming.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Beth cooper

    Welcome back, Jo. Appropriate that yer thread is about freedom of speech,crucial ter the open society anathema to its enemies!


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Wayne, s. Job

    That was a beautifully written piece from a thinking person centuries ago that just about sums up our government in a nut shell. The next question is they are doing identical stuff against free speech now they got over it then, but violent civil war is out is this time, so what the hell do we do about it, I’m convoyed out. Some few hundred thousand ordinary Australians camping on the lawns and blocking all access to parliament would most likely do it. Start the ball rolling and set a date Jo. Summer time is good so soon would be good, I’m up for it.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Anton

    Don’t forget John Milton’s Areopagitica in the 17th century as a milestone in advocacy for free speech either.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anton

    http://ezralevant.com/2012/09/warning-mind-your-free-speech.html

    Warning (not warming!) from England about the fragility of free speech, posted on the blog of a Canadian hero of this issue.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    michael hart

    The last resident in The Tower [of London] was Rudolph Hess. So perhaps us other “climate deniers” ought to button-our-lips, and be more cautious about making un-approved journeys in European air-space.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Lars P.

    Welcome back Jo! It is so good to hear your voice again!


    Report this

    10

  • #

    Jo,

    It is good to see you back in action again!

    I find it hard to believe that the majority of Australians would sit idly by while their basic civil rights were stripped from them. Doesn’t the Australian Constitution have a provision that guarantees freedom of speech? Forgive my ignorance but I am wondering if Australia possesses the American equivalent of the First Amendment to our Constitution? If not, I hope this attempt at blatant censorship culminates with a guarantee for all Australians of a right to free speech.

    Finkelstein strikes me as being a political Frankenstein. What a monster!


    Report this

    82

  • #
    Mark

    Eddy, I think both our countries are experiencing the same malaise.

    Over your way there seems to be any number of statists who refer to your Constitution as a “living document”. What they mean by that is that everything in it is up for perpetual discussion until they achieve their objective – a socialist state.

    So, not much different here. Socialists just ignore what few protections exist in our Constitution knowing that the only redress is a hideously expensive battle in our High Court that few can afford to wage.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Over your way there seems to be any number of statists who refer to your Constitution as a “living document”.

      They don’t even do that anymore. They just ignore it altogether. If it’s in the way, kick it aside and go on anyway.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Philip Bradley

    Jo, Google is no longer finding your site. I suggest you contact them and give them the new URL details. I can’t say whether they will act on this information.

    I also suggest you update your wikipedia page to have a clear link to your new site.

    regards


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Myrrh

    I came across this page while looking for Common Law in Australia. Harrowing: AUSTRALIA: DENIAL OF JUSTICE IN THE APPLE ISLE
    http://www.intmensorg.info/australia5.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    1 Oct: SBS: What about your ‘carbon pawprint?’
    People around the world are worrying about their carbon footprint. But what about their furry friends’ carbon pawprints?, Guy Pearse from the University of Queensland asks.
    Guy Pearse receives funding from UQ for his fellowship.
    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1697601/What-about-your-carbon-pawprint

    1 Oct: The Conversation: Guy Pearse: What about your carbon pawprint?
    The ecological consequences of pets are significant when you consider the land needed to produce the energy and resources required for a large dog are equivalent to that of a four-wheel drive Land Rover; a medium dog is equivalent­ to a VW Golf. Or so say Brenda and Robert Vale, authors of the provocatively titled Time to Eat the Dog. Among many reason­able observations they note that we face real problems “when everyone starts to have a big car, big house, big family and a big dog”…
    http://theconversation.edu.au/what-about-your-carbon-pawprint-9878

    Guy Pearse
    A former political adviser, lobbyist and speechwriter, Guy grew up in Townsville and was educated at James Cook University (BA Hons), Harvard (MPP), and the ANU (PhD). He was a member of the Liberal Party for 19 years and worked for various Liberal politicians including former environment minister, Robert Hill. He has been government relations and policy adviser for numerous industries and environmental organisations, and a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office. While studying at the Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Business School in the mid 1990s, Pearse also worked on the advance staff of then US Vice President, Al Gore…
    His thesis became the basis for the “Greenhouse Mafia” episode of ABC’s Four Corners in February 2006…
    http://theconversation.edu.au/profiles/guy-pearse-14019


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    btw jo, it’s true google isn’t showing your homepage url at top of their results, but instead shows various older pages.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    The site has been moved again overnight and some people may notice a much faster performance today (I am!). But it means that some people are struggling to get in (eg Tony Cox, who rang me) — there seems to be some problem with domain name transfers to various servers. Some are not yet serving up the latest address.

    Also we switched off the bots for the moment – the bandwidth graphs are suprisingly high despite the lower than normal traffic and even without bots. Probably the google search will sort itself out in a day.
    Thanks for your patience, and thanks, especially for all the skilled help and work of Andrew B and Ashley.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Bob Malloy

      Regarding some people having trouble getting in, when you first got the site up and running again,it was taking me two or three attempts to get in. Since earlier today that problem does not seem to happening for me anymore.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    jaytee

    Welcome back, Jo. Where’s Janus when you need him?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    jaytee

    Where’s Janus when you need him?

    Or Junius, of course. I hate computers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    fourth try to post:

    lots of trouble opening your site jo. took an hour to get this page up. comments are posting way off the time they were posted as well.

    from a popular finance website in the UK, read all:

    29 Sept: ThisIsMoney.uk: TONY HETHERINGTON: Our home has been put at risk by investing with a carbon credit cowboy
    Like other scam carbon credit investment companies, CCC has been a disaster for investors. For you, the result is particularly serious – you could lose your home. These firms entice investors with the tale that giant industries need permits to spew carbon into the atmosphere. They explain that through connections to forestry schemes or similar green projects, they have carbon credit certificates to sell.
    What they do not tell you is that there are two types of credit – certified and voluntary. Big businesses hold certified credits. No prizes for guessing that small investors are stuck with the almost pointless voluntary credits, and a tough time trying to turn them back into cash.
    But CCC excelled itself, even by the standards of its rip-off industry. It took your money but failed to deliver the carbon credits. Instead of making £17,500, you stood to lose your stake…
    And last April, I reported that CCC had attracted complaints from Visa, Aviva, Barclays and HSBC. CCC had used their logos without permission, suggesting they had invested in its carbon credits.
    The real problem is that carbon credits are a recent invention, not covered by investor protection laws. Anyone can call themselves a broker. There is no ombudsman, and definitely no compensation scheme.
    Perhaps our legislators could take time off from their busy schedule of saying sorry for past sins, and abusing police officers, and find time to plug this gap in the law. Or would this be a step too far?
    http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-2210464/TONY-HETHERINGTON-Our-home-risk-carbon-credit-cowboy.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    29 Sept: The Reference Frame: Lubos Motl: Gore’s investment firm: no green investments
    Al Gore has repeatedly said that he was putting his money where his mouth is. However, it was just revealed that in the real world, Al Gore is stealing the money where almost every green criminal steals them, and he is putting them where almost every rich person or investor puts them. Be sure that these two places are very different from one another…
    Bill Gunderson, the president of Gunderson Capital Management, has looked at the portfolio of Al Gore’s investment management firm, Generation Investment Management. In fact, you can look at the list yourself; it’s at the SEC website…LINK…
    You may check every individual company listed over there – I haven’t done so but Gunderson claims that none of them is concerned with carbon reduction or alternative energy sources. In particular, none of the companies produces solar panels, wind turbines, or biofuels. Instead, what you find are mundane commercial real estate, biotech, and healthcare companies, aside from Amazon, Procter and Gamble, Colgate Palmolive, Polypore (whose stocks they doubled: production of membranes for batteries and filters), and others.
    In general, the green companies were never promising or profitable by themselves. They have always relied on subsidies and distortions of the markets guaranteed by corrupt or just plain stupid politicians controlled by special groups such as the group around Al Gore. But even the subsidies are dropping and Al Gore, or at least people in his company, know it very well…
    I wonder whether during one of the future “climate reality days” that Gore organizes, he will reveal the reality of the climate’s absence in his investments.
    http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/gores-investment-firm-no-green.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    There is a decent book about John Wilkes, entitled “John Wilkes: the Scandalous Father of Civil Liberty”, by Arthur H. Cash. I’d say that it’s a heck of a lot better than its title, but a little bit less good, perhaps, than its subject really deserves. John Wilkes springs to mind all too often, now. When Cash wrote his book, it resonated in all sorts of ways in the Britain of Blair and (especially) of Brown. When the US Department of “Justice” goes after Gallup for accurately reporting opinion polls, we badly need a new Wilkes, who can be cloned in every English-speaking country.

    I can’t remember, without checking, how John Wilkes Booth was related to the great John Wilkes, but I’m pretty sure I know to which of the two the eco-fascists have the greater affinity.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    Just adding one thing… William Hogarth, possibly my favourite artist, surely the greatest visual polemicist who has ever existed (Alexander Pope and Juvenal in paint) was decidedly a defender of liberty, but he really loathed Wilkes – I don’t know why. We need a new Wilkes and we need a new Hogarth, but they need to be friends, this time.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    RoHa

    Correction of History.

    ” The Irish voted against the EU so the referendum was rerun, but the British haven’t even had the chance to vote once yet”

    In 1975 a referendum was held on whether Britain should remain in the EU. I remeber it well because I was there at the time and active in trying to get out the “no” vote.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Myrrh

      The Irish voted against the Lisbon Treaty, it was re-run and manipulated to get a yes vote. The police took away ballot boxes and returned them doctored because obviously the people were too stupid to know what they voting for the first time..


      Report this

      00

  • #
    fair dinkum

    Well…..what a turnaround!!!

    I listened to the radio and heard Mr Hockey admit that interest rates under the Labor Government were lower than when he was a cabinet minister. He said it was no accident that Mr Swan had been named the World’s Best Treasurer.

    Mr Hockey went on to praise the Labor Government for getting interest rates down, saying it was an excellent outcome for mortgagees, businesses struggling with difficult trading conditions, and families struggling to pay the infrastructure dividends being ripped off them by Coalition state governments.

    He admitted Mr Swan would be a tough act to follow, particularly when the Coalition has a twice forward estimates budget black hole of $140 billion. He noted that the fact that he did not really talk with the Shadow Spokesperson for Finance, Mr Robb, was not helping the Coalition develope a coherent and comprehensive set of policies. He also expressed concern at Mr Abbott’s habit of casually adding billions of populist expenditure to the Coalition tally. He admitted that he despaired at Mr Joyce, saying that he was just a rural socialist populist who was quite happy to wreck the joint as long as the National’s clients could get some real snout into the trough.

    Mr Hockey admitted that he is amazed that the Labor Government is still determined to achieve a surplus saying that the Coalition would have smashed the Australian economy by recession-engendering cuts and slashes, just like the state Coaltion premiers are doing at the moment.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    TomRude

    Here is what happened in the past few days on Wikipedia:

    Next Fahrenheit 451…
    • The Marcel Leroux English page was deleted under the notability pretext.
    • However, this was from the start an attack against his scientific opinion about Anthropogenic Global Warming as demonstrated by the bursting tirade about “global warming deniers” by William M. Connolley. We certainly put up a fight for all to see, exposing the deletionists true character in face of a genuine document and in doing so, question Wikipedia’s credibility on a now highly political subject, climate. What other subjects are similarly edited resulting in the obfuscation of information?
    • I must point out that in helping create and defending the Marcel Leroux page, I never lowered myself to attack the Wikipedia pages of those I disagree with. I may not have plethora of quotes and medals on my personal page, but as the great Moliere pointed out, it is not the Professor of Good Manners that makes one’s character.
    • 4 years after his death, it is remarkable Professor Leroux scientific contribution still manages to annoy so much the ideologists that they are ready to become grave diggers to erase even the memory of this climatologist.
    Chauffe Marcel!
    ShowTimeAgainShowTimeAgain (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

    You can follow the nasty exchanges at:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WilyD#Leroux

    And see the archived deletion page at:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marcel_Leroux

    If this is not totalitarian revisionism…


    Report this

    01