…
Thanks to everyone who is helping with donations. It is really gratifying to see, and very very useful. – Jo
8.8 out of 10 based on 25 ratings
|
|
||||
|
UPDATE: And the namecalling goes on, days later at the ABC. Who knew the words “order”, “new” and “world” are triggers for conspiracy-theory-psychoanalysis? Yesterday Maurice Newman dared suggest that the real climate change agenda was “concentrated political authority”. I watched his article on The Australian get quickly repeated through the SMH and many other outlets, which wouldn’t always happen. I counted down the hours until Newman was called a “conspiracy theorist” — about 18. I expect Maurice Newman knew exactly what game he was playing today. Like tapping a knee to trigger a reflex, the words “World Government” always provokes outraged mockery and namecalling as if it were against the laws of physics rather than being the banal, obvious desire of a certain part of the population. There’s a reason there’s no hit song called “Nobody wants to rule the world”. Was Newman baiting the gullible fans of a man-made catastrophe in order to get his message spread far and wide? If he was, it was successful. Now it’s up to us to pick up the ball and point out that hypocrisy of the sacred taboo — only a certain class are allowed to discuss “world-government” (that’s […] May 9th, 2015 | Tags: Conspiracy Theorist, Free Speech, Name-calling, Newman (Maurice) | Category: Big-Government, Free Speech, Global Warming, Politics |  Print This Post | | There is no saving our universities. The Lomborg Consensus Centre has been axed in response to pure emotional hysteria. The Abbott government should immediately set up the Centre anyway, make it independent from the universities, which don’t deserve another cent. Bjorn Lomborg, who believes the IPCC science but disagrees with their economics, is too “dangerous” for UWA. Poor petals! He wants to get more environmental and human benefit from government spending — which is a disaster for the Green Gravy train. Lomborg commits the unforgivable sin of failing to feed friends of big-government. So he had to be punished, nothing is more scary that “funding a skeptic”. (See Tim Flannery’s reaction). But ponder how they have overplayed their hand: Lomborg is not a skeptic of the science, the Consensus Centre wasn’t going to write on climate change, and yet, it was unthinkable? ABC news: UWA cancels contract for Consensus Centre headed by controversial academic Bjorn Lomborg The University of Western Australia has cancelled the contract for a policy centre that was to be headed up by controversial academic Bjorn Lomborg after a “passionate emotional reaction” to the plan. There is no free speech in academia, only the illusion […] May 8th, 2015 | Tags: Lomborg (Bjorn), Universities, UWA | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | | UPDATE: So far it’s being called a “shock victory” for conservatives, and a humiliation for Labor. See also ABC UK Election results. Farage not looking likely to win his seat. An election to watch for those concerned that bigger bureaucracy suffocates science. Will the creeping rise of big-government in the West stall? The old party-landscape is quaking in a land where last year 45% of the Scottish voted for permanently not-voting at any more UK Elections. Nearly half the Scots wanted out of the Union — that’s flat out remarkable. Meanwhile, UKIP, which got 3% of the vote in 2010, are now polling at 12%. As with most western nations the main parties have been mirror images of “left” or “more left” and voters get the choice of big or bigger government. Nigel Farage, heading UKIP, is posing such a threat to that system, that in his own seat Labor voters are said to be thinking of voting conservative, just to keep him out. (More evidence that modern conservative parties are often just Labor-lite). Conservatives are thinking of voting against conservatives (see Delingpole below), and Labor are thinking of voting for them. What a difference a UKIP has […] … and those with scientific evidence don’t need “names and addresses” instead. Eh? Two Dutch Arctic Ice researchers were sadly presumed lost last week. You, silly fool, may have thought it was an unfortunate accident in a dangerous profession. Not so, according to “Schatzie” they were viciously murdered by an unlikely cohort of Obama and at least 24 named “climate change deniers”. While “motive”, “means” and “opportunity” are a little thin on — premeditated intent is surely there: skeptics benefit from the PR storm about researchers dying on thin ice… oh wait. Anyway, those responsible for heating the planet are also all murderers, which pretty much narrows down the guilty to anyone who breathes, double for those who drive, and in the end, Mr Al Gore emits a lot of CO2, right? Indeed, blame the Pacific Ocean, it releases more carbon than even Al does. Schatzie is looking for names to add to her list. I ask you to submit the names of known (or even little known) climate change deniers and those responsible for heating up our precious planet. Who is responsible for heating up the planet? I dug deep to find the real culprits: All […] Who knew the opening the door of a microwave oven while it was on could release something like an extragalactic fast radio burst? Astrophysicists at Parkes Observatory didn’t realize for 17 years, then someone noticed these radio bursts only happened in business hours. Was there a consensus on perytons I wonder? h/t Manfred Strange ‘outer space’ signal that baffled Australian scientists turns out to be microwave oven Scientists discover cause of signals detected at Australia’s Parkes telescope, originally believed to come from another galaxy 9.1 out of 10 based on 64 ratings […] Steve Milloy at JunkScience holds the media and EPA scientists up to the same standards they expect from skeptics like Willie Soon. The Headlines are everywhere: ” E.P.A. Carbon Emissions Plan Could Save Thousands of Lives, Study Finds “— NY Times And the media go out of their way to make sure everyone knows what independent angels they are: Peer-reviewed, non-partisan academic study finds that the EPA emissions rule will save thousands of lives (Lindsay Abrams) — Salon In most articles the study authors were just researchers from Harvard and Syracuse Uni, who declare “they have no competing financial interests”. Milloy wonders if $31 million in EPA grants could be a competing interest? Five of eight authors are paid grants by the EPA. Below are listed the article’s authors and the dollar amounts of EPA grants with which they are associated as principal investigators”: Charles T. Driscoll: $3,654,608 Jonathan J. Buonocore: $9,588 Jonathan I. Levy: $9,514,391 Kathleen F. Lambert: 0 Dallas Burtraw: $1,991,346 Stephen B. Reid: 0 Habibollah Fakhaei: 0 Joel Schwartz: $31,176,575 Now how could Schwartz’s $31,176,575 or Levy’s $9,514,361 or Driscoll’s $3,654,608 from EPA […] Ooh. Here’s a bit of a backdown. Skeptics must be getting to The Guardian. Smile. Mocking skeptics and calling them deniers has somehow failed to win them over, so the Guardian is trying a slightly new tack. This time they pretend to be balanced, and post up a list of “Myths to explode” from both sides of the debate. But don’t bring the ear-muffs, or the ambulances — these bombs are pussy-foot puff balls. The air-drops on alarmist camps are so convoluted they manage to support The Big Fear Campaign even as they try (gently-bentley!) to reign in a few excesses of the believers — don’t mention human extinction, and do remember the world has been hotter before, right? On skeptical “myths”, nothing has changed but at least they’ve stopped the namecalling (Bravo!). But it’s hard for author Hannah Devlin — she even serves up a new myth to try to squash an old one. The rate of global warming is apparently “unprecedented”, as in one-degree-in-a-century has never ever happened before, not once. How likely is that we could know the rate of global temperature swings to a tenth of a degree back in the days of dinosaurs and at […] Guest Post By Tony Thomas* A keen student, I have just completed Week One of John Cook’s MOOC at Queensland University: “Denial 101x – Making Sense of Climate Science Denial.” A MOOC is a Massive Online Open Course, and Cook’s course has 13,000 students so far. He is a Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University and author of the notorious 2013 study purporting to find a 97% climate consensus in the science literature. One normally gets a buzz from study. But my brain needs a shower and scrub to feel clean again. I was not intending to write about my studies so early, in case that got me prematurely expelled. But one week of it is enough. For example, in case I forget elements of Cook’s denialist ideation, he provides an acronym FLICC. This covers Fake experts, Logical fallacies, Impossible expectations, Cherry picking and Conspiracy theories. Worse is in store. Cook says, “Next week’s interviews are equally exciting, as we speak to Phil Jones from the University of East Anglia…” Jones is the author of “pretty awful emails” (his words) in Climategate. Other stars in the Cook course firmament will be Michael “Hockey-stick” Mann and […] Wind Turbines around 7 times more expensive than Direct Action You would have to be bonkers to use wind turbines to reduce CO2. The Australian RET Review estimates that the cost of reducing CO2 via wind power is $32 – $72 per ton of CO2 avoided, which means it’s far more expensive than the Direct Action plan, which costs $14 per ton. Peter Lang is concerned the real story is even more costly than that, because it appears the RET Review does not account for the way wind turbines become less effective as they supply a larger portion of our electricity grid. The gas and coal generators get less efficient and they ramp up and down and burn fuel on standby, trying to cope with the fickle supply from the wind. The study of the Irish grid shows that nearly half the CO2 savings of wind turbines disappear as rest of the generators on the grid burn more fuel per unit of electricity. From my reading of Peter’s submission the real cost is more like $80 – $100/ton. The Australian Parliament is seeking submissions to the ‘Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines’. It closes Monday. Peter Lang has submitted a […] May 2nd, 2015 | Tags: Lang (Peter), Renewable Energy, Wind Power | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | | There’s a message here to politicians from marketers: Grow a spine, stand up for something sensible Martin Daubney on Breitbart describes a new form of internet-era marketing. Companies that put out provocative ads predictably get attacked by the holier-than-thou. But if they stand up to the thought police, they suddenly find themselves in the middle of a social media war and at the winning end. Because they didn’t cave in to the PC, they get thousands of passionate defenders online, lots of new customers, loads of free PR, and the “wave” breaches the social media world and spills into the mainstream. For example, Protein World got attacked for an ad with women in bikini’s. They didn’t pull the ad under the condemnation from the usual quarters; instead they baited the “Offendotrons” with a parody twitter pic of a beached whale “Are you Feminist Body Ready?”. In response to the furore, Protein World has “added 20,000 customers and driven revenue in excess of £1 million – in the last four days alone.” Likewise, BarberBarber, which does men’s haircuts, banned women from its premises. It got death threats, but sales are booming, there are queues to use it, and new branches are […] |
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets
   
 
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2024 JoNova - All Rights Reserved |
||||
Recent Comments