JoNova

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


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Pushing back the Deep State? US Supreme Court may be able to stop politicians fobbing off big decisions to the EPA

The Deep State gets around congress and voters but we all know it isn’t supposed to be that way

John Locke, two Treatise on Government, Book.

The voters may not like the decisions, but they can’t vote out the bureaucrats. Think of the EPA, the FDA, and of course, the central bankers. Think of the Clean Air Act!

Some of these agencies effectively make the guidelines that we-the-people have to live by, then they enforce them, and adjudicate them too. They become defacto Kingmakers in their own fiefdoms. They are the fourth branch of government, also known as The Deep State.

But what feels wrong, may indeed be wrong, and it’s possible the Obama era Clean Power Plan could be repealed if it is deemed to breach the NonDelegation Doctrine, and there is renewed interest in this now that Brett Kavanaugh is in the Supreme Court. (No wonder some tried so hard to get him out).

The nondelegation doctrine is centuries old, and implicit in not just the US but all written constitutions that impose a separation of power. Here’s the wikipedia entry:

The origins of the nondelegation doctrine, as interpreted in U.S., can be traced back to, at least, 1690, when John Locke wrote:

The Legislative transfer the Power of Making Laws to any other hands. For it being but a delegated Power from the People, they, who have it, cannot pass it over to others. … And when the people have said, We will submit to rules, and be govern’d by Laws made by such Men, and in such Forms, no Body else can say other Men shall make Laws for them; nor can the people be bound by any Laws but such as are Enacted by those, whom they have Chosen, and Authorised to make Laws for them.

– (Locke 1690. Ch 17, § 94)

An article in E&E argues that no one has used them since 1935, but now with Kavanaugh on the benches, they might. That would rather drop the cat among the pigeons…

Kavanaugh opens door to carbon rule challenge

Niina H. Farah, E&E News

Court watchers say Kavanaugh’s addition to the bench could open the door to a revival of the long-dormant nondelegation doctrine, which prevents Congress from handing off policy decisions to federal agencies.

The return of the doctrine, which the court has not used to scrap an agency rule since 1935, could pose a threat to greenhouse gas regulations, said UCLA law professor Ann Carlson.

“The basic idea is that if Congress hasn’t specifically addressed a question, then for an agency to take up that question and regulate on it — particularly when there has been a relatively large passage of time since Congress spoke — it shouldn’t and can’t do so, at least in expansive ways,” Carlson said.

Litigation over the repeal and replacement of the Clean Power Plan could test conservative interest in bringing the nondelegation doctrine back into play.

Critics of the Obama-era Clean Power Plan have argued that EPA overstepped its authority when it drafted a rule to systematically slash emissions from power plants. Under President Trump, the agency has ushered in the less-stringent Affordable Clean Energy rule and has asked a lower court to find that the 2015 regulation was not allowable under the Clean Air Act (Energywire, Nov. 5).

Wikipedia:   The Nondelegation doctrine

United States

In the Federal Government of the United States, the nondelegation doctrine is the principle that the Congress of the United States, being vested with “all legislative powers” by Article One, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, cannot delegate that power to anyone else. However, the Supreme Court ruled in J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928)[1] that congressional delegation of legislative authority is an implied power of Congress that is constitutional so long as Congress provides an “intelligible principle” to guide the executive branch: “‘In determining what Congress may do in seeking assistance from another branch, the extent and character of that assistance must be fixed according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the government co-ordination.’

Delegation is a question of balance — how do we define what a “big policy” decision is, and what’s a small one?

Jonathan Adler, an environmental law professor at Case Western Reserve University said: “A revival of nondelegation claims doesn’t mean agencies like EPA would be robbed of discretion to act, but that Congress would make the “fundamental legislative choices,”… That could be a good thing, he added.

“Congress could certainly identify criteria on which the regulations would be based, and that’s the way the democratic process is supposed to work,” Adler said.

“The legislature is supposed to be making the big policy judgments.”

There is, maybe, hope in Australia and Canada and NZ … (See wikipedia)

Australian federalism does not permit the federal Parliament or Government to delegate its powers to state or territorial parliaments or governments, nor territorial parliaments or governments to delegate their powers to the federal Parliament or Government, but the states parliaments delegate its powers to the federal parliament by means of section 51 subsection (xxxvii) of the Constitution Act 1901.

 Supposedly “Independent” agencies are also unaccountable agencies

Are all those deep-state agencies independent from political influence, or are they just independent of “the voters”?

Image: Wikimedia in the public domain.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.8/10 (57 votes cast)
Pushing back the Deep State? US Supreme Court may be able to stop politicians fobbing off big decisions to the EPA, 9.8 out of 10 based on 57 ratings

132 comments to Pushing back the Deep State? US Supreme Court may be able to stop politicians fobbing off big decisions to the EPA

  • #
    TdeF

    When Donald Trump is reelected with a majority in Congress, he will have what he did not have in the first two years, a united government. Not a congress packed with RINOs like Paul Ryan who did his best to prevent the Trump administration from doing what they were elected todo. And bitter treacherous Mitt Romney and friends.

    Now the Democrats are so determined to remove Trump, they have utterly given up on due process and there are no high crimes, but Hollywood desperately wants Donald Trump impeached. Geriatric Cher and Streisand are just nuts about it and abusive of the President.

    It will cost the Democrats the Congress and Nancy Pelosi knows it. And her job.

    Then without worrying about reelection, Donald Trump will finally clean the swamp. The FBI have been caught wiretapping the Republican party headquarters on behalf of the Democratic party, doing what Nixon tried to do and for which he was impeached. Comey has been caught. Loretta Lynch too. Clinton gets marks for bravado, given that the list of high crimes and misdemeanours is endless, especially as Secretary of State. Lock her up will start again.

    And what happens in the US will echo around the world. No more man made Global Warming. No more fake climate emergencies. No more limits on fracking, oil and gas exploration and exploitation. And solar panels and windmills will take their rightful place, an unreliable fall back energy source when there is no choice. All cars will go hybrid, because it doubles the world’s supply of gasoline.

    It’s outrageous that trillions have been spent on energy rich first world countries like Australia which have no need at all of solar or wind energy. I would love to see them all shipped to Africa and South America where there is real need, not the UK and Germany and areas where there is plenty of coal and oil.

    What were they trying to do? Save South Australia and Germany alone from Global Warming? In fact Germany would love some warming as they are busy banning Christmas lights. South Australia is even more of an economic disaster than it was last century, a mendicant state of public servants who spend their time successfully trying to stop mining and farming and any economic progress while demanding twice the GST of Western Australia with half the number of people.

    Yes, its about time the Sir Humphrey Applebees of the councils, state quangoes, UN and EU are put in their place. Massively overpaid and unaccountable and irresponsible rulers of their own empires. At our expense. Close them or sell them. That includes the Australian CSIRO, ABC/SBS, BOM, endless Clean Energy corporations and Climate Change departments, and fake universities soaking up public millions. And real universities which have been transformed into businesses chasing public cash, like JCU.

    It’s time to clean the bottom of the cage.

    440

    • #
      Steve of Cornubia

      Stirring stuff, but it basically amounts to an awful lot of ‘gunna’ – this is gunna happen, he is gunna do this or that, the Left is gunna be beaten …

      Don’t get me wrong. I heartily endorse Trump’s mission to ‘drain the swamp’ and despise the anti-democratic actions of the Left/Deep State (essentially the same thing). I am firmly in the ‘sceptics’ camp with regard to AGW.

      But for some years now I have had my spirits raised when a real conservative emerges, or a champion of the Right seems to be getting traction, only to be disappointed when the mighty army of the (it has to be said) very effective and organised Left succeed in beating him/her down, usually aided and abetted by their allies in the mainstream media.

      The current impeachment saga is a case in point. The fact that it has not only kept going through the whole of Trump’s presidency but actually gained steam, despite widespread mockery and (we’re told) a near-total absence of actual evidence amd multiple stumbles, plus apparently feisty put-downs from a few shouty Republicans, suggests that conservatives talk a good fight, but that’s as far as it goes – they fold at the merest resistance or are just ignored.

      The impeachment, the whole AGW scam, Brexit, Trump’s wall, immigration control, Scottish independence, etc, etc. In every case, the Left either wins, or continues to fight until it does.

      110

      • #
        TdeF

        Trump has already done a great deal which does not get in the press at all (no surprise there). I would love to see a summary of all the changes honestly reported, all the red tape cut, the excesses of the EPA. The repealed Pond regulations for example.

        70

    • #
      WXcycles

      All cars will go hybrid, because it doubles the world’s supply of gasoline.

      I agree that should happen Tdef.

      But hybrids are not that efficient, a clean-sheet hybrid design does no better than 35% lower fuel consumption (which is of course great). Many of the rest of the hybrids are conversions from ICE engine models, and are much less efficient (not as small, light or aerodynamic) and get more like 20% lower fuel consumption than the former ICE-propelled model of the same vehicle.

      11

      • #
        TdeF

        I don’t know where you get these figures, as ‘saving’ of 35%. You do realise that as an addition cost this is 50% more to drive a non hybrid.

        Consider the Toyota Camry, “city cycle of 5.7 litres/100 km and highway cycle of just 4.9 litres/100 km”. The amazing figure is that the city cycle is only 20% more than the country cycle. This is the point of hybrids, the difference between city and country.

        The history was “City V6 12-13L/100km. Highway 8L/100km.” The difference was 50% more for city driving, but I guess if you look the other way, that is a ‘saving’ of 33% between city and highway.

        00

        • #
          TdeF

          In fact a hybrid should be no more efficient if you are in the country on flat road. And weight doesn’t matter. It’s all in the amount of braking.

          My heavy V10 does 22 litre/100km in the city, so lucky it is hardly driven. On the open road, 10 litre/100km or better. The key is the mix of city and country driving. It is in the city that the hybrid makes so much sense and halves petrol use.

          For example, I recently went for a 100km country drive with a full tank and a range showing of 400km. When I stopped, the range was 600km.

          So if the world switched to hybrids, the savings would be fantastic where most people live, in the cities and 83% of Victorians live in Melbourne.

          10

          • #
            PeterW

            Not as impressive as you might think, given that cars are not the majority users of hydrocarbon fuels….. and you have to talk about hydrocarbon fuels generally, because there is a reasonable amount of overlap.

            A lot of us are going to stick to more traditional designs for the same reason that Prius’ are not the most common cars on the toad right now. Purchase costs.

            The most cost-effective thing I can do it to keep pouring diesel into my old Tojo.

            10

            • #
              WXcycles

              As the adjacent post of mine shows even a 2020 Hybrid Corolla is more efficient than the 2020 Prius is at this point, but it’s also a lot cheaper too. That trend will continue.

              10

              • #
                Zane

                A test report said the hybrid Corolla uses more fuel on the highway than the standard car. Probably because it’s heavier. So, a hybrid is not necessarily always the best choice.

                00

          • #
            WXcycles

            “… This is the point of hybrids, the difference between city and country. …”

            During the first 20 years Hybrids were certainly not advertised as highway ‘touring’ cars. Hybrids have been sold as city commuters. Almost no one drives small hybrids on long inter-city trips in Australia although they can do it as easily as any other car. I’ve done it many times in different hybrids.

            And there’s in fact not much in it regarding town and highway. And that was not the point of Hybrids, the point has always been the huge difference between a similar ICE engine vehicles and Hybrid fuel consumption in EITHER city or highway driving.

            As shown here.

            2020 Toyota Corrola ICE Engine
            Fuel Economy, City 30 MPG
            Fuel Economy, Highway 38 MPG

            2020 Toyota Corrola Hybrid Drivetrain
            Fuel Economy, City 52 MPG
            Fuel Economy, Highway 53 MPG

            2020 Toyota Prius Hybrid Drivetrain
            Fuel Economy, City 53 MPG
            Fuel Economy, Highway 58 MPG

            https://www.fueleconomy.gov/

            Recent low-power hybrids, when using the most efficient fuel maps are doing that. But even then they’re not using half the amount of fuel as the same ICE vehicle.

            City Corolla
            30 MPG ICE verses 52 MPG HYBRID

            Highway Corolla
            39 MPG ICE verses 53 MPG HYBRID

            As you see, the Hybrid efficiency advantage is actually much less on the open highway compared to in the city. This is why they were sold as super-efficient city commuters.

            But let’s get real, in the real-world Tdef, just ask yourself, “Why do I have a V10?”

            It’s the same reason why people shy-away from buying lower-powered and more efficient hybrid models. They will more likely buy a hybrid that’s got more power, and lower fuel efficiency. And when they do they will run it routinely on the least fuel-efficient engine mapping ‘mode’. They will operate it permanently in the highest performance mode.

            And when they do that the fuel consumption will be nothing like the ‘ideal’ Toyota Hybrid efficiency, when run in the most efficient fuel map eco-mode setting – they will never use it like that. In the real-world a hybrid does not get driven efficiently, they instead get flogged from corner to corner, and get nowhere near half the fuel burn of an ICE car. :-D

            30

  • #
    TdeF

    And the insanity of Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi disappearing down the rabbit hole to impeach Trump before Christmas. Officially for trying to influence the 2020 election, which everyone in America knows is exactly what Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi are trying to do. The wrong people are being impeached for abuse of public office while they block important legislation. It’s too serious to be funny, but it’s also too funny to be serious.

    350

    • #
      Curious George

      I watched the impeachment inquiry in a total disbelief. We have an anonymous “whistleblower” who reported what other people told her/him (technically, a “hearsay”). Mr. Schiff carefully pruned witnesses for defense – I think he only allowed one witness. Rules of evidence were not followed. All this would be inadmissible in a small claims court. An American small claims court has jurisdiction for financial claims up to $10,000 (less in many states). Now we know how the Democratic House values the will of American voters: much, much less than ten thousand dollars. I peg it at one dollar – maybe.

      230

      • #

        Not only that, the ‘whistleblower’ apparently was a Biden staffer during the Obama administration, plus he colluded with Schiff and his cronies BEFORE he/she filed the report. They wanted to make sure it could be spun into a fake impeachment.

        I wouldn’t be surprised that if the Democrats have trouble passing impeachment resolutions, Trump will ask some Republicans to vote for them in order to be sure and get this to the Senate, where fairness can be restored.

        150

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    What this implies, is that politicians seeking advice and guidance from an expert body like the U.S. EPA, must ultimately make the decision, not the advising body.

    In the case of the advice from the EPA regarding the capacity of atmospheric CO2 to cause Global Warming there is another issue, that of incorrect advice.

    When a government body with virtually unlimited access to resources that facilitate “truth finding” cannot find the truth there’s a big problem.

    Most of us here would not be surprised if a scientific inquiry found that CO2 is not a contributor to global warming.

    The fact that real science has not been called upon to condemn the global warming fantasy is a thing of wonder and I truly stand in awe of people who are capable of such incredible manipulation of the U.S. Democratic process.

    KK

    230

    • #
      PeterS

      It goes to show the system is broken. More often than ever before agencies and governments alike are making decisions not based on the facts but on ideologies and emotions. I doubt it can be fixed since that has been repeated many times before over the centuries as nations come and go. We often forget the lessons of the past and keep on repeating the same mistakes. It would help if history was taught properly and more effectively at schools and Universities and made mandatory.

      180

    • #
      Latus Dextro

      Indeed, additions to the Supreme Court who are non-partisan and most legally learned, would be an improvement as it was the Supreme Court that facilitated the delegation of power leading to the greenhouse gas endangerment imposition. Once that is overturned, we may be starting a return to sanity, mindful of the inclination of the corporatist globalist Left to engage in tedious, spurious though troublesome lawfare.

      The UNEP / UNFCCC / UN IPCC global warming, ‘climate change’ ‘fantasy’ was and remains a Trojan horse for UN imposed and administrated globalism. It has been a devious and well executed many layered effort to shackle the prosperity, freedom and independence of the World in general and the West in particular.

      A key step to reasserting the integrity of science and the separation of politics from science is to abolish the endangerment findings of the US EPA.
      On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:

      Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act

      Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

      Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration
      The US EPA denied ten Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings on July 29, 2010.

      Background
      On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. The Court held that the Administrator must determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In making these decisions, the Administrator is required to follow the language of section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court decision resulted from a petition for rulemaking under section 202(a) filed by more than a dozen environmental, renewable energy, and other organizations.

      On April 17, 2009, the Administrator signed proposed endangerment and cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. EPA held a 60-day public comment period, which ended June 23, 2009, and received over 380,000 public comments. These included both written comments as well as testimony at two public hearings in Arlington, Virginia and Seattle, Washington. EPA carefully reviewed, considered, and incorporated public comments and has now issued these final Findings.

      50

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Id read somewhere it was illegal in the USA to levy personal income tax, but the IRS apparently has other ideas…if true, this could be another example?

    20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      It’s too bad the constitution does not forbid a personal income tax as many assert. And consider this, the income tax, even though now riddled with holes that shouldn’t be there is the, fairest tax of all because it’s based only on your ability to pay the tax — earn a dollar pay 10 cents; earn $100 pay $10 dollars, 10% is a useful example.

      All other taxes and there is a ton of them, hit you with a flat amount. A $100 tax is easy for the guy with a big income but it’s a struggle for the guy on minimum wage.

      So I don’t see why those who go around yelling unfair treatment all the time are complaining about the income tax.

      I rest my case.

      80

      • #
        sophocles

        Land Value Tax — what you knew as The Property Tax — is the fairest method of government raising it’s income.
        You pay for what you take, not from what you make. But it needs to be handled fairly. The arbitrariness of how it was levied aided and abetted Prop 13.

        You could find the Menace of Privilege informative.
        It’s quite a good read and makes one much to think.

        11

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          No matter what you do, the minute dishonesty creeps in you have trouble. In America the property tax was always supposed to support local and county government, the entities that provided the services of government that were required because of that same property in the first place. Then they started piling on other things and hung them around the neck of the homeowner because the property tax is always secured by the property being taxed and if you didn’t pay the tax they just took your home and sold it to pay the debt to the tax collector. And they still do. And eventually there was a taxpayer revolt, the only thing left to us when no one paid any attention to the fact that many were in real danger of being taxed out of their homes.

          But I will beg to differ with you and ask, what is so much more fair about being taxed on what you take? In fact, what has property ownership got to do with taking anything in the first place?

          30

        • #
          PeterW

          Soph….

          The value of my land has doubled over the last five years.
          My income has not…… in fact, I have just returned from a visit to my accountant where I learned that for the last two years my average income has been below the poverty line.

          According to your property tax, I would be required to pay additional tax when I have little or no income with which to pay it. This is farming. Income is variable.

          I’m not crying poor, because I have money in reserve and the drought will end…… but how is that tax of yours fair? Tax has ALREADY BEEN PAID on the purchase price of this land, so you are advocating double taxation . How is THAT fair?

          Government does very little to contribute to the value of my land, either…… less than the Local Government rates that are levied on the unimproved value of land. I do not get an equal return in services, for the money I must hand over.

          As a basis for taxation, it’s anytning but fair and right.

          40

      • #
        RicDre

        “It’s too bad the constitution does not forbid a personal income tax as many assert.”

        Prior to 1913, most Federal taxes came from tariffs and excise taxes. The 1894 Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act did contain an income tax provision but it was struck down by the Supreme Court who said that an income tax was a direct tax and therefore must be apportioned to the states based on population. In 1909, the US passed the 16th amendment to the US Constitution that ushered in the Federal Income Tax as we know it today. The text of the 16th amendment: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

        00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          I think the battle between the states and the federal government for the right to tax has been much misunderstood. What demanded that an income tax be apportioned among the states according to population. The constitution demands that the federal government not interfere with the right of the states to levy taxes. Otherwise the federal government could make it hard for the states to support themselves. It’s for that reason that the amount of any state income tax you pay is deductible from income before computing your federal tax for the following year. And if I get a state refund that amount goes back on my federal return as income the following year. The whole thing got made too complicated in my view. Technically, maybe yes you could read it as a prohibition. But it didn’t make sense. It’s just that everyone wants to keep as much of his money as he can. And the supreme court hasn’t always gotten it right. So the 16th amendment was born. I worked with people who were still fighting about it in the 1980s.

          This states rights vs federal government’s rights battle will probably never stop. But we decided we wanted highly autonomous states and a federal government that could do things the individual states couldn’t do as single entities. So we wrote it into the constitution. Good, then stop the fighting and make it work.

          10

  • #
    PeterS

    I take back what I said before. I stated we are a democracy by definition. Now I understand that we are only a weak form of democracy given these tactics by agencies who put in place and enforce guidelines that go against the wishes of not only the people but also the government. So who is really in control of the nation? The government or the bureaucrats? It can be fixed by the government by forcing all guidelines by the agencies to be published before they are enforced. That way if enough public complaints are made to the government the guidelines can be stopped if the government is going to listen to the people. If they don’t listen they know they will run the risk of losing the next election. Now that would be a better form of a democracy than we supposedly already have.

    100

    • #
      Robert Swan

      Who is in control of the nation? That’s easy: nobody. Universal rule. Even applies to dictatorships.

      Of course there are people with more influence than others; they have levers they can pull, but they can’t be 100% sure what will happen when they pull them. Like Max Smart’s car, what they think is the cigarette lighter sometimes turns out to be the ejector seat.

      60

      • #
        PeterS

        You are right. “Control” is not possible if one understands the meaning of the word. What we ought to have though but we don’t is a governmental system that has complete “authority” to enact rules and laws based on the wishes of the public. That’s a completely different issue, and I think that’s the real topic of discussion here and is implied when we use the word “control” even though we should stop using this word in context of our discussions.

        10

        • #
          WXcycles

          BTW, “Control” is who Maxwell Smart was an Agent for, he was an unelected “Control Agent” …

          I’m glad you said this, as I disagreed with you when you claimed we were a Democracy-by-definition.

          This from Jo’s post:

          “‘In determining what Congress may do in seeking assistance from another branch, the extent and character of that assistance MUST BE FIXED ACCORDING TO COMMON SENSE AND THE INHERENT NECESSITIES of the government co-ordination.’

          That is what’s not happening and makes the system dysfunctional. The Control Agents have been allowed to run-amok.

          20

          • #
            PeterS

            Let’s clear things up a tad. We are a democracy by definition but the definition is not detailed enough to define what we ought to have for a properly functional governmental system of the people, by the people and for the people. It’s more complex than just saying we are democracy by definition because we vote for representatives to form government. That assumes the representatives are honest and truthful, and not have told lies when campaigning for election, an assumption that’s been proven to be false more often than not. It also assumes they have the complete authority and power to carry out all their promises, which they don’t.

            20

            • #

              Perhaps it is easier to say what we are not — We are not ruled by a dictator, not serfs to a King or Tribal thug. Neither are we ruled by the people and for the people.

              Weak democracy seems a fair description. But it is still far better than the totalitarian options.

              30

              • #
                PeterS

                Agree. I also think in our form of democracy we can’t do much better since humans are always involved :-) Those who think we can are dreaming. As I keep saying the real problem are the voters not the government. If more voters did their own research we wouldn’t be locked down in a death spiral.

                10

            • #
              PeterW

              A Democracy is one in which the government’ is elected by the people in free elections.

              The rules defining the POWERS of that government, are another matter. That is why we have constitutions.

              10

            • #
              el gordo

              Three tiers of government, the states and feds with senates, what Paul Keating referred to as the ‘unelected swill.’

              How about a benevolent dictatorship?

              20

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      If you read the as of the American Communist Party as recorded in the Florida state hansard in 1963, one paim was giving agencies execitive power, presumably as its harder to remove that power later and can be used in a preditory way without proper oversight to silence opposition.

      If you look at the US EPA, it appears to have a very large stick to achieve the CAGE goals.

      40

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Having a fat finger day…..

        Should read

        “Aims of communist party…”
        “In a preditory way without proper oversight, to silence opposition.”

        30

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Court watchers say Kavanaugh’s addition to the bench could open the door to a revival of the long-dormant nondelegation doctrine, which prevents Congress from handing off policy decisions to federal agencies.

    From my point of view this will upset every bureaucrat’s apple cart in DC. And about time. I’m drooling over the prospect already.

    I hope it does not have the unfortunate side effect of undoing what certain branches of cabinet departments have been doing that have taken the needs of all stakeholders into account before they regulate. The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) is one that considering the complex job of fitting large and small users into the airspace system, has done a decent job and I would worry about what could be passed by a congress much of which is ignorant about aviation.

    On the other hand the EPA is a political organization pure and simple and it almost never makes rules except under pressure from some group with a narrow and probably political motivation.

    120

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Instead of saying rules I should get it right and say policy. There is a difference

      60

    • #

      No wonder that ol’ deep swamp wanted to get rid of Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump and anyone else pro-constitutional checks and balances, Al-Eh-Double-yew, L A W! And watch out for those UN globalist Human Rights Treaties and Conventions, guvernment from afar, dreamed up by an opaque Human Rights Council where the majority of decision makers come from countries with very low civil liberty rankings, like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia and …

      00

  • #
    robert rosicka

    This sort of interference is happening here now , the WA EPA and the Judges that say no coal mine because it undermines the Paris accord .
    Not to mention all the bureaucracy that are getting in the way of prescribed burning of forests .

    100

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      And so we see the UN setting our laws in effect.

      Does WA also have activist judges sympathetic to imposing creeping socialism upon WA?

      70

      • #
        robert rosicka

        Have to ask Jo but she has mentioned the EPA in Western Australia before and they seem to be beyond the judiciary.

        30

  • #

    Bypassing the legislative process was the operating principle of the Obama administration, largely because so much of what he wanted to do would never get past Congress. Political compromise was not something Obama did, it was always his way or the highway, plus he surrounded himself with sycophants who would never challenge him. Although bypassing Congress was also why Trump was able undo so much of the Obama damage as evidenced by the resulting strength of our economy after the restraints were removed.

    It’s time to vacate the Endangerment Finding and this looks like a good way to start!

    90

  • #
    pat

    the DeepStateMSM:

    10 Dec: Yahoo: INTERVIEW – Leaders ‘criminally negligent’ if they ignore climate science, says Al Gore
    by Megan Rowling, Thomson Reuters Foundation
    MADRID: “It is criminally negligent for the generation of leaders in power today to stick their heads in the sand and ignore what the scientists are telling us in ever more dire terms,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
    “We have to stop using the sky as an open sewer for heat-trapping pollution. It threatens the future of human civilisation,” said Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his work to raise awareness on climate change…

    Gore said Swedish teen climate activist Greta Thunberg and millions of other young people “are absolutely right when they say not enough is being done, by a long shot”.
    “They have every right and every justification to demand as loudly as they can that we adopt policies in the world that are worthy of their future,” he said.
    In the United States, the increasingly evident effects of global warming are “leading to demands for change”, he noted…

    Those impacts range from destructive fires in California to droughts in Gore’s home state of Tennessee, flooded farmland in the Midwest and sea level rise affecting cities such as Miami, Norfolk in Virginia and Galveston in Texas.
    As a result, “recently the (political) partisanship has begun to yield a bit”, Gore said.
    Many Republican college students, for instance, want their party to shift its national position toward one of effective action on climate change, the former vice president said…

    U.S. President Donald Trump, a climate change sceptic, has started the process to withdraw his country from the Paris accord – but it cannot leave until the day after the November 2020 presidential elections…
    That suggests any change in U.S. leadership in 2020 could also lead to a rapid shift in efforts to address climate change, Gore said.
    “I am hopeful we will see an opportunity for much more progress, including changes in policy at the national level, next year,” he said…
    He welcomed the emphasis Democratic Party presidential candidates have put on climate change in their campaigns so far, and said if U.S. voters choose a new leader in November 2020, the country could rejoin the Paris Agreement in 30 days.

    “The decision is still in the hands of American voters,” said Gore, ***shod in a pair of black cowboy boots, in an interview in Madrid…

    “Some of the fossil fuel companies are using their wealth and legacy connections with political figures to slow down this transition. That’s got to stop,” he added.
    China also needs to do much more to curb fossil fuel use, by burning less highly polluting coal and ending funding for fossil fuel-powered plants in other countries, even as it boosts renewable energy use, the former vice president said…

    The need for rapid global action is urgent because damage worldwide from extreme weather – from huge downpours to fires, floods and stronger storms – and from rising seas is “all happening much more quickly” than expected, he warned.
    “Mother Nature has become the most powerful advocate for new policies to limit the impacts of the climate crisis,” Gore said.

    ONE COMMENT ONLY AT TIME OF POSTING
    Joseph: So says the FR*UD who couldn’t hack science when he was a student. But leave it to Rooters and Yahoo to give Algore a platform to spew his LIES.
    https://news.yahoo.com/interview-leaders-criminally-negligent-ignore-190640793.html

    80

    • #
      Latus Dextro

      Al Gourdo is such a shyster. The quote below was from Christmas 2017. And he’s still hard at it. Power and money, money and power, absolute corr-uptn of science, ethics and humanity.

      The true mark of a shyster is to take advantage of every opportunity to milk a person for money, and especially when emotions and sympathy run high. Christmas is one of those times. I give you exhibit A, Al Gore’s “Climate Reality Project”. I got this in my inbox this morning.

      60

      • #
        Maptram

        “The decision is still in the hands of American voters,” said Gore, ***shod in a pair of black cowboy boots, in an interview in Madrid.”

        So says Al Gore from Madrid, no mention of how he got there of course. As a former Vice President he would never doesn’t travel cattle class. A day or so ago he was quoted as justifying his travel by saying he has 1000 solar panels on his ranch, and he eats vegan. Doesn’t say what else he does on his ranch.

        And he has been doing such travel for years. In December 2007, shortly after Kevin Rudd and labor won the election, there was a climate change conference in Bali one attendee was Al Gore. It seemed like only a couple of days earlier he was in Norway to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

        40

    • #
      Elgorza Narce

      As far as Mr Gore is concerned…..my name says it all!!

      50

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Al Gore has made a career of being superior to the rest of us so he can say, “You’re getting your life all wrong and the world will suffer for your stupidity unless you do as I say.”

      I guess not enough of us have gotten the message because he’s escalated to, “Throw them in jail who do not do as I say.”

      Someone tell him to look out his window, the world is still here. Yes, in spite of him it is still here. If you asked me to name a more pathetic man I’m not sure could.

      20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        For what it’s worth that’s my idea of a complete loser. He builds nothing but tears down what others have built. He and Ralph Nader should get along fabulously.

        20

    • #
      Zane

      Gore is a four letter word.

      00

  • #
    David Maddison

    It was Obama that had the EPA declare CO2 a “pollutant”.

    https://www.dailysignal.com/2009/12/07/epa-formally-declares-co2-a-dangerous-pollutant/

    80

  • #
    mothcatcher

    Thanks for a very important and very perceptive post.

    As long as Trump survives (and possibly while his Supreme Court appointments endure)there’s a focus for some pushback against agency-driven lawmaking. Unfortunately the trend towards regulations that are imposed outside of the normal democratic scrutiny started a long while ago and has been gathering pace without any raising of the alarm by the people, the parties, or by the media. Maybe we are all too comfortable to notice how subtly our freedoms are being undermined, or perhaps even to care?

    You point out that it is happening outside the USA too, and it sure is. Here in UK we have hugely powerful unelected masters – the European Commission. Two days time, we have a chance to end much of that. It’s not a slam dunk. Could go horribly wrong. Wish us luck!

    130

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      Mothcatcher, as an expat Scot I am appalled by the thought that Corbyn could become PM, with the help of the Commie Scottish Nats. It would be the end of the UK as we know it and, of course, Scotland would have another secession referendum and, this time, it might just succeed. What the Scots who are inclined to want to secede do not realise is that the EU do not want them. They are bankrupt and going downhill rapidly, despite funding from England. There is enough drag on EU finances with the Mediterranean countries without another pauper country joining.

      All will be revealed in two days. I am heading back to Scotland for a month next year. I can only hope for the best.

      80

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Bureaucrats supply jobs for bureaucrats. Things become complicated, with sub-departments, committees and sub-committees, and even separate Commissions. With luck some exasperated Minister will demand the mess to be sorted out, which will be the signal for a new round of co-ordinating Committees and more bureaucrats.

      (from memory) “When the Union Jack flew over palm and pine, and the sun never set on the the British Empire, the Colonial Office managed with 26 clerks and 2 part-time turkish interpreters. By 1959, when the winds of change had been blowing a howling gale for two generations, it required 1800 public servants to administer what was left.”

      Or the example of the Eight Army having fought its way to Tunisia, with a General Staff never exceeding 280 (and usually less) met the First Army just out from garrison duty in the UK, they were astounded to find that their General Staff numbered 17,000 (for slightly less actual fighting troops).

      20

  • #
    A Crooks

    The Reserve Bank. When did voters get the opportunity to decide on the setting up of the Reserve Bank completely independent of voters and Parliament?

    30

  • #
    pat

    10 Dec: Breitbart: Line by Line, A Complete Debunking of the Democrats’ Articles of Impeachment
    by Joel B. Pollak
    Not only did the Democrats back away from charging Trump with bribery, obstruction of justice in the Mueller investigation, campaign finance violations, treason, or any of the other wild claims they floated, but the two articles themselves are fraudulent, based on blatantly false claims of law and fact.
    Line by line, here they are…
    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/10/pollak-line-by-line-debunking-democrats-articles-of-impeachment-against-trump/

    btw I posted plenty of stuff on IG Michael Horowitz’s so-called FISA report on Jo’s “Weekend Unthreaded” post.

    40

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Slightly O/T but illuminating….

    Some people appear to be drunk on the climate kool aid….

    https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-11/matt-kean-blames-bushfires-on-climate-change/11787498

    “Two Liberal MPs have said climate change is the driving force behind 2019′s intense bushfire season.

    “Key points:

    “Two Liberal MPs have directly linked climate change and bushfires

    “The Prime Minister has been criticised for a focus on a religious discrimination bill during yesterday’s haze

    “Former RFS chiefs have called upon the government to do more to address the ‘unprecedented’ crisis.

    “It comes following criticism of Prime Minister Scott Morrison for announcing a religious discrimination bill in Sydney during yesterday’s smoky conditions which plunged the city into a dense haze and at times clocked 11 times over hazardous levels.

    “NSW Energy Minister Matt Kean made the comments on ABC’s Radio National when prodded on whether the Federal Government’s response to climate change was sufficient.

    “”We cannot deny that these fires have been going on for weeks and we need to address the causes of them,” he said.

    20

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      Look, so-called climate change (a nothing term) is a convenient excuse for politicians and others who have not done their job competently, or who are in the thrall of activist groups, or have vested interests in not doing their job properly.

      In the current bush-fire emergency, the politicians have been weak and asleep at the wheel. They know that fuel-load is the major reason for the intensity of the current conflagrations. And, that cool-burns at the right time of the year will massively mitigate the risk. But they lack the courage to do their job and ensure the burns are done. They suck up to green policy. The citizens of the state bear the consequences. How many Royal Commissions does it take to get these incompetent politicians to act responsibly?

      Small and medium sized businesses on the south coast of NSW are having the toughest time in decades. I suspect many will go broke. The tourists can’t get in because the roads have been closed for weeks. The RFA is now doing the burning – massively – that should have been done over the last decade. But it’s too late. There’s just too vast an area that’s been left unmanaged for too long.

      Vote the incompetents out.

      110

      • #
      • #
        PeterS

        Vote the incompetents out.

        Getting harder to do because more and more voters are being fooled into believing their nonsense instead of doing their own research as most of us here have done to reveal CAGW is a hoax and a scam.

        70

      • #
        WXcycles

        How can they do their jobs when there are so many press releases to release? Who’s going to do all the grandstanding adn run the lie mill if they just go back to work and do their proper job?

        10

    • #
      PeterS

      OK then what do they propose we do about it if they truly believe what they are saying? Shut down all coal fired power stations around the world immediately? Kill 90% of humans and animals in the world? How about doing something we can do that will achieve their goal of reducing our emissions “in a canter”. Build nuclear power stations to replace the coal fired power ones. Of course they won’t because they are either clueless or hell bent on crashing our economy; more likely both.

      60

      • #
        el gordo

        The only mob able to drought proof Australia are the Beijing princelings and they would restrict bushfires by getting rid of most National Parks. They would see gum trees as a renewable resource to be harvested, like we did back in the days.

        Lets not beat around the bush, NSW Minister Kean is an idiot and Premier Gladys is a skeptic.

        ‘The Minister went on to say it was what scientists had warned of for decades and politics could not get in the way of winning the “climate wars”.

        This is democracy at work, she will say nothing.

        40

      • #
        WXcycles

        … Shut down all coal fired power stations around the world immediately? …

        You could shut them down for a day to settle whether the coal plants are the real cost and supply stability problem (though of course only a deeply dishonest idiot would ever claim that in the first place, but PF does exist).

        When people ask, “Squire, where’s my Cuppachino?!”. Just gaily inform them the coal plants have been turned-off today as we’re saving the plane. Let them go home and cogitate the implications. No electrons except those they can supply themselves as if they’d just been EMP-ed by greenie-trrist fruitcakes.

        Then hold a national pubic vote on whether coal plants should be henceforth left, ON or OFF?

        Plus a referendum on whether more public money be poured into renewables, YES or NO?

        Or spent on affordable continuous base-load power generation and supply: YES or NO?

        Entire issue sorted in under 2 days.

        20

  • #
    Michael262

    Another irrelevant conspiracy theory to distract the denier flock from the obvious lack of scientific evidence.

    011

  • #
    pat

    Ch 4 a little excited at COP in Madrid. Action! (there are only 2 comments & 1 reply)

    TWEET: Alex Thomson, Chief correspondent & presenter, Channel 4 News UK
    The President of Senegal Macky Sall has just announced the cancellation of the Bargny coal-fired plant, in line with the country’s commitments under the Paris Agreement. Action!
    10 Dec 2019

    COMMENT: why cant the UK gov cancel future funding for fossil fuel/nuclear power stations and invest that money solar panels on every uk house, local power for the local populations.. the equipment would be gov funded & the over supply could go back in local/nation grids

    REPLY: Because no Brit can run their life & society only when the sun shines.
    We’re one of the darkest countries in the world, and solar generates pathetically (at 2% Capacity Factor) when most needed.

    COMMENT: The President of Senegal Macky Sall + his massive entourage of 107 flew to, and will fly back home from, COP25.
    His attempt at virtue signalling is pathetic.
    https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/1204399108422819841

    70

    • #
      RickWill

      and solar generates pathetically (at 2% Capacity Factor) when most needed.

      No it doesn’t. Solar generates zero when most needed. I am confident there would be no sunlight in the UK at the peak of winter demand.

      70

  • #
    David Maddison

    The public serpents, either in the USA or Australia, absolutely do not have the interests of the people at heart.

    On the other hand, a vast majority of politicians are too stupid to have a clue (except President Trump, but he’s not a “politician”).

    80

  • #

    In your typical gritty, realistic Hollywood thriller the monster agency has a rogue faction which needs to be defeated by a gritty realist who still clings to the ideals represented by the monster agency. As the credits roll after two hours of shaky cam and flash-cut action in dark blue murk you are left believing in the overwhelming power of monster agencies…but also in their ultimate good intentions, despite rogue factions.

    In your typical gritty, realistic reality human nature follows its course. The monster agency exists for itself. That’s because it’s full of humans following their human nature.

    The good news is that, contrary to our lifetime conditioning through refuse media, the monster agencies can be defeated by enough people saying…enough! But we can only meet across tables or in true one-to-one exchanges. We can’t be discussing the enemy’s version of events. We have to discuss what we observe.

    Through this fire emergency there has been no warmageddon, just some high maxima, some very low minima, unremarkable wind conditions for spring…but undeniably severe drought over enormous stretches of unmaintained bush. Yes, fire bugs have been active, but there have also been plenty of dry strikes from storms that aren’t quite making it. And this drought is definitely extreme, maybe because of a lot of cold water far away in the Indian Ocean, but also due to factors we still don’t get.

    That’s what we know has been going on. But think of all the giant agencies, corporations, NGOs, branches of government etc now dependent on permanent climate emergency. With a really heavy winter approaching the northern hemisphere can they waste an Australian fire season like this one? Think they’re going to want the drudgery of controlled burns and basic maintenance when the big billions are in green money fiddles and white elephants? Who doesn’t like $444 million for jam?

    It’s up to lots of us, one to one, using our own brains and senses. And if there are enough of us…

    50

    • #
      AndyG55

      maybe because of a lot of cold water far away in the Indian Ocean, but also due to factors we still don’t get.

      The main pockets of persistent cooler water have been above Australia and in the Bight.

      https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/NOAA-SST-small.gif

      40

      • #

        Thanks for that graphic.

        Interesting how context doesn’t seem to matter any more. A masked marauder called Climate Change is supposed to plunge on one region while ignoring others. His appearances are arbitrary and unrelated to anything but “emissions”. Cold water in the north west and far south? Nobody wants their brain teased with such confusing details any more. We just need a flaming red and purple map of the Australian continent to go between Kate-versus-Megan and Latrelle’s next club.

        It’s like a kid on a see-saw wondering why he goes up. With time he realises that it’s because someone or something else is going down. The climatariat and refuse media have made us like that kid before he works things out. A wicked character called Climate Change comes and goes at will. We caused him to be, now we have to make him go away. Send money. Make it a very skimmable $444 million.

        40

      • #
        beowulf

        The Indian Ocean where a lot of our wet weather derives, is out of whack ATM with monsoonal rains still falling in southern India and Sri Lanka only about a week ago when they should already be starting in the Top End by now. Additionally there were 4 tropical lows in the northern Indian Ocean, but they shouldn’t be forming at all by now.

        There has been cold water off WA and near Indonesia for months. All the rain action has been in the northern and western Indian Ocean. The SST is really heating up between WA and Indonesia now, which is a good sign for cyclone formation. It is way above the required temperature threshold, but then so is the water east of PNG. No cloud development south of Indonesia though. A huge blocking high is still pushing everything westwards and there is still a very cold pool to the south of Oz.

        https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/

        10

  • #

    I suppose that there is one good thing about ‘The Supremes’, and that’s how it has revived the art of prayer amongst the Democrats.

    They are all praying like crazy that RBG can stay alive long enough for a new Democrat President to be elected, and maybe, just maybe, that’s why the Democrats are trying so hard to try to influence this next presidential election, and even after 14 of those candidates have pulled out, there are still 15 of them running for President.

    There’s nine of those Supremes, and five appointees are Republican nominated and four Democrat.

    Clinton (2) GW Bush (2) Obama (2) and Trump (2) and GHW Bush (1), and GHW’s Clarence Thomas may have been the best one yet, being the youngest at appointment, only 43 and already serving for the longest time, 28 years now and he’s only 71.

    While the President is the Big Guy at the top, my opinion is that the real power lies with those Supremes, and whoever gets to appoint one of those controls power for a lot longer than the election cycle.

    Incidentally, and this is in reference to the age of some of those Democrats running for President, and with respect to that age thing, this refers to just those members of Congress representing the State of California.

    California has 53 seats in Congress, and two Senators, and the senators are both Democrats and both women.
    46 of the 53 seats (not Senators) are held by Democrats.
    Of those 46 seats in Congress, 29 are men and 17 are women.
    Of those 29 men, four of them are older than 70.
    Of those 17 women, ten of them are older than 70, five of them between Nancy Pelosi’s age, 79, and the oldest at 86.
    There are five other men older than 65 and three other women older than 65.
    California Federal Democrats looks like an Aged Persons Facility

    Tony.

    90

    • #
      RicDre

      “They are all praying like crazy that RBG can stay alive long enough for a new Democrat President to be elected…”

      A good analysis. I will add that the Democrats have a Plan B, pass legislation to increase the number of Justices on the Supreme Court then make sure all of the new members are Democrats (the US Constitution does not actually specify how many members there should be on the Supreme Court; the number of Justices on the Supreme Court was set to nine by the Judiciary Act passed in 1869).

      20

    • #

      And hey! I remember years back now when State Governments here in Oz wanted to move away from three year movable elections (any old time in those 3 years) to four year fixed date terms, and the big selling point was ….. “You know, like they have in America.” And everyone fell for it.

      Federal elections in the U.S. are held every two years. Every member of the House of Representatives is up for election, as is one third of the Senate. So, Senators get six years like here in Oz, but Reps are up for re-election every two years. Only the President gets two cycles or the full four years, so Reps are answerable to the public more often than they are here.

      And two Senators per State, while it works there with 50 States, hence just 100 Senators. Here in Oz, it seems somewhat incongruous that Tasmania gets the same number (12 Senators) as the three Major States (NSW, Qld, and Vic)

      Also, I have been watching the last five elections in the U.S. very closely, and I have a couple of sites I visit, one in particular which I have found more accurate more speedily than the others. I was watching the last election very closely, expecting Hillary to run away with it, as predicted. When some of those States went ‘Red’ like Fla and a couple of the others, I could see Trump having some hope.

      As you know, a huge thing was made of the fact that Hillary won the popular vote, and therefore they need to get rid of that ‘pesky’ Electoral College thingy.

      Watching it so closely as I was, and full in the knowledge that California, way out there on the West Coast was the last to be counted, and was always going to be Democrat, doing the sums on the Electoral College meant that even with California, Hillary was not going to win.

      However, and of most importance, before ANY of those votes came in from California, Trump was well ahead on that popular vote.

      So, if the President is to be elected on the popular vote, then it is all dependent on just ONE State, California, and effectively two of them, as New York is also solidly Democrat as well.

      So, ignore that Electoral College, and just use that popular vote, and the President is then reduced to the result in just one or two States, and the vast population of the U.S. gets ignored from then on, as there is no real point in even bothering with those other 48 States, eh!

      Tony.

      20

      • #
        RicDre

        “So, ignore that Electoral College, and just use that popular vote, and the President is then reduced to the result in just one or two States…”

        Again, very good analysis. One of the reasons the Electoral College was created was to prevent a few big states from determining the outcome of a Presidential election which is why the Party of a Few Big States wants to get rid of it.

        I live in Ohio and the Electoral College gives us a say in the outcome of the Presidential election. Without it our votes would be of little value to the Presidential candidates and few if any of them would even bother coming to Ohio to campaign for our votes. We would then truly be part of “fly-over” country.

        30

  • #
    pat

    10 Dec: UK Independent: Fossil fuel firms ‘could be sued’ for climate change
    Filipino human rights committee finds world’s biggest oil companies have legal and moral responsibilities to act, as Greta Thunberg says children’s rights being violated
    by ***Isabella Kaminski, Madrid
    The world’s most polluting companies could be sued for their contributions to global warming, a major human rights inquiry has found in what has been described as a “landmark victory for climate justice”.
    The head of a Philippines Commission on Human Rights panel, which has been investigating climate change for three years, revealed its conclusions on Monday that major fossil fuel firms may be held legally responsible for the impacts of their carbon emissions.
    The announcement was made by commissioner Roberto Cadiz during COP25 international climate talks in Madrid, which have seen a growing focus on human rights issues.

    The commission was tasked in 2016 by Greenpeace South-East Asia and other local environmental groups whether 47 of the world’s biggest fossil fuel firms – including Shell, BP, ExxonMobil and Total – were violating the rights of Filipino citizens. It held hearings in Manila, New York and London where it heard from scientists, lawyers and people who had suffered from climate-related disasters.
    Its final report, which has yet to be published, will say that these companies have clear legal and moral responsibilities to act, which includes shifting away from fossil fuels and investing in cleaner energy sources.
    Greenpeace Southeast Asia executive director Yeb Saño described the inquiry’s conclusions as a “landmark victory for climate justice”…
    ON TO GRETA
    https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cop25-madrid-climate-change-greta-thunberg-fossil-fuel-lawsuit-a9239601.html

    TWEET: ***Isabella Kaminski, Freelance environmental journalist covering climate justice, green law and policy, London
    Lots of people commenting on my article on how fossil firms ‘could be sued’ for climate change are asking if they could be held criminally responsible too. Well, they might one day if the @EcocideLaw campaign gets its way
    LINK ClimateLiabiityNews.org article by Kaminski, ***”Vulnerable Nations Call for Ecocide to Be Recognized As an International Crime” – 6 Dec 2019
    10 Dec 2019
    https://twitter.com/Isabella_Kam/status/1204403799424716800

    ***excerpts: The Pacific island of Vanuatu has called for ecocide— wide-scale, long-term environmental damage—to be considered an international crime equivalent to genocide.
    At a meeting of the International Criminal Court in the Hague on Tuesday, ambassador John Licht of Vanuatu said the court should consider an amendment to the Rome Statute, which sets the court’s legal framework, that would “criminalize acts that amount to ecocide. We believe this radical idea merits serious discussion.”…
    The court’s authority extends only to the 122 nations that have ratified the Rome Statute, a list that does not include the United States, China, India and Israel…
    Pope Francis has lent his support to the idea of making ecocide a crime, proposing in November that ‘sins against ecology’ be added to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

    30

  • #
    pat

    huh! what leaders are in Madrid? nothing politically partisan here!

    10 Dec: UK Independent: In Trump’s absence, presidential hopeful Bloomberg takes centre stage at key climate summit
    ‘Beating climate change won’t require a miracle, it won’t require limitless resources. It will require leadership and common sense.’
    by Isabella Kaminski Madrid
    Mr Bloomberg, who announced his candidacy for president in November, said he was at the COP25 talks “because Donald Trump is not”…
    US cities, states, tribes, businesses, universities, healthcare organisations and faith groups have forged an unprecedented alliance on climate change in the face of inaction from federal government. The #WeAreStillIn campaign says it represents 158.6 million people across 50 US states…

    One (COP25?) event focused on some of the hundreds of legal actions taken by state attorney generals against federal rollbacks to environmental regulation in the three years since Mr Trump became president…
    The COP25 talks were also attended on Tuesday by former US secretary of state John Kerry, as well as former vice-president Al Gore, who has long campaigned for action on climate change.
    Mr Gore said he wanted to send a message that the vast majority of Americans want the rest of the world to hear: “We are still here.”…
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cop25-climate-change-summit-trump-bloomberg-madrid-2020-election-democrat-a9241066.html

    TWEET: Isabella Kaminski
    There’s no sinister party directive to avoid talking about climate change. But, having spoken to a number of Conservative candidates & their spokesppl, many simply don’t seem to see the subject as a priority and – maybe worse – don’t think their constituents care about it either
    LINK DesmogUK, ***”Election 2019: More than 50 Conservative Candidates Fail to Show at Climate Hustings” by Isabella Kaminski, 9 Dec 2019
    10 Dec 2019
    https://twitter.com/Isabella_Kam/status/1204500568905060354

    ***excerpts: Two weeks after DeSmog first revealed that Conservative candidates were missing from climate hustings across the country, campaign group Extinction Rebellion has compiled a list of 50 that it said had declined invitations to appear, in addition to 13 that did not appear at one event that covered the whole of the Black Country.
    Extinction Rebellion, as well as other environmental and social organisations, have been organising local hustings to grill their candidates on climate and environment issues before the general election on Thursday.
    In a tweet, Extinction Rebellion UK stressed that it does not endorse particular candidates or parties, but it does “call out reckless inaction… such as the Conservatives repeatedly refusing to engage with hustings” on the climate emergency and ecological breakdown.
    A number of hustings organisers replaced absent candidates with bowls full of ice that melted as the evening progressed…

    30

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    Mind you Australia does it worse – The Smoko government after its mergers of gov departments – “It’s notable that these extensive changes to the bureaucracy – including the sacking of five department heads – involve no changes to the ministry. The new mega Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment will now contain three Cabinet ministers, co-equal in power and glory” according to one report. Tell me how is that going to work?

    213

    • #

      A helluva lot better than with 500 Gazillion Labor supporting and appointed Union representative public servants and their associated well paid Department heads.

      Tony.

      100

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        nothing like a retired electrician to put me right. your source is?

        012

        • #

          Fitzroy,

          Link

          I could give you another link, but in the same vein as for the last four times I have given you a link when asked at comments, and it has been patently obvious that you did not even bother to take that link, as there would have been a very ‘hot’ response I assure you, the same applies here, that you wouldn’t go that link either.

          Tony.

          70

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            No, I followed you to your bio the first time I replied to one of your posts, and I, myself have only been posting for about a year. In relation to this blog, what possible use is your bio, after all the whole process is a way to ensure anonymity. If you posted a comment that was persuasive, showed insight and had links to back up your assertions, I would reply in kind.

            for example, I would have more respect for you if you had suggested that it was greenies, at least they are the blame for everything else, and it might have been humorous.

            Still, old dog and all that

            110

            • #
              AndyG55

              “Still, old dog and all that”

              Poor little PF puppy.

              You haven’t even learnt one trick except how to yap mindlessly.

              Nobody give two hoots about your respect. You don’t even respect yourself.

              You have proven to be incapable of any post within the bounds of rational thought or insight.

              You constantly make yourself a laughing stock, PF

              You are not important. Just a minor glitch in humanity.

              You are incapable of providing any links to back up anything you say, just copy/paste of random irrelevant propaganda garbage, because it all you have.

              Still waiting for empirical evidence of warming by increased atmospheric CO2.

              So far , you have been a total failure

              Desperately trying to hide and distract from the huge damage done by the greenie agenda you so worship.

              Yet you feel no shame.

              51

            • #
              AndyG55

              “what possible use is your bio”

              To you, no use at all, PF

              You don’t have the capability to comprehend any of it.

              Your twisted and locked greenie mind will not allow you to.

              31

            • #

              No, I followed you to your bio the first time I replied to one of your posts…..

              Oh no you didn’t, otherwise you would not have gone on (at excrutiating length) about the use of my screen name, and you also would not have kept harping on about my ‘credentials’. (also at excrutiating length)

              Tony.

              40

              • #
                OriginalSteve

                A lot of people enjoy your posts Tony, I suspect youve created some sort of upset by being logical and reasonable.

                It seems people are regressing to knee jerk sound bite sized thinking, which means trying to enscapulate Platos “Republic” into a tweet-sized brain space.

                We live in hope…..

                30

              • #
                sophocles

                Tony, you have my respect and my support.
                Your protagonist has completely lost those.
                Completely.

                Feter Pitzroy: take Billy Connolly’s advice and F. O.

                00

          • #

            Oh Tony, laugh out loud.

            He STILL didn’t take the link.

            Tony.

            10

        • #

          nothing like a retired electrician to put me right.

          I just saw this and hey, I don’t believe it.

          It seems that after so many years (oh well, it seems like years you have been here anyway) you have FINALLY learned how to take a link and follow it to my bio.

          Oh, and just because I’m retired, there’s no need to make it sound like a derogatory comment as is the way you do things. I have learned almost as much in my retirement as I knew while I was in that trade, learning that trade, doing that trade, supervising that trade, managing that trade, and teaching that trade.

          I still find it hard to believe that you could follow the instructions to get to that bio, knowing that no one else needed to have it explained to them, as they knew how to do it.

          Tony.

          100

          • #
            AndyG55

            Thing is, PF is actually an olde white guy, ex-hippy/toker,

            probably retired (who would employ him?),

            certainly a Marxist greenie,

            and certainly has low education, or got through what little education he does have with rote learning/regurgitation, and basically zero comprehension.

            It really irks him to have people here who obviously know far more than he does about basically everything.

            His feeble attempts to deride your knowledge and experience, are just a childish and petty ego trip for him,

            … a defence barrier against his feelings of total inadequacy.

            30

        • #
          AndyG55

          A 6 year could put you right, PF.

          You have been invariable shown to be manifestly and ignorantly wrong.

          20

        • #

          Fitroy — yet another trashy ad hom from you? I thought you were better than that?

          I used to have a basic requirement on the blog that posters needed to not repeatedly breach basic rules of reasoning, but I found that ruled out any and all fans of the climate witchcraft as they were simply unable to rid themselves of turning every argument into an “attack the man” form sooner or later.

          So the question is Peter, can you do it? Can you overcome what appears to be innate cognitive programming to judge a topic, not by the facts and form, but by who said it?

          Ultimately some people are born to think, while others are born to follow. Which is it?

          90

          • #
            AndyG55

            “I thought you were better than that?”

            No Jo, he has been just like that from his very first post.

            20

          • #
            Sceptical Sam

            He’s not a scientist Jo.

            He’s a zombie green activist.

            Oh. He might have some science qualifications, but in his case it’s just credentialism. It provides him with cover to push his anti-science propaganda. His credentials haven’t taught him to think like a scientist. He hasn’t internalized the scientific way of thinking.

            Frankly, I’m in favour of keeping him here so that we can see just how the anti-science, green activist mind works.

            10

    • #
      sophocles

      In three different ways. It’s obvious even to the intellectually moribund: with three ministers, they will be pulling in three different directions and the resultant vector will equal zero. It’s a brilliant piece of re-organisation, so recognise it for what it is.

      40

      • #
        el gordo

        Well spotted sophocles, but importantly a merger of the Department of Agriculture and environment functions from the Department of the Environment and Energy is a master stroke.

        10

    • #
      AndyG55

      You would never understand how any of these things work PF.

      Even the most basic comprehension is beyond you.

      So you just make up what your greenie mal-educated imagination can cope with.

      20

  • #
    Maptram

    Climate change is one thing but it’s cause and stopping it something else entirely. Climate change is real, it’s been happening for 4500 billion years. The climate change believers seem to think that increasing CO2 levels is the cause and by stopping the use of coal to produce electricity, climate change will be stopped. Climate change will still happen, as it always has.

    50

    • #
      sophocles

      Oops: 4500 billion years is a bit older than the current best estimate for the age of the Universe at c. 13.5 billion years let alone the lifetime of The Solar System which, when I last looked, was c. 4.5 billion years. I’m surprised (but only mildly) Mr Fitzroy of the impeccable sky-entific edjumakay-shun hasn’t yet jumped all over it — maybe he’s run out of room on the back of his envelope …

      Now, if you had said 4500 million years, you would have been spot on. The difference is only 3 orders of magnitude, not much on a cosmic scale … :-P

      30

    • #
      sophocles

      You’re conflating Climate Variation (climate change from all natural sources) with Climate Change which is defined by the UN as “Climate variation caused by mankind’s industry, emissions and actions for which no evidence is available.

      Naughty. Stop that conflation at once and immediately.

      Otherwise they will start saying the heat from the sun is caused by arsonists.

      20

  • #
    robert rosicka

    Talk about deep state , Chris Kenny just interviewed Matt Kean the NSW green pretending to be a liberal minister .
    Typical of a green he had his mantra of emissions = bushfires and when questioned on it he just repeated the mantra , brainwashed innumerate Lino.

    20

    • #
      sophocles

      Doesn’t he (Matt Kean) realise that trying to burn bushes and trees with CO2 is an exercise in futility?
      CO2 is not flammable — quite the reverse: it’s a good fire extinguisher if in sufficient concentration (Mars and Venus have it at about the right level :-P ) More CO2 is needed to stop the burning!

      30

      • #
        robert rosicka

        Believe it or not they add CO2 to Argon gas in the welding industry for MIG welding and I’m sure it’s there for its ability for a little extra heat during the process of welding .
        Mind you it’s mostly there to water down the percentage of Argon to make it cheaper in my opinion but it does have the extra grunt required on low carbon steel .

        00

  • #
    WXcycles

    “’In determining what Congress may do in seeking assistance from another branch, the extent and character of that assistance must be fixed according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the government co-ordination.’

    “… according to common sense and the inherent necessities … “,

    What a radical approach! Actually using your brain, instead of using moribund failed ideologies as blind-guides to a civilisation!

    I wonder what that would look like if applied to preventing bush fire? Or to a functional affordable electrical power generation capacity and base-load power supply? Or to justice? Or to an actual Democratic voting system for that matter?

    10

  • #
    pat

    10 Dec: WashingtonExaminer: Exxon wins first-of-its-kind climate change case against New York
    by Josh Siegel
    ExxonMobil won a first-of-its-kind climate change fraud trial on Tuesday as a judge rejected the state of New York’s claim that the oil and gas giant misled investors in accounting for the financial risks of global warming.
    New York Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager said the state failed to prove that Exxon violated the Martin Act, a broad state law that does not require proof of intent of shareholder fraud…

    Exxon celebrated the ruling, saying it confirms their argument that addressing climate change is a shared global challenge better handled through public policy and that litigation threatens to undermine cooperation between the industry and policymakers…

    The result of the case was thought to be the likely outcome after New York surprisingly dropped two of its four claims against Exxon at the close of the three-week-long trial in early November.
    New York Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Zweig announced during his closing statement that the state would no longer be claiming Exxon knowingly and willfully misled investors on how it accounts for the financial risks of climate change…
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/exxon-wins-first-of-its-kind-climate-change-case-against-new-york

    60

  • #
    Dave in the States

    It’s really what it has been all about in terms of politics the last several years. The desperate struggle by the deep state to get rid of Trump. Brexit. The IPCC. The EU. The push for the end of borders. The administrative states from the UN to the unelected administrators in your local municipalities have grown like cancer for decades. We have reached the point where it must be cut out or it kills the body. You really cannot have unelected bureaucrats, making the laws, enforcing the laws, and adjudicating the laws, and have any kind of Gov for and by the legal citizens of any nation.

    30

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      I suspect that the USA may be the guiding light in all this. At least your citizenry has a right to bear arms, which may be required to stop Elite if the Elite try to crush freedoms and basic human rights with martial law.

      Just kicking theories around here, but if the citizens were winning the struggle in a second civil war inside the US to remove the Deep State, the Deep State actually could nuke an american city and blame it on someone, similar to the Bali bomb, to distract people and cower them.

      At that point they might roll in the UN “peacekeeping” troops ( as Deep State Kissinger talked about in the 1990s), but seriously, anyone inside the US wearing a blue beret would then be technically part of the Elite’s occupation force…then it really would get ugly.

      America would be fighting for its freedom once again….

      20

  • #
    David Maddison

    Off topic.

    This is bad even by the appallingly low standards of Their ABC.

    https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/origins-of-climate-denial-tracked/11774514

    Two weeks ago, (Science Show 23rd November 2019) we heard Ann Holmes in conversation with Martin Hultman and Paul Pulé from the Centre for Studies of Climate Change Denialism at Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg Sweden about their investigations into those who continue to say climate change is not happening, or that human activity is not the cause. This week, they trace the source of these ideas, and discuss proposals for new laws allowing nature to bring legal actions against those who harm it.

    Duration: 5min 45sec
    Broadcast: Sat 7 Dec 2019, 12:21pm

    Also see https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/controlled-burns-destroy-ecosystems-and-may-not-reduce-fire-risk/11774496

    As fires rage across five Australian states, well ahead of the expected bushfire season, debate rages about our fire management of forests. Some call for more controlled burning during cooler months, thinking this will decrease the rate of uncontrolled fires. But biologist Kinsley Dixon explains, so-called prescribed burning, produces a more flammable system in the first years after a fire. And he says there are devastating effects on the natural ecology. He says whereas some forests may experience a natural fire every 80 years, there is no chance for the ecosystem to re-establish when that frequency becomes a prescribed burn every five years.

    Duration: 4min 41sec
    Broadcast: Sat 7 Dec 2019, 12:16pm

    And https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/students-continue-protests-as-bushfires-destroy-houses,-farms,/11774468

    As bushfires raged in 6 states, school students held sit-down strikes at almost 60 locations across Australia on Friday 29th November 2019. This followed an international day of protest by students two months earlier calling for more action on climate change. Jonica Newby was at the Sydney rally and captured these sounds including an address by school strike leader from Nymboida NSW Shiann Broderick who lost her home to the bushfires.

    Duration: 10min 58sec
    Broadcast: Sat 7 Dec 2019, 12:05pm

    40

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      The Soviets used to declare anyone who resisted communism as mentally insane, and lock them up.

      As the Australian Bolshevik Collective appears to be infested with red raggers, this monsense doesnt surprise me at all……

      30

  • #
    pat

    10 Dec: Youtube: 24m18s: Full Interview: Barr Criticizes Inspector General Report On The Russia Investigation | NBC News
    In an exclusive interview, Attorney General William Barr spoke to NBC News’ Pete Williams about the findings on the Justice Department Inspector General’s report on the Russia investigation and his criticisms of the FBI.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRKFo0JmuBc

    11 Dec: NBC: Barr thinks FBI may have acted in ‘bad faith’ in probing Trump campaign’s links to Russia
    “I think our nation was turned on its head for three years based on a bogus narrative,” the attorney general said in an exclusive interview with Pete Williams.
    By Ken Dilanian
    “I think our nation was turned on its head for three years based on a completely bogus narrative that was ***largely fanned and hyped by a completely irresponsible press,” Barr said. “I think there were gross abuses …and inexplicable behavior that is intolerable in the FBI.”
    “I think that leaves open the possibility that there was bad faith.”…

    Inspector General Michael Horowitz, after reviewing a million documents and interviewing 100 people, concluded that he “did not find DOCUMENTARY or TESTIMONIAL evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open” the investigations into Trump campaign aides.

    But Barr argued that Horowitz didn’t look very hard, and that the inspector general accepted the FBI’s explanations at face value.
    “All he said was, people gave me an explanation and I didn’t find anything to contradict it … he hasn’t decided the issue of improper motive,” Barr said. “I think we have to wait until the full investigation is done.”…

    Barr said he stood by his assertion that the Trump campaign was spied on, noting that the FBI used confidential informants who recorded conversations with Trump campaign officials.
    “It was clearly spied upon,” he said. “That’s what electronic surveillance is … going through people’s emails, wiring people up.”

    Barr portrayed the Russia investigation as a bogus endeavor that was foisted on Trump, rather than something undertaken by career civil servants who were concerned about whether a foreign power had compromised a political campaign.
    “From a civil liberties standpoint, the greatest danger to our free system is that the incumbent government use the apparatus of the state … both to spy on political opponents but also to use them in a way that could affect the outcome of an election,” Barr said. He added that this was the first time in history that “counterintelligence techniques” were used against a presidential campaign.

    Barr added, “There was and never has been any evidence of collusion and yet this campaign and the president’s administration has been dominated by this investigation into what turns out to be completely baseless.”
    But the biggest outrage, Barr said, is that the FBI’s “case collapsed after the election and they never told the court and they kept on getting these renewals.”…
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/barr-thinks-fbi-may-have-acted-bad-faith-probing-trump-n1098986

    30

    • #
      pat

      10 Dec: Daily Caller: AG Bill Barr Blasts ‘Completely Irresponsible Press,’ Hits FBI For ‘Gross Abuses’ In Trump Probe (NBC interview)
      by Chuck Ross
      Barr criticized the press on two fronts. He faulted the industry for largely ignoring the parts of the inspector general’s report that undercut the collusion conspiracy theories. He also accused news outlets of overhyping allegations of Trump-Russia collusion.

      ***He lamented that the inspector general’s report has not been “accurately reported by the press over the last day.”

      Barr also added: “I think our nation was turned on its head for three years based on a completely bogus narrative that was largely fanned and hyped by a completely irresponsible press.”…
      https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/10/william-barr-irresponsible-press/

      theirABC has spent millions of taxpayer dollars on staff the past 3 years attacking Donald Trump, yet a thorough search has not resulted in a single article on the IG report!

      10 Dec: WashingtonExaminer: It’s official: The dossier was malarkey
      by Byron York
      In January 2017, Comey briefed President-elect Trump on the dossier’s most sensational allegations. The briefing provided a hook for some news organizations to tell the public of the dossier’s existence, and then, days later, publish the entire document.
      The reporting did terrible damage to a new president as he took office. And now, the Horowitz report definitively shows that it was all garbage…

      The report makes clear the dossier never had even a shred of credibility. Steele had no firsthand knowledge of anything in the document. He got all his information secondhand or thirdhand from sources who themselves heard things secondhand or thirdhand…ETC
      https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/its-official-the-dossier-was-malarkey

      30

  • #
    pat

    10 Dec: RollingStone: ‘Corroboration Zero’: An Inspector General’s Report Reveals the Steele Dossier Was Always a Joke
    The reports throws water on one “deep state” conspiracy theory of the Russia investigation, but validates complaints about “fake news”
    by Matt Taibbi
    The Guardian headline reads: “DOJ Internal watchdog report clears FBI of illegal surveillance of Trump adviser.”
    If the report released Monday by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz constitutes a “clearing” of the FBI, never clear me of anything. Holy God, what a clown show the Trump-Russia investigation was…

    Not only did obtaining a FISA warrant allow authorities a window into other Trump figures with whom (Carter) Page communicated, they led to a slew of leaked “bombshell” news stories that advanced many public misconceptions, including that a court had ruled there was “probable cause” that a Trump figure was an “agent of a foreign power.”
    There are too many to list in one column, but the Horowitz report show years of breathless headlines were wrong…

    Press figures have derided the idea that Steele was crucial to the FISA application, with some insisting it was only a “small part” of the application. Horowitz is clear:
    “We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team’s receipt of Steele’s election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI’s and Department’s decision to seek the FISA order.”…

    Democrats are not going to want to hear this, since conventional wisdom says former House Intelligence chief Devin Nunes is a conspiratorial evildoer, but the Horowitz report ratifies the major claims of the infamous “Nunes memo.”
    As noted, Horowitz establishes that the Steele report was crucial to the FISA process, even using the same language Nunes used (“essential”)…
    There was gnashing of teeth when Nunes first released his memo in January, 2018. The press universally crapped on his letter, with a Washington Post piece calling it a “joke” and a “sham.”…

    The Horowitz report says all of that caterwauling was off-base. It also undercuts many of the assertions made in a ballyhooed response letter by Nunes counterpart Adam Schiff, who described the FBI’s “reasonable basis” for deeming Steele credible. The report is especially hostile to Schiff’s claim that the FBI “provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele’s reporting.”
    In fact, far from confirming the Steele material, the FBI over time seems mainly to have uncovered more and more reasons to run screaming from Steele, to wit:
    The “Steele dossier” was “Internet rumor,” and corroboration for the pee tape story was “zero.”…

    More significant were the years of headlines that grew out of this process, beginning with the leaking of the meeting with Trump about Steele’s blackmail allegations, the insertion of Steele’s conclusions in the Intelligence Assessment about Russian interference, and the leak of news about the approval of the Page FISA warrant.

    As a result, a “well-developed conspiracy” theory based on a report that Comey described as “salacious and unverified material that a responsible journalist wouldn’t report without corroborating,” became the driving news story in a superpower nation for two years. Even the New York Times, which published a lot of these stories, is in the wake of the Horowitz report noting Steele’s role in “unleashing a flood of speculation in the news media about the new president’s relationship with Russia.”

    No matter what people think the political meaning of the Horowitz report might be, reporters who read it will know: Anybody who touched this nonsense in print should be embarrassed.
    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/horowitz-report-steele-dossier-collusion-news-media-924944/

    20

  • #
    Another Ian

    And its relative

    “Y2Kyoto: Live From The UN Climate Action Summit”

    The UN decided to hide the diesel generators this year. It’s about 3°C, so they can’t do without them, they just don’t want you to know. pic.twitter.com/GqOWbzE9oQ

    — Keean Bexte

    70

  • #
    Chad

    SMARTMETERS
    An interesting tale this morning on radio discussion .
    Guy having a vacant property rebuild, rewire etc. including a smartmeter installed..
    Months of work with builders and tradies on site using power via the smart meter, as expected, with the owner getting the bills.
    However when the workers all finished and left site, but the property remained empty, the owner noticed the bill remaines the same,
    Fortunately, , he was able to access the data log from the smartmeter and discovered that the meter was “programmed” to a usage profile such that false consumption data was being generated.
    Long story shortened,..after much argument , but with expert support, the customer was able to proove false billing ( $2500) and quietly got a refund.
    So, just how “smart” are these logging meters, ?..
    Is this a one off, or the tip of an iceberg of fake data logging ?

    70

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    O/T but showing what appear to be the internal workings of the ABC, appearing to be showing some sort of restraint. The topic of the Q&A episode is irrelevent….

    https://www.smh.com.au/culture/tv-and-radio/abc-finalises-q-and-a-investigation-over-radical-views-complaints-20191211-p53iyg.html

    “The November 4 episode was broadcast in conjunction with The Wheeler Centre’s feminist ideas festival, Broadside. While the program was pulled from digital platforms a transcript of the episode was still available.

    “The ABC’s internal review said Q&A viewers complained about coarse language, “radical views” and a perceived lack of impartiality due to the panel and the way it was moderated. The public broadcaster received 235 complaints in relation to the episode.

    ………

    “Author Mona Eltahawy, who was a guest on the November 4 episode, described the ABC’s determination as “unbelievable”. She continues to argue that the public broadcaster shouldn’t have pulled the episode in the first place.

    “”The ABC has signalled it is privileging the fragile sensibilities of white men over the wellbeing and safety of women,” she said. “It is a reminder that imaginary violence against men upsets and disturbs more than actual violence against women.”

    ………

    “The comments ignited a media firestorm, with some accusing the public broadcaster of encouraging violence over due process. Even outgoing Q&A host Tony Jones has since weighed-in on whether the ABC should have pulled the episode from digital platforms, arguing “censorship is never a good look”.

    10

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Unprecedented?

    Um…no…..

    4 legs good, 2 legs bad?

    https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/stop-the-climate-politics-and-let-nsw-become-the-saudi-arabia-of-green-energy-20191211-p53j2g.html

    “The bushfires we are facing are unprecedented. The fires are likely to impact more hectares than at any point in our history, the smoke blanketing Sydney is the worst in living memory and the conditions on the ground have rarely been so bad at such an early time in the fire season.

    ………

    “These fires are not an isolated event. We are going through the worst drought in the state’s history. Last year was the hottest year on record and this year is on track to be the second hottest.

    ……..

    “These fires are not an isolated event. We are going through the worst drought in the state’s history. Last year was the hottest year on record and this year is on track to be the second hottest.

    …….

    “Renewables are now the lowest cost form of new electricity generation. We are seeing families around the country installing solar panels on their rooftops not just because it’s good for the environment but because it’s good for their household budget.

    “Matt Kean is the NSW Minister for Energy and Environment.

    00

    • #
      beowulf

      Our last minister was just as bad. I hadn’t heard of Kean until now, but from his article he sounds like the kind of dangerous, credulous idiot that should not be let loose anywhere near the levers of power, or pointy scissors, and perhaps not crayons either.

      20

  • #
    Zane

    Carbon needs to be de-demonized.

    10

  • #
    Zane

    My guess is if a large new coal power plant is ever approved in Australia, it will involve expensive and nonsensical CCS carbon capture technology to pander to green interests and provide maximum virtue signalling opportunities for politicians, and which Exxon conveniently have a division doing. Their website proudly proclaims they have captured and stored more CO2 than any other company. Now their big donations to the Sierra Club make commercial sense…

    So forget lower power prices… just be grateful to have electricity.

    Something is going to have to be done, because Australia’s population is forecast to double over the next few decades. Big business and big government love their immigration. Almost half of the population by then will live in one of two sprawling places – Greater Sydney or Greater Melbourne. Another sizeable chunk will reside in the conurbation stretching from Hervey Bay to Tweed Heads and known by some as SEQ. (Am aware TW is in NSW). This is where the extra electricity will be most needed – not in Darwin, Deniliquin, or Deloraine.

    Has any State government planned for these future requirements? It sure doesn’t look that way at the moment.

    10