Sunday, August 23, 2015

The 21st Century Climate Catastrophe is Not Taking Place !


In the Southern Hemisphere, sea-ice levels just smashed through the previous record highs across Antarctica, where there is now more ice than at any point since records began. In the Arctic, where global-warming theorists preferred to keep the public focused due to some decreases in ice levels over recent years, scientists said sea-ice melt in 2014 fell below the long-term mean.

Global temperatures, meanwhile, have remained steady for some 19 years and counting, contrary to United Nations models predicting more warming as carbon dioxide levels increased. Of course, all of that is great news for humanity — call off the carbon taxes and doomsday bunkers!

However, as global-warming theories continue to implode on the world stage, the latest developments will pose a major challenge for the UN and its member governments. Later this year, climate “dignitaries” will be meeting in New York to forge an international agreement in the face of no global warming for nearly two decades, record ice levels, and growing public skepticism about the alleged “science” underpinning “climate change” alarmism
.
As The New American reported, virtually every falsifiable prediction made by climate theorists — both the global-cooling mongers of a few decades ago and the warming alarmists more recently — has proven to be spectacularly wrong. In many cases, the opposite of what they forecasted took place. But perhaps nowhere have the failed global-warming doom and gloom predictions been more pronounced than in the Antarctic, where sea-ice levels have continued smashing through previous records. For each of the last three years, ice cover has hit a new record high.

The most recent data show that the Antarctic is currently surrounded by more sea ice than at any other point since records began. In all, there are right now about 20 million square kilometers of frozen sea area surrounding the Antarctic continent. That is 170,000 square kilometers more than last year’s previous all-time record, and more than 1.2 million square kilometers above the 1981-to-2010 mean, according to researchers.

“This is an area covered by sea ice which we've never seen from space before,” meteorologist and sea ice scientist Jan Lieser with the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) told Australia’s ABC. “Thirty-five years ago the first satellites went up which were reliably telling us what area, two dimensional area, of sea ice was covered and we've never seen that before, that much area. That is roughly double the size of the Antarctic continent and about three times the size of Australia.”

Despite having predicted less ice — not more — as a result of alleged man-made global warming, some alarmists have comically tried to blame the record ice on “global warming.”  Indeed, in a bizarre attempt to explain away the latest findings, Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC boss Tony Worby (photo left) tried to blame “the depletion of ozone” and the “warming atmosphere” for the phenomenal growth in sea ice — contradicting previous forecasts by warming alarmists, who warned that ice would decrease as temperatures rose along with CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

The biggest problem with Worby’s claim, however, is the fact that the undisputed global temperature record shows there has been no warming for about 18 years and counting — contradicting every “climate model” cited by the UN to justify planetary alarmism, carbon taxes, energy rationing, massive wealth transfers, and more. Dozens of excuses have been concocted for what alarmists refer to as the “pause” in warming, as many as 50 by some estimates. The Obama administration’s preferred explanation, for which there is no observable evidence, is often ridiculed by critics as ''The Theory of the Ocean Ate My Global Warming''.

However, scientists and experts not funded by governments to promote the alarmist narrative say the observable evidence simply shows the man-made CO2 theories and “climate models” pushed by the climate industry are incorrect. More than a few climate experts and scientists have even warned that a prolonged period of global cooling is approaching quickly. The consequences could potentially be devastating — especially if warming alarmists succeed in quashing energy and food production under the guise of stopping non-existent “warming.”
     
Also in response to the fast-expanding ice, some die-hard alarmists and warming propagandists styling themselves “journalists” have recently been hyping a relatively tiny part of the Antarctic ice sheet that may — centuries or even millennia from now — go into the sea. Numerous independent scientists and experts quickly debunked the fear-mongering, however, pointing out that it was almost certainly due to natural causes and was nothing to worry about.

In an ironic incident that sparked laughter around the world, a team of “climate scientists” who set out to show how Antarctic ice was supposedly melting ended up getting their ship trapped in record-setting ice --- in the summer! (See my post ''Ship of Fools: Doomed By Wishful Thinking!'' -- 3 January, 2014).  Millions of taxpayer dollars and massive quantities of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions were required to rescue the stranded and embarrassed warming alarmists after their misguided adventure.
 
Another key tactic of the warmists to deflect attention from the expanding polar ice in the Southern Hemisphere has been to hype changes occurring in the Arctic instead. Unfortunately for the alarmists, however — critics often ridicule the movement as a “cult” for desperately clinging to its beliefs despite the evidence, not to mention the infamous ''Climategate Scandal'' — that will now be much harder to do with a straight face.

“After the very high melt rates of the 2007-2012 period, the trend reversed in 2013 and especially in 2014 when the melt fell below the long-term average,” exlained German professor and environment expert Fritz Vahrenholt, adding that the heat content of the North Atlantic was also plummeting. “In other words: The 21st century climate catastrophe is not taking place.”

Decades ago, of course, Newsweek reported that Arctic ice was growing so quickly due to man-made “global cooling” that scientists were proposing to melt the polar ice cap using black soot.  Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed. More recently, climate guru Al Gore had been regularly predicting that the entire polar ice cap would be gone by now. Instead, it is now far more extensive than when he made his now-discredited predictions.  (Also see my post ''Warmist Leader, Al Gore Gutted By Climate Reality'' -- 15 September, 2014).

Of course, UN bureaucrats, many of whom depend on sustainable alarmism for their livelihood, still have their heads in the sand about the implosion of their theory. On a call with reporters last week, for example, UN “climate team director” Selwin Hart, who serves under Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, claimed an upcoming global-warming summit “will be a major turning point in the way the world is approaching climate change.” He may be right, though probably not in the way he intended. The conference, which will be skipped by key world leaders, is meant to put climate alarmism “back on top of the international agenda,” Hart added.

In the United States, meanwhile, as the evidence continues to contradict the alarmist predictions, polls consistently show that a solid majority of Americans reject the UN's man-made-global-warming theories. Like the UN, however, Obama continues to act as if he's ''stoned'' on something believing the discredited theories were gospel, promising to save humanity from their carbon sins by lawlessly bypassing the U.S. Senate and the Constitution to foist a planetary ''climate' regime'' on the American people. Lawmakers have vowed to prevent any such schemes, but it remains unclear how far the White House is willing to push the issue. After failing even with a Democrat-controlled Congress, the EPA is already working to impose Obama's anti-CO2 schemes on America by executive decree.

With the evidence discrediting UN global-warming theories literally piling up on both ends of the Earth and everywhere in between, alarmists face an increasingly Herculean task in their bid to shackle humanity to a “climate regime'' at the UN summit in Paris. However, to protect the public — and especially the poor and third-world countries — from the devastation such a planetary scheme would entail. Americans must continue to expose the baseless alarmism underpinning what countless scientists  now refer to as the “climate scam.”



The Way I See It.......
As the diagram above shows, the temperature balance was pretty close for 7000 years, until the cooling accelerated over the last 3000 years.

My enlightenment was in seeing that the summer melt is actually the enormous effort by the ocean to recover water trapped as sea ice in the Arctic. The ice extent varies greatly over the centuries and we know from artifacts that it has been both greater and smaller than presently.  In this time of global warming alarmism, some of us watching the melt season find ourselves hoping for the ice to gain extent, simply to take away that basis for claiming the end is nigh.

Let’s be clear. In this contest between the ice and ocean, we humans should be rooting for the ocean, and so would plants and animals if they knew what was going on. None of us want another ice age, so it is a good thing that the ocean has been gaining on the sea ice extent in the last 150 years.
Once again warmists have got it backwards. The Arctic is a canary all right: The more ice there is in September, the closer we are to the next ice age. Open water in the Arctic is a good thing for the ocean and for the planet.

So taking off the warmist glasses, we should be cheering as the water extent grows and the ice retreats. We don’t wish for a record low because that would drive the alarmists into a frenzy.  Anything around 5M km2 for September would signify nothing unusual is happening, so for these fraudsters scary things must be found elsewhere.

Conclusion:
I am not so naive to think that this perspective has much chance against the warmist PR juggernaut. Already the lessening of Antarctic sea ice this year is trumpeted as proof of CO2 warming, and not a celebration of fresh water added to the ocean. At least I tried to help you to become enlightened too.
 

Fiddling with Temperature Data Can Be Seen as a Scandal !!


When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified. This is known as homogenization and at times a lower temp is noted.

Two weeks ago, under the headline ''How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming''   Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming. This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.

Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, (photo right) who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely  “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.

One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.

Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.

By far the most comprehensive account of this wholesale corruption of proper science is a paper written for the Science and Public Policy Institute, “Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception?”, by two veteran US meteorologists, Joseph D’Aleo and WUWT’s Anthony Watts (photo left).  Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.

The Way I See It......one of the more provocative points arising from the debate over those claims that 2014 was “the hottest year evah” came from the Canadian academic Dr Timothy Ball when, in a recent post on WUWT, he used the evidence of ice-core data to argue that the Earth’s recent temperatures rank in the lowest 3 per cent of all those recorded since the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago.

In reality, the implications of such distortions of the data go much further than just representing one of the most bizarre aberrations in the history of science. The fact that our politicians have fallen for all this scary chicanery has given Britain the most suicidally crazy energy policy (useless windmills and all) of any country in the world.

But at least, if they’re hoping to see that “universal climate treaty” signed in Paris this December, we can be pretty sure that it is no more going to happen than that 2014 was the hottest year in history.

Sunday, August 16, 2015

Why Australia Needs Thorium in its Future !


Australia has foolishly developed something of an allergic reaction to any mention of uranium or nuclear energy. Blessed as we are with abundant reserves of coal, oil and gas, we have never had to ask the hard questions many other nations have had to ask – questions the answer to which has been “nuclear” for many of those nations. (Editor's Note: Even tiny Belgium has 9 nuclear reactors).

Yet with the looming spectre of climate change and greater calls for a shift away from fossil fuels, nuclear power is once again on the agenda. The South Australian government has even called for a
royal commission to investigate the plausibility of nuclear power in this country.

With discussion of uranium seeming to be out-of-bounds in some idiotic quarters, a growing community of devotees has sprung up around an alternative nuclear fuel: thorium. But is it right for Australia?

The call for thorium power is not without precedent worldwide. India has pursued thorium technology for decades. And China is revisiting a molten salt reactor design mothballed by the USA in the 70’s. Recently, several companies have sought to commercialise thorium energy, including an Australian-Czech alliance.

Thorium: critically different

Thorium (atomic number 90) shares several similarities with its neighbour two doors down on the periodic table, uranium (atomic number 92). Both elements are silvery metals and are mildly radioactive as ores. They are each moderately abundant in the Earth’s crust, and can release
prodigious amounts of energy under the right conditions.

One critical difference is that thorium, in its natural state, is resistant to fission. This is the process whereby the atomic nucleus splits apart, thus releasing energy that can then be harnessed to generate electricity.

Uranium can undergo fission relatively easily, but for thorium to undergo fission – and be useful in a nuclear power plant – it must first be converted into a usable form. This is done via a process known as “breeding”, where the thorium absorbs a neutron, thus transmuting into a heavier element that can later undergo fission.

Thorium was first studied as an energy source during the Manhatten Project, but uranium proved much easier to work with. During the post-war commercialisation of nuclear energy this dominance was reinforced. Engineers identified myriad paths to design reactors based on uranium, while the added complexities of thorium meant that alternatives didn’t get much of a look in.

Today, advocates of thorium typically point to a variety of advantages over uranium. These include fail-safe reactor operation, because most thorium reactor designs are incapable of an explosion or meltdown, as was seen at Chernobyl or Fukushima. Another is resistance to weapons proliferation, because thorium reactors create by-products that make the fuel unsuitable for use in nuclear weapons.
Other advantages include greater abundance of natural reserves of thorium, less radioactive waste and higher utilisation of fuel in thorium reactors. Thorium is often cast as “good nuclear”, while uranium gets to carry the can as “bad nuclear”.

Not so different

While compelling at first glance, the details reveal a somewhat more murky picture. The molten salt architecture ( diagram below ) which gives certain thorium reactors high intrinsic safety equally applies to proposed
fourth-generation designs using uranium. It is also true that nuclear physics technicalities make thorium much less attractive for weapons production, but it is by no means impossible; the USA and USSR each tested a thorium-based atomic bomb in 1955.

Other perceived advantages similarly diminish under scrutiny. There is plenty of uranium ore in the world and hence the fourfold abundance advantage of thorium is a moot point. Producing less long-lived radioactive waste is certainly beneficial, but the vexed question remains of how to deal with it.
Stating that thorium is more efficiently consumed is the most mischievous of the claimed benefits. Fast-breeder uranium reactors have much the same fuel efficiency as thorium reactors. However, they weren’t economic as the price of uranium turned out to be rather low.

Peering into the crystal ball

None of these factors are reasons to ignore thorium, which may yet prove to have a significant role to play. New thorium-based reactors under construction in India and China will focus attention once again on the viability of thorium power. However, only time will tell whether thorium can strike a disruptive path forward.

From a national perspective, the development of thorium technology would be a major boost. Australia possesses around 10-15% of the world's thorium reserves, in addition to its 30% share of uranium reserves.

Developing a market for thorium would also solve a serious problem for the green-technology rare earth industry. Thorium is an unwelcome contaminant in rare earth ores, making the tailings slightly radioactive. This leads to social and political problems in the processing phase as seen recently in the licensing struggles of Australian-owned Lynas Corporation (photo below) in Malaysia. Having an avenue to sell the extracted thorium would change the whole dynamics of rare earth processing.

As for whether thorium might reframe the discussion of nuclear power in Australia, the question comes too soon. The engineering and economics of thorium must first be demonstrated. No thorium reactors operate commercially worldwide, whereas 430 operating uranium reactors produce 11% of global electricity. Are you Greens, Labor and environmental assholes ready to stick your ideology up your backsides?

If Australia does eventually decide to build nuclear power plants, the best choice would almost certainly be a proven design based on existing third-generation uranium technology.

The Way I See It.....such a decision is, however, a long way down the road. As a nation we haven’t even managed to figure out the best way to handle slightly radioactive gloves in hospitals, let alone have a mature conversation about nuclear power.

The real question is whether Australia can find a way forward to have a civilised discussion about how to generate non-fossil base-load power without counting on the inefficient solar and wind approach. And so, by all means, we should talk about thorium, but let’s not left idiots of the Left demonise uranium at the same time.

No Jihad in Gaza, Says George Washington U’s Nathan Brown


Current Middle East Studies Association (MESA) president and George Washington University political science professor Nathan Brown  downplayed Hamas’s long history of terrorism on July 23 at the anti-Israel Jerusalem Fund think tank in Washington, DC. He and others on a panel titled “Gaza in Context: Broader Implications in the Palestinian Plight” claimed that the Islamic Hamas and, increasingly, supremacism of  the Palestinian Authority (PA) is mere nationalism before an audience of forty.

Former Jerusalem Fund and current U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation director Yousef Munayyer opened the panel with a proclamation worthy of the Gaza Chmber of Commerce: “Gaza can be a hub of commerce and industry” with “tremendous potential to once again be an engine of success and prosperity.” Yet the Gaza strip became a threat to Israel after it relinquished the area in 2005 to Palestinians who were more interested in ransacking and militarizing donated Israeli greenhouses than engaging in commerce. Dumb-asses !

Noting that Gaza, with 1.8 million inhabitants, is the largest Palestinian city, Munayyer  ( below ) asserted that the “most valuable resource to the Palestinian nation is perhaps its population,” a claim belied by Hamas’s frequent use of such “resources” as human shields for propaganda against Israel.

In his presentation, apologist Brown observed blandly that Palestinians “sometimes . . . don’t make the choices that international diplomacy would like them to make,” as if Hamas was simply a political party.  Palestinian self-determination is something the “international community has heartily endorsed, so long as Palestinians make the right choices,” he added.  Without naming either perpetrator or victim, Brown vaguely referred to “episodic violence” involving Gaza.

He cited a Palestinian Hamas supporter who, in reference to Israel’s 2014 Protective Edge military campaign in Gaza, wondered, “what would have happened if Hamas had given up arms,” implying that Hamas was merely defending itself.

Brown sought a “reconstruction of Palestinian politics” that might create “fresh Palestinian leadership” who could resume a peace process with Israel.  This Palestinian “new blood” would “sketch out realistic programs to their own people” and “rebuild some kind of grassroots popular movement,” he predicted.  He could not cite any period when Palestinians have ever had responsible, democratic leadership, but instead called for the “unfreezing of the really problematic authoritarian environment in both the West Bank and Gaza.”

As for accepting “Hamas as a legitimate political player within Palestinian society, both domestically and internationally,” Brown insisted that, although a large “stumbling block,” it would induce Hamas to relinquish power in Gaza. Stating the obvious, he admitted that Hamas is not interested in the “idea of administering Gaza” as a “governing municipal authority.”  In contrast, the half-wit Brown accused Israel of trying “to keep tight control” on the “freeing of Palestinian political life.” Yet Israel abandoned control over most daily Palestinian affairs under the 1993 Oslo Accords.  Smuck!

The eagerness of both panelists to legitimize Hamas became even more obvious during the question and answer period. When asked by an audience member whether the U.S. could “stop branding Hamas as an international sponsor of terrorism,” Munayyer responded that, although he did not “see that happening in the near term,” American policy has long sought a “negotiated solution with leaders who do not have the mandate to deliver.”  To be “seriously for a negotiated solution . . . one cannot be seen as credible if not working for a representative and unified Palestinian partner,” which, for Munayyer, includes Hamas jihadists. Yet, he alleged, “pro-Israel interest groups” and “domestic political interests get in the way of advancing foreign policy.”

The Way I See It.....such is the Jerusalem Fund’s alternative universe in which neither Hamas, the PA, nor a “unity government” presents any existential threat to Israel or the wider world. Political scientists such as Brown see Palestinians as just another national self-determination movement struggling against oppression. This willful moral and intellectual myopia denies the Palestinians’ embrace of Islamic supremacism—a fact that precludes their acceptance of Israel’s existence.

Study shows that Experiences, not Things, will make you Happier !


Many people know that experiences will make them happier, and yet they continue to spend money on material objects because of their perceived greater value.

There is an ongoing debate between my wife and I about how we’d like to spend any extra money that comes in. She likes to acquire, slowly but surely, high quality items that will last for many years, such as cookware, chef’s knives, and winter coats.


While I can’t argue with his ongoing quest for quality, I would prefer to spend money on travel, to skip buying that gorgeous pot by Le Creuset and put that money toward a destination, an experience, and a lasting memory. We do a good job of striking a balance between our two preferences, but now I’ve come across some interesting research that I’ll have to show her as a way of boosting my side of the argument!


It has been shown by a recent study from San Francisco State University that greater happiness comes from seeking experiences, rather than material objects. Although this may seem like common sense to many readers, reality paints another picture – one in which people most often spend their money on material items because they mistakenly believe that they have greater value.


People do this because material items are tangible; they have measurable economic value attached to it; and they’re always present, able to be used or seen. Memories of experiences, on the other hand, are fleeting experiences, temporary purchases with no concrete price tag.

And yet, people are never as happy in the long run after spending money on material items than they are after forking out for adventures, travel, and
experiences.

The study, co-authored by SF State Associate Professors of Psychology Ryan Howell, surveyed individuals before and after making a purchase:
“Prior to the purchase, respondents said they believed a life experience would make them happier but a material item would be a better use of their money. After the purchase, however, respondents reported that life experiences not only made them happier but were also the better value.”
Howell explains that people tend to overestimate hugely how much value they’ll get from a material object. “It’s almost like people feel they will get no economic value from their life experiences and therefore they feel this tension in spending money on them.”


Ironically, the very reasons why people make material purchases ends up making them less appealing – and that is their constant physical presence. It may appear to be greater value, but, as Cornell University psychology professor Dr. Thomas Gilovich states: ''Adaptation is the greatest enemy of happiness.''
“We buy things to make us happy, and we succeed, but only for a while. New things are exciting to us at first, but then we adapt to them.”
Determining the best way to encourage the general public to prioritize happiness over value will
Dr Thomas Gilovich
require additional research, Howell said. The implications, however, extend far beyond the realm of psychology or even retail.

"Happiness is not some fleeting, positive emotion we experience in the moment," he said. "There are tremendous benefits to happiness.'' Companies want their employers to be happier because they are more productive. Doctors want their patients to be happier because they will be healthier. We should try to figure out how to help people maximize their happiness because of all the benefits that come from it.

The Way I See It......memories of experiences, however, become ingrained in our self-identity. They make it easier to connect with others who have done similar things; they are less prone to negative comparisons; and they ultimately make people happier in the long run. They also (usually) create less trash.

Just think: at the end of the day, are you going to “reminisce'' about the fact that you had an iPhone 6 Plus while everyone else was still using the #5, or are you going to recall golden memories you shared with the people who shaped who you’ve become?  I'm happy to say my wife's starting to agree with me.  She's looking a Cruise Ship brochures.

1984 Revisited: ''New-Speak'' from the Australian Loony Left !


The canny political Left uses focus group sanctioned, friendly phrases like this: “The most vulnerable people ...”, which appeals to everyone’s ‘Good Samaritan’ side. “Climate change is ...”, now who could possibly argue with the climate changing? And of course, “Making little heart signs with fairy fingers while pleading for marriage equality” is designed to appeal to everyone’s sense of
justice.

The well-oiled PR machine of the Left sets out to make a dumb, unwitting majority feel guilty... and it works. Unfortunately the majority is apolitical and only has time for headlines in between getting kids to school and paying a mortgage.


It hasn’t the time to debate home-grown Islamic terrorism, a halal extortion tax on food, idiotic Green schemes, gay marriages or union corruption.


The Left skips the headlines and goes straight to rewriting the text, in a Ninety-Eighty Four style of NEWSPEAK. It is determined to alter the malleable majority to their way of thinking.


The Left has infiltrated our judiciary, our media, the entertainment industry and our education system. Julia Gillard’s Gonsky Report was aimed at employing more uneducated teachers... but what’s basic education matter when children are ripe for indoctrination into the Left doctrine.


Fairfax has combined its failing newspapers so as to give one message. Retrenched staff members have resorted to blogs and various on-line Left-wing newspapers to continue their message while the Murdoch Press is vilified for sometimes opposing it.


The amorphous ABC has joined with Lenin's dictum, ''get the children before age 8 and they are yours''  to become an arm of the ALP cornering an emphasis on children’s programming.


The Left sees nothing wrong with Bill Shorten’s union scams nor those of  Julia Gillard’s (photo left). It wants ''illegal immigrants'' to be called ''asylum seekers'' and demands open borders to welcome them. It has no concept of sovereignty, only a UN-inspired one world government financed by carbon taxes on the back of a global warming hoax.
It believes Israel is a terrorist cell and Islam a religion of peace.
It takes no lesson from a disintegrating Eurozone or the lunacy of a single European currency, it simply soldiers on regardless. It has no concept of, nor concern for, debt or deficit, risk or reward, free enterprise or capitalism. Greece has a God-given right to its rampant socialism while others have an obligation to pay for it.


The discredited ideal of communist egalitarianism has morphed into the more acceptable term of “socialism”, just as discredited “global warming” morphed into meaningless “climate change”. The same happened to ''CO2 levels'',  now it's ''carbon pollution.'' (since the level has risen with no warning follow-up). Don't forget how the Gay & Lesbian propaganda phraseology morphed  from ''same-sex marriage''  to ''marriage equality'' thereby getting rid of the visual yuck-factor. The nomenclatures became acceptable but the aims remained the same.


It pretends to care for infants in detention yet promotes late-term abortions where a fully formed baby can make no sound as it is dismembered without anaesthesia to make a hideous stillbirth more comfortable for a guiltless mother. Go figure!
The Left’s twisted view of the world is seen through a kaleidoscopic lens of genderless rainbows.
Their “marriage equality” hysteria, promoted by dishonest referenda questions, appears unstoppable but a referendum is not enactment. The legislation is yet to come where debate will disclose the ugly intent ... a tiny minority (only 2% of Australia's population!) of homosexual activists is determined to render heterosexual couples devoid of gender.


They are quietly insisting the Marriage Act be abolished and replaced with genderless guff. No more will a couple be referred to as a man and a woman... just “two (or maybe more) people”.



Marriage equality eh? Sounds fair, but trust the sophisticated, cashed-up gay lobby at your own peril.

They are not content to have parallel legislation that would apply equally to homosexuals. They want gender recognition rescinded entirely. Bugger the legal and religious implications as they would apply to genderless parents and surrogates. Bugger the child’s welfare.


The Way I See It......I have often said a key difference between many of the Left and conservatives is this: a concern with seeming rather than with doing. Seeming vs doing. It is a sign of the vain and the stupid to prefer the first.

Labor made the “right noises”, meaning they seemed to be compassionate by allowing people smugglers bring thousands of illegals into Australia. That was enough to be forgiven for policies which drowned 1200 people and locked up, at its peak, nearly 2000 children.

The Liberals, on the other hand, have made the wrong noises. So they are savaged for policies that have stopped the drownings and slashed the number of children in detention by 90 per cent from Labor’s peak - and falling.

The main bout is yet to come on this one. The Pandora’s box is still bound by a pretty pink ribbon, but we should never doubt the Left’s repulsive resolve... nor the majority’s neglectful nonchalance.
I'm happy to report: The sleeping majority appears to be stirring a little, it has opened one eye and it doesn’t like what it sees. Can't wait for the referendum.

Sunday, August 9, 2015

The Warped and Unyielding Faith in Global Warming !


Following onto idiot statements made by Pope Francis after being coached (brainwashed) by a German Warming Fanatic scientist we get this stupidity from Anglican Archbishop Philip Freier (photo on the right) preaching the Gospel according to the Vatican.


''Both Australia and South Africa are already experiencing the negative impacts of rising global temperatures.''


“Rising global temperatures”?    Not for some 18 years:
image
Never mind these cool facts. Freier adds:

''Monday’s motions of the Church of England – together with Pope Francis’ ecology encyclical and many other faith voices – serve as a reminder that we have a moral responsibility to act on climate change.''
Don’t we have a primary responsibility to the truth?  But to fix the problem he’s exaggerated Frieir endorses a (non) solution that’s far more dangerous and drastic:

''God bestowed on us the gift of life, but with that comes the obligation to be protectors of our earth, our environment, and our fellow man… This December, world political leaders will gather in Paris to sign a universal agreement aimed at limiting global temperature rises well below two degrees Celcius. As we look toward this historic summit, we need our leaders to demonstrate their commitment to achieving a unified and ambitious agreement that phases out fossil fuels.''

But how does phasing out fossil fuels, in the absence of cheap alternative sources of electricity, help “our fellow man”? Doesn’t it condemn the poor to poverty? And what measurable good would such a phase-out achieve? Data please.

But Freier continues:
''All too often, the effects of these changes are most acutely felt by vulnerable populations, who have done the least to contribute to climate change. Australia’s Pacific neighbours are already badly affected, with Kiribati recently asking that its people be moved to Fiji to escape rising sea levels.''

Again, simply fact-free fear-mongering.
 
The truth is that most low-lying islands like Kiribati have been growing in size or stayed stable, and are not drowning.

New Zealand coastal geomorphologist Paul Kench, of the University of Auckland’s School of Environment, and colleagues in Australia and Fiji, who have been studying how reef islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans respond to rising sea levels. They found that reef islands change shape and move around in response to shifting sediments, and that many of them are growing in size, not shrinking, as sea level inches upward. The implication is that many islands—especially less developed ones with few permanent structures—may cope with rising seas well into the next century.
Their analysis, which now extends to more than 600 coral reef islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, indicates that about 80 percent of the islands have remained stable or increased in size (roughly 40 percent in each category). Only 20 percent have shown the net reduction that’s widely assumed to be a typical island’s fate when sea level rises. Some islands grew by as much as 14 acres (5.6 hectares) in a single decade, and Tuvalu’s main atoll, Funafuti—33 islands distributed around the rim of a large lagoon—has gained 75 acres (32 hectares) of land during the past 115 years.
As for Kiribati, the big problem is not global warming but over-crowding and thoughless development on another island that's actually growing in size:

But 2,000 miles to the west in South Tarawa, Kiribati’s narrow, six-square-mile capital island crowded with 50,000 people, the picture is much darker. Over the past half-century, residents of the 15 other Gilbert Islands have flocked there in search of jobs and better schools for their children… To minimize flooding, they built poorly designed seawalls that regularly collapse. Meanwhile, the government increased South Tarawa’s area by 19 percent over 30 years by building causeways between islets and creating new land over the reef with lagoon sand poured behind seawalls. The widespread erosion and flooding that resulted “is primarily due to [local] human activities,” which unless stopped will “increase erosion and susceptibility of the reef islands to anticipated sea-level rise,” one study concluded.   

Though the study’s lead author is Naomi Biribo, a senior civil servant in Tarawa, [President Anote] Tong has ignored it and become a minor international celebrity by
blaming the island’s coastal problems uniformly on climate change.
Scientists like Kench say that the people of Tarawa will face the same choices as other coastal denizens when the sea rises further. Either they allow the beach to move forward and they retreat inland to higher ground, or they build concrete seawalls and the beach is washed away… Or they can move back to their home islands. Aranuka, for example, has seen its population drop to 800 as many moved to Tarawa. It has the same land area as Tarawa, but instead of being long and thin, part of it is three miles by five on the lee side of the island—"Good protection against the waves,” said Kench. “I’d say it has a good chance of surviving climate change.”
Meaning well does not excuse making false claims and telling half-truths to promote a scare and a solution that would actually do far more harm than good.

The Way I See It.....you should try this out as a thought experiment: what would happen if, tomorrow morning, we had definitive proof that catastrophic climate change was impossible, wasn’t happening, and would never happen. Would Al Gore breathe a big sigh of relief ? 

Of course not. The general reaction from environmentalists and the left would be a combination of outrage and despair. The need to believe in oneself as part of the agency of human salvation runs deep for leftists and environmentalists who have made their obsessions a secular religion. And humanity doesn’t need salvation if there is no sin in the first place. Hence human must be sinners—somehow—in need of redemption from the left.

Activist liberal elites always need a Grand Cause to satisfy their messianic needs, or for the political equivalent of a dopamine rush. For such people, the only thing worse that catastrophic climate change is the catastrophe of not having a catastrophe to obsess over—and use as an excuse to extend political control over people and resources. They all seem to suffer from a bad case of Neo-Marxism.