Tuesday, September 12, 2017
Monday, August 28, 2017
Fairfax Newspaper warmist and smug Dumb-Ass Jacqueline Maley accuses sceptic Liberal MP Craig Kelly of making "outlandish" claims and "scaremongering".
Maley seems completely ignorant of the facts that actually support Kelly:
The idiot writes: You can tell the coal-fanciers within the Coalition are panicked. Not content with scaremongering about rising electricity prices, they are now invoking the greatest carbon price of them all – death.
On Thursday morning Liberal MP Craig Kelly said people would die of cold
Two hundred people, most of them elderly, will die in Britain of cold-related diseases every day this winter, according to calculations by Britain's leading advocacy group for old people, Age UK.
The charity's figure of 200 deaths a day follows sharp price hikes by energy companies, credited with driving inflation to its highest level in 20 years. At the same time, a report by Britain's leading academic expert on poverty and inequality, Professor John Hills of the London School of Economics, found a deepening "fuel poverty gap".
Then there's this further ignorance from Maley:
Kelly says people will be forced to burn wood in their homes because they can't afford to turn on their heaters, which will lead to increased air pollution. Kelly's logic is spectacular in its circularity – note he is actually admitting that burning carbon is toxic to humans, but no way is he letting that sway him into thinking we might want to come up with a few alternatives to burning it globally, on a massive scale.
Maley makes two fundamental mistakes here.
First, burning wood in a home heater produces more particulates than does burning coal in a modern generator equipped with the usual technology to remove them. That's why what you see above the giant generators we have left is not smoke but steam from the cooling systems.
Second, Maley confuses these particulates - soot - with the carbon dioxide gases that are said to be heating the world dangerously. Carbon dioxide is as "toxic" as the breath you exhale. In fact, it IS the breath you exhale. All the global warming programs we have are designed to reduce carbon dioxide and not particulates.
But even more remarkable than Maley's ignorance of global warming science and complete lack of interest in poor people dying from cold is her hypocrisy over fear mongering.
Having savaged Kelly's "scaremongering", Maley then proceeds to deliver a completely hysterical rant on the global warming apocalypse she imagines is around the corner.
She makes Kelly seem the soul of moderation:
[Kelly] has stolen the thunder of those who urge climate change action on the basis of the extinction of the species if we leave things as they are. Here comesDeath, high cancer rates, drownings – that territory is supposed to be the environmentalists' (speedily defrosting) tundra.
Climate scientists, not by nature a rowdy crew, have, for decades now, been politely ahemming at the back of the room to get our attention, so they can warn us about all the various ways our children are going to get cooked if we don't act collectively soon.
A New York Magazine cover story published a few weeks ago entitled The Uninhabitable Earth, (that scientists rated on their Credibility Index 0.07) laid out some of the terrifying scenarios that could eventuate "absent aggressive action", broken down into cheerful subheadings like "Poisoned Oceans", "Climate Plagues" and "Permanent Economic Collapse".
It was criticised as being overblown by some climate scientists and focusing on the worst, worst-case scenarios, but not before it lodged firmly in the amygdalas of hundreds of thousands of readers.
It lays out what the author says are the possibilities of unmitigated climate change – including the annihilation of Bangladesh and Miami, tens of millions of climate refugees, deadly heat waves, cities like Kolkata and Karachi becoming uninhabitable for humans, and greater social conflict leading to war, not just because of the food shortages and shrinking land resources, but because everyone is so irritable from the heat.
A number of climate scientists have since objected to the piece, saying it is too dire – as Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania said, "the evidence that climate change is a serious problem that we must contend with now, is overwhelming on its own". But the piece also mentions a phenomenon called "scientific reticence", which describes the habit climate scientists have of being so cautious and self-censoring they fail to communicate how dire the threat is. This is where politicians could, for once, be useful.
All we need is one Craig Kelly for the climate – to stand up in Parliament and, instead of brandishing a lump of coal for the amusement of the proletariat, hold up a picture of an infant with her skin peeling off, or a submerged Palm Beach mansion, or a Torres Strait Islander forced to flee his home because of rising seas, or a piece of grey coral plucked from our dying reef.
The Way I See It.......The greatest thing about this scare campaign? You don't even have to make up the facts.
Seriously? These are "the facts"? An "infant with her skin peeling off", thanks to man-made warming? The "annihilation" of Miami? Food shortages? Plagues? Our extinction?
Here's what we have in fact seen so far: rising living standards world-wide, record crops, a dramatic slowing of the rate of warming, fewer cyclones, no trend to more droughts, 80 per cent of low-lying atolls actually growing or stable.
What on earth is Maley talking about? She's coated in the slime of Fake News !
Monday, August 21, 2017
Dr. Cheryl Benard (photo right) has worked for refugees. (She was program director of the Initiative for Middle Eastern Youth and the Alternative Strategies Initiative within the RAND Corporation’s National Security Research Division.) She now warns of the rape epidemic brought by Afghan refugees to Austria:
These were not of the cultural-misunderstanding-date-rape sort, but were vicious, no-preamble attacks on random girls and women, often committed by gangs or packs of young men.
Typically, the preferred targets are not what stereotype might imagine, provocatively dressed young women that a confused Muslim from the ultraconservative hinterland misinterprets as promiscuous. No; often, the victims are mothers with small children. I am guessing that to a predator, they appear to be easier targets, because it is assumed they will be handicapped in their ability to fight back, but there may also be some more Freudian dimension that I am missing.
This brings us to a third, more compelling and quite disturbing theory—the one that my Afghan friend, the court translator, puts forward. On the basis of his hundreds of interactions with these young men in his professional capacity over the past several years, he believes to have discovered that they are motivated by a deep and abiding contempt for Western civilization.
To them, Europeans are the enemy, and their women are legitimate spoils, as are all the other things one can take from them: housing, money, passports. Their laws don’t matter, their culture is uninteresting and, ultimately, their civilization is going to fall anyway to the horde of which one is the spearhead. No need to assimilate, or work hard, or try to build a decent life here for yourself—these Europeans are too soft to seriously punish you for a transgression, and their days are numbered.
And it’s not just the sex crimes, my friend notes. Those may agitate public sentiment the most, but the deliberate, insidious abuse of the welfare system is just as consequential.
But we are still left with a mystery. Welfare fraud is one thing: it makes a certain kind of sense, if you have no regard for rule of law or fairness and you are lazy. But why is this current cohort of Afghans making its mark as sexual predators . . . and inept, stupid ones at that?
In search of an answer, perhaps we should take a closer look at the victims. We have eliminated improper attire and an unwittingly seductive manner, but might they have any other traits in common to shed light on why they became the targets of such madness?
Reviewing them, one word comes to mind: fulfillment. A Turkish exchange student, happy to be advancing her education in industrial design at a good university in Vienna. A girl in a park, enjoying the sunshine. Two friends, taking their babies for a walk. A mother, enjoying a summer stroll with her two children. A contented old lady, out with her pet. Attractive, accomplished, happy, normal people . . . an unbearable sight, perhaps, to—and here I must agree with President Trump—losers. That is what he proposed we should call terrorists, and he is right. These young men, even minus a suicide vest, are losers, which has inspired them to become social terrorists.
The Way I See It....., the Left has to do a bit of hard thinking. It’s fine to be warm, fuzzy and sentimental about strangers arriving on your shores, but let’s also spare some warm, fuzzy and sentimental thoughts for our own values, freedoms and lifestyle. Girls and women should continue to feel safe in public spaces, be able to attend festivals, wear clothing appropriate to the weather and their own liking, travel on trains, go to the park, walk their dogs and live their lives. This is a wonderful Western achievement, and one that is worth defending.
A deeply disturbing read. Read it all.
Saturday, August 19, 2017
The trouble with mainstream climate scientists is that they’re third-rate scientists, and the reason they’re third-rate is that they’re dishonest. My authority for this statement is physicist Richard Feynman, (photo below) who has been dead for 29 years but was ranked by his peers as one of the ten greatest physicists of all time. Feynman set out the parameters for honest science in general, and I’ve never yet seen a mainstream climate scientist live up to Feynman’s honesty test.
Thomas quotes Feynman explaining the principles of his test, and adds:
There must now be tens of thousands of peer reviewed mainstream studies relying on the output of temperature computer-modelling for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Since the 5th IPCC report of 2013, each such study, on Feynman’s honesty test, should include in the preamble that the 5th report noted  that 111 of 114 such model runs over-estimated actual temperatures from 1998-2012 — and they’re still over-estimating for 2012-2016, as demonstrated by John Christy’s satellite graphs provide in Congressional testimony last March.
Another great Feynman-test fail is all this science-y stuff about hottest year ever. Surface based records (that have been ruthlessly adjusted by lowering the early-year temperature data) may show recent hottest years, but the 38-year satellite records don’t – at best the 2016 peak was within the margin of error relative to 2015. How can any honest scientist (on Feynman’s definition) fail to mention the awkward satellite data when assessing hottest years?
REALITY CHECK: A particularly strong El Nino event contributed about 0.2C to the annual average for 2016. This means that without the El Nino 2016 would have had a global temperature of 0.57+/- 0.1°C which is the same as 2014 and within the errors of 2010 (0.56) and 2005 (0.54). It would also have been in the 95% confidence range of 2013, 2010, 2009, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2003 and 2002. In other words without the El Nino 2016 would have been statistically in the same region as the previous 15 years.
The Way I See It........what is fascinating about his common-sense tenets of scientific honesty is that today they are forgotten, ignored, corrupted and trampled upon by supposed scientists in all fields playing ‘publish or perish’ and ‘get that grant’. The climate scientists are particularly bad because the stakes in grants, influence and reputation are now so high. When the Climate Council’s CEO Amanda McKenzie talks about “carbon pollution”, why don’t the scientists on her board (Flannery, Hughes, Steffen, Bambrick) correct her and say carbon dioxide (not “carbon”) is a plant food essential to life on earth, not “pollution”? That’s what Feynman surely would want.
Friday, August 18, 2017
|The donkey abused by the teens was killed, for fear that its attractions would entice other “admirers.”|
|NO...your Dick is your Death-by-Rabies you sick Buggers !|