Aussie Minister's Response to the Truth is Embarrassing !

What should a senior minister of the Gillard Governmnt do when he learns he is wrong about global warming? If you recall, it was my posting on February the 10th that exposed Dr Craig Emerson and Dr Karl Kruzelnicki to the fact that their ''warmist'' ideology wasn't holding water. I presented a chart that showed that there hasn't been any significant warming of the planet for 16 years. It couldn't get plainer than that, but both refused to acknowledge this fact. It was worse this week when Trade Minister Emerson got on the 2GB radio show and tried again to deny there had been a 16-year pause in global warming and instead the world was warming fast. This, despite the announcers pointing out that none of the measurements used even by the IPCC detect any warming trend that is ''statistically significant''?

Here's what I expect. I would expect Dr Emerson to apologise for being so badly informed. I would expect him to revise his thinking about the nature and speed of any warming, and the warming influence of our emissions. I would expect him to explain why, in the light of the facts I and others have now drawn to his attention, he thinks trying to ''stop'' global warming with a carbon tax and billions in subsidies still makes economic sense. Or to admit it does not, after all. These are the kinds of things a serious man, a responsible politician, would do when presented with facts contradicting a critical assumption behind an important public policy.

On 2GB, his argument was bizarre, but standard issue in the warmist media outlets -- that there cannot have been such a pause because the average temperature of the past decade was higher than of the decade before. Emerson couldn't understand the fallacy of that argument. So a listener, a forensic accountant, equally frustrated with the mathematical ineptitude of this senior minister, produced a graphic chart that surely even Emerson can understand. (see above) So...to say the past decade was warmer than the one before is true - but still does not contradict the fact that for 16 years there has been no warming of any statistical significance.

The Way I See It.....if someone like this minister is still so adamant about his global warming beliefs, and in a government advised by top scientists - is wrong in the very basic facts about climatic warming, what does it say about the Gillard Government and its warming policies? When facts change....normal, honest people change their opinions. This now goes beyond a judgement of Emerson's intellect. It also invites a judgement of this scumbag's character.

Oh yes, still no admission, retraction or apology from ABC science presenter Dr Karl, either, even though he is even more profoundly wrong than Dr Craig and should know better. He completed a MB, BS after a science B.Sc (Hons) and some further broad study into medical science. His attitude has brought some loss of credibility amongst his admirers.
NOTE: Dr Emerson has a doctorate in Economics. On matters of science he has no qualifications.

The Mystery of The Disappearing Gold !

During the Cold War, Germany moved much of its gold to New York in case the USSR invaded Germany. It was assumed at the time the US would be a safer storage location, and of course, they could always ask to have it returned if they wished. But German citizens have become increasingly worried about the security of the 1,536 tonnes of their Gold reputedly held at the Federal Reserve in New York City. This has resulted in the Bundesbank pursuing repatriation of the Gold, beginning with a request to view it in the basement vault of the Federal Reserve Building, where it is claimed to reside.

Of course, the German government had received periodic assurances from the Fed that the Gold is there; however, the issue began to get a bit sticky recently, when the Fed refused a request for an inspection. The world then raised a collective eyebrow, and whilst not panicking over this development just yet, closer attention has come to bear, not only on the Fed, but on any institution that is entrusted with the storage of the Gold for other parties.

Concern spread to Austria, where a question arose in Parliament as to where Austria's Gold is stored. The answer was that 80% of of it (224.4 tonnes) is in the UK. (It was claimed that the reason for this is that, if a crisis were to occur, it could be more easily traded from London than from New York City.) Seems reasonable enough, except that the return of the Gold to Austria, if it were requested, may be a bit difficult, as the Gold seems to have been leased out by the UK! To many, a second eyebrow might go up at this point. Lease out the wealth of another nation? Isn't this a bit....irresponsible? 

Welcome to the New Gold Shuffle.  I found that it's done all the time. The Gold is leased to a Bullion Bank, which typically pays 1% interest to the Fed, with a promise to return it on a specified date. The Bullion Bank then sells the Gold on the open market and uses the proceeds to buy Treasury Bonds which will net a 3-4% return. The nicest thing about such an arrangement is that the lessor continues to claim it on his balance sheet as a line item: ''gold and gold receivables.''After all, an assest that we have leased out is still an asset, even if it has now been sold by the lessee. This of course means that there i less Gold in the world than has been claimed. How much less? That's anyone's guess.

But even if it became generally known that the Fed and other banks are holding paper, rather than physical Gold, couldn't we carry on regardless?  Sure, but there's quite a bit of risk. Like...(1) If there were a dramatic rise in the price of Gold and the lessor were to call in the return of the Gold. the Bullion Bank could easily lose far more than its 2-3% margin it was enjoying. (2) Then if there were a crash in the bond market and hyperinflation set in, the bonds that the Bullion Bank purchased could become worthless. So, with the present market, there are any number of possible triggers that could cause the people of Germany, Austria or a host of other nations to demand their Gold be returned.

However, the Fed has already stated in so many words, ''We're sorry, but we can't let you have all your Gold at one time, but we'd be prepared to send it to you over a period of years." The Bundesbank should say to that, I'm afraid that's not good enough. It's our Gold and we insist that you produce it immediately!'' If they were to take this perfectly logical step and the Fed refused, there could be a run on the banks, and, very possibly, within as short a period as 24 hours, a world-wide bank holiday might be declared with regard to Gold. However, this is not what will transpire. Neither logic nor sound banking practices are the object here. The object is to maintain the charade that exists within the banking community. The Bundesbank is just as fearful of a run as the Fed and will be only too willing to accept the Fed's terms.

The Way I See It....it is not the banks who wish to correct the situation. Not one bank wishes to expose the inappropriate practices of any other bank. Their loyalty, is to each other and not to their depositors. We haven't heard the last of this issue. The cat is out of the bag at this point and the depositers' distrust and uncertainty will not be quelled by any counter-offers. Tension will continue to mount amongst depositors, and, at some point, the situation will reach an impasse.

We might consider whether a possible run may become systemic, causing a bank holiday on all the bank's activities, thus freezing any currency that we may have on deposit. We may conclude that it is prudent to only retain in our bank enough money to allow cheques to clear -- an amount sufficient to cover a few months' expenses. In the near future, I predict we may well find that a significant amount of Gold that is claimed to exist in the world will ''disappear.'' Whilst we cannot control this eventuality, we may be able to save the Gold that is being held in our names from disappearing.

Aussie Constitution to Be Made Racist !

It's five years today since Kevin Rudd as prime minister made a landmark apology to the ''Stolen Generations'' and Indigenous Australians as a whole for the mistreatment and suffering endured since European settlers landed two centuries ago. Former Labor speechwriter, Troy Bramston, rhapsodises that the apology and the attendant Closing the Gap policy commitment is a reminder of what is rare in modern  politics. ''Rudd was far from a perfect prime minister; he made many mistakes and misjudgements. But his national apology to the Stolen Generations was his finest moment." There was small problem with the speech -- one that Bramston and many others do not even allude to. For all the speeches, no one has yet been able to identify even 10 children stolen from their parents by racist officials simply on the grounds that they were Aboriginal.

In 2010, for instance, I posted on my Blog on August 30th an article entitled You'd Have "Stolen'' too! which seriously looked into this matter and using Keith Windschuttle's informative research published as a book, ''The Fabrication of Aboriginal History'', to debunk these atrocity stories. Now, we hear that this isn't the end of it.....it seems we have misguided ''reformers'' saying, '' there is more to be done.'' By that they mean to "rework the outdated and racist wording of the Constitution.'' In the capital, Canberra, today MPs will take the next step towards that reform. In fact, as Keith Windschuttle noted, there is nothing racist in the Constitution, despite the claims of a Gillard-appointed panel demanding change.

The passage the panel identifies as racially offensive is Section 51 (xxvi). This reads: 
                The Parliament shall, subject to the Constitution, have power to make laws for the peaceful order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: The people of any race, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.

Unless this panel failed to research its topic properly, it should have been well aware that not once since Federation has this section lent support to discrimination or racial abuse of Aboriginal people. Every time state and Commonwealth laws in this field have been tested in the High Court, their intention has been found to be for the benefit of the Aboriginal people. What really is happening is not the removal of racist provisions but the attempted addition of them!  And so today MPs will start start the debate over this and another innocuous paragraph to repeal a perfectly good section which lets the government make special laws for, quote, ''people of any race'', inserting sections that recognises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, bans racial discrimination and affirms English is our national language, while recognising that Indigenous languages were the nation's first tongues.

Two questions:
          1) Do you think we should treat each other equally, regardless of ''race'' or ''ethnicity?
          2) Then why do you want a new Constitution that treats people differently, on the grounds of race. It's pure stupidity brought on by the Greens and their fellow travellers wanting to keep indigenous people separate, as they had been before European settlement. They want to treat indigenous people like museum artefacts - something quaint to look at with their traditional dancing and weapons but not part of modern Australia. A number of progressive indigenous leaders have said privately that they found all the ''recognition- of-the-traditional-owners'' at the beginning of government speeches patronising and insulting. And when asked why they didn't speak out publicly against these greenie activist assholes, they said they would have been howled down by the Aboriginal Industry of leftists ad Greens. ''It would be too much of a burden to bear,'' said one.

The Way I See It....the myth of the "Stolen Generations" as I wrote in my previous posting, was spun from the distortion of missionary workers receiving, not kidnapping, half-caste children. The treatment of half-caste children by their parents was well known and was appalling. It would have been a crime not to rescue them and send them into mission stations for caring. Indeed, even today we still ''remove'' or ''steal'' a disproportionate number of Aboriginal children for a good moral purpose: they are in trouble, abused and need help.

It's not just the ''Stolen Generations'' media beat-up but even Philip Noyce's distorted-history film, Rabbit Proof Fence that has robbed children of pride in their country; that this film and repetition of this myth has given newcomers less reason to embrace us, that it has made villains of caring heroes who once saved children abandoned by everyone else, and that it tells Aboriginal children that this is such a genocidal society that they should not even want to join in, even if they dared. Worst still this fiction is actually killing children!

Listen to other Aboriginal leaders such as Wesley Aird, Mick Gooda and Linda Burney, who all have said a fear of the ''stolen generations' tag ''has made us too scared to save Aboriginal children right now.'' And why? Because I believe, we don't want to admit that Aboriginal children were once rescued not from their Aboriginality, but from harm like this. We refuse to remove them from harm today, to avoid admitting this may be why we removed them yesterday. Changing the Constitution will only complicate things further.

Scientist: The ''Cure'' is Worse than Any Warming !

Professor G. Cornelis van Kooten holds a chair in Environmental Studies and Climate at Canada's University of Victoria and has written this in the past week:

Chart Showing 16 Years Without Significant Warming

          I was a reluctant contributing author of the IPCC's Forth Assessment Report, reluctant because, after having been a reviewer of the Third Report, putting in quite a bit of time and then totally ignored, I reviewed the process as nothing more than a SHAM!

I have worked on climate problems related to forestry, both in terms of adaptation and mitigation.  However, I first looked at the broader problem of climate change when, about five years ago, I was asked to teach climate economics in a new Climate studies minor in the Faculty of Social Sciences at my university. It opened my eyes!

I have now encountered a significant number of scientists and others who have been personally attacked and even threatened with violence for their contrary views but now keep such views to themselves.  Indeed, I would even dare say that there are likely as many on my own university campus who are skeptical about the human origins of supposed global warming as there are those who support the so-called consensus and my university is noted for for its climate scientists and pro-anthropogenic origins of global warming.

So here is what I found....  The climate models have never been validated and are simply unreliable. To add insult to injury, the climate models were also used to make claims about the increasing intensity of storms, rainfall events, etc., when all the empirical evidence indicates that storm events have been on the decline. After reading large amounts of literature by astrophysicists, I am more convinced that changes in solar activities (whether sunspots, various types of cycles, etc) are a better explanation of changing temperature and possible global warming than CO2.

The highest temperature projections are based on affecting the poorest people in world. But it will be not be from rising temperatures (which are not) but from the increased Carbon Dioxide that will see  yields of all leading crops rising dramatically. So per capita income of the poorest people will see them earning 15 times more than now. There are huge benefits to health and every other measure one cares to choose when one becomes rich. These more than outweigh any damage from climate change. So you can appreciate that rising CO2 emissions are, for the most part, a side effect of alleviating global poverty. To mitigate climate change one needs to force the vast majority of humankind to continue living in abject poverty. I would welcome 3 degrees of warming, or even more. Warm weather is much better for one's health than cold weather.

The Way I See It....preventing climate change does not help the poor, it dooms them! Poverty simply kills more people than climate ever will. In my view, the only real threat to humanity comes from the eco-fascist environmental movement. The threats to polar bears, ecosystems, ice caps, glaciers and agriculture are vastly overstated and in many cases, non-existent. I have yet to see convincing evidence that the threats are going to be catastrophic. It was 3 degrees warmer in 950AD when the Vikings were running around in shorts and boots raping and pillaging and found a green land they named Greenland.

Economists, as well as myself, have warned and continue to warn against the use of emissions trading. They worry about additionality, leakages, transaction costs, and of course corruption, that are associated with emissions trading. The Europeans are addicted to it and Australia has followed blindly to instigate it and now Obama seems to be imbued with this stupidity. All the while Canada, Japan Russia and China have walked away from the idea. In conclusion, perhaps, massive subsidies to support wind and solar developments on the basis of job creation might be a more insane policy.

A Doctor of Delusion and a Minister of Ignorance !

It is particularly galling when a minister, I respected, in our present Gillard government boastfully mouths the stupidity of our Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Greg Combey, against all the present facts that the planet hasn't warmed in the last 16 years. Dr Craig Emerson, the Trade Minister, is the one that makes us pay the misguided Carbon Tax, even when the reasoning behind it two years ago is no more validity. His government, run by another closed minded twit, Julia Gillard, is proposing to spend billions to stop global warming when it's stopped already.   The latest charts (like this on the right) show the real story. Rising carbon dioxide has not created any, rapid or otherwise, warming. The hysteria was for nothing yet the stupidity lingers.

Even more galling is that Dr Karl Kruszelnicki (photo), one of Australia's ''National Living Treasures'' , last week tweeted an outrage to his 177,000 admiring followers, about a journalist's article, stating the latest findings, saying, ''How does Andrew Bolt get away with saying our planet hasn't warmed in the last 16 years?' His employers pay him to say this misconception?''. Dr Emerson replied: ''Mr Bolt can have his own opinions but he can't have his own facts. Temperatures are rising. Fact!"  Just last month, an admission from the godfather of global warming, NASA's James Hansen stated warming has been flat for more than decade. Do Karl and Emerson truly dispute this evidence? 

Dr Karl, as he is affectionately known, presents science on the government controlled leftist ABC's radio and television, writing books and doing guest spots on other channels giving insight and explaining various scientific events and phenomena. So you would expect him to know the very basic data about global warming. This is an egregious example of warmist know-nothingness. It is also a symbol of the giddy and irresponsible ignorance of so many of the noisier global warming prophets. This wouldn't be serious if Dr Kruszelnicki wasn't such a public figure and helping to promote a great scare that our gases are frying the world.

To compound the ignorance is the arrogance Dr Karl showed in a following tweet, by debating the figures of Britain's MET, asserting the world has warmed 0.3 degrees in those 16 years -- which still isn't that much, actually. But I discover the Met''s figures show warming just one-sixth of what the good doctor claimed (0.05 degrees Centigrade). That is so small that scientists say it's statistically insignificant. It's indistinguishable from background noise.  Essentially ZERO!

In the foolish hope that these two men may reconsider their opinions and just in case there is any doubt about what the Met figures show, here is the Met in its own words:
          The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.5C over that period....
--------Or put it this way: if this rate of warming is real and was maintained for the rest of the century, the world by 2100 would be hotter by about 0.27C of a degree. You'd struggle to even measure it. You certainly wouldn't notice a change in climate, other than the natural ones that have always been with us.

The Way I See It....I am terribly disappointed and even astonished Dr Karl doesn't know about this pause in the warming, and didn't check it out even after Andrew Bolt alerted him to it. Secondly, I'm even more astonished that after finally (apparently) learning from his mistake, Dr Karl did not apologise to his followers and Mr Bolt, issue a public correction or give any indication he would reassess his global warming catastrophism. He's given no sign he will change his mind about anything even after learning the planet hasn't warmed 0.3C degrees in 16 years as he thought, but just 0.05C. If he is in denial, his science degrees and his reputation will mean nothing in the eyes of many now.

His only response, it seems, is to remove from his Twitter site any tweets on this topic that might be held against him. I don't think that's good enough for him to cling to his delusion. And, of course, there's some basic questions about intellectual integrity and being straight with your audience. So I ask Dr Karl, much honoured ABC science presenter, to at least tell us this: when facts change, sir, does your opinion?

Asteroid Fly-By Closer Than Satellites !

Miss Me ??  I'm back....after a week off fighting a virus, I find there's plenty of info piling up.....coming from my many website sources to keep me busy for weeks.  Let's get started!

An asteroid half the size of a US football field will dart between Earth and orbiting satellites this coming Saturday, sparing the human race and putting on a show for sky gazers in Eastern Europe, Asia and Australia, NASA said. The 45 meter (150 foot) asteroid, named 2012 DA14 (according to NASA's Near Earth Object Program), will pass over the Indian Ocean at about 27, 358 kilometres -- lower than the orbits of some 400 satellites -- in the closest known approach of an object this size. ''It will come extremely close and travel in a north-to-south trajectory at 7.8 kilometres a second, or about 8 times the speed of a rifle shot'', NASA scientists said last week.  Could you image the tsunami it would cause if it did hit the Indian Ocean? It would make the Boxing Day (Dec 26th) tsunami look like a rock dropped in a wading pool!

''No Earth impact is possible," says Donald Yeomans, who manages the Near-Earth-Object office at Pasadena, California-based Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The NASA unit monitors relatively small space objects such as DA14 to measure the risks they present to the Earth. Researchers said the asteroid's close trajectory will help NASA in preparing for an eventual encounter with a near-Earth object later this decade. While a strike by an asteroid DA14's size would  do ''a lot of regional destruction,'' it wouldn't be catastrophic to the planet's population, said Lindley Johnson, program executive for NASA's Near-Earth-Object observations program in Washington. Sadly, for the fantatical environmentalists desires, the damage would rival an impact event in Russia in 1908 that leveled trees over a 2123.8 square-kilometres (820-square-mile) territory. The asteroid that is thought to have wiped out the dinosaurs was about 10-kilometres in diameter.

2012 DA14 was discovered by amateur astronomers in February 2012, and has been tracked by NASA ever since. ''When we first discover them we really can't say  where in its orbit its going to be at a particular time very accurately,'' explains Yeomans,  "If we can get the radars on them right after we discover them then we can nail their orbit for another 100-200 years and run them out and see if there's a problem. If not, we put them aside and go on to the next one.'' The asteroid will be ''pinged'' by NASA's Goldstone Radar in the Mojave desert. The radar will send a beam and then by measuring how and when it bounces back, the scientists can measure its characteristics.

The Way I See It....the scientists have determined DA14 to be a fairly normal asteroid. It is medium-sized and made of stone, as opposed to ice or iron like some asteroids floating around out there in space. Asteroids about this size fly by Earth once every 40 years on average, and strike about once every 1,200 years.

I was fortunate to see the result of an iron 50-meter asteroid in South-West United States that impacted about 50,000 years ago, leveling and killing every living thing in an area 80.5 kilometers (50 miles) around and leaving behind the Meteor Crater in Arizona. At 1200 metres (4000 feet) in diameter and 170 meters deep (570 feet) it is quite a sight!

Democrats Shameful History of Racism & Gun Rights !

George Zimmerman is not the racist that President Obama helped to paint. When he heard that an unarmed 17 year black boy, Trayvon Martin, was shot and killed by a Neighborhood Watch volunteer he assumed it was by a white man. Before even knowing the full story Obama recklessly ramped up the race-hate scenario with the inflammatory remark, ''You know, if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon" then Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the Black Panther Party did the rest.

It was weeks later when the Orlando Sentinel revealed the police account of the incident corroborated by witnesses: ''With a single punch, Trayvon decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer, which broke his nose, then he climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk leaving him bloody and battered, where in Zimmerman managed to shoot the 17 year old dead in self-defence.''  Mr Zimmerman is an Hispanic and lawfully has a gun under Florida's ''stand-your-ground'' legislation. Congratulations, Obama, for inflaming white-black tensions when the the worse violence is in fact mostly black-on-black.

I wrote in a recent posting that the Democrats and their left liberal bleeding hearts are demanding tighter gun control with the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in their minds. No mention of tighting up controls of the many ''fruitcakes'' walking around forgetting to take their medications. The Democrat's present stance with guns and their paternal feelings for Negros runs counter to the real historical record which has faded over the years. This is due to the ''excellent'' public education system that ensures that no American under the age of 60 has the slightest notion of their country's history.

Gun control laws were originally promulgated by Democrats to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. This allowed the Democratic policy of slavery to proceed with fewer bumps and, after the Civil War, allowed the Democratic Kn Klux Klan to menace and murder black Americans with little resistance. (Contrary to what illiterates believe, the KKK was an outgrowth of the Democratic Party, with overlapping membership rolls. The Klan was to the Democrats what the deadshit American Civil Liberties Union is today: Not every Democrat is an ACLUér, but every ACLUér is a Democrat. Same with the Klan.)

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger Taney's infamous opinion in 1857 in Dred Scott v. Sandford argued that blacks could not be citizens because if they were citizens they would have to right to own guns: ''It would give them the full liberty to keep and carry arms wherever they went,'' he said. With logic like that, Republicans eventually had to fight a Civil War to get the Democrats to give up slavery. Alas, they were Democrats, so they cheated.  Right after the war, Democratic legislatures enacted ''Black Codes'' denying black Americans the right of citizenship -- such as the rather crucial one of bearing arms -- while other Democrats (sometimes the same Democrats) founded the Ku Klux Klan. For more than a hundred years, Republicans have aggressively supported arming blacks, so they could defend themselves against Democrats.

The Anti-Klan Act of 1871, under the authority of Republican president Ulysses S. Grant, employed the U.S. military to destroy the Klan and pretty much completed the job. But the Klan had a few resurgences in the early and mid-20th century. Curiously, wherever the Klan became a political force, gun control laws would suddenly appear on the books. Here's an idea of how those gun control laws worked. Following the firebombing of his house in 1956, Dr. Martin Luther King, who was a Christian minister, applied for a gun permit, but the Alabama authorities found him ''unsuitable''. A decade later, he won a Nobel Peace Prize.

The National Rifle Association opposed these discretionary gun permit laws and proceeded to grant NRA Charters to blacks who sought to defend themselves from Klan violence. Take for example; when WW2 Marine veteran, Robert F. Williams returned home to Monroe, North Carolina, to find the Klan riding high -- beating, lynching and murdering blacks at will. But it was not until he got a Charter from the NRA in 1957 and founded the Black Armed Guard that the Klan got their comeuppance. His repeated thwarting of violent Klan attacks is described in his stirring book, ''Negros With Guns.'' In one crucial battle, the Klan sieged the home of a black physician and his wife, but William's Black Armed Guard stood sentry and repelled the larger, cowardly force. As the the Klan found out, it's not so much fun when the rabbit's got the gun. In his book Williams wrote, ''It has always been an accepted right of Americans, that where the law is unable, or unwilling, to enforce order, the citizens can, and must act in self-defense against lawless violence.''

The Way I See It....the National; Rifle Association's proud history of fighting the Klan has been airbrushed out of the record by those who were complicit with the KKK, Jim Crow and racial terror, to wit: the DEMOCRATS. 

The Democrats and the media have motivated many citizens to treat the NRA as a  pariah because of its stance to protect the Second Amendment from being trampled by impassioned political idiots, like Dianne Feinstein. Gun control is always a scheme of the powerful to deprive the powerless of the right to self-defense. The Russian Communists in 1926 took all guns from their citizens -- and since then over 60 million Russians perished at the hands of their government.  Food-for-Thought.