The Early Voter gets to sleep in ...

Howdy folks. I decided today that I didn't want to have to run the propaganda gauntlet and line up with the hoi polloi on Election Day when I should be busy getting my sleep between shifts.

So I went into an AEC office and had an air-conditioned room virtually all to myself to take my time casting my votes, and as a result, I now thoroughly recommend to one and all that one should find a place where one can vote early rather than leaving it to "the day".

How much more time and advertising do you need to help make up your mind anyway ?

If you're in Perth city then one such place is 111 St Georges Terrace, 10th floor (signposted in the foyer), which is at the corner of St Georges Terrace and William Street, and diagonally opposite to the BankWest tower.

My Green Ballot paper was pretty easy - I'm in the safe seat of Pearce so I could put virtually anything without causing an upset, but I did a "1,2,3,4,5 ... 9" response favouring the incumbent over the nutters, but I did forget that a valid vote (you never see advertised on official "how to vote" cards) can also apparently merely be a 1 for your main preference and then 2 for everyone else, which obviously spoils any preference deals. Oh well.

Some guy once got thrown in jail for handing out "how to vote" cards telling folk that, didn't he ? Perhaps the "1, 2, 2, 2 ..." loophole has been closed up now anyway.

(Goes off and does some research). Yup, that loophole is no more and if you DO elect to do a "1,2,2,2 ..." etc, you will have just rendered your vote informal ... as in "donkey voted".

See: http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/guide/howtovote.htm for info on voting and what constitutes a valid vote.

My vote order for the Senate started out according to the "Liberal" ticket but went off the rails around half way down, but at least I got the C.E.C twits and Pinko Commie Wallies towards the end of the ticket, and most importantly, the Climate Change Nutters at the very bottom .

Yup, even I reckon Labor is better than the Oz Democrats and "The Greens" (shudder) .

Anyway, if you want to cancel out my vote, then do something other than the following.

1 Liberal

2 National

3 Christian Democratic Party

4 Family First

5 Democratic Labor Party

6 LDP

7 Group P (Campbell and Co)

8 Group M (Wynne and Co)

9 Carers Alliance

10 Conservatives for Climate and Environment

11 Non Custodial Parents Party - Equal Parenting

12 What Women Want - Australia

13 Labor

14 Australian Democrats

15 The Greens

16 Senator On-line

17 Group Q (Armstrong and Co)

18 Ungrouped (McNaught)

19 One Nation

20 Citizens Electoral Council

21 Socialist Alliance

22 Climate Change Coalition

Here is to an Oz Government that isn't too much one way or another, and definitely doesn't have "That Gillard Woman" in it ...

regarDS

Enemies of humankind and life itself

From: http://www.co2science.org/ ... yet another site on Natural Climate Change that is worth bookmarking, IMHO.

SOQ

"CO2, a tiny but essential component of the atmosphere, wields nowhere near the climatic power often ascribed to it. As presently constituted, earth's atmosphere contains only 370 parts per million (ppm) of the colorless and odorless gas we call carbon dioxide. That's just a little over three-and-a-half one-hundredth of one percent, i.e., 0.037%. Even if its concentration were tripled, carbon dioxide would still comprise only a little over a tenth of a percent of the air we breathe, which is far less than what wafted through earth's atmosphere eons ago, when the planet was a virtual garden place. Nevertheless, and as illogical as it would seem (and truly is!), a mere doubling of this minuscule amount of CO2 is perennially predicted to produce a suite of dire environmental consequences, including dangerous global warming, catastrophic sea level rise, reduced agricultural output, ravaged natural ecosystems and dramatic increases in extreme weather events, such as droughts, floods and hurricanes."

and

"In the case of the biospheric benefits of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, it is an indisputable fact that carbon dioxide is one of the basic building blocks of life, comprising the major "food" of nearly all plants on earth. With more CO2 in the air, literally thousands of experiments have proven, beyond any doubt, that plants grow bigger and better in almost every conceivable way, and they do it more efficiently, with respect to the availability of important natural resources, and more effectively, in the face of various environmental constraints. And when plants benefit, so do all of the animals that depend upon them for their sustenance, including us humans. Without question, therefore, CO2 is the elixir of life, the rock-bottom foundation of nearly all that lives on the planet, be it in the ground, in the oceans, or in the air."

EOQ

So, why would the evil greens and loonie lefts be seeking to artificially control and reduce the amounts of such a valuable substance that provably can bring so much increase and wealth of food to the planet ? The short answer is THEY HATE PEOPLE, especially people able to easily support themselves and subsist outside their control, rule, and care, and especially people who are aligned with conservative Judeo-Christian mores and moralities. They want a planet with far less people and of those who remain, they want them to be unencombered by traditional christian attitudes and views. I'm sure they will get their repeat of the bloody French revolution on a global scale before too much longer. Maybe even punctuated with a reintroduction of that famed bladed instrument for those who dare to stand in their willfully ignorant way. ;) After all, blood letting soon follows on from such people hating mentalities once their arguments are shown to be nought but lies, fraud, and hot air. Considering the typical human condition, it is only natural ... regarDS

A Kruddy Blogroll ... Oz taxdollars paying for fraud and spin ?

Aw, how cute, Krudd has a new blogroll, and no doubt a team of public servants to keep it nice and clean. Our tax dollars busy ripping us off yet again ... Here is his first entry, with the original to be found at:

http://www.pm.gov.au/PM_Connect/PMs_Blog/Climate_Change_Blog

Kevin.Rudd says... I decided to kick off my blogging career with a focus on climate change. The latest scientific research on climate change confirms our worst fears. Climate change is happening faster than we previously thought, creating a more serious threat to our economy, our environment and to future generations. I recently returned from a meeting of leaders of the world’s major developed and developing countries in Italy, where our discussions focused on our global efforts to tackle climate change. This meeting - the Major Economies Forum on Climate and Energy – made some important progress. In particular, it recognised the clear message from climate science that the increase in global average temperature must not exceed 2 degrees celsius. That means the international community is accepting the need for tough long-term targets on reducing carbon emissions. But the hardest work is still ahead. Much more needs to be done if we’re to achieve a successful global agreement on climate change in Copenhagen in December. Australia is determined to be on the front foot in global efforts to tackle climate change. We know that our nation is more exposed to the impact of climate change than perhaps any other developed economy. Without strong global and national action, climate change will permanently damage our natural environment and hit our jobs and our economy hard. The Great Barrier Reef – one of Australia’s most iconic natural wonders which generates jobs for around 60,000 people and more than $4.9 billion in tourism revenue – is particularly vulnerable to climate change.

The next step for Australia is to take strong action at home through Parliament passing the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in August. This scheme will for the first time put a limit on Australia’s carbon pollution. By taking action at home in Australia, we can give businesses certainty and give momentum to the international negotiations that are so crucial for our national interest. It’s our responsibility to act now on climate change. That is why I urge all Senators and Members of Parliament to support this vital legislation for our nation’s future. How do you think we can make Australians more aware that we need to act on climate change now?

And here is my response to that load of lies and spin, which (for now) is an accepted comment to our Kevvy300billion's blog as at "Jul 16th, 2009 at 8:30 pm"

> "The latest scientific research on climate change confirms our worst fears." "our" is a reference to Ms Wong and yourself, yes ? After all, "the latest scientific research" is consistently and repeatably showing that the global climate change that the planet is enjoying is not only cyclic but also has virtually nothing to do with atmospheric CO2 levels let alone humanity's miniscule contribution to them. Which obviously means that the proposed ETS scheme is not only totally unfounded and pointless, but also somewhat fraudulent to say the least. Which goes a long way to explain your "worst fears". > "Climate change is happening faster than we previously thought, creating a more serious threat to our economy, our environment and to future generations." Should natural climate change manage to progress on the path of warming (sadly, it appears to have stalled in that regard) then this can overall only be good news to the planet and our economy, environment, and future generations. Especially so if atmospheric CO2 levels could in someway be TREBLED After all, current atmospheric amounts of that lifebringing CO2 are virtually at starvation levels for the planet's flora for which the rest of life depends upon. It's a pity mankind cannot actually do that much to influence atmospheric CO2 levels, but if we could, we would do better to increase it ! That being said, the real science is clearly showing that in relation to climate change, atmospheric CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes not lead them. So, no need for any of the hysterical alarmism about natural climate change and especially no need for any kind of ETS in relation to CO2. Also, I think people need to remember that the IPCC (the InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change) is a political body, and science is decided by facts not consensus. It certainly wasn't scientific consensus that did decades of stomach ulcer sufferers any favours, yes ? regarDS

Yeah, I realise I am largely pissing in the wind here but if enough of us do even that, perhaps this disasterous ETS thing can be hosed off the floor along with AGW alarmism. Anyhoo, at least ONE Senator seems to have rejected AGW and is firmly onboard to stand in the way of the ETS.

From: http://www.stevefielding.com.au/climate_change/ we can see that Senator Fielding not only ACCEPTS the reality of climate change (as do I and near everyone else who are wrongly described as "deniers" ... we only deny the foolish notion of MANMADE climate change and that man can do anything either way to influence global warming or cooling) but also is calling "on the government to answer my question with a straight answer. If they’re not prepared to do so, I’m happy to fight the lone battle in the senate until those senators who are honest with themselves break party lines." See the provided link for the entire article (which details his meetings with Minister Wong, the Oz Chief Scientist, and a brief meeting with The Goracle) from his own blog, and then visit the following link to read the "Due Diligence" report prepared by scientists after Ms Wong and the Chief Scientist failed to either answer or impress.

http://www.stevefielding.com.au/images/uploads/7._Carter-Evans-Franks-Kininmonth_Due_Diligence_on_Wong-Z__.pdf If you are of typically conservative voting habits, I would also urge you to write to your local member to let them know that you will be unable to support the Coalition should Malcolm Turnbull and Co choose to side/vote with the Government in support of an ETS, and that you would rather support Climate Change Realists like Senator Fielding who are willing to ask and demand answers for the hard questions and stand in the way of a blind pursuit into folly and ruin for this country. regarDS

To the Federal Leader of the Opposition

A letter I just sent via links available here: http://www.liberal.org.au/contact/ and http://malcolmturnbull.com.au/ContactMalcolm/tabid/87/Default.aspx and http://www.dennisjensen.com.au/contact.asp and http://www.nationalswa.com/contact.aspx and http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/memfeedback.asp?id=SJ4 (The Hon Wilson Tuckey MP's website) and no doubt more to follow. The version I sent to Dr Jensen was prefixed with:

"Dear Dr Jensen. Sorry to read what has just happened to you re: pre-selection, particularly considering your views regarding AGW Alarmism. I do hope you continue with the good fight in that regard, either with the Liberal Party or as an Independent. I submitted the following note to the Liberal Party webpage and Malcolm Turnbull's webpage this morning because I am very much concerned by the direction that the Coalition seems to be going in relation to the typical AGW alarmist position and the Rudd & Wong "ETS". Also, because of Mr Turnbull's stance and recent decisions I find that I can no longer speak of the Liberal Party in good terms while he remains its leader and in support of any kind of ETS. Letter is as follows, and thank you for your time:"

To the Federal Leader of the Opposition. In every election over the last 27 years I have voted for either the Liberal party or the Coalition, either directly or via preferences but mostly the former. I will be unable to continue this trend in the next election should the Liberal party continue in anyway to support the alarmist nonsense and fraud that is "man made climate change", CO2 being "a pollution", and any kind of "Emissions Trading Scheme" related to CO2. Instead, I will be supporting candidates who demonstrate climate change realism, which at the moment seems to only be the Family First party. Yes, the climate is changing, it has always changed, and it continues to change, and atmospheric CO2 levels always lag behind global temperature changes and not lead them ... and regardless of mankind's pitiful contributions to the same. Besides, when it comes to atmospheric CO2 levels, the planet is virtually starving for the stuff anyway, and would benefit by actually being doubled or more. Make no mistake. If the blogs and forums are anything to go by, there are a lot of longstanding typical coalition supporters out there who will be casting their votes elsewhere unless the Liberal party soon chooses to admit to the folly of AGW ("manmade global warming) and associated fraud of an ETS, and instead adopt a unified Climate Change Realist position that is contrary to the kind of disaster the ALP (let alone The Greens) are trying to inflict upon Australia. Also, don't under estimate the power of "the internut" in terms of reaching people and shaping public opinion. At the moment, it would appear that KRudd and Co are continuing to use it far more effectively that the Coalition. Personally, I think you will find that if you decisively establish policy that not only opposes the ALP's "ETS" but also rigourously demands answers to the kinds of questions Senator Fielding recently asked on the topic, and made it all very public, then the Australian Public would overwhealmingly support your party. The average voting age Ozzie can sniff out BS from 50 paces and most of us probably know by now that there is something distinctly fishy about the whole AGW Alarmist thing and that to implement an ETS would be to put the country and economy through a hiding for nothing, so with that in mind it would be quite foolish to do a "me too" to what Rudd and Wong want to inflict upon us. As a blogger and prolific forum participant I will be continuing to warn against AGW Alarmism and an ETS, and similarly will be denouncing any and all political parties who support those scams. In fact, this very letter is also about to be posted to my own blog and a highly google referenced forum, and I will also be supplying it by way of comment to the PM's new blog on the topic of climate change. I firmly believe that how your party chooses to approach the (Natural) Climate Change topic will directly affect your chances at the next election. To merely support or echo the ALP postion will render you irrelevant, but should you choose to take a stand against the Alarmist hysteria and nonsense, you could not only be returned to Government but also save Australia from ruin. Thank you for your time. regarDS (name included)

KRudd's last stand ?

I'll not pollute this blog by posting KRudd's latest round of dishonest rhetoric and sophistry. If you want to read his address to the Lowy Institute made on 6/11/09, then go here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/the-pms-address-to-the-lowy-institute/story-e6frg6nf-1225795141519 His address makes a couple of things abundantly clear. One of them is that it is clear that he doesn't actually believe in man-made global climate change, and another is that he is quite desperate for the AGW trojan horse to deliver its planned payload, and not because he thinks it is good for the climate or the children of the world, but rather (and only) because he thinks it will be good for his political future and place in history. The fact his address is riddled with weasel words and phrases and appeals to (unquantified) authority (i.e. "genuine body of evidence") that are typical of those who want to be seen as being in honest support of something they don't actually believe the word of, and who do not wish to tell a direct lie, show that he is really only giving convenient lip-service and that he doesn't actually think for a moment that our children and childrens children are under any threat by mankinds pitiful contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere ... and doesn't he just luuurv the convience "precautionary principle" offers in that regard, too ! Thus, he shows himself to be almost as much a fraud as the ETS he and Wong have cooked up to betray and ruin the country with. His obvious desperation to see the AGW trojan horse be brought through the city gates before Copenhagen, is delicious. To build on the gambling theme he chose to repeatedly use in his address, I think he knows everyone knows he's holding a dud hand and is bluffing, but he has put so much of himself into the pot that he might as well see it through, because to abandon his play now would be to lose absolutely, whereas while he continues with the obvious bluff, some miracle may still save him. A man of great blindness of faith and twisty-turniness of character is our Kevin "to infinity billions and beyond" big spender ... As this whole thing comes unstuck and the knowledge of the truth continues to grow and spread throughout this nation and the world as to how complicit in utter fraud some of our elected have become in relation to building nation destroying sovereignty robbing policies (and accompanying taxes and laws) around the AGW environmentalist religion, I wonder if we are going to see a repeat of the Oz Governer General vs Gough, and USofA "watergate" type thing. Hmmmm, no, prolly not. Our current GG is too into herself to ever do what is required in relation to dismissing a PM and government that has betrayed its country and should no longer be in office, and I suspect that the USofA would still be more inclined to make it easy for some nutter with a gun to take care of such business than do the whole impeach thing again. Actually, speaking of nutters with guns, I couldn't really see the Obamanation delivering the kind of address our desperate "the sky is falling, but I can save you" KRudd just gave. Well, at least not on USofA soil ... they shoot at the very table those who seek to cheat and defraud, don't they ? In closing, I'll quote the tiniest bit more of KRudd's sickening address. He mentioned a certain collection of names quite a few times (even Lord Monckton's ... but our Kevvy didn't say anything about the absolutely disgusting draft treaty the UN are pushing. The little Judas probably helped put the draft together anyway ...)

Malcolm, Barnaby, Andrew, Janet – stop gambling with our future. You’ve got to know when to fold ‘em – and for the skeptics, that time has come. The Government I lead will act. - Kevin Rudd, 6/11/09

Ooooh, I wonder what new laws our desperate little weasel of a PM is busy cooking up to see the likes of Andrew Bolt and Janet Albrechtsen silenced ? Re-education camps where "arbeit macht frei" ? I don't reckon MSM is going to be in much support of Kevvy for much longer. Interesting recent news is that Rupert Murdoch reckons KRudd "is delusional". You can read about that here: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26316630-2,00.html

"If Rudd thinks we can set an example for the rest of the world with a cap-and-trade system on greenhouse gas emissions - the ETS - all it would do is push up the cost of living in Australia and the rest of the world will laugh," - Rupert Murdoch 07/11/09

How's that for a fair shake of the sauce bottle in the fullness of time, Kev ? You'll be needing that job in the UN by the time all this is over, coz no one is going to want you in Oz. Anyway, you should fit in well over at the UN. They aren't all that big on "due diligence" either. regarDS

Indulging my carbon offset nipples !

"Today I ...", in the "offline world", got to share a social occasion at "Little Creatures" in Freo with somebody who (if I understood the job title correctly) earns their bread and butter by not only supporting and promoting the Grand Lie of AGW/MMCC (Anthropogenic Global Warming / Man Made Climate Change), but also via the Great Fraud/Scam of our era, "Carbon Trading".

We had only known each other for prolly less than 5 minutes when The Discussion got underway, and all because LSCP ("LifeStyle Choices Partner" for those who have come in late) asked him what he did for a living and he foolishly answered "Carbon Management".

Can you image my glee and the tingle induced to my erogenous zones upon hearing such a thing ?

At one stage we had to turn things back down to about 11 (refer to The Amp on "This is Spinal Tap" ) coz he didn't like me talking about public funded professional scare-mongerers Karoly and Flim-Flannery in disparaging terms.

By the time I got to drop the name "Andrew Bolt" at our drinking table (the great names of James Delingpole and the award winning science blog "wattsupwiththat.com" already having been mentioned), my warmista drinking companion was calling me "satan" and I was calling him "gullible". :-) 

LSCP's take on the evening is that this poor fellow just simply could not believe that I was serious in my rejection of the mythical "consensus" he Truly Believed in, along with the utterly failed hypothesis of global climate change being caused by levels of atmospheric CO2, let alone mankind's pitiful contributions to the near to starvation (for flora) levels of atmospheric CO2.

To be fair and on the flip side, I just simply could not believe he was serious when he suggested that the quality of life I was enjoying thanks to relatively cheap energy generated by plant-food creating coal, could not possible be making me happy and that I would actually prefer to live without all those wonderful things cheap energy brings me.

My LSCP's view was that he thought I musta been just taking the p!ss, even though I said I had been part of a grass-roots letter writing movement that produced over 400,000 items of corro to pollies about the nation and that in turn helped see Malcolm Turncoat ousted as Liberal Party leader which in turn saw KRudd, Killard (so renamed because of her "roll out the red carpet to queue jumping economic opportunists" border control policies that has seen who knows how many wannabe illegal immigrants drown at sea), Turncoat, and Penny Wrong's ETS/CPRS stopped in its tracks.

Anyhoo, twas all fun (well, from my POV), nobody lost an eye, and I just had to LOL at his end of the evening compliment to me of "they say satan always takes an appealing guise".

I told him to put "derspatz" into google or "Hitler" + "AGW" into youtube. ;)

Actually, it has been a while, so here again is my take on Hitler's reaction to Briffa's Yamal tree ring data and all it implied.

I'll only include the youtube link because for some strange reason embedding mucks up the captions.

See: http://www.youtube.com/embed/cTGLpqFGyYM

... and for good measure, here is a favorite youtube of mine from the "JollyGreenWatchman":  http://www.youtube.com/embed/-esLrrqGKkE (linked coz of caption issues when embedding)

Anyhoo, cheers, ummm, "Gullible" (name changed to protect the identity of a modern day peddler of what is akin to the useless Roman Catholic "Indulgences" ala "permissions to sin" system of old :-)), it was all fun, and I'm sure that lump of cow you ate for dinner was raised a vegetarian.  :-) :-) :-)

Oh, and on the subject of carbon trading, here is an idea that might even tempt this little so called "satan":

OTOH, going to bed for money is called prostitution isn't it ?

Oh, and here is yet another youtube I found interesting. All about the Bias of the BBC (much like Oz's "ABC") and "The Guardian" (much like Oz's "The Age"), particularly in relation to the Big Lie of our era, "Man Made Climate Change".

Enjoy. :-)

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO63oWe6XXo

My parting comment today is something I informed a iPad carrying drone for Bono's "One" activist/fake charity group at a 360 degrees concert late last year.

"Left wing politics is the problem, not the solution"

Something which painfully apparent here in Oz at the moment.

regarDS

It's the Peppered moths, all over again ...

See http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/butterflies-linked-to-climate-change-20100317-qfm4.html (with the utterly misleading and inaccurate headline of "Butterflies fly early as planet warms" ... since when is Melbourne "the planet" ?) for how Melbourne Uni's AGW alarmist and publicly funded MMGCC (man made global climate change) advocate and lobbyist, David Karoly, has boldy attached his name to the gob-smacking latest lunacy being used to prop up the AGW religion.

Yes, if you visited the link, you just read how butterflies in Melbourne are to deemed a direct proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Yep, David Karoly basically wants you to believe that Melboreds Urban Heat Island Effect (thanks to it being a growing city) equals Man-Made Global Climate Change.

ffs, the study revolves around studing creatures in A CITY, you know, a place where populations, buildings and roads increase and spread, and the UHI effect generally increases, ... so should any of us be surprised that the growth and changes of/in a city should have an effect on the flora and fauna found within ... and who would deny that it happens anyway ?

Sheesh, what next ... another look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth ("The Peppered Moth") and a revision to say it wasn't the amount of evil coal dust around that determined which colour varieties were "the fittest" for survival re: predation, but actually the amount of CO2 in the local atmosphere ?

Anyhoo, I've heard that Melboredites like to see themselves as the whole world, but isn't it getting a bit ridiculous to claim that the city's UHI equals Man-Made Global Climate Change ala Anthropogenic Global Warming ?

Aside from that, can you also now think of a better way your taxes should be spent than on the likes of Karoly and Co ?

Oh, and how is the collecting of data on breeding cycle of butterflys OUTSIDE Melbored's UHI going ?

Did the so called "scientists" bother to study that, or where they all just too busy pushing a barrow (one that also serves to carry the grant funding back to the lab) and providing Karoly with the subject matter for his next bit of advocacy and lobbying on his chosen religion, AGW ?
Hmmmm, let's look at that article provided in the link again. Oh, here we are:

"Dr Kearney said the study, which relates specifically to Melbourne, would prove a practical tool to forecast the impact of climate change on the city's biodiversity."

Nope, just Melbourne.

But it gets worse (or better, depending on which side of reason you are).

Look what has happened to the news item once it made its way out of Oz and on to the rest of the world.

Whatever happened to this being a study of the life cycle of butterflies in MELBOURNE !?

Spun wilder than a common brown butterfly's cocoon found here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7464687/Butterflies-emerging-earlier-due-to-climate-change.html

But let's quote a bit here and lock it in.

Butterflies emerging earlier due to climate change
Published: 7:20AM GMT 17 Mar 2010

Butterflies are emerging from their cocoons ten days earlier than 65 years ago because of climate change, experts warn.

The finding represents the first concrete evidence of a link between greenhouse gases and the timing of a natural event, according to researchers.

The team found that on average, the Common Brown butterfly (Heteronympha merope) has emerged earlier and earlier over the last half century, with an average of 1.6 days per decade over a 65 year span.

Researchers from the University of Melbourne said that the findings tally with a corresponding increase in temperature of 0.14 degrees Celsius per decade over the same period.

This warming is shown to be human-induced, researchers say.

Lead author of the study Dr Michael Kearney, from the Department of Zoology, said the findings could help our ability to forecast future impacts of climate change on biodiversity.

He said: "Shifts in these seasonal life cycle events represent a challenge to species, altering the food and competition present at the time of hatching. Studies such as ours will allow better forecasting of these shifts and help us understand more about their consequences."

The study, funded by an Australian Research Council grant to Monash, Melbourne and Wisconsin Universities, is due to be published in Royal Society journal Biology Letters.

The team looked at catterpillars raised in the lab and compared their development to increases in temperature and climate change models.

Professor David Karoly said: "Scientists have previously observed that biological events are happening progressively earlier in spring over the past few decades.

"This new work has tied the earlier emergence of butterflies directly to a regional temperature increase, and has tied the temperature increase very strongly to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations caused by humans."

If you hadn't already read the original report that specifically says the study was limited to Melbourne, a city, would it be fair to suggest that the above article would tend to have you think that researchers from the three listed universities had studied "the common brown butterfly" all around the world, and determined that all around the world, where ever it was found, it was hatching out 10 days earlier than it did around 65 years ago ?

For an additional collection of points of view on the topic, also see: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/could_more_concrete_asphalt_and_industry_have_made_laverton_warmer/ which also includes arial photos that show how the lay of the land where the temperatures were gathered from has changed over the period of the butterfly study.

Now ask yourself, why are the likes of Karoly and the Telegraph so keen for the natural cycle of climate change to be seen as being man made, global, ... and bad ?

[edit] About a month later now, and here is something else on the topic, this time from the award winning science blog "Watts Up With That" and commenting on "Confirmation Bias".  See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/23/butterfly-study-a-case-study-in-confirmation-bias/#more-18856

[edit++] Tis now June 2010, and here is the latest on the topic, this time from the Royal Society Publishing. See: http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/06/07/rsbl.2010.0053.short/reply ... and wonder if Karoly et al should be subjected to a rigorous public conducted enquiry in relation to grant funding, etc.

The long and short of the Royal Society published article is that both Kearney and Karoly are just plain wrong, wrong, wrong, and probably fraudulently so.

Anyone really surprised that this would prove to be the case ?

regarDS

Big News! AGW's "Hockey Stick" well and truly broken ...

This is Big News. At long last, after near a decade of being stymied and stonewalled, the Base Data used to help give the world the infamous "Hockey Stick Graph" has been made available for suitable scientific peer-review scrutiny ... and it is now plain why such desperate efforts were made to keep it from being scrutinised in the first place.

Rather than repeat what has already been said, get thee instead to the following links from the award winning science blog "wattsupwiththat.com":

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/27/quote-of-the-week-20-ding-dong-the-stick-is-dead/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/28/mirror-posting-of-climate-audit-article-on-yamal-a-divergence-problem/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/28/update-a-zoomed-look-at-the-broken-hockey-stick/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/29/leading-uk-climate-scientists-must-explain-or-resign/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/29/more-broken-hockey-stick-fallout-audit-of-an-audit-of-an-auditor/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/30/a-must-read-the-yamal-hockey-stick-implosion-in-laymans-terms/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/30/agu-presentation-backs-up-mcintyres-findings-that-there-is-no-hockey-stick-in-yamal/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/30/more-yamal-tree-ring-temperature-data-this-data-is-flat-as-roadkill/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/01/mirror-posting-yad06-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/01/response-from-briffa-on-the-yamal-tree-ring-affair-plus-rebuttal/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/02/ross-mckitrick-sums-up-the-yamal-tree-ring-affair-in-the-financial-post/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/02/a-hands-on-view-of-tree-growth-and-tree-rings-one-explanation-for-briffas-yad061-lone-tree-core/

Or if you don't have the time to be reading all that at the moment, then enjoy the following rant from Hitler ... but please pardon any mis-translating of German into English I may have inadvertently made in providing subtitles. Heh.

So, "man-made climate change" is in fact shown to be "mann-made climate change". Not that I expect the AGW environmentalist religionists to suddenly abandon their cult just because a central sacred icon to it has been hurled down. They'll soon find something to replace it with ... such is the nature of such True Believers.

regarDS

Can you hear me Penny Wong ?

I thought I better resist the urge to launch into yet another massive/longwinded post on the topic of AGW Alarmism.

So I'll launch into a song instead. Heh.



Lyrics (as found in the comments section at http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/it_should_have_been_defeated_because_its_insane/
by "Perturbed") as follows:

EARTH ODDITY. (Apologies to David Bowie)

Kevin Rudd to Penny Wong
Kevin Rudd to Penny Wong
Put your special hat that's made of tinfoil on.

Kevin Rudd to Penny Wong
Legislation spin switch on
Check your factoids and may Al Gore be with you

(Countdown from 10 - 1, then Liftoff!")

This is Kevin Rudd to Penny Wong,
Weve really made the grade!
And weve sidelined that weird singer with no hair
Now lets push the ETS through if we dare

This is Penny Wong to Kevin Rudd
My hearts gone through the floor
For theyre voting in a most peculiar way
And the outcomes looking miserable today!

For here we are with our hats of tinfoil
Trying to save the world
The ETS we blew and there's nothing we can do.

Though we've made three hundred billion debt
We could do better still
But the stupid Senate told us where to go
(To a double dissolution, dont you know?)

Kevin Rudd to Penny Wong
Our Climate Change crusades gone wrong
Can you hear me, Penny Wong
Can you hear me, Penny Wong
Can you

Here we are with our hats of tinfoil
Baying at the moon
The ETS we blew and theres nothing we can do

Anyway, to participate in the debate, join up at: http://www.behindthebox.com.au/showthread.php?t=38673

regarDS

A minor win in the war on stupidity and fraud that is AGW Alarmism and ETS.

On the 13th of August, 2009, a minor skirmish in the war on gross stupidity and outright fraud was won when the PRO-Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmist Government had its CO2 indulgence scheme ala "CPRS" voted down.

Featured below is a speech from one of the voices of reason who voted against the Government's ruinous plans for Australia. Please note that all paragraph breaks and bold (etc) emphasis, have been added by yours truly. The speech in its original form was not provided with paragraph breaks so I've had to guess where they may have been.

To see it in its original format, visit: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/it_should_have_been_defeated_because_its_insane/

Tuesday, 11 August 2009
BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE
Tuesday, 11
August 2009 THE SENATE 1
CHAMBER SPEECH
Date Tuesday, 11 August 2009
Source Senate
Page 70 Proof Yes
Questioner Responder
Speaker
Minchin, Sen Nick Question No.

Senator MINCHIN (South Australia) (7.32 pm)—

The government this week are asking the Senate to support passage of a package of no less than 11 separate bills, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and related bills, to give effect to their Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, as they call it.

This scheme represents one of the most dramatic and far-reaching interventions into the Australian economy ever proposed by an Australian government. Its passage and entry into force would have enormous impacts on the Australian economy and the economic circumstances of millions of Australians.

The government knows there is no Senate majority for this legislation, yet it is determined on what is nothing more than a cynical political exercise. This legislation should be withdrawn for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it proposes a scheme which will not commence operation for another two years. There is absolutely no justification for the government’s insistence that the parliament deal with it now.
Secondly, the government is seeking to legislate an emissions trading scheme for Australia well in advance of the UN meeting in Copenhagen in December, which will determine the extent to which, if any, the world is prepared to act in concert on CO2 emissions. It is utter folly for Australia to legislate a scheme prior to the Copenhagen conference.

And, thirdly, the United States, currently the biggest emitter, is currently considering the issue of an ETS. It is, in our view, cynically irresponsible to propose that the Australian parliament lock in an Australian ETS prior to the US —as I said, the biggest emitter of CO2—before it determines whether or not it will commit to an ETS and, if so, the nature and design of such a scheme. For these reasons, the opposition condemns the government for its naked political opportunism in forcing the parliament to consider its so-called CPRS at this time.

Not only is the timing of this legislative initiative to be condemned, so too should the very name given to this package of legislation be condemned by this parliament. It is regrettably typical of this spindriven government to use such a grotesquely Orwellian approach to the description of this legislation.

For no more than base political purposes, the government has called its emissions trading scheme a ‘carbon pollution reduction scheme’. This is of course the perpetuation of a cruel hoax on the Australian people, childishly simplistic and misleading. The scheme proposed does not deal with carbon. It purports to deal with something quite separate—carbon dioxide emissions—and the scheme does not deal with pollution.

Whatever the climatic role of human induced emissions of CO2, CO2 is not by any stretch of the imagination a pollutant. CO2 is, as we know, a clear, odourless, colourless gas vital to life on earth. Indeed, CO2 is essential to a healthy environment.

One of the most cynical and deceptive manoeuvres of the climate change fanatics is to seek to convince people that CO2 emissions are pollution, to demonise CO2 per se. Anyone with any understanding of science knows this to be a complete falsehood. Indeed the Rudd government knows it too. Its own environment department’s website has a link to the official Australian National Pollutant Inventory, which lists 93 pollutants. Surprise, surprise, carbon dioxide is not listed among them. Mind you, after this speech, I bet some poor public servant will be bullied into adding CO2 to the list. So even the government’s own official list of pollutants, all 93 of them, does not include carbon dioxide.

It is also typical of this deceitful and spin-driven government to so cynically misrepresent the nature of carbon dioxide. Of course this whole extraordinary scheme, which would do so much damage to Australia, is based on the as yet unproven assertion that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the main driver of global warming.

I want to commend Senator Fielding for his questioning of the government over the causes of global warming. The Rudd government arrogantly refuses to acknowledge that there remains a very lively scientific debate about the extent of and the main causes of climate change, with thousands of highly reputable scientists around the world of the view that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are not and cannot be the main driver of the small degree of global warming that occurred in the last 30 years of the 20th century.

No-one, of course, disputes the reality of climate change. Of course the climate is constantly changing —it always has; it always will—but the main drivers of the small degree of warming that occurred in the 20th-century and the extent to which we should be concerned about it are hotly disputed in scientific circles.

One of the world’s most eminent atmospheric scientists, Professor Richard Lindzen of the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology, recently observed:

"The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing."

That is Professor Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s most eminent atmospheric scientists, who I suspect knows a little bit more about this subject than Senator Penny Wong. On Tuesday, June 23, writing in the Australian, Professor Peter Schwerdtfeger, Emeritus Professor of Meteorology at Flinders University, in Adelaide, reinforced this:

Repeatedly in science we are reminded that happenings in nature can rarely be ascribed to a single phenomenon. For example, sea levels on our coasts are dependent on winds and astronomical forces as well as atmospheric pressure and, on a different time scale, the temperature profile of the ocean. Now, with complete abandon, a vociferous body of claimants is insisting that CO2 alone is the root of climatic evil.

I fear that many supporters of this view have become carried away by the euphoria of mass or dominant group psyche. Scientists are no more immune from being swayed by the pressure of collective enthusiasm than any other member of the human race.
To acknowledge the reality of continuing scientific debate is not to say that Australia should not act in concert with other nations to give the planet the benefit of the doubt and to seek a global agreement to contain CO2 emissions. To the extent that anthropogenic CO2 emissions may be a cause of the limited global warming that has occurred, and to the extent that that warming is considered to be damaging, internationally coordinated measures to contain emissions at the least possible cost may be warranted.

Indeed, as someone trained in economics, I proclaim the virtue of an approach based on ensuring the most cost-efficient use of finite resources. The world has not measured up to that standard in relation to its use of energy. But, given the continuing scientific debate, it is especially important that a country like Australia only take steps in relation to CO2 emissions that are in concert with the rest of the world and clearly involve the least cost and most economically efficient means of CO2 containment.

The government’s CPRS clearly fails that test. The case against this scheme was convincingly made by my colleague the member for Goldstein, Mr Robb, in his speech on this bill in the House of Representatives. I also commend the work of my coalition colleagues on the Economics Legislation Committee in their reports on these bills and of Senator Xenophon on his minority report, which is a well-argued condemnation of this CPRS. I should also make mention of the critical analysis of this CPRS undertaken by the Select Committee on Climate Policy, chaired by my colleage Senator Colbeck, which exposed the CPRS’s many, many flaws.

Not enough is made of the reality of Australia’s circumstances in the consideration of measures to contain anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Australia contributes a little over one per cent of the planet’s CO2 emissions. If we were to completely shut down the Australian economy tomorrow, Australia’s CO2 emissions would be fully replaced by China within nine months. It is indisputably the case that nothing Australia does on its own can have any impact whatsoever on the earth’s climate. The deceit perpetrated by climate change fanatics that an Australian ETS will save the Barrier Reef is utterly contemptible.

The manic determination of the government to impose this scheme on Australia also ignores the reality of the Australian economy. Australia’s economy and our higher standard of living have been built upon our access to relatively cheap and abundant supplies of energy generated by coal-fired power stations. This is regrettably not well understood in this parliament let alone in the wider community.

It was my privilege to serve as Minister for Industry, Science and Resources for three years in the Howard government, an experience which reinforced this fundamental reality about Australia: all the great manufacturing and value-added industries of Australia, which this Labor government professes a commitment to, have been built on and are sustained by access to cheap, reliable energy derived from coal. That is why an ETS, essentially an energy tax, is such a threat to this country.

As Terry McCrann so accurately said in the Australian of 20-21 June: ... an ETS threatens to kill the Australian economy. It is a direct attack on our core comparative advantage: bluntly, the production of CO2. Power generated from cheap and abundant coal is a, perhaps the, core building block of both our standard of living and our entire economy.

That is a reality which this government wilfully ignores. What we see here is a Labor government sacrificing workers in energy-intensive industries on the altar of green votes. The cruel joke is that all those thousands of jobs to be destroyed by Labor’s CPRS will be in vain, because this scheme will make absolutely no difference to the global climate.

Most Australians clearly do not understand what an emissions trading scheme is, how it would work and what its consequences would be. That is perfectly understandable. I suspect most of the Labor caucus has no idea, either. Essentially it will be a very substantial tax on energy, and that is why Labor’s flawed CPRS is such a threat to our economy, dependent as it is on relatively cheap supplies of energy. Hence the utter folly of Australia designing and implementing this scheme ahead of the rest of the world.

Labor’s CPRS is a serious threat to many regional economies and the jobs they support, and I commend Senator Fiona Nash for her eloquent espousal of their cause. In my own state of South Australia it is estimated that it will cost 2,000 jobs by 2020 in the minerals industry alone. As a senator for South Australia, I do not see how I can possibly vote for this legislation, nor do I see how any government senators representing South Australia can vote for it.

While the financial capitals of Melbourne and Sydney may relish the creation of a new financial instrument to be traded by 20- something bankers, the people of a state like mine will pay the price in a higher cost of living, in industries and jobs destroyed and in a reduction in competitiveness — all for zero environmental gain.

It is also reprehensible that Labor would seek to legislate this serious attack on the Australian economy at a time when, as Mr Rudd constantly reminds us, we face a very serious set of economic circumstances. Mr Rudd loves to remind us of the seriousness of the so-called GFC and its threat to Australia. Indeed, it is his justification for the most massive explosion in government spending, government deficits and government debt seen since the 1930s. Yet, while talking endlessly about our serious economic situation, he seeks to fit Australia up with a set of concrete boots called his CPRS.

As Geoff Carmody, one of Australia’s most eminent economists, wrote in the Financial Review on 23 June this year: The CPRS is ‘the GST from hell’, delivering negative protection. Why should any country unilaterally tax its exports and effectively subsidise its imports, for no global emissions reduction?

At a time when policy should be wholly directed at maximising the efficiency, productivity and international competitiveness of the Australian economy, Mr Rudd seeks to impose a unilateral massive new tax on Australian industry and consumers which will damage our economy and do nothing to combat global warming.

The government’s pursuit of this legislation at this time is nothing more than an act of vanity on the part of Mr Kevin Rudd. This most vain of prime ministers wants to strut the stage at Copenhagen in December with a legislated ETS in his back pocket. He and his government propose to sacrifice Australia’s national interest on the altar of his vain desire for international acclaim from the vast UN bureaucracy being built around climate change policy.
The Australian parliament should not even be considering legislation for an ETS until we know the outcome of the UN’s Copenhagen conference and the US Senate’s consideration of the Waxman - Markey bill. The Australian people agree with this view. An Australian Newspoll conducted on the weekend of 24 to 26 July showed that 53 per cent of Australians wanted their government to either delay the introduction of an emissions trading scheme until after the Copenhagen conference or not introduce an emissions trading scheme at all.

On that basis, and for the reasons I have outlined to the Senate tonight, I urge the Senate to reject this package of bills.

Hear, hear.

regarDS

The creator of the Weather Channel wants Gore sued for fraud

While on the subject of The Goracle (who is in Oz busy recruiting latte-lefty Melboredites even as I type), here is a picture of his Crystal displays. At last we have his chief advisor and source of faulty information revealed !

Yup, as always suspected, the Goracle depends not only on Liquid Crystal Displays, but also the old fashioned Solid Crystal Balls (as circled in purple in the pic).

In fact, The False Prophet only requires but ONE "SCB" to four LCDs to arrive at the fraud, scam, carpet bagging and flim flammery he touts.

Incredible, eh ? Yup ... and in every sense of the word.

How many big screen monitors and trees does it take be the profit, uh, prophet of AGW (Anthropogenic (ala "man made") Global Warming) Alarmism anyway ?

I see from http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1893/Gore-US-Climate-Bill-Will-Help-Bring-About-Global-Governance that the false prophet of climate change is (still) busy calling for "global governance", too.

The very thing I've been talking about for yonks now re: the pragmatic use of AGW Alarmism to cement together a mish-mash of governments into a New World Order of a Global Government. As also represeneted by "the 10 toes" of the "feat of iron and clay" final last days kingdom as per King Nebuchadnezzar's dream as interpreted by Daniel in the book by the same name and from chapter 2.

Not only has the march towards global government been steadily progressing as promised, but also is still happening and fast taking on its final form as detailed in the symbol of that King's infamous statue.

If indeed AGW Alarmism turns out to be the "clay" that cements the "iron" together in that final government before a certain big finish, then does that mean that The Goracle isn't just a false prophet, but in fact is THE False Prophet spoken about of the final days before Heavenly Intervention ?

If so, then not even the book writings of a hundred Professor Plimers are going to turn back the "man-made climate change" Alarmist madness, but rather it is more a matter of firmly choosing sides and accepting the consequences that go along with those choices.

I choose the side of science, rationality, and anti-fanaticism ... which obviously puts me directly opposed to Gore and all of the (mostly) loonie left who support him and who are pragmatically using natural climate change as a way to establish global systems of government that are not only anti-conservative and anti-christian, but also are likely (if left unchecked) to lead to a greater blood-letting than the extreme lefty regimes under Stalin, Hitler, and Mao (etc) put together.

Yes, you read that correctly, I reckon that the Nazis, ala "National Socialist German Workers' Party" were lefties who were found just to the right of the very much lefty Stalinists. To quote another blog on the subect, "The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialist) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party" (In German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)" See: http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/05/american-roots-of-fascism-american.html for the entire article.

Still don't think so ? Well no matter, for "left/right" politics isn't a spectrum ... it's a circle with the extreme left and the extreme right ending up at the same place; fascism and totalitarianism.

Which is precisely what the world will get if the fanatical extremist environmentalists slash AGW Alarmists slash disenfranchised socialists slash Gorites get their way.

Their kind of mindsets just love the bloody revolutions and the mass murder of dissenters that such forms of overbearing government always bring ...

regarDS

PS: For more Climate Change Alarmism news articles and commentary (mostly from yours truly. Big surprise ?), visit: http://www.behindthebox.com.au/showthread.php?t=38673

Hangin' around for The Rainy Days.

A break from machinery for the moment. Time for a waffle. This one is inspired by the plight and challenges faced by most of us in Oz society in its current form. The stuff being endlessly repeated in our news media with no apparent happy ending in sight.

Yeah, "Rainy Days and Mondays always get me down" type stuff.

The secular humanist society promoted in these ~enlightened~ (~ = sneer quotes) times by the likes of Dawkins, most of standard left-wing academia, and the public school system is clearly showing the kind of fruit it bears, and the grafting going on exchanging branches within the same tree ain't going to make it any better either.

Lately I've been personally lamenting the plight of our young, our brethren in remote Aboriginal communities, and the apparent sickness of the soul of our whole nation. I have been wondering what it would take to turn people around and if such a turn around will happen.

I know I can be extremely negative and critical of the time and age we have no choice in partaking in, and I am generally and usually of the view that not much can be done about it and that it is better to hasten the end rather than patch up something doomed to fail.

However, I am also reminded that we are not abandoned nor forsaken and that the proliferation of hopelessnes, pointlessness, wickedness, and all the things reported in our news media, etc, although are very distressing observations and relatities for any parent, are still serving a useful purpose and aren't impossible to turn around.

Part of the useful purpose I reckon, is that it serves as an example to Dawkin's crowd that they are just plain wrong, wrong, wrong about most things and that their brave new world built upon subjective morality and base self interest is doomed to failure that can easily be extrapolated by what we are currently already seeing. I won't go on. Heh.

Not impossible to turn around ? See: http://www.welshrevival.com/ from which I'll quote a tiny bit from the "history" section.

SOQ

"a storm had hit the churches yet for so many it was a storm of love and power which completely transformed their lives.

People were changed in so many ways. The crime rate dropped, drunkards were reformed, pubs reported losses in trade. Bad language disappeared and never returned to the lips of many – it was reported that the pit ponies failed to understand their born again colliers who seemed to speak the new language of Zion – without curse and blasphemy – even football and rugby became uninteresting in the light of new joy and direction received by the Converts.

Colliers and tin-men of the working classes expressed their joy in so many ways – so many original prayers

But perhaps the song that captures what most of these felt was a song sung by Sam Jenkins a tin plate worker from Llanelli – a song translated at the time from English to Welsh – Can y Rebel “Am Achub hen rebel fel fi” - "For saving an old Rebel like me"."

EOQ

You see, I'm reminded that in the final days before God is obliged to step in an put things right again with mankind having been given all the chances due a rebellious child by a patient parent, the promise is to pour out His Spirit on all flesh - and when that happens, I reckon the likes of the Welsh Revival will be small potatoes !

Apparently during the times of Welsh Revival, people were even falling over in the streets overcome with a sense of their need of God's love and forgiveness. Imagine the turn around and return to hope in remote Aboriginal communities should that happen ? Same too in our city's "night spots" ?

How long does it take to turn people around ?

Surely but a blink of an eye once the choice is made ?

On a more secular level, look how easy it is to shape the public view of an entire nation if not tongue ? A couple of newsprint articles, a bit of 6 oclock news time, then the odd collection advertisements, and wallah ! Done !

I reckon BRING ON the last days outpouring of the Holy Spirit as prophecised by Joel (2:28) ala "It will come about after this That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, Your young men will see visions."

"After this" ? After what ? Heh. I'll let the interested go look that one up ...

Anyway, Dawkins and crowd not withstanding, I'd rather see us all, especially our young and our Aboriginal brethren, and our leaders under the influence of the Holy Spirit rather than what seems to be the norm at the moment.

That kind of Rainy Day (regardless of what day it falls on) certainly won't be getting me down.

Other than on my knees in thanks that is.

regarDS

Genesis 3:21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

From "The Australian" January 9th 2008

Climate change cure is warm and fuzzy. by Janet Albrechtsen

CANADA: I am starting to warm to this whole climate change business. Arrived in Vancouver for a night just before 2007 drew to a close. With barely a few hours remaining before the stores closed, I raced out and bought a fur coat. A long coat cascading down to my ankles, light as a feather and as warm as a ... well ... fur.

A few days later, despite sub-zero mountain temperatures, I am still positively glowing with warmth from my new fur. Not just because animal skins protect from the cold. No, there is the unexpected, more cerebral, inner-warmth that comes from learning that by buying a fur, I have done the right green thing. According to the Fur Council of Canada's new ad campaign, fur is now eco-fashion. Thats right. Wrapping yourself in a fur is a guilt-free pleasure. More than that, it's positively good for the planet. Barely 10 days in, I am loving 2008. It holds the promise of lots more surprises from green politics as the climate change juggernaut continues to head in the most unlikely directions.

Let me explain. At the weekend, Canada's National Post reported on an advertising campaign launched at the end of last year by the Fur Council of Canada, which represents 70,000 of the nation's fur traders. These sassy new ads feature gorgeous women draped in fur, one under the heading "Environmental activist". The ads explain that buying a fur coat is the ecologically correct thing to do because fox stoles and mink coats are natural, renewable and sustainable. By contrast, synthetic furs are no more than by-products of the petro-chemical industry. Making a single faux fur coat can chew up 19 litres of petroleum, a non-renewable resource, says the council. Ergo, buying a fur coat is good for the planet. Welcome to the brave new world of climate change politics.

The Fur Council's campaign has been so successful that even comedians are sending out the "fur is green" message. Picked up by a Canadian comedy show, a camp-looking guy who resembles Borat in a fur coat gets off some great lines assuring us that a genuine fur coat creates less pollution than synthetic textiles and uses no child labour. "So say auf Wiedersehen to faux fur," he smiles into the camera. "You wouldn't wear a barrel of oil, so why would you wear a coat that is made from one?" You can find it on YouTube. And if you're worried about being sprayed with paint by those nasty PETA people, funny fur boy has some advice: "Well, you just turn around and tell them that every spray can produces enough fluorocarbons to drown three polar bears. Who's the killer now, PETA?" Fur boy's advice if you want to do something good for the environment: "Kill a small animal and slap it on your noggin."

Alan Herscovici, the council's executive vice-president, told me by phone from Montreal that the global warming issue provided the perfect opportunity for the fur industry to tackle the animal rights industry. He described these groups as the new politically correct hate groups and lamented that the media rarely exposes the intimidation they use to pillory legitimate industries such as fur.

So if you are in the business of producing and selling natural products such as furs why wouldn't you jump aboard the natural, sustainable, renewable bandwagon? Long derided as the brutish killers of innocent animals who satisfy the hedonistic vanity of callous consumers, now animal trappers and hunters are, according to the Fur Council of Canada, the new heroes of global warming. And those buying and wearing the fur coats can hold their heads high in the knowledge that they are doing the socially responsible thing.

The fur industry is fighting back using the sort of emotional blackmail that the animal rights industry mastered long ago. All these years the anti-fur brigade has assumed the high moral ground when extolling the virtues of synthetic, faux fur coats over the real thing. Now we learn that their motto can be reduced to "Save a beaver. Kill the planet."

Climate change has snatched the moral high ground. Now the inference is that the animal rights industry would rather you line the pockets of Big Oil by buying petroleum by-products such as synthetic coats, rather than support the fur-farming and hunting families of the Cree people in the James Bay area or the Dene nation north of British Columbia.

Maybe the Fur Council's campaign is just a case of green-washing, as some warn. But theirs is a more legitimate claim compared to the shonks trading on climate change. Take the booming industry of offsets. When you next jump aboard a fuel-guzzling aeroplane you can soothe your conscience by throwing a few more dollars at the airline company that promises to send your money on to some green initiative such as planting trees or investing in wind power in India.

But as Mark Jaccard, a professor at the school of resource and environmental management at Simon Fraser University, told the National Post: "Was the tree planted in Guatemala truly an additional investment in reducing greenhouses gases or would another tree have sprouted in that spot eventually? Has the Indian wind generator actually helped prevent or delay the construction of a coal-fired power station, or was it simply a wealth transfer to one region in India while the expansion of coal stations has continued at the same pace? We cannot know because future actions are unknowable."

Even for those who accept climate change is a major threat to the planet, there are plenty of reasons to remain suspicious about how companies and industries move to rebrand themselves as environmental friends. Any new industry - and make no mistake, greenwashing looks like the boom industry of the early 21st century - will attract a rich collection of snake oil salesmen, hypocrites and downright crooks in its early years. And separating the rogues from the saints can often only be done in retrospect.

For the moment, I'm prepared to back the Fur Council. Why? Because I kind of like this novel feeling. Finally, I get around to buying a full-length fur coat and it turns out to be the politically correct thing to do. There I was recently mocking a friend in the advertising industry for ending his email with a pro forma "Have a low carbon day". Now I'm looking forward to the bumper stickers that will soon start appearing on the back of the small hybrid cars driven by our green-minded friends. "Buy a fur. Save the planet."

janeta@bigpond.net.au

ROFL ! Good on ya Janet !

regarDS

Pragmatic uses of Natural Climate Change to achieve Global Domination

So derspatz, you're of the opinion that global warming isn't caused by people, but is the natural warming/cooling of the earth AND God?

Not quite. I'm of the view that this planet was created as a (for all intents and purposes) perfect place with a perfect environment and that at the time of Noah the gradually corrupting/decaying conditions were given a dramatic and speedy shake up that not only brought about speedy and repetative global climate change swings, but also changed our very planetary spin and orbit, probably flipped the poles, gave us our current planetary wobble and changed the number of days to be found in a year.

I'm also of the view that we shall again suffer pole flip (which shall make the stars appear to move from their places) and the rapid arrival of many (largely unexpected for most folk due to their unfortunate indoctrinations in Gradualism and Uniformatarianism) catastrophies that again shall reshape the planet and destroy and kill much and many.

I don't think God worries much about our climate or spends time deliberately influencing it as such, especially seeing how it is ticking along nicely within usual and repeated parameters. Tis all under control and The End shall come just as promised and planned.

Our current climate changes don't bring me any concern at all because I'm of the view that everything that can be observed about our planet's history neatly fits within a time frame of around 6,000 to 10,000 years, with many events some deem to be many millenia apart and taking much time to come about, actually happening around about the same time and very quickly ... which was the main point of my recent links (see previous blog entry) that show even hostile sceptical science has irrevocably discovered that climate change can happen FAST FAST FAST and we can lose massive amounts of ice in a matter of a few years where previously it was thought it would take millenia.

I guess many of the hostile sceptical mob weren't very big on Viking history

And if it is God, to you believe that it's the 'end days' in revelations (as is my understanding of it based on many years of religious studies in school, but perhaps is not yours), or another period such as the great flood to whittle down some human numbers?

I believe that our global climate change is being pragmatically used by certain people in order to fulfil certain dreams (and prophecies) regarding finally establishing a Global Government.

I deem the likes of "Al Gore" to be pretty close to being "the false prophet" described in the prophecies of the Ancient Texts, who is out and about winning converts to his cause (much like Hitler's Brown Shirts), putting pressure on countries to join together in common accord to govern their citizens through the filter of "the sky is falling so we must all make our citizens toe a new line for the good of everyone ... OR ELSE", and we shall end up with a New World Order and government that is going to put Ancient Rome (et al) to shame.

I don't think God is the slightest bit interested in "whittling down" human numbers seeing how we are all gonna die one way or another anyway and get to have our time here judged.

However, the promise is that at the End of Days (before a 1000 years of peace and restoration here on earth before a final total renovation by fire and rebuilding of the heavens and the earth), much mayhem WILL be permitted and inflicted upon the planet in order to sort a few things out, and it WILL involve global climate change of a less than pleasant kind.

I reckon that the "stage of the game" we currently are at prophetically speaking, is the use of Global Climate Change in order to unify the people of the planet and restablish the power and control of the Roman Empire in a way that the ancients could only dream about.

Tis very exciting from my point of view, for I always wondered what sort of method could be use to get so many of the inhabitants of the earth to join up and surrender personal freedoms, especially after such systems previously tried by the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, China, etc.

Who woulda thunk it would have been something as simple as "The Weather" !

Now, if Al Gore really is the foretold "False Prophet", I wonder who the Anti-Christ will be. The one whom the false prophet helps get into power as president of Rome Reborn which is going to be the biggest super-power humans have yet to come up with.

BTW, I'm also of the view that the generation who saw Israel reborn in 1948 will not die out before the promised final 7 year tribulation time happens, Armageddon, and Yeshua returns.

Yet another reason I support and urge others to support Israel in nearly all things, and certainly with your charity dollar. Tis the best way to help the planet get past all of its ails and woes.

regarDS

On the topic of Rapid Climate Change ...

"By the 20th century, scientists (DS: some, but not all) had rejected old tales of world catastrophe, and were convinced that global climate could change only gradually over many tens of thousands of years. But in the 1950s, a few scientists found evidence that some changes in the past had taken only a few thousand years. During the 1960s and 1970s other data, supported by new theories and new attitudes about human influences, reduced the time a change might require to hundreds of years. Many doubted that such a rapid shift could have befallen the planet as a whole. The 1980s and 1990s brought proof (chiefly from studies of ancient ice) that the global climate could indeed shift, radically and catastrophically, within a century — perhaps even within a decade."

See: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/rapid.htm for the rest of where that quote was lifted from, plus such things as:

"Swings of temperature that scientists in the 1950s believed to take tens of thousands of years, in the 1970s to take thousands of years, and in the 1980s to take hundreds of years, were now found to take only decades. Ice core analysis by Dansgaard's group, confirmed by the Americans' parallel hole, showed rapid oscillations of temperature repeatedly at irregular intervals throughout the last glacial period. Greenland had sometimes warmed a shocking 7°C within a span of less than 50 years. For one group of American scientists on the ice in Greenland, the "moment of truth” struck on a single day in midsummer 1992 as they analyzed a cylinder of ice, recently emerged from the drill hole, that came from the last years of the Younger Dryas. They saw an obvious change in the ice, visible within three snow layers, that is, scarcely three years!"

and

"The first strong consensus statement had come in 1995 from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, representing the considered views of nearly all the world's climate scientists. The report included a notice that climate "surprises" were possible — "Future unexpected, large, and rapid climate system changes (as have occurred in the past)." The report’s authors did not emphasize the point, however, and the press seldom mentioned it."

and

"Asked about the discovery of abrupt climate change, many climate experts today would put their finger on one moment: the day they read the 1993 report of the analysis of Greenland ice cores. Before that, nobody confidently believed that the climate could change massively within a decade or two; after the report, nobody felt sure that it could not."

Then turn to page 4 of Friday December 14th "The West Australian" and read about how much the Arctic ice has melted in less than 30 years and how little of the sun's radiation is being reflected away because of the melt, which in turn causes even faster melting.

Tis all Good News AFAIC. Just ask folk in Greenland.

regarDS

"Baby Boomers", Natural Climate Change and the Extreme Greens

"... is this why the baby boomers appear to worship greed and don't seem to give a frig about climate change? It's all your problem kids, we won't be around for it."

My response to such a question is:

No, it is more a case of a majority of "baby boomers" having a better upbringing and education and being able to see straight through much of the propaganda regarding the fear campaign in relation to what in fact is natural climate change.

It also follows that the majority of "baby boomers" have also been better equipped to realise that lefty minority groups are prepared to lie about the natural and mostly beneficial process of climate change in insidious attempts to swing undeserved power their way so they can stamp their control and extremist policies upon the rest of the world.

Just like they are always trying to do.

The Greens are the worst kind of political extremists because essentially they lack any tried and true foundation to their morality and thus their policies. They are their own slaves to the subjective morality they choose to live by and unfortunately also fanatically fundamentalist enough to deem such a bankrupt approach to morals and ethics as something EVERYONE should be living by and so campaign and policy build accordingly.

Thus, the likes of The Greens prove themselves to not only be the enemies of humankind but also poisoners of innocence, and thus arguably the very soul of humanity.

regarDS

Public Education vs Private Education

"why is it that all the promised education spending seems focused at private schools, and why is that when Howard was on TV at a school it was one of those catholic type private schools?"

My response to such a question ?

Because more and more of the more decent parents are getting sick of teaching and bringing up their kids one way, only to have it totally undermined and poisoned by the atheistic ultra left wing permissive and anti Judaism, Christianity, and Islamic, public school system.

With more and more caring and decent parents opting for private systems, that must also mean that a government elected by the majority of people for the people, must allocate funds according to majority wishes as well as what is best for the nation now, the future and what has proven best for the nation in the past.

While the public education system remains hijacked and an enclave of lefty ideology it will continue to be shunned as parents vote against the system with their wallets.

The sensible thing is to move as much of education as possible into the private sector and create a user pays system that financially contributing parents can have more control than is possible in the lefty pinko social, civil, and cultural disaster public schools that are more of a hindrance than a help to our civilisation and future.

It seems to me that the standard lefty is all about having their minority (and usually selfish) view stamped upon the rest of humanity, always bleating for "rights" rather than actually going out and applying personal responsibility as a way of earning respect, and usually ends up all bitter and twisted as every day they are reminded that the majority is just not interested and nor is ever likely to be.

I would also suggest that the average lefty just hates that fact that most Oz private schools provide a nice shield against typical lefty ideologies sanctioned in state schools.

Parents are voting with their wallets for a less hijackable private system over a plainly failed public system and But Of Course any reasonable "Government for the people by the people" is obliged to further support the former over the latter even if a price to pay is a few more bitter and twisted snarly faced Jo Valentine look-alikes.

What with lefties losing influence left right and centre (respect having never actually ever been gained, let alone lost), it is no small wonder that they have been reduced to choosing a new thing to try and control us all regarding.

The climate.

I'd suggest that most Environtologists and their Church of Environtology would be of lefty ilk, with the handy thing for them and their new religion is that regardless of where climate goes, they will remain reasonably isolated from blame or accountablity.

Unlike than with our failed public education system.

Does that answer the question ?

regarDS