Boycott the Cancun Climate Circus

Statement by Viv Forbes, Chairman,

the Carbon Sense Coalition

The Carbon Sense Coalition today called on all Australian governments to boycott the Cancun Climate Change Circus.

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said “we do not want a repeat of the Copenhagen obscenity when 45,000 people gathered to discuss how to reduce things like air travel and conspicuous consumption”.

Forbes said there is no reason for Australia to attend.

“This conference is no longer about climate – it is about international redistribution of wealth and industry from the west to the rest of the world. Australia is part of the spoils they hope to redistribute.

“There is zero chance of global agreement on emissions trading schemes or more carbon taxes. The political landscape and public opinion in the USA has turned dramatically sceptical of the increasingly shrill predictions from the desperate alarmists. Moreover, trading in carbon credits in Chicago has collapsed and even Al Gore is recanting on ethanol. Without US participation, nothing will be agreed globally.

“In addition, for over a decade, the whimsical world climate has mocked the feverish forecasts of the IPCC. Global Warming looks like becoming Global Cooling (still caused by burning coal of course). Prudently they chose tropical Mexico for this conference or the world media would be treated again to the amusing spectacle of warmists shivering in another bitter northern winter of “unseasonal” snow and blizzards.

“So they are plotting a new scheme – enforced global rationing of carbon emissions on a per capita basis. This means transfer of Australian wealth, industry and jobs to India, China and Africa for decades to come. And to bypass parliaments and the suspicious electorate, this will be attempted via “International Agreements”.

“Australia should send no more than one observer to Cancun, and that person should have no power to agree to anything. In particular there should be no promises to extend the failed but costly Kyoto Accord, and no transfer of authority to any new international body.

“A boycott makes more sense than sending jumbo jets of people to beach resorts in Mexico to talk about reducing that sort of activity.”

For those interested in more info see:
IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer clarifies matters: 
“The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War … one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Palin’s Obama put down, Greetings from the 57 States.

Recently sufferers of Palin Derangement Syndrome, have started out to have a field day three times over her statements which they have claimed to be symbolic of ignorance and a lack of ability to lead etc, etc, etc.

The first was her use of the word “refudiate,” especially after she tweeted to the effect that Shakespeare often invented new words. The hysterics went on for a while, until the Oxford American Dictionary came out and declared it the best new word of the year, and gave the following reason:

"From a strictly lexical interpretation of the different contexts in which Palin has used 'refudiate,' we have concluded that neither 'refute' nor 'repudiate' seems consistently precise," the statement read. "'Refudiate' more or less stands on its own, suggesting a general sense of 'reject.' "

The second was when she urged the Tea Party, “not to party like its 1773 yet.” This was taken to indicate that she had no knowledge of history, until it was pointed out by some spoilsport that it obviously alluded to the Boston Tea party, which occurred in that year. The term “Party like its 1773” has been around for some time, but I read the more plebian stuff that the elites would not dream of viewing.

The third was her reference in an interview to North Korea being Americas ally. Had it been said by someone on the left, it would have been dismissed as a ‘mis-statement’ by the media, but being Palin it was blown up as a display of ignorance of geography. She has answered it by highlighting a whole lot of Obama flubs with her message: “A Thanksgiving Message to All 57 States”

My fellow Americans in all 57 states, the time has changed for come. With our country founded more than 20 centuries ago, we have much to celebrate – from the FBI’s 100 days to the reforms that bring greater inefficiencies to our health care system. We know that countries like Europe are willing to stand with us in our fight to halt the rise of privacy, and Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s. And let’s face it, everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma and they end up taking up a hospital bed. It costs, when, if you, they just gave, you gave them treatment early, and they got some treatment, and ah, a breathalyzer, or an inhalator. I mean, not a breathalyzer, ah, I don’t know what the term is in Austrian for that…

The best part is that each one is a Youtube link to him actually saying it.

She maintains that she didn’t have the time to do one for Joe Biden, who has a great many classics out there. During the Presidential election, there was some speculation by the more paranoid elements that the right would be so racist as to assassinate Obama. He took this seriously, and in a devilishly cunning move made Joe his VP, thus guaranteeing his safety. All of the extreme far right knew Obama was the only thing standing between them and a Biden Presidency.

Farage; Who the Hell do you think you are?

The European union reminds me of a skit on one of the comedy shows I saw years ago on the reunification of Germany. The faux news presenter announced it and quoted the German Chancellor as saying:

"We all welcome this momentous event, and now look forward to reuniting with Belgium, Holland, France, Poland, ..... ."

I recently mentioned the activities of Daniel Hannan, who is one of the more articulate opponents of the EU. Nigel Farage, a MEP from The United Kingdom Independence Party is also a great speaker and very popular. I am quite taken by the similarities in their oratorial style although Farage is a little rougher around the edges but still gets the message across.

If you like Hannan, but are inclined to think he holds back on his real feelings and should really say what he means, try this from Farage:

Is the media leftist or statist?

Radley Balco at Reason has a theory that the media which tends to support the left of politics is not so much leftist, but statist. This is a plausible proposition considering the point that the left are inherently inclined towards big government, there is the possibility we are simply confusing the issue. It could be that a disposition towards big government solutions shared by both gives that impression.

He argues that a survey of the largest dailies in California showed that they were all opposed to Proposition 19, which was the ballot measure to legalize the recreational use of Marijuana. He states:

This puts the state's papers at odds with nearly all of California's left-leaning interest groups, including the Green Party, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Service Employees International Union, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; progressive publications such The Nation, Salon, and The Huffington Post; and a host of prominent liberal bloggers. According to a CNN/Time poll released last week, it also pits the state's newspapers against 76 percent of California voters who identify themselves as "liberal."

On this issue, the state's dailies are also to the right of conservative publications such as The Economist and National Review, prominent Republicans such as former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, a growing portion of the Tea Party movement, and even Fox News personality Glenn Beck. …

He points out that newspapers supported the federal government on its right to prosecute medical marijuana users even in states that allowed it. They argued that overturning this would undermine the Commerce Clause. The press also endorsed the Kelo decision.

He raises support for the TSA here and points out an article in Cato involving a Washington Post/ABC push poll on the issue. The questions were designed to favor a response toward preference for safety over Privacy:

I have some doubts as to Balco’s conclusion here although he is generally pretty good on most issues, and one of the reasonably sane left libertarians. From my experience, yes, they definitely are statists. Where we part company is that from my experience they are also blatantly leftist. Only the most optimistic Republican with the rosiest of rose-colored glasses could say that the party has not been one of big government, even though the rhetoric differs.

Even though Bush expanded the size, cost, and scope of government exponentially during his tenure, it can hardly be argued that the press endorsed him or cheered him on. There was some support in the aftermath of 9/11 and so on but the press generally took an opposing perspective. They are definitely more approving of the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay now than they were during the previous administration. Bush would never have had favorable editorials on strip searches, naked body scans, or TSA feel ups.

If the complaints of abuses had been raised under Bush the press would be baying for blood. In a post during the last Presidential election I raised the issue of the NYT having not endorsed a Republican since Eisenhower in 1956, - 54 years. Admittedly Eisenhower was a statist to the point that Goldwater referred to his administration as, “A dime store New Deal.” The interesting part though was the reasons they gave for their following endorsements:

LBJ: In his frenetic dashing about the country, President Johnson stuck mainly to the safety of pious platitudes, interlaced with cloudy visions of the “Great Society.”

Jimmy Carter: Again and again Jimmy Carter seemed to be all sail and no boat, what did he do when his popularity sank in 1979? He fired half his cabinet and blamed the public for succumbing to malaise. … Mr. Carter’s economic policy amounts to nothing more than muddling through. But (heres the good part, probably written by their finance editor) isn’t muddling through just where economics is today?

Mondale: Mondale has all the dramatic flair of a trigonometry teacher. His Nordic upbringing makes it hard for him to brag.

Dukakis: Michael Dukakis is not the unfocused incompetent his late and lame response made him seem.

They are both statist and lefties Radley, it’s just that both coincide on most points that causes the confusion.

Radley Balco is a senior editor at Reason Magazine, and does a number of columns elsewhere and blogs as “The Agitator.”

David Cameron proves Hannan to be correct.

David Cameron (seen here with Boris Johnson) has referred to Daniel Hannan (Right) as an eccentric.

Some time ago I encountered a Youtube video of an interview in America by Daniel Hannan, the Conservative, (God knows why, he belongs to them) MEP. During the discussion Hannan was strongly critical of the NHS in Britain and urged Americans to reject the idea of National Health in its entirety.

Asked why it had not been wound back over the years, he pointed out that the NHS as bad as it was has become a sacred cow, and that no government including that of Margaret Thatcher had dared to touch it. In fact, he maintained it was forever expanded.

It appears that he was completely correct including for the current government. David Cameron has been taking some heat from elements of the left over these remarks, and has decided that rather than make a stand that might be seen as controversial, (that leftie swear word,) it is a better proposition to repudiate one of the most lucid if not the only lucid voice in his party:

Mr Cameron brushed aside an attack on the NHS's record by Mr Hannan, who told American television viewers that he "wouldn't wish it on anybody."

"He does have some quite eccentric views about some things, and political parties always include some people who don't toe the party line on one issue or another issue," the Tory leader said.

In an email to Conservative Party workers, details which were published on his blog, Mr Cameron said millions of people, including his own family, were grateful for care they had received from the NHS.

Hannan is probably the best thing the Conservatives have going for them, especially now that Gordon Brown has gone. He is an international sensation, a libertarian hero although he may not see himself as such, and one of the most articulate politicians Britain has produced.

Who could forget the put down of Gordon Brown in the European Parliament with his “Devalued Prime Minister…” speech:
“And when you repeat in that wooden and perfunctory way, that our situation is better than others, that we’re well placed to weather the storm, I have to tell you, that you sound like a Brezhnev era apparatchik, giving the party line.”

Oh hell, just in case you have been on another planet for the last couple of years here is again:

Cars, Cattle and the Ethanol Con

By: Viv Forbes
Chairman,

The Carbon Sense Coalition.

Email: Info@carbon-sense.com

Why are emissions from cattle eating grain classed as bad whereas emissions from cars burning grain ethanol are good?

Consider a paddock of corn. Most of the carbon in the growing plant comes from carbon dioxide in the air and is converted to plant material using solar energy via the magic of photosynthesis. Some comes from the atmosphere via microbes in the soil.

This plant material, either biomass or grain, can be fed to cattle or made into ethanol for motor fuel.

Both cattle and cars then use an internal digestion/combustion process to extract the energy stored in the plant material.

Both processes produce gaseous emissions. In cars, virtually every atom of ethanol carbon burnt produces one molecule of carbon dioxide. In cattle, some of the plant’s carbon is stored for a while in flesh and bones, and the rest is emitted as the natural gases carbon dioxide and methane. This methane is soon oxidised in the atmosphere to produce carbon dioxide.

Over the life of a car or a cow, they both produce the same carbon emissions. Every atom of carbon extracted from the air by the green plant eventually returns to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, the plant food. This is the cycle of life.

It is therefore scientific incompetence or deliberate fraud by government climate alarmists to claim that consuming ethanol in cars is good and should be subsidised but consuming the same plant material in cows must be rationed and taxed.

An ethanol industry propped up by subsidies and mandates is not sustainable. This industry damages taxpayers and pushes up the cost of grains, beef, pork, eggs, milk and cereals.

Subsidising ethanol brings no environmental benefits and is the enemy of the poor and hungry of the world.

It is time to end the ethanol con.

No more forcing motorists to buy it. No more tax breaks for construction of ethanol plants. No more subsidies or special protection for ethanol speculators.

And no more slander of the livestock industry which, when all is considered, is greener than the ethanol industry.

The Unlikely Coalition:

Can you imagine an issue on which Greens, Rational Economists, Feedlot Operators, Global Warming Sceptics, Consumer Advocates and Tax Reformers agree? No? See this article on Ethanol Subsidies.

More Good News:

Canadian Senators have voted down “The Climate Change Accountability Act” a stupid bill that called for Canadian greenhouse gases to be cut 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.

(I think these target figures are generated by a huge random number generator run on a supercomputer).

Whose Bloody money is it anyway?

Cartoon: Bill Leak.

“If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute.” – Thomas Paine

Recently an editorial in “The Australian” commented skeptically on Wayne Swans tendency to play fast and loose with the truth:

WAYNE Swan's political alchemy must stop. He can't be allowed to get away with describing tax increases as budget savings to firm up the misleading statement that he has instituted "the fastest fiscal consolidation since the 1960s".

It is a fiscal consolidation only because the government blew the budget during its first two years in power - some will say justifiably, fighting the global financial crisis; others will say recklessly, with poorly targeted and unnecessary spending. You can decide. …

Of the savings Swan claims credit for, he includes every tax increase this government has implemented or intends to implement (alcopops taxes, the mining tax, tobacco taxes, you name it). He even includes money raised such as a $150 million one-off dividend extracted from Australia Post in the 2008-09 budget.

The political alchemy doesn't stop there. Swan's so-called savings includes $555m raised by increasing luxury car taxes, $402m from increasing visa application charges and, in the most recent budget, $275m by amending the arrangements for ethanol (in other words, more fuel taxes).

Andrew Bolt among others feel it’s an indication that he is in over his head - and not telling us the truth.

Undoubtedly it is spin, undoubtedly he is not telling the truth, at least the truth as a rational person understands it to be. There is a growing perception on the left that money we are allowed to keep by the state is revenue forgone.

This sentiment is echoed often in the US where the Democrat mantra is that extending the “Bush Tax Cuts,” is extravagant government spending that has to be reigned in. In an appeal to the good old ‘class warfare’ argument they, in the face of voter anger are willing to extend what Bush did for the middle class but argue that extending them for higher income earners constitutes, “Tax cuts for the wealthy.”

In reality a failure to continue with present tax rates is a tax hike. It might be, by omission, but still a tax hike.

Any argument about extensions not being affordable ignores the fact that the deficit is caused by too much spending, not too little taxing. It also exposes, as is the case here that those in charge are operating from a sense of entitlement rather than from any sense of economic rationality. Modern government has the some attitude of all tyrants through the ages, they rule, you obey, and they are entitled to take whatever they like from you.

Swan, like Gillard, Obama, and Co. seriously believe that we are property of the state, as are our possessions, and our role is to give them whatever they wish in order to do that which they deem to be good for us. What is left is ours for the time being, less of course any charges they chose to put on spending on non approved items as yet unbanned.

No pardon for “The Breaker.”

Image: "Breaker Morant."

The British have decided that no Royal pardon will be granted for Harry "Breaker" Morant in an appeal against the case that saw the Australian soldier executed. Morant, and Peter Handcock were executed after being accused of murdering prisoners during the Boer War. A third, Lt Witton was also found guilty and was imprisoned.

Australian military lawyer Commander James Unkles petitioned the Queen for a Royal pardon for Morant and Handcock. He was researching Morant's lawyer Major James Thomas when he became convinced the soldiers were innocent. "It became very apparent to me that a major injustice had been committed and the only way it was going to be addressed was by taking some action," he said.

It seems odd to me that in this day and age that we would bother to ask the British to act in this matter at all. We are big enough and old enough to decide the matter for ourselves. While the Australian War Memorial says that the evidence suggests that they were guilty of the crimes for which they were tried, there is some dispute about whether they were in fact acting under orders at the time.

Kitchener denied issuing such an order but significant evidence exists to the effect that he did. He was responsible for the placement of thousands of civilians into concentration camps in which many died. Images from these times remind me of the Holocaust. He also reportedly ordered that Boer women and children ride on trains to stop them being targeted by Boers. Such an order would be consistent with those actions. He was a butcher with little regard for human life, including those under his command whom he used as a blunt instrument.

Transcripts of the case ‘went missing’ and were thus unavailable for review, and witnesses included soldiers who were disciplined by Morant, one of whom stated that would walk 100 miles barefoot to serve in a firing squad to shoot Morant and Handcock." The Australian government was not informed.

Since that time, the Australian army never accepted British Army justice, in cases involving its soldiers. This has led to considerable ill feeling on the part of British authorities right through to the end of WW2. There were numerous approaches by British authorities, requesting the right to shoot us to improve our discipline, all of which were rejected.

It is reasonable to assume that they would have satisfied their blood lust by shooting Kiwis, Canadians, South Africans, Rhodesians, Indians, Pakistanis, as well as members of all other Commonwealth countries who were more than happy to allow them to do so, but they seemed to be obsessed with us.

While I was growing up there were a lot of WW1 veterans still around, and they roundly detested Kitchener. Generals like Kitchener were the people who gave rise to the Australian military expression from both World Wars, “England will fight to the last imperial soldier,” which was probably a bit unfair to the British soldier, but none the less heartfelt.

The case is irrelevant at any rate as “the Breaker” has placed himself solidly and immovably as part of Aussie folklore and is likely to remain there.

A Few Facts about Wind Turbines.

For those who think that wind farms are green and environmentally friendly have a look at this 6-minute video about wind turbine construction.

Here are a few facts on wind power sent to us by David Bellamy in UK:

• Wind farms generate cheap (or even free!) electricity
This is not true. The electricity generated by wind turbines is much more costly than that from conventional power stations, because the price has to include enough to cover the subsidies paid to the wind farm companies for operating them. UK electricity prices have already gone up, and are predicted to go up by a further third over the next decade, to pay for our commitment to renewables.

• Wind power is reliable because the wind is always blowing somewhere
That is not the case. Meteorologists can list many periods, often in very cold winter weather, when there is so little wind that the contribution to the grid is negligible. In addition, wind turbines only start generating when the wind is blowing at about 10mph, and have to be turned off for safety reasons when wind speeds reach about 55mph. In fact, on average, for about 110 days a year any individual turbine may generate no electricity at all. That means a back-up supply always has to be available – which is why no countries have been able to shut down their conventional power stations.

• Wind farms provide employment
This is hardly true. There may be a small number of construction jobs on offer while the access roads to the site are being built but the on-site work to erect the actual turbines is a specialist job that will only be carried out by the contractor. Once the turbines are up, wind farms are operated remotely, sometimes even from abroad, so no ongoing local jobs are likely.

• Wind farms only last for 25 years and are then removed
The key components of the turbines, namely the gears, normally last only about 10 to 12 years before they need replacing. Very few wind farms are as much as 25 years old yet – but we know of several cases where the operators have taken the opportunity to rebuild much sooner than that, erecting larger turbines than originally installed. So it is safer to assume that a wind farm, once built, will effectively be a permanent feature of the landscape.

• Wind farms are not noisy
Wrong. There are plenty of examples where residents have suffered ill health effects caused by both noise (and on occasion shadow-flicker) when living too close to turbines. Some people, including some farmers, have even been forced out of their homes as a result. There is no legal setback distance from homes in the UK, though the Scottish Executive recommends 2kms as a desirable minimum.

• Wind farms generate hardly any complaints
A report by the University of Salford in 2006 showed that about 20% of wind farms had already generated formal complaints. That work is currently being updated, as there are many more wind farms today than in 2006 and their technology has allegedly improved. The current work shows that the 20% level of complaints, however, remains steady.

• Wind farms don’t cause a fall in house prices
Wind farm developers make this claim but there are certainly cases where people have difficulty in selling their homes once turbines are present. In one case, the vendors were legally obliged to compensate the purchasers by 20% of the house value, plus interest, for selling without having disclosed the presence of a wind farm proposal. The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors surveyed house values near wind farms and found that about 60% had declined by amounts varying between 5% and 50%.


• Wind farms have no damaging effect on tourism
The earliest wind farms had such novelty value that they were almost tourist attractions in themselves – but even the developers admit that this no longer applies. One caravan site near Harrogate, for example, has seen a drastic drop in income since four turbines were erected nearby. The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, has recently released a ‘Tranquillity Map’ of the UK because it is clear that tourists are increasingly looking for peace and quiet when they go away from home.

• Wind turbines pose no danger to birds and bats
Not true. Small birds can often avoid rotating blades at short notice (though remember that the tip of a turbine blade is moving at about 200mph) but larger birds such as eagles have much more trouble in diverting to avoid them. Birds that fly around at dusk or during the night are far more at risk than daytime birds. Bats are affected in a different way: They are seldom hit by the blades but they can suffer what is known as ‘barotrauma’ where the change in pressure near the blade tip kills them by damaging their lungs.

• Wind farms are a safe form of technology
On the whole this is true (though there may be adverse health effects as noted above). Accidents can happen, however; there have been some examples in Britain of blades collapsing or flying off, and one or two cases of turbine hubs catching fire. A different concern is ‘ice throw’ which happens when ice forms on the blades, usually overnight, and may be flung off in chunks when conditions warm up. This may be a particular concern for farmers with livestock.

• Lines of pylons are needed to take the power away from the site
This is not true. Typically, the cables are laid underground from the turbines within the wind farm site and are then linked to overhead lines on wooden poles to connect with the Grid. One worrying aspect, though, is that the developer of a wind farm does not have to seek planning permission for connection, or even to indicate what the proposed route for connection will be, because that is a matter for the Regional Electricity Supplier to address. Permission to the RES is more or less automatic.

• Wind farms reduce CO2
Wind farms contribute very marginally to reducing CO2 mainly because an alternative power source has to be kept running at all times for the periods when the wind stops blowing. If we were to rely entirely on wind, we would need to learn to live with a very uncertain and intermittent electricity supply!

• Well at least wind farms are better than nuclear power stations
Maybe. It would take about 6000 wind turbines, spread over perhaps 40 square miles to produce as much electricity as the one coal-fired power station at Ferrybridge, or nearly 3000 turbines, spread over 20 square miles, to match one of the two nuclear reactors at Hartlepool. But in both cases the power stations would still be needed as back-up for the 110 days when all those wind turbines would produce no electricity at all.

Finally, some Good News: 
The price of carbon credits on the Chicago Carbon Exchange has collapsed to 5 cents a ton and the exchange has decided to cease trading.

Who Wants a Carbon Tax?

By Viv Forbes, Chairman,

The Carbon Sense Coalition

The Carbon Sense Coalition said today that to introduce a carbon tax would be to wage war on consumers for the benefit of vested interests.

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, also accused Australian PM Gillard of deceptive advertising in her support of a carbon tax.

“When our PM says “we need a price on carbon”, she is just sprouting another misleading Wongism like “we must reduce carbon pollution”.

“Most forms of carbon already have a price – coal, oil, gas, petrol, diesel, beef, bread, butter, diamonds and whiskey – all have a price (which usually includes a few taxes).

“What Ms Gillard wants, but dares not say, is another tax on our usage of many carbon products.

“Who wants a tax on carbon?

“The Greens do. They hate humans and their farm animals, crops, coal, oil, cars, power generators and heavy industry. They would like to see the end of most mining, farming, fishing and forestry. A carbon tax will hit all of these people so the Greens support it.

“Ms Gillard and her Fiscal Czar want a carbon tax. They lead a party of taxaholics who need a new tax to support their extravagant spending. Unions, even those in industries that will be directly harmed by a carbon tax, ignore the interests of their members to maintain party solidarity.

“Taxes are the life blood of the tax consuming industries – there will never be enough taxes to satiate the nationalised education, health, media, research and welfare industries. So they all want a carbon tax.

“And of course the wind and solar subsidiesuckers want heavy carbon taxes to hide their chronic inability to provide economic and reliable power.

“The nuclear power industries love carbon taxes – it gives them a cost advantage against coal, oil and gas in the production of base load power.

“Many big businesses are trying to buy green respectability by plugging a carbon tax – they will pass it on to Australian consumers, but exporters will get exemptions.

“For lawyers and accountants, new taxes bring new business. They love new taxes with complex rules and many exemptions.

“And of course all of Asia hopes that Australia imposes a carbon tax. It will shift our industries to countries with no carbon taxes.

“So there is a powerful and diverse carbon tax lobby.

“Where are the environmental benefits?

“There are none. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant – more of it will help plant growth thus creating a greener earth. And it is fanciful to believe that a carbon tax in Australia could possibly produce any beneficial effect on our climate. Climate will continue to change as it always has.

“Who will be hurt by a carbon tax?

“Whenever you tax something, a marginal producer somewhere closes up, and less of it is produced. Its price rises because of the cost of the tax and the reduced supply.

“Carbon taxes must increase the cost of electricity, fuel, food, fibres, building materials and transport. They will harm every Australian consumer, especially the poor who have no savings cushion and who spend a greater percentage of their income on these essentials.

“So who is our government protecting – taxaholics and vested interests, or consumers?”

Climate Fools Day

Our hastily organised Climate Fools Day protests went well. The event received media comment in Australia, US, UK, Europe and Russia. The best function was in UK where climate realists held a meeting in Room 10 House of Commons, in Westminster. John O'Sullivan was interviewed live on Russia TV's Evening News. Here are reports on the UK function:

The Brisbane meeting attracted a good friendly crowd, and media gave some coverage to the event but they did not attend - I guess our problem was we had no one throwing buckets of blood or harassing coal trains. A report on Brisbane:

Coal - Australia’s Industrial Heart.

By; Ronald Kitching


On 16th June 1924 General Sir John Monash, Chairman of SEC and designer of Victoria's first brown coal powered power house delivered Australia's cheapest and cleanest power to Melbourne.

The brown coal contains about 62% water, an ash content of about 2% and a sulphur content that is measured as a trace element only. The emissions contain no pollutants - they are steam and carbon dioxide.

Later, Premier Henry Bolte, a farmer, successfully canvassed industrial companies to establish their businesses in Victoria, as did another farmer Tom Playford, to establish industry in Adelaide in South Australia.

And so did another farmer and inventor Joh Bjelke Petersen actively promote industry in Queensland, all established on low cost coal driven power.

NSW industry too depends upon black coal driven power.

The anti-industrial Greens leader, Bob Brown says that the Yallourn Valley power houses are an environmental abomination and all coal driven power houses should be closed by 2020 or sooner.

Deputy Green Leader, Christine Milne on ABC T/V, assured the Nation that "....We want to see a carbon price as quickly as possible, because we want transformation of the whole economy and society."

The Labor/Green coalition is by their own admissions the anti-industrial and anti-productive occupiers of the Canberra Kremlin.

The great industrial benefactors from the past would be aghast at this job destroying turn of political events.

Climate science debunked.

A fascinating and satirical article from of all places, the (your own, ABC) It makes you wonder if their PC department was on strike for it to go through, I can’t inagine what they were thinking of:

If IPCC Climate scientists were Physicists: The IPCC has found that the total net anthropogenic forcing is 1.6 W.m-2 with an error range of 0.6 to 2.4 W.m-2. If the IPCC’s same errors for Radiative Forcing Components were applied to the universal gravitational constant, IPCC climate scientists would tell us that the UGC is 6.67 × 10-11 N·m2/kg2 with a range of 2.5-10 N·m2/kg2. They would then assure us there is 90% certainty that acceleration due to gravity on Earth at sea level is in the range 3.7 to 14.7 m.s-2. IPCC climate scientists would tell us apples may be as light as a feather or as heavy as a brick. They would tell us apples fall down, but they’d be unable to tell us how fast, and occasionally they may actually fall upwards. As a result of their endeavours, Newtonian physics and Relativity would be tossed on its head. Quantum physics, built on the uncertainty principal, would have no place in a world where the science is settled. Speaking about gravity IPCC climate scientists would say things like: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of gravity at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." They would earnestly explain that there was no statistically significant gravity from 1995, and suggest that anyone disagreeing with their assessment must be a gravity denier.


The article in full is here. Warning on comments section; The lefties are out in force.

Bikers strike a blow for Freedom.

There is considerable doubt tonight as to whether the draconian Anti Association laws passed by a number of states and being mooted by WA can work.

A test case in South Australia involving two members of the Finks bikie gang went to the High Court after the Attorney General placed a control order on them, restricting their communication between one another. Six of the seven High Court Justices determined the laws were unconstitutional because it undermined the independence of magistrates.

The laws were implemented as a knee jerk reaction to a brawl at Sydney Airport where one member was killed by a rival gang. The result is a threat to the right of every Australian to associate freely with any other individual or group.

The law should be imposed on any acts of violence, however it is an anathema to use the breaking of the law to impose draconian legislation on the whole of the population in order to carry out this responsibility. Certainly there are elements within the biker community who act illegally. There are also those within many other areas of society, including politics, who commit crimes. The fact that political crime is mostly ‘white collar’ does not mean that it is any less criminal.

Should it be illegal to contact your local member, because a number of MPs over the years have been convicted of everything from misappropriation, fraud, corruption, through to sexual misconduct with minors? Sounds like a criminal class to me.

Spokesman for The United Motorcycle Councils of Australia, Russell Wattie, had this to say:

Spokesman for United Motorcycle Council’s Australia, Russell “Camel” Wattie, said the ruling would have major implications not just for South Australia but for all states which had gone down the path of restricting their citizens’ legal rights.

“This is a victory for all Australians, with the High Court sending a clear signal that it’s not acceptable for governments to crush the rights that should be guaranteed in any open and democratic society,” Camel said.

“These laws were never about motorcycle clubs and their members, despite the governments’ PR spin. They were a disgraceful attempt by the government and police to trample long-standing legal and civil rights of all citizens.

“The High Court has seen straight through the South Australian government’s false claims about combating organised crime. It’s ruled that no government has the right to take away the legal protections that have underpinned western society for hundreds of years.”

The defeated laws gave police unfettered power to use secret, false and illegally obtained evidence against individuals, took away the right to an open and fair trial, and shut down all avenues of appeal.

They also allowed the police to pronounce individuals guilty by association, and reversed the time-honoured presumption of innocence.

“The Rann Government has now spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars trying to defend its disgraceful abuse of power. Other states will no doubt do the same.

“It’s time these governments had some respect for proper legal process and democratic freedoms. They should apologise for their disgraceful behavior and should not attempt to reintroduce their discredited legislation.”

While this has been a blow to these laws there is a united bloody-minded determination by MPs to go ahead with keeping them in place. Every state government has today indicated they will. This action strikes at the heart of the freedoms of every Australian in all walks of life and have no place in a free society.

11/11, Remembrance day.

A little late in posting, didn't notice the date.

This is for the guys who, out of all of our forces who served overseas, copped the shittiest deal.

Bicycle helmets and sheer bloody stupidity.

In December 2003 13-year-old Daniel Morcombe was abducted from a bus stop on the Sunshine Coast and has never been seen again. A coronial inquest is currently under way. There is little doubt from the evidence that he was snatched by pedophiles in what from the evidence appears to have been as little as a minute that elapsed between two busses. That’s just how fast it can happen.

About 15km (10 miles) from where this happened last Saturday, a police patrol encountered a 15 year old kid riding his bike along a road without a bicycle helmet. The usual procedure in these cases is to give a warning, caution and then fine, if the offence is persistent.

For some reason the officers decided to use their discretion in this case and made him deflate his tires so that the bike was immobilized and tell him to walk the three kilometers home. They claim they wanted an option other than to fine him, but do not go into the details of why they did not use the option of a warning or caution. They do however point out that they went to his home to notify his mother, who was not there at the time but told an older sibling.

This begs the question of why the hell they didn’t chuck the bike in the boot, and take him home at the same time then let the whole family know the problem. Had the kid’s mother been present at the time and left immediately to pick him up, he would have still been in danger for some time in the intervening period.

Some research suggests that there are benefits involved in wearing helmets but the rate of head injuries was falling anyway prior to the introduction of laws requiring them. There is also evidence that they are a discouragement to riding. Lets face it, you just can’t leave them around when you get to your destination as they will be stolen, so they are a pain in the arse.
Certainly there should be some encouragement for the wearing of helmets, but the law itself is a draconian, nanny state, one size fits all solution to a minor problem.

Tea Party around 50% libertarian; Cato.

Cartoon: Lisa Benson.

For some time there has been some conjecture here as to whether the tea party movement is in any way libertarian or whether it is in fact a fairly hard line conservative group that just wants lower taxes. Cato has done a survey at a Tea Party Convention in Virginia, with interesting results. Over six hundred delegates were surveyed, and found that libertarians were 48 percent of Tea Partiers, versus 51 percent who held traditional conservative views.

The method of determining the classification of conservative involved three positions, the first two of which pretty well were agreed to by all. These were that, “the less government the better,” and that “the free market can handle these problems without government being involved.” The one that defined the difference was, “the government should promote traditional values.”

A previous survey by others revealed a similar split, but was criticized on the basis that Ron Paul was one of those who spoke there and it was argued that his presence had skewed the poll in favor of libertarians. The fact that the results are much the same seems to indicate that Paul’s support base is wider than the libertarian fringe some observers seem to indicate. If this view were accurate then we would see a libertarian spike associated with his presence.

Ron Paul is more associated with small government, fiscal accountability, and constitutional governance, more than as a strict libertarian, although these tend to run together.

This has some pretty strong ramifications for 2012 for the GOP presidential choice. Current polling indicates that there are three front-runners each of whom has around 20% support. These are Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Sarah Palin. Whoever gets the nod will have to have Tea Party and independent support to get across the line on the day.

Palin has good relations with some libertarians, indeed the Alaska LP seems to accept her although she is really a conservative, and Romney seems acceptable although Romneycare, which has many similarities with Obamacare is a real negative. Huckabee tends to be a religious zealot and would find it difficult to rally libertarians or independents.

America has a larger religious right than Australia, and as result Huckabee is seen as a credible candidate there while over here he would be ridiculed. Huckabee for President has a ring to it over there, but the Aussie equivalent, “Fred Nile for PM,” would probably get you certified. The memorable thing about his campaign in 2008 was his reply to an ad by Fred Thompson. The Huckabee ad did not address any of Fred’s points, but strongly criticized him for putting out a release on a Sunday, when he “should have been in church.”

Out of the three, Palin would have the best chance of winning, although it is difficult to see her as Presidential, although better than the incumbent. We really need more time to make an assessment and hopefully during that time some others will come to the fore.

Foolish Food Policies.

Statement by Viv Forbes, Chairman,

The Carbon Sense Coalition

The Carbon Sense Coalition today accused western politicians of creating a food crisis with foolish food policies.

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that climate alarmism and green extremism was being used to destroy farming and deny land to food production.

“It is no surprise that the world is facing a looming shortage of food and edible oils.

“Every market has two sides – demand and supply.

“On the demand side, increasing population and prosperity, especially in China, Brazil and India, must boost the demand for food.

“Normally this would increase food prices thus encouraging more production by farmers.

“Unfortunately, the western world is afflicted by an epidemic of anti-food legislation.

“Four foolish food policies stand out.

“Firstly, we have a massive diversion of cropland from producing food for humans to producing ethanol and biofuels for cars.

“Secondly, we have destruction of cropping and grazing land by conversion to carbon credit forests.

“Thirdly, there is a gradual suffocation of grazing land by a new politically protected species – woody weeds.

“Finally, we have the gradual creation of agricultural and horticultural deserts by the artificial droughts caused by the progressive political squeeze on irrigation water.

“If politicians are silly enough to add a carbon tax to the costs of fuels, electricity, cement and transport, even more farmers will give up and retire to the beach.

“We are told that all this anti-food legislation will save the environment and cool the climate by a degree or so over the next century.

“The real aim is to harvest green votes.

“Starving people will not appreciate this barren harvest.”

(PS Some boffin is wasting tax dollars measuring the carbon footprints of Norfolk Islanders in order to cool the climate and reduce community obesity. The Four Foolish Food Policies will have no effect on climate, but they may indeed reduce obesity. VRF)

Are those Teapartiers Racist?

A common criticism of MSNBC and the Democrats including Obama, of the Tea Party is that there is a lack of colored faces in the rallies. While I seem to have noticed quite a few, the following clip of Allen West’s victory speech seems to lack them.

I can just hear the Dems pointing to them and saying, “Look at all those teabagging racists cheering on that firebrand Republican trouble maker:”

H/t Gates of Vienna.


There are videos offering better views of the speaker but this one is better for the audio, which tends to be drowned out in some of the others.

It was somewhat amusing to see the President offering a conciliatory tone after the results became clear. Over the last few weeks he has made increasingly erratic and hostile statements to the point where his mental stability was becoming questionable in such a way that he could arguably be accused of inciting violence.

Early last month he claimed, “A Republican majority in Congress would mean "hand-to-hand combat" on Capitol Hill for the next two years, …” This was followed by a call for Latinos, “to punish our enemies,” in other words Republicans. It is doubtful if in living memory a President has urged any racial group to take this sort action on his political opponents, let alone call them ‘enemies’ rather than opponents.

West made a great reply, “He also talked about how this would be won in hand-to-hand combat, well I’ve got to tell you something, if you want to pick a fight with a US Army paratrooper, bring it on.”

It sounds odd to hear a guy talking about being bipartisan after saying,‘We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back." The President is no Martin Luther King.

Jailed for calling magistrate "mate."

Tom Collins was tossed in the slammer after twice calling Magistrate Matthew McLaughlin "mate'' during a hearing last week. The magistrate objected ordering Collins to address him as "sir or your honour'', the defendant replied "okay mate'' and was sent for a stint in the cells.

This followed another incident in Toowoomba, where a magistrate hauled two tradesmen before the court for making too much noise, and threatened to charge them with contempt.

This reminds me of Zucker’s take on Barbara (call me Senator) Boxer:

Labor councilor Paul Tully has called on Chief Magistrate Judge Brendan Butler to introduce annual anger management classes for all Queensland magistrates. I guess, Paul’s a statist so it is only to be expected that he will come up with a compulsory ‘one size fits all’ solution. Probably, “Not being a pompous git” classes would be more appropriate.

It is generally a good idea to treat people with a degree of courtesy, as you are more likely to receive the same back. This includes police and magistrates, who are after all, in a position to make pricks of themselves and in these cases, seem to like doing so.

In a case like this it is difficult to assess whether the guy was actually being disrespectful, or whether he is just one of those people who call everyone mate. The public when addressing a magistrate are in the main not there of their own free will, nor by invitation. They are usually there because they are ordered to be there with at least implied threats, even on jury duty.

With this in mind, they should understand that they are forcing the public into their world which is designed their way, and which many of us consider to be a rather silly world from a bygone era. I mean frocks and wigs in the present day?

People who deal with the public by authority have to lighten up a bit and accept the public as they find it, we are not obliged to abide by their perceptions of what we should be. Courts should be respected, but they should also try to deserve that respect.

To all my US mates:

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it, good and hard. - H.L. Mencken.

Today is your turn to give it to the government good and hard. Go out there and give em hell.

Electoral rorts, Bligh to change system.

Cartoon: Nicholson.

Moves by Premier Bligh to make preferential voting compulsory in Queensland are a ploy, and her reasons stated for its consideration are dishonest.

Back in the 1990s then Premier, Peter Beattie changed the voting system from compulsory to optional preferencing. This was a considerable improvement in the system as voters were able to just vote for one candidate or if they wished continue on in order of choices. Preferences if made were counted. Prior to this time ballots with only one choice marked were invalid.

While this move was for the better, the reasons for it were not. In fact it was a ploy to keep Labor in power. At that stage the Nationals and the Liberals were separate parties but had the option of each standing a candidate in some electorates and preferencing each other. By making preferences optional, and advocating, “Just vote one,” this was negated.

As back then there was no major contest for the leftie vote Labor was able to cloak it as a reform and split the conservative vote. It was a slithery move by a slippery premier for the sole benefit of his own party.

In order to stay in power Labor has had to ‘reinvent’ itself as a more moderate party to the point where it has been difficult to pick the differences between them and the opposition. The Liberals and Nationals have amalgamated into a single party therefore three-cornered contests are not an issue.

While in the past the vote from the left could be taken for granted by Labor and was, over the last few years the extreme left to hard-line Marxist, Greens have quietly taken this ground. Labor now relies on their preferences to win.

Bligh has made a number of dishonest statements. She claimed the Australian Electoral Commission had raised concerns after the federal election about the high number of informal votes in Queensland compared with other states.

The AEC has expressed concerns about the high informal vote Australia wide, not just in Qld. Our informal vote was lower than the national average and lower than NSW, SA, and the NT. There is simply no reason for the commissioner to single out Qld, and he didn’t.

She also claimed there was concern raised after the recent federal election that informal voting spiked in Queensland when state and federal elections were held close to each other.

The spike in Qld was virtually the same as NSW, and considerably lower than the NT, and ACT. There was no concern about it, at least in relation to the other states.

The reason it has spiked had nothing to do with the Qld system, or the figures would be substantially higher than both the national average and other states. The reason for the spike is generally considered to be disillusionment with the major parties, which was obvious to anybody, involved with the election.

Now that Bligh has to rely on the parochial Greens to drag her sorry arse over the line, she is determined to make them allocate preferences. As usual there is no principle involved.

And the winner is; George Bush!

A short time after the presidential election on a long forgotten post on Thoughts on Freedom, one of our commentators stated, “History will be much kinder to Bush than the present.”

It seems that George has been fortunate enough to be in the happy position where the person replacing him has turned out to be far worse than anybody could have imagined Bush himself ever to be. It is said that a day in politics is a long time, but it now seems that Mr. Hopeanchange has performed so badly that voters are getting nostalgic for a guy who left office with some of the lowest approval ratings ever.

In a recent poll 43% say that Barack Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, while 48% say Bush was a better president than Obama has been.

Looking back, it is difficult to understand why the Democrats failed to understand just what the Massachusetts Senate result indicated. They were inclined to blame it on their candidate when in fact the drovers dog would normally win that seat if it had a D on its collar. Going into denial doesn”t win elections.