US debt ceiling; ignoring the elephant in the room.

Both sides of the debt limit debate continue to point the finger at each other there is a simple fact that is being ignored; the credit rating of the nation itself. In order to maintain a AAA rating the ratings agencies have to be convinced that there is some prospect of runaway debt being brought under control. This has to be real, not a smoke and mirrors job.

Government there spends somewhere around 50% more than it brings in, which is the problem. It will be necessary to raise the debt limit, but there have to be reasonable efforts made to reduce dependence on borrowings in order to avoid continual replays. Raising taxes is not an option for the Republicans since the last election owing to the strong presence of the fiscally conservative Tea Party.

There is little point in blaming the Tea Party for the current impasse. It exists because of genuine outrage at out of control and wasteful spending during the first two years of the current Administration. The presence of the TP has been there in full sight for months, their views on tax and debt was in view. Their insistence on debt reduction as a condition to raising the debt ceiling has been flagged for months.

It should have been obvious to all during that time that changes were going to have to be made. It would appear that the current problems are caused by the belief that these people could be forced to back down. Recent bipartisan talks, which seemed to be making progress were after all, torpedoed by the President suddenly demanding a massive tax increase that he had to know, would be unacceptable.

This clip is a speech by Marko Rubio in which Kerry attempts to debate him. He starts with the point that he has not been there long enough to think that any of what is going on is normal; hopefully he never will think that. If Kerry wants to debate Rubio, he will have to do better than parrot White House talking points:


On the lighter side Iowahalk has come up with a list of possible consequences of a default, which includes:

Beltway policy experts begin living by own wits; after 45 minutes there are no survivors.

Breadlines teeming with jobless Outreach Coordinators, Diversity Liaisons, and Sustainability Facilitators.

General Motors unfairly forced to build cars that people want, for a profit.

No longer protected by government warning labels, massive wave of amputations from people sticking limbs into lawn mowers.

At-risk Mexican drug lords forced to buy own machine guns.

Potential 5-year old terrorists head to boarding gates ungroped.

Without college loan program, America loses an entire generation of Marxist Dance Theorists.

Nation's freeway exits crowded with desperate bureaucrats waving 'will regulate for food' signs.

Check it out, it’s too funny.

Government junk mail, return to sender.

You know you are in trouble when people no are longer interested in hearing what you have to tell them. Take Barack Obama for example. Bazza decided to get on twitter to ask Americans to call, email, and tweet Congressional leaders to “keep the pressure on” lawmakers to raise the debt ceiling without those nasty spending cuts.

In less than 24 hours over 40,000 followers have unsubscribed. Many have accused him of spamming.

“Stop Gillard’s carbon tax,” is proposing a similar response here.

Feeling that spending $12 million of our money to persuade us that the big new tax is the greatest thing we could ever hope for is not enough, our Jules has decided to go for the personal touch. We are now going to pay another $4 million to get a mail out of government propaganda to convince us.

Some object strongly to junk mail however most of don’t really give a stuff about it, as some of it is quite informative. While the advertising budgets that finance it add marginally to the cost of the products and services advertised, we don’t actually pay for it unless we buy the product. If we were to buy an item seen in such mail, then it has provided a service and has been of benefit.

Government junk mail on the other hand comes at direct cost to us as taxpayers, is unsolicited, and for all but the apparatchiks of the ruling party, is unwelcome. We do not have the above choice as it applies to private enterprise junk; it comes out of taxpayer funds, which were given unwillingly but with a reasonable right of expectation that those funds would be put to better use than propagandizing us.

The originator of the idea of sending this back was John Izzard in Quadrant, who says:

From the Gillard government’s Hollowmen Department comes the latest spin, trickery, manipulation or stunt—call it what you may. Four million items of junk-mail are about to hit our letterboxes, compliments of Greg Combet, our Minister for Changing the Climate.

What can you do?
Send it back. …

We, the long suffering victims of the “progressive governments” that emerged out of the 2007 and 2010 federal elections, have had to sit back and watch a cascade of ideological failures in just about every reach of government action, policy and intervention. Rotten ideas that have ended in financial messes. Rotten ideas that have cost lives.

Now the country is set to embark upon the crazy notion that the world’s climate can be controlled from a room in Canberra. It can’t. But to try to convince a large chunk of the Australian public that it can, the “junk-mail drive” is coming to a letter box near you. Like any junk mail offer be very careful. Is it a truthful offer? Are you being told all of the facts? Beware of the promises! How many sets of STEAK-KNIVES do you get…free?

One way to protest to the Hollowmen of our government is to send the junk back to Greg Combet.

If it arrives in an envelope simply write RETURN TO SENDER and post it.

If it arrives as loose junk-mail, pop it into an envelope and address it to:
The Hon. Greg Combet
Minister for Climate Change


House of Representatives
Parliament House


Canberra ACT 2600

This won’t stop them, but it will let them know - “We’re not buying”.

A lesson on press regulation for Australia.

Image: Front page of “El Universo,” (from, “Journalism in the Americas.)

This image is the front page published after the paper was fined $40 million for defaming the President. The columnist who wrote the article and three executives have been sentenced to three years in prison as ‘coauthor conspirators’. The translation reads:

Convicted

"When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion -- when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice -- you may know that your society is doomed."

The quote is from Atlas Shrugged, (Francisco D’Anconia’s speech on “The Meaning of Money”)

Australians should take notice of Ecuador; even Brown would be happy with the sort of ‘proper regulation’ they have there.

Co- Prime Ministers of Australia, Julia Gillard and Bob Brown are likely to hold an inquiry into the media which will examine all issues from content to ownership using the News of the World scandal as an excuse. While Gillard maintains that privacy is the issue, Brown will crack the whip and get what he wants. The government is in such a desperate position, that every obsession of the quirky Andrew Wilkie, whose vote is essential to keep them in power, is becoming the law of the land.

What Brown is demanding is to:

Bring newspapers under control of a media authority, government determination of journalistic ethics, politicians to determine if media owners are fit and proper, government control of media ownership, criminal laws to protect ‘privacy’, and anything else that Bob obsesses about, presumably criticism of the Greens by “the hate media.”

If this goes through, Ecuador may just be more free than here.

Whole Carbon tax idea should be dropped.

Cartoon: By Nicholson.

Apart from the fact that various scandals have seriously eroded the credibility of the entire climate change scenario, as well as no credible rise in temperatures occurring over the last ten years despite an increase in emissions, Australia is a relatively small emitter and our efforts will have no impact on the planet. The whole idea that we can make a difference by an emissions reduction is an exercise in hubris.

It now appears that we are to get fourteen new pieces of legislation that cover the many aspects of introducing a climate tax. The major problem is that in order to try to influence the electorate, the government has come up with a dog’s breakfast of taxes and payments to try to mitigate the effects of them. This results inevitably in a new or expanded bureaucracy to manage the whole thing, which will in effect be a churn of costs and payments that would be best dropped.

It appears that in the long run, it is going to cost more than it raises, even before the damage to industry is taken into account. We are in a situation where we are staring down the barrel of a European meltdown and an American default, both of which will be a disaster for Australia, yet the government insists on imposing a tax that will adversely affect our economic survival.

We are now told that in addition to the standard bureaucracy involved, there will be a special group of ‘carbon cops’ with draconian powers of search and seizure as well as vicious penalties for offenders. It was remarked in the past that on the basis of penalties, the worst crimes in the nation were breaches of the National Parties orderly marketing schemes; this is worse.

Breaches of carbon tax legislation involves $million fines and ten year prison terms. With the semi religious zealotry of the carbon fatwa’s and the climate change Jihad, the average punter would be better off killing someone or engaging in child rape with a good lawyer to represent him.

There was an excellent discussion of the issues today by Andrew Bolt, Steve Price, and Senator Barnaby Joyce, which can be found here. Listen and weep, or maybe go out there and take these bastards on.

More sloppy GW science, ‘drowning polar bear’ evidence called into question.

Anchorage-based scientist Charles Monnett, whose claims that polar bears may be drowning led to an outcry has been placed on administrative leave as officials investigate scientific misconduct allegations. We all remember Al Gore’s little cartoon of the poor bear desperately trying to gain refuge on a piece of sea ice before floating away:


The popular, but misleading photo of ‘stranded polar bears’ was dealt with here previously. A student on a field trip some two and a half years earlier than its release, and during the Arctic summer in fact took it. The Australian reports:

Although it wasn't clear what the exact allegations are, a government watchdog group representing Anchorage-based scientist Charles Monnett said investigators have focused on his 2004 journal article about the bears that garnered worldwide attention.

The group, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, filed a complaint on Mr Monnett's behalf on Thursday with the agency, the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.

BOEMRE told Mr Monnett on July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending an investigation into "integrity issues." …

Whatever the outcome or the nature of the allegations, the investigation will likely fuel the ongoing fight between climate change activists and those who are skeptical of scientists' findings about global warming.

Mr Monnett, who has coordinated much of BOEMRE's research on Arctic wildlife and ecology, has duties that include managing about $US50 million ($A45.5 million) worth of studies, according to the complaint. The agency spokeswoman said other agency scientists would manage the studies in Mr Monnett's absence.

According to documents provided by Ruch's group, which sat in on investigators interviews with Mr Monnett, the questioning focused on observations that Monnett and fellow researcher Jeffrey Gleason made in 2004.

Investigations appear to be honing in on the circumstances of the alleged sightings, the accuracy of the death claims, the way in which the information was interpreted, and other factors. There is more information here, including interview transcripts and links to other details.

Speed camera reduction opposition nonsense.

Cartoon: By Zeg.

The NSW government deserves some kudos after it announced that more than a quarter of its fixed speed cameras had been switched off and would be removed within weeks after a report said they offered no real safety benefit. NSW Roads Minister Duncan Gay said the 38 cameras being dismantled had added an average of $10 million to government coffers a year but were considered to be "revenue raisers" rather than helping improve road safety.

Traffic fines are a favorite source of revenue for all state governments in Australia, although this trend is probably a worldwide one. Any state with a budget gap will suddenly get all hot and bothered about the road toll and decide that the problem is that fines are too low to be a deterrent. Queenslanders are especially familiar with this.

Speed limits are entirely arbitrary in Australia, as they do not take into account any objective assessment of road conditions in the area. Some roads are safe for much higher speeds than others, but generally there is the old one size fits all rule which are based on the subjective views of nanny state politicians. The 85th percentile rule would be a better guide.

The newspaper report on this action by NSW carried a counter argument based on a European study indicating that cameras save money:

However, a study published by the British Medical Journal estimates that speed cameras in Europe save governments up to 23 million euros ($A30 million) a year by cutting the number of accidents, and therefore the cost of treating people and the bill for repairing damaged property. …

The study authors, from the Public Health Agency of Barcelona, calculated net savings of 6.8 million euros ($A9 million) between 2003 and 2005 based on an estimate of 364 fewer accidents and 507 people avoiding injury during that period.

There are a lot of variables involved in such an estimate. Presumably it is based on a falling accident rate, but in such a case it is difficult to assess the proportion of such a fall that can be accurately attributed to a specific cause. The figure also makes the mistake of attributing damage to vehicles and the cost of injuries as a cost to the whole community. The tendency to view the whole cost of an accident as a cost to the state is a socialist one.

There is also the following far out doozie:

The authors noted that injury was the leading cause of death among people aged up to 45 worldwide, with road traffic injuries accounting for more premature deaths than heart disease or cancer.

This is about as elucidating as saying, “More soldiers under 45 in wartime get killed than those who are older than that.” Heart disease and cancer are relatively uncommon in the selected age group, and it is hardly surprising that road deaths are higher given that there is a higher proportion of driving done by younger people and the age group and comparison has been selected dishonestly.

This statement clearly indicates that the study is biased.

The fact is, that fixed speed cameras are there to reduce the road toll, not to garner revenue. It therefore stands to reason that they should be in areas where speed is a dangerous factor, not in areas where drivers are likely to travel faster because by sensible analysis, it is safe to do so.

Planning used to entrench ‘duopoly’

Just about every politician and consumer advocate with a spare soapbox is on it railing about the Coles/Woolworths duopoly and how it wrecks competition in Australia. The theory is that these two dictate to the market through sheer volume of trade, thus calls for limitations on their size are warranted. In reality in a competitive market place there is no room for the state to start dictating market share, consumers will do that for you.

If they are ripping off consumers those shoppers will go elsewhere, unless there is no alternative to go to. In reality these two are at war for market share, but if there is little in the way of other competition, perhaps there are reasons for this other than predatory pricing. It seems that this is showing in a news item today.

Westfield is opposing the development of an Aldi complex at Taigum on Brisbane's north side in the Brisbane District Court. Council approved Aldi's application for the store subject to conditions. Westfield’s closest development is two suburbs away at Chermside but Westfield argues that the Aldi store would "unduly impact on the other retail development in the area:"

The documents filed by law firm Minter Ellison on behalf of Westfield also claim there "is no demand in the area for the proposed development" and it would create "unacceptable traffic impacts."

"The application does not incorporate sufficient car parking on the land," reads the document.

"Unacceptable traffic will be generated by the proposed use into Roghan Road and Handford Road and the proposed access arrangements for the development into other streets are not acceptable.”

While some of the more naïve among us, and those who seem to be against any development good or bad, may applaud Westfield’s concern for the civic amenity, there is in reality no doubt that this constitutes anticompetitive behavior. While critics tend to concentrate on predatory pricing as the issue, the reality is, that planning regulations create the situation where a major retailer is able to stop or delay the arrival of a competitor.

Recently in this area, a developer had to wait for two years to get council approval for a shopping centre on the western side of the river, which is regularly cut off by floods. Residents have been urging this development for years. Looking at this it is little wonder that competition is sparse, given that millions were invested in land, market research, and building plans etc. You would need to be pretty determined just to put up with this crap.

On an SBS Insight program, “Going Shopping,” this issue was debated and some aspects of anti-competitive government action were brought out by Graeme Samuel, Chairman of the ACCC and Craig Emerson, the Minister for small business. Transcript Here. Some of the more interesting comments were as follows:

GRAEME SAMUEL: What becomes of concern to us is if there are barriers to entry or expansion by other players. For example, until recently, there was a major barrier to expansion by the IGA group, by Franklins, by Aldi, indeed by Cosco in terms of locating site where they can open stores. …

CRAIG EMERSON: …. But when you have such restrictions such as centers policy, which basically say the only place you can set up a retail outlet is in a big shopping centre and it's against the law to take on that competition anywhere else, that is anti-competitive. …

CRAIG EMERSON: Anti-competitive elements in the zoning laws. That is where people use the zoning laws, sometimes very frivolously to just object and object and object. This could be bigger players or smaller players, jam the system up. Some one might be saying I want to set up and take on this other outlet and they can't because it goes to court, there are appeals and it goes on and on. It is all nothing to do with amenity, with traffic management. It's all designed about someone who is there, saying, "I don't want competition". Who loses out of that? Consumers.

While the government and the press blame the two main retailers for the lack of competition it is mainly caused by the difficulties caused to potential competitors by their own idiotic interference in the market. The answer is not more regulation, the answer is for them to get the hell out of the way and let natural market forces sort the whole mess out.

Privacy inquiry; will we get duded again?

There is a great deal of suspicion out here that any privacy inquiry initiated by the federal government will set the tone for a lawyers feeding frenzy. MPs over the years have used defamation suits to silence opponents and make a tidy profit on the side over legitimate criticism. There is reason to believe that the main beneficiaries of privacy legislation will be lawyers, MPs, and other reprehensible bastards.

The excuse being given by the government is that it is in response to the “News of the World” hacking scandal. There seems to be little point in this, as the actions at NotW were clearly illegal, both in Britain, and here. While Australia has no legislated right to privacy, this is well covered by laws such as defamation, trespass and restrictions on the use of surveillance devices:

The former head of the Australian Press Council, David Flint, said privacy legislation could harm Australia's media freedom.

Mr Flint, now an emeritus professor of law at the University of Technology Sydney, said the people who would take advantage of the law would be the "rich and powerful."

"They would use that to stop investigation of legitimate matters of public interest," he said.

Media law expert and HWL Ebsworth partner Nicholas Pullen said such changes would be difficult to regulate and could stifle journalism. …

There are currently hacking allegations against The Age who would appear to have used an unauthorized password to access an ALP site and extract details under editorial supervision. The password was supplied by a whistle-blower who was disturbed at the degree to which the party was holding personal details of individuals. Political parties are currently exempted from the provisions of the Privacy Act.

Independent Senator Xenophon is attempting to have this overturned with a private senator's bill. Today’s Australian gives some details of the situation:

The Privacy Amendment Act 2000 prevents private organisations from compiling information on people without their consent. However, political parties (private organisations in the eyes of the law) are exempt from that act courtesy of section 7C. This exemption allows parties to continue operating highly sophisticated voter tracking software that, if used efficiently, can mean the difference between victory and defeat in close marginal seats….

… The exemption not only means parties can compile information on voters without their consent, it also means the public has no right of access to the material, including to check the accuracy of what is contained in the database. "Political parties fall between the cracks," Errington says. "As private organisations they have exempted themselves from privacy laws, but they rely on being private organisations not to submit to Freedom of Information requests.” …

… "The public isn't really aware how these databases work. If they were, voters wouldn't like it, especially given that privacy exemptions for political parties don't exist in other parts of the world like Britain and New Zealand," Errington says. "Write to your local MP about this issue, just be careful what you say.”

Unsurprisingly, both major parties are expected to oppose Xenophon’s bill.

The Convoys of No Confidence (Update)

Cartoon: By Warren.

By Viv Forbes, Chairman,

The Carbon Sense Coalition

This Green Government, assisted by its friends in the ABC, seem determined to destroy Australia's primary industries. The most dramatic recent example was the overnight destruction of the live cattle exports from Northern Australia. They also wage an incessant war on live sheep exports. The most underhand blow was an unremarked clause in the plans revealed on Carbon Sunday which will end all logging in native forests. The most cynical campaign is being orchestrated by the Greens against the natural gas industry. It is mainly the green war on coal and nuclear power that is driving a worldwide boom in gas fired electricity generation – every wind farm will need gas backup, and gas will do the heavy lifting. Greens are also waging a war on our fishermen, and on the development rights of every landowner with a block on the beach. And their carbon tax will hit every road train, tractor, and truck in the land.

Everywhere, real people producing the real things that keep Australia warm and well fed have had enough. One truckie in Northern Territory announced a Convoy of No Confidence to head for Canberra. Within days this has escalated to Eight Convoys of No Confidence.

For info on times and routes see:

"Stick with the Science – it is all Peer Reviewed."

Have a quick look here to see the long list of Scientists supporting the Global Warming Scare.

And for a very balanced presentation on "Why the Global Warming Agenda is Wrong", see 


The Global Warming Tipping Point?

See how the Global Warming Crisis escalates every month:

Lord Monckton wins Press Club debate

He persuaded 9% more Australians to his view that‘Concerns about Global Warming are exaggerated’

Despite negative publicity surrounding Lord Monckton’s visit to Australia, the results of a special Roy Morgan Reactor test immediately after the Press Club debate show that Lord Monckton won the debate and persuaded a substantial 9% of Australians to his view that ‘Concerns about Global Warming are exaggerated’. See:

To see the debate click this link.

Oakeshott tries the “eat your peas” idea.

Cartoon: By Zeg.

Being talked down to by a condescending prick is irritating enough, but in cases where said condescending prick is a complete idiot like Oakeshott there is a whole new dimension to getting the shits with politicians. Rob Oakeshott for the benefit of overseas readers is one of the independent members of parliament who did a deal with Gillard to keep her in power and beholden to the Greens.

A week or so ago, Obama tried talking down to Americans with his sneeringly contemptuous admonition to them to “eat your peas.” It has to be noted though that he has become increasingly matronly during his term. It is about what we have come to expect.

Now Oakeshott is insisting that although there will be plenty of kicking and screaming about the carbon tax during the next few months but he's confident it will get Parliament's backing. It seems that winning an election can turn even the village idiot into an infallible member of the ruling class.

OK, so we are all going to throw ourselves on the floor, beat our fists into it, and hold our breaths till we turn blue in the face, but it is not going to do us any good. He and Aunty Jules are going to pass it anyway, and smack our bums for being naughty.

And a bit more craziness:

My mate Angry pointed me to a reference to some of the rules on emissions that I had missed while working away. Its so bloody stupid that I had to check it out as some things that get reported seem so batshit crazy that you think that even a government would not accept them. But it comes from Penny Wong:

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told The Australian there was little point doing anything about Australia's feral camels as only the CO2 of the domesticated variety is counted under the Kyoto Protocol. That equates to only a small number of the beasts, the sort found lugging tourists around Cable Beach in Broome and at Monarto Zoo, southeast of Adelaide.

So a camel in captivity is a threat to the planet but a feral camel in the wild is OK. But wait, there’s more:

Emissions from bushfires caused by lightning are not anthropogenic. But:

Emissions from bushfires lit by arsonists is. And:

A bushfire in a national park does not cause human emissions. But:

If it spreads to private land it contributes to greenhouse emissions as measured by the UN's rules.

Why does the term, “cognitive dissonance,” come to mind here?

The Five Point Plan to kill the Australian economy with High Cost Electricity

Cartoon: By Bill Leak.

By Viv Forbes, Chairman,

The Carbon Sense Coalition

Pretend you were determined to embark on a crash program to increase the price of electricity in order to deter consumers and businesses from using it. Here is a five point plan for achieving that sort of destruction:

First, pay millions in compensation to force closure of reliable coal fired power stations producing cheap electricity.

Second, spend millions more in subsidies to bribe promoters to erect forests of imported wind turbines that produce no electricity for 75% of the time. Then pay again to have them switched off when the wind is too strong or if they produce more power than the network needs at that time.

Third, spend more millions to build a spider web of roads and transmission lines to connect every single turbine to the national grid. These costly facilities are only used for 25% of the time.

Fourth, spend yet more millions to build new gas fired backup generators to keep the lights on when the wind stops. Then pay again to switch off the gas any time the wind happens to blow at the right speed for the turbines.

Finally, force any remaining coal or gas power stations to buy carbon ration permits from merchant banks.

Climate will still change no matter how many wind temples we build to the Global Warming god.

When we have pauperised ourselves by wasting our savings to inflict unreliable high cost electricity on our industries and our people, we will have no resources left to cope with the inevitable natural disasters that will still occur.

This five point plan is what passes for rational energy policy from the Green/Labor Coalition now in control of the Australian Parliament.

Plain Talk on the Carbon Tax

Not content with their free publicists in the ABC, the government has now hired the commercial airwaves to try to sell another lemon – their Carbon Tax. Here is the antidote for their poisonous propaganda. Please spread it around:

Taking the Wind out of Wind Energy

For years, it's been an article of faith among advocates of renewables that increased use of wind energy can provide a cost-effective method of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The reality: wind energy's carbon dioxide-cutting benefits are vastly overstated. Furthermore, if wind energy does help reduce carbon emissions, those reductions are too expensive to be used on any kind of scale.



Those are the findings of an exhaustive new study, released by Bentek Energy, a Colorado-based energy analytics firm. Rather than rely on computer models that use theoretical emissions the authors analysed actual emissions data from electric generation plants serving about 110 million customers, or about one-third of the U.S. population. Their conclusion:

"The wind energy business is the electricity sector's equivalent of the corn ethanol scam: it's an over-subsidized industry that depends wholly on taxpayer dollars to remain solvent while providing an inferior product to consumers that does little, if anything, to reduce our need for hydrocarbons or cut carbon dioxide emissions." Source:


NASCAR prayer, Who says the church aint relevant?

The Tennessean reports on an unusual prayer delivered before Saturday night’s Nationwide Federated Auto Parts 300 by Pastor Joe Nelms of the Family Baptist Church. It sounds like this guy is a fan:

“Most of all, thank you for Roush and Yates partnering to give us the power that we see before us tonight,” Nelms said, referring to the engine manufacturers for some of the cars. He went on to thank the Lord for the “Sonoco racing fuel and Goodyear tires that bring performance and power to the track.” ...

“Lord, I want to thank you for my smokin’ hot wife tonight, Lisa, and my two childre, Eli and Emma, or as we like to call the, ‘The Little E’s’.”

Race winner Carl Edwards appreciated the humor that came with Nelms’ prayer.

“I turned to Jack (Roush) after that. I said, ‘If anything happens, I want him to be at my funeral.’ That was one of the best invocations I have ever heard.”

Economic worries, try Spenditol.

Here is the advertisement produced by Concerned Women for America:

The Model government ministry.

For a long time this site has published the writings of Viv Forbes who is a particularly articulate skeptic on the global warming, climate change, what ever the current truth demands it be called, issue. Viv has been a great advocate of limited government for many years.

Economics.org has recently started providing a very valuable service to those of us who believe in liberty, free markets and other libertarian perspectives, in republishing some of the forgotten works of our former luminaries. Singo is one of them and Viv is another guy who’s contribution is valuable enough to make the grade. In this one, written when Howard became PM, he outlines his views on the ideal cabinet:

The people of Australia, in a huge roar of disapproval, have sent a warning to Canberra: “Get out of our lives and out of our pockets.”

But the first act of the new government, an act of ominous pusillanimity, was to announce a huge federal ministry of 28. John Howard needs a small, tough, machete-wielding Cabinet to carry out the multiple amputations needed to downsize the octopus in the ACT. …

The Model Federal Ministry

• The Prime Minister
• The Defence Minister
• The Controller of Spending
• The Federal Liquidator
• The Minister for Sound Currency
• The Minister for Legislative Repeal
• The Minister for Tax Reduction
• The Minister for Decentralisation
• The Trade Facilitator
• The Office of the Bureaucratic Predator

While the first nine are pretty self explanatory, the Office of the Bureaucratic Predator may cause some confusion among those of you who have not been around libertarian politics for very long. Viv explains it here:

The Bureaucratic Predator should be one who looks on bureaucracies as Rome looked on Carthage. The enemy must not merely be defeated, it must be destroyed utterly — sacked, razed, burnt, pulled down brick by brick, and the ground ploughed and sown with salt.

This job should be let out to tender for a period of three years, the successful tenderer getting the right to 10% of the total budget for all eliminated bureaucracies for 5 years.

Sounds fair to me. Full article here.

Convoy of no Confidence in the Federal Government.

Some time ago the “Just Grounds’ community announced a convoy from Katherine to Canberra in order to demonstrate their disgust with, and lack of confidence in the federal government. It is organized by the National Road Freighters Association but the public at large is invited to join in.

An update now gives tentative timings for the trip but more importantly, makes it clear that there is not just the one convoy. There are eight leaving from various areas and the preliminary routes and times are below. This may be subject to change and people are advised to check for updates.

Proposed routes are:

Convoy 1. Start 16th of August Port Hedland, via Halls Creek, Katherine, Mt Isa, Blackall, Bourke, Cowra, and Canberra.

Convoy 2. Start 8th August Cairns, via Townsville, Springsure, Dirranbandi, Forbes, and Canberra.

Convoy 3. Start 20th August Rockhampton, via Goondiwindi, Parkes, and Canberra.

Convoy 4. Start 20th August Brisbane, via Tamworth (Via Warwick), Coonabarabran to Parkes, and Canberra.

Convoy 5. Start 20th August Brisbane via Beresfield, through Sydney to Canberra.

Convoy 6. Start Perth WA via Norseman, Nullarbor Road House, Port Augusta, Mildura, Wagga, and Canberra.

Convoy 7. Start 21st August Adelaide via either Narrandera / or Wagga, to Canberra.

Convoy 8. Start 21st August Melbourne, via Albury to Canberra.

There is some advice to all of those who may wish to participate on the post here, which will make the whole thing run more smoothly. Please remember to keep it couth, as Gillard and her apparatchiks will be looking for excuses to paint you as ignorant, uncouth, uneducated, extremist, knuckle dragging rednecks, you know, the sort of thing the elitists regard us regular folks as.

The latest Carbon tax bill.

Viv Forbes over at Carbon Sense has the latest on the carbon tax bill.

Survey: Bull bars make driving safer, Nanny wanted them banned.

European standards do not take this into account.

Some time ago the Federal Government proposed adopting the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Regulation GTR-09 on pedestrian safety. This proposal was subsequently withdrawn. The ‘Neurotics of the World Unite' crowd have been attempting to have bull bars banned for years and this presented the feds with an excuse to please another pressure group.

Presumably the government felt that it was reasonable to adopt European standards on this matter. After all, the people of England, France, Germany, Holland, and Spain would naturally have a deep understanding of animal strikes and the risks involved in hitting roos, scrubber cattle, camels, wild pigs, and brumbies out in the wilder more remote regions of their countries.

Lets face it, if you want to know about dealing with crocodiles, you naturally ask some environmentally sensitive Tasmanian or Victorian, rather than those knuckle dragging redneck pricks from the north.

In response the Australian 4WD Industry Council has conducted a national survey of bull bar users, which has revealed that 97% of respondents believe that their safety would be compromised if they were unable to fit a bull bar to their vehicles. There were 42,600 individual responses, but the analysis of the study was based on only the 33,620 respondents who completed all questions.

The majority, (73%) of respondents reported animal strikes over the last five years, which means that their views are based on experience and knowledge of the subject. We are advised to consider this in the context of the total Australian road death toll of about 1500 people a year. The figures highlight the fact that animal strike is a very common occurrence for Australian families, particularly those living in regional, rural and remote areas. Some of the figures are as follows:

Consequences of their most severe animal strike in the past five years:
With bull bar = 33% no damage, 54% minor damage, 12% major damage, 0.5% vehicle immobilized.
With no bull bar = 4 % no damage, 29% minor damage, 46% major damage, 20% vehicle immobilized.

Occupant injury resulting from the most severe animal strike in the past five years:
With bull bar = 99.3% no injuries, 0.7% injuries sustained.
No bull bar = 80% no injuries, 20% injuries sustained.

Respondents' views on whether bull bars:
Prevented significant damage to the vehicle in a frontal impact = 99.6% yes.
Prevented significant injury to vehicle occupants in frontal impact = 92% yes.

There is a common misconception by some that most bull bar equipped vehicles never leave cities, (Toorak Trekkers) but 94% of respondents spent at least a week each year travelling in remote parts of Australia. Bull bars were seen as a stable platform for other important safety equipment, including:
84% fitted auxiliary lighting, 80% fitted communications equipment, 58% fitted winches.

To see the report go here, and click the link.

Murdoch’s ‘Tiger woman’ a comedy star.

It appears Johnnie didn’t just lose his Marbles. The Labor Party have tossed him out, and his girlfriend has dropped him. It is reported he has received thousands of abusive tweets over attacking an 80 year old guy.

Meanwhile comedians are having a field day:

Hold the hysteria, warmists wrong on sea level.

Cartoon: By Chip Bok.

For some years the state governments and local authorities in Australia have been engaging in an orgy of regulation and planning, based on the theory that the seas are going to rise by around a meter by the turn of the century. Vast swathes of coastal land are affected.

There has been a consistent push also for people to ‘downsize’ in order to reduce their carbon usage. Port Albert, on the southern coast of Victoria has to go even further to meet the challenge. There is a fascinating story from a couple of days ago about how, owing to two sets of regulations, they have to lower their height.

That’s right, residents of the town have to get shorter.

Because of the requirement that sea level rises have to be planned for, new housing has to be built on stumps 1.5m above ground level, despite the fact that the town's original colonial buildings have survived on ground level since the 19th century. Normally, this would not present that much of a problem, other than for the infirm who would now have to climb steps.

Unfortunately, heritage rules prevent rooflines being built higher than the roof of the pub, which may be Victoria's oldest continuously licensed hotel. Once heritage listings come into effect, its damn near impossible to get rid of them. You see where this is going, …

Now, an Australian expert on the relationship between climate change and sea levels has written a peer-reviewed paper concluding that rises in sea levels are "decelerating." NSW principal coastal specialist Phil Watson questions one of the key criteria for large-scale inundation around the Australian coast by 2100. The one that assumes an accelerating rise in sea levels because of climate change.

Based on century-long tide gauge records at Fremantle, Western Australia (from 1897 to present), Auckland Harbour in New Zealand (1903 to present), Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour (1914 to present) and Pilot Station at Newcastle (1925 to present), the analysis finds there was a "consistent trend of weak deceleration" from 1940 to 2000.

Mr Watson's findings, published in the Journal of Coastal Research this year and now attracting broader attention, supports a similar analysis of long-term tide gauges in the US earlier this year. Both raise questions about the CSIRO's sea-level predictions.

Climate change researcher Howard Brady, at Macquarie University, said yesterday the recent research meant sea levels rises accepted by the CSIRO were "already dead in the water as having no sound basis in probability.”

"In all cases, it is clear that sea-level rise, although occurring, has been decelerating for at least the last half of the 20th century, and so the present trend would only produce sea level rise of around 15cm for the 21st century.” “The divergence between the sea-level trends from models and sea-level trends from the tide gauge records was now so great "it is clear there is a serious problem with the models.” Article here.

In the comments section there is at least one outraged warmist claiming that the rise is not even across the world, so this proves nothing. The trouble with this is that it would mean that if the height were not to rise here or in the US, the rise would have to be substantially more elsewhere. Perhaps the Canadians and Kiwis are screwed if this guy is right.

Gillard/Brown bang on about inquiry, Downer says harden up.

The control of information is something the elite always does, particularly in a despotic form of government. Information, knowledge, is power. If you can control information, you can control people. – Tom Clancy.

Bob Brown of the Greens is still pushing for an inquiry into the Australian media, including consideration of requiring print media to be licensed. While Gillard readily admits that she had no evidence of wrongdoing in Australia, she is sympathetic to a wide-ranging fishing expedition to try to find some.

The PM insists that News Limited needs to answer hard questions about its operations in the wake of the British scandal. Given that there is no evidence of any impropriety here, it is a little difficult to assess just what those ‘hard questions’ would be about.

The British have some justification in inquiring into the media, given the serious allegations that have been raised. It is worth pointing out though, that for the present those allegations are about one newspaper there out of a number owned by News. In the US, the FBI is investigating reports that the same paper attempted to hack 9/11 victim’s phones. Those reports seem to be rather nebulous.

Both of those countries have a reason to take some sort of action, as there have been allegations of criminal activity there. It is pointless though for us to do the same thing on the off chance that something may have happened. The whole thing is like asking the police to search scrubland because it looks like a good place to hide a body, even though nobody is missing and there is no evidence of a murder.

Alexander Downer was Australia’s foreign minister for eleven years under the Howard government and has had a great deal of experience in being on the wrong side of the press. He certainly has no reason to feel sorry for News Ltd or any other outlet. He is big enough though to accept criticism, and believes the government should do the same:

Senator Bob Brown wants to investigate the print media and Julia Gillard is sympathetic to the idea. She herself has taken to abusing the media, saying they write what she has inelegantly called crap, so any inquiry into the purveyors of such material seems to her a good idea.

You have to wonder why this has suddenly become an issue in Australia. There seem to be two totally unrelated issues which have triggered this debate. The first is a hardy annual. The media have been criticising the Government and their partners the Greens. Bob Brown hasn't been hardened to the world of media criticism. He hasn't been in government before. And it's all starting to get Julia Gillard down. Well, welcome to the world of democratic power and toughen up!

I remember over the years bringing peace to Bougainville, helping to liberate East Timor, getting Australia into the East Asia Summit, negotiating free trade agreements with America, Thailand and Singapore, to name just a few things.

That wasn't the media narrative: They remembered the charity stunt I did with this newspaper using half a stocking. I was paraded in cartoons and columns as some sort of sexually ambiguous freak; …

These days, Julia Gillard is promoting her $23 billion carbon tax. The media should report what she says and does, of course. And they do. But they need to be sceptical. Is it really true that only a small number of households will be worse off? How much will the system cost to administer? Will higher prices really reduce demand for carbon intensive products like electricity? And the daddy of them all, how much will this $23 billion tax affect our weather? Will it abolish droughts, remove threats to the Great Barrier Reef and stop the sea level from swamping the western suburbs? Or are we paying $23 billion for nothing? Answering those questions is part of the debate.

These debates make for good policy. If the Government knows that everything it is going to do will be tested in this rigorous way, it will think policies through all the more carefully. And the winners will be the Australian public.

And I'm sorry to say, as a former Cabinet minister myself, statements by governments can't any longer be taken at face value. The public relations geniuses are always hiding behind the curtain hoping their scripts and sets work out. God forbid that the media would just swallow all that tripe on face value.

What is more, powerful people can make or break our lives. They themselves should be put under constant scrutiny. And it should be tough scrutiny. A leader or senior Cabinet minister who can't take the daily diet of personal abuse, cruel cartoons and just out and out criticism shouldn't be in the job.

Was the parliamentary pie incident rigged?

Image: Wendi Deng.

It seems that the only person to come out of the parliamentary inquiry into the News of the World hacking scandal with much credit has been Wendi Deng. Springing into immediate action when some half-witted dweeb attempted to slam a foam pie into the face of her husband, she delivered a beautiful slam into his face with the skill she acquired playing volley ball:

The ‘protester’ not only comes away with charges of behavior causing harassment, alarm or distress in a public place and an incredible act of stupidity, but also got a flogging from a chick in the process. There is nothing quite like than a feisty woman.

There is a curious aspect to this though.

It was noticeable that police, presumably for security reasons, escorted the Murdock’s into the inquiry. They were not under arrest and were simply there to answer questions, so there was no other reason for the police presence.

In an age where security is paramount, given the threat of terrorism and its use by the state for gross impositions on the public at large, a parliamentary inquiry where high profile people are present would seem to be something that would warrant extra security. This would be made more necessary by the presence of Rupert Murdock and his family who are surrounded by controversy.

It seems that despite this, a person was allowed through with items that could hardly be seen as normal for such an event. While a pie plate and shaving cream are hardly life threatening, the presence of these items would certainly cause some sort of questions to be asked. It is unlikely they got through unless someone with the power to say no decided to allow it.

It is difficult to see why this would advantage any party to the event and could only cause the whole thing to descend into a circus. It would however cause Murdock to be put on the back foot and suffer a great deal of embarrassment during the hearing.

Something is rotten in the state of England.

Recall of ‘faulty’ stamp cancelled.

Image: The faulty stamp in question.

This is one of those emails that somehow gets spread around. I have heard this one before under different circumstances but it is too good to resist.

Australia Post recently created and marketed a new stamp displaying a picture of the current Prime Minister of Australia, Ms Gillard. 


It was decided however that a recall of the stamps was necessary following complaints from the public that they were faulty and not adhering. 


After the Prime Minister was informed that the stamp was not sticking to envelopes after a long and expensive production run and being released with wide publicity, she demanded a full investigation.

It has now been revealed that the recall has been suspended after the findings of a special Senate Committee were released.

After months of testing in the CSIRO laboratories and spending of $1.85 million, a special Senate investigative inquiry by the leader of the Greens, Bob Brown, the following findings have been presented: 


1) The stamp is in perfect order. 

2) There is nothing wrong with the adhesive. 

3) People are spitting on the wrong side of the stamp.

More on Government hacking scandal.

The previous post was a press release from the LP pointing out that government was a worse hacking threat than any privateer.

Quadrant Online Links to an item in the Salisbury Review pointing to the British government being by far the worst hacker in the UK:

In the hysteria [over the News of the World phone tap scandal] there has been no mention of Britain’s most prolific phone hacker, the government, or that it was the previous Labor administration - now pointing the finger at News International - that gave birth to its worst excesses.

Since the year 2000 British officials have have been given almost unlimited powers to hack into the phones, emails or open the letters of anyone they think may not be acting in their interests.

A total of 253,557 applications were made in 2006 to intercept private communications. Nearly all were approved. 600 public bodies can monitor people‘s private communications and in the same year 122 local councils asked to spy on 1600 individuals.

Check it out.

LP; Phone-hacking scandal highlights danger of intrusive government

This is a Press release from the Libertarian Party.



By: Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle.

"As I have watched this tabloid phone-hacking scandal unfold, I have been reminded about how delicate our privacy is, and how vulnerable we are to government intrusion into our lives.


"If it's so easy for journalists and private detectives to hack into our emails and phones, just think how much the government, with its much greater resources, can pry into our lives.



"If we find that Apple's iPhones are tracking us, we can stop using their service. And if we find they have harmed us, we can sue them. But if we find that the government is tracking us, there's not much we can do except protest -- and even then, the government often uses our tax dollars to pay for propaganda saying 'There's nothing to worry about.'



"It shows why it is so important that government be strictly limited in its power; and that the public have complete information about what bureaucrats and law enforcement agents are doing.



"The more crimes there are on the books, the more excuses government officials have to sneak peeks at every detail of our private lives.



"Violating other people's privacy is addictive. It's human nature. Once people gain the power to spy on other people's lives, they want to do it more and more. They will constantly seek new ways to do it, and more excuses to justify doing it.



"The government is always threatening to turn into Big Brother. That's why it is so important for vigilant defenders of liberty to fight back: not only to rely on the courts for protection, but to make sure that we only elect politicians who will respect our right to privacy.



"Unfortunately, President Obama does not respect our privacy. He has continued the warrantless wiretapping policy of the George W. Bush administration, and he has even expanded Bush's "state secrets" doctrine, to make it harder for the accused and the public to keep an eye on what his administration is up to.



"Republicans and Democrats in Congress recently joined hands to renew several unjust and unconstitutional provisions of the Patriot Act. I hope voters will punish them for doing that. In November 2012, I hope voters will recognize that Libertarian candidates consistently adhere to the Constitution and respect all of our rights."



The Libertarian Party platform includes the following:



"1.2 Personal Privacy


Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating 'crimes' without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes."



The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at their website.

So, it’s Project Veritas; Ohio sting.

A couple of days ago, Wayne Allyn Root revealed in his mail out, that he had received advance information on a new revelation from James O’Keefe:

I was given an advance copy of a secret undercover investigation exposing systemic corruption in government by my friend and conservative activist James O'Keefe. If you thought what O'Keefe uncovered with ACORN was bad, you've got to see this one. This undercover video proves the entire U.S. government entitlement system is one big fat ACORN.

By the time this commentary is published, the video will have gone public in the national media...and no doubt it will have gone "viral" as well. What it shows is enough to make a taxpayer pop an artery in their neck. It's enough to make taxpayers sick to their stomachs. It's enough to shake the entire U.S. government to its core. It's enough to cause taxpayers to revolt, and refuse to give one more dime to a corrupt, out of control, GOVERNMENT GONE WILD.

This appears to be another undercover sting, this time on Medicaid in Ohio:

While this is does not prove that all of Medicaid is corrupt, it reveals that at least some of the agency is prepared to sanction or turn a blind eye to criminal actions.

Root continues:

This is the perfect time and place to make a stand. To draw a line in the sand. To end the spending addiction today. This second. To agree to cut the spending, cut the debt, balance the budget, and protect the taxpayers. But James O'Keefe's video should inspire the battle charge by conservatives and Libertarians. This video crystallizes everything. We either deal with the addiction now, or this country and economy will perish later.

This is the battle to cut spending and limit the size and scope of government is the battle of all battles. This is more important than even the battle against terrorism. Because our own government is defrauding and terrorizing it's own citizens and taxpayers. This is more important than the supposed battle against Global warming. Because government debt is the real national security threat. …

This video proves that your tax money and mine is being wasted all over this country by our Big Brother government. Fraud is being committed every day. There is no need to raise the debt ceiling. There is only a need to cut spending, entitlements, waste and fraud. And there is a desperate need to cut government employees, millions of whom obviously sit around all day handing out taxpayer money to free-loaders, while they wait for their retirement, so they can sit around another 40 years being paid $100,000 pensions for not working, courtesy of the suckers...oops I mean taxpayers.

This video proves that government employees are either completely incompetent, completely corrupt, or involved in a purposeful conspiracy to hand out massive tax dollars to dramatically grow the size of government, making their agencies and their unions more powerful, thereby keeping their jobs safe. My educated guess is it's all three- with government employees we've hit the Triple Crown- incompetence, corruption, and conspiracy to defraud.

This video only involves one department, one entitlement- a $1.2 trillion dollar business built around waste and corruption. But it represents every government department, and every entitlement. They are all the same. Go undercover against any government agency, department, or bureau and you'll find lazy bureaucrats throwing taxpayer money out the window.

And amazingly you'll find- as this video proves- they will throw the money at anyone, even the worst of the worst. At criminals, drug dealers, pimps, underage hookers, millionaires driving $800,000 cars. It just doesn't matter. Government either doesn't care because it's not their money, or they know exactly what they're doing. It's all a plan to hand out the money, to grow government bigger.

Either way, this is the moment in time. Thanks to James O'Keefe for leading the cavalry charge. We must STOP THE INSANITY. Hold the line. Not one inch. Not one more dollar from taxpayers to pay for this madness. Enough is enough. As my hero Ronald Reagan would say, "Mr. Obama TEAR DOWN YOUR DEBT CEILING."

Sharia flogging in Australia.

Image from: Sharia4australia

For some time there has been a campaign to implement Sharia law in Australia, led by Muslim convert Ibrahim SIddiq-Conlon. Here are a couple of his rantings:

First on the Aussiemuslims forum:

“Firstly I sincerely apologise and ask Allah, Most High if any of my words in the past has caused any fitna or conflict in this forum. As Muslims we must stick together, be tolerant to our brothers and sisters in Islam (whilst having equal disloyalty to the Non Muslims) and this means from me to you all, and from you all to me. AlhamduLillah.” …

On their facebook page in answer to ‘Gina Misdemeanor’ who asks, “so is the push to try and get sharia law? right across the board to the general public regardless of race,religion,sexual preference.? or will it just apply to the islamic community?” he writes:

My push/Our push is FIRSTLY to E.D.U.C.A.T.E the Australian people of their own failing system (in caseit is not obvious & clear enough). The failing system of democracy (Dumb-ocrazy) & the ‘secular’democracy that you so proudly ’love’ and ‘defend’ with your ‘oi oi oi’, your beer-drinking & swearing boozed-up, noisy, homosexual & jew-loving, Muslim-hating ‘culture’ of nothingness. (Sounds like he could fit in well with Fred Nile and the Christian Democrats.)

“Today Tonight” reported on the introduction of Sharia by stealth that is going on at present:


Now a case arises where a man’s home was invaded and he was given 40 lashes for consuming alcohol:

A man has been charged over an alleged sharia law punishment where a Sydney man was lashed 40 times in his bed.

Police say the 31-year-old victim woke to find four bearded men in his bedroom at Silverwater, in the city's west, about 1:00am (AEST) on Sunday.

The men allegedly held him down on his bed and lashed him with a cable 40 times during the 30-minute ordeal.

The victim has told police he was being punished under Sharia law for drinking alcohol. Representatives of Sydney's Muslim community have condemned the attack. (This happens when something embarrassing happens.)

Detectives arrested a 20-year-old man at his Auburn home last night. He has been charged with aggravated break and enter and committing a serious indictable offence.

The Attorney General Mr. McClelland has rejected such calls and actions, saying. “there was no place for Sharia law in Australian society, and the government strongly rejected any proposal for its introduction.”

Former Treasurer, Peter Costello slams carbon tax.

H/t, Catallaxy Files.

This is probably one of the best editions of the Bolt Report ever. It has everything, starting with a Brisbane shopper asking Gillard the question on everybody’s lips, “Why did you lie to us.” Then at one minute in, an example of Gillard talking down to us.

At the two-minute mark, Channel 7s most obsequious reporter, Mark Riley makes his play for sycophant of the year, and the coveted Gold Logie for best Dorothy Dix question of 2011.

Then Peter Costello hits his straps:


Costello has clearly repudiated the idea of a carbon tax since realizing just what a dog’s breakfast of impracticability it really is. He has joined the crowd in this as the whole idea when presented as what passes for reality here, is horrendous.

It was noticeable in an article the other day, David Flint who was the head of the Australian Press Council, stated, “More recently, I think The Australian's support of the carbon dioxide tax on the basis of the so-called precautionary principle and on the primacy of market solutions misses the point. This is not a real market but an artificial construct concocted by bureaucrats and academics to be rorted by merchant bankers.”

That probably explains why former Opposition leader and merchant banker, Malcolm Turnbull still supports it.

Drowning government clutches at a strawman.

Cartoon: By Nicholson.

It has to be assumed that there are a significant number of voters out there who only listen to the party line for the latest Labor smear to be based on any sort of market research. While there may be a few people like this, most would be amazed at the spin used to make an attack on Abbott’s statement equating the carbon tax to the effect of the flood on Queensland coalmines.

Abbott said in his speech to the LNP annual convention, "The flood-related shutdown of the Queensland coal industry had a significant effect on the national economy and a dramatic effect on the Queensland economy," "A permanent contraction of the coal industry, as threatened by the carbon tax, would be a very serious problem for Australia and a disaster for Queensland."

The Gillard government, desperate for anything that might give them some traction, is spinning this by claiming that he is engaging in heartless political point-scoring after using the tragic spectre of the Queensland floods to fuel his carbon tax attack.

This is obviously alluding to the 35 confirmed deaths across the state, including a heavy toll in the Lockyer Valley, as well as the devastation in flooded areas. It is reasonable to speculate on how long these people spend rehearsing and getting into character in order to make such a convincing display of mock outrage. There is no chance that they actually believe what they are saying; it just makes no sense.

Treasurer, Wayne Swan seems to be fronting this:

Lockyer Valley residents and the Gillard Government yesterday rounded on the Opposition Leader after he compared the impact of Labor's climate change policy on Queensland to the devastating summer disasters.

But Mr. Abbott hit back and accused Labor of playing politics itself by attacking him, saying it was a sign of a desperate Government trying to distract voters from a broken promise.

As Deputy Prime Minister Wayne Swan demanded Mr. Abbott apologize for the remarks, Grantham woman Karen Howie said it was "ridiculous" to make the comparison, even on an economic basis, because so many human lives had been lost.

"It's very heartless to say that," Ms Howie said. "No thought for anybody's feelings. We lost human lives. "Politicians will turn anything into political point-scoring."

Visiting Cairns, Mr. Swan, who has previously explained Budget problems by referencing the disasters, labeled the comments a "despicable new low" in Mr. Abbott's scare campaign.
"The suffering of Queenslanders should not be used by Mr. Abbott as a cheap political tool," he said.

"Mr. Abbott should apologize to the people of Queensland and in particular those whose lives were hit by the floods for trying to rope them into his shabby political scare campaign."

Gillard and Swan were nowhere near as shocked at the worst attempt to politicize the human misery that resulted from the floods. On that occasion it was their puppet master, Greens leader, Bob Brown who tried to blame the coalminers for the whole crisis in an effort to have them taxed for it.

That second term for Carter

H/t Hot air.

Laura Ingram has put together a great video to celebrate the 32nd anniversary of Jimmy Carter's Malaise speech:

Lord Monckton Debate, National Press Club, Canberra.


Supporters needed to attend please.

Cartoon: By Nicholson.

By Viv Forbes, Chairman,

The Carbon Sense Coalition.

On Tuesday 19th July an historic debate will occur at the National Press club when Lord Monckton debates global warmist Richard Denniss live. This will be the first time a one hour debate on the science and the economics of global warming are tackled head to head with two opposing leading advocates in front of the TV cameras. Book here:
 or ph (02) 6121 2199 if you want to be a part of this historic event.

Dr Richard Denniss is Executive Director of the Australia Institute.

He is an economist with a particular interest in the role of regulation. Prior to taking up his current position he was an Associate Professor at the Crawford School of Economics and Government at the Australian National University where he continues to hold an adjunct appointment. Richard has also worked as Strategy Adviser to the Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Bob Brown, Chief of Staff to the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Natasha Stott Despoja, and lectured in economics at the University of Newcastle.



Lord Christopher Monckton is Chief Policy Advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute.

He was Special Advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher from 1982 to 1986.

Monckton is a widely recognized commentator on climate sensitivity. His climate change lecture to Cambridge University undergraduates was later turned into a full-length feature film (funded by SPPI) titled "Apocalypse? NO!". Recently, Monckton has devoted his work toward challenging the so-called “consensus” of scientists on climate change. Along with giving lectures and writing scholarly analyses, Monckton has testified before a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Vaclav Klaus Appearances in Australia

Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, is author of "Blue Planet in Green Shackles" and a leading critic of global warming ideology. He is visiting Australia soon and will present a series of talks on: "Threats to Freedom in the Twenty-first Century".
For information and bookings see:

Global Warming Hysteria Fades in Europe


"The climate policy of the European Union is now stuck in a dead end.
Europe wanted to be the leader – showing the world the way.
It wanted to export the "market-economic" instrument of emissions trading as a new standard of regulation.

Today it is clear that there is going to be no successor agreement to Kyoto. There is no way out of the dilemma. Europe is completely standing alone.
The world is not a carbon market. It will never be one."- Holger Krahmer, Public Service Europe, 29 June 2011

Gore Effect Strikes Gillard

"The Gore Effect" refers to the well known tendency of the weather gods to send frosts, blizzards and snow whenever the global warming alarmists gather and start chanting.
The most celebrated Gore event occurred in Britain, which was struck by massive snowstorms while the British Parliament (with only one dissenting voice) was passing probably the most expensive, destructive and wrong-headed bit of legislation ever to receive such solid support – the Climate Change Act. As that bitter winter progressed, the snows kept falling, the winds dropped, the wind turbines stopped turning and some froze. Zero green power was produced. Every nuclear, coal and gas plant was running at full capacity, but still power supplies failed in some areas and electric trains were marooned. One old steam loco burning coal helped stranded passengers on one line.

Such is the strength of the Gore Effect.

PM Gillard unveiled her plans to use carbon taxes to induce global cooling on Carbon Sunday, 10 July 2011. The Gore Effect struck us soon after.
Here on our farm at Rosevale in Queensland, Australia, sheep work starts as soon as it is light enough to see new-born lambs on the ground. Ever since Carbon Sunday, heavy white frosts have blanketed the ground well up the hills. Sheep start their breakfast with chlorophyll icicles. Then the sun comes up, and the welcome warm nuclear-powered radiation floods the land. The icicles start to disappear, temperature increases at the rate of one degree per hour and rises about fifteen degrees by lunch time.

Julia and her puppets think we are scared of the possibility that, unless we lie in her bed of nails, the temperature may rise a fraction of a degree in 50 years!!!! It rises that much in a few minutes every morning where I live.

What do they put into the water in Canberra?


It's the Sun, Stupid.

Anyone with an ounce of brains knows that the biggest source of surface heating is the sun. And many observers of weather and climate also know that the sun has variable and cyclic behaviour. The correlation between variations on the sun and changing weather and climate is also well established, but the mechanism of change was not well understood. Now a determined and inquisitive Danish Climate scientist Prof. Henrik Svensmark and his team have discovered one powerful mechanism – the sun controls cosmic rays which affects clouds. Man and carbon dioxide are not even bit players in controlling global temperature.

Have a look at these well presented videos: