The Left's policies of censorship and indoctrination

15 September, 2011 by

Stephen Conroy, er, hang on…

Censorship and indoctrination are two ugly sides of the same coin. The Left has infiltrated the education system in Australia to such an extent that students emerge from schools and universities with a twisted world-view based on half-baked Marxist preaching, environmental extremism, cultural relativism, post-modernism and a black armband view of their own history and culture.

They have been taught to abandon the canon of Western literature and scientific achievement, to hate the United States and Israel (naturally), ignore and abandon the Judeo-Christian traditions of Western civilisation and eschew the benefits of market driven economies, and instead celebrate the numerous failures of socialism and multiculturalism, glorify underachievement and mediocrity as a result of an “equality of outcomes” based approach, sympathise with the Palestinian “struggle”, and, of course, support action on global warming and other green/Left ideologies.

It takes years, and possibly decades, of experience and maturity for many (but by no means all) to realise that the world they learned about in school bears little resemblance to reality, and is a world viewed through a distorted red/green prism.

All the while, the Left can stand proudly by and watch entire generations of young people pop out into society as virtual automatons pre-programmed to accept their dangerous ideologies and policies.

But wait, we can’t have this… Some media organisations aren’t playing the game! They actually have the gall to challenge the system which we have so carefully constructed, with subversive articles which expose the failures and hypocrisy of the Left! The people are thinking for themselves – this is not acceptable. The people must only think what we tell them to think. Despite the fact that we have the ALP-BC and Fairfax to spread our propaganda (which they do very well thank you), their influence is waning so rapidly that there is a danger of losing control of the message. But then a miracle occurred…

And Lo! There came from the Land of Murdoch a phone-hacking scandal! And verily did the Left rejoice! “This is perfect timing”, they said unto themselves! “We can use this as an excuse to bully and harass the heretics from the Land of Murdoch and suppress any dissent! We must have an “inquiry” into those dangerous media organisations, with terms of reference vague enough to allow us to damage them sufficiently to prevent them from spreading their misrepresentations whilst appearing at all times that we are being even handed and fair.

And thus was born Labor’s inquiry into the hate media (© Bob Brown).

And if that wasn’t enough, it might cover blogs like this one as well. From Stephen Conroy’s press conference (no link):

Journalist:

But you’d also have to define who could be complained about and what the penalities would be once they were complained about? A tweeter, a blogger, a…

Conroy:

Well, as you said. Now you’re canvassing areas that I think will be richly canvassed in the inquiry, and these are the sort of… these are, the questions is… you’re asking all the legitimate questions.

Imagine the surprise – there was I thinking Stalinism had died out, only to find it alive and well and living in Canberra.

[thanks to Gunna]

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Abbott: Carbon tax "the longest political suicide note in history"

14 September, 2011 by

Tony Abbott responds to Julia Gillard’s introduction of the carbon tax bills to Parliament:

Let’s be absolutely blunt about the bills now before the parliament: this is a bad tax based on a lie and it should be rejected by this parliament.

The Prime Minister said yesterday that the question for members of this parliament was are you or are you not on the right side of history? Well, let me say, Mr Speaker, this is arrogant presumption by a Prime Minister who is on the wrong side of truth. That’s the Prime Minister’s problem. She is on the wrong side of truth when it comes to this issue.

…

I say to this Prime Minister there should be no new tax collection without an election. That’s what this Prime Minister should do. If this Prime Minister trusts in the democratic process, if this Prime Minister trusts her own judgement, trusts her own argument, that is what she should be doing. She should be taking this to the people.

Mr Speaker, the whole point of this tax is to change the way every single Australian lives and works. That’s another reason why this should be taken to the people. This is not just a minor bit of financial engineering. This is not just – if you believe the Government – something to do with the revenue. This is a transformational change. This is something which is supposed to impact on our country, not just today, not just next year, not just next decade but forever. That’s how important this is, if the Government is to be believed, and this is why it should go to the people first.

This tax is all about making the essentials of modern life more expensive. Modern life, Mr Speaker, is utterly inconceivable without fuel and power, without fuel to move us around the country, without power to make our homes, our businesses and our factories work. So, if this tax comes in, as the Government wants it to come in, we won’t be able to turn on our air conditioner or our heater without being impacted by this tax. We won’t be able to get on a bus or a train, ultimately to drive our cars, without being impacted by this tax. That’s how important, that’s how significant this tax is. This explains the obvious impact that this tax will have on every single Australian’s cost of living. This explains the obvious impact that this tax will have on every single Australian’s job and this explains why it is so necessary for this tax to go to the people before the parliament tries to deal with it. Mr Speaker, if this parliament is to have any democratic credibility on an issue like this there must be an appeal to the people before a decision by the parliament.

…

So, all of those bold claims in the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday, all of that big chest-thumping talk of a massive reduction in emissions as a result of this tax, utterly wrong, utterly wrong and disproven on the basis of the Government’s own documents. We aren’t reducing our emissions, we are just engaging in a massive transfer of wealth from this country to carbon traders overseas. That’s what’s happening. That’s what’s happening under this tax. It will be $3.5 billion in 2020 to purchase almost 100 million tonnes of carbon credits from abroad, it will be $57 billion – one and a half per cent of gross domestic product – shovelled off abroad by 2050 to purchase some 400 million tonnes of carbon credits from abroad.

…

So Mr Speaker, this carbon tax proposal from the Government would be disastrous for our democracy. How can Australians continue to trust our democracy when the biggest and most complex policy change in recent history is being rammed through this parliament by the most incompetent government in recent history? The biggest and the most complex change, sponsored by the least competent government in recent times, not only does it not have a mandate to do what it is proposing it has a mandate not to do what it is proposing. That’s why this package of bills is so disastrous for our democracy.

Mr Speaker, it’s disastrous for our democracy, it’s disastrous for the trust that should exist between members of parliament and their electorates.

Why are the Members for Throsby and Cunningham sponsoring such damage to BlueScope and to the coal miners of the Illawarra?

Why is the Member for Hunter and the other Hunter Valley members of the Government doing such damage to the heavy industries and to the coal mines of the Hunter?

How can the Climate Change Minister talk to his constituents with a straight face given what he is doing to them?

How can the Member for Capricornia want to close down so many mines in her electorate?

How can the Members for Corio and Corangamite be doing this to the cement industry and to the aluminium industry and to the motor industry of Geelong?

What we have from this Government is politically and economically and environmentally disastrous.

But it’s more than that.

It is going to turn out to be the longest political suicide note in Australian history.

Read it all here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Lies and spin launch carbon tax bills

14 September, 2011 by

The eighteen carbon [dioxide] tax bills were introduced into Parliament yesterday. As usual, Julia Gillard couched the introduction in lies, misrepresentations and spin.

Let us not forget what Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan said in August 2010, days before the last general election:

But, desperate to stay in power after the narrowest of election victories, and having sold out to the Greens for their support, Gillard and Swan promptly executed a 180 degree about turn, betraying the electorate to appease Bob Brown and his band of eco-tards.

Here is Gillard’s introduction, from Hansard (PDF), with some comments included:

This House has been debating climate change for decades. Parliamentary debate of this issue predates this building itself. My predecessor as member for Lalor, Barry Jones, once said this about climate change, ‘If we are only prepared to plan five years, 10 years, 15 years or 20 years down the track all the dangers that are feared can be avoided.’

Those words were spoken 24 years ago next week.

We have now had decades of heated public argument and political opinion.

Alongside decades of enlightened scientific research and economic analysis. [But this government only listens to the research and analysis that fits its pre-conceived agenda]

After all those opinions have been expressed, most Australians now agree [FALSE – most Australian’s strongly DISAGREE]:

  • our climate is changing [TRUE – as it has for 4.5 billion years]
  • this is caused by carbon pollution [FALSE – the relative contributions of natural and anthropogenic drivers is completely unknown]
  • this has harmful effects on our environment and on the economy [UNKNOWN – the effects of a natural global cooling could be far, far worse]
  • and the government should act. [FALSE – nothing Australia does alone will make any difference to the climate]

And after all that analysis has been done, most economists and experts [that I have selectively chosen to listen to, that is] also now agree: The best way is to make polluters pay [Australia’s most productive industries suffer] by putting a price on carbon. [Gillard still continues to refer to the harmless trace gas carbon dioxide as “carbon”]

So that is the policy of the government I lead. [Ironic that she chooses the identical phraseology to that used in the video above – just to rub it in, perhaps?]

And that is the plan which is before the House now.

A plan for a carbon-pricing mechanism which means around 500 big polluters pay [most productive Australian industries suffer] for every tonne of carbon pollution they put into our atmosphere.

A plan to cut carbon pollution by at least 160 million tonnes a year in 2020. [Which in real terms is square-root of bugger all]

A plan for tax cuts, increased pensions and increased family payments. [If you want people to reduce their usage of fossil fuels, why are we compensating them? Is it because this is more about wealth redistribution than climate change?]

A plan for clean energy jobs and investment [Total nonsense – every manufactured “green” job costs real people REAL jobs]. A plan for a clean energy future for our country [people will use “clean energy” by themselves when it is competitive. Forcing them to do so simply skews the market and allows green industries to cream massive subsidies].

Today we move from words to deeds. This parliament is going to get this done. [We’ll see]

This government is riding roughshod over the electorate of Australia. It has no mandate to introduce this tax, and should rightly put the question to the people of Australia at an election. The opinion polls tell the story. Ordinary Australians have had enough of the lies and spin. We can only hope that one or two Labor MPs with a conscience (are there any??) will vote it down out of principle. But I think that is highly unlikely. Just a bunch of brainwashed lemmings that do as they are told.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

The debate is over… on the carbon tax

13 September, 2011 by

Contempt for Parliament

With the carbon tax bills being introduced to Parliament, the government is doing its best to ensure that there is as little debate as possible. Greg Combet, difficult to like at the best of times, is at his most arrogant, contemptuous worst:

“Tony Abbott’s misinformed people, deceived people, told lies about things,” he said. [Better not mention the lies in the government’s ad campaign then – Ed]

“I don’t expect the Coalition to make much in the form of a constructive debate.”

The Coalition claim that there is no where near enough time to debate the complex bills, with each member only having a minute to debate the 18 bills. Combet explains helpfully:

“That’s all rubbish,” Mr Combet said, adding the bills would be debated as one piece of legislation. [That still is only 18 minutes per member for one of the most complex changes to our economy in Australia’s history – Ed]

Mr Combet said there had been 35 inquiries into climate change [all of them fudged or fixed – Ed].

“It really is time we got on with it.”

“Time we got on with it.” I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning. Just imagine Labor’s outrage at a minority Coalition government with no mandate, which broke an express pre-election promise to force through a hotly contested piece of legislation and then stifled proper democratic processes in Parliament by cutting short the debates. We’d have Combet, Gillard, Albanese and all the other Labor attack dogs shrieking from the rooftops. Tony Abbott responds:

Mr Abbott said it would be a “travesty of democracy” for the Government to rush its legislation through Parliament, especially as it had no mandate for a carbon tax.

He vowed to repeal the laws once a Coalition government was elected, despite concerns it might cause disruption to business.

“It’s never disruptive to get rid of a bad tax,” he told ABC Radio.

“It’s always advantageous to reduce business costs and they don’t want this tax and if they get it, they will want to be rid of it as quickly as they possibly can.”

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Roger Pielke Sr on Skeptical Science

13 September, 2011 by

Roger Pielke Sr

Roger Pielke Sr responds to the trashy attacks on the UAH dataset and Roy Spencer personally from the likes of our own “Eureka Prize winning” John Cook at the web site (Un-) Skeptical Science.

A few quotes:

As a result of the persistent, but incorrect (often derogatory) blog posts and media reports on the robustness of the University of Alabama MSU temperature data, I want to summarize the history of this data analysis below. John Christy and Roy Spencer lead this climate research program.

The ad hominem presentations on this subject include those from the weblog Skeptical Science who have sections titled:

“Christy Crocks” and “Spencer Slip Ups”

If this weblog intends, as they write, to contribute to

“Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation”

they certainly have failed in this effort, with respect to the outstanding research that Christy and Spencer have accomplished.

Pielke also cautions:

Weblogs such as Skeptical Science, if they want to move the debate on the climate issues forward, need to move towards a more constructive approach.

All I can say in response to that is “don’t wait up”. Skeptical Science isn’t interested in a constructive approach to this issue, because it is an agenda-driven propaganda site. It has nothing to do with seeking scientific truth, and everything to do with advancing a pre-determined position by rubbishing and dismissing anything (and anybody) that challenges it. The last thing Skeptical Science wants to do is move the debate forward – the debate’s over.

And if you want to understand your “denialist” psychological condition, all you have to do is read one of Cook’s books on the subject. See, no agenda there, clearly!

Read it here. (h/t WUWT)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Another paper suggests cosmic ray influence on clouds

12 September, 2011 by

Figure 5 - click to enlarge

This time based on real-world experimentation, rather than laboratory test results as with CERN/CLOUD. In this case, the paper looks at the link between Forbush decreases, which are a decrease in the galactic cosmic ray flux in response to a burst of gas ejected from the Sun towards the Earth, and the change in diurnal temperature variation (i.e. the difference between night and day). Fewer cosmic rays mean fewer clouds, which means colder nights and warmer days, in theory…

From Nigel Calder:

More than a year ago I began a succession of posts on whether or not observations in the real world support or falsify the Svensmark hypothesis. The most explanatory was the first – see link

The focus was on the “natural experiments” in which big puffs of gas from the Sun block some of the cosmic rays coming from the Galaxy towards the Earth. The resulting falls in cosmic ray influx, called Forbush decreases, last for a few days. The game is to look for observable reductions in cloudiness in the aftermath of these events. The results are most clearly favourable to the Svensmark hypothesis for the Forbush decreases with the largest percentage reductions in cosmic rays. Scientists keen to falsify the hypothesis have only to mix in some of the weaker events for the untidiness of the world’s weather to “hide the decline”. 

The Serbs avoid that blunder by picking out the strongest Forbush decreases. And by using the simple, reliable and long-provided weather-station measurements of temperature by night and day, they avoid technical, interpretive and data-availability problems that surround more direct observations of clouds and their detailed properties. The temperatures come from 184 stations scattered all across Europe (actually, so I notice, from Greenland to Siberia). A compilation by the Mount Washington Observatory that spans half a century, from 1954 to 1995, supplies the catalogue of Forbush decreases.

The prime results are seen here in Dragić et al.‘s Figure 5 [image top right]. The graphs show the increase in the diurnal temperature range averaged across the continent in the days following the onset of cosmic ray decreases (day 0 on the horizontal scales). The upper panel is the result for 22 Forbush events in the range 7−10%, with a peak at roughly +0.35 oC in the diurnal temperature range. The lower panel is for 13 events greater than 10%. The peak goes to +0.6 oC and the influence lasts longer. It’s very satisfactory for the Svensmark hypothesis that the effect increases like this, with greater reductions in the cosmic rays. The results become hard (impossible?) to explain by any mechanism except an influence of cosmic rays on cloud formation.

The case for the Sun influencing climate by modulating cloud cover becomes stronger, little by little. By the way, just for the benefit of the Consensus Boys, this is how science works.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Remembering 9/11

11 September, 2011 by

We are putting aside the petty whirlwind of climate change politics to remember something far more important: the events of 9/11 and the families of the thousands that died ten years ago today. Our thoughts at this time are with our US friends and others who suffered in that terrible tragedy.

Filed Under: Climate

Bob Carter comments on Sunday Age article

11 September, 2011 by

Climate sense

Prof Bob Carter has commented on the Sunday Age’s article on ACM’s question. It will be preserved here in case it gets inadvertently posted down the memory hole:

Editorial presumption of the danger of human-caused global warming (which is a speculative hypothesis) as opposed to natural climate change (which is a certainty, and dangerous) rests upon a number of myths. Prime amongst these is that the IPCC is a scientific advisory body. Wrong. As a branch of the UN, the IPCC renders political advice, albeit dressed up with plausible sounding but mostly alarmist-slanted science.

A second myth is that the majority of scientists assert that dangerous human warming will occur (it hasn’t yet). Wrong again. For since 1995 tens of thousands of qualified scientists have signed statements similar to the following, current on the website of the International Climate Science Coalition:

“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming”.

Myth number three is that present day temperature is unusually warm compared with past climate. Wrong again, as demonstrated by both historic and deep time records.

And myth number four is that dangerous global warming will be caused by human emissions. In actuality, global temperature has cooled slightly over the last 10 years in the face of a 5 per cent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Need I go on?

Yes, but only to say that the needed and cost-effective policy to deal with climate change hazard, of whatever origin, is to prepare for and adapt to dangerous events as and when they happen.

 Bob Carter | Townsville – September 11, 2011, 11:17AM

Thanks for your contribution, Bob.

P.S. I note that comments were closed for this article sometime around 3pm AEST (barely 24 hours after the piece was published). Seems a tad premature… read the comments to see if you can spot a possible reason…

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Sunday Age Climate Agenda: ACM's question reported

11 September, 2011 by

Fairfax parodies itself - gold!

The Sunday Age today publishes a lengthy article (and deserves a lengthy response) regarding my question on the OurSay website, which was, by way of reminder:

It is accepted that man’s carbon dioxide emissions are causing an amount of warming of the climate. However, the magnitude of any future warming is highly uncertain. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledges that its understanding of a number of key natural climate drivers and feedbacks is ”low” or ”very low”. Why is it, therefore, that the Fairfax press is reluctant to engage with and investigate this uncertainty with an open-minded impartiality, and instead continues to publish articles based on a rigid editorial agenda that ‘the science is settled’?

Michael Bachelard, the writer, discovered that the question was from this site – I had used a nom de plume to avoid the question being tainted in any way by being from a “sceptic” blog as I wanted the question to be judged on its merits not its provenance – but given that they had established it had come from this site, I have to admit to being a little disappointed at not being contacted by him to expand a little on the premise of my question before the article was written, which I would have liked the opportunity to do. Never mind.

The article is entitled:

“Majority Report: why consensus is all the rage”

And this is the first trap: consensus is a word of politics, not science. I will return to this later.

The article firstly describes briefly the history of the IPCC, but fails to mention that the purpose of the IPCC, as set out in its Principles (terms of reference) was to investigate, specifically, “human-induced” climate change. This, I submit, is a significant reason why the reports of the IPCC will inevitably have an intrinsic (even if inadvertent) bias towards findings that support the AGW theory.

The article then discusses some of the issues raised by my question:

But despite the endeavours of its 1250 scientific authors and 2500 peer reviewers over four reports – from 1990 to 2007 – the panel still has ”low” or ”very low” certainty about a number of the drivers of climate change. When it measures uncertainty, the panel looks at both the scientific evidence, and also the consensus among scientists about the evidence. If either of these measures is low, then the IPCC flags an uncertainty.

In its most recent report, in 2007, the impact on climate change of clouds, snow, aircraft vapour trails, the ash, soot and chemicals from volcanoes, water vapour, cosmic rays and the ”surface effects” of vegetation, buildings and other things occupying land space, were all considered uncertain. There were further doubts about the history of the changing climate and the growth and shrinkage of ice sheets in the past.

All agreed so far. However, the justification given by Sydney Morning Herald editor, Peter Fray, for running alarmist stories is less convincing. He claims:

”The IPCC … may still be investigating the natural drivers of climate change but that is not the same as saying climate change does not exist or the science is in doubt,” he said.

On the first part of this claim, I would suggest that is not very likely, and on the second, it is a misrepresentation of my position, and the position of sceptics. At no point did I say climate change does not exist – in fact I expressly acknowledged the effect of anthropogenic emissions on the climate. [This is a long post so click through to continue reading – thanks]

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

New look for ACM

9 September, 2011 by

ACM is trialling a new look – more modern, cleaner, less cluttered, and most importantly, easier to read. Features will be tweaked over the coming weeks.

Leave your feedback in the comments and let us know what you think.

Thanks!

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:
«Previous Page
Next Page»