Australia's National Debt Now Over $200 billion!

 

I Don't Care That It's Your Money, Now Shut Up and Bend Over!

Move over America, here we come! I think even the blindest among us know that America is badly in need of a paddle. If you're up shit creek as far as America is then maybe an outboard motor would be a safer bet. But then again their fiscal boat is so full of holes an outboard would probably speed up the demise.

Little Wayne Swan, that small growth you sometimes see hanging off the nether region of our Prim Monster, has just scored his "double ton" and has borrowed, from overseas banks, $11,000 for each and every one of us 12.3 million taxpayers!

Now what are YOU getting for your $11 grand?

You will be getting a carbon tax that will do nothing to stop global warming. Maybe the fact that global warming stopped in 1998 according to the IPCC has something to do with it. 

Write to your local labor MP and ask him/her by how many degrees Celsius the carbon tax will reduce global temperatures?

Don't wait by your inbox for a reply. I wrote to Stephen Jones, my Federal Member, and asked this question. I got a lot of sand thrown in my eyes but no answer to my question. 

Because they know the answer is Zip, Zero, Zilch!  A carbon tax is not for the environment! It is for the banks at your expense.

BTW Mr Jones had replaced little Wayne as the small growth in vicinity of Julia's nether regions during her recent visit to Port Kembla Steelworks. In close proximity, the Big Bird was awaiting her turn by the ample girth. I just loved the Illawarra Mercury's front page reporting the visit of our illustrious leader. 

It was all in red! How appropriate!

This motley crew have been in power for 1371 days and by my reckoning have borrowed, on your behalf, $100 million per day!

I bet that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside? Particularly when it comes time to pay it back!

Mmmm! Whose gonna win XFactor?

PS Ben Bernanke, Wayne's counterpart in the US has a little gift for us!

Quadrant On Line Article by Professor Bob Carter

Robert M. "Bob" Carter is an adjunct research professor in the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Queensland,^[1] and the University of Adelaide, South Australia.^[2] He is a geologist specializing in palaeontology, stratigraphy, marine geology, and environmental science.^[3] Carter is a former Director of Australia's Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program and a Co-Chief Scientist for drilling leg 181.^[4][5] He is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand.^[6]


Carter has appeared in many media pieces on global warming, including the public debate after the airing of The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary on ABC.^[13] Carter has published newspaper articles^[14][15] which contradict the scientific consensus on climate change.^{[16] [17]} A Sydney Morning Herald reporter wrote that Carter "appears to have little standing in the Australian climate science community."^[18]
Carter has published several critiques of anthropogenic global warming in economics journals.^[19][20] Carter is a Contributor/Reviewer of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) 2009 report Climate Change Reconsidered.^[21]
Carter has published primary research in the related field of palaeoclimatology, investigating New Zealand's climate extending back to 3.9 Ma.^[7][22][23] Carter's website states that his research "has been supported by grants from competitive public research agencies, especially the Australian Research Council (ARC)", and that he "receives no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments".^[24] Carter is a staff member at the Institute of Public Affairs.<sup>[25]

Article begins:</sup>

Carter in Canberra

by Bob Carter

August 28, 2011

---

This is text of the speech (edited for online publication) delivered by professor Bob Carter at the “Convoy of No Confidence” protest in Canberra on August 22, 2011.

---

Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen.
First, my warm congratulations to every person here for coming to this gathering today. Most of you have paid your own expenses, and simply by being here you are therefore displaying great public generosity on behalf of all your fellow citizens.

For, though some remain unaware of it, every single Australian man, woman and child will be hurt should a carbon dioxide tax come into being – and that hurt will be greater for the less well off, and will be imposed for no environmental benefit whatever.
Second, the organizers of this event have made it crystal clear it is a gathering at which ANY Australian, of any shape, size, colour or political inclination, can express his or her opposition to a carbon dioxide tax.
However, a meeting on the lawn of parliament house has inescapable political implications. My perspective is that of an experienced scientist - one who has spent a professional lifetime studying ancient environmental and climatic change. I therefore have nothing to say, and neither should I have anything to say, about the politics of the carbon dioxide tax. Rather, my role today is to share with you a summary of the science that should be, but actually isn’t, illuminating policy making on climate change.
Agreed Facts
Let us start with the three key facts on which nearly all scientists agree:

1. A gentle warming of up to about 0.5 deg. C occurred between 1979 and 1998; but since 1998 global temperature has now been static or cooling gently for ten years, despite continuing increases in CO₂ emissions;
    
2. The late 20^th century warming of half a degree, and the current pause or cooling, fall well within the bounds of previous natural temperature change; they are therefore not necessarily alarming, nor necessarily of human causation.
    
3. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, i.e., putting extra into the atmosphere will cause some warming.

The scientific argument, then - which is fierce and on which absolutely no consensus exists - is almost entirely about how much warming might be caused by “extra” human carbon dioxide emissions.
Amongst qualified scientists there are no “climate change deniers”, as the press so likes to badge those who do not agree with the warming hysteria. In reality, the great majority of independent scientists are agnostic rather than sceptical about the hypothesis of human-caused warming – it is the likely magnitude of human-caused warming, not the existence of a warming tendency in the first place, that is under debate.
Depending upon the feedbacks that are allowed for (water vapour, clouds etc.), answers to the question “How much warming will occur for a doubling of carbon dioxide?” range from “unmeasurably small” to “6 deg. of warming”. Factual evidence, including both the known history of climate, and recent new papers on atmospheric physics, favours an inconsequential warming of a few tenths of a degree for a doubling of carbon dioxide. It is only the speculative computer models of the UN that project a perhaps more troubling 3 deg. or more of warming for a doubling.
Three other questions of importance that have indeterminate answers

1. How much of the warming of the 20^th century (~0.8 deg.) was natural and how much human-caused?
   
   No accurate answer is known, but almost certainly more than half the warming was natural, i.e. only a few tenths of a degree might have had human causation.
   
   
2. Will the 20^th century warming resume or not?
   
   Again, no-one knows for sure. Currently the planet is cooling, and we have a quiet sun – which indicates that more cooling is likely.
   
   
3. Would more warming, if it occurs, be beneficial or harmful?
   
   Both, depending upon geography, but overall the net benefits may well exceed the harm. For it is no accident that text-books call a warmer period that occurred about 8,000 years ago the “Holocene climatic OPTIMUM”.

Not much “settled science” there, then!
The two key policy questions
Against this background of both certain and uncertain science, there are two key policy questions that need to be asked, and together they comprise a cost-benefit analysis. Such an analysis is simple in principle; and it does not require complex Treasury or CSIRO computer models to calculate.
The intended carbon dioxide tax is based upon two assumptions. First, that the dangerous global warming hypothesis is true; and, second, that cutting human emissions will result in significantly less warming in the future.
Let’s see, then:
What is the cost?

At the intended rate of $23/tonne of carbon dioxide emitted, >$100 billion of extra costs will be imposed by 2020, and these costs will be passed down to every citizen of Australia at a rate of about $500/person (or $2,000/family of four) per year.

What is the benefit?

If (and it’s a very big if) implementing the new tax actually does result in a cut of 5% in Australian emissions, which is the government’s target, then the theoretical amount of global warming averted would be much less than one-thousandth of a degree; even cutting Australia’s emissions altogether would avert warming of only 0.02 deg. C (two one-hundredths of a degree).
So the question is "How many people here today are prepared to pay extra costs of $500/person/year in return for a notional warming averted of less than one-thousandth of a degree?"
Public dishonesty
I now wish to move on to the issue of public dishonesty.
In this regard, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd gave us the “Carbon pollution reduction scheme”; and the ghost of George Orwell surely stirred. Prime Minister Gillard is now giving us a “Clean Energy” bill; well, last week, this further dishonesty stimulated George Orwell to get out of his grave and to walk the 368 km from Albury to Canberra (8 days), to appear in resurrected form at last Tuesday’s rally in the guise of truck driver Mr Troy (“Grover”) Logan.
Regarding the dishonest communication that compelled Mr Logan to action, we must surely all agree that the language of the government spinmeisters lately has been compelling:

“Carbon” they say, deliberately invoking images of soot ---- when they mean “carbon dioxide” (a clean, environmentally beneficial gas).

“Pollution” they say ….. when carbon dioxide is the elixir of life, and the base of most of the food chains on our planet.

“Clean energy” they say   …… when wind and solar power are hopelessly uneconomic, and wind farms are both environmentally damaging and also (as we saw in a recent Four Corners program) a source of acute social division in formerly close-knit country communities.

“We need to catch up with the rest of the world” they say ….. when only Europe and NZ have any form of carbon dioxide price; USA, Canada, Japan and others are running fast away from imposing one; and China and India will never, ever embrace one.

“New green jobs will be created” they say ….. failing to explain that every new green job costs of the order of $0.5 million to create, and is accompanied by the destruction of 2-3 jobs in conventional industry.

Why this utterly dishonest language and marketing? Why propagandize what is essentially a scientific issue? Why expensive, tax-payer-funded advertising instead of honest communication?
The answer, of course, is that the result of the cost:benefit analysis we have just undertaken is, literally, ridiculous, for it shows that a carbon dioxide tax will yield no benefits whatsoever.
The government’s communication of its global warming policy therefore has to centre on untruth, spin, propaganda and advertising, for there are no real benefits to market. Note too that environmental improvement has nothing to do with the carbon dioxide tax …. except as a cynical marketing hook towards a desired new source of revenue for the federal exchequer.
The way forward: adaptation to all climate change
Ladies and Gentleman, it is important that I end on a constructive note, for once the carbon dioxide tax is defeated or repealed – as it undoubtedly will be – we have to find a better way forward.
We have a baby (which represents dangerous climate change); and we have some very dirty bathwater (which is carbon dioxide taxation). It is vital that in throwing out the smelly bath water we do not at the same time discard the baby. Why so?
Well, the reason is that as Australians we live on what is probably the world’s most dangerous continent for climate-related hazard. Active volcanoes have we none, and compared to New Zealand and Japan our earthquakes are relatively rare and only of moderate magnitude. But when it comes to droughts, floods, cyclones and bushfires – well, as they say, we punch above our weight there, and Australia’s hazards are truly of world class, even textbook, stature.
But do we then follow world-best-practice in the way in which we deal with our dangerous, natural, climate-related hazards?
Well … I suggest that you ask that question of the relatives of the 173 persons who lost their lives in the 2009 Victorian bushfires; or perhaps ask the thousands of persons living near Cardwell and Innisfail, whose homes or livelihoods were damaged during Cyclones Larry and Yasi; or ask the tens of thousands of Brisbanites whose homes were submerged earlier this year during the February floods.
Perhaps ask these persons: “Do you feel you are well protected against Australia’s climate hazards by the government’s plan to tax CO₂ emissions?” You and I know full well what their answer will be.
A government has a sovereign duty of care to its citizens to protect them against natural hazard. And the reason that recent Australian state and federal governments have done so poorly in this regard recently is because they have taken their eyes off the ball of natural climate-related hazard, in order to chase the passing political meteorite of hysterical alarm about speculative, human-caused global warming.
For a fraction of the money already squandered on the Kyoto Protocol, and on ineffectual, doomed-to-failure anti-carbon dioxide measures, Australia could already have - but does not have - a world-leading climate hazard response and adaptation system.
The way forward, then, is to fund and manage our relevant research and hazard agencies to better prepare for, and adapt to, all climate-related hazards as and when they occur – and that quite irrespective of the presumed causation of particular events.
To date, and despite all the public hysteria, no scientist has been able to isolate and measure the theoretical warming effect of human carbon dioxide emissions on global temperature. Yet the question was a good one to have first asked back in the 1990s, and it remains possible that some time in the future a measurable human-caused climatic trend might emerge.
In proper prudent fashion, therefore, a policy of preparation and adaptation to the known range of natural climate hazard is also an effective precautionary policy against any human-caused hazard that might, or might not, emerge in the future.
Conclusions
So my final two conclusions, ladies and gentleman, are these.
First, we do indeed need to “Axe the Tax”. But, thereafter, we also need to “Adapt to the Fact”. And which fact might that be, you ask? The fact, of course, that natural climate-related events and trends are particularly hazardous in Australia, and that a better national policy is clearly needed to deal with our climate hazards by using strategies of careful preparation and intelligent adaptation.
We, the people, demand of the government and opposition alike that they implement cost-effective policies of adaptation to all climate-related events and change. We, the people, have spoken, and we will be heard.
Canberra, August 22, 2011

Professor Bob Carter is an Emeritus Fellow, Institute of Public Affairs (Melbourne), Chief Scientific Advisor, International Climate Science Coalition (Toronto), Advisory Council Member, Global Warming Policy Foundation (London), Science Advisor, Science & Public Policy Institute (Washington).
He is also the author of Climate: the Counter Consensus (Stacey International, 2010), see www.bobcarter.info.

Woooo Hooo! My Kind of Party. Where Do I Sign Up?

Oh I Love Gillard and Dem Greens. Dey Are Just So Smart!

There are more then a couple of these big ugly clunkers out near Crookwell in southern NSW and there is an observation area where you can stop and listen to their deep "whakkata whakkata" moan. Five minutes listening to their ethereal reverb was enough for me. I really pity the poor buggers who have to live in the vicinity of a windfarm, particularly if they are not getting the green bribe money from the feral guvmint called clean energy rebates.

A new report just released in Britain really lifts the lid on how hopelessly inefficient wind turbines are.

 By 2020 the British Government plans to have vast offshore wind farms around Britain that will cost, at the governments reckoning, £100 billion  plus £40 billion more to connect the wind farms to the grid. Remember these wind farms are at sea - in more ways then one.

That is £5,600  for every household in Britain!

A Swedish firm, Vattenfall, has spent £500 million on building 30 five‑megawatt turbines with a total “capacity” of 150MW. What the Government did not tell the people, is that, thanks to the vagaries of the wind, these machines will only produce a fraction of their capacity (30 per cent was the offshore average in the past two years). So their actual output is only likely to average 45MW, or £11 million per MW.

Compare this with the figures for Britain’s newest gas-fired power station, recently opened in Plymouth. This is capable of generating 882MW at a capital cost of £400 million – just £500,000 for each megawatt.

Thus the wind farm is 22 times more expensive, and could only be built because its owners will receive a 200 per cent subsidy: £40 million a year, on top of the £20 million they will get for the electricity itself.

This the British will all have to pay for through their electricity bills, whereas the unsubsidised cost of power from the gas plant, even including the price of the gas, will be a third as much.

To keep the lights on during peak times, for every new megawatt of wind capacity built it will be necessary to build a megawatt of capacity from gas-fired stations, kept wastefully running 24/7, chucking out carbon dioxide. This will add further billions to energy bills, while ensuring that wind power does nothing whatever to reduce our overall emission of CO2. 

Is this the future that "our" government has in store for us in Australia?



I guess it is a little like buying a car to drive to work that costs 22 times more then its nearest competetor, runs at only half the speed and costs twice as much to operate! Oh, and there is a pushbike in the boot because under some weather conditions your car won't run and you will have to resort to the pushie.





 Oh I love Gillard and dem Greens. They are just so smart!

Sharks Join Aliens In Their Bloody Fight Against Global Warming!

Man! How Desperate Is This?

When I stumbled upon this article on a site called Discovery News I immediately thought this has got to be a gee up!

Now scientists wonder why we think they are flips? (Flip is a 60's surfing term for a complete idiot - we call them wankers now.)

First they said the aliens are gonna get us and now they tell us the increase in shark attacks could be caused by Anthropogenic Global Warming! Prior to that we were told sea levels will increase and tens of thousands of Australian homes will be inundated. Then we find out that Julia's right hand climate man, Tim Flannery owns a waterfront property!

Bullshit Detector Works Overtime!

Ah well! When nearly 70% of Australians believe The Green/Gillard line on global warming is bullshit, it must be time for desperate measures.

PS. You can tell the shark works for the Labor Government - Its got Julia's nose and Greg Combet's mouth!

A pity we can't see its rectum.

Scientists Claim " Aliens Will Attack Us to Stop Global Warming"!

Oh My God! These are the supposed climate scientists whom the Green/Gillard Government says we are  to believe that the global warming "science is settled".

What great proof. 

Threaten us with an alien invasion if we don't swallow their bullshit?

Researchers at Pennsylvania State University, a known hot bed of warmist hysteria, have really OD'd on the local weed with their latest report in the journal Acta Astronautica.

"If [aliens] doubt that our course can be changed, then they may seek to preemptively destroy our civilization in order to protect other civilizations from us," said Jacob Haqq-Misra, a meteorologist and astrobiologist at Penn State and a co-author of the new paper.

"The bottom line is, if there are intelligent civilizations out there, they pretty much have to have figured out how to grow in a sustainable way," Haqq-Misra pointed out. "We're not doing that, and [alien civilizations] might make some moral judgment on how we're managing our resources."

The article goes on to say "Whatever the outcome, the new research is another reminder that you don't survive long in this universe if you can't figure out how to live within your means."

Their conclusion:

 "Green" aliens might object to the environmental damage humans have caused on Earth and wipe us out to save the planet. "These scenarios give us reason to limit our growth and reduce our impact on global ecosystems. It would be particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases, since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets." (source)

So there you have it:-

"Agree to our carbon tax or we will sic the aliens on to you!"

I will attempt to point out how crazy this scientific "finding" is.

The closest star with a known planetary system is 15 light years away (see here), or in old money, 142 trillion kilometres (142 with twelve zeros). Voyager 1 is currently travelling at 62,000 km/h away from Earth, and even at that speed would take 260 thousand years to travel 15 light years. So even assuming our environmentally conscious aliens:

• live on the closest planetary system to our own, AND
• have been monitoring the atmosphere of a rather small, rocky planet orbiting a rather ordinary star, AND
• have the technology to detect a 100ppm increase in CO2 from Earth's emission spectrum, AND
• have the same useless climate models we have here, AND
• have the misfortune to count among their number the alien equivalent of James Hansen, who finds this treatment of a foreign planet abhorrent, AND
• set off immediately on receiving this shocking information, intent on saving the Earth, AND
• have the technology to travel at even 100 times as fast as the fastest human space vehicle ever, AND
• are able to transport the numbers of invaders and weaponry required to subdue nearly 7 billion Earthlings,

they would still not arrive for at least 2,600 years.

Now, do you still believe "the scientists?"

See the full report here.

Convoy - A Revolt Of the Working People

 

Gary Johns, minister from a previous Labor Government says that the the true cost of the Carbon Tax is over a trillion dollars and it will cost jobs and lower living standards. The political effect of a convoy of monster trucks driven by real Australians through Canberra will be devastating for Gillard and her motley crew.

Australia's uprising is from workers. Workers, who every day drive trucks and travel in aeroplanes all over Australia to work in mines and on cattle stations and in hundreds of industries that service them.

They may be a little unkempt; they could afford to stand a little closer to a razor blade and a little further away from a tattoo gun, but what they lack in inner-city elegance, they more than make up for in a sense of proportion and reality. They do not like being treated as fools.

The federal Labor government has indeed treated them and millions of others as fools.

All other things considered, the real outcome of the carbon tax will in fact be both job losses and real wage decline. Treasury knows this and the Treasurer knows this, or at least he should.

The petitioners are angry because they have been told that the carbon tax will save the world from climate change. Yeah sure, by lowering global temperatures by 0.0004 degrees by 2020! And that the carbon tax will not cost more than they can be compensated for. It is our money that we compensate ourselves with for a carbon tax! Yeah sure Julia!

According to Newspoll, only 30 per cent of Australians support the government's "plan to put a price on carbon".


See full details here.

The Longer Labor Lies The Worse It’s Going To Get.

Stolen Holus Bolus from TWAWKI.

"It seems every day is another expose of Labor’s corruption, fraud and lies. With Gillard and the Greens, Labor has become the party of the carbon tax at all costs where even the Labor Party itself is sacrificed on the alter of UN/Global governance policy implementation.

Smugly the Greens are profiting from Labor’s destruction any way they can. Their climate communism is the ultimate goal – Australia and Labor are dispensable.

Complements to Gillard and her alliances, the Labor party is already burning and yet it seems this once great political force is now a farce and a gang of thieves who care nothing for good governance, party integrity or any future for the party. As I’ve said before – even though I used to vote Labor – I hope Labor never again rise from the ashes.

My anger is nothing compared to many I have spoken to. That this excuse for a government continues in office against the will of the people implementing policies the people dont want and that will do huge damage to our nation is utterly disgraceful and appalling.

That a single federal Labor politician could bring this government down, but not a single one has the moral fortitude to do so shows that every single one of them is utter scum and deserves to never be in office again.

Lets see already in the last few days alone what has come out. Labor’s carbon tax political advertising is being investigated for fraudulent claims, the advertising is being paid for by taxpayers when it is simply politics and shouldn’t be, the claimed cost of the carbon tax at $71 billion when it is really a staggering and punitive $1 trillion, the Labor Party paying the legal costs of one of its politicians who is exposed as using union fees to pay for prostitutes and brothels just so it can stay in office. The desperation of the UN puppets in power at this party is simply astounding.

As the convoy of no confidence in this government starts today en-route to Canberra then it has become time for the Australian people to rise up and demand that Labor resign. However it is also time for the people to rise up and form new political parties based on getting this nation back to the hope, prosperity and freedom that it used to have before this government took office. We need people of integrity, strength and wisdom to form new parties and create a new political landscape in this Country, and give the people a choice to vote for those who will do what is right for the people and this country.

Only in this way can we put Labor and the Greens in the dustbin of history for good. Just think about it if we had a pragmatic, sensible and aware environmental party who were into protecting nature and not just using the environment as an excuse for climate communism, or we had a political party that defends the rights of the underprivileged and saw that the best way to fund that would be through small and efficient government as well as policy that encouraged businesses and the nations wealth to grow, or a party that championed the rights of the indigenous not from a nanny state perspective but that facilitated and empowered indigenous communities to bring resolution themselves.We do have options.

As Australians we can fight and work together for a great future – the first step is to get rid of those who are at war with everything that is good in this country – and that means getting rid of this government. It may be that the longer Labor lies the worse it is for Australia, but also the longer Labor lies the worse it will be for Labor. This government needs to realise that every day Labor and the Greens continue in office, every day they continue with their lies will be another nail in their coffin to ensure they are well and truly dead and buried never ever to be a political force again."

John Clarke, Bryan Dawes Skit

[Scene: A car yard. BRYAN is perusing the stock. He is approached by JOHN]
John: Morning! Looking for a new car?
Bryan: Nope. New Prime Minister, actually.
John: You’re the third one this morning. Anything in mind?
Bryan: You know....... nothing fancy, reliable, economical family model. Something to get the country from A to B.
John: You mean like a Howard?
Bryan: Yeah....a little Johnny. Nothing flash, does the job. Low maintenance, economical, sensible. Runs for years, no troubles.
John: So.... you used to have one?
Bryan: Yeah. About 10 years. Great little model – don’t know why I got rid of him -- biggest mistake I’ve ever made…
John: What happened?
Bryan: Traded him in for a Kevin 07.
John: Big mistake…
Bryan: Lot of people bought it. Good political mileage.
John: How was the Kevin 07?
Bryan: Came with a $900 factory rebate – that was good.
John: Anything else?
Bryan: Not much. Sounded nice but nothing under the bonnet. It was a lemon.
John: Didn’t stick around for long did it?
Bryan: Nah – had a factory recall. Shipped overseas and was never seen again.
John: What was the problem?
Bryan: Lots. But the final straw was the navigation system. Plug it in and it automatically loses its own way.
John: Whatcha got now?
Bryan: It’s a Gillard-Brown.
John: The hybrid?
Bryan: Yeah. The Eco-drive system – not a good idea. An engine that can’t deliver hooked up to a transmission stuck in permanent reverse…
John: Green paintwork with a red interior. And steering that always lurches to the left for no apparent reason – that’s the one?
Bryan: The Fustercluck model.
John: The only one they made, Bryan. Not the vehicle of choice for the road to recovery – but did they finish up fixing the navigation system?
Bryan: Made it worse. Turn it on and it does a press release, heads off in all directions and goes nowhere.
John: So that’s why you’re here?
Bryan: That’s right. I’m stuck with a government that's wasteful, expensive, ineffective and past its use by date. I don’t suppose you’ve heard of the “Cash for Clunkers” scheme?
John: Join the queue brother.

Polar Bear Eats Al Gore !

High Priest of global warming Al Gore, had an obscenity laced meltdown at the Aspen Institute the other day. The outburst only mirrors the desperation his movement is experiencing. More and more question the "science" behind his scientific/religious crusade.

Gore spat the dummy when he was asked if he was aware Polar Bears regularly covered 60 miles of open ocean when swimming between ice floes.

I think we all remember the heart breaking scene in his movie that depicted the poor Polar Bear paddling in the open ocean. Paddling about aimlessly because (supposedly) there wasn't any ice left for him to roam on?
 
That particular scene ended and the pitiful bears demise was left to our vivid imaginations! A convenient bit of information was left out though....Polar bears can swim 60 miles across open ocean to travel from one ice pack to another, they are at home in the ocean. Of course many urban dwellers don't know that "inconvenient truth" about these hardy bears and jump to conclusions.

I guess the failed candidate for President of the US is so much like our politicians and just can't stand the truth coming out. They think it is better to stifle free speach.

"Stoked" by Bob McTavish.

Ever wondered what surfing was like in the early 60's?

 

This insightful autobiography tells the personal story behind this visionary designer, larrakin and national icon.

‘Bob McTavish - Stoked!’ takes you back to a simpler, more innocent time when it seemed that anything was possible.

Reading his story, you will frequently find yourself amazed at the lifestyle of a young surfer in the sixties. From stowing away on a boat to Hawaii to eating spiders, it is a witty, human story written with a wry smile that will be enjoyed by people of all ages - surfers or not.

I surfed the east coast from 1964 and am still surfing today, Bob McTavish was a hero to us young surfers then. If you ran into him on the northern beaches of Sydney or any beach on the coast he always took the time to say "Gidday" and if the waves weren't up a talk about surfboard design could be on the cards.

No doubt most surfers from that era that traveled the coast whenever we could would have a McTavish Story. His ability on a surfboard was legendary but he wasn't really interested in competitions. Bob was more about making a better surfboard and surviving as the original "surf bum".

Bob would do practically anything for a feed. There was no dole in those days and most of us who traveled up or down the coast looking for waves had jobs so most trips we would eave Sydney Friday afternoon after work and drive all night to where we figured a wave would be depending on weather conditions. After surfing all weekend we would set off home Sunday night getting into Sydney Monday morning for work.

Around 1967 there were a glut of laboring type jobs available in Sydney. If you traveled to work on the train through the then light industrial suburbs of Sydney many factories backed onto the rail lines around St Peters, Redfern, Tempe etc. The back of these factory walls had huge signs offering employment!

The surf up the North Coast got a little more crowded as we worked for a month and saved every cent and buggared up (or down) the coast for as long as the money held out. I could live on $1.00 a day for food and slept in the back of an old panelvan. Petrol was a little extra but was pretty cheap in those days and three or four guys would always throw in some coin.

When the money ran out it was back to Sydney, go for a train ride to find another job and work for another month while staying a mum and dad's place in preparation for the next trip. This book will tell you the stories a lot more eloquently then I can. I borrowed a copy from my local library.

HOW MUCH WILL THE CARBON TAX COST YOU?

Ratepayers are now set to be slugged an extra $200 million a year in tipping fees alone
under Labor’s carbon tax—That’s another $200m bill to have rubbish bins emptied and
waste dumped at local tips ‐ extra charges to cover methane emitted by garbage

Electricity bills in hospitals alone across Australia will hike another $100m every year
Victorian Government modelling shows costs to the state’s public hospital system will
hike by $140m over seven years due to escalating power costs alone under Labor’s
carbon tax

Regional airlines have given the lie to Labor’s claim an air ticket will go up $2 ‐The
Regional Aviation Association calculates airlines will need to pass on between $4 and
$8 each ticket in the first year of the tax

Labor’s carbon tax will add $5000 to the cost of a new home – that’s an extra $480 a
year in loan repayments plus having to pay off the $5000

Work by NSW Treasury shows public transport fares could hike $150 a year‐Power bills
in schools alone will jump by $57 per student – and parents may have to find this cost
NSW Treasury warns the overall electricity price impact will be 15% not 10%
Forgotten families under Labor’s own figures face a 10% hit on their electricity bills, a
9% hit on their gas bills

Families will have to fork out $515 on Labor’s own figures alone – that’s before all the
hidden costs start to emerge

The Master Builders Association calculates a new home will cost $5000 more – that’s
an extra $480 every year onto the mortgage, plus paying out the $5000

Even on the Government’s own figure, three million households will be worse off
immediately; 60% of households will be no better off

The Branch Carbonian Cult

Adapted from Jim Guirard in American Thinker (2009)


The Anthropogenic Global Warming Movement (AGW) has taken on worrisome attributes of a pseudo-religious cult, which operates far more on the basis of an apocalyptic ”belief” system than on objective climate science.
Kingdom of the Cults
Here  are ten of this AGW ideology’s very specific characteristics, many of whose roots and lock-step influences can be found in Walter Martin’s and Ravi Zacharias’ definitive, award-winning 2003 book, “Kingdom of the Cults:”

1. 1. Leadership by a self-glorifying, manipulative New Age Prophet — in this case, former Vice-President Al Gore, though he is possibly being supplanted by President Barack Obama.
   2. Assertion of an apocalyptic threat to all mankind.
   3. An absolutist definition of both the threat and the proposed solution(s).
   4. Promise of a salvation from this pending apocalypse.
   5. Devotion to an inspired text which (arguendo) embodies all the answers — in this case, Prophet Gore’s pseudo-scientific book “Earth in the Balance” and his more recent ”An Inconvenient Truth” documentary.
   6. A specific list of “truths” (see the Ten Commandments listed below) which must be embraced and proselytized by all Cult members..
   7. An absolute intolerance of any deviation from any of these truths by any Cult member.
   8. A strident intolerance of any outside criticism of the Cult’s definition of the problem or of its proposed solutions.
   9. A “Heaven-on-Earth” vision of the results of the mission’s success and/or a “Hell-on-Earth” result if the cultic mission should fail.
   10. An inordinate fear (and an outright rejection of the possibility) of being proven wrong in either the apocalyptic vision or the proposed salvation.

Prophet Gore’s (and now Prophet Obama’s) Ten Commandments
The Ten Commandments of “Thou-Shalt” and “Thou-Shalt-Not” absolutes — designed for keeping its devoted cultists in lockstep support and its intimidated detractors in retreat:

• • Thou shalt have but one Mother Earth (Gaia) Goddess before you
  • Thou shalt not worship false Prophets — especially sun cycles, ocean cycles, volcanic influences and  “Objective Science” in general
  • Thou shalt never doubt catastrophic depletion of the so-called “Ozone Layer”
  • Thou shalt not doubt man-made “Greenhouse Gasses” as the primary cause of GW
  • Thou shalt condemn such doubters as “Extremists” and “Criminals Against Humanity”
  • Thou shalt minimize, ignore and deny any and all environmental good news
  • Thou shalt avoid benefit-cost evaluations of AGW solutions and never admit error or falsehood about anything
  • Thou shalt continue opposing all Nuclear and new Hydro power, despite their non-GW attributes
  • Thou shalt promote “zero-carbon-footprint” policies of Less Energy at Higher Prices, except for heavily subsidized ethanol
  • Thou shalt engage forever in “Eeeekology” and “Eeeekonomics” (scare-tactics ecology and economics) and never, ever vote Republican

Conclusion: Since every such Prophet-led, scare-mongering, pseudo-religious conspiracy needs a properly descriptive name, and since this one’s primary concerns over alleged depletion of the so-called “ozone layer” over Antarctica have shifted to a panic over CO2, instead, a fitting new name for this cultic gaggle would be the “Branch Carbonian Cult“ –

• “Branch” because it is a radical offshoot from the main body of science-based environmentalism;
• “Carbonian” because of its professed fear of carbon dioxide as a primary cause of AGW; and
• “Cult” because of its self-evident structure and practices — which are in full accord with most elements of the typical religious cult, Branch Davidian or Jim Jonesian or otherwise.

American Thinker (2009)

Jim Guirard – TrueSpeak.org Justcauses@aol.com

A DC-area attorney and national security strategist, Jim Guirard was longtime Chief of Staff to former U.S. Senators Allen Ellender and Russell Long. His TrueSpeak.org web site focuses on truth-in-language and truth-in-history in public discourse

"The Only Thing More Dangerous Than Ignorance Is Arrogance." Albert Einstein

 And this is a government of total arrogance! Well over 60% of Australians have clearly stated they don't want a carbon tax however this government will not listen to the people.

However the whole stinking organisation of Bob Brown/Julia Gillard is about to come crashing down around them as yet another "senior Labor figure" talks of dumping Gillard.

Andrew Bolt reports:

"Niki Savva hears of yet another warming sceptic at the heart of Labor:

As despair sinks into depression, one cabinet minister recently revealed his desolation in a conversation with an acquaintance when he confessed political life had become near intolerable.
He acknowledged the carbon tax is destroying the government, yet they could not walk away from it. He could not see - or he was not prepared to admit it that openly yet - a way out and this only fed his frustration.
This prominent member of a government, which recites like a Gregorian chant the mantra that climate change is real, then admitted his grave doubts about the science. He didn’t use the word crock, but that was pretty much what this secret deniers’ camp follower was saying.
And no, this was not Martin Ferguson speaking…
This cabinet minister’s remarks were significant on two levels. First they lay bare the despair at the very heart of the government. Second it runs so deep that while they will not openly discuss one possible solution - the removal of the Prime Minister - they have begun to distance themselves from impending disaster, hoping they will escape censure later from whoever might replace her and from those who will cast judgment on her.

Hmm. The sceptics’ camp must be bigger than I suspected. But who could take over from Gillard and ditch her tax?

Even the owner of a favourite deli in Melbourne reports Simon Crean is angling for the job. That was made more interesting by the fact that Liberals’ war gaming shows Crean as Labor’s next best option, and that this small businessman has chummy photos of himself and Crean on his shop wall."

The Greens Are Bullies.

I don't place much trust in politicians no matter from what side of the political spectrum, however I will use them and what they write if it suits my tilt at a particular windmill.

Today it is Barnaby Joyce's turn as he gets into his favourite target and mine The Pinks - Oops, sorry The Greens.

"The Greens are bullies in the purest, most dangerous, sense of the word

TASMANIAN Premier Lara Giddings this week declared peace for the forests. I trust she wasn’t waving a piece of paper from the foot of the steps after stepping off a plane. Green peace is an elusive concept, since the Greens can never be appeased. They have no concern for the pieces of people’s lives they leave behind.

When I was eight, green activists became active in Dorrigo, in north-eastern NSW. It was not the flashiest place on earth, but most had a job until the greenies put an end to the timber industry.

This week I have been in Tasmania, a state full of potential, but neutered by a philosophy that puts trees first, frogs second and families last. The Greens’ undergraduate pop-up-book philosophy promises the fairytale but delivers economic privation to those living many miles from the Manic Monkey Cafe in inner urban Nirvanaville.

If you really want to see what Green economic policy looks like, try Scottsdale in Tasmania. You won’t find many greenies or the green jobs they keep promising, but you will find economic misery left behind by Green policies.

One of the greatest attributes of Australian life is the expression of individual freedom. I can say, basically, what I like, pretty much write what I like, worship who I want, or not at all, and start whichever business I like. These freedoms are being curtailed by the inspired morality of the Greens, who are placing righteous caveats on the freedom of our economic development, expression of thought and even which science we can research.

The Greens have given the term "environment" an omnipotent, all-encompassing quality.

Whenever they utter the word it is a precursor that demands blind, unquestioning obedience.

Their cause always follows this path: find the high-colour issue, beatify the cause, then never be satisfied as they ride the horse called Insatiable Nihilism to the town of Shut Down.

The Greens started by opposing the Gordon-below-Franklin dam, but now the Wilderness Society in Tasmania opposes all dams, even small farm dams. The outcome is that it takes two years or more in Tasmania to get a farm dam approved.

The Greens have then been central in shutting down the other major industry in Tasmania, forestry. At the 2004 election the Greens were all about stopping the logging of "old-growth" forests. Now we have another forestry deal, old-growth forests have morphed into all native forests, including regrowth, and the Greens want to shut the whole industry down.

Global warming has morphed into climate change. A $23 carbon tax will, at the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen, morph into a $131 carbon tax to shut down the entire coal industry. How do the Greens achieve these results when nine out of 10 don’t vote for them? Don’t be fooled by the complexion of their kaftan; their thuggery is different. Recently the Greens have put pressure on a large retailer not to sell products made from Tasmanian native forests.

The tactics of commercial boycott, because you don’t share the culture of the targeted merchants, have historically been abhorred.

But we seem to let the Greens and GetUp! get away with it.

The victims of these cultural pogroms are hidden from the ABC audience of Q&A. Like the consequences of a conquering army, the fruits of a green victory are depression, unemployment and loss of property values and rights for the defeated people.

The results are there for all to see in Scottsdale, where the economic rug has been pulled out from beneath the town. For the people who stayed, their house values have halved and the Greens think a fair economic prospect is an unemployment cheque.

Last week Greenpeace activists used whipper-snippers to destroy a CSIRO experimental GM wheat crop. A local Greens politician gave his endorsement to this holy crusade to destroy scientific research and public property. He absolved his flock, saying "You have to stand up for what you believe in sometimes." I’m glad he doesn’t believe in capital punishment.

For the Greens, sometimes they like the science, sometimes they don’t. Ask questions on the science of climate change and you are a denier; destroy a research crop and you are a crusader.

Would we endorse the same action for others? There is neither grace, nor charm, nor style from the person otherwise known as a bully."