IPCC is bothered by no global warming

30 01 2008

UN IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri appears to be bothered that global temperatures have not warmed up in the last decade:

Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the UN Panel that shared 2007’s Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, said he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century.

“One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents,” he said.

He added that sceptics about a human role in climate change delighted in hints that temperatures might not be rising. “There are some people who would want to find every single excuse to say that this is all hogwash,” he said.

Actually the sceptics merely point out that the climate is not warming dangerously as was “predicted” by IPCC’s computer models on which the climate catastrophism is based. Sceptics also question the ability of computer models to predict future climate. The models didn’t predict that global warming would stop in 1998. Why should they be correct about what the climate will be in 2100? And why should we make painful economic sacrifices based on predictions of these models?

Rajendra Pachauri answer to these question seems to be, to paraphrase the old saying, who would you rather believe, IPCC’s computer models or your own lying eyes?


Rudd’s Subprime Spin

30 01 2008

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd today issued a renewed warning about the economic challenges facing Australia amid concerns about US and Asian economies.

We should recall that before the last election Rudd’s spin doctors and doe-eyed media cheer squad were telling us that Australian economy would run along just fine no matter who runs it. They told us that Howard’s government policies have no bearing on the economy. It was due to the global resource boom and any idiot could run the economy just fine. And so the voters voted for the “idiot”…

Furthermore, Rudd who promised to be a goody-two-shoes fiscal conservative just like Howard, now blames the fiscally conservative Howard for high inflation mainly caused by drought, high oil prices and housing boom. Spin, spin and more spin. We are in for some interesting times ahead.

Australia Day Torture

24 01 2008

Dear Readers,

Another Australia Day is upon us. This of course means another round of self-indulgent “genocidal Australia” writings from the left-wing nutters. Like this piece by the Socialist Alliance Trotskyite John Passant titled “Trapped in a genocidal history“. Let the torture begin!

Passant opens by asserting that:

Genocide against Aboriginal people is one theme that runs through the history of the last 220 years. The failure to recognise that genocide is another ongoing theme.

Genocide is defined as the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. This implies deliberate government policy geared towards extermination of Aboriginal. As it turns out such deliberate policy never existed. Arthur Philip, Australia’s first governor ordered that Aborigines must be well treated and that anyone killing Aboriginals would be hanged. In fact over 50% of Aborigines were killed by smallpox which wasn’t even remotely deliberate.

It was Marx who wrote that the tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the mind of the living.

What irony it is to be moralised by a Marxist! Marxism is of course a poisonous ideology responsible for tens if not hundreds of millions of deaths and untold misery around the world. Just think of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Khmer Rouge and so on. Even Nazism which stands for National Socialism is based on Marxist teachings. When it comes to genocide Marxists really take the cake.

The war against Aborigines, what I describe as genocide, has fundamentally alienated Aboriginal people from their land, their identity, their culture and themselves. There is a shocking 17-year gap in life expectancy between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians.

Does he rally mean that 17-year gap in Aboriginal life expectancy is caused by alienation from their land, their identity, their culture and themselves? It sure sounds it. Somewhat more trivial and realistic explanation would be endemic alcohol and drug abuse coupled with the lack of access to quality medical services in remote areas. Remote areas where Aboriginals are forced to live thanks to the well meaning land rights movement that gave Aboriginals useless land in the middle of nowhere and easy welfare without any chance of meaningful employment. In every corner of the globe human misery flourishes in communities with no access to jobs and easy dole to buy booze and drugs. It can be no different in remote Aboriginal settlements.
We invaded the Northern Territory last year to further the destruction of our Indigenous people’s links to their land and culture. 1788 is being repeated in 2008.
2008 Northern Territory intervention was prompted by a damning report into horrific cases of child sexual abuse in remote Aboriginal settlements. This intervention tries to deal with booze, drugs and joblessness. Stemming the flow of booze and drugs has a huge potential to bridge the 17 year life expectancy gap. Why would such self-anointed protector of Aboriginal as Passant be against it, especially since it was supported by the Aboriginal leaders such as Noel Pearson and Warren Mundine and both major political parties? I suspect that for the likes of Passant it is more important to advertise their moral superiority than to deal with the grim reality of their noble savage fantasy. Pre-settlement Australia is gone forever. It won’t be brought back by the dreamings of indulgent inner-city yuppies. The longer we promote the fantasy that Aborigines can somehow live in the tribal way and have 21st century social outcomes, the longer we will perpetrate their misery. If saying so makes me a bigot, I am sorry, but does it make me wrong?

Passant proceeds to demand compensation for Aborigines. Saying “sorry” will no longer do. Funny isn’t it. When “John Howard’s fascist regime” was running the joint it refused to apologise to Aborigines. Compensation was one of the sticking points. Opponents claimed that saying “sorry” would open the floodgates for claims of compensation. They were dismissed by the Sorry lobby that said that saying “sorry” was important as a symbolic gesture in itself to heal the wounds and so forth. Now that we have the government willing to say “sorry”, it is no longer enough – saying “sorry” means nothing without compensation. This just reconfirms the suspicion many Australians had about the “sorry” saga being a mere vehicle for a cash grab. Thanks Passant for making the right-wing nutter’s case for them.

Passant concludes with this bold call:

The trade union movement represents one powerful ally for Aboriginal people and if Indigenous Australians could mobilise that section of society to take action for their cause anything is possible.

Australia Day perpetuates our founding myths and enslaves our Aboriginal brothers and sisters. In the spirit of true reconciliation let’s abolish this celebration of genocide.

I would like to counter with the call to abolish trade unions. They are full of Marxists whose deluded ideology is responsible for misery that eclipses any misdeeds ever perpetrated against the Aboriginals. I would also like to have a blanket ban on left-wing poseurs with inflated sense of morality whose fantasies continue to entrap Aborigines in perpetual cycle of substance abuse, joblessness, poverty and disease.

This Australia Day I am going to hang the Australia flag high and drink VB. It will taste even sweeter knowing that doing just that gives John Passant the shits. Happy Australia Day folks!

Media Bias

21 01 2008

This is from America but no doubt applies equally, if not more, to Australian media especially ABC and SBS.

A Sacred Heart University Poll found significantly declining percentages of Americans saying they believe all or most of media news reporting. In the current national poll, just 19.6% of those surveyed could say they believe all or most news media reporting. This is down from 27.4% in 2003. Just under one-quarter, 23.9%, in 2007 said they believe little or none of reporting while 55.3% suggested they believe some media news reporting.

….The perception is growing among Americans that the news media attempts to influence public opinion — from 79.3% strongly or somewhat agreeing in 2003 to 87.6% in 2007.

And, 86.0% agreed (strongly or somewhat) that the news media attempts to influence public policies — up from 76.7% in 2003….

By four-to-one margins, Americans surveyed see The New York Times (41.9% to 11.8%) and National Public Radio (40.3% to 11.2%) as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative.

By a three-to-one margin, Americans see news media journalists and broadcasters (45.4% to 15.7%) as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative.

And, by a two-to-one margin, Americans see CNN (44.9% to 18.4%) and MSNBC (38.8% to 15.8%) as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative.

Just Fox News was seen as mostly and somewhat conservative (48.7%) over mostly or somewhat liberal (22.3%).

The most trusted national TV news organizations, for accurate reporting, in declining order included: Fox News (27.0%), CNN (14.6%), and NBC News (10.90%). These were followed by ABC News (7.0%), local news (6.9%), CBS News (6.8%) MSNBC (4.0%), PBS News (3.0%), CNBC (0.6%) and CBN (0.5%).

In 2003, CNN led Fox News on “trust most for accurate reporting” 23.8% to 14.6%.

This is the sixth national poll in a row finding that Americans see more media bias to the left than to the right!!!

The findings of these surveys are a clear indication that some US news media outlets have abandoned impartial reporting and moved into propaganda territory. Amazingly Fox News, the media outlet left-wingers the world over love to hate, is considered the most trustworthy by most respondents. It really tells us something about the liberals’ disposition towards telling the truth and presenting diverse points of view, when audiences trust Fox News more than they trust the New York Times .

Still, the news are not all bad. Despite news media’s best attempts to subvert news reporting to particular ideology, the audiences clearly recognise the bias and chose not to believe what they see on TV or read in the papers. The growing popularity of alternative news outlets and blogs also indicates that audiences are actively looking for alternative sources to counter the bias of big media players.

via NewsBusters

Africans are no cure for Western torpor

21 01 2008

James Rose has an interesting piece in The Age today. He starts off by recollecting his trip to Kenya in 2006 and hope and optimism he saw in ordinary Kenyans. Rose than goes on to make a bizarre connection between Kenya and Obama’s election campaign:

The US could already be benefiting from the import of hope from Africa. Barack Obama may well win the US presidential race on the back of an ability to apply the balm of miraculous possibility to the angst of a population. Obama clearly holds considerable oratorical and strategic gifts. But is it a coincidence that this man, part Kenyan, has constructed his major campaign pitch around that word, hope?

Ummm…. Maybe. Obama also happens to be half white. Maybe that’s the reason he is so popular. Besides, given the post election turmoil and murder in Kenya, I doubt Obama will be advertising his Kenyan connection all that much.

Rose is correct to point out that despite negative press in the West, Africa is rapidly developing. African economies are growing faster than the world average and a survey of citizens of 25 African states last year, it was found the highest number of respondents felt they, personally, “will be better off just five years from now”. This goes in stark contrast with surveys done in the West showing citizens worried about future security and economic prosperity.

This brings us to the most bizarre part of Rose’s article where he proposes that to change the gloomy attitude of the West, more African immigration is needed. Rose really seems to think that Western torpor can be overcome by importing plane loads of joyful Africans from downtime Nairobi. How simple!

While I agree with Rose’s analysis of Western pessimism, African immigration is not likely to solve this problem. Our pessimism doesn’t come from the lack of African vitality, but from West’s own misanthropic intellectual culture. This culture is evident in the West’s suspicion of technological progress and continued innovation (just think of public’s attitudes to GM foods, nuclear energy and cloning). Environmentalism, currently one of the most influential ideologies in the West, is also deeply hostile to globalisation, economic development and premise of boundless human growth.

Western torpor is partly symptomatic of our success. We have become so comfortable that it is hard to imagine how our lives can get any better. On the other hand, the West no longer has it all its own way. Globalisation and emergence of third world economies as genuine competitors has affected the Western psyche. Western workers, Europeans in particular, see globalisation as a threat to their jobs and standards of living. Unfortunately, instead of promoting and embracing the numerous benefits and opportunities afforded by globalisation, Western intellectuals chose to promote the fear in order to push their own agendas, be it environmentalist or socialist and to offer their preferred ideological solutions like windmills or economic protectionism.

The so-called “progressive” intellectuals have morphed into arch-conservatives successfully exploiting and whipping up the fear of the future. The results are plain to see. Ask any Western child about the future and you will probably hear about global warming, overpopulation, deforestation, avian flu epidemics and losing jobs to China. We are raising generations of children with entirely negative vision of the future in ever deteriorating world. This is the real problem that can’t be solved by importing happy Africans to Sydney’s suburbs. Instead, our own misanthropic intellectual culture needs to be confronted. Our children need to believe that the world is getting better, not worst and that future is full of opportunities not threats.

If Rose really want so see more optimism in the West, he should strive to change our intellectual culture, not offer gimmick non-solutions like more African migrants. He could start by challenging so much fashionable misanthropy emanating from his own newspaper The Age.

EU steelworkers feel the heat from climate change

18 01 2008

Meanwhile European steelworkers are already “enjoying” the benefits of being green. Especially secure employment:

Trade unions and business leaders say EU plans to cut carbon emissions could harm European jobs and industry.

The European Trade Union Confederation fears up to 50,000 steelworkers’ jobs could go if their industry moves to areas with lower costs for polluters.

Luddites lash out against nuclear power

18 01 2008

Two of UK’s top green advisors (read socialist Luddites) lashed out against government’s plan to build nuclear power stations dismissing them as “technological megafix“.

Let’s start with some basics. Global Warming theory stipulates that increases of atmospheric CO2 due to human activities will cause dangerous climate change and threaten life as we know it. Most anthropogenic CO2 comes from coal-fired power stations and therefore we need to replace coal energy with CO2-free alternatives. At the moment we have only one serious alternative to coal and it is nuclear. Don’t listen to tree-huggers with their solar and wind wet dreams. Neither of these technologies can produce stable baseload electricity to run our 24/7 industrial societies. We can cover our entire countries with wind turbines and solar panels, but this will not shut down a single coal power plant because they are needed for backup when the wind ain’t blowin’ or it gets dark.

So, if climate change really is the greatest threat facing humanity, nuclear energy should be seriously considered. Yes, there are serious drawbacks but overall they are much smaller than supposed dangers of Global Warming, otherwise Al Gore would be jetting around the world telling us nuclear energy is the greatest threat facing humanity.

Why then did UK’s top green advisors slam nuclear power? Well, as we discussed earlier, environmentalism is not really about reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere or saving whales. It is an anti-capitalist ideology masking behind fashionable environmental concern. This is quite clear from some of the comments made by these green advisors. For example Professor Tim Jackson, said the decision to opt for nuclear power was “a blatant failure of moral vision”. Moral vision? CO2 is a gas, a chemical compound, where is morality here? If CO2 really is a problem, find the CO2-free alternatives and the case is closed.

Sir Jonathon Porritt, gives even better illustration of what environmentalism is all about:

“The government response [to climate change] should not be in technological fixes. It should be in transforming society…. decentralising and decarbonising the economy. The Labour government has very little interest in these approaches. Pulling a technological megafix, like nuclear power, out of the hat is easier from a political point of view but it misses the essence of climate change which is transforming people’s lives.

Got it? It is not about reducing CO2 in the most efficient and cost-effective way, it is about transforming society into something Sir Jonathon Porritt and his Luddite mates would approve.

The cheeky buggers even dare to criticise nuclear power for needing public subsidies:

“Nuclear power will not survive on its own in the marketplace. The government will have to use voodoo economics to underwrite new capacity. The only beneficiaries of this decision are the handful of big energy companies,”

Blimey! Aren’t we being told that we need to put a price on carbon, establish carbon trading and implement carbon taxes in order to make alternative energy like wind and solar viable? And where would that money come from if not the taxpayers? Would it grow on trees? Who is using voodoo economics here?

Let’s get one thing clear, anthropogenic CO2 is either a serious problem or it is not. If it is, anything that can reduce CO2 is good. Even nuclear energy. But if UK’s top advisors don’t like modern industrial capitalism and want to transform society in accordance with their moral vision, they should state their aims explicitly instead of blocking realistic solutions to reduce CO2 emissions by pushing their preferred feel-good non-solutions.