For some time I have wanted to write a piece on the virtue of doing certain things properly, and the final stimulus came on the occasion of a bus trip to Lightning Ridge, which was great fun, educational and most enjoyable. In the bathroom of a certain motel I saw this little sign.

Dear Guest,

In the course of a year we wash thousands of towels, and doing so uses thousands and thousands of litres of water and tons of detergents that can be harmful to the environment. If you care about the environment as we do, you may wish to help. If you are happy to use your towels again, please hang them on the rail. If you want them washed, please leave them on the floor.

Over many years I have seen lots of little signs with this underlying message. As it happens, we put our towels on the rail to use again because that is what we do at home, so we appear as good environmentalists. But part of me objects to the sign, on principle. The principle is that if the motel were doing its job properly it would have provided a real incentive for hanging the towels up on the rail. After all, if we hang up the towels we are saving the motel money. What is the motel doing in return? Try this alternative.

…if you hang the towels up we will donate a dollar to the local Landcare group. Last year we donated $xxx to the local Landcare group… If you want the towels washed, however, …

I don’t recall ever see any such sign in my travels, though doubtless there is a motel somewhere that takes seriously its environmental responsibilities, if that is what they are. What I see in the signs that I do see is an appeal to some higher cause to assist the enterprise in cutting costs. I sometimes wonder how many other people are put off by these signs.

While I am on the subject of Lightning Ridge, I was fascinated to learn that the town has a population of just under 2500 (2011 census), but the bowling club has a membership of 4,200. There is no postal service within the town, but the post office has 1800 post boxes. Something odd? Yes. The town itself is neatly delimited and looks like any other outback town. But around it is an astonishing scrubland with little roads carved out of the bush with signs saying Keep Out, No Entry and similar indications of a hearty welcome. These are mines and the dwelling is most likely an old bus or caravan. In one such place we saw a house made of old beer cans and bottles.

The local view is that there as many people living outside the town in these opal-mining areas as there are within it, which accords with the bowling club membership. And ‘Lightning Ridge’, with respect to the census, is not just the town. It is a large rural (but not farming) area stretching to the Queensland border, about the size of the Australian Capital Territory. It seems plain to me that the 2011 census missed a couple of thousand people there. The Census provides three measures of ‘real’ population, but they all cluster around the same figure. In short, these numbers are not accurate. I’m not blaming the census collectors. You have to see the area to realise just how difficult it would be to find the miner and then get him (or her, there are a few women miners) to complete the form. As with temperature data, you need to know just what is being measured and the difficulties involved in doing do. I’m not suggesting that the census people didn’t do the job properly. Rather, it cannot be done properly, and they did the best they could.

Let me turn to another example. We are deluged from time to time with appeals to let refugees enter our country, as though there is some magic way in which refugees (always agreeing that they are bona fide refugees) can arrive, find accommodation and employment and learn the new culture in a matter of days. It ain’t like that. Sanctuary Australia is one of a number of organisations that try to ensure that newly admitted refugees are in fact supported by Australians who live around them.

Sanctuary Australia sets out the kinds of support that newly arrived refugees will need:

  • Family Sponsorship advice and help
  • Education referral and information
  • Business startup advice
  • Banking and personal finance assistance and advice
  • Police and law services available
  • Children’s services and how to access them
  • Interpreter and document translation referral and advice
  • Medical services available
  • Dealing with rental/lease problems
  • Driving/License information referral and advice
  • Citizenship advice

Can government do all this? Government certainly has to provide the setting, the rules and the regulations, and some help. But a lot of it requires local knowledge and advice, best provided by people who will live near and around the new arrivals. Sanctuary Australia provides the fares for those who are winners in the great refugee lottery, fares that get them from the settlement camp somewhere in Africa to Australia. The immigrants agree to pay back the money expended on their behalf over time, so that another family can be given the same assistance. The organisation receives no government assistance at all.

This is not to say that our Government does nothing. It does have a Human Settlement Service, and it does provide support of many kinds. You can read about it here. But the real work of human resettlement ultimately works best if the refugees are surrounded from the beginning by Australians who take responsibility for the new family, and do their best to assist its members to find their way into this new society, so that they soon feel that they can and will belong. Church groups seem to do this well.

And, so far as I am able to judge, they do so without talking loudly. The ones who talk loudly may be involved in such real human encounters themselves, but what I mostly see are placards, marchers and chanting. And behind all that is, at least so it seems to me, the view that there is not only a money tree to pay for all this, but a human services tree as well, composed of hitherto underused public servants just waiting to do all that is necessary to integrate these people into a diverse, multi-ethnic, secular, democratic society, whose scale and richness must be almost overwhelming to many new arrivals.

To make the point again, integrating new arrivals into Australia is not something that can be done by governments, though their support is important. It has to be done by us, the longstanding members of Australian society. To clamour for entry for refugees without being prepared to support them, with time, care and knowledge, is an empty form of progressive behaviour. I think there is far too much of it, and it reminds me of the motel towels example with which I started.

OK, my last example will be familiar to most readers. There is a small but strident call for us all to save the planet by avoiding fossil fuels, not eating meat, living sustainably, and the like. Leonard di Caprio is one of those who has the star status to make to him a spokesperson for the CAGW moment. But he flies about in a private jet airliner. Al Gore apparently had a large energy-consuming house when he was the champion of the movement in 2007. They don’t seem to practise what they preach.

How many of those who comment here on the disaster ahead are living according to their beliefs? It would be interesting to know. Because of my upbringing I have been a recycler from the start, have a worm farm, and tread reasonably lightly. But I spend what I have to spend to stay warm in Canberra’s cold winters (particularly cold this year). But then, I think, most of the hostility to fossil fuels is just silly.

I suspect that most of those who campaign publicly and noisily on behalf of refugees have no real involvement in settling new arrivals into out society, just as those who create a great fuss about the Thermageddon awaiting us are doing nothing of real consequence to reduce the risk through their own behaviour. Rather, they want government to compel the rest of us to behave as they want us to behave.



Join the discussion 156 Comments

  • tripitaka says:

    “After all, if we hang up the towels we are saving the motel money.”

    That is such a neo-liberal way of looking at human interactions; it is a small and narrow minded ideology that reduces all human motivation to the profit motive.

    Responsible human behaviour that underpins decent high trust societies does not develop when all transactions are conceptualised as a financial exchange in which one needs to take into account how much the other party to the transaction benefits.

    This attitude reductionist attitude brings out the worst aspects of human nature by encouraging the person to see the motel owners as gouging them and also encouraging the visitor to feel envious and resentful of the motel owners.

    The original message provides people with a ‘proper’ reason as to why people ‘should’ choose to hang up their towels. We should hang up our towel because it is what a decent responsible person does.

    • Aert Driessen says:

      A bit harsh tripitaka, but it does describe, at least for me, the mind-set of your kind — black and white, no take and give, no presumption of innocence, no benefits of doubt. That said, the towel notice was in the context of a noble aspiration and considering that it was put there by a proprietor, investor, and perhaps even an entrepreneur, I suspect that a profit motive was part of his/her thinking and I see nothing wrong with that.

      • tripitaka says:

        What is a bit harsh Aert? Did you understand what I wrote? It seems to me that you have totally missed the point of my comment and you have taken the opportunity to reveal more of your disordered cognitive style and your lack of rationality.

        What makes you think that the towel notice was “in the context of a noble aspiration”. What do you mean by “in the context” and what possible “noble aspiration” could be the motivation for putting up such an ordinary sign that adorns so many motel rooms?

        Seriously I’m trying to take your comment seriously rather than what it appears to be as an opportunity for you to gratuitously, inaccurately and quite stupidly, describe “the mind-set of my kind”. It would help me try to understand your incoherent comment if you could also explain how a profit motive is consistent with a noble aspiration.

        Noble means righteous, virtuous, good, honourable, honest, upright, upstanding, decent, worthy, uncorrupted, anti-corruption, moral, ethical, reputable, magnanimous, unselfish, generous and the profit motive is none of these things and is actually inconsistent with all of them.

        The profit motive as the ultimate reason for the business’ existence rules out all righteous, virtuous, good, honourable, honest, upright, upstanding, decent, worthy, noble-minded, un-corrupted, anti-corruption, moral, ethical, reputable, magnanimous, unselfish, and generous behaviours.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Carry on with your blither, trip.

          It’s just as well you are only bad mouthing free marketeers here.

          But you’ll be relieved to know that in truly free countries it’s perfectly acceptable to hate speak about anyone.

        • tripitaka says:

          Drongo are you stalking me? You feel compelled to say something to me even though you are not part of the conversation? Or do you think Aert can’t manage without your support?

          It’s perfectly legal to hate speech here in Australia but it’s not a behaviour or an attitude that creates a better world. So what’s your point? You think I am hating on free marketers rather than pointing out the moral bankruptcy of the failed ideology?

          • spangled drongo says:

            Not stalking, trip, baiting. I do that with lots of ferals.

            “It’s perfectly legal to hate speech here in Australia but it’s not a behaviour or an attitude that creates a better world.”

            But that doesn’t stop your hate speak, hey trippi?

            And the rest of you neo-Marxists scream to high heaven with hate speak to shut down any “hate speech” you deem not to be in your interest.

            Pauline Hanson can’t even suggest that teachers should be able to teach all students properly and not have their total time consumed by the incompetent ones without half the country trying to shut her down.

            When, in the near future, this will definitely be general policy you lot will no doubt come forth and kiss Pauline and tell her how wrong you all were.

            I just won’t be holding my breath.


          • margaret says:

            Omg lets all get together over a glass of red, Bryan are you up for that? Would a brawl ensue or would we collectivists embrace the individualists in our collective embrace? Metaphorically only of course lest ramifications ensue lol.

          • tripitaka says:

            Silly Drongo Poor Pauline is on the spectrum herself you know. She is a bit autistic.

            Look at her life. Doesn’t speak to either of her husbands. Had to be married because pregnant both times. Hasn’t been able to maintain any long term relationships – she has no school friends and only has her younger children and her mother from her past; her grown up children don’t speak to her and the younger ones will fall out with her as soon as they start to make their own decisions.

            She has fallen out with and made enemies of all the people who once regarded her as their best friend.

            She has no idea that the way she says things is insulting to a lot of people and upsets them and she doesn’t care that she has upset so many parents of autistic kids, she just carries on feeling outraged and that the world is so unfair to her which indicates that she doesn’t understand or feel empathy and that is a classic autistic characteristic.

            Pauline she won’t understand or accept that she is not the perfect person and that her behaviour is dysfunctional and diagnosable and she does need to change the way she behaves – get some insight therapy – learn about empathy – if she wants to be taken seriously, to have her input to the national conversation respected and if she wants to have decent relationships with other people.

            One part of what she tried to say is true; there is not enough funding for teachers to cope with the behavioural problems of some students who are not incompetent as you put it. That is another indication that shows you have no understanding of the issue – you haven’t bothered to read anything about the issue except what Pauline says – and so it is clearly partisan of you to take a position when you are so ill-informed.

            Clearly Pauline is a very unhappy woman and needs lots of hugs but there is no way she would want a kiss from a woman.

            Could you give me some examples of the hate speak I do? Just so I know what it is that you call hate speech. I think we must have very different definitions of what it is.

          • margaret says:

            That is the thing – there is not enough funding for public schools to assist children with learning difficulties when blatantly 80% of federal funding will be going to private schools, but Drongo does keep his finger on the pulse of these issues tripitaka – he does see two sides – Pauline Hanson’s and Cory Bernardi’s. He wants Cory to be PM.

          • Chris Warren says:


            Classic inveterate attention seeking TROLL

          • spangled drongo says:

            Blith, classic, evidence-free echo of empty vessels.

          • tripitaka says:

            No really Chris, we have to start to understand the drongos of the world and not just denigrate them as trolls and bad people. Just like criminals, right wing people were lovely little babies once and they didn’t deliberately decide to grow up to be people who constantly and deliberately find fault with others, who like to make wars and take delight in baiting people and who seem to have no capacity for examining their own motivations in a critical or rational light.

            To change our society for the better we need to understand why some people want to be nasty and why they dislike other people for no rational reason. If we understand how this happens then we can prevent children growing up to be like this in the future.

            Johnathon Haidt is worth reading for some insight into how and why some people develop their values.

            Peter E wrote that “John Anderson, former Deputy PM and National Party leader, had an interesting piece in the Oz Friday 23 June. He drew attention to the work of Jonathan Haidt who theorised that there were six pillars of morality – care, liberty, fairness, loyalty, authority and sanctity. ”

            But Peter E misrepresented Haidt in a typical self-serving right wing way when he said that right wing people are focused on all 6 of these values and so are superior to left wing people who focus on the first three values.

            That is not what Haidt says about the difference between typical right wing and left wing thinking and he tries very hard not to denigrate right wing people and their values. There are many reviews of Haidt’s work on the internet and he has a blog available by googling if you don’t want to read his book.

            The link below is to a cartoon he published on his blog that shows how even siblings can develop into people with very different values and ways of behaving.


            Haidt is American and of course refers to left wing people as liberals and right wing people as republicans or conservatives. He has also written about Libertarians and how they fit into his model.

            One of the differences between right and left wing people that really interests me is the lack of empathy that they show and Haidt has found that the more interested in politics a conservative is, the lower his (or her) level of empathy but that left wing people move in the opposite direction: the more interested in politics they are, the more empathetic they become and it seems to me that this is what happened to me. It was learning about how people work that provided me with the ability to feel empathy for people I judge as bad.

            But drongos feel no empathy for others, they are strongly motivated to find reasons to justify their unexamined prejudices and exclude ‘others’ they judge to be ‘bad’ rather than wanting to understand human nature and how prejudices develop and how we can make a better world by giving all people the support they need to be able to contribute to a better world.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Tripluv, just because you endlessly agree with other evidence-free blitherers is no reason to lose all sense of proportion with your own prejudices and hate speeches.

            Your Pauline hypocrisy is unbelievable. Even your mate marg reluctantly admits that Pauline is right but similarly too hypocritical to commend her.

            But we all know with leftards it’s the side, not the subject that counts.

    • Bryan Roberts says:

      What the hotel SHOULD say is “If you want your towel replaced, please place it in the clothes hamper conveniently located at the end of the corridor. Don’t throw it on the floor for our poor bloody serving wenches to pick up.”

      • Bryan Roberts says:

        Yes, trip, you missed the point entirely, and it was left to an old white man to point it out to you.

  • chrisl says:

    And of course who would put their hard earned savings into intermittent power?
    Think about it ; you are basing your whole production based on the weather (ie the wind blowing)
    And the country is relying on that production
    It doesn’t matter if there is one turbine or 1000 turbines, if the wind is not blowing, production is the same.

  • PeterE says:

    Asylum seekers are supposed to seek asylum in the first safe place. The boat people who arrived here quite obviously were seeking to emigrate by the illegal short-cut method. An open door policy would lead quickly to the disintegration of the nation. Why then do some demand this? John Anderson, former Deputy PM and National Party leader, had an interesting piece in the Oz Friday 23 June. He drew attention to the work of Jonathan Haidt who theorised that there were six pillars of morality – care, liberty, fairness, loyalty, authority and sanctity. Haidt claimed to have analysed progressives and conservatives in relation to these values and discovered that progressives were strong on the first three, especially care, but weak on the others. Conservatives valued all evenly. So it seems that progressives suffer from a sort of elephantiasis of the care moral pillar, leading to an unfortunate distortion of balance.

    • tripitaka says:

      “Asylum seekers are supposed to seek asylum in the first safe place.”

      Who or what says this? Can you define a safe space? If the US was bombing our country would you think Indonesia a safe space?

      You and John Anderson really need to read Haidt a bit more carefully and not cherry pick the ideas he presents that appeal to you while ignoring the main points that he makes.

      One of the main points he makes is “conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer “moral clarity”—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate.”

      This paragraph from an article that discusses moral psychology may also offer you some deeper and a more useful insight into the way that conservative values twist human nature into dysfunctional and cruel way of responding to other humans.

      “Many ethical convictions are underpinned by strongly felt intuitions that some action is inherently good or bad. Sometimes those intuitions can be justified by philosophical reflection and analysis. But sometimes they can be debunked and shown to be indefensible gut reactions, without moral warrant. Historical examples include outrage over heresy, blasphemy, and lèse-majesté, revulsion against homosexuality and racial mixing, squeamishness about medical advances like vaccination and blood transfusions, callousness toward slaves and animals, and indifference or hatred toward foreigners. ”

      • Boambee John says:


        You say “Historical examples include outrage over heresy, blasphemy, … revulsion against homosexuality … callousness toward slaves, and indifference or hatred toward foreigners. ”

        This sounds Islamophobic.

        • Boambee John says:

          I realise that you were quoting someone else, but careful reading first before quoting might have been better.

      • tripitaka says:

        Boambee John yes islamaphobia is one of those gut reactions without moral warrant that conservatives have and which can be debunked and shown to be indefensible.

        • Bryan Roberts says:

          Have you ever been out of your little Queensland town? There are cities in Europe (eg, Prizren) and the Middle East, from which Christians have been driven by Muslims. Fear of the demonstrably dangerous is not a phobia.

          • tripitaka says:

            So what that Christians have been driven out of towns by Muslims?

            Christians demonstrably have done some very bad things over the centuries to Muslims and Christians behave very badly right now, this very day all over the world.

            There is no evidence or any rational argument that Muslims as a category of people are more dangerous than Christians or any other group of believers.

            The current state of affairs that drives conservatives like you to such levels of foolishness is explicable as a reaction to the wars in the ME and as a response to the fear mongering and hate speech that they hear every day from right wing Islamaphobes.

            The reality is that domestic violence from white men toward women and children is a far more realistic fear and causes far more distress and death in our society than Islamic terrorism does.

            What you have is as Haidt explains cognitively inflexible thought patterns, a fondness for hierarchy, an inordinate fear of uncertainty, change, and death and a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears that are irrational and based on your lack of ability to weigh up threats rationally and deal with them morally.

          • PeterD says:

            Hi Boambee John and tripitaka,

            If the personal static in your exchange of postings is detached, there are some significant contemporary issues you are discussing around Islam.

            In such discussions there are always emotional trigger issues, such as attitudes to same-sex relationships; whether women’s dress should consist of total covering; that young girls marry at ages that are illegal in countries such as Australia; that violent jihad, IS etc is a legitimate response to invasion by infidels; that Sharia law should be the basis of civil society; that an Islamic Caliphate is desirable etc. And, returning to Don’s article, the complex issues of how Australia and its citizens provide support for the integration of refugees in our society.

            In some ways, one of the underlying issues is sectarian differences between Sunni and Shia Muslims and, sadly, the greatest casualties, especially in the Middle East, are Muslims themselves. Another point is that many of the issues in the paragraph above are not so much grounded in religious texts such as the Koran but in cultural, ethnic and national contexts. The burka, niqab, hijab, chador or dupatta, for instance, are associated with different cultural contexts but the injunction in the Koran is not prescriptive: it is for modesty and when one views the way our media portray women to sell goods and services, one might consider a greater level of modesty, even in Australia.

            What strikes me are the parallels I see, in earlier periods of history, with sectarianism between Christians, between Catholics and Protestants, for example – often associated with violence, linked with Ireland, England etc and not all that long ago.

            Certainly not a biblical scholar, it does seem to me, however, that one of the most critical issues is the literal interpretation of religious texts and how hermeneutics and dramatic changes in our planet – technology, globalisation, population growth etc – might impact on religious practice. Just on hermeneutics, which involves interpretations in original contexts: in the bible, for instance, it states that it is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than it is a for camel to pass through the eye of a needle. To contemporary readers, riches are in a religious sense, an impenetrable barrier to salvation; to Jewish people in the Old Testament, the eye of a needle was a gate in Jerusalem which could be passed through, but overladen camels needed some realignment of excess baggage: therefore salvation for rich people was possible, but their wealth had to be used wisely.

            Many people can recall when outward rituals such as eating fish, pork, fasting generally are equated with religion. If one thinks of religion as an inner conversion and change of heart, a metanoia, about how one relates to one’s fellow human beings, then it is an interior spirituality, with charity in how one relates to all people, even the marginalised in our midst, that religion begins. The linking of religion with food, with cattle, with eating fish, with pork is often based on tenuous literal thinking in sacred texts and is, to my way of thinking, somewhat bizarre. And the facts are that more violence, perversion, special pleadings, commercial exploitation, tax advantages etc are associated with religion that many other movements.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “So what that Christians have been driven out of towns by Muslims?”

            RU Sirius? Ken UB Sodumb?

            Poor dumb trip hasn’t got a clue.

            From the start of Islam in the 7th C up till the Australian Light Horse defeated them at Beersheba there have been virtually no other religions than Islam in the Holy Land.

            But the west let them back in.

            Islam conquered the Christian Greeks and drove them out of Constantinople and Byzantium in 1453 and took over the country yet when they allied with the Germans and were conquered by the west half a millennia later, they were allowed to keep their country.

            Is it any wonder they consider the western Christian cultures to be the greatest soft touch ever.

            And today, scratch a mosque in many parts of the world and you will find it is built on a Christian church.

            Even you, tripper, are possibly not too dumb to spot the implications here.

          • spangled drongo says:

            BTW, tripluv, you are aware that Byzantium was arguably the first Christian country and the Holy Land was the land of the birth of Christianity.

            Can you possibly imagine the outcry [not to mention the ongoing killings and mayhem] from Islam if Christians were in possession of Mecca?

          • tripitaka says:

            Typical that drongo begins with some irrelevant questions/statements about my failings, fails to explain why it is significant that a few Christians have been driven out of their town by Muslims and then provides only a few disconnected claims about Muslims and their characteristics as evidence or an argument that Muslims are trying to take over the world and want to destroy Western Civilisation. lol

            Drongo why don’t you read Peter D’s comments and consider the points he makes about the current issues that are so not reducible to the stupid and irrational belief you have that Muslims want to take over our country not to mention the absolutely stupid belief that they could do such a thing.

            There are a few angry and disturbed people who call themselves Muslims who say that they want to do bad things to us and some of them manage to do awful things but any rational and informed understanding of human nature and of history shows that it is not characteristic of the Islamic religion itself which in it’s foundations is the same as Christianity as both these religions of hate came out of the same Middle Eastern culture and the Old Testament of the Bible contains the same prescriptions about killing and hating on the other person as one finds in the Koran.

            You do remember the Christian God told Abraham to kill his son? How peaceful is that God eh?

            Christians need to repudiate the Old Testament to have any claim to being a better religion than Islam.

            And that latter idea that Muslims could change our culture in a bad way is really loser talk and further evidence that right wing people are wussies and have no idea how strong the leftist values that are an essential part of western civilisation are.

            You righties must be as Jonathon Haidt says overly fearful and lacking in self-confidence if you think that the western values – the left wing western values I learned in my childhood from my family – will be so easily destroyed by Muslims seeking a better life here.

            Your right wing version of western civilisation and your values are of course vulnerable and easily destroyed by rational analysis and that is why there is so much angst and hate talk coming from righties.

          • Don Aitkin says:

            For Peter Donnan. Interesting stuff. I have always been interested in the origins of taboos, on the principle that they must have had some grounding in reality. My favourites were hydrides/fluke/worms in pork, and the need to support the fishing fleets for fish. But if you search, as I have done again, there is no certainty about any of these restrictions. We ate fish on Friday, because (inland) it was the only day when you might get recently caught fish. This was a long time ago, of course.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Trip, you have no rational values when it comes to debating the Muslim problem.

            Your feminist beliefs are left high and dry by supporting this male-dominated culture undermining everything else you claim to support.

            Just read what you write. If anyone made such defective claims about western culture you would be incensed.

            The Christians had a new testament centuries before the original Koran. They were turning the other cheek while Muslims were still learning to slit throats. They are 2 millennia ahead but until Muslims do likewise it will be all pain and no gain.

            Do you have any evidence that any Muslims are forcefully proposing such a move?

            No? Why am I not surprised?

            For someone as obviously ignorant of history as you to make your brainless statements is a sad view of the way we are heading.

            Your endless blithering in the dark is not doing any of us any favours.

        • margaret says:

          “to Jewish people in the Old Testament, the eye of a needle was a gate in Jerusalem which could be passed through, but overladen camels needed some realignment of excess baggage: therefore salvation for rich people was possible, but their wealth had to be used wisely.”
          PeterD I didn’t know that. I like it.
          Boambee and tripitaka haven’t responded to your interesting comments as yet but literal interpretation of and slavish adherence to ancient texts and not eating meat on Fridays and other such religious/culturally based rituals some of which have become harmless habits and others like female genital mutilation and some would say even the circumcision of male infants that arise from fear of one sort or another – until recently I blamed the particular religions for their crappy texts. Then I read a quote, simplistic yes, but now I have changed my opinion. Organised atheism has its own problems.

          Margaret Atwood – “religion is not the problem – people are”.

          It’s not so long ago, 1997, that the “hate preacher” of Finsbury Park mosque, Abu Hamza “used the cover of religion so he could hide in plain sight in London… He was a leader with a global following, who didn’t just talk the talk, he walked the walk.”

      • tripitaka says:

        Boambee John Seriously you thought that the quote was saying that these historical gut reactions were a good thing and that meant I was inadvertently supporting the contemporary islamaphobia?

        I guess the point of the quote is beyond your intellectual ability. Nothing to be ashamed of. The ability to understand complex ideas is not distributed equally. ?

        • Boambee John says:

          “I guess the point of the quote is beyond your intellectual ability. Nothing to be ashamed of. The ability to understand complex ideas is not distributed equally. ?”p

          Nor, it would seem, is humility. Your absolute conviction of your own superiority is a sign that you do not realise how little any individual human knows.

          • tripitaka says:

            hahaha Boambee John and what about your conviction that you are equal to me or actually you think you are better than me because I am a ‘leftard’?

          • Boambee John says:

            “hahaha Boambee John and what about your conviction that you are equal to me or actually you think you are better than me because I am a ‘leftard’?”

            And where does that leave your absolute conviction that you are not only better than, but intellectually superior to, those you smear as “rightists”?

            When have I said that I am better than you?

          • tripitaka says:

            Boambee John where have I said that I have an “absolute conviction of (my) own superiority” or shown any sign that I “do not realise how little any individual human knows.”

            Your conviction that righties are better than leftards is implicit in your attitude, in the way you assume that what I write, my argument, is ‘wrong’ and that you know better., You continue to do this even though the evidence has always been from your first mistaken assumption that I and other lefties believe in equality of outcome, that you do not fully understand the points I make in my comments.

            Perhaps you are capable of understanding complex ideas but it is your hatred of leftism that means you make unjustified and erroneous assumptions about me and the points that I am making.

            The fact is, as you have acknowledged that people are not equal in abilities; I have agreed and said that this does not mean that people are not equal in value. That is the fundamental point that righties choose not to understand. Do you understand that concept?

            Why do you say that “righties” is a smear? Can you bring to consciousness the cognitive process that leads you to make this assertion?

            People who have abilities that are not at the same level as my ability in processing complex ideas and concepts are not less valuable than I am.

            Furthermore, lefties are collectivists not individualists as righties are and as a rule lefties do clearly understand that individuals are not and cannot be the source of ultimate knowledge.

            I do not rely on my own ideas or any one individual source of information as the basis of the assertions I make. I read a lot and use and refer to a great many sources of knowledge and wisdom from other people in my arguments/comments.

          • Boambee John says:


            “Your conviction that (you) are better than (righties) is implicit in your attitude, in the way you assume that what I write, my argument, is ‘wrong’ and that you know better.,”

            Look at your own words, then look in a mirror!

          • Boambee John says:

            “it is your hatred of (conservatism) that means you make unjustified and erroneous assumptions about me and the points that I am making.”
            I saycagain, look at your own assumptions.

          • tripitaka says:

            No Boambee lol for all your claims about people not being equal you seem to be determinedly insisting that you and I are equally at fault and using the same methods to discredit the other’s ideology.

            I have looked at my assumptions and I am using rational argument and evidence from learned and respected people like Johnathon Haidt who has done research into the way conservatives think to critique your irrational beliefs.

            All you seem to have is resentment and anger and all you can do is to use childish taunts like look in a mirror and pot kettle. Whereas what you should be doing to prove your assertions that I am the same as you is to provide me with an argument and some evidence that supports your assertions.

            Point out where Haidt is wrong about the way conservatives think.

            And you could answer the easy questions I have asked such as Why is it a smear to call you a rightie?

        • JMO says:

          Hi Trolpitaka – I have not been on this blog for some time. Still shooting your mouth off and insulting anyone who does not 100% agree with you. Jeez, just have a Bex and good lie down. Oh, and don’t worry the world will not end in a catastrophic climate fireball while you sleep it off.

      • Bryan Roberts says:

        “If the US was bombing our country would you think Indonesia a safe space?”

        Obviously, yes. If the Indonesians weren’t also bombing us, wouldn’t you?

        • tripitaka says:

          No i wouldn’t. I’d want to live in a place where my kids would be able to go to school and have a better life.

          • Boambee John says:

            So now you claim cultural superiority over Indonesians? Don’t be racist!

          • Bryan Roberts says:

            So you’re Islamophobic. You would not go to a safe country because you don’t like the majority culture.

        • tripitaka says:

          Boambee John you are being so silly and so obviously desperate to cast aspersions on me.

          Do you understand why you need to do this? Is your life so boring that this is the best thing you can do with your Sunday?

          You could try and examine your motivations, look inside yourself, get over your pique and rise above the base impulses that compel you to waste your time showing such a lack of character.

          • margaret says:

            Maybe a good start would be to go to iView and watch the Triggs interview Bo …

          • Boambee John says:


            Before you attempt to psychoanalyse me, perhaps you should try to find out my real thoughts, rather than imagine what they might be?

          • tripitaka says:

            Got it wrong again Boambee I’m not trying to psychoanalyse you at all.

            Are you really so ignorant that you can think that what I wrote was an attempt at psychoanalysis? I do not understand how you can be so lacking in understanding about things like what psychoanalysis and yet be so quick to jump in and advertise that ignorance and then you will insist that by calling you out and informing you of your ignorance, I am abusing you lol.

            I was asking a few questions that may help with your obvious unhappiness at the state of affairs these days and the way you and your fearful rightwingers are so over the top worrying about things like being taken over by Muslims that are not a problem while ignoring and minimising the very read dangers that do kill and maim ordinary people.

            You have not watched the interview Margaret recommends because right wing people will not even try and understand the ideas that underpin the behaviours that they rail against.

            I again to encourage you to self-examine and explore the feelings that overcome you when you try and listen to leftie ideas.

    • margaret says:

      Did you watch Jane Hutcheon’s interview with Gillian Triggs? Anyone?

  • Aert Driessen says:

    Interesting piece Don, as usual. I and three others in Canberra were phantom residents of LR and members of the bowling club, as were many others who owned mining leases in LR. No reflection on census gatherers, just the way it is. I was part of a small syndicate that pursued the hypothesis of two friends – Brian Senior (ex-BMR geologist) and Lew Chadderton (ANU physicist, now dec.) that silica precipitation and subsequent ordered accretion to form opal is influenced by radiation emitting from naturally-occurring uranium in sea water. We used a tailor-made down-hole gamma-ray logger to hone in on targets and found opal; hypothesis proved. We pursued it for some 5 years but, as is mostly the case, most lease holders live off the field and we contracted resident miners, most of whom had their own mines, to run the operation (mining, carting, and the tail-out). Such a business model always takes into account that lease owners, while off-field, may not be fully aware of the opal produced. It was a wonderful experience in a unique culture in a unique place.

  • PeterD says:

    Hi Don,

    You wrote: “I spend what I have to spend to stay warm in Canberra’s cold winters (particularly cold this year). But then, I think, most of the hostility to fossil fuels is just silly.”

    In terms of money being spent on keeping warm in Canberra, I’m curious about the most efficient and economic way of keeping warm, given the big hike in gas/electricity after July 1st. As you say, it has been particularly cold this year. Over the next fifty years, it seems likely in the ACT, that coal will be phased out but in the present context it is perhaps silly to try and differentiate between fossil fuel and other forms of energy. So my query is ‘technology neutral’ as they say nowadays, focussed only on cost. In fact, I received a pamphlet from ActewAGL during the week that contains this sentence: “Customers with solar and battery storage are saving around $1,000 per year.”

    There are a number of astute commentators on this site who are aware of costs, investments, return on investment, how long it takes to recover initial outlay etc. Is this ActewAGL proposed energy cost reduction worth considering or are there other better cost-saving initiatives?

  • Don Aitkin says:

    Peter D,

    We’ll know about gas vs electricity pretty soon. I know people who have moved from gas to electricity. For me to do so would be quite expensive, and we may not live in this house for long. I too got the ACTEW/AGL notice. I assume they when they refer to savings they are only talking about recurrent costs, not the installation, maintenance and replacement costs of the solar panels and the batteries. There are some more knowledgable people in the readership, and they might respond to you.

  • margaret says:

    Our gas heater became dangerous last week – in fact it died, fortunately before we experienced ill effects from emission of carbon monoxide. The plumber tested the air quality and there was carbon monoxide but I don’t retain figures in my head, it’s probably enough to say that the level of carbon monoxide in your living room should be Nil.
    So – for this winter, because it was unexpected, we can’t yet buy the wood pellet heater we had planned and are using a convection panel heater. It will be interesting to see our next electricity bill. The plumber advised us to invest in solar panels and battery pack and reverse cycle electric heating/cooling.
    That I’m sure, would be doing things properly, however the initial outlay isn’t within our current budget.

    • chrisl says:

      That I’m sure, would be doing things properly, however the initial outlay isn’t within our current budget.

      Margaret, Margaret , Margaret That is the liberty quote! Do you get it yet ? For 95% of people that is the reality! It costs $16,000 to set up solar to go off grid! Who can afford it? Not you! Not me! Count how many electrical appliances you have in your house. Then count the number of electric motors. Do you need them? No ? Then why have them ? I believe the computer you are using RIGHT NOW is powered by ELECTRICITY!

      • margaret says:

        Well chrisl – that it’s unaffordable for 95% of people is not in question. It’s not in our ‘foreseeable budget’ either but it illustrates the thinking of young trade professionals who are looking to the future and factoring into their aspirations the way of the future. I’ll be dust and the world will be a different place with fossil fuels having swapped places with renewables and going going …. maybe even … gone.

        • margaret says:

          Oh I’m not saying it will be a better place – a different place – to the wonderful time in Australia between the 60’s (if your number hadn’t sent you to Vietnam), and the new millennium when we were really still living in enlightened yet ignorant bliss that Australia was a place where you could just stick a prawn on the barbie and say where the bloody hell are you from the land down under.

  • margaret says:

    “The ones who talk loudly may be involved in such real human encounters themselves, but what I mostly see are placards, marchers and chanting.”
    Don, the first part of your sentence cancels out the second part. Who is to say how many of those who march and carry placards are not also involved in real human encounters with the human rights cause that they’re marching for? It could be 30 or 40 percent for all we know and whatever – good for those who march, no marches, no awareness of injustice – we’re certainly not going to hear about it from the media – look at the Gonski 2.0 debacle and Leigh Sales rude interview with Tanya Plibersek. (Okay yes, I’ve gone off-topic there – ignore that part)

    • PeterD says:

      Hi Chris

      You mention a cost of $16,000 to go off grid. That is a high cost that excludes many, as you indicate. In the May issue of ‘Choice’ [p. 38] there is an article about living with the Tesla Powerwall, with the number of installations expected to triple to 19,000 by the end of 2017. There is a case study of a guy called Nick Pfitzner&family at Kellyville Rydge in NSW, early adopters, who spent $16,790 in January 2016 and it is claimed this Pfitzner family saved 92% on their usual electricity bill. Their costs are closely aligned to your estimates but the question of interest to me is how long would it take to cover your initial investment. I received a gas bill this week, as did a good friend and neighbour across the road, and while the June invoices are high, they are only going to get worse.

      Don’s article refers to some people who stand on the grass and tell everyone else to get off the grass; Leonardo di Caprio and Al Gore, for instance, may be two of those who do not practise what they preach. In various Don Aitkin discussions, there have been a wide variety of insightful views on energy, climate matters etc so I am particularly interested in what constitutes expert domestic practice in the face of escalating costs.

  • margaret says:

    The towel recycling signs – in large city hotels there’s no doubt that it’s not a sign of the hotel chain’s environmental concern. I’ve experienced this cost cutting benefit that accompanies the guests choices not to have their bed made or their room cleaned if you’re staying for a couple of nights. If you make that choice you’re given a voucher to eat in the hotel’s restaurant for a percentage reduction.
    I’ve done this and it’s definitely not the way to go for this guest. Doesn’t it also deprive the servicing staff of work that assists their own living expenses?

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yeah, marg, breaking windows is another way of increasing our SOL, too.

      I hang up my towel but I don’t take their vouchers.

      How silly of me.

      I also wear hand-me-up clothes from my children who throw things out too often and drive a manual rather than an automatic because it’s more fuel efficient.

      It’s not only cheaper but also keeps both knees functioning in old age and stops you running into shop fronts by having that extra pedal to stab.

    • tripitaka says:

      I agree Margaret, there is no absolute right and wrong thing to do for the motel managers/owners or the guests in the hanging the towel issue. It is like one of those moral dilemmas.

      • margaret says:

        I want those to remain hypothetical tripitaka – hanging the towels is a breeze by comparison 🙂

        • margaret says:

          I’ve been to Lightning Ridge – it was a couple of years ago. We stayed at the Bluey motel opposite the bowling club. It didn’t have any towel sign that I remember but it’s a small spotlessly kept family run motel that we found late afternoon driving in and saw a board on its verge giving a $$ price that was acceptable. We didn’t have much time in LR as it was just close enough to take a side trip on our way home via Bourke and we’d wanted to see it for years.
          We became interested in LR because years ago former in-laws of my sister used to spend every winter there on their opal lease. The romance of striking a seam must have captured the imagination of this former Qantas captain and his wife. They lived in Sydney.
          We did an opal tour and it included an opal shop as well as a mine and the fascinating diggings around the outskirts of town. The opal expert and jewellery designer in the shop told us an interesting story of a few months previously. A Chinese buyer had taken a taxi from Sydney to this shop on a weekend, made his purchase (job lot) and returned to Sydney in the taxi.
          We saw the most beautiful stones, one was worth the price of a house. I regret the loss of a beautiful little milky opal set in a gold necklet I had many years ago. The Chinese love opals and black opals particularly because of the flashes of fiery red.

  • Don Aitkin says:

    Some time ago I was asked by the ABC to take part in a radio broadcast about ‘those who deny climate change despite the mounting evidence’ (a rough translation). I agreed with some misgiving, and was unhappy with my own contribution, since I felt constrained by the assumptions contained in the questioning. Other participants are Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Garth Paltridge and a guy from UWA (O’Brien) who sounded very good, but whom I don’t know at all.

    The program has been put to air, and apart from a condescending shaft by Andy Pitman at anything any of us said, I thought it was a good production.

    You can get it at

    • spangled drongo says:

      Thanks Don. Well I suppose that was as good as you could expect from their ABC.

      Your “policy based evidence” as opposed to “evidence based policy” was a good point and you put your case gently but accurately but their continual pathetic reference to sceptics as deniers even after Judith Curry pointed out more than once that due to the great uncertainty monster no one was denying anything and Andy Pitman’s claim of 10c warming in Sydney when the world has warmed 1c since 1750 was so unprofessional and unscientific that I expected Robyn baby to come out with his 100 metre sea level rise at any minute.

      Pitman also claimed that Judith Curry’s claim of the world being reduced by only 0.2c by the Paris agreement only applied to the US contribution whereas Lomborg’s peer reviewed paper says: •”Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO? leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.”

      Pitman is clearly a liar.

      Their lapse into temporary tolerance of sceptics was simply an exercise in bum-covering insurance and virtue signalling by a bunch of biased charlatans.

    • David says:

      Don’s contribution to the programme can be summarized as follows

      1. The 3rd IPCC report, contains “too much of this and not enough of that”

      2. All scientists prostitute themselves for money

      3. There is no convincing research paper, which supports AGW

      4. AGW poses the same risk to humanity as an asteroid hitting earth

      5. The US should cut EPA in half in half and dismantle NASA’s Goddard Institute.

      • Don Aitkin says:

        My small part in the production is the result of 30 to 40 minutes of interviewing. It’s not inaccurate as it stands, but is not at all my whole response. For those doubtless puzzled by David’s attempt at a summary above, here is my gloss:

        1. ‘The 3rd IPCC report, contains “too much of this and not enough of that”’
        DA: The Third Report focused overwhelmingly on CO2, and hardly at all on natural variability.

        2. ‘All scientists prostitute themselves for money’
        DA: All of us who apply for research money need to follow the rules, and try to wriggle past them in order to do the research that we want to do. The word ‘prostituting’ came from the interviewer.

        3. ‘There is no convincing research paper, which supports AGW’
        DA: I have yet to see a research paper which shows beyond doubt that increasing levels of CO2 will lead to disaster, catastrophe, for the world, or at least for humanity. Happy to hear of any from any reader, even David.

        4. ‘AGW poses the same risk to humanity as an asteroid hitting earth.’
        DA: That catastrophe seems to me of about the same likelihood as that of an asteroid hitting the earth.

        5. ‘The US should cut EPA in half in half and dismantle NASA’s Goddard Institute’.
        DA: We were all asked what we thought of President Trump’s actions so far, including the budget reductions for EPA and the pushing of NASA away from climate studies. I am enthusiastically in favour of both.

        I think my glosses make much better sense, as well as being much more accurate.

  • Neville says:

    Don, I just listened to your link and it was very disappointing, but I think the sceptics did as good a job as they could given the expected setup from their ABC.
    Andy Chapman was hopeless and was wrong about so many of his claims that you wonder what planet he was talking about.
    Dr Curry did a very good job with the little time allotted to her and at times her laughter added support to her doubts.
    BTW Lomberg was misquoted by omission and one only has to look at his later articles and you tube presentations to understand that this is the case.
    Their mitigation claims are definitely just BS and fra-d and Pitman’s sensitivity feedbacks to co2 emissions are ridiculous. Even Santer, Mann and Mears now understand that the models show too much warming.

    • Chris Warren says:


      You forgot to mention that some models underestimate the extent of global warming. You can see the relationship of models to reality here:

      Please print this out and place it under your pillow at night.

      You also did not mention the sheer swamp of your “BS and fra-d ” emanating from Monckton and his Moonies as shown here:

      Mad ‘ol Monckton tried to respond on the wattsupwiththat blog but could not even bring himself to address the real criticisms. Instead he tried to rewrite them and winge about his fake version.

      As Monckton said:

      I shall answer some of his silly allegations. I noted them down rather hastily, since I am disinclined to waste much time on him, so the sentences in quote-marks may not be word for word what he said, but I hope that they fairly convey his meaning.

      So Monckton, only notes things down “hastily” does not quote accurately, and spins different meanings than what others are actually saying.

      This is high fraud.

  • Thorfinn says:

    Frankly,I don’t know how Pitman got his degree. He tried to debate Monckton and, I think Jo Nova. He came out of these debates poorly. A good reason why intelligent people eschew this AGW fallacy. Third- rate scientist seeking relevance.

  • Brian Austen says:

    This gives me an opportunity to air an observation on the warming/coal fired power concern of many.

    I am a fan of Australian football despite my gripes with its corporatisation by the AFL.

    A fair slice of its roster now involves games played under lights, at night. I don’t know how much power is consumed. But it seems to me that if the warming is as dire as many argue, at least someone would be pointing out this fact.

    The lights are not powered by batteries or solar collectors, although some wind power might be used some of the time. Not a word of criticism by anyone. It is not necessary to have matches at night, certainly not Thursday nights.

    Does this mean then that football crowds are comprised entirely of deniers?

    • Neville says:

      But Brian even the Labor party must be deniers, because they will export as much coal and gas as they can if they win the next election.
      IOW they couldn’t care less about increasing co2 emissions at all. But they really object to Aussies also having cheap, reliable power at home. Exporting is great but using it at home is a crime apparently.
      On ABC Sunday’s OZ all over Macca got stuck into them about not using coal here in OZ and said they are crazy. Insanity rules.

  • Neville says:

    Another good post from Jo Nova on the perils of their delusional CAGW. I suppose we could laugh if it wasn’t so ridiculous.

  • Neville says:

    Another top post from Judith Curry taking on the extreme CAGW bullies.

    And Dr Pat Michaels writes that the national science assessment should be redirected or terminated.

  • Chris Warren says:


    … those who create a great fuss about the Thermageddon awaiting us are doing nothing of real consequence to reduce the risk through their own behaviour. Rather, they want government to compel the rest of us to behave as they want us to behave.

    This is naive and opportunist. It is also undemocratic. The solution to global warming has nothing to do with individual micro, feel good, exercisesfor the global middle class to make some token adjustments to their over-carbonated existence. We need a lifestyle within which everyone has the same access to sustainable GHG emissions. Sitting around and bragging about worm farms and recycling is pointless in the scheme of things. Why should denialists travel the world in jet planes demanding that others ride around on donkeys?

    Nobody wants the government to compel any one to behave to any other extent than to ensure long-term public safety. If you do not see this is the overarching need then you do not understand the threat of global warming.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “Why should denialists travel the world in jet planes demanding that others ride around on donkeys?”

      Sorry, blith, you’re a bit confused there [what’s new?]. It’s your alarmist, sandwich-board wearing mates that do this.

      Sceptics don’t care what others do.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Oh, dear! Looks like the 97% club haven’t done things properly after all:

    “Scientific Consensus Up In Smoke: ‘Big Bang Theory Is Wrong, Basic Maths Is Incorrect’”

  • spangled drongo says:

    This agrees with my observations in Moreton Bay from a similar time.

    Sea levels have actually fallen:

    “Most recently, during the majority buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere, the sea level at Goa fell by approximately 20 cm over the period 1955-1962, thereafter experiencing, in the words of Mörner, “a virtually stable level over the last 50 years.”‘

  • Chris Warren says:


    Record heat has strange effects:

    If it was natural variability it would have occurred previously.

    But it is three days of record temperatures:

  • Chris Warren says:

    This could be a bit of a pointer to our future:

    “Last year, 130 people died of heat-related causes in Maricopa County, the most yet in a decade of tracking, and the risk has grown with the exposure to heat: The hot season has lengthened by a month in the last century.”


    “She was the third person to die from heat this year in Maricopa County. She was unconscious and badly sunburned on the sidewalk beside her house when her husband and daughter returned from the game and found her.

    She lived for two more weeks in intensive care, but her organs had failed after she lay in the sun for hours.

    Her family believes she walked a mile to the store to get fresh fruit and fell just short of home on her return trip. They held a memorial in Arizona and one back in Michigan.”

    More at:

    • spangled drongo says:

      The blitherer is getting desperate.

      Gone from the troposphere to bitumen road blisters to support his panic.

      Can’t remember his childhood.

      Sure sign of set-in dementia.

      Rationality gone-with-the-wind.

      It’s called weather, blith.

  • tripitaka says:

    How’s this for “blither” drongo? Crazy Kates writes on your go to place for ‘real’ news and balanced opinion (lol)

    “During the just concluded meeting of the North American society of historians of economic thought I made a major effort to find at least one other attendee among the other 200 who would be willing to make a single positive statement about the election of Donald Trump as president. They may all have been academics and therefore hopelessly lost, but even so, some were from the reddest of red states, some were from universities with a reputation for being on the right, some were from counties directly threatened by mortal enemies who Trump has promised to defend them against, but not a single one was willing even to murmur, even with just the two of us huddled together, speaking quietly and with no one else within a hundred yards, that a case for Trump as president could be made.”

    And yet right wing people still think Trump is a winner and climate change isn’t a problem for the human species. It’s a yuuuuuge delusion that youall are nurturing with your denialism and hate speech. 🙂 It is to be hoped that if you do not have the cognitive ability to reassess your beliefs in the light of the evidence available, that you can maintain the rage to the grave or there will be some serious and tragic breakdowns happening as the world just keeps on turning to science and reason over right wing religious beliefs.

    • spangled drongo says:

      You are dead right for once trip.

      It sure is blither.

      Your anti-Trump blither awa that of those leftard academics is completely evidence-free and ideology-full as usual.

      I hang out with numerous “scientists” who have for the last 2 decades been bed-wetting over CAGW and it is very obvious that it has nothing to do with science or evidence. I have more than once politely declined their environmental assistance with endangered species simply because their ingrained stupidity would be much more of a hindrance than a help.

      They, like you and the rest of the blitherers, are completely impervious to what’s going on in the real world. Money and grants is only a small part of the ideology. But when I see the results of many of their other bad scientific conclusions it all adds up.

      When the seas are not rising and global warming is about one third of natural climate variability for the last 2 or 3 centuries you have to have a closed mind not to be a sceptic.

      And how long ago, trip, did Richard Feynman tell us “science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”?

      • spangled drongo says:

        But Feynman is turning in his grave:

        “The trouble with mainstream climate scientists is that they’re third-rate scientists, and the reason they’re third-rate is that they’re dishonest. My authority for this statement is physicist Richard Feynman (picturd), who has been dead for 29 years but was ranked by his peers as one of the ten greatest physicists of all time.”

      • tripitaka says:

        hahaha it’s not my anti-trump blither and it’s evidence of how lacking in rationality, how out of touch with the real world you and the other old men who apparently believe so strongly in your own ability despite all the evidence. Anyone would think that you had been taught by left wing teachers who told you that you could be anything you want to be; just believe in yourself.

        So easy for you drongo to see through the science? You didn’t need to study hard and long hours to get the results that would get you into a science or math or physics course at uni and the marks that would allow you to go on to do research. Drongo don’t need any recognised degrees or qualifications; it’s all just commonsense for a man of your ability?

        And those who did bother to put their noses to the grindstone and put years into studying are really in your judgement fools and charlatans who did it because they knew that there is big money to be had applying for government grants to prove something that isn’t happening.

        But do stop calling yourself a sceptic; you are a denier and apparently a denier of other branches of science not just climate science. The neuroscience evidence that underpins Haidt’s work is nonsense too, according to you? The real sceptics in the Sceptical Society refuse to “associate themselves with the climate change scepticism movement”.

        Do you remember what year it was when scientists stopped finding knowledge and became so inept that someone as uneducated as you can see right through them and discern what is going on in the world?

        Don’t tell me that Fenyman would have been a ‘sceptic’. He explained how to do science and he said; “I’m going to discuss how we would look for a new law. First we guess it… Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what it would imply. And then we compare those computation results… directly to observation to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong, In that simple statement, is the key to science.”

        There are no experiments that have been done that invalidate the computations climate scientist have done to prove their guess about the way the climate is changing. Your observations done on your rock are a joke. You can’t believe that your measurments are good enough to compete with the computations that scientists are making? Surely nobody can be that arrogant and ignorant?

        In 1913 though University of California physics professor Richard Muller is an example of a scientist who lived up to that advice and changed his skeptical stance on climate change when his own “BEST” study produced data that conflicted with his preconceived notions. He now admits that climate change is caused by human activity.

        In another noteworthy example of a scientist who admitted he got it wrong, Dr. Robert Spitzer, the psychiatrist who, in a 2001 paper, touted that gays could be “cured,” reversed his position and apologized for his “fatally flawed, study. I believe I owe the gay community an apology,” Spitzer wrote in a letter.

        “Wrongness is something we all secretly or openly dread…… in the abstract, we all understand that we’re fallible, but on the personal level, we leave little to no room for being wrong.”

        Read the article and try and be big enough to admit you are wrong about almost everything that is going on in the real world.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Another evidence-free rant from trip.

          Try some facts for a change.

          Warming is of the order of 1c since 1750. Even the consensuals agree to that and that is about one third the rate of nat var.

          Please show evidence where I am wrong.

          “Your observations done on your rock are a joke. You can’t believe that your measurments are good enough to compete with the computations that scientists are making? Surely nobody can be that arrogant and ignorant?”

          You don’t only blither, trip, or fail to quote evidence but you don’t pay attention either.

          Please check my comment and link of yesterday June 27, 2017 at 7:26 pm

          That peer reviewed science paper agrees totally with my observations.

          Please show evidence where we are wrong.

          Global warming is happening but is below the rate of natural climate variability that has applied during the Holocene period of the last 80 centuries and current sea levels are simply not rising because warming has not exceeded nat var.

          At some stage you have to stop blithering and produce some evidence if you wish to prove the contrary.

          You can’t just quote flawed models like the alarmists do and expect to be taken seriously.

        • margaret says:

          Good article I thought.

        • spangled drongo says:

          “Don’t tell me that Fenyman [sic] would have been a ‘sceptic’”

          Well, I doubt that he would have supported you blithering alarmists.

          Here’s your big chance to learn some scientific integrity, tripluv:

          “Surely You’re Crying, Mr Feynman

          Back in 1974, the US physicist and polymath warned graduating students of ‘cargo cult science’ and the careerist urge to confirm the flawed orthodoxy of earlier and inaccurate results. Climate “science” was then in its infancy but the trajectory of its corruption has confirmed all his worst fears:”

          • tripitaka says:

            Really drongo, such an outpouring of your frustrated anger. I don’t think that cathartis works but I hope you feel better after yoru outburst. All very emotional and impressive but still nothing that explains to me why you are such a polymath and climate change scientists are third rate.

            It’s hilarious that you have any idea what Feynman would have thought. And this out of the blue admiration for It is so obvious that all your talking points and opinions come from such a small and shrinking group of politically correct outlets.

            Quadrant is not a reputable source for ideas or opinion. It is just another of the shallow narrow and oh so politically correct outlets for right wing ideology and the magazine is boring and they haven’t published an original idea or a deep and meaningful thought for decades. But now I see why you imagine that you have any idea what Feynman would have thought.

            Feynman was an interesting person and particularly his relationship with Einstein. I’ve been reading about him for many years now. I can give you links to some interesting articles and opinions about him if you want.

            As for Trump, I don’t care about Russia. ‘m not a Clinton supporter and Obama was a big disappointment. Obama did do the health plan and he was blocked by the Repubs from doing other things that would have helped the American people who are suffering so badly from the neo-liberal policies and the level of inequality that has developed. But Obama and Clinton were war mongers and way too captured by Wall Street and the growth at all costs ideology.

            You need to stop thinking that the left are as lacking in diversity as right wing people are. In a way it’s like a screwdriver trying to understand an electric drill for you to try and understand me.

          • spangled drongo says:

            And your factual observations and evidence to support your claims awa messenger-shooting will be available when, tripluv???

            All you are doing is demonstrating the mindless, unreasoning hate of the left for anything that opposes their ideology.

            Sceptics, OTOH, welcome any new ideas that are supported by at least some facts.

            For example, when they have been involved with a sea front property for over 70 years that they helped develop and build improvements on that were initially flooded by fine weather king tides because the land elevation did not allow higher construction and houses were simply built on high stumps as an affordable solution but things like wells, jetties and lawns had to endure this flooding at highest astronomical tides, and then, after many years, these HAT floodings ceased to occur, no rational person would claim that sea levels are increasing.

            And when an “expert” tells you that you are mistaken and instead of falling sea levels, what you are really witnessing is dangerously rising and accelerating sea levels.

            Do you really think that the “evidence” that is produced by these “experts” is sufficient to convince the observer of those falling HATs that they are mistaken?

            But seeing as you agree with them and call those observations a joke, perhaps you can supply some convincing evidence to the contrary.

            But then, if you can’t perhaps you would be man [or woman] enough to admit it.

          • spangled drongo says:

            In case you can’t handle my link here are some data:

            “Sea levels were lower than present in the early 1500s, then rose to a height of approximately 50 cm above the current stand in the 17th century. Thereafter, it dropped again to near-previous low levels in the 18th century before rising again to a height approximately 20 cm above present in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Most recently, during the majority buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere, the sea level at Goa fell by approximately 20 cm over the period 1955-1962, thereafter experiencing, in the words of Mörner, “a virtually stable level over the last 50 years.”‘

            I hadn’t checked my site since 1953 but around 6 years ago [and each year since] I discovered the fall in sea levels there which ties in with the above.

          • tripitaka says:

            drongo I’ve presented lots and lots of evidence for my conclusion that there is a psychological or social or an ideological reason that underpins the denialism religion.

            These bits of data that you present do not convince me because I have no reason to think that you can see significance in things that real scientists have not taken into account. I have no reason to think that there is any sort of non-science going on or that climate change scientists “prostitute” themselves for grant money or just want to get on “the gravy train”.

            The Koch brothers provide funding for scientists who can prove that the dominant paradigm of climate change isn’t true but this hasn’t happened. Why not?

            Have you listened to The Science Show program about Climate Change?


            It is clear to me that deniers are motivated by personal reasons and some of them are so resentful it really is sad or SAD even. There was no evidence in their arguments of any desire to be objective or to find the truth. The worshipping of Trump and the denigration of left wing people that I heard is all part of the delusion.

            I bet you are also outraged by the Pell thing eh? Another horrible thing that the evil left is doing to a good man you’d say? It’s all so predictable. So boring keeping up with the right wing outrage machine.

          • spangled drongo says:

            So, trip, you are not only not woman enough to admit that you can’t contest my evidence but you have the gall to list Robyn [100 metres] Williams as an authority on science?

            This is what the same Robyn Williams claimed:

            “Andrew Bolt: Dean of science…suggesting rising seas this next century of up to 100 metres, or Al Gore six metres. When I see things like that I know these are false. You mentioned the IPCC report; that suggests, at worst on best scenarios, 59 centimetres.

            Robyn Williams: Well, whether you take the surge or whether you take the actual average rise are different things.

            Andrew Bolt: I ask you, Robyn, 100 metres in the next century…do you really think that?

            Robyn Williams: It is possible, yes.”

            You are totally clueless and pathetic, trip. Go and study some science and stop wasting our time here.

          • tripitaka says:

            Yes yes drongo. Andrew Bolt is the greatest scientist/intellect on earth. Everyone can see that. His tv show ratings are through the roof and the greatest minds are queuing up to be interviewed by him. 🙂

    • spangled drongo says:

      Trip stays silent and thinks: “if the big kids can blither, well, why can’t I?

      “Scientific Consensus Up In Smoke: ‘Big Bang Theory Is Wrong, Basic Maths Is Incorrect’”

    • spangled drongo says:

      When Trumpnews is never verified and the leftards want more, more, more, the sky is the limit:

      “Trump Rips NYT for Writing ‘False Story After False Story’

      President Donald Trump blasted The New York Times in a Wednesday morning tweet for writing false stories about him: “The failing @nytimes writes false story after false story about me. They don’t even call to verify the facts of a story. A Fake News Joke!”‘

  • spangled drongo says:

    You lot are not the only blitherers on the block not doing things properly:

    “CNN confesses to making yet more ‘mistakes’ in savaging Trump. And a CNN producer is caught on tape admitting its claims of Trump colluding with Russia is “mostly bulls..t” that it’s pushing to get better ratings.”

  • spangled drongo says:

    If the Paris agreement was designed to do things properly, Australia should be rewarded, not penalised:

    “Annual Australian per capita CO2 emissions are in the order of 20 tonnes per person. There are 30 hectares of forest and 74 hectares of grassland for every Australian and each hectare annually sequesters about 1 tonne of CO2 by photosynthesis. CO2 is plant food. On the continental Australian landmass, Australians are removing by natural sequestration more than three times the amount of CO2 they emit. Crops remove even more CO2 from the atmosphere. Australia’s net contribution to atmospheric CO2 is negative and this is confirmed by the net CO2 flux estimates from the IBUKI satellite CO2 data set.

    Australia’s continental shelf is 2,500,000 square kilometres in area. Carbon dioxide dissolves in ocean water and the cooler the water, the more CO2 dissolves in water. Living organisms extract dissolved CO2 and calcium from seawater to build corals and shells. This natural marine sequestration locks away even more Australian emissions of CO2 and adds to the negative contribution of atmospheric CO2 made by Australia.

    Using the thinking of the IPCC, UN and activist green groups, Australia should be very generously financially rewarded with money from populous, desert and landlocked countries for removing from the atmosphere its own emitted CO2 and the CO2 emissions from many other nations.”

  • spangled drongo says:

    Doing things properly. Aren’t green solutions wonderful?:

  • Neville says:

    Yet more evidence of the 21st century warming pause. The Xie et al 2017 study has also shown a robust pause in warming.

    Here’s the Co2 Science summary of the study and the link.

    And what did those analyses reveal?

    “In the words of Xie et al., they say that “using the CRU grid data and CMA regular surface meteorological observations, we showed the robustness of the warming hiatus that occurred in China,” which “was mainly induced by the cooling trend during the cold seasons.” Indeed, as shown by the black lines in the figure below, the annual mean temperature of both datasets increased through 1998, but thereafter a warming pause is evident (see the gray-shaded portion of the record). And, as revealed by the solid blue lines in the figure, this pause is clearly dominated by a cooling trend during the cold months of the year (November through March).

    Those who continue to deny the existence of the current warming pause would be wise to accept the reality of the data presented here by Xie et al. and elsewhere by so many others. It does exist, and it does add to the ever-growing mountain of evidence that warming due to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations is unlikely to be dangerous. It is time for policy makers around the world to wise up to this reality and shut down the climate-warming cabal by cutting climate change research funding and pulling out of the Paris Accord and the Rio Framework Convention”.

  • Neville says:

    Not much warming shown in this Rocky Mountains wilderness. Here’ a link to the 2008 Kipfmueller et al study from Co2 Science.

    And a 119 year study of the Icelandic SST found higher temps during the early 20th century when compared to today’s temps. Here’s a link to the Hanna et al study summary from Co2 Science.

  • Neville says:

    Another new PR study has found that climate models could be in error because we don’t understand the rate of water loss in plants. Here’s a review and the study.
    “Overlooked water loss in plants could throw off climate models

    Errors could cause researchers to overestimate the rate of photosynthesis when water is scarce.

    Heidi Ledford

    28 June 2017
    Article tools
    Rights & Permissions

    “In dry conditions, leaves might lose more water through their outer surfaces than scientists suspected.

    Videvo/CC BY 3.0

    Errors in how scientists account for water loss from leaves may be skewing estimates of how much energy plants make through photosynthesis, according to the latest research. This in turn could jeopardize models of how individual leaves function and even of the global climate. The errors are particularly pronounced when a plant’s water supply is limited — a condition of increasing interest as plant breeders and climate scientists grapple with the effects of global warming.

    “If you’re trying to understand why a crop you’re growing or a particular plant is able to survive and do better under drier conditions, you may misinterpret that,” says plant physiologist David Hanson of the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque. Hanson presented his findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Plant Biologists in Honolulu, Hawaii, on 25 June.

    Researchers have long assumed that the main way that plants lose water is through leaf pores called stomata. When water is abundant, the stomata open wide to let carbon dioxide flow in — maximizing photosynthesis, but allowing water to exit. Plants also lose moisture through a leaf’s waxy outer surface, or cuticle, but this effect has been considered negligible.”

  • Neville says:

    Yet another new PR study looks at models versus data and the warming patterns around the globe.

    But have increasing co2 emissions really controlled the climate since the Industrial revolution?

  • margaret says:

    “Capitalism is often a slightly less brutal economic equivalent of slavery, with an owner class that has a generally equitable share of the economy, and a laborer class that has almost nothing and survives by working for the owners. Without social programs, and laws to prevent large corporations from affecting government policy, capitalism seems to inevitably lead to increased poverty and political corruption.”

    • Neville says:

      Marg, read this and you might understand the real world from 1900 through to 2050. All the data have come from UN sources and are freely available.
      Of course Dr Hans Rosling used the same data to try and improve our knowledge about the real planet earth with his online videos.
      Rosling is a world health expert and was financed by the US State dept to try and educate people, although it’s a hard task.

    • tripitaka says:

      The Grenfell Tower tragedy is clear evidence of how brutal capitalism is and how the profit motive debases and corrupts human behaviour. Those who involved in the decision to chose to install the cheaper cladding may not not be particularly bad people but they made decisions on the basis of the capitalist imperative that has been so ubiquitous of both sides of politics over the past few decades and are no responsible for such a tragedy.

      • margaret says:

        It’s telling that no-one has a cogent argument for why rampant capitalism is so wonderful for the human race … is it because the ‘I’m alright Jack’ mentality creeps up insidiously as the ‘winners’ climb further up the slippery pole?
        If Russia was so backward before the Bolsheviks didn’t they improve things for the masses? Just wondering …

        • tripitaka says:

          I think that the only thing that comes close to a cogent argument for rampant capitalism is that trickle down would happen and all the boats would be raised.

          The faux rational glibertarian economic arguments that were underpinned by the appallingly ignorant and now totally discredited assumptions that people are rational and good people always make good choices were very attractive to a lot of people. Particularly when ordinary people didn’t have access to any balanced discussion thanks to the mainstream media being owned by such a small and elite group of wealthy white men.

          • Bryan Roberts says:

            Do you realise how frequently derogatory references to ‘white men’ appear in your posts?

            You admit to xenophobia, but seem to be blind to your own racial bigotry.

          • tripitaka says:

            Hmmm I do like to consider my faults and failings. So more information would be good for me.

            Have you counted the times I derogate white men compared to the times I laud them, for example, my father my sons and Jeremy Corbyn? Did you do any statistical analysis on this data? I’d be interested in your methods and results? 🙂

            I may well be blind to my ‘racial bigotry’; I guess I learned it in my upbringing; that is where most of us acquire our prejudices but I’d have thought that my ‘bigotry’ is more focused than ‘white men’ and is aimed specifically at ‘well-off old white men who are Capitalists’. My father spoke very badly of this class of men and I do remember his advice to never trust a man in a suit.

            But Bryan let me ask you; do you see how you appear to others?

            Reading this passage from Bleak House by Dickens, about a rich old white man, it was you and a couple of the other old white Capitalistic men one finds here, who immediately sprang to my mind;

            “When he has nothing else to do, he can always contemplate his own greatness. It is a considerable advantage to a man to have so inexhaustible a subject. After reading his letters, he leans back in his carriage and reviews his importance to society”.

          • margaret says:

            “They say that Richard Cory owns one half of this whole town,
            With political connections to spread his wealth around.
            Born into society, a banker’s only child,
            He had everything a man could want: power, grace, and style.
            But I work in his factory
            And I curse the life I’m living
            And I curse my poverty
            And I wish that I could be,
            Oh, I wish that I could be,
            Oh, I wish that I could be
            Richard Cory.
            The papers print his picture almost everywhere he goes:
            Richard Cory at the opera, Richard Cory at a show.
            And the rumor of his parties and the orgies on his yacht!
            Oh, he surely must be happy with everything he’s got.
            But I work in his factory …”

            Capitalism = slavery

      • Chris Warren says:

        I was in London when this occurred and smelt the fumes drifting across the sky. From various press reports, it seems to me that the inaction was in local council actions and in actions and the capitalist (who is bankrupt) insists that all guidelines were followed. Of course this needs to be tested.

        If guidelines were to blame, then this suggests that even if the cladding was installed by a not-for-profit job creation scheme the result would have been the same.

        It is also possible that capitalist inspired cuts to public services and supposed cuts to “red-tape” have led to failures in regulatory systems or to lack of resources to update guidelines and standards.

        There were plenty of warnings issued to councils but nothing was done.

        • Chris Warren says:

          Bit of a screwed up sentance in the above.


          I was in London when this occurred and smelt the fumes drifting across the sky. From various press reports, it seems to me that the inaction was in local councils and the capitalist (who is bankrupt) insists that all guidelines were followed. Of course this needs to be tested.

        • tripitaka says:

          And they are being very quiet about the probably death which must be in the hundreds.

          • tripitaka says:

            now that is a badly phrased sentence. The probable death toll will be in the hundreds.

      • margaret says:

        I’ve seen footage of Boris Johnson scoffing at suggestions to a housing safety panel. I will try to find it again.

      • spangled drongo says:

        The Grenfell tower tragedy is solely the fault of local govt which is responsible for all materials used in construction and renovation work.

        It has nothing whatsoever to do with the principles and practices of capitalism.

        Local govt not only provide armies of taxpayer funded bureaucrats to carry out this work but they also design oceans of red and green tape supposedly to ensure that these disasters never occur.

        Based on thorough testing, local govt are supposed to regulate, specify and inspect all building materials and the way in which they are used.

        But it not only demonstrates an epic failure of nanny govt but it shows how leftards can delude themselves into believing the contractor, who is completely under control of these bureaucrats, is to blame.

        Does this remind you of any other leftard logic?

        Also, when capitalism makes mistakes, occasionally a few people die but when leftard favoured govts make mistakes, demonstrably millions can be killed.

        • spangled drongo says:

          The blitherers here are as bad as the bureaucrats responsible for the Grenfell disaster.

          Those bureaucrats are now blaming that Hotpoint fridge-freezer [built by capitalists, no less] instead of decades of their own incompetence for the fire.

          They refuse to accept that fires start in residences on a regular basis for all sorts of reasons but they are not supposed to develop into a towering inferno.

          • tripitaka says:

            hahaha you’ve done it again drongo and demonstrated how self-serving and irrational your cognitive processes are; how irrationally determined you are to avoid any objective analysis of the issues.

            Local govt do not have the ability to ensure that greedy and selfish individuals who are motivated solely by the impetus to make as much profit as possible for themselves and/or their shareholders obey the regulations. Local councils are not left wing and are, like the neo-liberal Labor party we have had over the last decades, willing and able to turn a blind eye to profit making that allows developers to ignore the safety regulations.

            Regulations are supposed to protect people from making bad choices and that is a responsible thing for a society to do unless you are wanting a dog eat dog world in which the strongest and nastiest wins all. There is nothing wrong with nannyism; it is daddyism and the patriarchy that are the problem for ordinary people and the reason why we don’t yet have fair and decent society and social justice.

            In many cases the silly regulations that everyone is frustrated by, become council policies through the efforts of ‘entrepreneurs’ who make profits from forcing certain regulations onto small businesses and community organisations. Who makes money from putting the morning tea bikkies in individual wrappers? Not the council; it’s the business that supplies the wrappers that wins from these sort of regulations.

            The other reason for the growth of silly regulations from councils is the fear of litigation and the anti-social entrepreneurs who make a profit from suing councils are right wing peeps who have adopted the radical individualism that John Anderson blathers or blithers on about in The Australian as he again shows that he doesn’t understand the work of Johnathan Haidt.

            You can read Anderson and his attempt to interpret Haidt to show that righties are better than lefties here.


            The problem was there were no sprinklers in the tower, not the fridges, lol. Watch out for those fridges. Some Labour MP’s are such neo-liberals as I explained above; there has been no leftism in western politics for decades now. I think Corbyn is getting rid of some of these right wing people who pretend to be leftists and it’s looking good for a return to real Labour polices in the UK based on the support for him from the young people there.

          • spangled drongo says:

            It’s not hard to see where the ignorant blitherers get their ideas from.

            Tripluv, are you trying to tell us that builders can carry out work on these tower blocks without approval and supervision?

            Or that the lack of sprinklers [or using non-approved cladding, or any other material possibly responsible for the disaster] is due to anything other than lack of regulation and/or supervision?

            And please spare us from your brainless websites.

            Don’t make yourself out to be sillier than you already are.

  • Neville says:

    Perhaps the German people are starting to wake up to the Wind energy fra-d and con? Let’s hope the people continue to use their brains and vote out more of these stupid politicians.

    “The De Facto End Of Wind Turbine Forests”. New Policy In Germany Sends Powerful Signals!

    By P Gosselin on 28. June 2017

    “Germany’s wind energy industry is suddenly facing fierce headwinds, and wind energy opponents are cheering wildly!

    Yesterday Germany’s most populated state, North Rhine Westphalia, voted in a new government. The old government consisting of a coalition between the SPD Socialists and the Green Party were booted out in recent state elections, and since yesterday have been replaced by a new coalition of the CDU “conservatives” and the more free-market-friendly FDP Free Democrats.

    Last evening the German ZDF news reported here that FDP party chief Christian Lindner has announced much tougher regulations for wind parks in the state. This sends a strong signal to the wind industry nationally, and now they are worried.

    Wind energy opponents cheer Christian Lindner (photo) of the German FDP Free Democrats. Photo credit: Olaf Kosinsky ( Lizenz: CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

    At the 11:00 mark news anchorman Claus Kleber tells viewers that there is no other issue where the differences between the old and new government in North Rhine Westphalia could be greater than it is energy policy. According to Kleber:

    The result is the de facto end of the further installation of wind park forests.”

    The junior coalition partner Free Democrats have managed to convince the larger ruling CDU to accept far more stringent rules for permitting wind parks, namely a minimum setback distance of 1500 meters from any residential home.

    The new rules mean the end for many planned projects. It’s a “battle-cry on wind projects”, Kleber notes. Lindner has had it with the “politics of subsidies”.

    At the 12:20 mark Lindner is seen stating that the out-of control installation of wind energy has “not been ecological” and instead it is “ideological” and “clearly has served the business interests of a single sector“.
    No chance to reach climate targets

    Naturally the wind industry reacted to Lindner’s plans with concern. Jan Dobertin of the Renewable Energy Association [14:34] said the new rules mean there would be no chance for the state to reach its climate target. Ironically, while Germans continue to attack Trump for backing out of the Paris Accord, they too are in fact backing out – and doing so with real action.

    Currently there are over 27,000 turbines installed throughout Germany, 3345 in North Rhine Westphalia, the ZDF segment shows. During the state election campaign Lindner made landscape blight by turbines a major issue, and this helped propel his Free Democrat Party to a record high result on election day.
    Fears wind energy rejection will go national

    The ZDF and the wind industry now fear Lindner’s campaign will spread across Germany as the September national election approaches. Wind energy lobbyist Dobertin ranted at the ZDF [13:29]:

    We are simply afraid that the installation of wind energy, which over the past years across the country, and also here in North Rhine Westphalia, which has developed very well, will be choked off — and naturally jobs, nationwide 120,000 workers in the sector, which now are massively at risk, and that we are backing off from the transition to renewable energies and climate protection.”

    The ZDF concludes the segment by stating that planned projects in the state now face powerful head winds. Chilly winds are indeed now blowing for the German wind industry. Planners have now been warned.”

  • Neville says:

    South Australians will pay the highest prices for electricity in the world from next week. Prices are set to jump 18% next week and S Aussies will then be paying more for their electricity than Denmarkians.

    I hope the S&W loonies are happy with this result after these Labor donkeys blew up their last coal fired station. Of course jobs and businesses are already suffering because of their stupidity. And Shorten wants to extend this same lunacy to the rest of OZ as soon as he wins the next election. OH and no measurable difference to the climate or temp by 2040 or 2100. Just ask Dr Hansen.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Good to see NOAA doing things properly for a change.

    The continental US has now had 140 months without a cat 3 or above hurricane.

    The longest previous similar hurricane drought was 96 months between 1860 and 1869

    What’s not to like about a little nat var warming even if NOAA are predicting worse to come:

  • Neville says:

    More Green lunacy that promoted the use of Biofuels to be used in the EU and other parts of the world. The use of corn and palm oil for use as biofuels was a disaster and yet the EU, Gore, other govts encouraged this madness.

    Rainforests around the world have been destroyed to grow more palm oil etc because of the CAGW scare and Fra-d promoted by these prominent left wing loonies. Now the UN, EU, Gore and other loons etc have changed their tune. Unbelievable but true and here is a link and excerpt.
    “Why palm oil should not be used as a bio diesel

    As the burning of fossil fuels for transport is a significant contributor to global greenhouse emissions, the use of biofuels has been promoted as an effective way of reducing global emissions.

    However, any analysis of the benefits of biofuels needs to include not just its actual use in a vehicle, but also the emissions created during the complete production cycle of that biofuel. It also needs to look at the wider economic and social picture surrounding a particular biofuel and its feedstock.

    “It is clear that in the absence of low emissions or emissions free transport solutions (that do not have indirect negative impacts elsewhere), the simple solution to reducing transport emissions is to drive less, and develop the public transport system.”

    Oles Krolikowski, Earth Rescue. September 2008

    “In 1992, as I flew into Kuala Lumpur, the capital of Malaysia, I gazed out at the expanse of oil-palm plantations surrounding almost the entire city and wanted to weep. I knew I was looking at the future landscape of Central Kalimantan in Indonesia. The Government of Central Kalimantan had just indicated it was going to encourage oil-palm plantations throughout the entire province to supplant the declining forestry sector.”

    Prof Biruté Galdikas, Orangutan Foundation International.”

    • spangled drongo says:

      Thanks Neville. I see the outcome of some of these green agendas on a daily basis and I want to weep also. I correspond with my local wildlife society [which I used to support financially but now refuse to because of their stupidity] to point some of these unacceptable awa unexpected and irresponsible outcomes and how they can rectify the situation but they just blindly carry on with their bad practices.

      But this one was exceptionally bad. Biofuel, like most RE is a lose/lose for the environment but the green “carers” just shut their eyes.

      Is it the money? The side? The ideology? Probably all three but it sure ain’t common sense. And sadly, they are not learning from their dreadful mistakes.

      The good RE solutions [how to do things properly] are staring them in the face but they are just too obtuse to realise it.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Neville, more green stupidity aka “when you’re surrounded by friends they say the crud never ends”:

  • spangled drongo says:

    These non-fracking States and Territories expect to go “green” and not pull their weight yet have the rest of the country stump up for them:

  • spangled drongo says:

    Jo Nova reminds us how well modern, warmist govts look after their constituents by wasting their money and increasing emissions:

    … energy spokes­man Dan van Holst Pellekaan said. “Rather than spend $8m a year to keep the (coal-fired) Northern Power Station operating, Jay Weatherill has chosen to spend up to $100m a year on diesel generation until the government turns on its promised new gas generator in two years’ time.”

    – The Australian, Michael Green.

  • David says:

    If capitalism worked as well as chearleaders like you suggest we would not need to double check their work

    • Neville says:

      DUH and your point is? Please Dave can we have more?

    • spangled drongo says:

      Davie-dum-dums, it wasn’t a lack of quality work that was the prollem, it was the complete lack of the horrendously expensive, prepaid, bureaucratic supervision, inspection and specification of the materials that were used that was responsible for the disaster.

  • spangled drongo says:

    It was cold at our place this am at 9c doing my twice daily wildlife survey but Canberra was MINUS 9c!!!

    This gorebul worming is killing me:

Leave a Reply