Sunday, August 9, 2020

Coronavirus crisis --

 Lots of things can kill us,  but variations on the threats from respiratory failure will always feature among the worst because our lungs are a tennis courts of great inspiration and opportunity especially as substrates for infection. ...  and especially when we are vulnerable 
Like when we standout side our house in arctic breeze to greet our friends  because the Andrews government has decided we can longer meet by the fire  in our homes .
 
All the threats not just one  conveniently named threat ( mere description attempts ) 
So why have  the ongoing threats from a virus infection we have uncomfortably lived with in various forms for decades become the reason to close down our society in the middle of 2020. Its not as though we really know how to stop these variations and associations of microbes  and the failure of our comon means of inoculation from working, Things like hooping cough and antibiotic  resistance have come back to remind us that our technology for dealing with the threats of nature are not as strong as we like to think them to be  . We appear to  standing on the edge of  a cliff ,but is it just a virus ? - clearly not 

That's the point - we are in a panic mode . Suddenly the optimism that comes with technological faith is shown to be not working( as it does when you can't in crisis back fill the cracks as governments normally do )

Epidemiologists the world over would have been shocked how the crass political mind has jumped at straws that are NOT proven to be helpful
-( masks( any masks)
-- tracing ( mouth to mouth when it might be mist to mist)
-arrowto the heart presumptions ( you get the risk you are done for)
- no discusion of herd immunity 

-sanitisation ;
-the vain hope idea of inoculation   
Expensive unproven ideas that even distract people from doing what measures we know do help ( sterilization of hard surfaces)  to things we know do not ( sterilization of substrates- like our hands _) The medai too seem to milk the "fear motivates factor" by not publishing or asking questions about tracing asymptomatic 'cases" and further defining them (eg  those people that die with COVID and those that die because of it ( as you would do with pneumonia )  

The confusion in Victoria has extended to running around with a bus to test find and fear antigen responses in crowded areas where one would normally be expected to find large numbers of " cases : herd immunity to be developing . Instead of seeing this as a good thing" the testers and tracing pedants whose view does not understand thresholds and the complex basis of the tests themselves ( measuring antibodies ; Not presence or absence of the virus as is often presumed) )

What ever happened to educating the public - bringing the people with you ? 
The Victorian government are  increasingly reverting back to their new bad habits of trying to coerce people rather than educate them . The idea that the people in charge know things is fine; not  bringing the people with you in a time of threat is not . For some of us it makes us think our leaders are their limits of their theological and scientific epistemology.

1.  No policy appears to be in place to help the public understand why  severely economic and social impacting measures are chosen and why exceptions for PC crowds and PC lifestyles are exempt) making Andrews government not only highly not credible, but in contempt  ) 
2. The normal nature and meaning of the waves is not explained resulting in predictable wild speculation about what CAN happen when what could be expected with waves is a sign of hope.  ( increasing herd immunity. If normal immunological expectations have changed,  the government should tell us - such sharing is also  the safest way to prevent the revolt which now looks like threatening the cooperation of the public ;

Mr Andrews shallow ideas of what works and how to deal with things comes to the fore -- instead of confidence that the country is doing its best to come together  to deal with the threats

Wednesday, January 15, 2020

Climate change

‘Climate change is based on science, but global warming is a theory ( AGW ) that humans are responsible and many of the top climate scientists do not support this theory’.
Dr Robert Balling:
"The IPCC notes that "NO significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected."
This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
Dr Lucka Bogataj:
"Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide DON’T cause global temperatures to rise.... temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed."
Dr John Christy:
"Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do NOT agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicised with each succeeding report."
Dr Rosa Compagnucci: "Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate."
Dr Richard Courtney:
"The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is WRONG."
Dr Judith Curry:
"I'm not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don't have confidence in the process."
Dr Robert Davis:
"Global temperatures have NOT been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would.
Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers."
Dr Willem de Lange:
"In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 "scientists" who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I DID NOT. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities."
Dr Chris de Freitas: "Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance' and predictions of computer models."
Dr Oliver Frauenfeld:
"Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it."
Dr Peter Dietze:
"Using a FLAWED eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake."
Dr John Everett:
"It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change.
I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is NOT a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios."
Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: "The IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation.
The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change."
Dr Lee Gerhard:
"I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA's James Hansen's wild claims in the late 1980s.
I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were FALSE."
Dr Indur Goklany:
"Climate change is unlikely to be the world's most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is NO signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk."
Dr Vincent Gray:
"The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of LIES."
Dr Mike Hulme:
"Claims such as '2500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are DISINGENUOUS ...
The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen."
Dr Kiminori Itoh:
"There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is NONSENSE and harmful."
Dr Yuri Izrael:
"There is NO proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally UNJUSTIFIED.
There is NO serious threat to the climate."
Dr Steven Japar: "Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is NON-EXISTANT.
This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them."
Dr Georg Kaser:
"This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude ... It is so WRONG that it is not even worth discussing."
Dr Aynsley Kellow:
"I'm not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how FLAWED it might be."
Dr Madhav Khandekar:
"I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have DISCOUNTED these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence."
Dr Hans Labohm:
"The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of SPIN-DOCTORING."
Dr Andrew Lacis:
"There is NO scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary.
The presentation reads like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department."
Dr Chris Landsea:
"I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically UNSOUND."
Dr Richard Lindzen:
"The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science.
It uses summaries to MISREPRESENT what scientists say and exploits public ignorance."
Dr Harry Lins:
"Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been NO net global warming for over a decade now.
The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."

Wednesday, November 21, 2018

Cheating -to get ahead

G K Chesterton, in a brillant picture of our predicament as inventive minds ( at the tender age of only 30) shows how easily we play a certain game .A game that, in real life, is wrong
Cheating the Prophets.( see link for the source)
Fine, when you are a child do it as speculation,  but as he later points in his review of his biography on Shaw ( after the second world war ) such otherworldliness ( one worldliness?)
IS  dangerous and destructive if it only perpetuates homelessness and cynical and reactionary merry go rounds.

As the commandment rightly insists ;; cheating is stealing and its not good for you. Its not only not good for you its not good for the community .  If you ask, you will recieve .Think Big

Saturday, April 23, 2016

Progressive


If we don't learn from the past we are doomed to repeat its worst mistakes . Until Niall ferguson arrived on the scene of big Ideas ABC last week my generation largely dismissed the idea that we were going to learn much from history . progressives have had their blinkers on and whether they like it not their faith system is quite foolishly simple and inadequate

Progressives amongst us treat us like dinosaurs if we talk of what worked , The assumption is that the future is in innovation (confusing some science with all science) "drop the old  dinosaurs"chatter often mean you ditch the foundations of the future
Such simpletons  fail to recognise that some of our most successful businesses copy others ( Dick Smiths ) AND that much economic and spiritual life is enjoying what works long term ( We will benefit before thinking change when we know why the old stuff works)

The worship of change as the savior is losing its shine as the formative ABC show Utopia shows so well.
The worship of change as the savior is losing its power  because participants , when they are not laughing , are noting that its not working and switching off

No generation has seen the huge number and terror of tyrants who really believe and promote the above "drop the unfit dinosaurs") find that their simple faith doesn't work ( Hitler Ammin , Pol Pot , Stalin etc )  Many who drop the past so quickly do it in faith - a faith that has lots of popular appeal , but doesn't work.

First SHAKESPEARE
I will let others tell the story, Having rejected the idea of the divine comedy we have no comedy
https://radio.abc.net.au/search?service_guid=RN-bay-20160423-7347170

Then CHESTERTON   "Progress is obviously the antithesis of independent thinking ....everyman starts at the beginning , and goes , in all probability , just as far as his father before him , But if there really be anything of the nature of progress , it must mean , above all things, the careful study and assumptions of the whole of the past. "    Heretics

more recently ELLUL and WHITEHEAD
From a blog entry of mine
J Ellul implies - worship of technique will subsume our ability 2 build on de old , A recipe for throwing away what might have been quite satisfactory

Monday, March 28, 2016

Innovation

If I as an innovator hear another shallow Ad from Malcolm's  name only solutions bureau I will throw up . No one needs more  paper ply to survive than a politician whose popular for the wrong reason - who looks good , sounds good when really things are not good ; when the rich rip off the poor and pretend to care.
When all you can do is name a problem ( who can't ) - Malcolm T and Donald T are populat  because they focus on it .
When your cut on the truth is as shallow as the public birdbath . When you are as rich as hell but not prepared to share. "you make me fell good about myself  is always the most popular way to go in such circumstances.
When you use all the right words for the day but forget about the lessons traditional meaning and its context in the full year lectionary.  When you live away from the real world and pretend to know it
The real drivers of productivity are in the german genius ( see the book )- respecting everyone's role and rewarding the most productive .
Malcolm Turnbull's policy is much more simple ;ripping off the innovative and respecting those who retail and get high margins for taking what's not theirs and reselling it .

My family are great innovators , but that means they back their own ideas with the little money they have .  They only ever develop and remain innovators if they know there stuff and get it right --over decades. They would join the huge class of hangers on if they , like most , failed to really know how the thing works - to be successful their own way . See my book  "The Australian Genius".    ( About the miner in us) To teach that a job done well is a job done successfully is the key . They don't even teach that in schools these days -- just get high marks like Tumbull gets high margins.

The media ,by contrast,  as representative of the majority who only think they know how the thing works, are agreed - we will tell you how to succeed . ie make a profit a big profit . Like mixing oil with water.
The world is not a monopoly of monoculture of business who know how to get a decent margin year or fie  but a living diversity of symbiotic parts. Heaven too is not everon e doing the same thing and discussing the price of their shares .
Turnbull policies are killing off innovators and he doesn't even know it - let alone why. Success is not indicated by the size of your bank balance but your efforts on the ground
Such is the paradox that real innovators always succeed - its just that they don't get paid in the same way as dummies do.
Blokes like Malcolm Turnbull have got rich , not so much by backing innovators but by asset stripping innovative institutions that build on the hard work of innovators . Its parasites like that who prevent people taking risks because,  in the end,  it only takes a bit of capital the innovator never has to leverage him/her out of his key role in industry .As for taxes!!!
With Malcolm's friends advocating their high margin driven policy of "how to get rich "they forget we can't all get rich that way ; the way of trumping  the real innovators .
For all there bluster we can only hope that they aren't all  Australian versions of  Donald TRUMP . How terrifyingly simple.
The greatest evil is done in the name of the best invention intention.

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Bullying

Yes it's a big problem . .
My problem is that no one can expect a new class program to reverse the growth in non coping with anger and assertiveness.
It's a world view problem that will only be better resolved by recognising we have somehow told ourselves,  as a post Christian culture, that  it is right to put the individual ( not the parent or teacher) in charge ..That such rampant individulaism actually works ( those watching our own cultural demose can see it) ..
We must find a way to give authority back to both parties before mere word stating reactions like "this is now a problem " will make a difference .
We now call anger a sin when for thousands of years we were told and trained to call it a risk ; the classical post modern crap of letting correlation be seen as  causation , We weren't taught to sit on it like we are now ; were taught to deal with it .We weren't tutored in the desperate art of denial ( somehow adrenalin is not mentioned) but in the realistic art of expressing yourself . Minister Cash wants men to not be angry and just show respect ( Today ) This is foolish unnatural unworkable blind religious talk  of a new kind
 Calling it a sin means we are tempted  to deny it in ourselves( a simple reality) and then  say the outward expression of it in others is "deeply wrong" . Jesus the master spoke to the inside , most moderns are hopelessly lost trying to read from the outside.
Our post Christian culture has no effective way of dealing with this projection guilt and denial; A program to" fix it " must involve radical surgery of ideas not the patches governments and reactionary medicine men will apply .
Denying that the old way is now wrong is denying history and experience . Denial leads to fanaticism and there is plenty of that in program ideas for schools at the moment. Watch it grow and fester as evidence of the denial it is.

Any wise parent with more than one child learns to deal with bullying before the kids go to school , So why would anyone expect a mere " education program ' at school to really resolve these things?.
I fully accept that school can be the place where modelling how to cope with bullying can occur ( mainly through individual modelling and personal coping strategies )but  only those who have never left school think you can deal with it easily in class .
Attitude standards is a very sensitive issue and hard work driving many teachers away from jobs they once loved - you can also be expected end up ALONE if you try to teach values carelessly making kids feel guilt and shame ; Whatever good you do there is more of the same behind the sheltershed.

It's also wrong to categorize all perceived "bullying "  as wrong .Calling a spade a spade is calling a real sin a real sin and not getting diverted-( precision helps )- that of course was the old way which is the only way it works .( precision a prerequisites= )
Now - people are confused--- is it natural to lie or be aggressive
Yet years ago , telling a lie shouldn't mean you are called a liar - thats the law of lible .To call someone a liar is an offence under the eight commandment.   Getting angry with your partner wasn't considered wrong and now that  it is it means the path to resolution is NOW closed in some households .
The proper dealing of these complex matters is an urgent matter YES

Some people see bullying as assertiveness but we all need to learn assertiveness and whether you want to see it or not , we can learn it in the context of a situation of anger and mostly do.
.What we perceive as someone else's problem may become our problem if we don't see our part in resisting the call .Maybe parent training would help more , but not back door and "out the door with anger" policy .

Advocates of the proposed program in schools think they can run assertiveness training in schools .They are focused on a few things they know and not the full picture which "who knows who really knows" . I don't know many teachers who could do it and parents MUST have a say in the contents as they would have had in methods classes before school. As Neiman might say , its bringing uncertainty into the curriculum which it should not bear to achieve  the great status Fairfax gave it . Keep teachers comfortable in the job by keeping it simple . The ideologues will cause even more  early retirement .
 Integration as a means to effectiveness
Clearly both mentorship and modeling go together with insight on this . I simply don't accept secular schools should teach values unless they get parents approval to run those sorts of classes. As every one knows the system meddles with disintegrated concepts of  "confidence , assertiveness and resilience " and in a fractured and incomplete way that sends thinking parents off to Private schools  where subjects are subject to less pedantry .Humpty dumpty reactionary experimentation( non curriculum or temporary) instead of consistent competency ( known and accepted curriculum)  Training not playing . Pedagogy not pedantry,



Sunday, October 4, 2015

Radicalization -

Politicians and media's current use of the word radicalization show how out of touch they are with the real world . The audience too are confused. Maybe we all need some help to sort this out
Radicalisation is not the problem .

The ideas you radicalize are the problem  .  ( These maybe examples but its the words in their books that you can criticize - not their radicalism )

 If you have
  1. radical peace activists you have nice love ins with no violence expected 
  2. radical secularists you have government keeping us in order - someone has to ?. 
  3. radical materialists you will have constant reminders that only money matters in life 
  4. radical secular materialists think that everyone will be happy if they have enough money and cushions supplied by government . 
  5. radical pragmatists think we should not allow any idealism to enter our heads , we should all do what we like 
  6. radical progressives trust the future to be better whatever the past .
  7. radical anti Christian  says that morality is bunk self justification ; (very closely aligned with reactionary postmodernism which because it reacts to everything that is , doesn't know what is or is not - To be or not to be is not a question - one be's )
     Its says that all this stuff around us is just mind games and therefore we shouldn't think at all - just act on our natural feelings. Its a very quiet life  because as soon as you say something you could be accused , under your own idealism,  of word and value constructing to justify yourself .  
  8. radical optimists usually have a good bank balance 
  9. radical christians support much more grace ,love forgiveness and freedom  for everyone , 
  10. radical greens think nature should rule and we should live in caves and eat berries 
  11. radical racists solve all environmental problems by getting rid of the neighbours.
  12. radical non idealists fit in wherever they like at the time ( read Susan Neiman) They make the false claim that you can still be human even if you do not have ideals.  Not sure I have met anyone who really lives that way - simple and appealing idea when you don't want to think ? . . 
Maybe you can add your own?
So where does all that leave most of us?. Its well known that many of us start radical and end up less so - is that a good thing ?
Would the world be a better place if we  abandoned idealism - If we saw ourselves as pure pragmatists . Would it say something about intellectual confusion ?  If we we were all just nice people , maudlin soft and pliable , forever elastic, if not resilient from home base.
I don't think so .

Let's be really clear about one thing ( the above list is indicative not complete )  . Its not just young people's problem, Older Australians Europeans  and Americans have a problem too in particular  - they may not be radical enough to resist the ideas they don't like  .
Kids just simply do not respect the wishy washy talk that can summarize those who talk radicalization without talking to the substance in each case .