Achievement

 

Pauline Hanson has got into trouble again.  God bless her for trying to speak up . This time it's  a pile on by the mob  for her attempt to talk about how our first people's contribution to our communities success has been , in recent times, been overstated ( especially by remote southerners who claim to speak on their behalf )
Apparently now,  there are somethings you cannot say in Australia -- but she is saying some of them ; and being accused of hate speech " . And worse, young people are encouraged to hate her!



She of course is not alone in thinking the above reality  but she is made to feel very alone by saying it .

Forget the future .There is something very wrong with a culture that doesn't --even NOW allow people to speak freely.   Forget future legislation by all the control freaks .- so that works ? 
Forget future legislation by all the reactionaries who hide away till they can see someone doing ONE thing wrong. No wonder Aussie politics can be so pathetic because noone dare say anything . 

.In my view we should , if we are to be  family to each other , not overstate our case and allow the other side and members to be heard . Overstating and making a loud noise is what the legacy media merchants do and they are doing it more and more as they get switched off for making such a racket . Australia is no place  for such fanaticism. New religions movements too can be as arrogant as ever ,

In my one nation of the future she should be highly praised for going to confession in not expressing that reality  well .She of course is not alone in thinking that  but she is made to feel very alone by saying it . 


Was Pauline wrong to talk about our first people lack of achievement ? 
Our first peoples have much and many things to be proud of particularly in their low footprint and ways of living off this harsh Savanah landscape.    
We have just done a wonderful series on radio celebrating just a number of groups of first peoples in Western Victoria and  how they must have laughed at us new food producers trying to make a living by digging up some of the most hard setting soils in the world , Governor Phillip  first and his best gardeners were disgusted at how hard it was to grow food at Parramatta. 
 The Europeans employed the same techniques  they and civilizations had learnt on limestone rich soils of Europe,    Such techniques were not appropriate and  as a g ecologist  we still don;t know how best to protect water bodies and use land according to its capability  Same laugher  and more with Germans at Hopevale  north in Noel Pearsons home ..
Life was much easier in this hot dry place if you just chased the animals for food ---- and boy were they good at it . And they had time to rest laugh and dance . ( read accounts of Tuckfield and many others who lived with the variuos early SW in the early days)  Campfires at the Cross by Heather Le Griffin 

Our mad fortune hunters from Europe were so busy when they came to this country they forgot that their best culture taught them ( Genesis  1 ) to rest at least one day a week . If the new immigrants were resting ( as was in theirs and the lands  best interest ) they might have realized their stupid sheep were taking ownership of the most valuable thing here -- water . The Europeans were messing up the key to the livelihood s of first peoples. Too many animals at a waterhole and you can't break the cycle of Liver Fluke ( Chappy ) 


And what right has anyone got to talk achievement? What good does it do ? Westerners vain claims to do everything well is shown clearly by their early abuse of this land and its fragile easily eroded and salty soils --to be the sort of arrogant overstatement that prevents our children learning to adapt every acre to better  . 

Point is , if we all stop exaggerating  we have some hope of the progress we all want. Humility is the starting point for better and best. 

Our bulldozing forebears did over clear too much,  but they  do have a right to be heard about real achievements like building dams that have massively increased the level of biodiversity here ( remember how the Diprotodons died )  And shifting some trees can be Ok if the land is  ecologically Grassland ( Savannah ) which most of our country is . 

No , when it comes to achievement, nearly all of us need to hold our horses for a more objective account .
This reality check  was what Pauline was rightly calling for,  and for her to be shamed and crucified for doing so ,  is not her problem .  
At least Pauline went to confession and said she messed up in trying to talk to the issue . 
That  confession is an achievement is anyone good books - an objective view enables reform in the right places and the reality of good better best to reign .

All most of us want is no shaming , no blaming but truth telling . A return to honest respect for all immigrants and their real , substantial and unique achievements and contributions to this country . 

Feebleness and Feeblemindedness

 Things are moving fast in the destruction of our language. Perhaps that is nothing new, but the pessimism and pettiness of our political correct screen audience and the new religions of shaming is removing once helpful and useful objective words from our language.

THE TRUTH can now get you into jail 
As the West adopts the stranglehold strictures of the East . people stop talking the truth because they fear being shamed. eg A young woman does not speak up to a dominating male because he uses her private anger towards him as a weapon against her ( gas lighting )  Our young people no longer have the sound understanding of the place of anger that would enable them to escape the self righteous rubbish talk of others who claim goodness because " they are not angry ' .
THUS The pejorative interpretation of words you say ( not what you mean to say ) can now get you put you in jail for using them . Shaming is the name of the game ; Anger is named always evil by the narcissist who gets away with it because we can see it in his target  but never in himself . 


And while all we Westerners need to be reminded about the commandments and their insistence that we never call someone an idiot; no adjectives about particular persons made in the image of God ,

YET we wanna and need to be accurate when describing the diseases amongst our children.   

THE SCIENCE 

Describing retardation in adults ... 
 no ,,,,none of us are qualified here but let/s explore the territory in the good name of describing a problem that needs to be addressed. 
A handicap that can hopefully be overcome?  No final labels apply to this audience 

IN ART 
a safer way to avoid labelling a problem with a group of adults ( us ) is to use a picture word that describes the general problem as we see it - the phenomenon ----if the cap fits the audience will know .

I found a picture word for a lot of people who I now know to have never grown up . eg 
Imbecile is a perfectly useful word that began its life as accurately describing someone who is feeble. The person maybe old or very young. They are so weak that that they need a staff to walk with and they may or may not be able to handle the staff . The word though is not accepted for use this century because of its common use in a pejorative   and derogatory sense   
The word is no longer acceptable in public use but many adults are feebleminded in the sense that they have never grown up ; they talk about subjects they do not understand or have never experienced, 
Real life is always a risk management exercise and those who have lived in risk free homes would not assume authority over those who live on the land for example.

A feeble person cannot walk successfully across any paddock let alone through an ecosystem that is anything but feebleminded in its crushing blows on good intentions. 

Monocultures

 The Greens ( cf small greens like u) think they invented the appreciation of diversity and respect for it.  They don't live long in the country to see that long term rural land custodians actually learn and KNOW how important and highly complex it is to all living systems. 
Farmers and their children learn about mutuality, cooperation, competition and dependance and marginal rewards and sharing. from infancy.
Those who live too long in cities( or still cling to a drip feed from the city ) are likely to see only or two sides of the grand design.
Is it any wonder that so many in cities think life is all about competition, that monocultural blindness s that drives people to be the richest people in the cemetery. and to relentlessly chase high margins -It is the economy stupid that makes the city rich and the country poor.
Small margins is life for us in the country and we are the ones who love it ! 

The Greens have yet to realize they still have their blinkers on- they still think monoculturally  .....  more coming  

The fanciful nonsense of children

The shallow talk of freedom and our entitlement to it . 

 Whether one has children, or has to live with them  as adults, one longs for them to grow up --To mature .
A lot of my baby booming generation have clearly never grown up .They have had it all and it hasn't been good for them . Nor has it been good for their children who are not war ready and too rich to notice their dependancies and their real lack of freedom; their lack of awareness of choices and why one one needs to make good ones .  

Many of my generation have made a career out being the reactionaries they were as teenagers.
The only thing that is troubling them is old age and the realization that there are limits to growth and that resilience ( the thing you need to survive in the real world) comes not with mere freedom( but with resistance repentance and a return to the disciplined walking on the narrow road .

eg Lerhmann/Higgins trial. The growth of the risk of unresolved domestic anger, violence and abandonment .  

Think  about the overreaction so evident to men , of many modern single women who insist on post Christian lifestyle choices and then reject men's pressure on them.  Why should men feel obliged to one women when all the talk is about everyone's freedom to " do what they feel like '' ,  for example. 
If men are only animals,  why can't men just play the predator? 

I feel for such women  and accept that the risk of violence , misunderstanding and abandonment  is real , but their response of many of them to the sexual revolution is not complete or effective  . 

Some of these issues  have been more deeply dealt with very effectively in a RECENT scholarly  study by Mary Harrington of THE THREE PRINCIPLES OF REACTIONARY  FEMINISM ( reviewed in News Weekly Nov 11th) .

Mary points to the  reality that modern feminists ( many of whom appear in this stories  frame ) have foisted an " atomised , dehumanized  and commodified social order on women which doesn't work well. - and  IMHO presumably means they don't know what to do sometimes but resist it, make men more of a target, and resist what is happening to them  more strongly than ever.  
The evidence is there in the fanaticism .   

Creating God in our own image

 Our age seems determined to dumb itself down . Unwilling to follow the lengthy connections of logic , the quickfiddlers  insist we can change the world , not by changing the word connections s,but by changing the meaning of words .
 Its the dumbest nonsense  ever and our popular medai are afraid to state the fact . It can only end in mindess crap and reationships betwen people that only end in unproductive distinctions ,isolation,  no talk  and divorce . 
Take this excellent piece from Mark Durie https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/6564055/2950692593657357613?hl=en#
. 

Decomposition - The ignored friend amongst the fiends

 Its June 8th 2022 and everybody is talking about gas .
You do not need to read this if you are panicking about global warming or severe climate change because if you are right , I can't offer any solutions . 

This site exists to expose the half baked fears and fancies of the hard boiled pedants who name the problem without really knowing what the problem is, let alone how to solve the problem .

Lets for the sake of argument, lets ignore those who think Global warning and CC are a problem - see note below) _
Gas burning  ( combustion ) is not a problem , only the exhaustion of fossil fuel supplies of it . 
I'm sticking with one challenge at a time. 
Every living space emits gas  and the combsustion in all its many forms creates heat   Afew weeks ago we we were told we didn't need it and it was just another evil threatening our future if it was burnt.
That suggests those who talk "decarbonising the economy" and not using combustion are half blind and advocating death to the living,
The confusion has got people in a panic about what they can and can't do, partly because GW is attached now to our burning of fuel in the public mind.
The city often now doesn't even allow you to burn wood unless you do it like cars do , burning it inside where no one can see you sinning or criticize you for doing something like that. So much hypocrisy and confusion and plenty of room for hypocrisy because the elements of concern are invisible.
 
You can't even see the mouths of plants expressing their opinion on all our production of carbon dioxide.  some other time if you are interested .  

Today , suggesting a moving feast , nearly everybody has come to confession and said  "we still need it "vowing to never sin again once the cold is over and we find a way to never burn again  . ( combustion is the correct  term for a useful necessary  and largely untalked about process that will keep going even if we stop burning.

Compounding the problems
1. We have those who  think Global warning and CC are a problem. Before they talk,  tell me ask why they haven't yet embraced decomposition  
as its happening in quite a big way across the landscape right NOW and in the next few months  , emitting even worse things than CO2 into the atmosphere .
2, Misplaced concreteness leads to misplaced investment, And I know that ; The above work using biological decomp  ( and other sequestration concepts ) has not happened because projects for SW rural Australia that i put up  15  years ago have never been followed up )Universities and agencies have been funded for 20 years to the simple " find way to reduce CO2 emissions"  with what result except to corrupt those agencies . And the new government think they are going to root out corruption with another  ICAC ,
That how bad and incompetent our political leadership on conservation is , you will notice i am not spelling it out for yet another meddler to mess with the idea and ruin it ( Ellul)


3, Thoroughly lost and confused political arguments
Where is the sequestration on the ground?   You wanna be smart tell the earths daily sequestering rate ?  The Andrews government  are so lost in there rotting old growth  forests and against logging that they would rather   bushfires ants, termites and fungi  consume and produce the CO2   They are happy to close down half of Victoria and let it all rot . This nonsense is all in the name of " i hate logging " or something equally as narrow minded and religious as the magic charm and misanthropic words like " harvesting " listed  for more fuller discussion on this blog. The result of     

Summary ; the need for more clarity and less pedantry and evil agent labeling 

Sorry it's time the press got it right . We are not talking about the evil of burning gas  but of the real challenge of living without fossil fuels .  
Make sure your noisy worry warriors stick to the subject and don't waver . 
We all have a  concern tha FFG ( fossil fuel gas) is going to run out and we should be working out ways to avoid relying on it .Instead of working together we have people running in all directions. 
Net Zero means what -- same story ---who knows what it means  . 
If net zero means using gas from decomposition and fuel from recent sequestrations then we  might have something to talk about , but so far the assumption is panic and we must stop all burning and harvesting ,
Not very clever country 

Decarbonization

 Decarbonisation  or   decarbonization  hardly gets  a mention without someone offering solutions to prevent it 
for example it could mean 
1.The term decarbonization literally means the reduction of carbon. Precisely meant is the conversion to an economic system that sustainably reduces and compensates the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂). The long-term goal is to create a CO₂-free global economy.12 Mar 2019

2,  amore manageable  concept  might be ths one from Deloitte "Decarbonisation is the term used for removal or reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) output into the atmosphere. Decarbonisation is achieved by switching to usage of low carbon energy sources".

If I am confused so must lots of other people .Plants can't speak and neither can animals  so i as  an ecologist  would like the idea to be better put because it involves them in every breath they take 

The problem is that the public are now not clear about what is trying to be achieved.   The use of the term net Zero  is also needing a  clearer definition  because it seems everybody  SUDDENLY agrees ( november 2021 in Australia ) that its now possible ---  so in theory there is no argument that's it nota matter of politics unless of course its not so poorly defined it means different things to different people 

If you know which maths song sheet the parties are singing from please post a link to it here  

iF you read the post on Decomposition  you will note that  this natural process in the carbon cycle maybe left out of a lot of discussions about whet has gotta happen to what carbon for what end  before the dinosaurs out thee stop eating and getting warm on grass   

Battery Power

 Labor will have to change direction after the election because,  after following the adoring fans of new technology around for decades now they will have to face the fact that Greenlabor for all its promotion of good intentions knows zilch about HOW to get there 
To be switched on and hooked up to the thought ( not a reality ) of new forms of battery power is to ignore the 50 years since we had any significant changes. ( Not to ignore many design and technology improvemnets -lithium like all alkaline and acid batteries still don't overcome the limits of ions being together) 
Greenlabors desperation is so evident to the people because they have nothing else to talk about , The whole lot are in a fanatical mood and I hope the public see that before they vote . 

Technological fixes are the damnation drugs of our age  http://quickfiz.blogspot.com   ( read Ellul) 

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 immunologically or physiologically vulnerable.
Or Stressed ---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 .
Dr Andrews is particular focused on the high infectivity of the virus ( fair enough - 1 fact)  , but if the only result of all his testing and high levels of transmission control is ( For eg - a very incomplete register of just where the 14 day response was acute ?)  a lowered level of colds, viruses and deaths associated ( not caused) with  the virus , all his talk of "wicked and dangerous" and " his way of getting through it '( when it will pass in spite of his brilliance ) will send his current high popularity into the dark of a stalled economy , work and sound "family"  support 
Proving "me a good poly who can do things" is seen to be what it is---- a desperate effort to prove same ? 

His East melbourne bubble group ( not one known for effectiveness in HH and family care  ) are continuing to find new words and ideas to frame their ongoing confusion of the real microbial realities and risks ,
Like so many the daily graph of my latest plot of  ONLY 2 forms latest data suits the pedants. 
The abuse of words like hotspots ( means UR happy to chase the horse) , waves( normally implies a degree of immunity,  but used to threaten panic) hubs ( all close associations risk build up , so how can they be consistent when  attacks on those who get too close together ? why don't they encourage events where people keep their distance - church and stadium , beach )  clusters , bubbles , 
 The abuse of freedom . Dr Andrews has made on the spot fines apply when normally one has the chance to goto court for failing to show good judgement ( no we live in  police state where laws are the quickest and most appropriate way to get things done  ) 

All the threats,  not just one  conveniently named threat ( mere description attempts )  eg  Potentially  lethal Respiratory tract association  ( other agents are likely to be involved - not just COVID19)  
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 -
If only the tracer chaser would stop sending his bus to the latest" hot spot"
 maybe the realisation will hit ,  that while tests don't show it ( the titre doesn't reach a threshold?)  the infection is more widespread than dilittant Dr andrews crew suggest ,
Instead of closing ourhome s and our faces we can all go back to minimizing  risk and not trying to isolate in such an extreme fashion.  
WE need confidence that the country is doing its best to come together  to deal with the threats. that the possibility that mist to mist is happening not just mouth to mouth hs been considered. 

 no more hiding behind brute death and case figures ( detah from COVID ? death with COVID . where tests were taken and what they mean ) 

Climate change

Quite large climate change ( patterns of seasonal weather ) occurs and the most we can say is that the many known strong  causes like changes in the tilt of the earth  ( due in part to changing magnetic field)  , sun activity, atmospheric and reflective absorption dynamics ,ash clouds  come from more reliable indicators ( geological record , the fossil record eg dinosaurs , volcanology ,atmospheric and radiation physics )   than our meagre records of accurate daily  rainfall and  temperature over  less than several hundred years .
As  an example,  a major drop in temperature occurred across the world for several years  with recent ash clouds.  ( Mt Pinatubo in the 1980's and there are hundreds of these cones on the edge of earth plates) 
In the early 2000's, I published many responses to the fears of long term global warming by the media and politicians but gave up about 10 years ago when the fearmongers changed the goal posts to Climate change. 
If these people were genuine about science led problem solving they would have stuck with one problem and the maybe then  some solution/s . By expanding their concerns to any number of problems ( instead of sticking with global warming ) they have completely confused the grounds for solution development  .Why the people still fall for fearmongers is a mystery to me . 
I am still very interested in discussing what alternatives we have when fossil fuels become uneconomic ; and whether  we can realistically reduce the profligate use of such resources   
Maybe they think , with the advance of multi each way betting in the house of cards , it may still be year s before polys and wannabes  realize that its no longer safe to create a fear and not deal with it .
Some leaders only survive by predicting the change of public opinion before it happens. 


The name change  decision  gave them great scope for fearmongering,   but made any reasonable scientific discussion nearly  as big as the internet screed  itself  . God help the party who even mentions it again .   Some of my posts are now buried in blogs such as these   http://quickfiz.blogspot.com

Rather than trust me , however because I merely use climatic data and study it in a small way 
Here is a list of some scientists who,  I think are better qualified to say why,  we the people should not be worried about the connection between Co2 /CH4 levels and some sort of immanent and unchangeable atmospheric disaster ( The scenarios have yet to be convincingly stated as well what it would be and what could be done  about it -- other matters of course )   
.
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."

Professor Ian Plimer ( Australian author of Heaven an Earth a broadrangeing well cited tomme on this huge subject )
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.

In my view those who promote CC as urgent will face great historical  criticism for ignoring the real threats to life on the planet
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."


Don' t ever stop asking questions , especially about something as complex as the interaction of invisible gases in the atmosphere .
I personally have no time to again do the same old same old world tour of the wannabes sites of  great significance :  the great  barrier reef,  icebergs , Antarctica  , coastal cities , Kiribati and ....you name it 

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

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

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.

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,

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 .

Secular and secularism - not the same thing

Andrews Labor Victorian government have decided this August 2015 ,  despite one of the most honored social school experiments  and  a full history of over one hundred years of opportunity to engage , to put the subject of faith outside the curriculum and minds  of all state school children, forever.
Mr Daniel Andrews says its simply not important enough . For the first time in Australian schools ,  kids we will be told "its not important enough " to ever get mentioned ever.( spare us the window dressing)  Puts a new meaning to the idea of a dry area .
Most parents who used to send their children to state schools will disagree with him. 

Daniels  must change their minds - for the sake of the kids and the sharing of values and ideas .Elected leaders must face the shallow nonsense of those who advocate these changes - right now !

Confused are you -  well  join the club . Fairfax the man who set up our first papers wasn't confused ( his theology and practice sound) The State School system he helped set up has served Australia to socialize its children very well . So why in the world do we want to change what has worked so well in Australia?  Its probably not perfect  but it has worked well to keep us happy to participate in State Schools - up to now 


Whats the panic ? Islam? Probably ! The scardicats and woort warriors are busy - afraid to play the game in the playground! Why do we so easily take away schools independence and right to decide and give it to the secularist faith alone ? Would it not be better to have this fear dealt with out in the open like it has been for decades ,  A completely secular school would be a school for the mentally handicapped . 


What's the ideologues within the Education Department excuse for this change at this time ? What makes them so wise ?  is Parliament on the ball or just now an old folks home for sleepy sentimental stuff ?

Some dull witted Victorian ideologues think they can remove the old but real tensions, problems and threats  that faith drives , informs and motivates. Their magic wand ministrations is to take the factors out of the formula --  by  physically taking them away . "poof " and they are gone . No more problems
Normal thinking and mentally stable people face their fears and the reality that faith will motivate  ---- let all faiths compete for a space in the curriculum, as they could before. Out in the open

Defining secular is fine and helpful  but secularism says there is only one category for knowledge .   Secularism  simply limits the scope for knowledge

The result of this major historic change ,( if its not reversed ) The result will not be  a big frame for Victorian State schools but a holy huddle.   You can often tell a religious use of a word by the endearing love and pride with which the authors  entreat its wholeness. Secular helps us define the uncontroversial in education so teachers can get on with the job of training minds around facts and fomulae. When what we know from mere formulate starts to limit our appreciation of the possibility of more we limit our education to the mundane.

One is a category, the latter is a religion .  The former allows us to  argue productively about where the boundary is between the secular and the sacred.   Some think they will abolish the tension by dissolving the distinction in their favor . We all have different opinions about where that boundary is,  so,  how have schools involving a wide range of faith systems worked? On the current well tested principle of separation and respect  for both. The way it should stay
Better to have the boundary  than not having it , Gives us all a starting point for a good debate .

Not , please God , just another holy huddle ! read the lesson woodya  http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/health/pages/respectrel.aspx

Resilience -

ABC presenters and other wannabes who want to be taken seriously use this word because it's now popular and floating to the top as an idea of importance. They understand enough to know its valuable and why;  Would they know who to call ?

Equality Imperatives for thinking people - Where reactionaries went wrong is to rely on bookeeping

There is always more than one way to skin a cat . Nothing wrong with sharing , but lets not be really Marx dumb about how we do it.  Legislation is a blunt instrument, but it appears to be only one of the few available to reactionaries and so they sometimes get all fanatical about using it  . As many even non believers  point out about the tyrants of our own century, and the logic of goverance of evil they applied - this ideal is more than frightening in practice , as practiced ; The greatest evil was done in the name of good intention of making all equal - a process never complete; a tension of war not peace ,If the whole picture be put, its not even natural .
While progressives will often resist what's written below,  one party,at least,  seems bent on denying  themselves the opportunity to really move on  and thereby will fail to push for a fully matured debate about whats possible with the mixed material of mankind . .
In our own time, we have repeat bouts of same old same old solutions to the inequalities around us . Unequal treatment of women, aborigines and now gays .
The point is,  inequality occurs and its not all bad.  Some of it is " natural "; some of it  is perception based ( "poor me, poor them" ) and some self induced ( greed poor decisions, waste etc) .If we seek to reduce all of it, or say "it's the governments job to force it back to order" or call less "disadvantage "a sin ( which its not) we adopt an universal solution to a diverse origin and reality/myth . In funding these forced things amongst a free and diverse people, we insist on bankrupting our governments and productive sectors  ; we insist on an unsustainable authority and parenting style .

As stated in previous posts, those who reject the Creators promise of all equal ( God can do it because his knowledge is perfect,  His provision of manna  provided to the Hebrews was equitable even though the human accountants list suggested otherwise )  are destined to limit themselves, not only to the material and the bleeding obvious ,  but to blind others to the greater wonder of actual abundance,diversity of gifts , cooperation, co dependence , miracle and diversity . Such blinkered accounting will miss the way it has drawn our civilization to a glass half full view of what we can do together . Its not brilliant , but dumb to let what  we see dominate over what we  can't.  It is part of the big picture  blessing given to our culture that  we were taught  to not worry about what we haven't got , believing that our gifts / foods are different and the ledger obscure .


If we can't motivate the people , how can we hope, even with the toughest tyrant , ( some prospect always of another) to change the world . Neiman makes the telling point that its no good relying on reason in these matters either as full reasoning is "missing" .The argument that the people are sheep and need to be led is fine till you think about the wolves , whose nature is to get what they want out of the deal .


To quote in part from "George Bernard Shaw " By G K Chesterton  who made light of the Fabians now long standing fantasy with simple arguments and accountancy .

Bernard Shaw threw himself as thoroughly as any New Woman into the

cause of the emancipation of women. But while the New Woman praised

woman as a prophetess, the new man took the opportunity to curse her and kick her as a comrade. For the others sex equality meant the

emancipation of women, which allowed them to be equal to men. For Shawit mainly meant the emancipation of men, which allowed them to be rude to women. Indeed, almost every one of Bernard Shaw's earlier plays might be called an argument between a man and a woman, in which the woman is thumped and thrashed and outwitted until she admits that she is the equal of her conqueror. This is the first case of the Shavian trick of turning on the romantic rationalists with their own rationalism.  GKC

The law is an ass and those who love it too much bear the smell of its incompleteness. The West was blessed with less because the high cost of good governance increases exponentially with the words . Let every legislator "leave off and make it lean" . 
The rich in our culture have big responsibilities.  Only those rich enough to prosecute the law properly ( meaning in part our bureaus ) can be responsible to deal with the adjacent other wordy issues of liberty ,grace , offence, punitive , education  and right judgment  that are needed to sustain it in its context. 

The only inevitable thing about simple equality arguments is that they don't last long before people see through them . That;s why some insist we must push the cuurrent  legislation through.

Equality Imperatives for thinking people -Orwell

"The only inevitable thing about simple equality arguments is that they are shallow and unusustainable .  So the only inevitable thing about simple equality arguments is that they don't last long before people see through them . That;s why the  perpetrators seek to  rush this legislation through. 

No word has got old Westerners into more trouble than the ideal of equality. No word has or is likely to run riot with a audience of us armchair experts (in our internet age ) than this powerful and useful idea because the ideal is a super simple and punchy  one . The popularity of a simple idea needs no explanation to those who think deeply.
No idea better symbolizes the pedantic blinkered view of the natural order than this one . Not that nature is simple; Its beyond simplicity to uncanny . Unity in diversity is possible, but talk of making all things equal is to ignore diversity completely - in both product and function.  The modern western myth of legislating equality is thereby theoretically and practically unworkable.
While we are not alone in being tempted by this myth , our generation does not have the experience to know when and where the word works. George Orwell was no dill,  but we have become dull to his warnings on the word use .The greatest evil is still done in the name of misnaming this best intention . Equality is a  good word  to use in the right place ,
So why is the ideal so well held amongst us ?
Clearly this idea originates in the West from at least as far back as the Bible where God asserts His care for all his creation equally, We are , according to the good book,  all created equal .The God of the Bible GOB says its in "his DNA for men " even if we  don't wanna accept it in ours. What makes us unequal in life is , if you take a fantastic view of life , our doing;  either its what we do to ourselves or to others .   So there is a case that we have gone wrong in not accepting the latter bit of our freedom ; our freedom to set things right --That bit of biblical doctrine on personal responsibility is often left out of  modern Western dialogue between men ;God too has a bigger picture of how to hold equality and diversity together than we do . In providing for people He called into the desert he provided equally for the people so that those who had much had enough, while those who only collected a little had enough also( manna) .Take it or leave it its a faith thing expounded right through the book - GOB is no man's debtor .  God maybe the best mathematician in the Universe but he doesn't insist on always using the actuary's two columns ( there being a strong array if you think about it ) GOB doesn't insist that mere 2 column maths should rule when it comes to giving equal potential for satisfaction for his creatures, His gifts , according to those who trust him,are perfect .
. Maybe the consensus amongst many men is evidence that the Devil has no good ideas of his own and so has to distort the good and better concepts of the created order.....


George Orwell  was not an ignorant man. His writing, unlike that of journos of our generation,  was informed by harsh war experience of the human dilemma. Most pointedly, he came to realize that the focus on equality was an example in his own time of good intention producing great evil. Too easy

Equality - whatever happened to diversity

I don't see how any sane person can vote to change the definition of MARRIAGE when its clearly trying to change the substance of what it has meant for centuries and clearly cross culturally . This is just another overly ambititous, almost tyranical, claim by reactionaries who as Chesterton said over 100 years ago about his Fabian friends ; they don't want democracy to mean a parliament or a republic , but just want what they haven't got . What do they want ? Do they know ?" An improved sense of their status"? So much for depth and sustainability if its a feeling or even thats where its coming from !

Our society. like science, is only functional if we maintain definitions that mean something. This whole effort to simplify will only confuse and restrict as the feminist movement did before it . No longer will we feel free to have the full conversation about diversity because unity is the extremely dumb and constricting determinant .As the catholic paper points out "Only the conjugal view accounts for both facts." We could add "all the facts " needed to be considered here ; adoption , surrogacy, ideal marriage , disfunctional marriage , and civil marriage in an austrailian, christian or muslim context .

God help this country if we are no longer allowed our God given right to call things what we wanna call em =define things .

God help the government with their difficult decision about what civil marriage means if some smart arse legislation not only tells them how to do it , but doesn't help them find any clearer way of talking to it ; This is smartarse legislation that not only tries to tell people what love is, it but also wants to say what words we should use about all the different types of relationships existing . What will be a family for taxation purposes in ten years time ? .This is only one question for this very weak week in our history . Born Equal and equal before the law - but they are religiuos concepts ( see Neiman) This idea of equality contrasts with natures striving to maintain cooperation in diversity - equality is not a concept derived by deduction , peerreview or physiological or genetic drivers I pity the man . Looking for identity but expecting the driver behind to know where its all going