>The following is the Liberal Party of Australia platform:
What does the Liberal Party stand for?
We are the party of initiative and enterprise;
We believe in the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples; and we work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives; and maximises individual and private sector initiative.
We believe in government that nurtures and encourages its citizens through incentive, rather than putting limits on people through the punishing disincentives of burdensome taxes and the stifling structures of Labor’s corporate state and bureaucratic red tape.
We believe in those most basic freedoms of parliamentary democracy – the freedom of thought, worship, speech and association.
We believe in a just and humane society in which the importance of the family and the role of law and justice is maintained.
We believe in equal opportunity for all Australians; and the encouragement and facilitation of wealth so that all may enjoy the highest possible standards of living, health, education and social justice.
We believe that, wherever possible, government should not compete with an efficient private sector; and that businesses and individuals – not government – are the true creators of wealth and employment.
We believe in preserving Australia’s natural beauty and the environment for future generations.
We believe that our nation has a constructive role to play in maintaining world peace and democracy through alliance with other free nations.
In short, we simply believe in individual freedom and free enterprise; and if you share this belief, then ours is the Party for you.
Surely, anyone who believes in the scientific fabrication called climate change or global warming or whatever the heck it’s called these days and supports an economy deadening tax cannot be a Liberal?
So what is Malcolm Turnbull thinking?
And how can he be a member of the Liberal Party let alone it’s leader?
If the Liberal Party votes with the government and passes an emissions trading scheme then they will lose my vote forever.
The problem for the Liberals are that there are a lot of people like me.
>If this graph is accurate, and there’s no reason to assume otherwise given it came from research done by JP Morgan, then it explains a lot about why the Obama administration seems to be such a bunch of incompetents.
How can President Obama give more than 90% of his cabinet appointments to people who have no real world experience?
These people will naturally choose ideological positions rather than those born of the experience gained in the real world of hard knocks.
No wonder the Obama administration can choose to abandon Honduras to the Chavista wolves or the pro-democracy movement in Iran to the Ahmadinejad thugocracy. They have no idea.
>NZ climate scientists go to work on the NZ temperature record.
They’ve turned a 0.06C rise per century since 1850 into 0.92C…
Apparently, THAT is science!
>Many people are passing the so-called Climategate scandal off as not being important and not affecting climate science.
The problem with that view is that without confidence in the dendro temperature record climate science is pretty much reduced to localised physics and the ice core record, which, inconveniently, shows warmer Roman and Medieval Warm Periods than present.
The corruption of the HadCRU temperature record is plain to see in the very code that produces the models. We already knew that the NASA GISS temperature record was suspect so it was amusing to see the CRU crowd casting doubt on Hansen’s methodology.
Here are the best examples of just how bad this situation is:
Summary of emails from Bishop Hill.
Willis Eschenbach’s attempt to get information via the FOI.
The comments in the code tell the story:
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
And for terrific entertainment:
One might be able to defend one or two emails here and there and I have defended the use of the term ‘trick’ to describe a programming shortcut (though the trick referred to looks dubious) but the overall tone of the emails and code is one of manipulation of both data and scientific journals.
It’s also interesting that all of the people involved seem to be activist environmentalists with email exchanges with Greenpeace, WWF and the NYT’s enviro reporter, Andy Revkin. People in the hard sciences tend to split down the political middle. Perhaps the conservatives go to work for industry and the lefties go and work in theory-land at the universities.
I developed a view quite some time back that climate science seemed to attract mediocre scientists to its ranks. My reasoning is that they are able to undertake research that is not able to be tested in the here and now whereas decent scientists want to see their research create tangible outcomes. Michael Mann and our very own David Karoly are two shining examples of this mediocrity. These scientists have achieved prominence (and funding) far beyond where their abilities should have taken them. Nothing I have read in the emails changes my opinion.
I have also been commenting for a long time that climate scientists will give real scientists a bad name in the public square. Job done.
If the leftie health police are so concerned about the effect of advertising on children (and the rest of us) then how is it that 99.9% of people who work in advertising are lefties?
>Ironically, if the United Nations has its way then there will be a massive wealth transfer from the light blue shaded countries to the dark blue as payment for so-called ‘climate debt’.
The Central Americans want money:
CENTRAL American nations will demand $US105 billion ($114.2 billion) from industrialised countries for damages caused by global warming, the region’s representatives say.
Central American environment ministers gathered in Guatemala overnight to discuss the so-called “ecological debt” owed to them and to set out a common position ahead of climate talks in Copenhagen next month.
Guatemalan environment minister Luis Ferrate said the $US105 billion ($114.2 billion) price tag was “an estimate” of the damage done by climate change across 16 sectors in Belize, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama.
Ferrate minister said the region “had never faced” so much drought, aridity, flooding, and precarious food security.
A formal proposal will be presented in Denmark, officials said.
His Nicaraguan counterpart Juana Arguenal said that Central America would press industrialised countries to reach concrete decisions to reduce “greenhouse” gases at Copenhagen.
“We hope for a deal that is ethical and moral,” she said.
Why wouldn’t the Central American countries be asking for money from Brazil due to that country’s clearing of ‘the lungs of the earth’, The Amazon?
Thieves, the lot of them.
>The information provided yesterday by the hacking of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit is the greatest scientific scandal since Piltdown Man.
Here we have a large number of high profile, interconnected scientists who are actively conspiring to fabricate scientific results that show alarming 20th century warming and reduced warming during the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods.
This will have no impact – nil, nada, none, zero, zip – on the whole global warming/climate change movement.
The problem is that the mainstream media is too invested in advocating for climate change to even consider undertaking an investigation into the information provided by the hack.
By the end of next week this will all have died down. People like Steve McIntyre might find some data that shows results have been fabricated but he’s done that before and the media has ignored him, which they’ll do again this time.
If the mainstream media does not investigate a situation is which there has been conspiracy, fraud, obstruction of justice, falsification of data, suppression and tampering with evidence and public corruption (as Robert M pointed out at WUWT) then it will be yet another example of the slow decline of Western civilisation.
Here’s an email that I haven’t seen elsewhere, has an Australian reference:
From: “Thomas.R.Karl” To: Phil Jones Subject: Re: FW: retraction request Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:21:57 -0400 Cc: Wei-Chyung Wang
We R now responding to a former TV weather forecaster who has got press, He has a web site
of 40 of the USHCN stations showing less than ideal exposure. He claims he can show urban biases and exposure biases.
We are writing a response for our Public Affairs. Not sure how it will play out.
Phil Jones said the following on 6/19/2007 4:22 AM:
Wei-Chyung and Tom,
The Climate Audit web site has a new thread on the Jones et al. (1990) paper, with lots of quotes from Keenan. So they may not be going to submit something to Albany. Well may be?!?
Just agreed to review a paper by Ren et al. for JGR. This refers to a paper on urbanization effects in China, which may be in press in J. Climate. I say ‘may be’ as Ren isn’t that clear about this in the text, references and responses to earlier reviews. Have requested JGR get a copy a copy of this in order to do the review.
In the meantime attaching this paper by Ren et al. on urbanization at two sites in China.
Nothing much else to say except:
1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.
2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning) about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on paleo.
UPDATE: Bishop Hill has a terrific summary going…