Computer projections mislead; so does TV news

Written by Editor on .

[Note ; the photo is NOT of CO2 emmissions. Whatever is shown on TV news, you cannot see CO2.]

 

After years of denial, the IPCC has finally acknowledged that temperatures have not obeyed  computer projections. They haven't risen for over a decade notwithstanding an acceleration in manmade CO2 emissions to the highest in human history and pouring billions into renewable energy.

Graham Lloyd , The Australian's environmental editor says the IPPC gives a number of possible explanations, including natural climate variability and increased ocean heat.

He says further debate followed the release last month of the working group two report into climate change “impact and adaptation”, which estimated global annual economic losses for additional temperature increases of 2C at between 0.2 and 2.0 per cent of income.

This he says was much lower than many had expected, given the 5 to 20 per cent estimated by Lord Stern in his advice to the British government. Today’s IPCC report shows the cost of acting to reduce carbon emissions to keep warming below 2C could be as high as 11 per cent of global consumption by the end of the century.

He concludes that the  political reality is that Australia has taken climate change off the G20 agenda, ­Europe is scrapping its subsidies for renewables and Germany is turning back to coal.

read more:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/panel-in-search-of-message-to-keep-it-in-the-game/story-e6frg6zo-1226883030099

Olympic Stadium & half million bribe

Written by Editor on .

 

Sydney’s Olympic Stadium was completed ahead of schedule in 1999, long before the 2000 Olympics. There were no delays, no disruptions and no blowouts in the $690 million budget. The question, asks Paul Sheehan, was the charmed life of this project built on a $500,000 bribe paid to the Labor Party?

''That stadium was built ahead of schedule because every bribe had been paid,'' says a witness to ICAC. Paul Sheehan, describing how the money was laundered, says the witness - the man who paid the bribe - should be given ''the chance to have his credibility tested by the Heydon royal commission.''

The Commission he says has an  immense latent potential to finally map the dark side of Australian politics.

Read more:  http://www.smh.com.au/comment/royal-commission-must-shine-light-on-sydneys-shady-political-past-20140413-zqu9i.html

 

Even more electoral fraud: internet voting

Written by David Flint on .

At least once  every three or four years we are called on to vote to elect our representatives to the various Australian parliaments. (Admittedly , one of them – the Commonwealth – claims it alone is the Australian Parliament.)

The point of the exercise is that, exposed to the various arguments which reach their peak just before the election, we go to the polling stations and make our decision on the same day and in the same way,  in security and in secret.

The politicians insist that we must cast a vote even if it is informal. They make it an offence not to do so. Then they collect money for every vote cast. Vast sums of money.

 Just consider that. They force you to cast a vote. But they have passed a law which rewards them for every such forced vote.

 Now that does that sound like a conflict of interest?

In any event, under our  system of representative democracy, we to all go to the polling stations on one day .

Of course there may be exceptional circumstances. People who are bedridden. Farmers caught by floods. Australians overseas. But the principle is clear. We should hear the same arguments and then go in public to a polling station and vote in security and in secret.

The politicians have whittled away at this, reducing the integrity and honesty of the system.

They did this on the laughable basis that they had to make it easier to vote. Nobody was arguing that it was difficult to vote. They did this to make it easier to defraud your vote.

Once upon a time you went to a designated polling station. Now you can vote in any polling station in your electorate, making a nonsense of the ruling off your name.

 The politicians have deliberately ensured that ruling off your name is a nonsense. They have steadfastly refused to link the polling stations so that when a name is ruled off the name is ruled off everywhere across the Commonwealth.

Now it couldn't be the cost  – how many millions are we spending on an ambassador for women in the Pacific? Or superannuation to former politicians who are not even close to retiring age?

Then there is the ridiculously ease with which any new name can be added to the roll especially in the period between the calling of election and the closing of the rolls.

On an urgent application brought nominally by two people in breach of the electoral law but in reality by the left wing ideologues at Getup! four  out of seven High Court judges rushed through a decision before the 2010 election.

They decided that the Constitution does not allow the rolls to be closed immediately the election is called even though everybody interested knew an election was due. Now  you won't find words to the effect of the Constitution . And it is difficult to see how it is implied.  But four judges decided this but took months to give their reasons just before Christmas.

The point is that postal voting and voting before election day – pre-polling – opens the system to even more fraud. And importantly, they haven't heard all of the arguments and debate in the same way that those who vote personally have heard it.

Now there's a proposal for Internet voting. They can't even link the rolls so that when your name is ruled off it is ruled off everywhere. But we're thinking about Internet voting.

There has to be public confidence in the electoral system. What has been happening in Western Australia and scandals in previous years are taking away that confidence.

Without a paper trail how can we really know that Internet voting will be secure? And in any event is on the idea in a democracy that we actually go to the polling stations and be seen to enter there, with all sorts of people outside trying to persuade us to vote in a particular way?

Is this far more democratic than doing it on a computer or mobile phone under perhaps the pressure and instruction for someone else? We've heard already in New South Wales how party electoral document have been collected and filled in on behalf of powerbrokers who are building up alliances? Back in the 80s they were talking about making voting easier. This will make it even more easy. It also make it very easy to direct people how to vote.

It takes away the democratic nature of people actually going publicly to the polling station. In this superb Quadrant piece, Matthew Heeney explains why we should not accept Internet voting.

Read more:

 http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/04/false-promise-elections-internet/

@profdavidflint

No gaol for a vicious ATM bashing: what's going on?

Written by David Flint on .

 

 

A thug who bashed a man as he lay unconscious in an unprovoked attack at an ATM has walked free from court, Channel 9 News National  reported on 7 April 2014.

This is unacceptable. The magistrate has failed to respond to community expectations. The laws should not enable a magistrate to do this. if ht epoliticans won't change the laws, the system should be changed so the people can. As they can in Switzerland and other a number of American states.  

Corey George was trying to use an ATM late one night in the Victorian town of Colac when he was beaten in an unprovoked attack by Braeden Coulson.

Mr George was thrown to the ground and punched in the face 12 times before Coulson kicked him in the head as Mr George lay on the ground unconscious.

Mr George suffered serious swelling, cuts and bruises and remembers nothing of the incident.

"When I viewed the footage before I knew who the offender was I thought we were going to be looking at, you know, a possible homicide," Detective Leading Senior Constable Stuart Sims told Nine News.

Pleading guilty  to recklessly causing injury, Coulson said he was drunk and "an idiot".

Magistrate Michael Coghlan told the court Mr George's injuries were not "significant" enough for Coulson to go to jail, sentencing him to a suspended four-month jail term and a $2000 fine.

"Because those injuries aren't as significant as I thought they might be… I have determined it is appropriate to sentence an immediate term of imprisonment," he said.

@profdavidflint

 

 

''It was in the Sunday papers you dumb f**** ''

Written by Editor on .

In our comment ''The biggest news of the week but you wouldn't know it'' we touched at least one raw nerve.

This was the story that not one people smuggler's boat had landed any illegal immigrants on Australian territory.

This contrasted with the same period in the previous year when 60 boats landed almost 4000 illegal immigrants . 

We did not ask  why this did not appear . We asked why it had been downplayed. 

Was this because so many politicians and experts in the Gallery had  insisted d that turning back the boats was impossible?

Was it that they said the Indonesians would never accept this some even predicting  it could result in hostilities?

Now we often receive comments opposing our position which offer abuse rather than rational argument .

On this one email surprised us not for what it said, but who said it.

The email simply said (we have used asterisks for the key word :

"it was in the sunday papers you dumb f****  ''

It came from long-standing Fairfax commentator and now  chief political correspondent with the Australian Financial Review and regular panellist on the ABC Insiders, Mr. Philip Coorey.

We didn't say, Mr. Coorey, that there were no reports in the Sunday papers or elsewhere.

This was after all an extraordinary achievement considering how the media decided the Abbott opposition policy on stopping and turning back the boats was so newsworthy.

The Gallery made much of this and doubted whether the government would or could turn the boats around.

So, just for the record, how did the Sunday papers and the ABC report what should have been front page news? Let's start with the Murdoch papers, seen these days as the more government friendly newspapers.  (They weren't very friendly to the Howard government, with The Australian recommending the return of Kevin Rudd in 2007)  

News Limited ( 29/3) began its report negatively'' The Abbott Government is misleading the public as it hails 100 days passing without an asylum seeker boat arriving on Australian shores, a high-profile human rights lawyer says. Julian Burnside QC, who is challenging the legality of detaining asylum seekers on Nauru, says the government is failing to tell the full story about boat interceptions.''

The Sunday Telegraph ran the story on page 17 as a small postcscript on the right hand corner.

The Fairfax report was, shall we say, balanced by this third paragraph observation "But the government's claim of success came after revelations that two Australian employees of security contractor G4S are suspects in the brutal killing of asylum seeker Reza Barati on Manus Island."

Kerrin Binnie gave a short but balanced report on the ABC, properly including opposition comments. They correctly stated that the PM was not claiming victory as none of us know what will happen after the monsoon period. (Incidentally, Mr Binnie would not have decided how long his report would be)

 Our recollection is that it did not lead the news.

The fact is that overall, the main line media generally downplayed what was clearly the biggest political story of the week, at least in Australia.

When the media get something wrong, as they often do, the common tactic is just to move on.

There are several commentators who ought to admit that on this  they were wrong. ( No, the law should not compel them. That is the last thing we need.)