Posted by: graemebird | July 4, 2008

Clive Hamilton Owns Up To Intellectual Fraud And Analytical Incompetence.

If you doubt that the stupid are upwardly mobile in this society I have two phrases for you. “Bottled Water” and “Clive Hamilton”.

Clive appears to believe that science is about knowing (by what method?) who to listen to. I think its primarily about evidence and CONCEPTUAL (as opposed to detailed) understanding. But it can also be about knowing who NOT to listen to. Its important to not listen to people who cannot analyse evidence. And so its important not to listen to Clive Hamilton.

Clive Hamiltons entire argument can be summarised as follows:

I DON’T KNOW. YOU DON’T KNOW.  YOU DON’T KNOW. I DON’T KNOW. NO-ONE KNOWS ITS TOO COMPLEX. SO YOU MUST BELIEVE MY SIDE. ACTUAL ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE ARE USELESS.

So we see that Clive Hamilton has been stringing people along all this time. But its not just science where Clive is an intellectual fraud. Ethics is a particularly weak point with this idiot.  Of course his economics is far worse than his ethics.  From this low base his ideas just go downhill.

Clive Hamilton is more syndrome than human being. The syndrome of people who don’t understand a fucking thing and who take up all our media oxygen passing off bullshit to the children. Less is more.  Its not that people aren’t putting out good ideas. Its that the people putting out the stupid ideas are crowding them out. Its not that we don’t have real problems to solve. Its just that Clive Hamilton and other know-nothings are getting in the way with their non-problems.

Often its what we choose NOT TO worry about which defines our success on a societal level. I’m constantly amazed at the people who lack the mindset of a good historian. Those who look back  with condescension at former ages. We can fool ourselves as to our alleged superiority over the leadership of Constantinople, who busied themselves contemplating the number of Angels who could dance on the head of a pin while the Turk was outside their gates.

But it is we who have a more surefire way of selecting idiots, giving them all the media oxygen, and putting them near the levers of political power.

We see a common thread with all this. The idiots in society leveraging some career lived on the backs of taxpayers, to find a second income stream in the private sector. Riding the wave of the brand-name of the parasitical institutions that they gain income for. And riding that wave all the way into the news and financial papers. Its very hard to think of even 1 or 2 of the people who have taken the stolen money route who have a damn clue as to what they are talking about.

The solution offers itself. There is no substitute for mass-sackings. Massive benefits will accrue to our societal health and survivability if at once we can turn off the money spigot to these parasitical institutions.

I guess there is nothing for it but to go through one of this fuckwits articles until we tire of his idiocy.

“Death Rattles of the Climate Change Skeptics..”

“…people are loath to enter into scientific debates for fear of exposing themselves to ridicule. Not so Australia’s climate change skeptics, writes Clive Hamilton..”

 

Right there we have unacceptable illogic for a philosophy professor. And he should resign his post right there. Since the epistemological nitwit doesn’t even realise that such an argument cuts both ways.

“With the sharp turn in public opinion leading to the election of the Rudd Government, in part on a climate protection platform, many of us thought that climate skepticism in Australia was dead and buried….”

Suprising that he ought to think that when the idiot doesn’t have any evidence in favour of his CO2-bedwetting.

“The most recent flicker of life in climate skepticism in Australia is a paper by Don Aitkin titled “A Cool Look at Global Warming“, given to the Planning Institute of Australia on 2 April, followed by various opinion pieces and radio appearances based on it.

Usually, lay people are loath to enter into debates involving complex scientific questions for fear of exposing themselves to ridicule. Yet the wisdom of humility seems to evaporate when it comes to global warming and any number of people with no qualifications in atmospheric physics, climate modelling or related disciplines feel the urge to lend their opinions to the debate.

When challenged, these amateurs are wont to claim that they “have done a lot of reading”. According to Professor Aitkin, a historian and political scientist, he has read a lot, an achievement that – along with the fact that his two brothers are a mathematical statistician and a neurophysiologist and he himself had considered becoming a geologist – qualifies him to challenge the foundations of climate science. …..”

 

About right there we can stop and point out that this fuckwit is lying. Since everyone knows that this matter is disputed within climate science itself. It ought not be disputed. Since the CO2-bedwetters have nothing going for their argument. But the fact is the matter is disputed. And so we have caught this ethical retard in the implied-lie.

“One of the arguments he deploys is that climate systems are so fiendishly complex that no conclusions can be drawn about human-induced warming; yet it seems that the science is not so complex that it cannot be understood by lay persons such as himself….”

At this point we have a confession. The perpetual poser does not really understand his own alleged subjects nor does he understand science. Anyone with some analytical ability ought to be able to form an understanding for subjects that they lack the specific knowledge in. If Hamilton cannot do that, and cannot help his students to do that, he has no place teaching philosophy or economics. The implication would be that we have to study and become a scientologist auditor before criticizing scientology. Or we would have to study any racket at all, and become the leading expert in that racket, before we could find fault with it. This is unecessary. Since if you are not an incompetent like Hamilton you can quickly nail down where a school of thought appears to be dubious as to its reasoning. And then make further enquiries as to the apparent dubiousness. And you will find the alleged experts ducking and weaving at that point if their own thinking is not very well worked out.

“Some years ago, when I first joined the climate change debate, I decided there was no way I could pretend to have a comprehensive grasp of climate science – just as I could not pretend to be an expert in genetics, chemical engineering or population ecology – and that the prudent stance is the one we always take in questions of public importance involving complex science. I had to decide not what to believe but whom to believe.”

There is the confession that we were talking about. This fellow has been lying and stringing people along. He ought to be sacked. He’s just jumped on the wrong side of the debate when he didn’t have a fucking clue. Nor did he know how to find out how to appraise the soundness of the alleged evidence and arguments of the contending parties.

“While lay people cannot be expected to speak with any authority on climate science, any well educated person should be able to understand the process of scientific inquiry and how it leads to scientific advance.”

 

Apparently not. But then baldyman isn’t well-educated. He is a product of socialist education.

“Certainly, one would expect that Don Aitkin – who for some years chaired the Australian Research Council – would have as good an understanding as any. Yet he seems to be woefully misinformed.”

Will you look at that. This dumb bastard has just thrown his argument into reverse and is running the other way. Is he saying that we ought not HAVE an Australian research council? This is a funding body for research. The council must have people on it who appraise subjects that they are not expert in. And now he’s claiming that Don Aitken ought to be able to do this now since this was his job then. He’s a philosopher who is too incompetent to realise he’s just undercut his own argument. And then he goes right ahead and makes an assertion based on the idea that outsiders, including himself, are able to judge things enough to pick sides.

Can we not just go to one of his lectures and make a citizens arrest. And drag this intellectual fraud away from the class refunding his salary as partial compensation to the kids?

Hamilton has already confessed he knows nothing and has therefore taken a tribal side-choosing approach, how has this fuckwit made his assessment of Don Aitken?

“The work of climate scientists is subject to the most rigorous testing by the peer review process before it gets the accolade of publication in respected journals.”

Not its not.

” The peer review process is not infallible, but no other comes near it for effectiveness, which is why it is so widely used. “

No actually its a crap process. Peer review is hardly going to be any good if your Peers are a bunch of leftist fuckwits. Try and get Austrian-influenced economics arguments published in a Keynesian journal.

“It is how funds are allocated to academic research by the ARC, until it was corrupted by the political meddling of then-education minister Brendan Nelson……”

Here Hamilton shows one reason why Peer review is corrupted. Peer review he reveals is a way to get hold of stolen money. Hence its inevitable that a gatekeeper situation will develop.

“Of course, not every published paper on climate science proves correct, which is to be expected in a rapidly evolving area. But in climate science the integrity of the review process has been heightened because of the enormously politicised nature of the climate debate fed by the small number of highly vocal skeptics, ever-ready to go on the attack by highlighting weaknesses, uncertainties and contradictions…”

So Hamilton, who confesses not to understand climate science, nonetheless thinks he’s got a handle on the quality of the peer review process. This is a violation of what he’s supposed to be an expert in. He’s a philosophy professor. So by simple logic you would think its clear that your abillity to appraise the peer review process has got to be related to how well you can understand the broad thrust of the arguments in matters outside your own field. The people who write up these various studies are field workers. Field workers are not Field Marshalls of science. They are just some people with a few technical skills who are trying to justify their grant, fill in the hours of their day, and get another grant. They ought not be seen as these magnificent conceptualists or experts in the epistemology of science.  These field workers know that to justify their taxeating income and get another grant they have to get published, and get their study past the magazine gatekeepers. Hence while none of these studies have evidence for any panic, pretty much all of these studies are worded to express SENTIMENT in favour of the taxeaters crusade.

“The charged environment in which climate science operates has meant that the experts have exercised more than the usual scientific caution in making claims about the results of their work.”

No they haven’t. This ethical pervert is either lying, making it up, or has no clue what he is talking about.

“Many climate scientists believe that the IPCC has consistently understated the dangers of global warming. “

No they haven’t. There is no danger and no prospect of serious global warming. You can make strong statements like this if you actually follow the evidence. Thats the worst thing about this Clive JIVE is the last thing that these idiots want to talk about is the evidence.

“As James Hansen – perhaps the world’s foremost climate scientist….”

James Hansen is not even a COMPETENT climate scientist. But where is the logic of this? How can this idiot Clive Hamilton make this appraisal? When, by his own admission, he doesn’t understand a fucking thing about the science?

“….. – haswritten, the culture of scientists is such that they would rather be accused of fiddling while Rome burns than of crying wolf….”

Nice if Hansen could come up with actual evidence for crying wolf rather than inventing snappy lines which do not equate to science workers in this day and age.

“Climate scientists are more aware than anyone of the uncertainties in their work, and go to great lengths to emphasise them, leading many to blame themselves for the slowness of the world to act on what is nevertheless an overwhelming case for action to cut greenhouse gas emissions.”

But Clive (YOU FUCKING MORON) you’ve already told us you don’t understand the science. Now you are claiming, without evidence, that there is an overwhelming case for action to cut greenhouse gas emissions. NO THERE ISN’T!!!!!!!  CO2 is good for the environment. Its good for the biosphere you useless incompetent poser.

“But the painful honesty of the scientists….”

Honesty is painful to this jerk.

“…has merely provided an opening for the skeptics and denialists who have no empirical work of their own on which to base their contrary opinions.”

This is just silly. No empirical work can be found in favour of the alarmist case. Its leftist reversalism since the panic and science fraud has been pushed by know-nothing liars like Clive Hamilton, John Quiggin and Tim Lambert. Clive Hamilton and John Quiggin, both frauds in this respect, and Hamilton now a self-confessed fraud, organised a petition of 76 incompetent economists in favour of signing Kyoto. Not a scientist amongst them. And now he’s spinning it that it is the other side who is the only side with the non-scientists pushing matters.

“They feed on the inevitable weaknesses and uncertainties in the work of real climate scientists, which they distort and exaggerate to cast doubt on the whole body of evidence.”

No you are fucking lying you grubby aesthetic. There is no “body of evidence” in favour of the alarmist case. You cannot come up with any evidence in favour of the alarmist case. And if you could you would have done so.

“The truth is that if any of the skeptics – especially those who do have some claim to expertise in the area – were to undertake a study that cast genuine doubt on the global warming hypothesis and it could pass the tests of professional scrutiny, it would cause a sensation. If it were confirmed, we could all utter an enormous sigh of relief and shower those responsible with prizes and accolades.”

No thats not right Clive is lying. The alarmist case has been debunked comprehesively. And instead Clives crowd just goes into blanket defamation mode. His mates Castro II and the dwarf are particularly fiendish at this sort of thing.

“Yet none of them has carried out any original work that challenges the consensus view….”

Clive is lying here. Lying about there being a consensus view in favour of alarmism. Lying about there being no original work debunking alarmism. Lying that there is any evidence in favour of alarmism in the first place. Though by his own admission he wouldn’t have a clue how to appraise any evidence either way.

“Nevertheless, whenever they raise a non-trivial objection, the serious scientists – including the IPCC – go back and look hard at their conclusions to see if any change is required.”

Yeah well it would be good if he could give us an example of this.  Right. Thats enough. I’m sick of this. Clive Hamilton is a fraud.

But we have a wider problem and the laity simply cannot be so naieve as to think we can afford this socialist education. Liars and incompetents like Hamilton not only get hold of the stolen-money salaries and begin to comprehensively uneducate the kids. They then use their positions as a jumping off point to pull in private-sector part-time income and start misleading the public at large. And note how by his own admission he doesn’t understand a fucking thing yet he is willing to push this science fraud.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. why is zis baldy so taken seriously?

  2. He’s not the only incompetent know-nothing flapping his gums. We have an whole industry of such people.

  3. I’m severely disappointed in you Mister Bird.

    Severely disappointed.

    ‘Mass sackings’??

    Was this written when you were testosterone-depleted sir? Did a horse just kick you in the testicles?

    It is mass executions by firing squad that I and my fellow patriots in rural Queensland are after, sir, not ‘mass sackings’.

  4. Thomas Jefferson said it best. Mr Bird.

    The tree of liberty has to be watered every now and then with blood.

    Toughen up Mr Bird. The corrupt, filthy city living must have emasculated your fine anglo-saxon self.

  5. Bird:

    Tell us what you really think about the bald bed wetter. I think Clive is the sort of person we need as an ambassador for public intellectualism. Ignore Winchester.

  6. Yeah well I’ve added to it. It will come to the Winchester solution eventually if we cannot get rid of these people by cutting off the spending programs.

    Its a nice thought that Winchester has. Put our house in order in the style of Odysseus by slaughtering all these people undermining our paternity. But the fact is that even if we could do this, if the spending programs remain in place, a new generation of charlatans will grow up in the place of the fallen and unmissed. Since the same principle of stolen-money-careers, used as a vehicle for these guys to get into the private sector media and suck up all the oxygen…. Well that same principle will be in operation.

    This is why Winchester, despite his apparent great learning and wisdom in all matters may be wrong here. The killing would need to be endless.

    We have just got to get over the delusion that we can afford to have these government departments and socialist education financing.

    The next thing is that we will have an endless suicidal money spigot favouring the expansion of the UN and other international bodies. Because these army of consultants, politicians and other bludgers will spend all their lives day-dreaming about international careers. And using their influence to expand the possibility of this.

    So we will be locked into a terminal death-spiral heading towards global governance.

  7. Very well Mr Bird. I guess you must be discreet in what you advocate.

    On another topic have you noticed how these leftist wreckers and spoilers are almost inevitably gaunt, semi-anorexic, tall ectomorphs? It is as if it were a revenge of the misfits and the nancies.

  8. Yes that does seem to be the case. Its not quite an ectomorphs crusade. But there is something in what you are saying.

  9. Sir

    There seem to be many more of these types around than ever before. In the past even the evil communists I fought were at least tough guys like Joe Stalin, and union bovver boys like those Maoist Wharf workers. Nowadays the leftists have multipled but sissfied. And there is a vast explosion of sodomy throughout the land.

    I do not believe these developments to be mere coincidence. Many years ago when i was but a young man I spoke out against putting flouride in the water. Now my fears seem to have eventuated as i thought they would. Men, to become real men, need to be exposed to some shit and muck Mr Bird (pardon the French). It’s the only way they can be toughened up. This flouridated water and lack of exposure to germs is I believe what has led to the vast epidemic of sodomy and resentful sissified leftists now out to avenge themselves on the rest of us.

  10. Quite right Graeme!

    Hives should be using analogies about Gate Fearless Turks than Jackbooting Huns and Jews!

  11. Well he ought to be doing something different. Thats for sure.

  12. Yeah thats interesting what you say Winchestor. Imagine people sitting still for these ass-clowns putting toxins in the water. I don’t know if the toxins have turned people to sodomy, communism, environmentalism and generalized terpitude just from a chemical point of view.

    But the subconscious realization that they’ve stood still and allowed nameless others to put toxins in the water has got to effect whole populations, chemical sissifying or not.

    We’ve got to think about the effect on the sheilas as well. It was thought that no girl brought up on indoor plumbing was any good but that emphasis might be misplaced. The young lady whose farm house has its own outhouse, who burns her rubbish as one of her chores…. also by way of happenstance is likely to live in a family with its own water-tank.

  13. Surely Mark Bahnisch must have been brought up in an antiseptic bubble in that case Mr Bird. But how do you account for the likes of the right wingers like Mr Soon and Mr Cambria who have turned traitor? And come the putsch should they be lined up against the wall with Mr Bahnisch?

    • Did they ever feed their own chooks? Did they ever make a hut in the bushes? Swim in a muddy dam? Make a water purifier out of a plastic bottle and stones of various gradations? Get in trouble while their parents and siblings were away playing with petrol in the orchard and almost losing control of the situation? Did they wake up early mornings while the wasps were still asleep and sluggish such by killing every one of the bastards then they would not have to contend with them in the hot afternoon sun? Did they run away and keep running across one fence after the next until only hunger brought them home? Get out the old clothes and make a mudslide going over large bumbs then a sweeping curve to pick up speed then a series of bumbs and then under a barbed-wire-fence?

      I don’t thinkso. There is your answer right there along with the toxins that poisoned their nervous system.

  14. Mr Bird
    This Winchester is the second wisest man I have ever read (after you). Whatever happened to him?

    • He was a literary creation of a man of many fears. But once his fear of being found out waned the literary worth of the character declined along with the fear that had sustained it.

      There is something for all fiction writers to learn hear. Perhaps only authentic anxiety that one may be detected behind ones characters can lead to the necessary drive for well-rounded literary creation. Think of Shakespeare? Which one of his characters does he most represent? All of them and none. You cannot pick him. Perhaps Shakespeare was a fellow of many fears as well.

  15. Graeme, I’m glad someone mentioned the indefatigable Fran Barlow.

    I’ve read her posts on three or four blogs and to my mind she’s a cross between Catherine the Great and Catherine Earnshaw (Wuthering Heights). The former because of her erudition and mental prowess and the latter mainly because I think I met or saw her a couple of times and she has the most incredibly beautiful hair, that mass of luxuriant curly black hair (I’ve seen it pinned up and loose) that reminds me of what I imagine that the young Catherine’s hair looked like, running across the moors to meet her love, Heathcliff.

    • Hmmmmm. She’s got nice hair hey? And she’s pro-nuclear hey?

      But she claims to be a Trotskyite! Which means we have to assume she is bigoted. If not wholly fascist and praying for a new round of eugenics.

  16. Hey bird…

    Do you think there was a genuine moon landing, or was all that stuff made up in a TV studio?

    Thanks

  17. Graeme

    Julia Gillard’s speech to the US Congress had me in stitches this morn when I wasn’t feeling simultaneously nauseous with embarrassment at her smarm. And it reminded me of some of my bon mots over at LP on the moon landing a while back. Check them out again.

    http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/07/17/one-small-step-40-years-ago/#comment-145907

  18. Actually I was happy with her for a change. But for admittedly paradoxical reasons.

  19. If its not too late, I’d like to wish every fully grown female a very happy international womens week. I like one half of that formula, The WOMEN. I’m not so sure about the INTERNATIONAL part of it.

    Remember that if you own a Fallung man, while he may be a defective model, he and those akin to him, are all that protect you, from what many Muslim women have to submit to.

    • Thank you Graeme for the IWD wishes. You’re a good man.

      The international thing is complicated but suffice to say that the thing feminism did – and I freely admit many women never liked or were happy with the term feminism, in the past or today, and I’d count myself among those – is that it highlighted both positive and negative aspects of the universality of women’s life experience, historically and contemporaneously.

      And that was a tremendous thing for isolated individualised women to realise: that there was an explanation, a material basis, that could help us all to understand that things that happened occurred for reasons bigger than ourselves; that they were not things that that happened solely to us, or were our fault, or even that of the individual men in our lives.

      A lot of that consciousness is now absorbed into the culture, so that most women and girls today have a common sometimes unspoken understanding about why women live the way they do, feel the things they do, get treated still they way they do and so on. It’s part of all women’s conversation when they’re together.

      Of course, there are enormous differences in women’s lives depending on where you live, your income and so on. And the failure of this international movement has always lain in the over pre-occupation of privileged Western women with their relatively unimportant needs, as opposed to trying to figure out how to help the majority of women with far greater problems based on their sex, but also their class, race, religion, etc.

      So that’s what the international bit is about.

  20. I don’t have an informed opinion. But I do have a test that could bring alternative paradigms closer to the mainstream one, or cause the mainstream hypothesis to gain yet greater distance.

  21. Here is my official position on the controversy to do with whether the Americans landed on the moon or not.

    ” RE: Confronting the Moon Hoax — Graeme Bird 2011-02-20 03:07
    The controversy is a bit of a non-starter. Since only the first landing even looks suspicious and there were many other landings then that, with nothing dubious to report.
    Reply | Reply with quote | Quote”

    But this is no scientific position. We must be humble when it comes to science. And the above statement was and is made under conditions of near total ignorance.

    The fact is if we want to have a sound opinion on this and all matters we have to apply the scientific method. And in this case we would have to invent scientific tests.

  22. “Bird thinks the earthquakes are caused by cosmic rays.

    Earthquakes are caused by gravity waves that travel slightly faster than light and are originated by super-novas IIRC.”

    An interesting interpretation.

  23. Mr Bird
    Lamentably Mr Ergas has fallen for the global warming fraud

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2011/03/11/ross-garnaut/comment-page-1/#comment-181813

    WHAT AN OUTRAGEOUS LIE. GO AND APOLOGISE TO HIM.

  24. Dear Avian Oracle

    Can your mistless crystal ball confirm rumors of a conspiracy between your subject, and the communist nincompoop responsible for http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44982.html

    And what of talk that a third will ally with them, ushering in a new era of Australian public discourse. Arise, the confederacy of dunces!

    • They are all as thick as thieves for sure. But there is more too it than that Peter. Wolf-pack leftists, don’t need to be seen together to co-ordinate useful-idiot-action. A nods as good as a wink to a blind bat, and on matters of strategy, fractional-reserve-powers will stitch a link together, if the link was not there in the first place.

      Peter you are always welcome here you know! You don’t show up enough.

      Right at the moment I’m just realising woefully that my stepdaughters cousins are growing up too fast for me to become a viable uncle for them. The camera doesn’t lie. But I keep wanting to play the best kids songs to them:

  25. But he was never the great economist! He was never the highest ranking analyst. He was basically a fellow of goodwill and sound logic. Those two traits alone made him the second best columnist on economic issues in the country, except when a certain Costa came out of his funk to contest second place.

  26. Thanks for tipping me off Peter.

    I’ve tried to get this one through:

    You can call people UTOPION ESCHATOLOGISTS, if it takes your fancy, to be technically correct. But “COMMIES” is fine. There’s is no need to be embarrassed about using the word “COMMIES”.

    ENGLISH is the language of science, and therefore “COMMIES” will do just fine.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    LYING STRATEGICALLY IN PUBLIC

    So what has happened here is a coterie of commies has set out to rewrite history with the help of other commies ensconced in the ABC.

    In their inner circle, nothing is so prestigious as lying strategically in public. McKnight stayed in the background clapping while the more daring traitor (Clive) got out there getting all the commie brownie points, for setting up an alternative history.

    But now Clive is frightened. So here is David doing his commie duty.

    We have forgotten what the word TREASON means in this country haven’t we?

    Yes we have!

    Well not all of us David. Not all of us have forgotten the meaning of the word “TREASON”.

    What have you got to lose from trying this on David?

  27. Here is a second one I’m trying to get through Peter:

    Lets not assume that Clive and the Australians editorial policy are not aligned. If these traitors are anything they are strategic.

    Look at McKnights story and look at Clives. Tell me that you know for sure that they didn’t write each-others story, and then do-the-swap.

    These people plan for your downfall and for the destruction of your nieces.

    They think that society must shed its skin to renew itself and so their plan is to cut deep into the flesh.

  28. Peter. I think what we have established is that these COMMIES are willing to write the first draft of eachothers media offerings and then mix and match what name they are going to ascribe TO them.

    So in this case McKnight writes Clives, and someone writes McKnights, and that way a dozen mindless nobodies can get to look like the lefts version of renaissance men.

    Everything they write is fucking stupid from my point of view. But this is how I believe they are operating.

  29. So here we have a good theory, the evidence for this theory is forthcoming, and yet Catallaxians mock the scientific method.

    I KNOW. I KNOW ITS ONLY SCIENCE. BUT I LIKE IT.

    “Jesus this Japanese Tsunami/Earthquake is looking mindbogglingly bad.
    Moonagedon aprocheth i tells ya.”

    Why mock something like this? Had the matter been treated objectively, lives and property would have been saved.

    • J.C. of Catallaxy’s first comment today on the Japanese earthquake and tsunami.

      [“Jesus this Japanese Tsunami/Earthquake is looking mindbogglingly bad. [Infidel Tiger]

      “It’s a stimulus in the long run, tiger.” J.C.

      What a hideous monster.

      No wonder his drug addled teenage daughter fled overseas to get away from him.

  30. Thank God for democratic libertarians like Mr Moore

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/09/michael_moore_reacts_to_wisconsin_union_vote_this_is_war.html

  31. The main thing you, me and catallaxy have to realise is that we are all in the firing line. Ultimately earth-disasters come from space weather. And the natives are restless, at the centre of the galaxy, tonight.

  32. Well, you and Catallaxy men may have surrendered and hide in the corner fetal like, gaze at the stars mesmerised, pussy whipped by Mother Nature. Or like the predatory carrion, Joe Cambria position yourself like a savage jackal to prey on the survivors.

    But that’s no help or aid for what is going to be needed, this very moment, to help nations and people to deal with the effects of all this.

    Give me a practical man any day than some lame, cowardly bullshit artist or ideologically addled waste of space who has given up the fight for survival before it has even started.

  33. The natives are restless in the galaxy. But in the jungle the lion sleeps:

  34. What’s with the cartoon? Are you regressing to childhood?

    Don’t debase one of the great songs about human dignity and struggle against all the dangers and odds.

  35. Yes. A very nice version. Its one of these songs though, that one likes to see secondary school choirs having a crack at it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Here is a song that Clive Hamilton has taken under advisement, or so it seems. Right now, on ABC Unleashed. he appears to be channeling SHAGGY:

  36. Oh well, I’ll leave you to your irrelevancy.

    Au revoir.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: