Posted by: graemebird | August 16, 2008

New Climate Alarmist Starts A Blog.

The new science-fraud putting himself in the blog business is Professor Barry Brook. The law of alarmist sites is that they moderate up front whereas climate rationalists tend to moderate after the fact.

Just to test out this thesis I made the following post which was automatically moderated:

Graeme Bird Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. 
16 August 2008 at 23.17

“Global Warming” is flat earth science. I mean that quite literally. Since the Professor is so sure of himself than I’m sure he won’t mind going through the whole model right from the start and auditing it for the plausibility of its assumptions.

We might start from the idea that a doubling of CO2 leads to a 1 degree increase in temperature for starters. And the allegation that this is derived straight from radiative physics.

Obviously there must be a host of simplifying assumptions for that conclusion to fly. We would wish to know what these simplifying assumptions are. They seem to be that the planet would be flat, twice as far from the sun, noon all the time, a black body, with the water vapour invariant and averaged out throughout the planet. But in any case I’m sure the Professor could throw some light on the simplifying assumptions no matter what they might be.


No doubt this new bullshit-artist will just wipe it rather than go through his assumptions in good faith.


He lets it through but he did what all these science-frauds do. He tried to get me doing the talking so that he could rubbish me on something or other that I would allegedly have got wrong. These guys always do that. Having no evidence of their own they just sit tight and wait for the other guy to make a mistake.  So I came back with this one which was immediately put on moderation. These science frauds take no chances:

Graeme Bird Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. 
17 August 2008 at 3.30

Because I think its just ridiculous for starters. Lets not run ahead of ourselves. We are talking about this 1 degree claim for a doubling of CO2. And the allegation that this generalization comes straight from fundamental radiative physics. We want to see the assumptions and aggregation needed to make this claim.

You can use high or low levels of aggregation. But the levels of aggregation here are something that people ought to know about. They won’t believe it coming from me.

Like I said they seem to imply at least SOME of the following:

“the planet would be flat, twice as far from the sun, noon all the time, a black body, with the water vapour invariant and averaged out throughout the planet. ”

Lets not play the slippery eel. We hadn’t got to your claim about the overall sensitivity (a bogus notion in my view). We wanted to deal with even the bipartisan assumptions. And this 1 degrees business appears to be bipartisan.


Now my bet is that he simply won’t do it. He won’t put himself in a situation where he has to make clear any evidence or reasoning. Since the evidence isn’t there and the reasoning is just ridiculous. He’ll do precisely what he did just then and try and get the climate rationalist talking.

Notice that in his own response he slimed out of the question. Made an assertion. And linked directly to other alarmists. So its a completed circular argument. Much like Deltoid always used to do.

Whereas he could have merely told everyone which simplifying assumptions were true and if any of them weren’t. Or he could have admitted that he didn’t know.

Already we have the tell-tale signs of the science-fraud.


Now a couple of mindless bully-boys step in. And start hassling this site. They are without substance and could not answer a very simple question.  Any alarmist Professor knows he can rely on this sort of goon-show of mindless groupies to do the work for him. He doesn’t have the evidence, he doesn’t have a paradigm that is at all reasonable. But what he can rely on is the mindless groupies.

Graeme Bird Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. 
17 August 2008 at 11.25

So you are not capable of telling me the assumptions behind, what after all, is supposed to be a bipartisan notion of a 1 degrees change with a doubling of CO2? And instead the Professor sidesteps onto a ridiculous claim about sensitivity, then links to alarmists. Whereas you two mindless bullyboys start hassling my site.

Lets go over it again shall we. Now the claim that this 1 degrees for a doubling comes STRAIGHT from radiative physics simply cannot be true. There needs to be certain simplifying assumptions and certain aggregations to make such a conclusion work. What are these assumptions?

We ought to go over it and over it and over it again until you bully-boy advocates of the UN status quo actually understand the problem.

Graeme Bird Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. 
17 August 2008 at 11.40

Professor I’ll be straight with you. I consider this alarmist climate model essentially baseless science fraud. And you a fraud be extension. But if you feel that there is something in it, and if you think you aren’t foisting and obvious fraud on the public, you should be able to make your case openly and without recourse to this mindless goon-show of leftist bully-boy groupies that always show up if anyone questions the orthodoxy.

So how about you make the case? You are a big boy now. So much so that you’ve lost all your hair. You ought to be able to make a case without content-free idiots harassing the opposition as a central part of it.


Well thats it. It took all of about 12 hours and the science-fraud has banned me. Its a case of the fellow who knows too much. He’s banned me without answering the question. To make this a scientific experiment we shall now go to a climate rationalist blog that we have not been to before and foist the same question on them. See if they react in a more scientific way. We can see that Kojack was relying on the bully-boys and the mistakes of the opposing party to keep his racket in the air without ever having to show up with the evidence or justify the paradigm that he mindlessly clings to.



  1. You accuse others of just what you always do – deny the science and play the man not the ball. All of these questions have been answered ad nauseam in various scientific papers and on other scientific sites. These are, quite rightly, referenced by the Professor and include papers in HIGHLY RESPECTED PEER REVIEW journals like NATURE and SCIENCE.Trouble is all you “sceptics” do is repeat the same clp-trap even when the complex science is explained to you. Here’s an idea, why don’t you and your afficionados get together and submit a scientific paper to one of these journals – if your science is sound you will be published and be lauded as the new Messiah who disproved global warming and climate change so that we can now all go back to our safe, comfortable lifestyles. Denying it won’t make it go away – this is not a political or economic argument, if you win, you lose as nothing will be done to prevent the projected future. BTW I am a female, 62 year old, retiree not a left-wing greenie, as you accuse any who have opposite opinions to, of being. Grow up and put your kids and grandkids future before your own pompous selfishness. Now let’s see if you “moderate” me! Bird by name, bird by brain!

  2. Where things are published are immaterial. The level of this fraud can be so so strong as to grab the publications as well.

    Now you say you have evidence. Lets see it then. We wanted evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming. Or for the idea that a little bit of human-induced warming is a BAD thing during a brutal and pulverising ice-age.

    Or we might want to look at the inductive/deductive side of things by breaking up the standard model into all its assumptions. Now I’m not seeing any of this happen.

    Thats fraud.

    So you go right ahead. But nothing can be proven by simply repeating the same paradigm over and over in broad brush.

  3. Yea, Dr. Barry Brook has a basic science degree from Macquarie university and he’s posing as a professor of “climate change”. Macquarie is the claytons uni. That’s where you go when you can’t get in anywhere else isn’t it? I bet his uni enter score would have borded on 60/100.

    His sidekick, Bradshaw, is a zoologist which is a couple of grades above animal husbandry that most farmers would know about at the age of 10. These two clowns are posing as climate scientists.

    Climate science is a pretty complex field incorporating high level math and physics. What would these two ignoramuses even understand about the subject? It’s a laugh a minute over there with Brook proposing we’re going to have mass extinctions. The only mass we should be talking about is what’s missing inside his cranium. Macquarie.!.. for god’s sake. Macquarie uni!

    These two clowns throw their CV around as though they’re from MIT.

  4. Why are you taking this idiot seriously anyway?

    His entire financial support is based on propagating this crap, so it’s not as though you would ever get a fair hearing from Brook. He’s basically a snakeoil salesman selling crap, Bird. you’re wasting your time posting over there. The idiot’s salary is based on climate change….. and he’s a Macquarie uni grad to boot.

  5. So much so that you’ve lost all your hair.

    Seen his picture? He’s quite possibly the ugliest person imaginable. looking at him you kind of hope for mass species extinction.

  6. Seems to be a big time tax eater.

    Bio: Professor Brook completed his PhD at Macquarie University in 1999 before moving to Charles Darwin University in northern Australia. He has rapidly established a reputation as an international research leader, publishing prodigiously (two books and over 75 scientific papers to date) in many the world’s most respected forums (such as Nature, Science, Cambridge University Press), and securing over $3 Million in competitive research grants. In 2002 he spent six months as a visiting fellow at Kyoto University. In 2006, aged 31, he won the Australian Academy of Science Fenner Medal for distinguished research in biology, was appointed to the Australian Research Council College of Experts, and was awarded a personal research Chair (Professor). In 2007 he was appointed as the Foundation Chair of Climate Change at The University of Adelaide. The principal motivation for his research is to identify ways and means of reducing current and future extinctions.

  7. Three million in research grants.


    Thats where the trouble starts right there.

  8. “nothing can be proven by simply repeating the same paradigm over and over in broad brush”

    Shorter Bird (any shorter and Lambert will be patting him on the head) – I decide what is and isn’t evidence.

  9. No no. Nothing can be proved by simply repeating the same paradigm over and over in broad brush. And that alleged evidence which lead to the formulation of the inductive armchair hypothesis cannot be deemed as evidence for that same hypothesis.

    You know jack shit about epistemology Soon. Face facts.

  10. “You know jack shit about epistemology Soon. Face facts”

    Everything I know about epistemology I learnt from Rafe and Popper.

  11. when are you returning to blogging Bird?

    the world needs to know your opinion of the Bracks car review

  12. “Everything I know about epistemology I learnt from Rafe and Popper.”

    Rafe falls down in this department. They always specialise in the things they are no good at. Popper no exception. Now what do you think I’m going to think about the Bracks car review? Its an appalling disgrace. Stealing money off us and giving it to big car companies. You’d wonder whether he ought be investigated for corruption.

  13. MCHAMMER What is wrong with you?

    Go to the website and check out his Biography. Professor Barry Brook has an undergraduate degree, a first class honours degree and a PhD. You don’t get to be a Professor without a doctorate first so WHAT are you talking about? Apparently this guy has won lots of glittering prizes too including the Fenner Medal from the Australian Academy of Sciences and was named as one of the top 10 young scientists in Australia by Cosmos magazine. SO WHAT ARE YOUR QUALIFICATIONS?


  14. Sounds like a great deal of money has been wasted on him and now he’s become a research grants whore.

  15. These alarmist anti-scientists all give eachother medals while the true scientists battle away in obscurity. How about the case of Flannery. They make him AUSTRALIAN of the year at the same time as others of their sort in Scandinavia are giving Al Gore the Nobel peace price. The lunatics behind this are utterly shameless. This fellow is a grants whore. He’s no scientist.

    Those 3 million in research grants he’s won amount to 3 million in continuing propaganda in favour of this blatant science fraud.

  16. Brothels notwithstanding his vulgarity is right, Mr Bird,
    Your country needs you to make inroads into this scam. That is, as long as you are not a sodomite. I presume, hope and pray that ‘Brothels’ was only jesting about your sexual proc;ivities Mr Bird? If you are a sodomite, I will come and put you out of your misery myself.

  17. Is this blog dead?

    Has freedom’s brightest star been lost to the trivialities of everyday life when like an old gentleman-farmer in ancient Rome he should have stepped up and performed his public duty to bring forth a world of freemen and a republic of virtue before he could even have thought of retiring to his olive groves?

  18. Great analogy Winchester. Taking it back a bit further, where it all began with the Hoplites in places like Attica. They would fight in bursts. The contrast between peace and non-peace was a strong one before the disastrous Pelopennesian war. So that when they’d fight eachother it would be the farmer putting down his plough and suiting up with his heavy armour. The contention lasting hours. Then back to the olives. If he did live.

    I’ve been mostly over at Doctor Marohasy’s blog. But I certainly have to concentrate on these trivialities for awhile.

  19. speaking of tough guys, Jon Voight comes out as a conservative

  20. Hi Graeme,

    I love you work exposing the anti-science kooks. Just a bit of support to know your efforts here and over at Jenifer Marohsey’s blogs are certainly appreciated by some


  21. I am pleased to see that Mr Bird has delete the nonsense and lies on his site. If others followed suit we might get a more sensible discourse. These sites that allow “free speech” really is just a code for non stop leftish ad hom and abuse.

  22. I’m having a hard time deleting stuff because Safari keeps crashing. I’m on computer number 2 here.

  23. Since I cannot post a new thread until I get my other computer fixed I’ll post it here for the moment. Now notice that my take on the climate is UTTERLY IRRECONCILEABLE with that of science fraud Barry Brooks. Or anyone elses who uses an other-worldly black body model of the globe, arbitrarily attempting to correct for this silliness, after the fact via a one-step Lamda adjustment.

    Here is my take on the utter impossibility of cumulative problematic warming. The point to take note of is Barry is wrong and I am right:

    “…..Its just the truth of the situation that nothing that fails to warm the ocean can be responsible for cumulative warming. This is utterly impossible. Since only the ocean can hold enough energy to outlast a single weak solar cycle.

    More water vapour cannot lead to runaway warming. Lets just repeat that so no-one can make any mistake here:


    This is simply not possible. Since the water vapour is produced in the very act of cooling the ocean. The water vapour is the ocean sweating. In the short-term the water vapour does indeed warm the troposphere through 1. Increased overturning 2. The transport of actual and potential heat energy. 3. The greenhouse effect (no matter how much it is disputed the actual magnitude of this effect.)

    But it is also the transmission method by which the oceans cool themselves. If CO2 were to lead to more warming it would also lead to more water vapour. Which would cool the oceans. Leaving us the tiniest bit warmer in the net sense. Thats at a best guess. The other thing that would happen is that the ocean currents would have less driving force behind them due to less heat differential. So the net effect would be tiny. Even tinier than the .3% for a doubling that good climate rationalists have been calculating.

    On the other hand if that CO2 could just melt the land ice a little bit each year it could well help us stave off the glacial period along with a mix of other measures. The net effect would only have to be a few metres each year and it would be very helpful.

    So this is fraud. We know how the climate system works. Its no mystery. It doesn’t work like a flat black body with no insulative capacity of air, no convection, no conduction.

    Up in Chiang Mai when the heat soars after noon (since this place is elevated) they bring out the garden hose and rapidly cool the whole area via evaporation. Water vapour is proof of massive refrigeration. On the road to San Kam Piang my step-daughters grandfather built a restaurant on the side of the road. Its largely an outdoor affair with netting and they pipe water up to the roof and allow it to run down this netting. The netting lets fresh air through. But it holds the water up long enough to allow it to evaporate. Its netting which is mostly just space but tiny little squares.

    Its just astonishing the power of this crude method as an air conditioner. You walk in from punishing high-altitude heat that would burn your feet immediately without shoes. And even before you get inside the air is incredibly cool and comfortable. This powerful effect happening though the evaporation is going on way overhead.

    Every inch of the tropical oceans are going through this refrigeration every minute of the afternoon. Thats what is creating the water vapour which determines the heat of the troposphere. The troposphere therefore cannot get hot without massively increasing this refrigeration effect. Only thick ice can prevent this effect on the oceans. This is often missed when the focus is all on Albedo. But away from global warming controversy everyone knows that ice on the lakes can actually stop the cooling of the main body of the lakes water.

    So there is no chance of runaway warming. None at all. Not from all the methane we allow to leak out or be produced from our farm animals. Not from a doubling of CO2 output, a tripling or a quadrupling. None at all. The CO2 levels would have to be so high as to actually have a massive effect on air pressure. Than it could have a cumulative effect and not before.

    The only way we could get runaway warming would be to make the ocean currents as close to frictionless as we could. And dig huge ocean trenches like gigantic Suez canals to reduce the resistance to circulation. We couldn’t dig anything that deep. We might be able to give it some effect by producing an artifically smooth bottom. Than we might have to wait millions of years for the excess joules to build up deeper in the earth and only then would we be likely to get a release of energy which could cause a big problem.

    We know that this sort of thing was the cause of the warming 55 million years ago simply because the ocean currents started coming off the bottom of the sea. Which implicates heat buildup deeper below.

    This is not unprecedented elsewhere in the solar system. With Venus storing up enough heat so as to finally subduct its entire surface when it got so much heat energy that it couldn’t hold it any more.

    Venus lacks a moon and has a very slow rotation. So it lacks the perturbation in its various strata, both in the atmosphere and beneath the ground, to be able to release its internal energy more frequently and less catastrophically. But we ourselves most definitely had a heat buidup in the tens of millions of years prior to the heat maximum. With tens of millions of years without an ice age and with continents so open as to allow for general warming everywhere. Thus making it difficult for the earth to release excess heat to the deep oceans.

    There is simply no chance NO CHANCE of serious warming. More is the pity. But there is just no chance. This is wrong-way Corrigan on a global scale. How could we have been so stupid to worry about warming when the globe is so fundamentally rigged up with a one-way bias to catastrophic cooling alone?”

  24. Graeme,

    You deleted my comment in support of you against all the knockers. I’m a little disappointed.

    Love Anna

  25. More gay slurs from the degenerates that infest this fine site. When will you people grow up.

    On to more seriosu discussions though, Mr Bird you are quire right, it is clear that water vapour is not a positive feedback. In my mind it acts as a fine balancer, evaporation cools the surface then creates cloud cover which increases albedo enhancing cooling. If you cool you have the reverse effect at the margin. But if there is a big driver like the solar cycle you can push through the stable point and into the run away cooling issue that keeps me awake at night. I sheets grow, albedo from ice grows and Europe and north american slides under the walls of ice.

    As I have alluded to this in the other threads we already have the technology to attack this problem. Whether we can get enough nuclear subs under the artic sea, and the antartic ice sheets burning away at them to stop it is another problem.

  26. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Thats a parody but its actually about 80% right.

  27. A parody?

    Speculation yes, 80% right I am pleased with, but certainly not a parody. Please Mr Bird can you inform me where I am going wrong. I confess no great knowledge in the area.

    I take you point on the other thread that the insulation is greater than the albedo effects. While I would like to read more on this issue it is possible that you are quite right and we need to just break up the land ice.

  28. Futhur thoughts on this. Might we try to melt the antartic ice cap via nuclear power? Or is that to vast a proposition. Would seem to be some vast untapped resources there.

  29. The alarmist now have all the PROOF they need/can get:

  30. Mr Bird,

    I hope that you delete this nonsense above with the utmost urgency.

    Has the world gone mad? Exxon being forced by socialists to deny the truth is seen as evidence that its not true. A concocted piece of garbage if I ever saw it.

  31. “Futhur thoughts on this. Might we try to melt the antartic ice cap via nuclear power? Or is that to vast a proposition.”

    Way to vast. Which highlights the stupidity of the warming racket. I did some ballpark figures to work out what it would take to melt it and they are just of a sort that would make our puny energy-generation efforts look laughable.

    But you could use specifically a hydrogen bomb to melt enough ice if you could drain away hot water and create a depression to get at a giant oil-field underneath the ice. Its likely that most of the radiation would be gone with the water you drained. You could use this technique to create a depression and then excavate further and cover the top with Ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE). Thus constructing living quarters and using wind power thereafter (this being one of the few places on the planet where wind power ought to be more than viable).

    Sea ice is a great insulator. So its counterproductive to get rid of it unless it is destined to encroach on the great ocean conveyer.

    Now the anatarctic is surrounded by the circumpolar current which mostly goes round and round and round cutting the Antarctic weather off from the rest of the globe at least at sea level. I think the rest of the globe interferes perhaps from mid-troposphere up. So any melting efforts, already puny as to the task, will be in vain. Since the energy will be quickly drained off into space.

    While that circumpolar current exists this globe can scarcely overheat. A lot of the planets energy must be being sucked into the ice cap. Which surely dispenses with it easily.

    The gulf stream is useful to us. Because it moves thermal energy almost directly from the equator and pretty much most of the way to the North pole. Yet all these currents are connected. So we would want to reduce friction in the current wherever it is cost-effective to do so.

    We want to know the entry and exit points where the great ocean conveyer merges with and leaves the circumpolar current. We want to head of any obstruction at these critical points. Could we divert and flush some of the power of the circumpolar current so more of its force is added to the great-ocean-conveyer-PROPER????

    Yes I’m sure we could. And this would warm up the planet. But we would have to know what we are doing.

    I’m for every energy production except for one that is potentially dangerous. Off the coast of Florida they are harnessing the Gulf Stream for electricity. If this goes too far it will have an impact on climate for the worse and they really ought to build a couple of nuclear power plants instead. But at the circumpolar current we might be able to enhance the flow of the great ocean conveyer and STILL drain off a lot of energy for local Antarctic use.

    The ice age ends when the current is more of an out and back current like the gulf-stream and unlike the circumpolar current.

  32. “But you could use specifically a hydrogen bomb to melt enough ice if you could drain away hot water and create a depression to get at a giant oil-field underneath the ice.”

    The idea was first put forward by von Neumann and is feasible. It is also a very fucking stupid idea for very fucking obvious fucking reasons just ask the shithead ghost of Stalin about that little lake he insisted being created through the use of hydrogen bombs or the US scientists advocating atomic explosions for geo engineering until strontium 90 started showing up in childrens’ bones all around the world fuck me scientists can be stupid.

  33. Right. So you think the radiation from a hydrogen bomb a kilometre down in the ice would be too problematic. Fair enough then.

  34. Graeme,

    The problem is the particulate spread. It is something I have long puzzled over, particularly in relation to biochemical processes. These bloody molecules can move so fast I still find it hard to imagine how just a few can find just the right receptors going through all those membranes. With radioactive particulates the little bastards, even in minute amounts, take up residence in tissues, and in that context even sustained beta radiation will do enough damage over the long term. Have a look at how many of the Manhattan people died of cancer. Happened to von Neumann too but he seemed to think that radiation could not induce double strand breaks in DNA. alpha and beta can’t but gamma yes big time. However, enough beta emissions roughly equals double strand breaks.

  35. But isn’t it a matter of DEGREE? I mean I wasn’t advocating such a thing so much as showing Richard why it would be futile as a way of clearing ice or warming the climate. So by contrast I wanted to say where the bomb might be used. But isn’t the radiation problem more a matter of magnitude rather than radiation per se?

    Like you are going to have the equipment there to test radiation levels. And the idea is that you don’t want them very high. How bad is the blowback from underground experiments? Like the French in the pacific. They blow up a bomb on an ATTOL somewhere and you see the surface crack up. But the particles aren’t going all over the place. I’m mean I’m just wondering. And I’d be wondering how bad the problem would be. Say you’ve got 3 kilometres of ice. And you put the HYDROGEN bomb 2 kilometres down. Because you know there is a giant oilfield there. The ice is -60 below zero. Your guys have radiation protection as well as protection from the cold. And the goal is to be able to stick a lot of heavy drilling equipment down there while the water inside is still melted and pump all the water out leaving a sheltered platform with ease of access. Then the particulates would all be in the water and later frozen in ice in the middle of nowhere. Surely the level of hazard could be contained.

    Also you would think that because its a hydrogen bomb and not an atom bomb the particulates would be vapourised entirely. So that they were totally micronised to their smallest constituent size when they cooled down. So that the hazard became a sort of ambient background thing that you practice risk management on.

    How dangerous could that be?

  36. Mr Bird,

    Do not be fooled by this Hasenkam character. The strontium 90 thing was a blatant distortion by the communist Linus Pauling, winner of the International Lenin Peace Prize. Make no mistake this is the man who the Senate security sub-committee described as “”the number one scientific name in virtually every major activity of the Communist peace offensive in this country.”

    Small changes in low level background radiation does not cause cancer.

  37. Right. I wouldn’t be worried about a little bit more background radiation. But I would be concerned with people breathing in particulates. I just would have thought that in the remote ice the problem could be contained.

  38. Well of course it could be contained down there. A few Penguins and whales might get cancer but its for the greater good.

    Perhaps the Japanese whalers might complain.

  39. I was thinking inland away from the penguins.

  40. Sure Mr Bird, but my point was that there is nothing else really living down there so who cares if we up the background a bit?

  41. I come back after dealing with my legal troubles with the Socialist Rudd govt and what do i find?

    Mr Bird caving on to animal libbers? I hope not.

    I am afraid for my country if one such as Mr Bird has caved,

    Which is more important Mr Bird – people or a few avians?

    Frankly I am disgusted,

  42. Well my original point was that there was no point or need to use nukes. And I’m thinking of a case where they might be useful. And the only situation i could think of was if you wanted to get at a new giant oil field under 3 kilometres of ice. And so needed to gouge a hole in the ice so you could easily fit a lot of capital equipment down there in a sheltered environment.

  43. Mr Bird,

    Sorry to change the subject.

    I have recently become very concerned about the re-emergence of Russia as a kind of semi-capitalist totalitarian state. In particular I have been worried since Putin described the fall of the soviet union as a great catastrophy that the place is just being run by a cabal of ex-KGB.

    In these circumstances it would seem best that we launch a nuclear strike on the country as soon as we have a half decent missile shield. We might as well do china at the same time.

    Would you support this idea. I realise some may find it a little rash but I think it will be easier now than in 10 years time.

  44. Graeme,

    No need nuke, just some nuke reactors to generate ongoing heat and later used as an energy source. That way you have complete control over the process. Underground testing will potentially disrupt the very areas you want to drill and could well create more problems than it solves.

  45. I second Mr Glover’s comments.

    Good lad!
    Have I met you at a League of Rights meeting sometime before?

    I have spoken for years of the danger of the Mongols up north (by which I mean both Russia and China). Won’t be long before they try to invade us. We should vapoourise them first.

  46. Mr Quatermain,

    While I support many of the view of the League of rights there are some that I don’t support. We don’t need a state run bank, all we need is a ban on fractional reserve. I also abhor their holocaust denial.

    So no you have never met me at that organization.

    Still I am glad that someone else is taking the first strike option against the communists dressed as capitalists seriously.

  47. Mr Bird, you have a lot to learn from Mr Glover I dare say. A lot to learn.

    Shape up, son.

  48. The only good ex-communist is a dead ex-communist. I applaud your foresight, Mr Glover, I hope you will take Mr Bird under your wing and guide him through these hard and confusing times.

  49. Don’t worry, Glover. I posted that link in sarcastic humour in relation to what the alarmist consider evidence.

    Graeme, you catch SBS’s Insight last night? It was mind numbingly bad. You should head on over to the “your say” section of their website a teach the Cargo Cult Climateteers a thing or two.

  50. I didn’t have the strength for it. I had it there on in the background for awhile. But then I must have dialed up something worthy on the net.

    I went to check out the League Of Rights site. Thought it mostly good stuff and the writings of Eric Butler pretty interesting. You are faced with a dilemma when you think about joining any organisation. Its that old country club cliche. Do you join a country club that excludes Jews and try and reform it from the inside, not worry about the policy one way or the other, or not join?

    Like in the LDP. Do you want to be associated with the founders bad economics and CO2-bedwetting? Or do you join and try and fight these things from the inside?

    I don’t know whether the modern League Of Rights has an anti-semitic streak to it. I could join and not feel I needed to take responsibility for it if it was part of their make-up. So long as it wasn’t a rabid thing. But if it was a serious part of their make-up like CO2-bedwetting is a serious bad gene amongst the younger in the LDP, then I’d probably lose interest and want to leave again.

    Its hard to say from the literature on their website whether anti-semitism is a serious part of the organisation or not. To what extent it might be a leftist smear.

    The famous Dr Swartz had dealings with the League Of Rights did he not? Thats not a bad sign.

    Winchester. Is the League Of Rights a well-wisher to Israel? Surrounded as she is by fascists and barbarians? Thats a bit of an acid test in my book at the moment. These people are by no means perfect but they deserve a bit of moral support. And encouragement to train their fire more on errant leadership within the barbarian camp.

    I guess I don’t know enough about the organisation.

  51. Mr Bird, I do not recommend the League I think you will find they have a vey nasty underbelly. Still some fine people in there but some bad apples too.

    Still you haven’t evaluated my proposal for a nuclear first strike against China and Russia sooner rather than later. We know that these countries are arming their proxies with nukes, namely Iran and Nth Korea.

    Fighting the beast by only chopping off the little heads it spawns will never do any good. We must stab boldy at the heart and do it sooner rather than later. With these two manipulator’s gone it will be only a few short wars in the middle east and we should have most things sorted.

    What say you?

  52. No I wouldn’t go in for a nuclear first strike. Because we can defend ourselves from their nukes if we are smart. We can get it together to survive anything they’ve got, and go from strength to strength economically while our lads hunt down their leadership like squealing pigs, in retaliation for anything that they do. Leaving most of their people intact and ready to keep trading with us.

    We can get it together and we should get it together. To echo Vito, I want to be the first to congratulate the Chinese on their new imperial project in Africa. Particularly as their interests in this regard don’t conflict with mine.

    By the way. I got almost a 100 hits thanks to Edney. Who made it sound like I was on the verge of joining the League Of Rights. I wish I understood why they are so Verbotten and the Greens or Fabians are not. I suppose he didn’t word it dishonestly. If he had been pedantic and said “contemplating the hypothetical of joining the League Of Right” rather than “contemplating joining the League Of Rights” which would have been closer.

    I’m sure not going to be intimidated into gratuitously putting these people down by this sort of mob mentality. I have my concerns about possible anti-semitism in their ranks. And otherwise see little thats wrong with them so far.

  53. Mr Bird,

    I think many more would come to have a look if you threatened to join the greens.

    As to your more general poin,t regarding why there is an attitude that hard leftist like the Greens are ok but the League etc is not I think it stems back to World War 2.

    Sadly many seem to have view that the alliance of convinience with the Soviets was some sort of endorsement that the far left was somehow better than the far right when in reality nothing could be further from the truth. An unfortunately accident of history, and if anything it made strategic sense to align with the more hideous side with the view that it would be weaker in the long run.

    You may be right with regard targetting the leadership, and trying to keep the body count down but I worry that this sort of thing inevitably leads to war where we don’t have the element of surprise. We must be more concerned with the lives of our citizens than with those who have allowed socialists to rule over them.

  54. Richard,

    I think you should listen to Graeme. He talks a lot of sense. While I’ve never been a member of the League of Rights friends who are are some of the nicest people I know and not very anti-semetic. One of them even works for Jews.

    You should also listen to him about your nuclear ideas. We don’t need to kill millions to set their countries to rights.

    Love Anna

  55. Bird,

    I’m wondering if you are still following the predictions of David Hathaway the guy made the predictions of a small solar cycles two ahead and which you based your evidence for catastrophic cooling.

    While I think his predictions are nonsense. (But at least falsifiable nonsense – and if you look at his solar minimum projects already falsified), it was interesting to see what he has to say about the risk of cooling and how it is the complete opposite of your opinion.

    “Prior to the industrial revolution, the sun probably accounted for about 10 to 30 percent of climate variability, Hathaway told, but now that greenhouse gases have started to build up, “the sun’s contribution is getting smaller and smaller,” he added.”

  56. Mr Bird,

    Is this the Edney character who in typical leftist style, tried to smear you about the League of rights? Surely you won’t allow your site to be a venue for his bed-wetting climate alarmism.

  57. I wasn’t relying on Hathaway thats bullshit. And he’s got the wrong end of the stick anyway. It looks like he hasn’t got the corrected temperature figures yet. The one which pumps up the 30’s as a very warm decade. Sami Solanki thought the same thing. He thought that historically the sun and air temperature had tracked together but since 1980 things had been different. But thats just because everyone was working off bogus figures.

  58. JC makes a very good point:

    “He doesn’t seem to be opposing the sale on ideological grounds he’s opposing it because he’s worried the money will go down the labor plug hole. I honestly don’t blame him for that as I can see where he’s coming from.”

    Thats right. The urgent thing is to get new power stations up and running. The important thing is to have the subsequent private market a competitive market n the sense that its concentration of assets comes out of success when the market is less concentrated.

    A plunder and splurge scheme is just not appropriate no matter how much the labour party and the consultant court-economists love it.

    There is this ridiculous idea that worlds best practice is to bundle all the assets together and sell them off in a huge auction. Thus guaranteeing that only the deepest pockets in crony-town can compete. Ultimately the deepest pockets aren’t private pockets but the communist chinese party. Then since you are creating a Frankenstein market the consultants will break off into two camps. Those who favour the crony camp and want to lobby for a free hand for the new Frankenstein corporation(s). And those who go for the socialist camp and want to have ongoing regulation.

    This false dichotomy comes under the heading of “neither of the above.”

    Better to be patient. Get the investment and construction rules right. Defeat NIMBY in all its forms. Split the assets into their smallest potential cash-flow operations. And sell one asset off a quarter unless you get the sweetest of deals. To qualify a company ought to have the committment for massive capital upgrade for efficiency AND INCREASED OUTPUT. Commit all funds to debt reduction.

    CO2-bedwetters amongst the economists lose track of the reality, and perhaps do not believe, that its INCREASED CAPACITY that is the goal. Not “efficiency”. Since in a competitive market the inefficient will go under and the assets will fall to people who can do the job.

  59. How disappointing to see you fall into the pit of State Socialism

  60. I now see that I should have put my energies into recruiting Mr Glover rather than Mr Bird.

  61. Stop the lying Bird. Hathaway was the only guy you ever cited who claimed a weak cycle 25.

    Based on a model that was far more dodgy as less well tested than the climate models.

  62. Ha Ha Ha Ha. What are you talking about Winchester. You can see clearly there that I just want a better privatisation.

  63. No you are lying. The thing about 25 is that the solar guys were all saying the same thing. Thats why I couldn’t make a good prediction that went earlier than the 2030’s. Because they disagreed on 24. And not 25.

  64. We have to get electricity out of the hands of the thieves first Mr Bird,

    Your priorities are misplaced.

    I also lament your softness on the first strike issue. The defence of civilisation is a task for men, not boys. Mr Glover’s political correctness about giving undue offence to the People of the Book notwithstanding, his masculinity is not in question like yours now is.

  65. Oh well. I’ll just have to get used to it I guess. I’ll have to put testosterone in my coffee for weeks on end and see if that helps.

    But with enough preparation time I think we can get it so our lads can decapitate the leadership of the offending nation right up close enough to hear their futile screams for mercy.

    Of course it is inevitable that the killing has to be indiscriminate enough so as to dissalow the culprits enough contact with the rest of humanity so as to conduct rational operations. But we ought to be able to murder 10 000 of the top guys with only 100 000 (lets say) in collateral damage.

  66. did you catch this Graeme? amazing

  67. Its not that significant Jason. Because you and I both know that Obama is a magnificent speaker. And thats all Pat is saying here.

    Pat is anti-war. He was a committed cold-war-warrior. And he would project immense power against China as the only serious strategic competitor. But he’s disgusted at soldiers dying when its only broken-assed countries who cannot fight for shit.

    So he’s not enthusiastic about the McCain ticket. McCain would be just the sort of Republican he would hate.

    Well until now that is. Pat is likely to get behind the McCain ticket on account of the brilliant choice of Vice Presidential candidate. Who would be everything that Pat would like.

    Thats the thing about this young lady. Just the sort of person to swing the Ron Paul types into not staying home or even perversely voting for Obama, and get them out voting Republican. An inspired choice. And in some senses this 44 year old has more experience than the other 3. Or the other 3 combined. Brilliant choice.

  68. “I think a strapping young lad like Graeme could give these old chaps the head they so sorely need.”

    Now there’s an idea isn’t it. If you are leader you can put a lid on the 5% stuff that you don’t like and push the 95% of the rest of the program which you are in favour of.

  69. “The major single reform is that unlicensed people can now attend an authorised range, fill out a single page questionaire, and if they are deemed OK, can shoot under the supervision of licensed shooters. This is a great boon to shooting sports as anyone who wishes to try out shooting can in a safe and controlled environment. ”

    Good of you to highlight this one Jason. Knowing that you are so anti-guns. Its the sort of thing that comes under the heading of “well thats the least you can do”. And consider the national security implications. If people start waking up to how precarious our international situation will soon be they will, without saying why, be along to get their firearms handling skills up and be encouraging the rest of their family as well.

    When the shit finally hits the fan we might just be able to get the gear that we need in enough time. And that extra confidence is vital. Vital even to negotiate a hasty reconciliation that doesn’t involve occupation or long term tribute. I’m thinking about the most dire of outcomes with the least preparation.

    If we are in fact well-prepared we can take on all comers. Since our nuclear subs can wipe out any attempts to mass naval forces. And our people can clean up those that get here in dribs and drabs.

  70. Cato wrote that, but I agree with it.

  71. Good to see some testosterone around these parts, chaps, now that the host has admitted he has become emasculated.

    I agree. That is one of the filthiest heathen-soaked parts of the world – more a cause of future troubles than anything. It should just be completely wiped out by dropping more than a few nuclear bombs. Why worry about giving them an ultimatum on Osama? Kill all those savages and let God sort it out.

  72. Well I must say I support MR Sidebottom-Smythe. Surround there area, give them 7 days to leave then glass the entire area with a good spread of nukes should sort them out. Might never find him of course, I imagine Osama vapor looks much like the vapor of any other sand monkey.

  73. Mr Weinstein,

    Why don’t you kindly inform us of where Mr Bin Laden is as you seem to know.

    The purpose of nuking a general area, is one of discipline as well as the possibility of eliminating our enemies. These people are but children and you must show them a stiff rod when they step out of line. Frankly you are making the mistake many people make when disciplining children. They love to have boundaries set. Setting a few examples and showing clearly where the line of good and bad behaviour lies will save us enormous trouble in the future.

  74. Dear God it seems that the government may go through with selling the Russians a billion dollars worth of Uranium.

    The only way we should be sending the Russians uranium, is highly enriched, and mounted on the end of an ICBM.

  75. Mr Weinstein,

    What is it about the leftist Psyche that must always imply filth and depravity. Do you people have no arguments. I did not suggest rough treatment of children, merely the rod so they do not behave like spoiled brats.

    The Roman’s did not persuade Hannibal to leave Italy via diplomacy Mr Weinstein, they did so by striking at the heart of his homeland. Learn some history. This namby-pamby business you call diplomacy is just a way of the bed wetters wringing their their hands and not making hard decisions.

  76. I should add that in practice I realise that the world is full of namby-pamby girly men who won’t go for the first strike option. So obviously we should at the very least not enable them to use this on us and not sell them the Uranium.

  77. My dear Mr Weinstein,

    Are you truly suggesting Hannibal of Carthage was a fictional? But yet again you offer no cogent argument as to why my argument it is wrong but instead wade into abuse. I might add your abuse is telling is it a reflection upon yourself?

  78. No, everyone knows that Hannibal existed. I only queried the relevance of comparing yourself to a great man. Only a dunce would be silly enough to make a connection, So I intimated that logically you’d duly choose to resort to the Bible. (Afterall isn’t that a valid feature of Right wing dogma in the U.S.A.?)

    I also didn’t abuse you. I merely guessed that the only similarity between Hadrian, his elephants & you boffins was the resemblance between your average stout elephant & your typical blogger. For the life of me, I could see no other resemblance!

  79. Mr Weinstein,

    Nowhere did I compare myself to Hannibal. I merely suggest that like the Romans we don’t fight or negoitate the manifestation of our ills (Hannibal in Italy) but strike back a the heart of the issue Carthage. If you are not sharp enough to keep up with the historical illusion then I suggest you sit and watch while the adults talk.

    Also I am not from the USA fine country that it is, and Hadrian had a wall not Elephants. I’m guessing you went to a public school as your parents couldn’t afford a decent education for you.

  80. Mr Weinstein,

    Clearly your comprehension and geography needs some work. As I said I am not from the USA, fine country that it is, but rather from somewhere closer to where Mr Bird is from.

    Clearly the above is not by Mr Bird. Actually I suspect it is you Weinstein, in a crass attempt to vilify and degrade this fine site.

  81. Mr Weinstein,

    How do you reconcille these two statements you made earlier.

    “No, everyone knows that Hannibal existed. I only queried the relevance of comparing yourself to a great man.”

    and this later one.

    “Also I didn’t say you compared yoursel to Hannibal.”

    I don’t blame you Mr Weinstein, so many years of socialist rule in your country have ruined your education system. It is ,I fear how we may be going now under the Red administration my fellow citizens elected last year.

  82. Mr Weinstein,

    Scrotham I take is village in the Lakes district?

    Its not too late you know to go to some night classes you know with some application you might even sneak into one of the lesser universities.

    The LDP as Mr Bird had the misfortune of finding out, is a front for a bunch of hippy greenie leftists who in their confusion also believe in free trade.

    Sadly their only response to a neo-soviet horde swarming ashore would be to lower tarrifs and sing Give Peace a Chance.

  83. Mr Weinstein,

    I thought it was just the American’s who don’t get irony. Scrotum is a body part, Mr Weinstein. Scrotham sounds like an English villiage.

    As for Mr Bird I believe it took him something like a year and an election campaign. At first he believed that he could reform them from within, but then later discovered they were rotten to the core. Many even supported fractional reserve banking, but I believe it was when the homosexuals in the party started pushing for a Carbon tax to combat the AGW fraud that he finally broke with them.

  84. Its seems that there is some sodomite identity-thief, taking advantage of my absence.

  85. Glad to see you back Mr Bird. It has been quite disappointing the pervets poluting your fine site.

    Hopefully Mr Quatermain will return soon and he Mr Bird and I can have some sensible discussions on matters of Policy. Or perhaps a new thread. Any new ideas while you have been away.

    I’ve been trying to educate this Weinstein fellow, but he seems quite terribly dull.

  86. I’m on holidays in Northern Queensland at the moment. But will drop in now and then.

  87. Yes well Adrien. Thats why your crowd is like. Sexually ambivalent retards to be as generous as I possibly can be. You included. And yet these are the retards and perverts whose baseless opinions hold sway.

  88. Mr Bird
    Mr Soon notwithstanding his own leftist sellout tendencies is correct. There may well be many a precocious child who logs on to the Information Superhighway in search of edification and inspiration and comes onto this blog which promises ‘think tankery’ and may even come recommended by other readers only to walk into a swamp of the most revolting and perverted exposition of the filthiest practices known to man of which homosexual sodomy is only one example. You have a responsibility Mr Bird to clean your site of such trash lest the child emerged either traumatised for life or predisposed towards such gruesome and contemptous behaviour himself for which no punishment suffices but the ultimate.
    Shame on you Mr Bird for being the pied piper of many a young boy in such a manner whilst still calling yourself a conservative, Shame on you sir!

  89. Why blame me Jason? These excrement-lovers have taken advantage of my computer problems and the fact that I’m on holidays to run amok on my blog. They cannot beat the argument and so they put people off the blog.

    By the way. Those of you who have money tied up in super and who didn’t take my advice might be feeling somewhat poorer today. Being as the market took got a bit of a bashing. I’m just glad I swapped out of shares when I did. But I’d have got out sooner if I’d known what the Reserve Bank was up to…… Or rather if I’d clicked that I ought to respond to their dysfunctional policy a bit earlier. Since it was Jackson who pointed out that the money supply had been collapsing since December, and it took me a couple of months to do anything about it. And to find where the Reserve Bank published its information.

    However this is not to be interpreted as advice to sell on this day. The advice I gave was good the day I gave it but I’m not fully abreast of the situation at the moment.

    Notice also the queer-or Marxist pretending to be queer is also pretending to be a Jew to needlessly sew ill-will in the community. “Irresponsible” isn’t a strong enough word for this sort of thing.

  90. Agreed Mr Marshall. I am most disappointed in Mr Bird for not cleaning up this sewer despite our protestations. People will get the impression that us right wing conservatives are a bunch of filthy descendants of Sodom and Gomorrah from the fine mess he has left us here. Most appalling.

  91. I hasten to add that I highly recommended this site to a number of my League of Rights associates. I was praising Mr Bird to the skies as a strapping young lad who was going to be our great white hope for the future. Then they turn up here and what do they see? Sights that would drive the most virtuous men blind. One fellow nearly suffered a stroke upon reading what was on offer here. I am now not sure if I can show my face around the country club for a while, one fellow was even talking about revoking my membership and insinuations have been made about my sexuality. All this has followed from Mr Bird’s irresponsibility.

  92. I’ll have the site somewhat cleaned up within the fortnight or earlier. I will not be more specific than that lest those on the side of darkness take it as an opportunity to vandalise my house in my absence.

    By the way Winchester. This fellow pretending to be Marshall is none other than the hairy-handed Weinstein. Some pervert pretending to be a Jew in order to sew ill-will.


    Here’s a screed of total lies coming from Robert Merkel of Catallaxy”

    “The starting point for Garnaut – at least, with the scenarios he hopes will happen – is what level of greenhouse gases we are aiming for in an international agreement. His conclusion, expressed at length in the report, is, essentially, the lower the better.

    That’s something that shouldn’t come as any shock to anyone that’s been reading LP (particularly some of Brian’s excellent posts on the matter), but it’s good to hear it from Garnaut.

    A world in which greenhouse gas levels are stabilized at 550ppm is likely to be a heck of a lot better than a world without mitigation, but the consequences are at best nasty and still potentially catastrophic. “450 world”, as Garnaut calls it, reduces both the certain damage and the risks of catastrophe some more.

    But, as he puts it, “A similar case can be made for the superiority of 400 ppm overshooting over 450 ppm overshooting, as for 450 ppm over 550 ppm.” But a global agreement on 400ppm is a long, long, way off in Garnaut’s view. He’s crunched the numbers on two “global agreement” scenarios, one for a 550ppm target and one for a 450ppm target. Given that, what’s Australia’s share?”

    Now these are just totally baseless lies that the fatass idiot Merkel is passing on. Yet Jason Soon supports him. And people like him. The epistemologically-challenged pig-faced goon Edney……. being a case in point.

    Its very hard to know whats going on inside the mind of SOON.


  94. Actually I meant Merkel of PRODEO. Catallaxy is getting so leftist these days its hard to tell them apart. Particularly strange is their failure to be happy that McCain chose a person far more ideologically sound then himself. The most exciting VP candidate for a very long time. Perhaps for all time. Its hard to see how McCain could have done better. Its like he’s gotten a youthful, yet very experienced female, from the Ron Paul wing. Or if not the Ron Paul wing from the Mark Levin wing.

    Its like these people say that they believe in this that or the other. But when they get a magnificent candidate that embodies these things they show no enthusiasm.

  95. The above is not me but just another leftist. This is what these people are like. All of them. This is their true nature. They are filth. You can best believe that the imposter is a UN-supporter and a CO2-bedwetter as well as being a pervert in other respects.

  96. In other news. Lemma tried to roll Costa and gets dumped himself. What a beautiful thing.

  97. You are a confused little sodomite aren’t you Marshall? Yes you are. Actually Bush is not a hero of mine. But this is not to say that we don’t stick up for someone who has been relentlessly lied about. Since doing so is merely an extension of sticking up for the truth. A person of perverse and tribal leanings such as yourself wouldn’t even begin to comprehend such a thing so don’t risk extra wrinkles developing on your forehead attempting to understand.

    Here’s another confused character. This Adrien fellow. Who is so stupid he doesn’t realise he’s in the facist camp:

    “Palin was chosen for many reasons. Being a woman may be one of them but it wouldn’t be the entire story. She’s a gun-totin’ God fearin’ advocate for the little guy – or at least that’s how she presents.

    McCain and Palin can be sold as people quite apart from the nefarious Bush bollocks but in policy terms they’re pretty much the same sans the nepotistic collusion and technocratic fascist tendencies”

    Now there is one confused and stupid individual. And we see the principle that one does not need to be some great big fan of George W Bush to realise that he is no facist and has barely a facist bone in his body. One can disagree with him on many, if not most things, and still stay within reality on that score.

    But don’t try and understand this sort of thing Marshall. Just go back to your glue and scrapbook and cutting out pictures of children from womens magazines.

  98. If you wonder how this science fraud is able to keep afloat consider doing the following.

    Go to a leftist site under an assumed name and write a virulently anti-science-fraud post. Then write a neutral post on another thread on another post.

    Both posts will be wiped and you will be blocked from there on in. I just tried this on Prodeo. And these frauds and traitors were absolutely ruthless about it.

    This is the fatboy Merkel idiot that Jason is such a fan of. Jason understands some things but science isn’t one of them.

    But you see the net effect of their determination. On the surface of things they make it look like the science fraud position is the consensus. Because they refuse to let on anyone who they know they cannot undermine by smugness. Hence they won’t let on anyone with any assurance and stridency.

  99. No the fact is that you stick up for the truth and go against lies. Anyone who doesn’t believe that is getting in the way.

    Now we know that leftists don’t believe that. They believe in a sort of version of Reverend Moons “heavanly deception.”

    But we knew that already. Hence we knew that you would find my attitude almost impossible to understand and even harder to believe.

    So you merely reiterate your fundamental leftist nature.

  100. In the past I’ve always allowed anyone on and edited after the fact. But the vandalisation of this blog by leftists while I’ve been away is too serious. And I’ll be blocking the culprits by both email and IP Address.

  101. Right. I’ll wipe all the leftist-sodomites work when I get home. If you want his IP address let me know next week.

  102. “since you went on thus martian highways junk and socialist control of banks i don’t think you should be judging anyone else.”

    Take your logic to the appropriate thread. I’ve always left open the idea that a conspiracy of folks have doctored up the photos to lead Van Flandern astray. But there is an authentic mystery there. One which none of you have been able to overcome by your forays into leftist smugness and mindlessness.

    And of course the JC-imposter is lying about my attitude towards banking. Its Soon-JC-et-al that have decided to go with socialist money-and-banking.

    One test of neutral banking regulation is that each of the few laws that must be applied MUST BE APPLIED TO EVERY LEGAL ENTITY.

    So you cannot have behaviour which is fraud for one party and normal business practice for another. Hence all those who don’t take my position are in practice really advocating socialist banking regulation. Rather than clarity-of-property-rights…. or natural law regulation.

    Its not offensive for a newcomer not to realise this. But it is basically equivalent to picking a bar fight for someone like SOON or JC to be still lying about this after the number of times we have gone over it.

  103. “Bird
    I like Merkel too. out of the LP bunch he’s one of the best,”

    He’s an idiot. He has no affinity for science whatsoever. This despite the fact that he blogs on science subjects.

    One time I came on under another IP. Using an assumed name for the very first time. I made no other anti-alarmist posts. All I did was point out the reason why the satelites had accelerated faster than predicted. It was entirely due to the waste heat they were expelling. He wiped the post on that basis alone.

    He is a fat marxist idiot that projects himself as a centrist to catch out people like JC who lack the moral character to call this out for the science fraud that it is.

  104. Right. I cannot do much until I get home.

  105. You bring it on yourselves a little bit. Look at this:

    “September 8th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
    Oh He’s up in Nth Q. That’s right he’s going up there to buy land or house on the expectation that the world is going into deep freeze. Every scientist worth his salt is telling us we’re getting going to get hotter longer term but Bird thinks they’re wrong/dishonest and he wants buy land in the hottest place to escape the freeze…..”

    Actually no worthy scientist will be so foolish as to tell you we are going to get warmer. Other than Lovelock JC cannot name one. But this is neither here nor there. JC is putting sentiment above evidence. And the evidence says we will go into cooling. That it will be very severe by the 2030’s.

    Up here is a growth area anyway. But the natural change of climate cannot hurt matters.


  106. Fuck off Adrien. Don’t be coming here to reinforce idiot-leftist sodomite fantasies with your general lying stupidity. Can you think of even one debate which you’ve entered into that you haven’t treated dishonestly?

    You are banned. When I get back home your IP and any email you use will be blocked. You cannot pretend I haven’t been patient with your lying leftist self. Don’t show up here again. You are dead wood.

    This destruction of my blog via the tactic of associating it in the mind with queer-unhygiene and disease-spreading-behaviour, has been taken very seriously by me. In the past I’ve had the policy of only wiping posts after-the-fact. Thats been the case for two years now. But clearly the leftists find it all a bit threatening to their faux-revelations-fantasies.

    So from now on I’m going to have to crack down on truly malicious idiots like Adrien.

  107. “melaleuca Says:
    September 10th, 2008 at 11:50 am
    It’s market failure because the State has to intervene to avoid a brutal and pulverising recession.”

    Thats right but the blame is still on the state. Because market capitalism demands 100% backing as the clear natural law of the situation. You cannot have a situation where whats illegal for one fellow is normal business for another. This is not capitalism. Capitalism demands equality before the law. Hence all laws established must be applicable to all comers without barriers to entry.

    The financial crisis would never happen with 100% backing growth deflation. Or with 100% backing all commidity-money.

    Steve. You cannot be letting bigoted numbskulls like JC, Soon, Mark Hill tell you what is the default captialist position. And I’ve forgotten more than Sinclair will ever know about monetary economics. The default capitalist position is not fiat-fractional reserve
    with low inflation. Fiat fractional reserve with consumer price inflation or yet even consumer price stability is the cause of all these crises. And we won’t see the end of it until we get rid of this irrational idiocy. At least two out of three of these components has to go. The amount of dead wood working in finance represents almost as much of an untapped resource as the public sector. Here I’m thinking more of the American situation. But its the same in principle here. With 100% backing commodity-money we would have a far more powerfully effective financial sector that did very little and employed bugger-all people. And these spare folks could then be employed doing useful stuff.

    Theoretically you could pull it off with 100% fiat as well. But you’d have to be harsher in that situation to avoid auditing problems. So in that situation you would be advised to expand the money supply only just enough to keep GDR rock solid constant.

    “It’s market failure because the State has to intervene to avoid a brutal and pulverising recession.”

    They could have probably intervened simply with cash injections, deregulation and systematically cranking up the reserve asset ratio as the new cash indirectly filled the banks’ vaults.

    But you are right. In that without intervention the system would have crashed entirely. In a far more implosive way than the great depression or anything seen at any time in history. This is not market failure but the failure of crony-socialist money.

  108. Yeah, it’s lame in here with all this homo crap going on. You might wanna consider setting your blog to screen/moderate comment next time you go on holidays.

    Anyway, the atom smasher is firing up on the 21st I believe. Do you reckon if it fails to do anything they’ll lie and spin bullshit to make it seem worth while?

  109. We were to fly back on September 11 and so we split up three ways to confound our muSSSSSlim enemies……

    Well I’m back. And I’ve wiped some of these comments from these hell-bound gay homosexual queer sodomites. Something is a bit strange with a couple of the blogs I usually visit. At Catallaxy and Dr Marohasy’s blogs they have cut me off at August 31. And I wonder if its just me or if its a problem with these blogs?

  110. sorry Graeme, what do you mean cut you off?

  111. “203
    Mark Hill Says:
    September 11th, 2008 at 11:17 am
    I strongly dislike their idea that you should dislike person because of their politics.

    Unless your talking about a dictator or a far left or right extremist who advocates or apologises for violence, I find this an unsettling and bizzare.

    Jason Soon Says:
    September 11th, 2008 at 11:28 am

    what Mark said.

    your obsession is obvious.

    it’s nice to laugh while the likes of Mel demolish their pomposities but this screeching and hysteria is just camp and boring…..”

    Sad really. Well I found out that its only with my Safari browser that September is missing.

    Look fellas. I don’t know what this is a reaction too but people have to take responsibility for their political ideas. I accept your comments for the young and for the laity who are not politics-obsessed. But those who are still leftist after getting involved in political-blogging for awhile…… well there is some malice and character-flaws going on there.

    Like you cannot get mad at your normal Joe for being in favour of fractional reserve (just to take one subject). But you people have been able to review the arguments and so your continued support of this sort of crony-socialism BECOMES OFFENSIVE once you have had enough time on the subject and chosen to reject reason. So yeah its a black mark against anyone to be barracking for the wrong and harmful side of any argument once you know that the person has been exposed to the argument long enough.

  112. “pedro Says:
    September 10th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
    That was harsh Jason, the pension has clearly become more inadequate in the recent period, notwithstanding regular indexation. Course, when those costs come back down we don’t want the old buggers to end up with a wind fall. JH is right about the spine. On your supposition Rudd doesn’t want to increase spending as compared to being uncertain about the need. He should have the guts to say so.”

    No thats not right pedro. Recessions are not market failure its true. Its a failure of government regulation. Which takes fraud and cronyism and works around it. A recession, in a sense, is a series of broken promises that never ought to have been made. Its a failure of fractional reserve. Of fractional-reserve-fiat. A recession is like a ponzi scheme thats desperately trying to keep itself afloat.

  113. “Jason Soon Says:
    September 10th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
    sorry JH I can’t get excited about Rudd wanting to wait before he increases spending more. These people knew what the aged pension was going to be before they retired, I don’t see the problem. They should therefore have made appropriate provision.”

    I don’t get it SOON. These people have been stolen off all their lives, blocked from doing business in myriad ways, and basically arm-twisted into squalor. We can wean the country off welfare but we’ve got to do it in a civilized way.

    You’ve got to take responsibility for the damage your paper-and-ponzi-money society causes.

    Take the $30 a week rise for single-pensioners. Thats only a bit over a billion a year cost. You set it up that the pension age is increasing 1 day every two days. Then you can make this increase with a feeling of great responsibility and use this as a great opportunity to close down a swag of government departments. The government departments represent the welfare that we CANNOT afford. We can afford to be patient and keep good faith with the old guys.

  114. They didn’t know what the aged pension would be. Thats not true at all. The aged pension used to be a bit of a squeeze. Now its just squalor. The public servants have definitely rigged the inflation indexing in the States and I would say here as well. And they’ve debased the currency. Sapping the motivation to save as well as robbing the value of those savings.

    Its been an unbelievable racket the whole way through. And its the public servant community that ought to take the heat for it and not the old blokes.

  115. “davidleyonhjelm Says:
    September 6th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
    If anyone knows Costa well enough, ask if he’d like to join the LDP. We like “economic rationalists”, born or born again.”

    Costa would be just magnificent in the LDP. Pretty soon he’d get shitted off with the CO2-bedwetters and he’d have a real go at them. I’d likely try and get back in the thick of it and pretty soon he’d get shitted of with me and the upshot would be good policy.

    He’d be good for the LDP and the LDP would likely be good for him as well.

    It must have been hard on this fallen angel surrounded as he was by unrisen apes.

  116. I was trying to save your reputation. You are supposed to be employed as an analyst. And you go and say the most idiotic things.

    Why not just go with the evidence?

    I’ll have to wipe all this too. Give you a chance to think about things.

  117. when i’m going to write in my blog, i come here and read your articles so i get inspired to write very well

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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


%d bloggers like this: