- Now clearly the second group of the names listed are proven liars. Whereas the first group have to be considered liars until such time as they decide to fight for their honor as scientists and clear their names. Moves should be afoot to sack all these people.
- Dr lan Allison (Co-chair)
- Professor Michael Bird
- Dr John Church
- Professor Matthew England
- Professor lan Enting
- Professor David Karoly
- Dr Mike Raupach (Co-chair)
- Professor Jean Palutikof
- Professor Steven Sherwood
The draft answers to the questions were reviewed by an Oversight Committee of Academy Fellows and other experts including:
- Professor Graham Farquhar
- Dr Roger Gifford
- Professor Andrew Gleadow
- Dr Trevor McDougall
- Dr Graeme Pearman
- Dr Steve Rintoul
- Professor John Zillman
Why are these people all liars? Well they claim the following:
“Water vapor is about half the present-day greenhouse effect”
Even if you buy into the standard view that back-radiation is powerfully important, the above statement is an outrageous lie. Just incredible. I’d not expect this sort of rubbish from the most repulsive liars of Goddard or realclimate. What a far out statement. You see this constant lying isn’t going to stop until we start sacking people. This lie is second only to the USGS lie about volcanic CO2 emissions. (The one that Monbiot and Jones conspired to set up Plimer with).
Here’s the absorption-scattering spectrum just to take a look at things. And whereas the other alleged greenhouse gases are trace gases, water vapor is up at 1%. So there is the CO2 and its puny in three respects.
1. There is so little of it. Barely enough for the plants to grow. No more than 390ppm if the compulsive liars monopolizing the measuring of it are to be believed. And of course you need 10 000 ppm just to get to 1%
2. As you will see the regions of infra-red wavelengths that CO2 absorbs are tiny. Or skinny if you look at the graph.
3. These regions, at most places and temperatures are usually pretty much saturated already by water vapor.
So make no mistake about it. The report kicks off with a known and transparent lie. They get away with lying so much they must now be feeling deeply confident about it.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wXDx9TVRBL8/Sc6YF7FBeOI/AAAAAAAAA1w/9xNkidL2Kns/s400/Picture+e.png
“Water vapor (H2O) ~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1%-4% at surface”
Here wiki is talking about atmospheric composition. But what really counts is that water vapor is concentrated at the surface to mid-troposphere region. Thats why we can be quite sure that the scattering and absorption activities of water vapor will have a net warming effect. Because of its location. Water vapor has a warming effect for other reasons which I won’t go into. But at least with water vapor its very hard to make the case that the scattering and absorption component of what it does could ever be net negative.
(((Whereas increases to CO2 levels at the surface slowly make their way up far above the troposphere. Extra-CO2, high above the troposphere, from an absorption-scattering (ie “greenhouse” perspective) would obviously have a cooling rather than a warming effect, since it will scatter that part of the spectrum, and more than half of that scattering will make its way back out to space.)))
This is a scandal that this claim has been made. I’ve taken all the names of the people involved in this sham organisation with such a high-fallooting name. I’ll try and alert the media even further than what I have already.
A Better World: Graeme Bird For High Office 
From elsewhere:
BIRDSNEWWORLD
Posted Saturday, 5 March 2011 at 12:02 pm | Permalink
There is no doubt at all that the air in Singapore would usually maintain a higher heat content than in the hottest part of the Sahara, even on very hot days. Good point. The amount of joules contained in any volume of air ought usually be more than in the desert . Because you’ve got so much more water vapor, with its consequent latent heat of condensation, in the air in Singapore.
Now this ought to usually be true even when the desert air is right up there in the high 40’s. But it is not apriori true in all cases. And I’ll tell you why:
1. The act of evaporation has a refrigerant effect, cooling the sea, but it cools the air too. For example friends took me to a restaurant by the sea just South of Bangkok. They chose this establishment because its always a strong cool breeze that blows off the ocean there. You look at the map and even though these are likely equatorial winds they have traveled consistently over sea, without ever hitting land for a very long way.
2. The greater proportion of electromagnetic (as opposed to electric) energy reaching to the lower troposphere is infra-red as well. People talk as if this were not the case and as if this were no serious reality to contend with. But “greenhouse gases” scatter and absorb incoming infra-red as well as outgoing. Therefore at a certain altitude, or a certain region of altitude, extra greenhouse will scatter more joules up to space then to the surface. I cannot say what height or region that would be. But nonetheless logically this argument is unassailable and no-one appears to be making it. If I were to guess I would put the cut-off at mid-troposphere, but it would also depend on surface temperature and the time of day or night where that cut-off lay.
Your point brings up the idea that we are wagging the dog talking about temperature. To think clearly about this issue we ought speak in the first instance of heat content alone. And only convert to temperature now and then after the fact.
Also when I speak of the greenhouse effect I often use the term “back-radiation”. I now see that to maintain clarity we must use the phrase ….. “The absorption/scattering effect” or the a/s effect for short. Since there are so many other effects to consider when you look at what a gas may be doing. Only by using the phrase the absorption/scattering effect can we keep our reasoning clear all the way along the inverted logic pyramid.
By: graemebird on March 5, 2011
at 1:09 am
China is positioning itself to lead the world in greenhouse gas mitigation. Presumably, this means they accept the global scientific consensus on this and its connection to AGW and the need to address it. Why is that if it’s all a Western scientific establishment conspiracy?
Today China is launching a new five year plan a central part of which is “developing the world’s most comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions regulation and clean technology plan”.
By: Philomena on March 5, 2011
at 4:02 am
“China is positioning itself to lead the world in greenhouse gas mitigation. Presumably, this means they accept the global scientific consensus…..”
They may do. But if so they’ve been stooged. And I don’t make it that way since the communist leadership are many things but they don’t appear to be stooges. On the other hand they have often seemed to fall for Keynesianism. But then everyone loves to spend other peoples money.
Some on the left characterise them as going for greenhouse mitigation. And here they are doing so themselves. But this is likely just veiled strategic talk. What we see is them putting up a new coal station every week.
Mitigation to a Chinaman means a crash program to have more nuclear power stations than the rest of the world combined. And here I think is where their act is. Long-term planning for strategic dominance of their region. Talking up a storm about mitigation just so omni-dupes like Australia and Canada, keep selling them gargantuan amounts of both coal and uranium at what I would consider to be bargain basement prices.
Consider the smart moves if we really truly honest injun hope-to-die-if-I-tell-a-lie believed in this ruling class racket and public servants crusade? The first thing we would do is start whacking on pretty nasty minimum prices for exports of coal.
Its urgent? Tipping point just around the corner? Well lets get THAT FAR from pricing ourselves out of the international market. I’ll go in for that. You in for that Bob Brown? I’m in on that plan, just so long as we use the consequent crash in DOMESTIC coal prices to massively increase our domestic energy production capacity and distribution until such time as we produce consume and export more energy per capita then any other country ……… even as we constrain raw coal exports.
Now imagine the communists aren’t stooges. They appear to be a pretty wily crowd. They’d harvest my organs for a dollar but they are certainly ruthless and cool-headed where their interests are concerned.
They must know that the quickest way to reverse the growth in CO2 emissions is for places like Australia to part with their coal far more reluctantly. They would KNOW this. So all this jive about them being into mitigation is a mirror image of me wanting to be into mitigation …… as in I’m not into domestic mitigation in any shape or form. I want the extra coal for electricity plants to be able to crash electricity prices, to be able to build all those nuclear plants, to be able to reindustrialise, to provide cheap feedstock to get the biomass-to-synthetic diesel industry moving ….. and even to slowly solarise the roads, and bring compressed air grids, and heliostats to those places where tax exemptions and cheap energy would allow them to get started.
By: graemebird on March 5, 2011
at 9:19 pm
Wikipedia says that water vapor has a 36 – 72% contribution to the greenhouse effect.
RIGHT. AN OUTRAGEOUS CO-ORDINATED LIE. EVEN WIKI WOULD NOT HAVE TRIED THIS ON A FEW YEARS AGO. OR EVEN A FEW MONTHS AGO. WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT VOLCANIC CO2-EMISSIONS?
By: Bird Flaps on March 5, 2011
at 10:44 am
I went to the appropriate page and left a message but it didn’t take. The page is marked as special. With a whole lot of jive that means “conspirators only” for short.
By: graemebird on March 5, 2011
at 9:40 pm
The only one propagating lies is you Bird, you didn’t answer my question, so I’ll post it again.
Wikipedia says that water vapor has a 36 – 72%
YES YOU TOLD ME YOU STUPID CUNT. THEY ARE BOTH LYING. THIS IS CLEARLY A CO-ORDINATED LIE. SOMETHING THESE ASSHOLES HAVE PULLED OUT OF THEIR ASS FOR A SPECIAL OCCASION. BECAUSE YOU GO THERE AND YOU CANNOT COMMENT. SO THIS IS A SPECIAL DESPERATE DEAL.
JUST LIKE WHEN I CALLED MONBIOT A CUNT ABOUT A HUNDRED TIMES AND THE STUDY THAT THE USGS WAS BASING THEIR LIE ON SUDDENLY WENT OFF AIR. BUT THIS ONE HAS TO TAKE OUT ALL THE STOPS TO OVERWHELM WIKI. ITS TOO BIG FOR EVEN THE NORMAL COMMUNISTS TO PUT OVER.
By: Bird Flaps on March 5, 2011
at 11:24 pm
Sending Savonarola Hamilton that nasty email shows how thick Bird is: it plays into Hamilton’s hands.”
Frank Frank Frank Frank Frank (said five ways) You have no idea what you are talking about. I ended the Clive juggernaut. He’s never been the same. It may be hard for the layman to pin the tail on the donkey here, but Clive has lost … SOMETHING .. since I laid out some home truthzzzzzzzz his way.
Clive was everywhere ( everywhere, everywhere. He was everywhere). And now he barely gets out of the house. Its a basic scientific fact of nature that the effluent of any organism is toxic and debilitating to that same organism. And Clive had been spraying the Australian people from every orifice for a very long time prior.
What successes have you had Frank? ……… at restraining the Stalinists, globalists, and the more presumptuous dreamers, that dog our every step?
You-tell-me I-don’t-know. Maybe you are smiting the commie-bankster alliance, and if we had but three Franks, the fight would be all but over. Show me your successes. Show me your successes and I shall adopt your methods. I’ll do anything that works. Clive wants Australians to have more expensive energy, and for their energy to be rationed by global taxeaters. I want Australians to have cheap energy and to produce, consume, and export, more energy per capita than any other country. Thats two different visions of Australia.
Ultimately what I’m after is pretty simple:
I win.
Clive loses.
So you tell me what works and I’ll take all your advice on board.
Clive started this thread as a continuation of his efforts; primarily to rewrite and invert history. Secondarily, he’s go this Quixotic deal going where he wants to get people (who disagree with him) placed under surveillance. Utopian schemers are quixotic but they are not necessarily ill-advised. Clive surely sees dark clouds on the horizon and thats why he’s putting the hard yards in now. Placing patriotic types under watch, may seem laughable presently. But it won’t necessarily appear so implausible under a hard rain.
Apart from these two goals, which Clive had formerly been pursuing like rolling thunder, ………. Clive also wanted to get back his lost nerve, by associating me with some of the punters who have blown a fuse, at that nice old fellow Windsor.
Look it would be fantastic if Windsor went against his new alliance and brought this carbon trial of tears to an end. But only people under real stress, and fear for their future, are going to lose their composure, to that extent, at a chummy old guy like Windsor. Windsor is not trained to see through the lies of the ruling class rorters, and public servant crusaders, that are running this scam.
I never got angry with James Lovelock when he was on the wrong side of the issue. I called him a crank at first, but then I checked him out, and realized that I was bad-mouthing an exemplary scientist. So I retracted profusely, hypothesizing that James’ younger colleagues had misled him.
Whole towns face being closed down over the carbon-attack, and the entire nation will be entering endless stagnation, until we can rid ourselves of this menace AND THE THREAT OF this menace. So clearly what happened is a few people popped an artery and wrongly took it out on that nice fellow Windsor. And lets be serious. Thats ALL that happened. Any threats need to be checked out. But its Crikey and we are allowed to be honest:
I’m sure ASIO, the Feds, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, have been stood down by now.
But when it comes to people like Clive: Thats ill-will. Thats scheming. Thats rewriting history. Thats spitting on the men and women who have suffered for their science …… spitting by way of Clive turning a true persecution story on its head. If the ABC is pushing his type at us, day after day, I’ve got a problem with Clive. I’ve got a problem with Clive stalling on the evidence.
So Frank. You think my methods don’t work?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well you see they used to talk about “bad hair days” didn’t they? Yes they did. You may not remember but it was bad hair day this and bad hair day that, and I’m having a bad hair day and so is he she and the gay guys cat as well.
Have you seen Clives head lately? Have you seen it Frank? Its nothing that the camera will necessarily always capture. Have you seen it?
When you see him now, since I had that talk to him. Since I had that talk to him. Since I threw down the gauntlet. Since I presented that request …… well there’s always been something different about him.
He gets in front of the mirror ……
And he can wipe it with alcohol.
He can rub moisturizer into it.
He can use wood polish, metal polish …
He can even get his special friends to spit on it ….
But that head is never going to be right for a very very long long time.
BIRDSNEWWORLD
Posted Sunday, 6 March 2011 at 11:39 am | Permalink
“Trapdoor effect is my own term. “Greenhouse” implies more energy coming in than going out because of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.”
Hmmm. In and out will work with a furious tendency towards equalization, since Stefan Boltzmanns law is one of the few verifiable realities that work to the fourth power. Like if a “black body” is twice as hot as another black body in Kelvin the first black body will radiate 16 times more strongly. If four times the difference the radiation will be at a factor of 256. Hence there is never this heat hidden in the system.
Let me give you an example. There can never be a runaway greenhouse effect. Like an upward spiral to Venus. But one could easily conceive of a runaway pressure-heat effect. And if you had that, you would not be waiting for hidden joules to manifest themselves. There is no hiding the extra joules. SB’s law will make sure a new higher equilibrium is revealed quick smart.
So this deal that Hansen has on the fly where we are accumulating secret joules at .25 watts per second per metre …. or some nonsense like that …. thats all jive-ass talk. The only hidden joules that you could have would be deep in the ocean or something. With an ocean conveyer that takes 1600 years for a round trip and moves forward like toothpaste.
By: graemebird on March 6, 2011
at 12:43 am
Graeme, China’s plan is to “reduce energy consumption per unit of G.D.P. by 16 percent, and carbon dioxide emissions per unit by 17 percent and place a cap on total energy use, limiting consumption to the equivalent of four billion tons of coal by 2015.”
See here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/world/asia/05china.html?_r=1&ref=china&pagewanted=all
It also wants to introduce broadband internet to rural and remote areas and replace fibre optic cable systems.
It wants to prioritise investment in clean renewable energy, such as solar. We could be doing the same. earning from China could be wrapped up with our coal exports as part of the exchange. We don’t to be left behind when the world’s largest economy leaves everyone else in the dust, especially little old Australia who did nothing but rip its finite mineral resources out of the ground and had nothing to show for it a century down the track.
By: Philomena on March 6, 2011
at 2:05 am
learning from China…
By: Philomena on March 6, 2011
at 2:06 am
On a related issue, California (yes I know it is a basket case for other reasons) since the 1970s has had a history of energy-conservation policy resulting in it now having the lowest per capita energy use in the US. In 2006, the legislature passed a law that mandated reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions of 25% by 2020. Schwarzenegger jumped on the environmental bandwagon, and Silicon Valley capitalists saw gains to be made from the new technologies that would be required.
In Nov last year when two Texas oil companies tried to use the current recession as an excuse to rescind the law through a ballot proposition it was rejected decisively by the voters, 61 to 39%. Opposition came not only from environmentalists, but from Silicon Valley’s TechNet lobbying group—comprising the likes of Google, Yahoo and Apple—and the venture-capital crowd, capitalists. more interested in production and innovation than wasteful and useless speculation.
California may yet lead the transition to a green economy in the US.
By: Philomena on March 6, 2011
at 2:34 am
California went down the Keynesian Green road and its broke. But it has 49 other States to share the misery with. No-ones going to bail us out short of the Chinese taking over for our girls and our organs.
By: graemebird on March 6, 2011
at 3:22 am
“Graeme, China’s plan is to “reduce energy consumption per unit of G.D.P. by 16 percent”
Right. So if they grow 10% per year and have 8% per year CO2 output growth, then they’ll double their CO2 output in 9 years and be well on their way towards that 16 per cent figure.
Plus they will fail at first, and will overshoot their mark, and only later do they face the prospect of reaching that goal. So they will triple CO2 output at least prior to winding it back a little.
By: graemebird on March 6, 2011
at 3:26 am
California is broke because of the fiscal crisis caused by the big banks and the housing lending fiasco and the bank bailouts. And because of a regressive taxation system and spending on massive numbers of prisons and the failure of entrepreneurial capitalism to invest in America rather than offshore if that suited its sole profit motive.
The best way to revive the economy is not to cut government spending. It’s to put more money into the pockets of average working families. Not until they start spending again big time will companies begin to hire again big time.
The most direct way to get more money into their pockets is to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (a wage subsidy) all the way up through people earning $50,000, and reduce their income taxes to zero. Taxes on incomes between $50,000 and $90,000 should be cut to 10 percent; between $90,000 and $150,000 to 20 percent; between $150,000 and $250,000 to 30 percent.
Make up the revenues by increasing taxes on incomes between $250,000 to $500,000 to 40 percent; between $500,000 and $5 million, to 50 percent; between $5 million and $15 million, to 60 percent; and anything over $15 million, to 70 percent. And raise the ceiling on the portion of income subject to payroll taxes to $500,000. It’s called progressive taxation. The lion’s share of America’s income and wealth is at the top. Taxing the very rich won’t hurt the economy. They spend a much smaller portion of their incomes than everyone else.
By: Philomena on March 6, 2011
at 4:49 am
“The best way to revive the economy is not to cut government spending. It’s to put more money into the pockets of average working families.”
You must cut spending to do that. Few ever get wealthy on the welfare. No state ever got wealthy becoming in thrall to the bankers.
By: graemebird on March 6, 2011
at 3:42 pm
America is not broke. Contrary to what those in power would like you to believe so that you’ll give up your pension, cut your wages and settle for the life your great grandparents had. America is not broke. Not by a long shot. The country is awash in wealth and cash. It’s just that it is not in your hands.
It has been transferred in the greatest heist in American history from the workers and consumers to the banks and portfolios of the uber-rich. Right now, this afternoon, just 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined. Let me say that again, and please, someone in the mainstream media, just repeat this fact once. We’re not greedy. We’ll be happy to hear it just once. 400 obscenely wealthy individuals, 400 little Mubaraks, most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion dollar taxpayer bailout of 2008 now have more cash, stock, and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined.”
I have nothing more than a high school education, but Gov. Walker, back when I was in school, every student had to take one semester of economics in order to graduate, and here is what I learned. Money doesn’t grow on trees, unless it’s a palm tree. It grows when we make things. It grows when we have good jobs with good wages that we use to buy the things that we need, and guess what? That creates more jobs.
It grows when we provide an outstanding education system. An educational system that then grows a new generation of entrepreneur, inventors, scientists, thinkers. The people who will come up with the next great idea for this planet, and those ideas create jobs, and the jobs produce tax revenue, but the few who have the most money don‘t want to pay their fair share of the taxes.”
They’d rather invest it in a gambling casino known as Wall St. betting for or against the stock market or against your home mortgage, and the entire population suffers because that wealth has been removed from circulation. What’s so cynical about this is that the very people who don’t pay their taxes crashed our economic system. They created the unemployment which has cost us tax revenue and states like Wisconsin have ended up with a so-called budget crisis, but Wisconsin is not broke.
What are three biggest lies of the last decade? Let’s repeat them. Number one, Wisconsin is broke. Number two, there’s weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and number three, the Packers needs Farve to win the Super Bowl. The nation is not broke, my friends. There’s lots of money to go around, lots, lots. It’s just that those in charge have diverted that wealth into a deep well that sits in their well-guarded estates. They know. They know. They have committed crimes to make this happen.”
By: Philomena on March 7, 2011
at 12:44 am
Sounds pretty right. Except the part about America not being broke.
By: graemebird on March 7, 2011
at 4:44 am
“I believe in AGW. The best way to resolve it is to deregulate industry. Taxes/ETS are not supported by a CBA. I do not support a carbon tax.”
BAD ECONOMICS. This is like some forlorn bastard leaving his prized collection of vinyl behind as a failing ploy to get back to a love affair thats not working. Since there is no doubt at all that good policy means more CO2 production. Marks walking away but ‘lo he’ll turn on the dime.
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the ONLY way to reduce DOMESTIC CO2-output is to tax DOMESTIC CO2-output. This is not true if you are France or you are looking six decades into the future. But for the moment, if thats what we want to do, there is but one way to do it.
This love for the carbon tax that Mark has, is so huge its bigger than the both of them. Its bigger than Mark and its bigger than the carbon tax, and its bigger than Marks conscious mind. But as we have seen it plays on his conscious minde 24-7.
But suppose this wasn’t science fraud and a real emergency and we wanted to reduce global CO2 output while our domestic economy soared?????
STEP 1.
Step 1 is always close government departments by the bakers dozen and mass-sackings.
Step 2.
Step 2 is always performed at the same time as step one and it is always grabbing the money creation benefit off the banking industry.
Step 3.
Step 3 is individual to this case and it involves going pretty close, with forced minimum export prices ….. going pretty close to pricing ourselves out of the coal export market. Keeping it going at premium prices and allowing export volumes to drop slowly away.
By: graemebird on March 7, 2011
at 5:50 am
I couldn’t find the video of the speech by Noel Pearson that Rafe was referring to. But here is a bit of a warmup speech he made to the NZ business roundtable. I work under the theory, that people who don’t like Noel Pearson are evil.
By: graemebird on March 7, 2011
at 6:32 am
Its basically the exact same speech. Normally speaking I would consider it poor form to just take a Rafe link and repost here. But this speech easily justifies such laziness.
I’d really dig it being Finance Minister or Treasurer, and working with this fellow and the Indigenous Affairs to get things sorted. Couldn’t think of anything better.
By: graemebird on March 7, 2011
at 7:01 am
Graeme, I’m listening to the speech. It’s always a pleasure to hear Noel Pearson speak. He is a very impressive individual, well-read, a thinker, with a great melodious voice and presence. A man obviously in deep pain about the state of his people, as are so many people, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. A man who is using his talents to try to do something about this, in a way that will make a real difference and who is passionate about persuading others of his pov. Good on him. What’s not to admire?
There are many Aboriginal people like him, some of whom didn’t have the reasonably good, safe upbringing and excellent post school education he had, but like him, through hard work and innate abilities are able to get to the point of being successful in their own right, as businessmen/women, achieving good things in medical or legal services, academia, NGOs, small business or elsewhere.
Pearson’s notion of welfare being the root of the problem is however contested including by many Aboriginal people working on this great ‘wicked problem’. And he must in the end like any individual accept the rebuttals or counter arguments of people who for justified reasons say that the elimination of social welfare, or the safety net, is the circuit breaker that will turn all around.
There are a lot of reasons why this would probably be disastrous in the short term. The NT territory experience tells some of the story. People will still spend the money they can on stuff that doesn’t help them or families. It won’t bring men back to look after their families. It won’t necessarily get men or women into the workforce. It would have to be a generation long experiment (say a quarter century) before you could judge its efficacy. And realistically who is going to pay that price in the meantime given the predictable fallout in terms of even further descent into chaos, deprivation, and community dysfunction. Politicians would pay the price. You and I would pay the price. But most importantly these communities would pay an unacceptable price. Unacceptable in a civilised society.
I don’t have the answers. No one has.
Noel Pearson’s arguments are certainly worth listening to, but if you look at the state of indigenous communities in comparable countries, such as the US, NZ and Canada, where communities have managed through treaties, legal settlements, native title wins, etc, to win substantial $ settlements enabling them to establish their own industries and self-sufficient communities, this still has not been sufficient to break the cycle of despair and dysfunction. Why? Well, we partly know the answer to that. But knowing the answer doesn’t help in remedying the situation, either there or here.
By: Philomena on March 7, 2011
at 7:49 am
…is *not* the circuit breaker…
By: Philomena on March 7, 2011
at 7:56 am
“Pearson’s notion of welfare being the root of the problem is however contested including by many Aboriginal people working on this great ‘wicked problem’. And he must in the end like any individual accept the rebuttals or counter arguments of people who for justified reasons say that the elimination of social welfare, or the safety net, is the circuit breaker that will turn all around.”
But folks disagreeing doesn’t amount to much. And if you listen carefully you will see that he admits that there has to be a safety net. And even in the near minarchist (in some places) and anarcho-capitalist (in other places) setup that I would think would be potentially ideal, you have to have some people taking responsibility to lift others up. Because you imagine if we small and anti-government types got to where we had what we wanted ……. and then suppose we lost it by being too mean and not creative enough with boosting people in a rut? How we gonna feel.
We would feel like complete tossers. Its a tough world and we need to help eachother through. The only difference I’m saying is that we ought to be able to halve stealing (the pension and defense aside) every five years or so. And the pension you want to increase the qualifying age one day every two days. The real difference is that its naive to think that you can help people primarily by stealing off other people.
The principle is that you help people while reducing the totality of stealing at every step. And since we cannot leave the old blokes to struggle and carers to allow their charges to die it becomes obvious that its public servant jobs and bank money creation resources that have to take the fall. So lots of former bankers and public servants would be getting about with tax exemption certificates to make this gig work. You’d see them all dragging their ass around town looking for work or hussling to start a new business. Thats really the only two sources of funds available that won’t break the economy or hurt people in socially sadistic ways.
One of the first things my crowd would have to do is to get rid of any tax on retained profits. Thats an absolute thing. Total assets tax (with a threshold) at a low rate, might come in at the same time to overmatch any subtle non-market advantages to big over small business, but you would have to be utterly absolutist about never ever ever taxing retained profits. And the other thing that needs to come in immediately is growth-deflation in monetary conditions twinned with partial jubilee.
Also no government or government department, state, federal or local must ever run a deficit no exceptions until the end of time and perhaps even a law brought in to stop public sector economists bullshitting about this.
Whatever is left over has to go for massive increases in the tax free threshold to be able to get most people off welfare.
You can see with all this there is no hope of sparing most non-defense public servants and simply no excuse for allowing the banks to keep the money supply creation windfall. There just would not be the resources for it. And noting that borrowing to wage war would be impossible defense would have to be boosted to maintain a state of readiness and surplus capacity at all times.
By: graemebird on March 7, 2011
at 8:44 am
The basic problem with your scenario is that you allow as a given the entrenchment of the fundamental problem and obstacle to solving this: the private ownership and management and all that flows from that of the means of production.
If a company or industry is making a profit, then the PEOPLE responsible for making that, which are primarily its productive workers, should be the very first to be roundly rewarded for that by high salaries and all the benefits and conditions that are normally under current conditions enjoyed only by a small essentially parasitic and unnecessary layer of managers and the like. The employees should run and own that company in conjunction with representative community sectors.
The pittance that is given in the dole is already the safety net by any decent standard, certainly in the context of one of the world’s most wealthy countries. What are you suggesting? That it be halved? Quartered? You want people to have just enough to not die of hunger in six months?
Well, that is unacceptable and will not only achieve nothing positive, but will be massively counter productive. It will make a people who already feel badly done by and ripped off even more discouraged and hopeless. It will decimate them. Then how will you feel?
By: Philomena on March 7, 2011
at 9:01 am
“The basic problem with your scenario is that you allow as a given the entrenchment of the fundamental problem and obstacle to solving this: the private ownership and management and all that flows from that of the means of production.”
No thats not right. Private ownership of the means of production is the root of all good. Its just that we have often conspired to put this property in fewer and fewer hands. Take the enclosure movement for example. Such undertakings, if handled poorly, can lead to non-market inequality which will linger for two centuries and more. And thats even without bank cash pyramiding.
By: graemebird on March 7, 2011
at 9:23 am
“Its just that we have often conspired to put this property in fewer and fewer hands”
Yes, that is the whole point. Except it’s less a conspiracy than a natural or inevitable progression given the initial starting point and trajectory and all the forces arrayed to facilitate it.
Hence our current problem.
By: Philomena on March 7, 2011
at 9:48 am
Public or communal ownership of the means of production lifted our species out of primitive individualism.
If they’d been private ownership of the means of production from the beginning, human beings would not have ever advanced at all out of that state.
Of course on the basis of the successful minority-led coup that represented the establishment and enforcement of the private ownership and control of the means of production we advanced (sic) to slavery as the principal mode of production on a mass scale, later succeeded by feudalism and now capitalism.
We’ve come a long way baby. Not.
By: Philomena on March 7, 2011
at 10:00 am
Economically its by no means the case that the property would go to fewer and fewer hands. Fiat money central banking is welfare for the rich. We need to get everyone off the welfare. Rich as well as poor.
Look at the English landed aristocracy. Fuck they were useless. Refrigeration kicked them in the head almost as badly as the revolution did for their French counterparts. They had all the advantages and somehow they were out-competed. But had there been fiat central banking they would have enhanced their position such that Britain would have wound up a banana republic on South American lines.
By: graemebird on March 7, 2011
at 4:51 pm
Mr Bird
Has the half-negro sicilian Cambria seen the light?
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2011/03/08/gail-kelly-wants-certainty/comment-page-1/#comment-180174
The banks now operate in a very politicized environment with the government and the opposition taking swipes at them.
It’s obvious that the implicit guarantee has now become explicit as no one believe the government would allow a large Australian bank to fail if they can help it.
There’s also a ton of regulatory shit going on at the moment that will affect bank profitability and there’s also political force from the populism of both sides of politics to take a swipe at them.
The banks are clearly earning a lot more money with the government support, but this isn’t fully costed out.
What Kelly is doing is playing nice with the government in the hope of earning brownie points with them. This is the sort of corruption you get when an important industry is highly regulated and possibly becoming more so.
If Kelly doesn’t play nice, Swan will punish them severely given the chance.
That’s the sort of shit we now have in our politicized banking system.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 8, 2011
at 4:05 am
Cambria is a born fascist. He wants the banks to rule and screw the people. What a moron. He should be strung up. Democracy and even bipartisanship on the blindingly obvious – the need to rein in the bloodsucking bank thieves – is populism he reckons.
What a complete prick. He’s a wannabe Mussolini. Well we all know what happened to him.
By: Philomena on March 8, 2011
at 4:28 am
Oh well you know. You don’t want to tease people for expressing certain realities they may not have wished to express at an earlier date. This is afterall the point of me being on the internet. To try and change things for the better, or to see things change for the better if that ever happens. Don’t quite know what a lot of no-friends-Nigels are doing on the internet. But my role as I see it (as Chodorov said) is just education, education, education.
Right, time to introduce a new guru. James McCanney. He has a science radio hour every week, with archives going back some years. You will get the impression that I’ve been listening to him all that time. But actually I only discovered him about two or three weeks ago. When I started talking about Mountain House freeze-dried food.
No-one tells you about these people. You have to trip over them. Nobody told me about Angelo Codevilla. They keep the best people a secret.
I got this book by Codevilla called “Between The Alps And A Hard Place.” Marvelous stuff. Lessons WE AUSTRALIANS have to learn about how a middle power goes about trying to keep its head above water with China becoming dominant and America going feral.
Now why do I say that? Why am I suggesting that the Americans may turn rotten on us. Inflation. Inflation makes countries nastier and less honorable.
Maybe dudes don’t tell you about the best people since when they are this good all your are left with is to handball their stuff or brazenly plagiarise their act.
Anyway I’ve for some time wondered about castastrophes and what causes them. And anyone who reads this blog religiously will understand that I had associated them with shockwaves, coming from the galactic centre, and causing the explosion of moons planets and stars. The shockwaves from these exploding entities setting OFF yet more disasters here.
Clearly this hypothesis comes more or less directly from Paul LaViolette with a bit of further speculation. But I was pretty happy to find a link between supernovae and supervolcanos.
Anyhow James McCanney does not emphasize the role of supernovae. He explains a lot of phenomenon through the role of comets. Venus being one of these comets.
There is really a lot of potential for chaos in this galaxy and whereas one ought to pay off ones credit cards prior to anything else a basic level of investment in survivalism would appear mandatory, no matter how feeble your current financial standing.
By: graemebird on March 8, 2011
at 4:32 am
Inflation also turns us into homos, Mr Bird
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 8, 2011
at 5:07 am
I don’t know about that. It can seem to lead to fashions such that our entertainers present themselves as king of fruity. Look at rocking Rod Stewart. He would seem to set a reasonable standard of heterosexuality. But see how he presented himself in the late 70’s. Fine by the standards of the day. But odd by some other time periods.
Part of the backlash against the Bee Gees, wonderful musicians by any sober appraisal, was that they were a part of the fashion sense of people in inflationary times. If they didn’t exactly dress gay one would have to see them as aping gigolos.
By: graemebird on March 8, 2011
at 5:19 am
From elsewhere:
graemebird, on 8 March 2011 at 4:25 PM said:
“David B. Benson, on 5 March 2011 at 1:22 PM said:
graemebird, on 5 March 2011 at 12:16 PM — You are terribly confused.
For example, its still winter in the Northern Hemisphere [as I can attest by going outside].”
I’m not the least bit confused Benson. You are Benson.
Warming and cooling have a cumulative nature to them, The oceans can quickly lose more joules than the atmosphere ever had.
In fact everything we do here amounts to wagging the dog with his tail. Any model ought to be focused on heat content and only extrapolate to temperature after the fact.
So much time can be wasted when the focus is on the wrong metric. So many bad ideas are generated by not choosing the best one. Bad economists look at interest rates whereas better economists think about money supply.
Now being as the dustbowl crisis implied cumulative oceanic joules to allow that to happen, (short of some massive burst of energy from the sun that we would in any case know about) it follows that the climate was hotter in the 30′s then now.
The evidence in terms of numbers shows us that the 30′s was the hottest decade. You don’t just go from dustbowl conditions to be covered in snow everywhere but Florida. This is not credible.
Benson, your confused position, were you capable of thinking about it, would force you to an understanding that winters in the 30′s were COLDER AGAIN then this winter in the Northern Hemisphere…..
…. So year after year of astonishingly cold winters, in your fantasy, would have to follow after year after year of punishingly hot summers.
Have you got a new theory about super-cold winters and mega-hot summers???????
It didn’t happen Benson, Once again you are confused Benson. You are mistaken Benson. The numbers don’t lie. Nor do the pictures.
Hitler did not see that Soviet Winter coming. Why would he? European, as well as American weather had been hot during the 30′s.
And we are talking not just a little bit hotter than now. A great deal hotter. Since the raw data needs to be corrected for the urban heat effect.
It was a lot lot hotter in the 30′s. Its not a line-ball thing.
By: graemebird on March 8, 2011
at 5:57 am
Hey, it’s March 8, International Women’s Day.
I love this song and the clip. So beautiful and sad.
By: Philomena on March 8, 2011
at 6:13 am
Sad that that loon shot him for sure.
From elsewhere:
We have come to a place that we haven’t been before. As a civilisation. Think of how small the non-military public service was before The Great War. Think of how small the financial sector was prior to the abandonment of the classical gold standard prior TO that war.
Centuries of civil society had built up an ethos of public service for that tiny fewS (NOT FROM THE ARISTOCRACY) whose special skills, allowed them to make their living on resources obtained via forced expropriation.
But nature will not be fooled forever. Its all about where you fit on the food chain:
If you are at the top of the food chain you caper about, preening yourselves, and making demands, like angry Orangutans and red-assed baboons.
Standards fall as the size of the parasitical sector grows. And without the guidance of property rights and the price system, the reversion to tribalism leads to demarcation disputes, compartmentalization, priesthoods, turf wars, and an uneasy alliance of thieves conspiring against their mutual prey.
The take home story is that this is a bankers and public servants crusade. Since it is bankers and public servants that feed on the comparative working poor.
But what of the detail that allows it to happen in a situation where sane government was sometimes a factor in our probably ill-informed memories?
THE PUBLIC SERVANTS NOW THINK ITS NOT A LIE IF THEY GOT IT FROM SOMEONE ELSE.
Its just so bizzare. And we have not seen this before. The above belief is so strongly felt, that it amounts to a religious edict. And you just need to extrapolate out from this iron law of the 21st century public service, and the 21st century banking rackets (at least in the US) to see why this civilisation is heading for a breakdown.
By: graemebird on March 8, 2011
at 9:10 am
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2011/02/15/187-confessions-of-an-economic-hit-man/
By: graemebird on March 11, 2011
at 6:05 pm
Bird, weren’t you promoting MMS products before you wasted your money on water alkalizers?
NO THERE WAS NO SMACKDOWN. YOU ARE A LIAR. OKAY. SO JUST GET THIS STRAIGHT. YOU ARE LYING WHEN YOU CLAIM THERE IS A SMACKDOWN.
WHY DO YOU KEEP DOING THIS TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME YOU LYING CUNT?
THERE WAS NO SMACKDOWN. YET YOU CLAIMED THERE WAS ONE.
THE FACT IS THAT SODIUM CHLORITE KILLS PRETTY MUCH ANY PATHOGEN, HAVE FEVER SPORES EXCEPTED. THATS JUST A FACT YOU FUCKING STUPID WOP CUNT.
I HAVE SOME HERE. I DON’T TAKE IT MUCH. I FIND IT QUITE UNPLEASANT AND I HAVE WHOLESALE LEVELS OF IODINE AVAILABLE SO I DON’T OFTEN NEED IT. THE COMBINATION I HAVE REPRESENTS A CURE FOR THE COMMON COLD AS WELL AS FOR JUST ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE.
By: Bird Flaps on March 12, 2011
at 1:02 am
I WASN’T AFTER A LOT OF HANDWAVING.
WHAT PATHOGEN DO YOU CLAIM THAT SODIUM CHLORITE DOES NOT KILL?
By: Bird Flaps on March 12, 2011
at 5:19 am
Right so this is just Cambria claiming that the Triceratops doesn’t lay eggs all over again. You think you are right yet you cannot name a single bacteria, fungus, or virus that sodium chlorite will not kill.
By: graemebird on March 12, 2011
at 5:27 am
LETS GO AGAIN.
WHAT PATHOGENS DOES SODIUM CHLORITE NOT KILL?
TELL US HOW THAT PATHOGEN MANAGES TO SURVIVE WHILE OTHERS CANNOT.
By: Anonymous on March 12, 2011
at 6:00 am
I’m almost geared up for biological warfare and will be by the end of the year. So Cambria for fucksakes what is your argument? This is just “Mrs Triceratops doesn’t lay eggs” all over again. What is wrong with you? Is it a fluoride stupor?
Tell me what pathogen you reckon Sodium Chlorite won’t kill? I would like to know.
By: graemebird on March 12, 2011
at 4:20 am
Night shift is a stressful gig and you start noticing people coming in all the time with lingering half-colds and producing a lot of phlegm-mucous. I notice this now because t doesn’t happen to me anymore.
We have the technology to cure almost all diseases cheaply. This is just a fact.
By: graemebird on March 12, 2011
at 4:22 am
Obviously the video is just more of the usual idiocy. Since if you can watch it and not know what pathogens Sodium Chlorite does not kill then thats no take-down. Just the usual priesthood bullshit.
Soon as someone starts mouthing off about peer review you know thats one dumb cunt who hates science with a passion.
By: graemebird on March 12, 2011
at 6:30 am
Which side are you on, Graeme?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/13/usa-wisconsin-idUSN1227540420110313
By: Philomena on March 13, 2011
at 8:20 am
You haven’t answered Graeme.
Which side are you on? And why?
By: Philomena on March 15, 2011
at 9:50 am
Yes there ought to be no PUBLIC SECTOR unions. Because thats double dipping. Whereas the taxpayer and the taxeater get the same number of votes, the taxeater, gets more influence over public policy by way of these unions. Not to mention also the practice of blogging during work hours.
I would go further and take the vote away from most taxeaters. Elderly and aboriginal exempted on account of them being potentially vulnerable groups.
This is a more urgent matter in the US then here. Because in the US the left are bankrupting the entirety of the US by way of these local-national links, and often involving public sector unions. I’ll find a speaker to bring you up to speed on how they have achieved this.
By: graemebird on March 15, 2011
at 5:31 pm
Don’t bother. What a load of codswallop.
Your support for the retraction of the right to vote is a master stroke designed to taint every single other political position you may hold in the minds of all rational people.
Good on you for dreaming it up. It works a treat for you. No, really.
By: Philomena on March 15, 2011
at 6:59 pm
Runaway public sector parasitism is a huge problem. Its not something to be taken lightly or wished away via Keynesian anti-economics. Many public servants are useless eaters to such an extreme extent they have projected their own status onto the human race at large. We see it particularly in the new eugenics, euthanasia and green movements.
By: graemebird on March 15, 2011
at 8:31 pm
This fellow is an outstanding journalist. One must never miss a chance to see him speak.
http://www.heritage.org/events/2010/10/shakedown
By: graemebird on March 15, 2011
at 5:35 pm
Its a far out idea sure. And an ambit claim in any reasonable time period. But I consider our current democratic system to be doomed. So I would say that its an open question as to where we go from here. Our survival is by no means assured. Our destruction would be more or less inevitable if we continue on the way we are going. No-ones going to fight for bankers and public servants, who in any case would be selling out the people fighting the enemy. And since no-one will fight for our oppressors we have become a paper tiger.
By: graemebird on March 16, 2011
at 1:17 am
the jews should lose the vote too Mr Bird, as I’m sure you’ll agree
YES I CAN SEE THE GRAVE DANGER THAT YOU ARE HINTING AT HERE. THAT A PRECEDENT COULD THEN BE HAD WHICH VICTIMISED CERTAIN PEOPLE IS CLEARLY A DANGER. AND PROBABLY THE REASON WHY PHILOMENA WAS SO SCORNFUL OF THE IDEA.
THE ONE THING THAT POST-WAR WESTERN DEMOCRACY HAS BEEN GOOD AT IS SAFEGUARDING MINORITIES FROM REALLY CRUEL BEHAVIOR.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 16, 2011
at 1:27 am
what’s a BIRD doing in that list?
for shame cuz. sometimes the Bird Macquarie clan spits out dummies, hey?
By: GMBclone on March 22, 2011
at 6:30 am