Facepalm: More casual death wishes from Australia

Facepalm OrangutanGuest post by Alec Rawls

Jill Singer, long time Aussie talking head:

I’m prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics – put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas – say, carbon monoxide.

You wouldn’t see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing.

Her mind is OPEN to wishing for the deaths of those who disagree with her ignorant presumptions. All in good fun of course! But this totalitarian closed-mindedness really does seem to strike her as a kind of open mindedness. She finds the thought “refreshing.”

Maybe its just an Aussie thing, like the forced tattooing of political opponents. And Singer does make a serious charge. She accuses Aussie business leader David Murray of a very unscientific leap:

Murray states there’s no link between global warming and carbon dioxide emissions because carbon dioxide is necessary for life, colourless and odourless – and therefore can’t be considered a pollutant.

If Murray actually said that because CO2 is necessary for life it cannot cause warming then flamboyant gibes would be merited and the rest of us could only drop our faces into our own palms. We would never hear the end of it, sigh. But the charge is false. David Murray and his interviewer both clearly distinguished the pollution question from the warming question:

DM:  [Carbon dioxide] has got nothing to do with pollution.Financial Review interviewer Colleen Ryan: What do you mean?

DM:  Well, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is colourless, odourless. It is not a pollutant.

FR:  Yes, but it is still bad for greenhouse gases.

DM:  No it isn’t. It is a tiny proportion of greenhouse gases.

FR:  So, if you believe in the warming of the planet, it is a tiny proportion of that?

DM:  There is no correlation between warming and carbon dioxide.

FR:  So if you accept the warming of the planet, what should you do?

DM:  Take measures to stop the effects of it.

FR:  What about the melting of the glaciers?

DM:  They’re not. The amount of ice in the world is slightly increasing. It’s not decreasing. It’s just staggering. Staggering. So you call something a pollutant, which it is not. It is actually necessary for life. And then the people who disagree with you, you call skeptics or scumbags or doubters or something.

Murray gave a perfectly logical reason for dismissing the greenhouse effects of CO2 as dangerous and it has nothing to do with CO2 not being a pollutant. CO2’s greenhouse effects can be dismissed because they are so tiny!

Exactly right. The only way CO2 warming could be dangerous is if it were dramatically amplified by water vapor feedback effects, in which case our climate would be radically unstable and sneezing would be dangerous. In other words, the only way CO2 is dangerous is if EVERYTHING is dangerous, and there is no evidence for such instability.

Singer is really just lying when she says that Murray denies a link between global warming and carbon dioxide “because carbon dioxide is necessary for life.” After reading his remarks on a conservative Aussie site she accuses Murray of an unscientific leap that he absolutely did not make, then she uses this deception to justify her happy death wish for everyone who doesn’t toe the party line.

If casual death wishes really were just an Australian mannerism they would appear on both sides, but Murray, for example, is the opposite of Singer. He appeals to Singer et al. to stop calling their opponents dirty names and she responds by dreaming of his annihilation. Nope, it’s a believer thing, as believers in authoritarian religions have always wanted to expunge heretics.

The only twist on this old story is how today’s eco-religious believers are able to imagine themselves on the side of science even as they do things like knowingly deceive their readers about what their opponents are saying. What does science mean to them if it doesn’t require truth? And if they don’t care about the truth, how can they possibly think they are right?

Because their religious authorities tell them so. Facepalm.

As the heat continues to go missing, expect to see a lot more of this:

Photobucket

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate ugliness. Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to Facepalm: More casual death wishes from Australia

  1. ShrNfr says:

    Does Australia have “hate speech” laws? Saying something like that some places would get you a good time in court defending yourself.

  2. steveta_uk says:

    The only way CO2 warming could be dangerous is if it were dramatically amplified by water vapor feedback effects, in which case our climate would be radically unstable and sneezing would be dangerous.

    Frankly, this is just as silly as the stuff you are complaining about – please try and stay above the GIGO level of the CAGW crowd.

  3. malagaview says:

    Nope, it’s a believer thing, as believers in authoritarian religions have always wanted to expunge heretics.

    It’s not about the science… it’s about Authoritarian Science aka Post-Normal Science…
    It’s not about the truth… it’s about Authoritarian Conformism…
    It’s not about the environment… it’s about Authoritarian Environmentalism…
    It’s not about the economy… it’s about Authoritarian Economics…
    It’s not about the politics… it’s about Authoritarian Government…
    It’s just about Authoritarianism… we know best – punto!
    So read the The Dark Ages Revisited memo pronto!

  4. John Marshall says:

    She would get on well with Joana Nova. Sparks would fly.

  5. ferd berple says:

    As Jill Singer admits when talking about Julia Gillard, her coalition leader – the person that sets the example for the rest of the party to follow:

    “The worst that can be said is that she lied. The best that can be said is that she lied because we can’t deal with the truth.”

    Jill has it exactly right. Her leader lied and by doing so set the example for Jill to follow. Anyone that doesn’t agree isn’t fit to live.

    We have heard this all before. How many millions will have to die this time in the name of the “great leader”. A leader that will lie to get what she wants, that doesn’t trust the people’s judgement of right and wrong, or truth and fantasy.

  6. PhilJourdan says:

    Death wishes/threats are a sign of desperation. But it cannot be because any tides are turning against them. The MSM and most politicians are still in their camp. it can only be one thing then – the data is falling farther and farther away from their scare stories and the public is starting to take notice.

  7. observa says:

    It’s amusing now listening to these people getting increasingly unhinged as their post-normal science and authority crumbles all about them. They can only circle wagons together and rant hysterically from fading past authority. Could you imagine MSM printing this ‘heresy’ from James Delinpole only 12 months ago-

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100092809/greenpeace-and-the-ipcc-time-surely-for-a-climate-masada/

    What a metaphor- their climate Masada. I suppose after a suitable period of disdainful scorn they’re ultimately to be pitied.

  8. dp says:

    She is condemned by her thinking to be surrounded in all walks of her life by alike thinkers. That would make me crazy, too.

  9. Rosy's dad says:

    Seems like too much coverage for this uninformed woman.

  10. David S says:

    People on the left seem to have a nasty streak of totalitarianism. In addition to this one here are some others.
    -Forcing people to buy government approved healthcare insurance whether they want it or not.
    – Banning incandescent light bulbs, rather than just informing people that they can cut their electric bills with other types of bulbs.
    – Having TSA goons touch our private parts before we can board a plane, and soon a train or a bus.
    – Presidents starting wars without even consulting congress, instead consulting unelected foreign bureaucrats in the UN.

  11. observa says:

    Woops, typo- it is of course James Delingpole

    ShrNfr asks- “Does Australia have “hate speech” laws? Saying something like that some places would get you a good time in court defending yourself.”
    Well not exactly in all States but we do have the usual PC suspects wanting to shut down free speech with the aid of the Victorian State apparatus but it’s a small world as Mark Steyn weighs in to flay the indefensible on behalf of our own ‘Brigitte Bardot from Melbourne’-

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mark_steyn_on_free_speech_while_he_still_has_it/

    Rivetting stuff from a man that’s already been there.

  12. higley7 says:

    Jest aside, it would not be a stretch if SInger thought CO2 as toxic as CO and that they are both part of the same problem.

    US OSHA says the average daily exposure to CO2 in the workplace should not exceed 5000 ppm. Prolonged exposure actually raises this number as we acclimate. Sudden onset of such high levels can cause some discomfort, but acclimation is fairly rapid.

    CO on the other hand causes symptoms at 35 ppm and potential lethality at 800 ppm. It binds to hemoglobin about 230 times better than O2 and thus blocks the ability to transport O2 in the circulation. O2 is actually a deadly gas and must be entrained or bound most of the time in the body to prevent undesired chemical reactions from occurring.

    These two gases are largely unrelated as CO is only the product of incomplete combustion, the release of which can be easily mediated and prevented. CO2 is released by combustion and all living things, as well as volcanoes, and is food for all photosynthetic life.

    Historically it appears that CO2 is usually between 1000–2000 ppm for most of the last 600 million years. We are currently living in a very low CO2 environment (plants do not do well with CO2 <200 ppm, levels the world has been flirting with now and then).

    We could really use more CO2, particularly as the planet cools and we need our crops of grow as well as they can, which they do with more CO2. Plants are more temperature tolerant, able to grow and bloom earlier in the Spring, irregardless of any warming, and they utilize nutrients and water more efficiently (the latter because with more CO2 the leaves have fewer stomata and thus transpire less water).

    More CO2 is a win-win for us and the environment as it greens the planet and makes all more healthy!

  13. steveta_uk says:

    David S objects:

    – Having TSA goons touch our private parts before we can board a plane, and soon a train or a bus.

    Huh? I can’t get anyone to touch my private parts; what’s your trick?

  14. Steve Jones says:

    Personally, I think people like Jill Singer should be allowed to say whatever they like. The internet guarantees that their comments will be recoverable forever and can be thrown back in their faces whenever required. This will be particularly useful when the AGW hoax is finally laid to rest and these zealots move on to their next great planet saving cause.

  15. D. J. Hawkins says:

    steveta_uk says:
    June 22, 2011 at 8:11 am
    The only way CO2 warming could be dangerous is if it were dramatically amplified by water vapor feedback effects, in which case our climate would be radically unstable and sneezing would be dangerous.

    Frankly, this is just as silly as the stuff you are complaining about – please try and stay above the GIGO level of the CAGW crowd.

    Some people can’t distinguish hyperbole for the sake of making a point from the grim, humorless pontifications of the CAGWers.

  16. NikFromNYC says:

    36 second clip of lefty anti-nuclear journalist James “Hotcock” Cockburn on AGW hysteria:

  17. JP says:

    As Lubos mentioned on his blog, Carbon Monoxide was used at Dachau.

  18. Jack says:

    Singer considers she is a comedian. Trouble is you need to be so far left wing that you would have to free an arm from a strait jacket to hold the microphone or write anything.

  19. henrythethird says:

    “…I’m prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics – put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas – say, carbon monoxide.

    You wouldn’t see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing…”

    If this were reversed and thrown down to Climate scientists, there’d be such a ruckus…

    But, we could propose our own study.

    Have them enter a room with today’s CO2 levels, and pump in CO2 until the level is doubled. See if the room temp goes up.

  20. JPeden says:

    Open-mindedness is what I say it is! Hear me, Infidels, thought control is for your own benefit, or else! You just won’t admit that your minds are exactly like mine, but that mine’s better!

  21. Dave Worley says:

    I’ll be happy to sit a few days in a room with 1000 ppm of CO2 , no problem. In exchange, Jill can give me a contract guaranteeing she will pay 10% of her income (a simulated carbon offset tax) for the rest of her life if I survive.

  22. Curiousgeorge says:

    @ ferd berple says:
    June 22, 2011 at 8:32 am

    …………………………………………

    We have heard this all before. How many millions will have to die this time in the name of the “great leader”. A leader that will lie to get what she wants, that doesn’t trust the people’s judgement of right and wrong, or truth and fantasy.

    As Brat Pitt ( playing Achilles in Troy ) said: “He’s not my king.”

  23. Juice says:

    You know who else wanted to gas everyone that stood in their way?

  24. cotwome says:

    observa says:
    June 22, 2011 at 9:01 am

    Mark Steyn is a very riveting writer, I put him up there with one of my all-time favorite writers, Victor Davis Hanson, who has plenty to say about global warming, climate change or disruption, etc… Well worth reading his work on a daily basis!

  25. Bill Sticker says:

    Elsewhere it has been suggested that ‘true believers’ be allowed to conduct a counter experiment.

    Essentially to allow a small group (Of ‘believers’) to live in a closed environment with atmospheric CO2 levels artificially kept below 100ppm and a control group (of ‘sceptics’) in an environment where CO2 levels are kept artificially high, say about 1000ppm. The idea being for the participants to log ill effects, temperature, and to live off only what they can grow / produce within the closed environment. The Eden project in the UK might prove a suitable venue.

    After one calendar year the experiment should be concluded with the examination of participants and their allotted environment for signs of malnourishment or debilitation, and the health of the closed environment likewise. A properly controlled environmental experiment, and no-one, no matter what their opinion, has to be put in gas chambers. Unless it is one of their own making. Sounds fair to me.

    Although wasn’t this type of experiment done in Biosphere two in Arizona and I believe the Russians had / have something similar?

  26. dbleader61 says:

    Excellent post Mr. Rawls.

    The Facepalm theme and tying AGW to the recent NBA final as “missing Heat” is priceless.

  27. Vigilantfish says:

    How about the student who felt her participation in the shameful Vancouver riots was expiated because she’s essentially a good person. Because (pause…) she’s an environmentalist.

    “If you still don’t believe I’m a good person, here’s a little side story for you:

    As many of you already know, I am majoring in Conservation Biology at UBC. I strongly believe in ecological conservation and sustainability. That night, I saw a few people that were trying to knock trees down. So what did I do? I yelled at them, saying “Pleaaseee, not the treees!!!!” And what did they do? They stopped. And I felt like a hero.”

    Full ‘confession’ here:

    http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Whatwasgoing+head/4984304/story.html

  28. crosspatch says:

    They are becoming desperate and they are going to resort to desperate rhetoric. The sad thing is that the way it generally turns out when that happens is that the rhetoric tends to alienate the majority of people while at the same time acts to “rally” the core cadre of the “movement”. So they end up in a situation where they become smaller and more fanatical. The more extreme they get, the more difficult it becomes for people to take them seriously. And that is the point when the *really* extreme members of a movement begin to resort to violence as has been seen with groups such as ALF in the US.

    The sad part is that they really do believe in their hearts that they are “right”. Even hard data showing that it just isn’t happening will not shake their faith in what they believe. They will rationalize the conflicting data as tainted or produced by someone with a counter-agenda. They will trot out modified data that has been “adjusted” to show their desired result. They become complete “flat earthers”.

  29. Matt says:

    No, you’re looking at it wrong. This is progress. She’s promoting a calm, peaceful, painless death for skeptics – this is good. You can’t expect them to just jump from wanting you to explode at the push of a button to not killing you at all over night. There has to be some transition to not demanding you be killed. Baby steps…

  30. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    henrythethird says:
    June 22, 2011 at 10:08 am

    Have them enter a room with today’s CO2 levels, and pump in CO2 until the level is doubled. See if the room temp goes up.

    Of course it will with all that hot air in there. Nothing to do with the CO2 though.

  31. PhilJourdan says:

    Matt says:
    June 22, 2011 at 11:03 am

    Good point! I guess the fanatics are getting more humane in their “final solution”. ;)

  32. John in NZ says:

    crosspatch says:
    June 22, 2011 at 10:54 am
    “They are becoming desperate ”

    You are right. Julia Gillard lied and most Australians know it and are angry. The polls are showing it. This is the latest from the Sydney Morning Herald.

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/a-year-of-frustration-for-gillard-as-voters-refuse-to-forgive-and-forget-20110622-1gfky.html

    The Carbon Tax looks very unpopular. The devout AGW believers know they are losing and this fanatical behavior is to be expected.

  33. DCA says:

    I ran across this on Tom Nelsons blog, The “D” word is used in most sentences. The irony is astonding.

    Science, like much human endeavour, thrives on debate.

    Climate deniers want to participate in this debate as equal partners, and feel that they are entitled to be heard and to be taken seriously. This is quite understandable, but by itself does not create an entitlement.

    In science, to actually contribute at the forefront of a field one has to earn credibility, not demand it. Being taken seriously is a privilege, not a right.

    In science, this privilege is earned by not only following conventional norms of honesty and transparency but by supporting one’s opinions with evidence and reasoned argument in the peer-reviewed literature.

    This is what makes science self-correcting. If arguments turn out to be wrong, in time they are caught and corrected by other scientists. It is virtually impossible to publish long-refuted nonsense in good peer-reviewed journals.

    Climate deniers, by contrast, seem to avoid the peer-reviewed literature or publish by sometimes abusing the system. Nor do the deniers turn up and present their ideas at any of the many international scientific conferences, open to anyone, where these issues have been explored for decades.

    Deniers simply keep restating nonsensical arguments that the scientific community has known to be wrong for a long time……

    The so-called “debate” on climate change has been over for decades in the peer-reviewed literature. It is time to accept the scientific consensus and move on, and to stop giving air-time to the cranks.

    http://theconversation.edu.au/a-journey-into-the-weird-and-wacky-world-of-climate-change-denial-1554

  34. James H says:

    If she’s so concerned about CO2 emissions, would she be willing to hold her breath until CO2 concentrations fall to pre-industrial levels? If not, isn’t she part of the problem?

  35. Alec Rawls says:

    Steveta thinks it is silly of me to suggest that if CO2 is dangerous then sneezing is dangerous. I’ll admit I was taking the point to an extreme when I went all the way down to a sneeze, but isn’t the general point correct?

    Best estimates are that the water vapor feedback effect is negative: that it dampens temperature forcings rather than amplifying them. If we lived in a very different world, where instead of being dampened, forcings were amplified at least a couple of times over (the IPCC assumption), then otherwise transitory fluctuations could have grand effects.

    As it is, the big internal variations–the ocean oscillations–can have profound effects on surface temperatures over periods of years (El Nino) and even decades (the Pacific Decadal Oscillation). Switch damping for serious amplification and these swings could be an order of magnitude deeper and longer. Weather would become climate. What is normally a sneeze (for the planet) would send the planet careening off in a warming or cooling direction.

    Is this an unfair argument? After all, the IPCC claim is that we already live in a world with strong water vapor feedbacks. They don’t see themselves as talking about a different world, but they ought to, because they are not actually looking at our world at all.

    The IPCC does not estimate water vapor feedbacks (or climate sensitivity) directly. Rather, they calculate amplification effects to be whatever they would have to be in order to explain 20th century warming as being driven by CO2’s tiny forcing effect. This is what Gavin Schmidt et al. are doing when they calibrate their GCMs to the data, and it is the GCMs that the IPCC is using to make all of its scary predictions.

    But model-fitting isn’t evidence. The fact that by tweaking hundreds of variables they can get an elaborate model to roughly track a century of temperature history is not evidence that their model is correct, any more than the fact that the geocentric model of the universe could be propped up with epicycles was evidence for the geocentric model.

    So yes it is fair to say that they are looking at a different world than the one we live in, because they don’t even TRY to look at the real world. They only look at what the world would have to be in order for 20th century warming to have been caused by CO2. They are looking only at this object of their own mental obsession, NOT at the evidence.

  36. 1DandyTroll says:

    @Alec Rawls

    The general point is sound. However, I would of course, go all the way and use the breath of life linkage to show that Ms Singer, might, end up suing rescue workers for trying to poison people when they’re performing quick resuscitation of poor victims. :p

  37. Gary Hladik says:

    Observa, thanks for the link to the Mark Steyn video. I’ve read his columns, but hadn’t seen him on video before.

  38. rw says:

    Dear me,

    The spoiled brats are toying with violence again…

    (And I think a serious case can be made that a lot of these OTT expressions of violence are the result of spoiled brats not having their way.)

    In the long run, it may be fortunate that these semi-literates aren’t familiar with the writings of D. H. Lawrence, either in regard to Australia (cf. Jack’s night out), or the USA (cf. the pertinent passage in the “Studies”).

  39. David S says:

    steveta_uk says:
    June 22, 2011 at 9:30 am
    David S objects:

    “- Having TSA goons touch our private parts before we can board a plane, and soon a train or a bus.

    Huh? I can’t get anyone to touch my private parts; what’s your trick?”

    Possibly you missed it. Here are some examples.

    Cancer surviving flight attendant told to remove prosthetic breast during pat-down

    http://www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13534628

    Woman says her Lambert security screening was sexual assault http://www.kmov.com/news/mobile/Woman-says-her-Lambert-security-screening-was-sexual-assault–109114934.html

    Enhanced pat down leaves Grand Rapids airline passenger in tears

    http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_story.aspx?storyid=140233&catid=14

    Video: Owen J.J. Stone exposes the horror of TSA in his pants

    http://www.infowars.com/video-owen-j-j-stone-exposes-the-horror-of-tsa-in-his-pants/

    TSA holds woman with breast milk captive in glass cage

    http://www.examiner.com/airlines-airport-in-national/tsa-holds-woman-with-breast-milk-captive-glass-cage

    Indian ambassador angered by TSA pat-down

    http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=7835330

    TSA Pat-Down Leaves Michigan Man Covered In Urine

    Why Did TSA Pat Down Kids, Adults Getting Off Train?

    http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/02/28/why-did-tsa-pat-down-kids-adults-getting-off-train/?icid=maing%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%7C47402

    Woman sues after TSA agent pulls down her top exposing her breasts.

    http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2010-10-11/lawsuit-airport-search-indecent

    She wins case http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/14/lynsie-murley-tsa_n_808977.html

    6 year old girl groped by TSA

    Miss America sexually molested by TSA

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/miss-america-sexually-molested-by-tsa.html

    Special Needs Son Harassed by TSA at Detroit Metropolitan Airport

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/special-needs-son-harassed-by-tsa-at-detroit-metropolitan-airport.html

    Texas officials groped by TSA

    http://www.setyoufreenews.com/2011/06/texas-state-officials-groped-by-tsa-as.html

  40. Latitude says:

    Alec Rawls says:
    June 22, 2011 at 2:05 pm
    But model-fitting isn’t evidence. The fact that by tweaking hundreds of variables they can get an elaborate model to roughly track a century of temperature history is not evidence that their model is correct,
    ==================================================================================
    Alec, not just temperature…
    …you have to go back and tweek/adjust CO2 levels too

    That is unless you believe that the rise in temperature during the MWP, and the fall in temperature during the LIA….
    …were the first time ever that CO2 levels didn’t also rise and fall,…………….. flat line…………………

  41. observa says:

    For the benefit of Americans largely, who may be puzzled as to why an Australian journo resident in the State of Victoria needs the poignant words of a modern Voltaire in Steyn, a background briefing. Unlike the US we don’t have an enshrined Constitutional right to free speech, largely because Australia, after absolute British colonial rule, was set up as a Federation of the States in 1901, whereby the Federal Govt was given certain powers (broadly income tax, defence, corporation powers, free trade between States, customs and OS trade and relations) and all residual powers vested with the States. Essentially our elected Federal and State Govts can make any unfree laws they like, and the High Court can only interpret those laws, albeit there have been some ‘active’ judgements based on Anglo Saxon precedent more broadly. Now Americans would be aghast at that with their Bill of Rights enshrined Constitutionally, with the treatment of the Rev Danny Nalliah under the Victorian Govt’s draconian Racial and Religious Vilification Act described here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Nalliah
    Essentially Andrew Bolt is being similarly mauled by a Victorian State apparatus that has been captured by the usual suspects who want everyone singing from the same hymn book or Marxist Koran as the case may be. If the higher Courts are reluctant to concur with them on Anglo Saxon heritage grounds, this unelected Stasi will bankrupt anyone they don’t like the sound of in their closed ‘kangaroo court’ system, with taxpayer backing. In this case Andrew has some powerful backers and financial media fully behind him, but alas for poor Danny in the past.

    Now Americans would say, easy solution, just install a Bill of Rights but unfortunately not so, as your unelected EPA edicts attest. Imagine trying to concoct a BoR today with the usual suspects trying to enshrine everything from Victoria’s Vilification Act intentions to enshrining protection for Gaia and climate change. In that sense there is an uneasy truce between libertarians, conservatives and liberal progressives about what would likely degenerate into a Bill of Wrongs. Yes your ancestors had an easier window of opprtunity.

    The plain fact is there is no guarantee of freedom and liberty, as an elected Nazi Party demonstrated when it burnt that Reichstag. There is only the eternal vigilance of truly free men and women and their Steyns and Bolts. You’ll be pleased to know that after the general distaste of the Nalliah State persecution, the other (largely Labor) States at the time who were thinking of emulating the Vic legislation, quietly canned the idea and Vic stands alone now. That’s why the Bolt verdict is concentrating the mind in Australia at present and hopefully a newly elected conservative State Govt will repeal the Act as a result of the notoriety it is gaining. One plus from a Federation is the healthy competition between jurisdictions for what works best and what doesn’t, as you can appreciate now. Let freedom and Mark Steyn’s words ring in Victoria too!

  42. observa says:

    For the benefit of Americans largely, who may be puzzled as to why an Australian journo resident in the State of Victoria needs the poignant words of a modern Voltaire in Steyn, a background briefing. Unlike the US we don’t have an enshrined Constitutional right to free speech, largely because Australia, after absolute British colonial rule, was set up as a Federation of the States in 1901, whereby the Federal Govt was given certain powers (broadly income tax, defence, corporation powers, free trade between States, customs and OS trade and relations) and all residual powers vested with the States. Essentially our elected Federal and State Govts can make any unfree laws they like, and the High Court can only interpret those laws, albeit there have been some ‘active’ judgements based on Anglo Saxon precedent more broadly. Now Americans would be aghast at that with their Bill of Rights enshrined Constitutionally, with the treatment of the Rev Danny Nalliah under the Victorian Govt’s draconian Racial and Religious Vilification Act described here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Nalliah
    Essentially Andrew Bolt is being similarly mauled by a Victorian State apparatus that has been captured by the usual suspects who want everyone singing from the same hymn book or Marxist Koran as the case may be. If the higher Courts are reluctant to concur with them on Anglo Saxon heritage grounds, this unelected Stasi will bankrupt anyone they don’t like the sound of in their closed ‘kangaroo court’ system, with taxpayer backing. In this case Andrew has some powerful backers and financial media fully behind him, but alas for poor Danny in the past.

    Now Americans would say, easy solution, just install a Bill of Rights but unfortunately not so, as your unelected EPA edicts attest. Imagine trying to concoct a BoR today with the usual suspects trying to enshrine everything from Victoria’s Vilification Act intentions to enshrining protection for Gaia and climate change. In that sense there is an uneasy truce between libertarians, conservatives and liberal progressives about what would likely degenerate into a Bill of Wrongs. Yes your ancestors had an easier window of opportunity.

    The plain fact is there is no guarantee of freedom and liberty, as an elected Nazi Party demonstrated when it burnt that Reichstag. There is only the eternal vigilance of truly free men and women and their Steyns and Bolts. You’ll be pleased to know that after the general distaste of the Nalliah State persecution, the other (largely Labor) States at the time who were thinking of emulating the Vic legislation, quietly canned the idea and Vic stands alone now. That’s why the Bolt verdict is concentrating the mind in Australia at present and hopefully a newly elected conservative State Govt will repeal the Act as a result of the notoriety it is gaining. One plus from a Federation is the healthy competition between jurisdictions for what works best and what doesn’t, as you can appreciate now. Let freedom and Mark Steyn’s words ring in Victoria too!

  43. Arno Arrak says:

    Jill Singer” I’m prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics – put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas – say, carbon monoxide.”
    Science clearly is not her strong point if she has nothing better on her mind than suggesting stupid stunts to annoy those she disagrees with. I want her to know that science is important and that “climate” science she has been inculcated to believe in is a pseudoscience. These so-called “scientists” believe that putting carbon dioxide in the air causes the world to warm because of the greenhouse effect it generates. I want her to know that Ferenc Miskolczi studied the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere that supposedly increases when more carbon dioxide is added and discovered that it has been constant for the last 61 years. Carbon dioxide increased by 21.6 percent during the same period of time. This means that adding that carbon dioxide to the air had no influence whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. No absorption, no greenhouse effect, case closed. As to that carbon dioxide “sensitivity”: to doubling its concentration, this observation shows clearly that the vaunted sensitivity is exactly equal to zero. Miskolczi’s paper has been out now for two years and no articles disputing it have appeared in any peer-reviewed journals up to now. I suggest to Jill that it is time for her to cut her losses and jump off the sinking ship of global warming fantasies. Clearly they are fantasies as Miskolczi has proved. They are also harmful when followed by government action to correct a non-existent “harmful warming” imagined by computers spewing GIGO. What she should start thinking of is how to mitigate this mitigation and who to blame for setting a nation on such a suicidal course…

  44. Surfer Dave says:

    Appalling. I just sent the following to the Herald Sun:

    Dear Sir,

    I was appalled to read this:

    “I’m prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics – put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas – say, carbon monoxide.

    You wouldn’t see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing.”

    That is from:

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/sideshow-around-carbon-tax-must-stop/story-fn56az2q-1226079531212

    While your correspondent may have a different opinion and feel strongly about other people’s diverging opinions it is simply not acceptable to use hate speech.

    Her wishing death on those of different opinion is not funny nor amusing. It is near to a hate crime. Please counsel your correspondent to moderate her unacceptable words and also please counsel those in the editorial chain of command to be aware that wishing death on those with different opinions is simply not acceptable in our society.

    I seek from you written confirmation that you have received my complaint, and that you have taken actions to counsel or otherwise deal with the offending author. I would like to see a written, published apology from both the author and from the Herald Sun’s senior editor. I will take this to the Australian Press Council should I not received an adequate and appropriate response.

    Regards,
    David Ross

  45. observa says:

    For the benefit of Americans largely, who may be puzzled as to why an Australian journo resident in the State of Victoria needs the poignant words of a modern Voltaire in Steyn, a background briefing. Unlike the US we don’t have an enshrined Constitutional right to free speech, largely because Australia, after absolute British colonial rule, was set up as a Federation of the States in 1901, whereby the Federal Govt was given certain powers (broadly income tax, defence, corporation powers, free trade between States, customs and OS trade and relations) and all residual powers vested with the States. Essentially our elected Federal and State Govts can make any un-free laws they like, and the High Court can only interpret those laws, albeit there have been some ‘active’ judgments based on Anglo Saxon precedent more broadly. Now Americans would be aghast at that with their Bill of Rights enshrined Constitutionally, with the treatment of the Rev Danny Nalliah under the Victorian Govt’s draconian Racial and Religious Vilification Act described here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Nalliah
    Essentially Andrew Bolt is being similarly mauled by a Victorian State apparatus that has been captured by the usual suspects who want everyone singing from the same hymn book or Marxist Koran as the case may be. If the higher Courts are reluctant to concur with them on Anglo Saxon heritage grounds, this unelected Stasi will bankrupt anyone they don’t like the sound of in their closed ‘kangaroo court’ system, complete with taxpayer backing. In this case Andrew has some powerful backers and financial media fully behind him, but alas for poor Danny in the past.

    Now Americans would say, easy solution, just install a Bill of Rights, but unfortunately not so as your unelected EPA edicts attest. Imagine trying to concoct a BoR today with the usual suspects trying to enshrine everything from Victoria’s Vilification Act intentions to enshrining protection for Gaia and climate change. In that sense there is an uneasy truce between libertarians, conservatives and liberal progressives over what would most likely degenerate into a ‘Bill of Wrongs’. Yes your ancestors had a much easier window of opportunity.

    The plain fact is that there is no guarantee of freedom and liberty, as an elected Nazi Party demonstrated when it burnt that Reichstag. There is only the eternal vigilance of truly free men and women and their Steyns and Bolts. You’ll be pleased to know that after the general distaste of the Nalliah State backed persecution, the other (largely Labor) States at the time who were thinking of emulating the Vic legislation, quietly canned the idea and Vic stands alone now. That’s why the Bolt case is concentrating the mind in Australia at present and hopefully a newly elected ‘conservative’ State Govt will repeal the Act as a result of the notoriety it is gaining. One great plus from a Federation of the States with many residual powers is the healthy competition between jurisdictions for what works best and what doesn’t, as you can appreciate better now. Let freedom and Mark Steyn’s words ring in Victoria too!

  46. climatenonconformist says:

    What a lovely thing to read when you read the morning paper. A feminist crackpot hoping you get gassed.

    Do they realise how much this denigrates their side of the debate? A nice half-volley on off stump.

  47. Uber says:

    “Nope, it’s a believer thing, as believers in authoritarian religions have always wanted to expunge heretics.”

    May I suggest you take a bit more care with your wording.

  48. Ross says:

    I have taken David Ross’ suggestion – eloquently put.

  49. Ross says:

    Interestingly Jill Singer shows her true colours – she is evil and manipulative.

    I would not have a problem with an atmosphere of high CO2 provided it had the requisite oxygen.

    Carbon monoxide is a different beast however and the evil Singer knows it. CO has no so-called greenhouse effects so has nothing to do with this arguement other than its toxicity.

  50. Nick Stokes says:

    “More casual death wishes from Australia”
    Did I miss something? Where are they? All I see is a rehash of the CO and the tattooing. And some silly beatup of Ms Singer disagreeing with Murray about whether CO2 is a pollutant.

  51. Kristinn says:

    “…exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas – say, carbon monoxide.”

    I’m guessing we’ll burn.

    Alternatively, we could put some plants in there and see what happens

  52. JPeden says:

    Nick Stokes, since this kind of disparagement of, and its implied wish for a certain kind of end to to befall any “skeptic” whatsoever is apparently a fixed feature of thought for people such as you, you are therefore correct according to your rather personalizing point of view – which obviously places much less emphasis on considering the scientific issues involved with the CO2 = CAGW hypotheses. Essentially for those who “think” as you do, more of the same old same old from skeptic-haters is not really more. It is simply “par”.

  53. Alec Rawls says:

    Re Uber: I was being careful when I wrote “believers in authoritarian religions have always wanted to expunge heretics.” Notice I did not say believers in all religions, only in authoritarian ones, and not all religions are authoritarian.

    Judaism and Christianity are the great source of western liberty, based on the assertion in Genesis that man is made in God’s image. God, being omnipotent, epitomizes free will, hence men, made in God’s image, have free will too, and the only forms of government suited to such a mankind must enable and empower that free will.

    Certainly there have been authoritarian sects in Christianity, but the main thrust is clearly the opposite. In particular, Christianity gave rise to the American system of liberty, and it ended slavery in the west (though it still exists in Islam).

  54. Alec Rawls says:

    Re Nick Stokes: All Nick sees is “Singer disagreeing with Murray about whether CO2 is a pollutant.” Did he miss the part about breathing enough CO2 to never be heard from again?

    Consider a parallel example. Imagine a group of eco-alarmists has managed to convince half the world that H2O is a dangerous pollutant. A business leader points out that, far from being a pollutant, H20 is necessary for life, and the eco-alarmists retorting, “I’d like to see you submerge yourself in it then, so we never have to hear from your like again. How refreshing that would be!”

    Ring a bell?

  55. Alec Rawls says:

    Interesting parallel between Singer and Chris Matthews today. Singer doesn’t seem to know what open minded means. Totalitarian closed-mindedness is her personal example of something she feels open minded about.

    Ditto for Chris Matthews, who doesn’t seem to know what “objective” means, declaring: “I hate that so-called evenhanded so-called objective journalism. You know, you know, you can’t say something isn’t true if it’s true in the interest of evenhandedness.” (Translation, for people who have trouble with Matthews-speak: “If you know that something isn’t true, ‘evenhandedness’ won’t let you say so.)

    Actually, objectivity and “evenhandedness” call for honest fact-checking of all claims, reporting truth and falsehood wherever they can be determined, and being guided in one’s focus only by how consequential the subject matter is.

    Not for Matthews though. Like Singer, Matthews invokes his own dictionary, employing concepts of objectivity and evenhandedness that have nothing to do with what these terms actually mean. He uses them as an excuse not to reveal damning information that he sees as unfairly damaging to his favored side. And yes, he was talking about global warming, miffed at his lack of success in convincing the public that “the science is settled.”

  56. Larry Fields says:

    John Marshall says:
    June 22, 2011 at 8:28 am
    “She would get on well with Joana Nova. Sparks would fly.”

    The fur wouldn’t fly for long. If Jill Singer went toe-to-toe with Jo Nova, Psychic Larry predicts that Joanne would score a TKO in the first round. Jo Nova is a world-class polemicist, and judging by her writing, is even more formidable in that respect than Christopher Monckton.

  57. Earthling says:

    Jill Singer sounds like a junior school child, someone should ask her to include high concentrations of pure oxygen in her list of colourless, odourless gases that are harmful to humans.

  58. NikFromNYC says:

    Oft be said, better blue than green or red:

  59. Nick Stokes says:

    Alec Rawls says: June 23, 2011 at 12:51 am
    “Did he miss the part about breathing enough CO2 to never be heard from again?”

    No. Though you’ve modified it – she suggested carbon monoxide – CO. But as I said that was amply covered in the previous post. The headline here says more casual death wishes from Australia. What is it referring to?

  60. wayne Job says:

    This Jill Singer is a bit of a worry she seems to have no idea of the real world or science. I would like to ask her if a room full of pure oxygen, tasteless and odourless, is a better test for her religious beliefs. Perhaps she could be persuaded to take the test, after all, oxygen is not a pollutant. After her lipstick explodes and she has a frayed mouth she may be less strident and more amenable to alternate views if her lungs still work. Today such is the measure of many ” Journalists”, so sad that so many generations of people toiled and fought deprivation and wars to allow freedom to people such as this woman who now wishes to forcibly push us into a new age of tyranny.

    At my age I should no longer have to fight for freedom, but the brainwashing of the younger generations has been pervasive and it my and the generation before that are taking the fight to these foolish people. Oddly it seems that Gen Y 20 to 25 years olds are joining the oldies in OZ in rebellion, the internet sets them free. Thank you for all your good works Anthony.

  61. Alec Rawls says:

    Nick: Aha. The previous post was not up when I submitted mine. Sorry. Didn’t realize we had a double.

  62. observa says:

    At the risk of boring the reader and imposing on the hospitality of our host I’ll complete the bigger Oz constitutional/legal/judicial jigsaw for those still awake.

    Now Australia still has the British monarch as Head of State which may seem anachronistic to Americans and so many ex-Commonwealth countries, having gained their independence from Britain in the 60s and 70s. Well the truth is, although Queeny is officially the HofS, the effective power is vested in the Governor General appointed by the Parliament (actually the elected majority Govt of the day and its leader the Prime Minister) and like Liz acts on the advice of Parliament (except that the GG has the reserve power to dissolve an unworkable Parliament and send it back to the people a la 1975). As well we no longer rely on the British Privy Council as our highest deliberative Court, but since the early 70s have had our own High Court. To all intents and purposes we are a totally independent actor from Britain, with a dual House, Westminster system, but we still have Liz as our Queen paid for by Brit taxpayers and saving us the hooha and expense of Presidential elections. It also negates the problem of conflict of power between elected PM and President like some have.

    As outlined before we have no individual Bill of Rights but rely largely upon Anglo Saxon heritage and precedent law just like Britain, although we don’t mind borrowing from US law, etc. Hence the opportunity for the usual suspects to occasionally implement their nefarious laws to oppress us for our own good (naturally). Just like unelected EPAs Vilification Acts and the like. However like all PC laws and their promulgators they inevitably piss off the masses and some political Party or wind sniffing Court decision will come to the rescue. Just like the Dutch Court decision on Geert Wilders right to criticise Islam, their worm has clearly turned as it is turning here. Well if Bolt plays that video speech of Steyns in Court it will be a brave judge to convict I’ll warrant, but we’ll just have to wait and see.

    Now we have had the regular push to ditch Queeny and become a Republic mostly from leftys as you can imagine and for a while it looked like they’d win the day until defeated at a referendum a few years ago. However their problem was in ditching Queeny, they had to come up with the whole box and dice ie how to elect a HoS and the question of a Bill of Rights, etc. Well the electorate smelled the stench of a Bill of Wrongs and they also wanted to elect any Pres, while the pollies wanted an appointed one and it was all too hard and the NO vote ensued. Funnily enough non-Anglo immigrants were as attached to a Queen as conservative Anglos, which still drives the Repubs crazy as you can imagine. No doubt because so many come from previous tyrannous republics and regimes without royalty. How can you have a HoS of another country as our HoS they shriek down their noses at us. Well that’s because it doesn’t really matter, she costs us nothing and Aussies are that damned relaxed and comfortable about ourselves these days we don’t have to follow the mob. It’s quirky, nostalgic and fun and it really pisses off the leftards who want to control us and tell us what to do all the time and noone, but noone tells Queeny what to do. It’s delicious and free.

Comments are closed.