Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Few listeners for the Left’s shouting

SCOTT Ludlam’s “viral” hate speech against Tony Abbott signified the moment the Left finally lost its marbles: 10.08pm, Monday March 3, 2014.

We can see them frozen in time, like the Edvard Munch painting The Scream, as the final awful realization hits home of Tony Abbott’s comprehensive victory and his determination to make his prime ministership count.

They knew before Newspoll confirmed it this week that all their dishonest, sneaky, bigoted, dog-whistling attempts to demonise Abbott and his government are falling on increasingly deaf ears.

That Monday night, to a near empty chamber, Ludlam, the telegenic Greens senator from WA, who faces political annihilation at the re-run of the WA Senate poll next month, peppered his diatribe with the obligatory “rednecks” and “murderous horror unfolding on Manus Island”.

He accused Abbott of “waving your homophobia in people’s faces”, “ever-more insidious attacks on the trade union movement and all working people” , “heartless racist exploitation of people’s fears” and leading a “benighted attempt at a government”.

He wound up with the plaintive cry of a loser: “Give us our country back”.

Sorry Senator, it was never your country. We had an election last year and the Abbott government was elected with a whopping majority. The twitterati might have gone weak at the knees for Ludlam but he might as well have been howling at the moon.

As we reach 82 days with no asylum seeker boats arriving (or fatally capsizing) refugee activists like Ludlum and his colleague Sarah “tragedies happen” Hanson-Young become ever more shrill.

They claimed it could never be done and now their false compassion and obstructionism have been exposed. They are scrabbling for the moral high ground as it crumbles before them.

Meanwhile, Abbott’s determined provocations are unhinging them.

The night after Ludlam gave his nasty little speech, Abbott delivered his own speech around the corner, in the Great Hall of Parliament House, at the annual dinner of the Australian Forest Products Association. It was an ode to the timber industry that could only be interpreted as a giant finger to the green movement.

“I salute you as people who love the natural world, as people who love what Mother Nature gives us and who want to husband it for the long-term best interests of humanity.”

He called foresters the “ultimate conservationists”. Which of course they are. They were taking care of trees long before middle-class professional Greens showed up to destroy their livelihood.

A well-kept forest is a joy for flora, fauna and human economic interests. Forest locked away as national parks, on the other hand, we have seen become incinerated moonscapes. After deadly runaway bushfires, the silence of the koalas is deafening and nothing will grow for years.

The scorched earth of a burned out national park can be seen as a metaphor for what the green movement has done to Australia. From Tasmania’s rotten supplicant economy to the corporate victims of the carbon tax, from bulging immigration detention centres to vast green bureaucracies sucking the taxpayer dry for zero environmental gain.

Abbott’s words fell on the room of foresters like a chorus of angels signifying the dawning of the light.

“Man and the environment are meant for each other. The last thing we should want — if we want to genuinely improve our environment … is to ban men and women from enjoying it, is to ban men and women from making the most of it …


The winds of change were visible in the last desperate attempts of climate alarmists to crank up the old scare campaigns this week.

No one is listening, and even Media Watch scorned claims the Opera House will be engulfed by rising seas: “Alarmist nonsense of the sort that brings journalism and climate science into disrepute.”

Bravo, at last. Common sense restored to public life.

Welcome to the new world order. No wonder Ludlam and friends are screaming.


Prominent Australian Warmist under attack

Aussie skeptics say they have one of their nation’s top climate alarmist professors cornered in an ongoing battle of words over who holds the high ground on scientific integrity. Scientist, Dr Judy Ryan and her colleague, Dr Marjory Curtis are going public with a series of damning emails they’ve had with government-backed promoters of fears about man-made global warming.

Their latest target is Professor David Karoly, a climatologist who they claim dishonestly championed a government campaign to depict human carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions as black smoke, contrary to scientific fact.

Dr Ryan reports, “On 18th February 2014 I sent an email to David Karoly with Marjory Curtis, a retired geologist, as my co-signer. Approximately 180 australian and overseas media outlets, politicians, universities, including their student newspapers, and prominent climate hysteria mongers were openly copied in.”

Ryan and Curtis are among many highly-qualified scientists who, as skeptics of the wrong-headed hysteria over supposed man-made global warming, are fighting to restore scientific integrity.

Dr Curtis says Karoly’s “error” over the CO2 as black smoke “may have been a fortuitous oversight” for the cause of alarmists who some say are trying to dupe the public on the issue.

Judy Curtis has advised Karoly all the correspondence, because of its significance to public policy, will be published as open letters. She says, “We replied 21st February and added in our fellow skeptics. So there are now close to 220 observers for Karoly’s next response. To date we have not heard back, but it is early days yet.”

The first letter and Karoly’s immediate response are below.

As with many independent scientists frustrated with the apparent bias of government climatologists, Ryan understands that such public emails are becoming a powerful tool and she provides many helpful tips on how to formulate and send them. She tells readers “Feel free to copy, paste and use  them, and if you have questions you only need to ask.”

18th February 2014

Dear Professor Karoly,

We have been writing to you for a year requesting that you provide one credible study that supports your hypothesis of catastrophic, human caused global warming (CAGW). You have not been able to provide one. The  letters and your responses are all on the public record

In March 2013 we issued you the opportunity to either renounce your alarmist claims on the ABC news, or publicly provide empirical data-based evidence, that is available for scientific scrutiny, to support them.

Almost a year has passed and still you have not provided the evidence.

We remind you that the Australian people are experiencing financial disadvantage as a result of the host of policies and administrative decisions driven by advice regarding the science of climate change. Is that advice false or misleading? Does it deceive by concealing or omitting or embellishing or misrepresenting relevant facts?

 The definition of fraud is, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, quote: “a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.”

According to Malcolm Roberts author of the CSIROh! report , you are prominently involved in many taxpayer-funded climate bodies fomenting unfounded climate alarm. One of your roles is that you are Editor-In-Chief of the Bureau of Meteorology’s (BOM’s) in-house journal. On page 10 of his report’s Appendix 7, Malcolm Roberts cites Peter Bobroff’s analysis, quote: “Publishing the research. The Bureau of Meteorology has its own in-house journal: the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal (prev Aust. Meteorol. Mag.). The editor-in-chief responsible for the defence of the scientific method, elimination of all types of bias, automatic release of all relevant data and code is none other than David Karoly – the strident proponent of human causation of future catastrophic global warming. The BOM itself has taken a strong partisan position on the subject.”

Despite your BOM responsibilities, Malcolm Roberts adds, quote: “Yet David Karoly has repeatedly publicly contradicted empirical scientific evidence”.

According to their website you also appear to be BOM’s principal author. Graphs on the following pages were obtained or produced by various independents non-aligned examiners and auditors of BOM records. Are you are the author of the original regional temperature data or graphs used by BOM?

Every graph shows that the raw data, which shows either a flat or downward (cooling) trend has been “adjusted” to a warming trend.  Are you are associated in any way with producing BOM’s adjusted graphs? If so, in our opinion it is very misleading of both you and the BOM personnel to adjust the data to the extent that it misrepresents reality. We also think that it is very misleading of both you and BOM  to omit to declare to the Australian people  that you have “adjusted” the raw data.

Under Australia’s strong democracy no one is above the law. Judges, politicians, scientists, academics, senior public servants, and managing directors can be held to account for breaching their fiduciary duty.

It seems that you have prominent roles across many taxpayer-funded entities promoting unfounded and unscientific claims of anthropogenic global warming and contradicting empirical scientific evidence. Your many prominent roles place you at the hub of the web of such agencies. You have thereby positioned yourself perfectly for answering our fundamental and straight-forward questions. As taxpayers and concerned scientists we look forward to your evidence based response. It is not a good look if you do not acknowledge this very public letter.

In closing, if there is anything we have said that you think is untrue please click reply all and let us know and we will apologise.

Dr Judy Ryan

Dr Marjorie Curtis

David Karoly clicked “Reply All” and sent this email within 24 hours.

On 19 Feb 2014, at 6:11 am, David John Karoly wrote:

Hi Judy,

It's interesting to receive another of your emails as they keep me amused.

If you are so convinced that I have committed fraud, I recommend that you pass the evidence to my employer, the University of Melbourne; the major funder of my research, the Australian Research Council, and to the police. In the past, your claims have been considered and dismissed, as have those from Malcolm Roberts. I am sure that you will find that further evidence of a conspiracy.

All the evidence of the human causes of global warming is assessed thoroughly in the 5th assessment report of the IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, available at

The specific chapter on human causation, Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional

 Is available at

No doubt you will again refuse to accept this evidence.

I have no idea what you mean when you state "you also appear to be BOM’s principal author".

I am not "the author of the original regional temperature data or graphs used by BOM".

I recommend that you contact the Bureau of Meteorology or look carefully at their web site for the sources of their data and the reasons for the adjustments to minimise inhomogeneities.

As always, I keep your emails and refer them to the legal office at the University of Melbourne.

David Karoly


Prof David Karoly

School of Earth Sciences

University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, AUSTRALIA

ph:  +61 3 8344 xxxx

fax: +61 3 8344 xxxx



From: Judy Ryan ;

Subject: [execnzcsc] Re: Do These Temperature Graphs Represent Reality? That is the Question

Date: 21 February 2014 10:29:49 am AEDT

To: David John Karoly ;Dear Professor Karoly, and about 220 other observers


Dear Professor Karoly,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

 I have included other scientists, including past and present IPCC reviewers in this reply to you. These scientists are much more conversant with the Working Group Ones final, final report than either Dr Curtis or I.  But, I assure you I have read Working Group Ones final draft report, which was released to the public as an unapproved draft.  Dr Curtis and I will be looking and learning as we see the evidence  from the final, final report unfold.

 In your response below you have stated that you are not the author of the original BOM temperature graphs. But, you have not answered the second part of the question. 

It is an honest, straightforward, legitimate question.

Professor Karoly, are you the author of the BOM’s  adjusted/homogenised graphs shown below?

Please click Reply All and answer the question.

We look forward to your prompt response.

Respectfully yours

Dr Judy Ryan

Dr Marjorie Curtis

P.S. Dr Curtis and I  will appreciate your courtesy in addressing both of us in your correspondence.  Marjory has been an active skeptic for more than three decades, and as many of her students know, she is a force to be reckoned with.


Crammed Australian Curriculum needs review, says Education Minister John-Paul Langbroek

QUEENSLAND’S Education Minister says concerns that there is too much to teach in the Australian Curriculum is a reason it needs to be reviewed.

Education Minister John-Paul Langbroek confirmed yesterday that teachers had spoken to him about the issue.

His comments followed revelations in The Courier-Mail that the state’s two non-government school sectors would warn the Australian Curriculum review, which was in Brisbane, of the problem.

"Teachers tell me that in the early implementation, because it’s only been a couple of years, there literally has been too much to get through,” Mr Langbroek said. "That’s why we need to have it reviewed.”

In its submission to the review, Independent Schools Queensland warned teachers were being forced to rush children through lessons.

The Queensland Catholic Education Commission also raised similar concerns about the curriculum yesterday.


Joyce fends off more jobs speculation

The union parasites in the Qantas workforce -- particularly the maintenance unions -- certainly need a boot up the bum

QANTAS chief Alan Joyce will not rule out sending more jobs offshore if able to do so under legislative changes being considered by federal parliament.

The airline is committed to slashing 5000 jobs as part of a $2 billion cost-cutting program, and as the coalition government proposes changes to the Qantas Sale Act, Mr Joyce will not forecast how many additional Australian positions could be lost.

"I'm not going to rule anything in or anything out," he told a Senate hearing in Canberra on Tuesday.

The airline boss faced repeated questioning about the impact on jobs of changing the Act, which would allow greater foreign ownership of Qantas's domestic arm.

But he said the airline has done no such modelling and refuses to deal in hypotheticals.

"We have no more plans on that," Mr Joyce said when asked of the jobs impact on different divisions of the company including maintenance, flight crew, catering and management.

Mr Joyce's position at the Qantas helm, which he has held since 2008, came under fire from Labor senator Sam Dastyari, who cited a drop in share price of more than 50 per cent since his appointment.

"If it was in the interests of shareholder value ... for you to resign would you do so?" Senator Dastyari asked.

Mr Joyce insisted that he has the support of the Qantas board.

"The important thing is to have the support of the shareholders and I continuously meet with the shareholders," Mr Joyce said.

A refresh of the Qantas board is the answer to the airline's problems, not legislative changes to the Act, Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association federal secretary Stephen Purvinas told the hearing.

"I would suggest that the government stop dealing with the current board of management until such time as they replace the CEO, they replace the chairman and they put someone with aviation background on the board," Mr Purvinas said.

He said the board is made up of bankers and people with corporate backgrounds, who lack an understanding of aviation issues.

Furthermore he said Qantas has purposefully lost money to back the federal government into a corner to change the Act.

"Qantas are intentionally creating this drama and all of the hype around them struggling internationally so that they can suck you guys into changing the Qantas Sale Act," Mr Purvinas said.

The Senate economics committee is due to report on March 24.

The ACTU forecast the number of Australian Qantas job losses would stretch to a five-digit figure under changes to the Act.

"If you add up the predictions that we have from affiliates generally in relation to Qantas group, a figure of 10,000 is obtained," union assistant secretary Tim Lyons told the same hearing.

He said staff morale at the airline was "sombre".

"The immediate impact if this bill was to go through ... would be a massive offshoring of the heavy maintenance base at Brisbane," Electrical Trades Union spokesman Matthew Murphy said.

Maintenance operations at Sydney and Melbourne would also be sent offshore, he added.

Mr Joyce labelled as "fear mongering" union claims that Qantas safety standards would be compromised if the Act was amended.

Both onshore maintenance operations and those based overseas had to be approved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, he said.


No comments: