Aggressive  Aboriginal Gang Assaults White People  -- Perth City, 17th March 2014

Aboriginal gangs roam unchecked in the city center of Perth attacking white residents for vengeance against the Europeans successfully conquering their lands. In this shocking footage 10+ Aboriginals of all ages attack 2 white males for seemingly no reason. The Aboriginals shout "White dogs!" "See what they do!?" over and over whilst taking cheap shots and hitting the men who are trying the stop the fight.

No mention of the matter in the mainstream media, of course, but you can see the video here.

The report below of 15th may however refer to the same offenders

Group of up to five men wanted for multiple assaults and robberies from Croydon to Norwood overnight

OPERATION Mandrake detectives are investigating a series of violent crimes in which a group of men terrorised multiple victims across Adelaide today.

Up to five men are believed to be responsible for as many as six robberies across western and eastern Adelaide and in the CBD between midnight and noon today.

Weapons, including a metal pole and a screwdriver, were brandished in some cases and in four of the robberies the victims suffered injuries.

The spree started at West Croydon, where the men armed with a pole stole a necklace from a woman at the intersection of Torrens Rd and Rosetta St just after midnight.

At nearby Liberton Ave, Croydon Park, a man was robbed of a phone, wallet and watch, suffering minor injuries.

About 15 minutes later, two women were assaulted and robbed of their handbags in a supermarket carpark at Welland.

One of the victims suffered a cut head and was treated by ambulance officers.

About 2am, the group then approached a woman and two men on Sydenham Rd, Norwood and, armed with a metal pole, demanded property.

The victims refused and were assaulted. The man was taken to the Royal Adelaide Hospital for treatment.

Two women were threatened by the men on Victoria Drive in the city about 6.20am. One had her bag stolen.

A home invasion at Ridgehaven just before midday, during which the elderly resident was threatened with a screwdriver, may also be linked.

The suspects for all robberies were described as Aboriginal men aged 20-28.

Operation Mandrake was established in 2003 to crack down on a group of hard-core Aboriginal offenders – the so-called Gang of 49.

They are assisting Western and Eastern Adelaide police with the investigation.

The men were seen in a maroon or burgundy Holden VK Commodore with registration WEK596 during the early morning robberies.

The registration does not match the car and it is likely stolen numberplates have been used.

The car involved in the home invasion was a maroon or burgundy Holden VK Commodore with registration WER181.

Police have not discounted it being the same car.

SOURCE







Palmer United Party members slam single-minded party pooper Clive Palmer

CLIVE Palmer’s own members say their leader’s “bullshit and razzamatazz” is ­undermining the party.

Days after the Palmer United Party failed to win a seat in the Tasmanian poll, several members have spoken out about Mr Palmer’s mistakes.

Former candidates and members from Mr Palmer’s own party say their leader must ditch his conspiracy theories and “loud” presidential-campaign style if he has any chance of wooing voters in Queensland.

Mr Palmer has already begun letterbox drops in Queensland, touting Gaven MP Alex Douglas as the next Premier.

But he has been urged to stand aside as leader, with accusations he failed to understand his audience and shoved aside local candidates in favour of grandiose advertisements featur­ing himself.

The Member for Fairfax – who claimed the poll was not “legitimate” and that someone had tampered with ballot boxes – has also been warned by party insiders to stop spouting conspiracy theories.

Chris Lester, who says he was selected as a candidate in Lyons before pulling out just before the official endorsement, blasted Mr Palmer’s lack of organisational structure and his tendency to try to “just bulldoze it through”.

The Derwent Valley councillor said senior party figures had told him he was about to be endorsed, but he walked away because the campaign began to involve “talking too much crap”.

“There was really too much bullshit and razzamatazz – it was all a very, very loud campaign,” he said.  “It was so loud, in fact, I think people got sick of it. My personal view is that unless Clive steps down as the head of the party and they actually run it as a political party, it won’t go anywhere – I think it will fizzle out.”

PUP state candidate for Franklin, Michael Figg, said the Tasmanian campaign was hampered by “too much of Clive and not enough of the real people”.

“He didn’t understand his audience,” he said. “At the end of the day, we’re not voting Clive in, we’re voting ­Michael Figg and the other people. Down here, it was vote Clive Palmer, Palmer United Party – so Michael Figg or the other candidates, apart from the lead candidates, got very little or no ­exposure at all.”

Former federal PUP candidate for Maribyrnong Philip Cutler has also taken aim at the party leader.

He says “arrogance and over-the-top self belief” has crippled PUP and that Australians don’t care what Clive has to say. He announ­ced on Sunday via Facebook that he had left the party.

Clive Palmer said it was a question of “saying bad things about individuals”.  “When people lose elections they get very disappointed,” the Federal MP said.  “A lot of politicians have false expectations and they’re going in there for the wrong reasons,” he said.

“It’s not a question of pointing blame. It’s not a question of saying bad things about individuals.”

The PUP Leader declared he was personally not “important”.  “It’s not my credibility I’m standing for. It’s not the money I get for being in Parliament I’m standing for. It’s the ideas for the Australian community,” Mr Palmer said.

He defended the party’s campaign in Tasmania.  “Our party was only registered one day before the writs closed, three weeks before the election,” he said.  “So if you look at the swing in Tasmania we had the second biggest swing to us in the election and that’s not bad for three weeks.”

Mr Palmer also appeared to reject Mr Lester’s comments.  “The guy wasn’t even endorsed for our party, he pulled out beforehand. He wasn’t even a party member, didn’t pay his membership.”

The self-proclaimed billionaire then told reporters he’d been working as an MP for free.

“I haven’t taken a salary since I got to Parliament. I haven’t taken an electoral allowance. I paid most of my own airfares to come down here. I’m here to serve the people,” he said.

“I have not received any salary. I have refused to sign the form. It’s my view that I think people should serve their country based on service.”

SOURCE






Finally, Some Real Climate Science

The American Physical Society has been amongst the loudest alarmist organisations whipping up hysteria about CO2, but a review of its position that has placed three sceptics on the six-member investigatory panel strongly suggests the tide has turned

The 50,000-strong American body of physicists, the American Physical Society (APS), seems to be turning significantly sceptical on climate alarmism.

The same APS put out a formal statement in 2007 adding its voice to the alarmist hue and cry. That statement caused resignations of some of its top physicists (including 1973 Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaever and Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara).[1] The APS was forced by 2010 to add some humiliating clarifications but retained the original statement that the evidence for global warming was ‘incontrovertible’.

By its statutes, the APS must review such policy statements each half-decade and that scheduled review is now under way, overseen by the APS President Malcolm Beasley.

The review, run by the society’s Panel on Public Affairs, includes four powerful shocks for the alarmist science establishment.[3]

First, a sub-committee has looked at the recent 5th Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  and formulated scores of critical questions about the weak links in the IPCC’s methods and findings. In effect, it’s a non-cosy audit of the IPCC’s claims on which the global campaign against CO2 is based.

Second, the  APS Panel’s review sub-committee, after ‘consulting broadly’, appointed a workshop to get science input into the questions. The appointed  workshop of six expert advisers, amazingly, includes three eminent sceptic scientists: Richard Lindzen, John Christy, and Judith Curry. The other three members comprise long-time IPCC stalwart Ben Santer (who, in 1996, drafted, in suspicious circumstances, the original IPCC mantra about a “discernible” influence of manmade CO2 on climate), an IPCC lead author and modeler William Collins, and atmospheric physicist Isaac Held.

Third, the sub-committee is ensuring the entire process is publicly transparent — not just the drafts and documents, but the workshop discussions, which have been taped, transcribed and officially published, in a giant record running to 500+ pages.[4]

Fourth, the APS will publish its draft statement to its membership, inviting comments and feedback.

What the outcome will be, ie what the revised APS statement will say, we will eventually discover.  It seems a good bet that the APS will break ranks with the world’s collection of peak science bodies, including the Australian Academy of Science, and tell the public, softly or boldly, that IPCC science is not all it’s cracked up to be.

The APS audit of the IPCC makes a contrast with the Australian Science Academy’s (AAS) equivalent efforts. In 2010 the AAS put out a booklet, mainly for schools, ”The Science of Climate Change, Questions and Answers”, drafted behind closed doors. The drafters and overseers totalled 16 people, and the original lone sceptic, Garth Paltridge, was forced out by the machinations of  then-President Kurt Lambeck.

The Academy is currently revising the booklet, without any skeptic input at all. Of the 16 drafters and overseers, at least nine have been IPCC contributors and others have been petition-signing climate-policy lobbyists, hardly appropriate to do any arm’s length audit of the IPCC version of the science. Once again, the process is without any public transparency or consulting with the broad membership.

More HERE





As warming slows, denunciation grows

By Don Aitkin (Don is a very eminent Australian academic.  Google him)

Two little essays, both published on The Conversation (13 and 14 March*), and a compilation of surveys, provide the basis for this post. I’ll start with the surveys first, which come courtesy of Donna Laframboise, who has written an amusing little piece on surveys about ‘climate change’. Imagine, she asks, that you are on a transcontinental rail journey. You go to eat in the buffet car, and at every meal you are asked what you would like — but, whatever you ask for, the food is always vegetarian. She says opinion surveys and political oratory about global warming are like that.

American surveys routinely place global warming or ‘climate change’ last in the list of important issues, so far as the electorate is concerned, and the same is largely true both of the UK, and of the United Nations’ own global surveys. In Australia the poll evidence is that Australians are more concerned than Americans, but there are no truly equivalent poll results. Ms Laframboise points out that despite this lack of interest, politicians and the ‘concerned’ go on telling us that we are wrong: we should be concerned like them, and must be deficient in sense and altruism for not being so. She lists Secretary of State John Kerry as a Cassandra example, pointing to the same speech that I wrote about three weeks ago.

So the orthodox go on waiting impatiently for the warming to return, and becoming even louder and more aggressive in their contempt for those of us who ask for good argument and good data and point out what seem to be problems in the orthodoxy. The decline in interest in AGW is certainly connected to the lack of significant warming to match the increase in carbon dioxide, but there is a lot more to it, I think. So to the first of these  articles, which is by Rod Lamberts, Deputy Director of the ANU’s National Centre for Public Awareness of Science. What do you think of this?

The fact is that the time for fact-based arguments is over. We all know what the overwhelmingly vast majority of climate science is telling us. I’m not going to regurgitate the details here, in part because the facts are available everywhere, but more importantly, because this tactic is a core reason why climate messages often don’t resonate or penetrate. If, like me, you’re convinced that human activity is having a hugely damaging effect on the global climate, then your only responsible option is to prioritise action.

I don’t think that what he proposes is at all a ‘responsible option’. The most responsible surely would be to look hard at what you think are the facts. Like Bernie Fraser, however, of whom he speaks well in this essay, Mr Lamberts knows what ‘the vast majority of climate science’ is telling him, though he won’t tell his readers. I’m certainly not sure what it is, and I think by now I have a reasonable understanding of ‘the science’. We don’t need any more facts, he says, we need action. Nor is it clear what sort of action he has in mind, other than noisy behaviour.  But then we get this: What we need now is to become comfortable with the idea that the ends will justify the means.

That really worries me, and it should worry anyone. That is not how democracies should behave, and indeed it is what people object to about people who think they know The Truth: they are always telling the rest of us what to do. Mr Lamberts says that deniers should just be disregarded.  Ignore them, step around them, or walk over them. I object to this sort of talk, especially from an academic at the ANU, from which I have my PhD. It is stormtrooper stuff, and has no place either in universities or in a website funded by universities.

The second essay is by Lawrence Torcello, an American academic who teaches philosophy in the USA. It is not in any way a sensible article, and while I wonder why it was accepted for publication in Australia it is certainly another good illustration of the aggressive style which you can find from the ‘believers’. Here is a sample:

We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus… What are we to make of those behind the well documented corporate funding of global warming denial? Those who purposefully strive to make sure “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information” is given to the public? I believe we understand them correctly when we know them to be not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent in their willful disregard for human life. It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems accordingly.

Nowhere in this is any attempt to define anything; apparently it’s not needed by philosophers like Mr Torcello, though I would have thought ‘climate denial’ at least needs some kind of explanation if funding it is to be regarded as criminal behaviour. As I’ve said a few times, I am simply unaware of any funding that flows to me or to the others with whom I discuss AGW. Nor can I see any ‘sustained campaign to undermine the the public’s understanding of scientific consensus’. What does Mr Torcello have in mind?

No matter. Any innocent reading this will come away with the view that ‘climate deniers’, whoever they are, should be jailed. It’s different stormtrooper talk, and just as objectionable. Neither Lamberts nor Torcello deserves much respect, on the evidence of these essays, but I put to them that it is indeed time for a debate, a real debate, the kind that I mentioned in my piece on Bernie Fraser last week. The more they denounce citizens who ask questions about ‘climate change’ the weaker their position becomes. Let us discuss these ‘facts that are available everywhere’, and in public. And soon.

SOURCE

A good comment by Colin Davidson that appeared on Don's site below the article above:

Don,

I think you have done a great service by drawing attention to academics wanting, nay advocating, the shutting down of free speech, and the sanctioning of anyone who dares to oppose their own beliefs.

And I would also add that skeptics in general, and I in particular, do not want to stop the proponents of action from having their say. The nasty sentminent that opponents must be coerced into agreement is coming almost wholly from the proponents of action. Dictators to a man. Lovers of concentration/extermination camps. Nazis.

There is no other way to say it. That group represents a group which does not believe in the rule of law, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press. It believes in slavery for us all, and is working hard to achieve that.

Cut their funding, I say. I'm happy for them to be whackos, play with their doodles, boil their sweets. But not on the public purse. Let them exist on the funding that skeptics receive - as I think Jo Nova pointed out skeptics receive very little funding, and certaimnly no public monies. On the orther side there are vast rivers of Government Gold pouring into the coffers and funding halfwits like the two turkeys you mention.

Let them fund their beliefs by themselves. I hate it that my taxes are going to academics who, rather than being seekers after the truth, are just ill-educated, lazy thinkers, full of themselves up to the hilt.

Amazing that they can walk.