'Get rid of your chip off your shoulder': Pauline Hanson's Australia Day message to Aboriginal protestors campaigning for a change of date for the national day

This campaign about the date will immediately change to a demand to abolish the day absolutely if it ever succeeds.

It is entirely a creation of the political Left, to whom any national consciousness is anathema.

Both in the USA and Australia, the Left do their best to promote racial division and antagonism.  It is the Left who are the dangerous racists.  Without them, different races would have a much better chance of living together in harmony.


One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has claimed Aboriginal people who want Australia Day moved away from January 26 need to 'get the chip off their shoulder'.

The outspoken federal senator was involved with a heated argument with Melbourne radio broadcaster Neil Mitchell on the Today Show, a day after Australia Day protests across the country.

Aboriginal and Torres Straight Island flags filled streets across the nation on Sunday, as thousands of protesters called for the date of Australia Day to be moved because of growing tensions over what it celebrates.

January 26 - which marks the raising of the British flag on Australian soil in 1788 after the First Fleet arrived in Sydney Harbour - is regarded as 'invasion day' by many First Nations people.

During a passionate discussion with Mr Mitchell and host Karl Stefanovic, Ms Hanson said she does not believe the date should be changed - claiming there are far bigger issues for Aboriginal communities.

'They're not talking about this in Aboriginal communities and I was there two weeks ago,' Ms Hanson, 65, said.

'You know the big issues there? Kids are on the streets, they're starving, they've got the biggest rate of syphilis in their townships.

'You move the date from January 26th, whatever date you pick they're going to whinge about that as well.

'Get rid of the chip off your bloody shoulder. We are here, I was born here, this is my country... this is Australia Day where people join together.'

Mr Mitchell, the long-time 3AW talkback host, initially agreed that the date on which Australia Day is celebrated is not 'a huge issue for most Aboriginal people'.

But he took exception to Ms Hanson's comments that 'invasion day' protesters have a chip on their shoulder, claiming it was remarks like this that caused division.

'Get the chip off your shoulder? That'll really help. We need to be inclusive. I don't think it's a chip on your shoulder to be worried about history,' Mr Mitchell, 68, said.

Ms Hanson defended her stance, replying: 'Neil this has been going on for over 200 years do you think they have been affected by this?'

'They're using this as an excuse. It's either a political stance or they're pushing their own agenda.'

Today Show host Karl Stefanovic had the final say on the matter, claiming that such a debate highlighted how emotional the issue is.

'This is part of the problem, it is such a divisive thing and a divisive argument, and I want unification on this day,' he said.

SOURCE 






A truth about climate change that Warmists continue to dodge

Higher levels of CO2 are beneficial

Andrew Bolt

ACTIVISTS are exploiting these terrible bushfires to whip up an astonishing fear of man-made global warming and hatred of sceptics like me.

But know what makes me sure, even after this fiery devastation, that the global warming menace is exaggerated? It's warmist scientist Andy Pitman, who has once again confirmed exactly what I've been saying. How horrified he'll be to hear it

You may remember Professor Pitman, the director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes. He last year was recorded admitting to fellow warmists that droughts — like this severe one that's fed the fires — are NOT caused by global warming. "As far as the climate scientists know there is no link between climate change and drought," he said. "There is no reason a priori why climate change should make the landscape more arid."

Indeed, despite the drought, Australia's rainfall over the century as increased, not fallen.

Pitman and the ABC were naturaily mortified when I and others started to quote him. Pitman is now furious that former rime Minister Tony Abbott last week quoted his admission, too, in he Australian.

But in his anger, Pitman let slip a fact that sceptics like me have tried for years to point out. Pitman complained that "Abbott quotes me on drought ... when in fact for 15 years I have been warning that the risk of fires is increasing as a consequence of climate change".

That's because, he said, the extra carbon dioxide we emit is actually plant food that causes "greening", meaning we get more leaves and even trees to burn in a drought. But Pitman has been too honest. Most warmists have dodged this truth, because it undermines their fear campaign.

You see, it's actually sceptics like me who have for years argued that global warming is greening the planet, and that this is, overall, a good thing. As renowned physicist Freeman Dyson says: "The whole Earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide, so it's increasing agricultural yields, it's increasing the forests and it's increasing growth in the biological world."

NASA has found that an area about twice the size of the continental United States got greener between 1982 and 2009. This helps to explain why world grain crops keep setting new records.

But wait! A greener planet Bigger crops. Fewer cyclones, too. Is this really something we want to stop? This goes to the key question that sceptics like me keep asking. We don't deny the planet has warmed. We instead question whether the warming we're seeing — less than predicted — is all bad. We particularly question whether it's smart to spend billions or even trillions to cut emissions in a largely symbolic attempt to "stop" all this.

Of course, some warmists will say: look at these deadly fires! Don't they prove global warming is deadly? In fact, tragic as they've been, they are far from our worst, measured either by deaths or area burned.

What's more, our bush this summer was dried out by a drought that was caused primarily not by global warming but by a natural and regular change in ocean patterns called the Indian Ocean Dipole. When that dipole pushes warmer water in the Indian Ocean east to Australia, we get rain; when it replaces that with cooler water, we get drought

Last December the Bureau of Meteorology warned the dipole had pushed so much cool water our way that we get no real rain until April. We'd get no rain to stop the fires. Well, the bureau was wrong. The dipole suddenly decayed a couple of weeks ago, and we've since had lots of rain over eastern Australia, with more to come this week.

So, thanks to Pitman, the sceptics' case is even clearer. Do we really want to spend a fortune to slash our emissions in a largely futile attempt to "stop" a warming that isn't anything as dangerous as we're told? Or would it be far cheaper and infinitely more effective to finally do all the fuel reduction burns needed to keep down the fuel loads in our forests?

After all, even Pitman is blaming extra fuel loads for the intensity of the flames. Yet Victoria, for one, has over the past five years burned only half the area recommended by the royal commission into the shocking 2009 fires that killed 172 people -- four times more than died in this summer's fires. But that's one more topic warmists hate. Reason is their enemy, and only fear is their friend.

From the Brisbane "Courier Mail" of 27 January, 2020





Labor MP Tanya Plibersek is slammed by her own supporters for saying schoolkids should pledge loyalty to Australia

The Left are NOT patriotic

Former deputy Opposition leader Tanya Plibersek has been slammed by her own supporters for arguing all school children should pledge their loyalty to Australia.

Ms Plibersek took to Twitter on Saturday to share an article about her ideas ahead of her Australia Day address at the Sydney Opera House on Sunday.

The Federal Labor MP argued patriotism is about acceptance and lending a hand rather than exclusion, but was harshly criticised by users on her own side of politics.

She said the incredible spirit of generosity from Australians during the latest bushfire ravaged summer was the best example.

'This has been patriotism at its practical best; patriotism as the thread connecting us all as Australians.'

On Sunday she will call for all school students to be taught the Australian citizenship pledge, which states: 'From this time forward, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.'

Ms Plibersek's remarks quickly became trending online with many of her supporters rejecting the idea as American and old fashioned.

'Are you just trying to lose the next election? (This is) all things I loathe about America. Going to vote in the religious bigotry bill too? Just to really break my Labor heart?' a woman said.

Controversial feminist commentator Clementine Ford also slammed the idea.

'Huge fan Tanya, but I think there are more elegant and less nationalistic ways to codify good citizenship here,' she said.

Ms Ford then argued Labor Leader Anthony Albanese was not being a good citizen when he pledged to keep Australia Day on January 26.

Other people pointed out the pledge is already made by immigrants who become Australian citizens.

One man remarked 'that the left are eating their own' and remarked that the behaviour was proof they were uneducated.

SOURCE 




Men's advocate, Bettina Arndt, given Australia Day honour

The Left hate her for pricking their balloons

[Some] Australians have reacted with fury to controversial commentator and men’s rights activist Bettina Arndt being recognised in this year’s Australia Day awards.

Ms Arndt was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia (AM) — Australia’s third-highest civic honour — for striving to achieve “gender equity through advocacy for men”.

The journalist and sex therapist was criticised in 2018 when she interviewed convicted sex offender Nicolaas Bester and has been outspoken against what she believes is a “fake rape crisis” at Australian universities.

“This is vile,” writer Van Badham tweeted. “Bettina Arndt platformed a paedophile, creating space for a convicted criminal who groomed & raped a child to brag about his crimes, while she herself blamed children for ‘sexual provocation’. If she is what’s ‘honoured’ as an Australian, it is no honour AT ALL.”

“Giving Bettina Arndt this award is like giving Pauline Hanson one for promoting racial equity & George Pell one for child safety,” journalist Sherele Moody wrote.

“Arndt’s work is not about gender equity. It’s misogyny-driven hate designed to keep women barefoot, pregnant and tied to the kitchen sink.”

Ms Arndt, 70, who says she’s been writing about men’s issues for 30 years, told news.com.au she was “delighted” to have her career recognised in this way and predicted it would “cause a stir”.

The Sydneysider said she’s also “very happy” about the wording used in the citation for her honour.

It states that she has been appointed an AM “for significant service to the community as a social commentator, and to gender equity through advocacy for men.”

“It absolutely captures what I’m doing,” she said. “But I would imagine that would be controversial because the feminists claim that they’re the only ones promoting gender equity through endlessly tilting laws, rules and regulation to favour women at the expense of men.

“I hope this award will encourage others to join me in campaigning for true gender equity – fair treatment for men and women.”

Ms Arndt said she is currently campaigning to draw attention to the “illegal kangaroo courts” she claims universities are using to adjudicate rape, as well as male suicide and “gender-neutral” suicide prevention policy.

Domestic violence is another issue she has campaigned on.

“Malcolm Turnbull boasted of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on domestic violence programs which (were) all about demonising men,” she said. “They ignore the true complexity of domestic violence which include problems with mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse.”

Meanwhile, she claims male victims of domestic violence receive “absolutely no funding”.

Ms Arndt says she’s been writing about men’s issues for 30 years.

She said she started off as a feminist and campaigning for women’s rights, but became “increasingly alarmed” by the movement.

“I felt in many areas, women had achieved equality,” she said. “We had a lot to celebrate. But there are many who wanted to extend women’s rights well beyond any notion of equality.

“It’s now all about male bashing, trying to advantage women over men in so many areas. I had enough of that.”

Throughout her career, Ms Arndt has courted controversy with her views and campaigns.

SOURCE 





Opposition to natural gas mining in most of Australia is helping to keep coal mining alive

The news that two more coal plants are about to close in the US would have been unwelcome at the White House.

Despite the President’s “best endeavours”, the carbon footprint of the average American continues to shrink. More than 46,000MW of coal-fired generator capacity will have disappeared by the end of his term, the equivalent of almost twice the entire capacity of Australian coal plants.

It is hard to see what more Donald Trump could have done. He has neutered the Environmental Protection Agency, ripped apart his predecessor’s Clean Power Plan and given the finger to the Paris Agreement. Yet he has failed to revive the fortunes of coal, despite his solemn promise to miners in Virginia on the campaign trail in May 2016.

Trump should have known that you can’t fight the market. The fracking revolution means coal can no longer compete on price with gas, which emits half the CO2 and a 10th of the pollution.

The same thing might well have occurred in Australia, if state governments had not been spooked by fracking.

It might have helped if they had done the right thing by landowners and offered them a share of the royalties for allowing drilling on their land. The shabby treatment of farmers as third parties in dealings between the Queensland government and gas companies created a potent alliance of farmers and environmentalists, which other state governments have been wary of confronting.

The result of the ill-considered moratorium on fracking and all forms of gas extraction in Victoria is that natural gas is in short supply on the east coast, forcing up the cost. Coal has unwittingly been priced back into the market.

In the great tradition of well-meaning governments achieving the opposite of what they set out to do, the state of Victoria will emit more CO2 this year than it would have done if the market had been allowed to operate freely.

Victoria’s three remaining coal plants, Yallourn, Loy Yang A and Loy Yang B, would probably be toast by now if the state government had allowed enterprising prospectors to develop gas holdings, making gas a viable competitor into the National Energy Market.

A reliable supply of cheap gas in a competitive market would not only hasten the end of coal, it would stabilise the grid and allow renewables to thrive. Gas, with its ability to fire quickly, can provide back-up more easily than coal when the output from wind and solar plants falls.

The former South Australian Labor government might not have had to shell out for Elon Musk’s battery, or scour the planet for spare diesel generators when the Northern Power Station closed prematurely, if it had not artificially constrained the development of gas.

The switch from coal to gas around the world, principally in the US and China, has been a game changer. It has saved about 500 million tonnes of CO2 over the past 10 years, according to the International Energy Authority, the equivalent to putting an additional 200 million electric vehicles on the road, assuming they run on zero-carbon electricity.

Emissions from the US energy sector are 27 per cent lower than they were in 2005, despite the robust growth in the economy. It puts the US on a plausible track to meet the Obama administration’s Paris target if it still cares about that kind of thing.

While it won’t be enough to bring a smile to Greta Thunberg’s pursed lips, the US has achieved bigger savings than other developed economies. It is doing better than Germany, Japan, Canada and New Zealand.

In today’s climate debate, however, there is increasingly little space for pragmatism. The absolutism of our times demands a clean economy, rather than an economy that becomes cleaner over time. Activists insist on renewable energy targets rather than cleaner energy targets. They demand we set a target date for zero emissions without the foggiest idea how to get there.

It was not always so. In the calmer conversations we were having before Al Gore interrupted by reinventing himself as a scary movie maker, the transition to gas was widely regarded as the first step towards a solution.

Today gas has become the target of crass campaigns that make it out to be the problem, lumping it together with coal under the disparaging term “fossil fuel”.

Pressure on investors will curtail the use of gas prematurely unless sanity prevails. Last week’s announcement by BlackRock, the world’s largest fund manager, that it would stop investing in coal did nothing to appease the critics.

“We’ll need to push BlackRock to move away from not only coal but all its climate-destabilising investments, including oil, gas and companies whose operations threaten to turn the lush Amazon into a savanna,” insisted Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club.

Let us assume for a moment that Brune genuinely hankers for a cleaner economy and is not, as so many climate activists patently are, pursuing a darker agenda. Let us assume he genuinely wants to clean up the planet one tonne of CO2 at a time, and that he gets Voltaire’s point that the perfect is the enemy of the good.

What can he hope to achieve by encouraging a flight of capital from natural gas beyond delaying the transition to a low-emission economy? Fracking has reduced CO2 emissions in the US 10 times faster that two other imperfect technologies, wind and solar, according to a report by the Manhattan Institute.

Rather than bank the dividend, the climate-explains-everything movement has fallen for the nirvana fallacy, the belief that the perfect solution to a particular problem is to hand. It permits the creation of a false dichotomy between the imperfect and the implausible.

Natural gas will not be the energy source that gets us to zero emissions, barring a breakthrough in carbon capture and storage. In the words of the old jazz classic, however, “If that isn’t love it’ll have to do, Until the real thing comes along”.

SOURCE 

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here