Thursday, March 15, 2012

Class Excursion A Great Success

ON LATELINE TONIGHT, tucked in toward the end of the show, a fresh-faced lad reported that the weather had never been worse in 800,000 years and we should be all thankful for people qualified to tell us that. There was a big expanse of sea behind him and, just visible in the distance, the matchstick towers of little white wind generators. The young fellow was on assignment at Tasmania’s Cape Grim, where the CSIRO and BoM had taken him and a busload of other reporters to spruik the latest brochure in catastrophe’s expanding library. How the cub reporter secured the empty space behind him is a marvel because the air-testing station’s surrounds must have been some of the most crowded real estate on the planet just about then, going by the number of subsequent reports about the sterling work being done at the world-class, cutting edge of climate science, which is entirely settled but must still spend lots on further research.

It was a lovely day, according to the Age man on the scene, after which everyone returned to their offices and wrote nice, cookie-cutter stories, as expected. And isn’t that depressing. All those keen minds and not one of them thought to observe how catastrophe is packaged and sold these days. A story on the amount of official money that went into making the day a success – the airfares, buses, party pies and toilet hire – would have been very interesting, as might a few drolleries about the day itself. One guesses those intrepid reporters were marched about like kindergarten kids on an excursion, lined up to meet the nice old man who milks the air machine and encouraged to make little pictures of the happy outing by way of thank-you notes. Surely there was  some sharp scribe who could see the humour.

To the viewer at home, this viewer, it has been the absurdism of the mass descent on Cape Grim which so fascinates. All these apparently intelligent people shipped for a few hours to the essence of nowhere, and not one of them appears to have twigged that the day and their reports were as far removed from informing the public as is photo copying from portraiture. Did anyone ask about those distant wind generators and if the coming and going of service trucks and their exhaust fumes might spike the monitored results every now and then by just a tick or two?

All this recent talk about bringing the press into line, you wonder why anyone sees the need.


  1. Zombie journalists openly barracking for one side of politics, shrieking activists with the blessing of the state demanding radical action against the press and intimidating their opponents, a science elite hijacking public policy with a punitive tax on a trace gas in the air we breathe taking billions out of the economy, a majority of the population screaming for an election to end policies they didn’t vote for, a hated minority government defying the popular will to cling to power. Through our indecision over which poor-quality national leadership to vote for, the subversion of Australia’s easygoing democracy has taken just 19 months and it still has that long to run. Australian democracy depends on the goodwill of its people; it’s not a proper land of the free where personal liberty is guaranteed by the constitution and the state is forbidden from denying it. This is a colonial convict democracy, where people are just happy to be free of their prison chains.

  2. We'll bring the nasty press into line, good Prof, not the lying mongrels at everyone's taxpayer funded ALPBC! And don't you forget it!

  3. Heres the ABC propaganda clip.
    It's interesting how they've now weaved the idea of more droughts and now the word "floods" have crept into their mantra. So between droughts and floods we may actually get some fricken great weather!

  4. Credulity is a trait not normally associated with journalists... well, it didn't used to be...

  5. “some sharp scribe who could see the humour”

    You’re right about the humour…

    The three stooges (Bolt, Bunyip, and Akerman) who write about those who write about climate science, as a distraction from writing about the stark reality.

    Bolt posts graphs showing the opposite of what he bleats (“no warming in the last decade”) at the same time demonstrating his incapacity to grasp the difference between a trend and an anomaly.

    Bunyip makes up a dizzy little tale replete with cliché, based on his extensive experience of kindy and school excursions.

    Akerman smears the Greens at every opportunity, whilst completely ignoring the bug-eyed snake oil salesman who makes a good quid out of feeding crap to the gullible.

    It’s the most risible show on the blogosphere….

    1. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.March 15, 2012 at 10:11 AM

      A near stark naked guy like you, stripped of all critical faculties as well as having lost the shirt off his back, is a fine fellow to talk. Plenty of scientists who write about climate change agree that there is a big scam going on, and our tame Labor journalists refuse to acknowledge that. Thus it falls to the few, as ever, to save the many from losing their democracy.

    2. On your pathetic little website, you describe yourself as a subversive. In which state are you a subversive? You're actually the polar opposite: a state lapdog, a cheer-leader for the the most unpopular government in our history, a mee-too zombie that celebrates the state's other lapdogs like Fair Work Australia, The Climate Commission, the ABC and Fairfax. There's not an idiocy you can't endumben. And you're using Bunyip's site in an attempt to create traffic on yours. Parasite.

    3. Nice try numbers. But I would prefer to believe Professor Brian O'Brien's version of stark reality.

      Listen to him on the ABC's Conversations with Richard Fiedler at this link:

      The whole broadcast is worth a hearing to establish just how highly NASA thought of him.

      However, if this might be uncomfortable for you, listen from about the 7/8ths point and you will hear the prof explain he gave a lecture in which he said the claims for climate change were unproven.

      He was then approached by a professor of physics who stated he agreed completely with what O'Brien said. But, that he had 65 researchers/PhD candidates, and government money was going to the true believers only. So, guess which line those 65 followed?

      This revelation went right by Fiedler - not a peep did he make about this state of affairs. I'm sure you will be able to explain why.

    4. Numbers
      Have you ever stopped to think that real science means a hypothesis is proposed ,often tested and can actually be disproved,whilst what we are fed as "climate science" is that no matter what sort of weather event the original hypothesis of the warming of the globe due to man's emissions of CO2,is stretched to fit the current slogans, the very antithesis of scientific rigour

      In other words, if it's hot, if it's cold ,if it's in between ,if it snows, if snow melts, if it's drought, if it's flooding rains, if it's volcanic eruptions,tornadoes, whatever, it still apparently PROVES the "global warming" hypothesis.
      That my friend is PSEUDO SCIENCE

      As as an individual all I can say is thank GOD that the likes of Pasteur and the Curies didn't live in this century , as if someone thought a quid and power could result they would have used the press to take the idea and twist and squeeze the real truth out of it for their own profit!

      Ask any real scientist what hypothesis they are working on can produce polar opposite results and still be scientifically true--add to that the fact there is so much we don't understand about the climate--and the feedbacks that should be there, like the hot spot in the troposphere, can't be found to"prove" global warming caused by humans-- and you have the snake oil salesman's dream.

      Unfortunately for us it will be a nightmare come July 1 in this country.

      The latest news is how retail will have to pay more for rents and utilities due to landlord costs to rise--my family will likely lose their livelihood.

      Thanks Juliar and Bobby B- NOT- for your 'efforts" --the CO2 tax will be a killer--can't wait to see it kill Labor and the Greens at the next election.

      I pray fervently that Clive Palmer DOES challenge the tax in the High Court and wim!

    5. Such child-like demands for attention are usually met with a slap.

      But, inevitably, after years spent trolling the blogosphere for life-affirming succour, it has come as no surprise that Townsville Man would show up here proffering Bunyippers his amusingly orthodox world view.

      And as if the mental picture of an overweight Nasho in his underpants furiously stroking all 104 keyboard keys wasn't disturbing enough, we are truly blessed to have his peculiar brand of bitingly retarded commentary as soul nourishment.

      Now if only he was as clever as Jezza.

    6. "most unpopular government in our history"
      Really. The Coalition's no stranger to polls in the 30s. In June 1998 Howard's Coalition registered a Newspoll score of 34.
      "And you're using Bunyip's site in an attempt to create traffic on yours"
      And in your case it worked.

    7. Keep in mind that the Spud Peeler is highly knowledgeable in the field of Special Needs.


  6. PhillipGeorge(c)2012March 15, 2012 at 9:42 AM

    Spot the Dog just gave us a reminder about verbal contracts Prof. Remember Julia's nation wide, witnessed "contract" - there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.

    Contract Law Prof, you said it yourself.

    So where, oh where, is the Court of Competent Jurisdiction court case about a the "breach of promise"

    and the Jury to determine "facts" of law.

    breach of common law contract?

    see Prof.

    England had all those brilliant young men at Oxford and Cambridge. Alan Turing type pioneering geniuses.

    Yet they couldn't collectively stop the train wreck of WWII.

    All these great minds cannot hold Julia back from big things; big 'bold' - Obama gives us a little wet patch saying it - things.

    a entire community in madness is a little more disturbing than a single nut eating all the fingers off his own hands.

  7. 800,000 years? Now, let me guess how some of those CAGWarmist public teat leeches employed at the CSIRO and/or BOM came up with their latest example of scare-mongery. They relied on computer models didn't they? The ones into which incomplete and/or inaccurate data are fed and the usual bullsh*t comes out the other end!

    I find it insulting these well-funded so-called experts continuously treat us as morons. They are obviously unaware of or incapable of accepting the results genuine and largely unfunded scientists actually working in the field are producing.

    As for the little propaganda party thrown for zombie journalists at Cape Grim, it is as it is and what we must now expect. There is no such thing as investigative journalism attached to mainstream media in Australia any more.


    1. So let's take the climate models to court and see how they stand up under the common law rules of evidence.

  8. Despite the fact that alarmists have a large number of economists in their ranks (Flannery? Stern?) why have none of them come up with an economic reason for levying carbon taxes.

    The main damage to our economy from any climate change is stated to be changing rainfall patterns, rising sea levels and more extreme weather. On the other hand, carbon dioxide acts as a fertilizer, and food grows faster.

    I can't see why rainfall is an issue. Either the rain will fall somewhere else, (so sell your Freemantle farm and move to Lake Eire or Kunamurra) and if the rain doesn't fall somewhere else, then we can grow food hydroponically. (I buy Hydroponic vegetables from Foodland already, and it is priced competitively)

    Rising sea levels are also not such a big problem either. Anybody been to Amsterdam?

    And as for extreme weather, just change the building codes.

    It is of course just as well that the damage is not as severe as the alarmists intimate. Because there is no way we can reverse the Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere without killing billions of children in third world countries. Where is my evidence? Just look at what the US and European introduction of E10 has done to world grain prices.

    So let us first calculate the cost of repairing the climate caused damage against the cost to our economy of reducing carbon use, and the value of the benefit of that reduced carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere.

  9. So if the models they had before predicted drought and the new models allow for rain, why should we trust anything the warmies model? Typically they are altering the evidence to suit their own argument, as they have all along, massaging temperatures upward to show a 'warming', 2.1mm sea level rises expanded out to 100m and other malthusian prophecies leading to panic. I think this stems from their fear that Tony Abbott will lead the next election and they will become underresourced as a result. So it is a last ditch attempt to turn the voters, but it will fail, they have cried wolf too often.

  10. On ABC1 news at 7.00pm last night, I discovered confirmation that all this anti-ABC blogging isn't just a whinging conspiracy theory after all. I sat down to watch at about 7.15pm, when Juanita embarrassingly mumbled something about the HSU, investigations and possible fines. I barely had an opportunity to straighten in my chair to listen to the details when the she regained her composure and quickly went onto the next story - a full and rounded coverage of Brooks and the evil Murdoch phone hacking scandal, replete with a couple minutes of pointless video.
    I was angry. A story that is at the core of Australian politics is presented quite obviously out of a begrudging duty to maintain some sort of ideological 'balance' in the ABC's reporting. I ended being no more informed about what was happening, it was all over so quickly. Then on to the next story, which had almost no relevance to Australia, but suited the Left ideology perfectly.
    What a disgrace.

  11. I've been to Cape Grim - as you say - just about as close to "nowhere" as anywhere on the planet. I spent a lovely couple of days there, swimming at Marrawah, fishing at Arthur River before taking the 'road' down to Strahan for a five star feed. It's spectacularly beautiful and remote. You could do worse than take your rod down that way Bunyip.

  12. So what happens when we no longer have accurate records as they've all been massaged and the orginal data has been lost?

    (I suspect this is already the case!)

  13. Hey, Cape Grim is not the essence of nowhere. Cape Grim is most notable for the fine grass-fed scotch fillet I had recently at Rookpool in Perth. What a spectacularly good steak.

  14. As for the remote and beautiful view at Cape Grim, does one really want to travel a long way just to look at another hideous wind farm? Better perhaps to stay home and look at old photographs of the place before it was stuffed by environmentalists.