Labor will win the next election handily

Anyone on the conservative side of politics that thinks we're a chance of winning the next Federal election is, pretty much, dreaming.

And the election will be held soonish.

Here's the Betfair market on the election date:



Now, there's only $700 in the pool and the reason is that nobody wants to put any money into betting against an election date that has already been decided by the government. Sportingbet has a market on the exact date of the election. August 28 is at $2.50, which is pretty short.

Supporting the government's decision to go early is internal polling that shows they've got a strong, election winning lead.

That's reflected in the Betfair market:



Prior to the last election Labor had a healthy lead in the opinion polls and the price available was only a little bit shorter than what it's currently at, which seems to suggest similar polling numbers.

Therefore, my prediction is that the election will be on August 28 and the government will be returned with a 52-48 result.

Friday 2/7/10 UPDATE:

All of the money on the betting markets has been for an August 14 election. Sportingbet has that data at $2.10 and August 28 at $2.75 so I predict that the election will be called this weekend for one of those two dates.

(Nothing Follows)

Expunging Brand Kevin

During the 2007 election a large number of ALP supporters chose to wear Kevin07 paraphernalia.

They looked like donkeys.

Now, Brand Kevin is being expunged from the ALP corporate memory. I just got on the ALP website and searched the site for "Kevin07".

Here's the response:


(click to embiggen)

Just four?

There used to be pooloads of Kevin07 information.

By comparison, I searched for "minimum wage" and got 12 responses. "Tony Abbott" returns pages and pages and pages of responses. To be fair there are still many responses to "Rudd".

There really are no more vicious politics than when the left executes one of its own.

(Nothing Follows)

Labor finally jettisons the worst PM ever

The worst prime minister in Australia's history has been jettisoned by the Australian Labor Party allowing our first female prime minister, Julia Gillard, to take the reins.

Congratulations to Julia Gillard.



Will she be a good PM? Who knows? As I write every time there's a change of leadership, either in government or opposition, we will have to wait some time to see how a person grows into the role. I suspect that she will be up to the task.

There does seem to be some schizophrenia in the market regarding Labor's electoral chances. Last week ninemsn ran a poll asking whether people would vote for Julia Gillard if she became leader. The vote was 60-40 against her.

ninemsn has repeated the poll after the vote this morning:



Even with only 7000 votes there's still a big no vote against her.

However, the betting market is the one to follow:



The price before the leadership spill was pretty much the same as it is now so the government is still a strong favourite to win the next election.

One poll goes one way while the other goes the other:

UPDATE: From the ninemsn website:

ninemsn readers have cast doubt on Julia Gillard's future as prime minister, with almost two-thirds declaring they will not vote for her in the looming election.

At 3pm today our homepage poll showed that more than 50,000 readers would not vote for Ms Gillard in the coming federal election, compared to about 23,000 who said they would.

The ninemsn homepage is visited by more than ten million people each month — 70 percent of Australians online.

In addition to the vote, more than a thousand readers have posted comments — revealing a vast mix of reactions — since Ms Gillard was chosen to replace Kevin Rudd in the top job earlier today.

Many readers who said they might have voted for Mr Rudd have hit out at the Labor caucus vote that put his former deputy in power.

"We the Australian people voted in Kevin Rudd as our Prime Minister … who is the group, a handful, of faceless people who can just come in and change our democratically elected Prime Minister???" wrote Holcars from Cranbourne.

"The people elected Kevin07 for PM not Julia-010," agreed Tony G, from Maroubra.

"No one has heard of these Labor factional powerbrokers and the people certainly did not vote for them."

(Nothing Follows)

The left's score on Economics 101 - FAIL

Every so often a study comes along that so profoundly confirms common sense and the real world that it takes one's breath away.

Zeljka Buturovic and Daniel Klein of Econ Journal Watch will make no friends on the left with the publication of the results of a 2008 Zogby poll on 'economic enlightenment'.

From Klein's article in the Wall Street Journal:

Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.

Zogby researcher Zeljka Buturovic and I considered the 4,835 respondents' (all American adults) answers to eight survey questions about basic economics. We also asked the respondents about their political leanings: progressive/very liberal; liberal; moderate; conservative; very conservative; and libertarian.

Rather than focusing on whether respondents answered a question correctly, we instead looked at whether they answered incorrectly. A response was counted as incorrect only if it was flatly unenlightened.

Consider one of the economic propositions in the December 2008 poll: "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable." People were asked if they: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure.

Basic economics acknowledges that whatever redeeming features a restriction may have, it increases the cost of production and exchange, making goods and services less affordable. There may be exceptions to the general case, but they would be atypical.

Therefore, we counted as incorrect responses of "somewhat disagree" and "strongly disagree." This treatment gives leeway for those who think the question is ambiguous or half right and half wrong. They would likely answer "not sure," which we do not count as incorrect.

In this case, percentage of conservatives answering incorrectly was 22.3%, very conservatives 17.6% and libertarians 15.7%. But the percentage of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly was 67.6% and liberals 60.1%. The pattern was not an anomaly.

The questions were:

1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services
2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago
3) Rent control leads to housing shortages
4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly
5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited
6) Free trade leads to unemployment
7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment
8) Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable

How did the six ideological groups do overall? Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.

Americans in the first three categories do reasonably well. But the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics.

To be sure, none of the eight questions specifically challenge the political sensibilities of conservatives and libertarians. Still, not all of the eight questions are tied directly to left-wing concerns about inequality and redistribution. In particular, the questions about mandatory licensing, the standard of living, the definition of monopoly, and free trade do not specifically challenge leftist sensibilities.

Yet on every question the left did much worse. On the monopoly question, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (31%) was more than twice that of conservatives (13%) and more than four times that of libertarians (7%). On the question about living standards, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (61%) was more than four times that of conservatives (13%) and almost three times that of libertarians (21%).

The survey also asked about party affiliation. Those responding Democratic averaged 4.59 incorrect answers. Republicans averaged 1.61 incorrect, and Libertarians 1.26 incorrect.

Adam Smith described political economy as "a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator." Governmental power joined with wrongheadedness is something terrible, but all too common. Realizing that many of our leaders and their constituents are economically unenlightened sheds light on the troubles that surround us.

We all have good friends on the left, people that we love, like and respect for their decency and humanity. However, we all know that when it comes to matters of economics they're dim bulbs. Their views are not only not part of the solution to the world's problems they are the root cause of most of the issues we face today. Not that the left would ever admit to that basic truth. As Dennis Prager likes to say, being on the left means never having to say you're sorry.

The full study is available here and makes great reading.

There are some interesting tables in the study. Firstly, correlation between education level and response (and they give some reasons for the results):



Here's the most amusing table in the whole study:



I must admit that I am truly astonished by the disparity in understanding of economics between the left and right. Given I got all 8 correct - they're hardly difficult - I also admit to being a bit surprised that the results weren't a lot better across all groups.

Naturally, the left will deal with this study in its usual manner: criticise the qualifications of those undertaking the research; impugn their motives for doing so; and accuse them of being in the pay of Big Left Wing Enemy du Jour. So much easier than refuting the results.

Seriously, though, wouldn't it be great if 16 year olds were taught the basics of economics so that they could answer all of these questions correctly? Perhaps the next generation of politicians would be more careful with the nation's economy than the current lot of left wing incompetents.

As an aside, it's ironic that in the West left wing governments are only ever elected when they campaign on conservative, 'responsible' economic grounds when the reality is that they really don't understand economics at all well. Once they're in power, however, the inner Keynesian pops out, they spend whatever surpluses the previous government has left and then make a good, solid attempt to spend the wealth of the next generation, and the one after that, before being turfed out amidst massive financial upheaval, as has just happened in the UK.

I'll have another post on why 2010 will be marked down in history as one of the most important years in modern history. Needless to say, ignorance of economics will be a major theme.

(Nothing Follows)

It's all George Bush's fault

This really is an awesome dissection of the Obama administration's continually pinning the blame for their actions on George W Bush.

Chuck Green is a lifelong lefty and registered Democrat.


When people like Green are sick of the spin then it spells trouble for the Democrats, as where are the Independents going to be?

(Nothing Follows)

UK's police must need to increase their anti-terrorism statistics

Modern police forces around the world have targets to achieve across the issues that most concern the public or, more importantly, the want-to-be-seen-to-be-tough politicians.

One of these targets must be dealing with terrorism. How else can one explain why police would prosecute this case?

A British man who said on Twitter that he would blow up an airport if his flight was delayed by snow was convicted on Monday of sending a threatening message and made to pay STG1,000 ($A1,646).

Who did he send the Twitter to? Only those people who follow him, which they chose to do. It's hardly a public threat.

Paul Chambers, 26, insisted his post on the micro-blogging site was a joke. But a judge at Doncaster Magistrates' Court in northern England found him guilty of sending an offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing message over a public telecommunications network.

District Judge Jonathan Bennett said the message "was of a menacing nature in the context of the times in which we live." He ordered Chambers to pay the fine and court costs.

The message is not a sign of the "menacing nature in the context of the times in which we live"...the judgement is! How pathetic.

Chambers was arrested in January after he posted the message saying he would blow up Robin Hood Airport near the large town of Doncaster "sky high" if his flight, due to leave in a week's time, was delayed.

Chambers, from Doncaster, said he made the post when the airport was closed by snow and he feared his travel plans would be disrupted.

"It did not cross my mind that Robin Hood would ever look at Twitter or take it seriously because it was innocuous hyperbole," he said.

An airport employee came across the tweet a few days later, but security staff there decided it was not a credible bomb threat. Nevertheless, they passed the message on to police. Chambers was arrested two days before his flight was due to leave.

How did the airport employee come across the tweet? Kudos to the security staff who used more than two brain cells and worked out it was not a credible threat.

Chambers, who lost his job at a car distribution firm after his arrest, said he was considering an appeal.

This should send a chill down people's spines. The guy lost his job because of a joke tweet? What sort of place has the UK become?

News of the conviction sent a ripple of outrage across the Twittersphere, with some users retransmitting the message: "This absurd judgement is enough to make me want to blow up Robin Hood airport"

Everyone with access to Twitter should be sending messages like the one above.

I can't get over how insane this situation is. The bloke lost his job becasue of a joke! That's unbelievable.

(Nothing Follows)

Yet another example of the collapse of the UK

Here's yet another hair raising example of the intolerance of the left in the UK.

British street preacher Dale McAlpine apparently has no problem telling people that homosexuality is a “crime against the Creator.” But he got in trouble when he said that to someone who is not only a homosexual, but is the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender liaison officer for the local police.

On April 20, McAlpine, a Baptist, was passing out leaflets explaining the Ten Commandments or offering a “ticket to heaven” to passersby on a street in Workington, Cumbria where he had been preaching for years, according to the Telegraph of London. When a woman stopped to debate with him, McAlpine said he mentioned a number of sins listed in I Corinthians, including blasphemy, fornication, drunkenness, adultery and homosexuality. When the woman walked away, a Police Community Support Officer approached her and spoke briefly with her, McAlpine said. The officer then came over to McAlpine and told him a complaint had been made and warned him he could be arrested for using racist or homophobic language.

The street preacher said he told the officer: “I am not homophobic but sometimes I do say that the Bible says homosexuality is a crime against the Creator.” The officer then said he was homosexual and identified himself as LGBT liaison officer for the Cumbria police. Undeterred, McAlpine replied, “Well, it’s still a sin.” He then began a 20-minute sermon in which he says he did not mention homosexuality. But three uniformed officers arrived, arrested the preacher and put him in the back of a police van. He was taken to the police station, where officers took his fingerprints, a palm print, a retina scan and a DNA swab. He was charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress” in violation of the Public Order Act and, after seven hours in a jail cell, was released on bail on the condition that he would not preach in public. McAlpine, 42, said the incident was one of the worst experiences of his life.

“I felt deeply shocked and humiliated that I had been arrested in my own town and treated like a common criminal in front of people I know," he told the Telegraph. “My freedom was taken away on the hearsay of someone who disliked what I said, and I was charged under a law that doesn't apply.” Police allege that McAlpine made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard and that he used abusive or insulting language, forbidden by the Public Order Act. Christian groups have expressed alarm over this and similar incidents, claiming the 1986 law was designed to stop rioters and hooligans and is now being used to curb religious speech.

“The police have a duty to maintain public order but they also have a duty to defend the lawful free speech of citizens,” said Sam Webster, solicitor-advocate of the Christian Institute, which is supporting McAlpine. It is not a crime to express the belief that homosexuality is a sin, Webster told the Telegraph. “Case law has ruled that the orthodox Christian belief that homosexual conduct is sinful is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society."

One man was convicted under the Public Order Act in 2002 for holding up a sign saying, “Stop immorality. Stop Homosexuality. Stop Lesbianism. Jesus Is Lord,” while preaching in Bournemouth. Another was arrested in 2006 for handing out religious leaflets at a Gay Pride festival in Cardiff, but the case was later dropped.

“It would appear that Christianity, the normative faith of this country on which its morality, values and civilisation are based, is effectively being turned into a crime,” Melanie Phillips of The Daily Mail wrote in a May 3 column titled, “The British boot stamping on the face of Christian belief.”

“Surreally, this intolerant denial of freedom is being perpetrated under the rubric of promoting tolerance and equality — but only towards approved groups,” Phillips wrote. “Never has George Orwell’s famous satirical observation, that some people are more equal than others, appeared more true.”

First up, what the hell is a police precinct doing with a "LGBT liaison officer".

Is there anything so ridiculous?

If a bunch of Muslims were walking around shouting "Death to Jews" and "Hang all gays" then would our intolerant of Christianity, gay liaison officer do anything? Anything at all?

That's called a rhetorical question, folks.

How does the UK recover from its cultural malaise?

(Nothing Follows)

How will history view Rudd?

People are starting to wake up to the empty nothingness that is Kevin Rudd's prime ministership.

Regular readers will know that I've been banging on about his clear incompetence and lack of vision for nearly two years.

The question that we can now start pondering is this; how will history view Kevin Rudd?

Here's my prediction:

1) Worst prime minister in history

Rudd has one thing going against him that his Labor predecessors do not and that is that he is reviled within the Labor Party as the vicious, petty, non-substance tyrant that he really is. Therefore, those people who write history - the left significantly outnumbers the right in this area - will be happy to smash Rudd in order to rehabilitate the reputation of one of their heroes, Gough Whitlam, hitherto Australia's worst ever prime minister.

2) Lost opportunities

Left wing, revisionist historians such as Henry Reynolds and Robert Manne etc regularly attack the right for the so-called 'lost opportunities' of their governments. These lost opportunities are almost exclusively made up of large infrastructure projects that the left deems necessary. The Howard government chose to give back surpluses by way of tax reductions, as they should. This is anathema to the left, which believes that government spending is by definition good, as it stimulates the economy. Keynes really does have a lot to answer for. However, Rudd has been the master of left wing 'lost opportunities' and most recently when he chose to abandon the current Holy Grail of left wing government control of the economy - the emissions trading scheme. Historians will not forgive him for not doing a deal with the Greens.

3) Cast out and outcast

In the same way that former Labor leader Mark Latham is now an outcast from the party, Kevin Rudd will first be cast out by his senior front benchers and almost immediately become a Labor outcast. There are already rumblings in that regard. Ministers who have had to take the fall for Rudd's policy incompetence are now leaking information to the media that it's the PM to blame and not, for example, Peter Garrett for the insulation fiasco. Or Gillard for the rorting of the school building fund. The list goes on. Once the next election is over the knives will come out and I predict Rudd will last less than a year as leader. Once defeated, he will resign from parliament in a fit of pique and force a by-election.

4) Failure on the economy

The list of fiscal fiascos is becoming a national embarrassment. In less than two years the Rudd government has managed to munch through the massive surplus left to it and increase Australia's debt from nil to the nearly $100 billion that the Howard government cleared away during its terms in office. Not only that but it has also announced an increased tax on profits from mining companies, which will be used to fund an increase in superannuation. Can you imagine Hawke or Keating coming up with such a negative, economy killing policy? Rudd and his advisers are completely nuts to
increase structural costs by taxing a variable revenue stream. That can only lead to deficits once the Great China Boom becomes an inevitable Bust. Did they learn nothing from the global financial crisis? Other than spending like drunken sailors, obviously not.

I'm sure there are other negative legacies that historians and political commentators will write about. Feel free to add your thoughts in comments.

(Nothing Follows)

Reviewing Rudd

There have been so many backflips by the Australian Labor government lately that I can't tell whether I'm watching politics or Cirque du Soleil.

Prior to Kevin Rudd's election in late 2007 the talking heads in the media were singing his praises as an economic conservative and having the right policies on climate change, labour laws, education and immigration etc. Now that the media is questioning the ETS abandonment, Andrew Bolt is quite rightly calling them out on it.

So who was wise enough to write the following on 22 October 2007:

I have likened his (Rudd's) understanding of economics to that other disastrous Labor leader of the past, Gough Whitlam, and nothing I have seen subsequent to making that judgement has changed my mind.

And this on 7 November 2007:

The Australian's Paul Kelly is hardly someone that could be called alarmist. His balanced, thoughtful commentary on the ABC's Insiders is the highlight of the program.

In this opinion piece he describes how Kevin Rudd intends to increase his power as Prime Minister should Labor be elected on November 24. This should come as no surprise. Rudd is fundamentally a policy wonk meaning he must have processes that involve him. He has no idea about what makes the economy tick or what drives the average citizen so he intends to have more of a micro-management role in Australia's affairs than any government since the disastrous Whitlam.

That's right, it was your erstwhile correspondent who saw through Kevin Rudd prior to his election in a way that the mainstream media couldn't - or wouldn't.

In less than 6 months in government Rudd's much vaunted FuelWatch program was thrown under the bus in what was to pretty much define this government's modus operandi and on 30 May 2008 I wrote:

There are two types of control freak: in-control and under-control.

An in-control freak has to be involved in every decision being made. An under-control freak has to be sure that his management team is on top of things and executing policy effectively.

Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, is an in-control freak and the latest example is the mess that he has created with the government's FuelWatch policy.

...Which leads me to articulate for the first time my view of the man. As I've posted previously, leadership changes people. Sometimes they surprise people, step up to the mark and become real leaders in the way that Howard did. Sometimes they crash and burn, as Mark Latham did, though that was much more predictable. Therefore, it's always wise to let some time pass before making a judgement.

Six months into his term I think I've seen enough to have a clear view of Kevin Rudd.

Leadership: As a leader, Rudd is more Custer than Patton; more Whitlam than Hawke or Keating. He is a manager, not a leader. Australia is in a terrific position economically, small inflation worries notwithstanding, and so it's possible that a competent manager can be successful. The job of prime minister at the moment and for the next few years can be done effectively in management mode so Rudd's lack of leadership ability may not work against him - as long as things don't go pear-shaped in the world economy and we don't otherwise face a major crisis.

Competence: Here's a big statement that I think people will come to reflect on the wisdom of in years to come - Kevin Rudd is profoundly incompetent to be prime minister. Profoundly. In fact, I'd go so far to say that when his time has come and gone Rudd will be seen as one of our worst ever PMs. He has Gough Whitlam's understanding of economics and Paul Keating's understanding of the ordinary bloke. I think he will be seen to have squandered a huge opportunity to move Australia forward at a time when international competitiveness is growing ever tougher.

Vision: It is now clear that Rudd has no vision for Australia. His policy of symbolism and populism over outcomes and substance is proof. From the economic disaster of ratifying Kyoto to the Stolen Generations' Apology to a plethora of inquiries into all sorts of issues and to FuelWatch itself Rudd has been focused more on his personal popularity than achieving positive outcomes for Australians. Can you imagine this man taking the tough, unpopular decisions on illegal immigration, workplace relations and even the Iraq war as Howard? Even his most ardent supporters must wonder what he stands for.

Personality: Rudd has no charm and no charisma, traits that are important to hold a leadership team together, especially when times get tough. It can be quite justifiably said that Howard lacked charm and charisma. He turned out to be one of this country's best ever leaders so why can't Rudd follow suit? The fact is that Howard slept the sleep of a leader. Rudd sleeps the sleep of a manager.

Not bad, eh, given it's a nearly two year old assessment. The world economy did indeed go pear shaped and Rudd's incompetence was on immediate display with huge, do nothing spending plans rolled out in too short a time and with minimal effect, other than adding to the national debt and, unfortunately, leading to the deaths of a number of home insulation installers.

In July 2008 I was joined by a few others who were starting to doubt Rudd's abilities:

Australia's go it alone attitude to addressing the non-issue of climate change is a prime example of how far out of touch with community attitudes Rudd is, let alone reality. It seems that he prefers to pander to European and United Nations institutions than do what is right for Australia.

In Kevin Rudd we do not have that strength of leadership. Unfortunately, he does not understand how limited his ability is and that will be to the detriment of all of us.

By January 2009 I passed the baton as Australia's most incompetent prime minister from Gough Whitlam to Kevin Rudd:

I tell you who is sleeping more soundly tonight and that's former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam.

Why?

Well, Whitlam's government was a shambles that wrought chaos upon Australia's economy that took many years to overcome.

Whitlam himself has long been viewed as the worst PM we've ever had and for good reason.

But with the current Labor PM Kevin Rudd's 8,000+ word socialist screed published in the leftist The Monthly this week Whitlam can let out as big a sigh of relief as his 92 year old body will allow now that the mantle of Australia's worst ever PM has been lifted from him by Rudd's unbelievable incompetence.

And, just for a change, on 4 February 2009 I continued:

I wonder how long it will be before your average Australian voter wakes up to the fact that Kevin Rudd is the new Gough Whitlam?

Of course, there are millions of voters who either weren't born yet or politically aware during Whiltam's reign of chaos and who still think that Rudd is doing a good job by throwing tens of billions of dollars at the economy in order to stimulate it and get past the Global Financial Crisis.

..and on I banged until the end of the year.

With an election looming, which the government is an overwhelming favourite to win, it's worth looking back to see what this government's achievements are.

Are there any?

In fact, in many ways we've gone backwards.

Certainly, our fiscal position has been weakened by Rudd's insane spending spree.

Our foreign relations have been damaged by Rudd's remarkable incompetence in an area touted as his greatest strength.

He signed Kyoto, amid much fanfare by the symbolism-as-policy left, and has now punted the associated economy killing emissions trading scheme down the road to at least 2013. In the meantime, power stations can't raise capital due to the uncertainty over policy. Nice work, Kev.

Again, what have we got to show for having elected Kevin Rudd?

And how much better off would we have been under a Coalition government?

Plenty.

(Nothing Follows)

Returning soon...!

In news that may or may not excite you depending on your point of view I shall be resuming blogging in the very near future.

Has anything interesting happened in my absence?

Fox News on global warming

Fox News continues to prove why it calls itself fair and balanced in this piece looking at global warming.















(Nothing Follows)

Climate Poetry

Al Gore really must be right into this whole climate change thing.

After all, what else could inspire someone to turn one's hand to poetry?

Here's Al's climate poem:

One thin September soon
A floating continent disappears
In midnight sun

Vapors rise as
Fever settles on an acid sea
Neptune’s bones dissolve

Snow glides from the mountain
Ice fathers floods for a season
A hard rain comes quickly

Then dirt is parched
Kindling is placed in the forest
For the lightning’s celebration

Unknown creatures
Take their leave, unmourned
Horsemen ready their stirrups

Passion seeks heroes and friends
The bell of the city
On the hill is rung

The shepherd cries
The hour of choosing has arrived
Here are your tools

Oh, bravo! Bravo! The talent! The wonder! Magnificent!

Can you imagine the screeching scorn from the cultural elites if George W Bush had written such drivel?

I think that The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy needs to be updated.



I might have a crack at some climate poetry, too...

Tracking brave souls
Data inconvenient
An abacus to use

Water ebbing up and
Down across endless
Stools in the night

Belching cars go
By jingo I say
These graphs are not

Round and round they
Go to the dogs
Stars shine down dimly

Half a degree
One degree
Two degrees upward

All in the Valley of Death
Predicted the Six Hundred
Climate Models

I can no longer continue
A crisis befalls us
Not of climate but of poetry.

How'd I go?

Al Gore, as they say in The Simpsons, eat my shorts...

(Nothing Follows)

These people are crazy

Add to the myriad of dire predictions of the consequences of climate change today's warning that the fish are going to go crazy.

Warmer ocean temperatures caused by global warming could cause sharks and other fish to become more aggressive, according to a new Australian study.

Research conducted by the University of New South Wales found that a slight lift in water temperatures — just two or three degrees — can cause some fish to become up to 30 times more aggressive than they normally would be.

The studies were conducted on young damsel fish, but head researcher Dr Peter Biro told ninemsn "he would be surprised" if sharks did not also undergo a similar transformation in warm water.

"I would imagine it ought to affect sharks ... We think it is linked to the metabolism of the fishes — it increases their need to feed," Dr Biro said.

The research involved putting the damsel fish in varying temperatures of water and placing other fish behind glass to see how they reacted.

Dr Biro said it was "obvious" the warmer water had an effect.

"Some fish would literally charge at the glass," he said.

"I'm quite confident that if the glass was not there they would have torn the other fish to shreds."

He predicted the increased aggression caused by climate change would cause some fish populations to dwindle, but it would eventually correct itself.

"I think in the short term we might see some effects," he said.

"But I think the animals will adapt, they won't all kill each other."

The test also exposed previously unknown behavioural traits that exist among the damsel fish species.

While some fish showed extreme aggressive reaction to the warm water, others did not react at all.

The majority of the fish tested appeared to be at least twice as aggressive in the warm water.

How could this test be carried out in anything that remotely resembles reality?

In the event that the oceans do heat up by 2-3C, which they show no signs of doing, then it'll take decades or, more likely, at least a century, as there's an enormous amount of heat required to do that.

So how did they undertake this test? Heat water up slowly over a week or two? No wonder the fish become pissed off - they're too bloody hot.

And what did they conduct this test on? A damsel fish.

This is a damsel fish:



Apparently, after testing on this little feller they expect sharks to get just as grumpy.



I dare them to try it on sharks.

Here's another point.

Sharks move around between colder and warmer oceans but it doesn't seem to matter what temperature ocean they're in to munch up the ocassional human...

(Nothing Follows)

Collapse of standards - Example 54390442

Two stories today demonstrate the ongoing collapse of standards in today's values-free, morally relativistic world.

First, thanks to Tiger Woods:

What's in a word?

Well, for Internet searchers, many aren't quite sure.

When Tiger Woods apologized today for "transgressions" after Us Weekly posted a voice mail of the world's No. 1 golfer talking to an alleged mistress, confused readers flooded Google with searches of the 14-letter word in search for clarity.

Google Trends, which lists in real-time the fastest rising searches on Google, lists "transgressions" as No. 1.

The search engine gave the query its highest ranking: volcanic.

To help you out, I've reached over to the Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary on my desk for the definition:

• an act, process, or instance of transgressing: as a: infringement or violation of law, command, or duty b: the spread of the sea over land areas and the consequent uncomfortable deposit of sediments on older rocks

(We're pretty sure he meant the first part.)

What has happened to the standard of education when people don't know what trangression means?

I've mentioned my 20 x 20 question before (ask your teenager what 20 times 20 is; 90% won't say 400) and this is another example of not teaching the basics.

The next example comes from the world of cricket. Apparently, retired English captain Michael Vaughan has taken up art.

First it was tennis legend Martina Navratilova, and now former England cricket captain Michael Vaughan is using his sporting skills to produce art.

Vaughan, who led England to Ashes glory in 2005, has created a series of paintings by throwing paint-spattered cricket balls at canvasses, in a technique dubbed artballing.

The works -- with titles such as "Six!" and "Power Play" -- went on display Wednesday night at a gallery in London's upmarket department store Harrods.

"With my art it's been good to get away from cricket and switch off those thought processes required to captain at the highest level, the day-in day-out questioning of yourself and the team - the art is quite therapeutic," he said.

Vaughan, 35, who retired from professional cricket in June, admitted he first became interested in art when teammate Ashley Giles took him to trendy London galleries during rain-delayed Test matches.

"I tell people what I'm doing and they raise an eyebrow and say 'Oh, really?'. But then they see the finished works and it really takes them aback, which is great," the former batsman said.

A work entitled "183" commemorates his Ashes Test innings in Sydney in 2003, with a maroon ball spot for every single he scored, a red spot for every two, a pink spot for his fours and a solitary green spot for his only six.

Navratilova held an exhibition at Roland-Garros, home of the French Open Grand Slam tournament, in 2007 of her works produced by hitting balls soaked in paint against canvases, and bouncing them on canvases on the ground.

Check out the so-called 'art'...



All that's missing is a government grant.

When bouncing painted balls against a canvas counts as art then there's nothing that doesn't.

In the bottom left (Vaughan's right) you can see that he signed the 'art', as well. Is he beyond embarrassment?

(Nothing Follows)

Do Labor understand the danger Tony Abbott poses?

I wonder whether the government understands the danger posed to them by Tony Abbott's ascension to the Liberal Party leadership?

In his first speech as leader he attacked the ETS as just another great, big, Labor tax and quite rightly compared the government's reckless spending to that of Whitlam.

Opinion polls are published regularly showing that people are 'concerned' about climate change (in the same way that the Secretary-General du jour of the UN is 'concerned' about Iran building a nuclear weapon or genocide in Darfur) and that they want something done about it.

The left uses these polls as evidence that Australians want something done and they want it done now.

What are not published are any of the polls showing that climate change doesn't rate in the top half dozen things that voters are concerned about, which show that the economy and jobs are, unsurprisingly, at the top.

Tony Abbott can't win the next election, but he can make big inroads into the government's majority by focusing on jobs.

If I was him I'd be banging on at every opportunity that "The Liberal Party is the party of jobs and we are not going to sacrifice even one Australian job to implement a great, Green tax that will achieve nothing without the world's major emitters acting first."

Focus on jobs. Focus on the cost to families.

If he calls the ETS a "great, Green tax that will achieve nothing" then he might even take out a few Greenies along the way, which would be the greatest public service of all.

Labor, and its media acolytes, think that Tony Abbott is easy meat, that he can be made fun of for his Christian beliefs and history as a political strongman.

I think that they will be given a rude wake up call over the next few months as the Coalition finally gets its act together and forms a coherent policy narrative that the Australian people can support.

Andrew Bolt highlights a line from the Sydney Morning Herald as summing up the policy line that will be run:

TONY Abbott will steer the Liberal Party back to its conservative roots with a 2010 election campaign portraying Kevin Rudd as a Whitlamesque big spender whose climate change policies will smash Australian jobs.

Can you imagine Malcolm Turnbull coming up with such a simple strategy?

People can both understand it and relate to it.

I might send Tony Abbott a copy of Frank Luntz's Words That Work:It's not what you say it's what they hear to help him keep on message.

(Nothing Follows)

If the Liberal Party votes for an ETS then they lose my vote forever

The following is the Liberal Party of Australia platform:

What does the Liberal Party stand for?

We are the party of initiative and enterprise;

We believe in the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples; and we work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives; and maximises individual and private sector initiative.

We believe in government that nurtures and encourages its citizens through incentive, rather than putting limits on people through the punishing disincentives of burdensome taxes and the stifling structures of Labor's corporate state and bureaucratic red tape.

We believe in those most basic freedoms of parliamentary democracy - the freedom of thought, worship, speech and association.

We believe in a just and humane society in which the importance of the family and the role of law and justice is maintained.

We believe in equal opportunity for all Australians; and the encouragement and facilitation of wealth so that all may enjoy the highest possible standards of living, health, education and social justice.

We believe that, wherever possible, government should not compete with an efficient private sector; and that businesses and individuals - not government - are the true creators of wealth and employment.

We believe in preserving Australia's natural beauty and the environment for future generations.

We believe that our nation has a constructive role to play in maintaining world peace and democracy through alliance with other free nations.

In short, we simply believe in individual freedom and free enterprise; and if you share this belief, then ours is the Party for you.

Surely, anyone who believes in the scientific fabrication called climate change or global warming or whatever the heck it's called these days and supports an economy deadening tax cannot be a Liberal?

So what is Malcolm Turnbull thinking?

And how can he be a member of the Liberal Party let alone it's leader?

If the Liberal Party votes with the government and passes an emissions trading scheme then they will lose my vote forever.

The problem for the Liberals are that there are a lot of people like me.

(Nothing Follows)

No real world experience required to run US government

If this graph is accurate, and there's no reason to assume otherwise given it came from research done by JP Morgan, then it explains a lot about why the Obama administration seems to be such a bunch of incompetents.



How can President Obama give more than 90% of his cabinet appointments to people who have no real world experience?

These people will naturally choose ideological positions rather than those born of the experience gained in the real world of hard knocks.

No wonder the Obama administration can choose to abandon Honduras to the Chavista wolves or the pro-democracy movement in Iran to the Ahmadinejad thugocracy. They have no idea.

(Nothing follows)

NZ climate scientists massage things other than sheep

NZ climate scientists go to work on the NZ temperature record.

Before:



After:



They've turned a 0.06C rise per century since 1850 into 0.92C...

Apparently, THAT is science!

Read all about it.

(Nothing Follows)

Climategate comments

Many people are passing the so-called Climategate scandal off as not being important and not affecting climate science.

The problem with that view is that without confidence in the dendro temperature record climate science is pretty much reduced to localised physics and the ice core record, which, inconveniently, shows warmer Roman and Medieval Warm Periods than present.

The corruption of the HadCRU temperature record is plain to see in the very code that produces the models. We already knew that the NASA GISS temperature record was suspect so it was amusing to see the CRU crowd casting doubt on Hansen's methodology.

Here are the best examples of just how bad this situation is:

Summary of emails from Bishop Hill.

Willis Eschenbach's attempt to get information via the FOI.

The comments in the code tell the story:

; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.


And for terrific entertainment:



One might be able to defend one or two emails here and there and I have defended the use of the term 'trick' to describe a programming shortcut (though the trick referred to looks dubious) but the overall tone of the emails and code is one of manipulation of both data and scientific journals.

It's also interesting that all of the people involved seem to be activist environmentalists with email exchanges with Greenpeace, WWF and the NYT's enviro reporter, Andy Revkin. People in the hard sciences tend to split down the political middle. Perhaps the conservatives go to work for industry and the lefties go and work in theory-land at the universities.

I developed a view quite some time back that climate science seemed to attract mediocre scientists to its ranks. My reasoning is that they are able to undertake research that is not able to be tested in the here and now whereas decent scientists want to see their research create tangible outcomes. Michael Mann and our very own David Karoly are two shining examples of this mediocrity. These scientists have achieved prominence (and funding) far beyond where their abilities should have taken them. Nothing I have read in the emails changes my opinion.

I have also been commenting for a long time that climate scientists will give real scientists a bad name in the public square. Job done.

(Nothing Follows)

Thought for the day

If the leftie health police are so concerned about the effect of advertising on children (and the rest of us) then how is it that 99.9% of people who work in advertising are lefties?

(Nothing Follows)