twilight

I find not working more stressful than working even disregarding financial considerations.

And that’s just fine, milton.

Some people are like that.

Old blokesays:
July 22, 2022 at 7:46 pm
Boambee John says:
July 22, 2022 at 3:26 pm

I hope that he used spherical trigonometry, not a Mercator’s map.

From memory (it was a while ago when I read it, and have since lost the book after loaning it to someone), Cathie dedicated a chapter in his first book to the trigonometric calculations, I can’t vouch if it’s solid mathematics or numerology as I’m not a mathematician.

Old Bloke,
Are you referring to Bruce Cathie? I remember someone saying that he had come up with a theory that nuclear weapons could not just be detonated at will but had to be at specific points in space and time. He believed that was why nuclear tests were conducted at certain places at particular times and could be predicted.
Also that there could be no sneak nuclear attacks as they could be predicted (if I recall correctly – probably not).

I have no knowledge or understanding of the mathematics behind it all. It is interesting though.

Oh, and the lady’s given up smoking, after fifty years…

miltonf says: July 22, 2022 at 8:37 pm

Even just walking into servos- most seem to want console operators, cafes want staff too.

The shortage is far more desperate than that.

RFX Connor didn’t get the chance to fulfill his dream of a full nuclear cycle in Australia – mining, processing, enrichment, power reactors, re-processing of spent fuel rods, waste storage.

Wasn’t RFX Connor one of the architects of the “Loans Affair?” Tirath Kemlani?

Dressing like a Nazi seems to be a pretty good predictor of being a Nazi!

Sure is!
It’s enough for the govt to sool ASIO onto a few incels stumbling over rocks at the Grampians & clumsily waving banners.

Reserve Bank spokescockhead:
“High interest rates won’t cause you financial stress, simply use cash reserves & savings and you won’t have to lose your house”

Biden fixates on nonexistent ‘climate crisis’ while ignoring actual problems

Apropos those midnight black SS togs the cops get around in;
A few months ago a couple of young & short Plod bailed me up about 2.30 in the morning, on the footpath behind the pub (the main street of town), or they would have bailed me up there, I didn’t see them in the half dark, on top of that both were so short I could see over the top of their heads.

They didn’t accept the observation that they couldn’t be seen in the dark & as they hadn’t identified themselves as police (they didn’t think they needed to) I’d taken no notice of them.

They both were quite young & quite green.
Substantive matter: I did not see them in the shadowy half dark.

And suddenly, you realise that Combet is a pillock…

Combet was the minister for climate change and energy efficiency in 2010. He was a fuckwit then and has been reincarnated in turtlehead.

In 2010 Combet’s dick-dragging supine support of climate change was questioned by a now non-existent LNP member who had balls, Anthony Byre. He wrote a letter spewing full of all the AGW tropes and bullshit. This response to Combet’s letter was put up at the now Google banned Climate Sceptic’s Blog (it’s long and pointless since is is reasoned and evidence based):

Combet has written a superficially clever letter. It justifies by exclusion; the mechanisms of exclusion are authority and consensus; validity is thus defined by designation from above and from ‘below’ by group acceptance of the authoritative pronouncements. This is a closed loop with each part of the loop vindicating the other; the loop is an attempt to create a priori knowledge by reliance on the authoritative source and the group acceptance. People who do not accept the authority or who are not part of the group acceptance have no validity and are at best ignorant of the knowledge of the ‘loop’.
The ‘loop’ is profoundly unscientific because it ignores Richard Feynman’s maxim of scientific proof:
The exception proves that the rule is wrong. That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.
As I will show each of Combet’s examples of authority and consensus are contradicted by observed exceptions and his justification for the government’s measures to combat AGW is therefore flawed.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the letter refer to the ultimate source of authority, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPPC] and its 4th report, AR4. There are 2 key points from AR4 relied upon by Combet. The first is the standard of certainty of the IPPC’s conclusions about AGW: that “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid 20th Century is very likely due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”
The IPPC’s standards of certainty were recently audited and found deficient by the InterAcademy of Science [IAC]. The IAC found that these standards were inappropriate and exaggerated. In an article co-authored by David Stockwell and myself the implications of the IAC’s findings were examined:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/29880.html
The salient point about the IAC’s findings is that if the IPPC’s standards of certainty are wrong then that means the scientific basis of those standards is problematic: if “mid-20th Century” warming is NOT “very likely” due to “the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” then the basis of AGW is compromised.
The IAC is an internationally recognised source of scientific expertise. For Combet to ignore its findings shows that he is either getting bad advice or ignoring good.
Combet’s second IPPC key point is his assertion that AR4 uses “climate change literature that has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals”. Combet also reiterates the prominence of the peer review system in creating the “robustness” of the “climate change science” in the second last paragraph of his letter. His reliance on the peer review system generally and in particular its use in AR4 is ill-informed. For instance, the science sources in AR4 have been audited:
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/uns-climate-bible-gets-21-fs-on-report-card/
The audit found that 21 of AR4’s 44 chapters had 59% or less of their official sources non peer-reviewed; in many of those instances organisations such as Greenpeace or the WWF were the source. Overall no chapter of AR4 had their scientific sources entirely peer-reviewed and the high concentration of references from groups with a green ideology means that the scientific credibility of AR4 was severely diminished.
The idea that AR4 represents a consensus of scientific opinion has also been found to be flawed. In the crucial chapter 9 of AR4 from which Combet extracts his first key point that “mid-20th Century” warming is “very likely” due to “the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” the number of contributing scientists is crucial. Claims of up to 2500 scientists supporting this statement have been made. A detailed analysis of these claims has been made by Tom Harris and John McLean:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7553&page=0
[A more detailed analysis by John McLean is here: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/McLean_IPCC_bias.pdf%5D
Harris and McLean note that only 5 independent scientific reviewers contributed to the vital chapter 9.
Dr’s Hulme and Mahoney from the University of East Anglia also reject the idea of a mass consensus supporting AGW, describing any such claim as disingenuous:
http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf
The Hulme and Mahoney disavowal was particularly appropriate since the e-mail scandal was based on the CRU unit at East Anglia. The e-mails demonstrate that the peer-review system extolled by Combet is a deeply flawed system with active and hostile interference of scientific dissent by prominent pro-AGW scientists. A full discussion of the efforts to censor this dissent is in Dr John Costella’s review of the e-mails:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf
Combet in his 4th paragraph claims that other reports support AR4. He refers to the Australian Academy of Science [ACS] August 2010 report. The report is well credentialed with the usual who’s who of Australian AGW involved, David Karoly, Matthew England, Michael Bird, Mike Raupach, Steven Sherwood and Kurt Lambeck doing the introduction. Despite this blue blood of AGW science the first information page features striking errors:
http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf
Box 1 for instance asserts:
“However, evidence going back up to 20 centuries does not show changes in global temperature resembling those that have taken place in the last 100 years 1-3”
The references for this are of course Briffa and Mann. This is reprehensible. The recent McShane and Wyner paper has comprehensively contradicted the Mann and Briffa hockey sticks:
http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/aoas1001-014r2a0.pdf
Nor is there any mention of the Wegman report which revealed the deep flaws in Mann’s study and the controversy about Mann’s data and methodology. These are egregious oversights.
The errors continue with a reference to Arrhenius’s experiment:
“The response of the climate system to human causation was foreseen by scientists more than a century ago 4”
Arrhenius was a genuine scientist, but his so called proof of the influence of “carbonic acid” or CO2 was wrong in several profound ways. Firstly, he confused radiative loss with convective loss because he believed the glass container was impermeable to radiation. Arrhenius also did not understand that CO2 did not transmit radiation but in fact absorbs and reemits it for no net gain. Arrhenius’s experiment to test CO2’s heating properties used radiation limited to 9.7 microns, which is the wavelength at which water vapour is active, and at 100°C; he was unaware that CO2’s active thermal spectrum is at 14.77 microns and that radiation at such temperature is not representative of Earth’s radiative spectrum.
This mistake with Arrhenius is compounded with a further error by ACS’s report in Box 2; there it is declared that water vapour is responsible for about ½ of the greenhouse effect. This is a basic mistake and contradicts the research and conclusions of premier climate scientists. Ramanathan and Coakley, in their 1978 research, show that water vapour has 2 ½ times the greenhouse effect that CO2 has. Their results show the relative greenhouse values of the greenhouse gases by the ‘simple’ technique of measuring the variation in radiation leaving the Earth when the various gases are removed:
http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/ramanathan-coakley-1978-role-of-co2.png
As can be seen if water vapor is taken out there is a 25% increase in the radiation. And if we take out CO2 it is a 9% effect. Since the greenhouse effect of the other gases is negligible water vapor is not ½ of the greenhouse effect but nearly 75%. Professor Lindzen puts the greenhouse effect of water vapor and clouds at 98%:
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/153_Regulation.pdf
The issue of water vapour is absolutely essential to AGW. The ACS shows this in Figure 1.1 with feedbacks from increasing water vapor amplifying the initial warming from CO2. This problematic feedback has been seriously challenged by a recent paper written by one of Australia’s and the world’s leading climate scientists, Garth Paltridge. Paltridge’s paper is based on thousands of radiosonde measurements of water vapour taken since 1958 by NOAA. Paltridge found water vapour had declined at mid to high atmospheric levels:
http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/paltridgearkingpook.pdf
AGW has hit back at Paltridge in the form a new Dessler paper which contradicts Paltridge’s findings:
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2008b.pdf
Paltridge’s reply to Dessler and an analysis of Dessler’s paper has been done by Jo Nova:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/11/dessler-2010-how-to-call-vast-amounts-of-data-spurious/comment-page-1/#comment-125477
There are then, two crucial aspects of the Paltridge/Dessler debate which have been ignored by the ACS report. The first and most obvious is that there is a debate. There is no mention in the ACS report about the basic contradiction between Dessler and Paltridge.
The second aspect is that there has been recent research which tends to support Paltridge. If Dessler is right and more water vapour is occurring at the mid levels of the atmosphere then this would support a fundamental prediction of AGW, the Tropical Hot Spot [THS]. AGW says that with CO2 induced warming extra water will be evaporated, especially in the Tropics, with a rapid warming produced in the mid levels of the atmosphere due to the presence of the extra water vapour [see Figure 9.1(c) AR4]. This would create a THS.
Whether a THS exists or not has been subject to intense debate; this debate now seems to have resolved against the THS with the publication of a paper by McKitrick, McIntyre and Herman:
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf
McKitrick et al show that the models are wrong and that there has been no temperature increase consistent with a THS. This is a groundbreaking paper published in a top climate science journal but the ACS has not referred to it. Not only does McKitrick’s paper remove one of the tenets of AGW but it gives support to a strong argument against another tenet in the form of Paltridge’s work.
Combet then refers in his 5th paragraph to the US National Academy of Sciences. This report is a farrago and a source for the erroneous AGW claim that the indices of AGW are worsening. This is readily contradicted by a cursory examination of the NOAA report issued a month later. The NOAA report examines 7 indicators of AGW and presents them graphically. Six of the indicators show decreases since either 1998 or 2003 while the 7th indicator, sea levels, shows a declining rate of increase since 2003:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2010/pr20100728.html
Despite this spokespersons for Combet and indeed Combet himself continue to claim that AGW is worsening. Yet the evidence is plain that this is not true.
In his 6th paragraph Combet refers to The Royal Society report. This report has been strongly critiqued by Dr Goklany:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/01/the-royal-society-still-embarrassing-science/
As Dr Goklany notes The Royal Society report basically relies on IPCC conclusions without even referring to some of the provisos contained in AR4. In short it is a “me too” charade.
Combet completes his list of supporting reports with reference to CSIRO and BoM’s State of the Climate report [SOC]. Combet says:
“The snapshot notes that all of Australia has experienced warming over the past 50 years with the mean temperature rising by 0.7C since 1960.”
This is a misrepresentation. In an exhaustive analysis Ken Stewart shows that all temperature records in Australia have been adjusted upwards by as much as 0.4C:
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/the-australian-temperature-record-part-1-queensland/
For a summary of this analysis see http://joannenova.com.au/2010/09/australian-temperatures-in-cities-adjusted-up-by-70/
Many of the particular site locations which are used to calculate state and national records have shown, in their raw, unadjusted data, declines in temperature over the 20thC.
Basically the SOC has not used all the data at its disposal, which in climate science terms, means they have cherry-picked data to get their results. This is particularly obvious with the SOC pronouncements about rainfall declining in Australia during the 20thC which was based on data only from 1960! David Stockwell examines the faults with the SOC here:
http://landshape.org/images/StockwellCSP.ppt.pdf
Combe winds up his letter with a reference in the 3rd last paragraph to “recent research” finding “that 97-98 per cent of the most actively publishing researchers support the tenets of climate change as outlined” by AR4 and have more “relative climate expertise and scientific prominence” than sceptics. This is a dreadful statement. It relies on this paper by Anderegg, Prall, Harold and Schneider:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
At one level Schneider’s ‘result’ is inevitable for reasons described by Stockwell and Cox [ibid] in response to a demand by Clive Hamilton to restrict AGW sceptics’ access to publication at the ABC to a ratio of 39:1 in favour of pro-AGW articles:
“Hamilton’s ratio is based on a consensus-proving, peer reviewed paper co-authored by Stephen Schneider. This paper lines up scientists into good and bad or “climate deniers”. The first great flaw with this paper and the consensus generally is that it ignores the vastly disproportionate funding of science which is predicated on AGW being real compared with the pittance provided to sceptics. Educational institutions, government departments and official science bodies like the EPA, IPCC and CSIRO have concentrated their research, publications and training on the basis AGW is real. AGW has become the Zeitgeist and the consensus idea is part of the truth creation of that prevailing mood rather than a reflection of scientific validity which is independent of social context”
More generally however, the consensus and authority arguments are the antithesis of scientific endeavour as enunciated by Richard Feynman. The system which Combet relies on to provide his authority and consensus is riven with faults and corruption; it is undermining the integrity of science. It will take a brave man to question the direction of the AGW debate. Combet, who lives by the ocean, is obviously not such a man.

All the better for them to creep up on you and try and administer a truncheon to your bonce.

That’ll be the idea.
They bluddee near did that anyway, as they thought I was doing a runner from them.

They didn’t take it well when I suggested they were exhibiting symptoms of Downs syndrome – i.e. they assumed that coz they could see something (themselves) they were unable to process that I was unable to see the same thing.
Their eyes were still young & sharp + they were fresh.
They’ve no idea what it is to be old & tired.

They always had the option to be civil/nice. eg a simple & audible: “Excuse me sir/bloke, have you a minute to help us?” or somesuch.

Sorry DB, I put up a long post with a lot of links in. If it’s too much trouble disregard it. It’s a rebuttal of that idiot Combet from when he was minister for climate back in 2010. It was originally published in the now Google censored Australian Climate Sceptics Blog. Combet was as bad as turtlehead is now. I’m afraid Australia is in for a very bad time with these fucktards in charge. Sri Lanka here we come.

This is a short extract from a presentation. Not sure when it was filmed but long before Covid.

MarcPatriot66
@Patriot66Marc
This is one of the more powerful videos I’ve seen.

Chilling but true!

Been trying to post a comment for 23 hours now and getting Internal Server Error from the blog.

Anyone else having problems?

Beats me what was wrong with the post. Was justly denigrating the ABC 730 report featuring Dr Moron Swan.

And the last part is-

But no, various medicos were canvassed and without any hard data but quoting the occasional carefully curated study concluded that it was better to get a jab rather than wait for a vaccine that might work because…something.

I don’t know how he sleeps at night after peddling that sort of bullshit.

Seeing that worked I’ll try this-

So the fucking vaccines don’t fucking work.

Mater,

Agree with your assessment of Ana de Armas . After watching the last James Bond I though the same and looked her up on the internet.

If she’s in the Grey Man it would be worth watching for her alone.

BBS,

Thanks , just heard from my brother in NZ that just wife has had neurological problems following a booster.

Prior to the jab she had something like chronic fatigue over many years.

Rabz,

Yep, you had to have 3 jabs to get into WA at some stage(since dropped) but I don’t know of any travel/employment requirements for 4.

So, if they don’t work and clearly they do not-why bother let alone take the risk.

BBS,

Zelensky?

If a cop can’t quote off the top of his head the law which a prole is breaking, on site and at the time, then there should be no chance of arrest

“I dunno nuthin’ bout this – but I’ll go & look it up to see what I can book yer wif” ….. is not exactly the phraseology of one who is across his game.

Them who brassily tells ya to yer face that they’re gonna hit the books to see what they might be able to gitcha with, they ain’t gonna gitcha fer nothing.