@robinmonotti

TWO LEADING PRINCETON, MIT SCIENTISTS SAY EPA CLIMATE REGULATIONS BASED ON A ‘HOAX’:

“William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), argued that the claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations aren’t based on scientific facts but rather political opinions and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong.

“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen wrote. “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.

“All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data. The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”

Climate models such as the ones that the EPA is using have been consistently wrong for decades in predicting actual outcomes, Mr. Happer told The Epoch Times. To illustrate his point, he presented the EPA with a table showing the difference between those models’ predictions and the observed data.”

Senior LABOR figures are NOW concerned about Paybacks citizenship …..oh, the ironing!

Little Fatima and her husband Jacob Stokes forgot who they were dealing with.

Janet Albrechtsen
Brittany Higgins ‘fantasy’ of media control an expensive farc
4 hours ago.
Updated 1 hours ago

The Higgins camp can’t help itself. Its latest attempt to control the media narrative is doomed to fail as spectacularly as its first attempt back in 2021 on The Project. The media is unruly: it won’t be told what to think, say or write.
Its latest crack at controlling the media arrived via email on Tuesday afternoon, when an associate to the registrar of the Supreme Court of Western Australian informed me that my application to access court pleadings in the defamation case brought by Linda Reynolds against Brittany Higgins was opposed. Opposed by lawyers for Higgins.
The Higgins camp is trying to stop me accessing Reynolds’s statement of claim, amended statements of claim and defence documents filed by Higgins in response.
Now for the nutty part: having granted access to other journalists, the Higgins camp is specifically opposing me from seeing the documents.
Clearly, issues of privacy or confidentiality don’t concern the Higgins camp. It is happy for other journalists to see the material and publish stories based on it. Just not The Australian.
Seriously? Are they children? Are they vindictive? Or deluded control freaks? You be the judge.
I asked for access to all documents from all parties. I want to read, analyse and write about the whole shebang. The Australian understands that in May Higgins’s Melbourne lawyer, Leon Zwier, told the court he was keen for the media to have access to the entire set of claims from both parties. Reynolds’s lawyers have no objection to any media getting the documents.
Enter Higgins’s new Perth-based solicitor, Carmel Galati. Her name is on emails that make it clear the Higgins camp is now opposing me getting these documents.

Higgins’s representatives have until 5pm Friday to send me their reasons. After that, the court says I may make further submissions and the court will decide in late July. What a drawn-out, time-consuming farce. Many may ask: Doesn’t this make a mockery of open justice?
In anticipation of Friday’s legal gibberish, let me ask: What on Earth is the Higgins camp afraid of? Perhaps it wants only Higgins-friendly journalists to tell you what’s in those documents. Last week the judge accepted a new pleading from Reynolds’s lawyers of tortious conspiracy against Higgins and David Sharaz. No one has reported it. I am curious to understand all the pleadings, along with the alleged facts underlying the pleadings, and the various defences put by Higgins.
For a very long time, the Higgins version of events was just about all we knew.
Those captured by the excitement of the #MeToo movement lapped up the former Liberal staffer’s every word. They fell for the curated pitch by Higgins and her then boyfriend, now husband, Sharaz, which included handy timeline documents, connections to the Labor Party’s Katy Gallagher and photos of questionable authenticity featuring a bruised leg.
Higgins boasted in her draft book outline: “We had become quite a twosome when it came to game planning. My experience as a media adviser, David’s experience as a producer; together we understood how the gallery media sphere operated.”
With enough media supporters, Higgins and Sharaz appear to have assumed they could control their preferred narrative. Did they seriously think their experience with Lisa Wilkinson on The Project was the standard going forward?

Farage is on track to win Clacton. Farage will be the ‘opposition leader’ and an entertaining one at that. Good riddance to fourteen years of spineless, craven, cowardly Tory governance.

If Labour winz as many seats as predicted there will be NO opposition just a few “not happy, Jan” seats who’ll get far more publicity than they deserve but for NO effect ……
Give it 3 months and the small folk will be squealing .. to no avail ..!
UK is dun & dusted ….. sad but reality …….!
But on the bright side.. TOON will still be the wealthiest “fitba” club in English and these dayz in “fitba” success belongs to the “money” not the deserving ……..!

A dozen or so seats for Reform is a terrible result given they were polling high enough to pass the Tories not that long ago.

Polling 1 point behind the Tories (18/17) two weeks ago, Reform was expected to win maybe 5 seats.

They’ve done almost 3 times better than predicted by the pundits.

Don’t give up your day job, mate (whatever that is.)

Don’t get me started on the live throws to the outer bits like Scotland where the levels of incomprehensibility and general demeanour is that of gin alley combined with the B- Ark.

In regard to Scotland, anyone with any get up and go got up and went long ago.

I exaggerate…still decent people about, but I think “brain drain” explains a lot.

Scotland was, at one time, the poorest country in Europe but also the best educated.

It seems to me that as a certain type of woman ages and loses the pretence that they were ever interesting or attractive, a desperation sets in and turns them into babbling lunatics.
Progressivism is the art of crafting policies that appeal to these demented creatures.

Roget at 10:47.

You can imagine that parishioners outside of the prosperous SE corner in vicar-less parishes with leaky church rooves [i.e. the majority] might be feeling more than a little disgruntled.

This happens more often than people might imagine.
Example near us.
Small town aged care home set up on donated land and built with community money and sweat.
Over time the management because too onerous (thanks Canbra!) so it was taken over by a large religious aged care provider (well, a corporate aged care provider wearing a cassock).
Nek minnit, it is closed and residents told they are moving 60 kms down the road to Big Town Aged Care, and the freehold is sold off.
The locals are now older and wiser.
They should have granted a licence to operate, even on a peppercorn rental, but with no transfers of freehold property and improvements to keep the grubby mitts out of the till.
Similarly, these village church funds in the UK need to be set up as trusts with the express purpose of restoring the church or whatever. No chance of the Archbishop of Canterbury grabbing it.
I do hope Lizzie’s roof donation to her little church isn’t being used to train aspiring rappers in Birmingham.

I do hope Lizzie’s roof donation to her little church isn’t being used to train aspiring rappers in Birmingham.

I did think of that too. The bishops are rushing to assure parishioners that their donations will remain at the local level, but wills are reportedly being revised anyway. Seems to be a lack of trust about. Possibly because if a congregation is closed by the bishop, any locally held monies are usually transferred to the central diocesan fund, from which either Canterbury or York, the two provincial sees, will presumably draw a portion too.

Each MP and Senator would get a free unit for the duration of their tenure in parliament. We would even throw in free water, gas, electricity and internet. 

Free? Why should it be free? They can pay 25% of their income like the housos do.

If they don’t like that they’re always free to stay in a hotel like previous generations of politicians did. The daily rebate they can claim should be less than what a veteran visiting the big smoke for medical treatment can claim.

I’m done with politicians enriching themselves via the public purse.

I could handle Monster’s trolling if he had an ounce of wit. He is about as amusing as a CT scan on fungating tumour.

Chris
 July 5, 2024 12:37 pm

Having been on a couple of Anglican Church local building committees, raised thousands for building only to have a split that wiped out plans, I can assure everyone that Anglican churches are the property of the Church as a whole.

The church may be their property, but the cash can be held in escrow. That is, the locals establish a trust fund out of the reaches of the church and the church forfeits any benefit unless it is used for the express purpose stated.

This is actually a good thing – except for political capture. The local churches have many more splits and ‘takeovers’ to defend against.

No, it is not a good thing in my view. This is how the abuse of the intent of the benefactor starts. “Yes, I know the bequest is for roof restoration at St Deidre’s in Midsomer, but we can use the funds for heating the manse at St Barry’s in the next town”.
Nek minnit, you are funding reparations for blak yoofs.

And bequests for specific purposes are also not binding. If you bequeath a motza for a church window at your local, it may well see a new window but it will come behind the other needs in the church.

Err, they are not binding only because anyone approaching the church with a suggested bequest was given boilerplate wording to hand to their solicitors giving the church free rein.
If, as Roger suggests, there is considerable benefactor disquiet, one of two things will be happening:-
1. They will be directing bequests elsewhere; or
2. They will be instructing their solicitors to write binding “use it or lose it” clauses in their will. That is, they have an alternate beneficiary if the funds are not applied to the specific purpose within, say, five years of probate.
If the Anglican hierarchy continue to run the “not binding” line, there will be way more of 1. than 2.