ARCHIVES 1997-2007  --- ARCHIVES 2007 +



I happened upon a learned article by a liberal castigating Murdoch.  The narrative went something like this..

"Rupert does not directly control his editors, or even necessarily provide guidelines.  He chooses his editors because they will propagate his message, and will anticipate his attitude and then use their editorial powers to edit Journalistic output so as to conform with RM's viewpoint".

Now that is very persuasive.  However we are talking about the most successful newspaper owner on the planet.  Since choosing the right editor would, prima facie appear to be a relevant part of making a successful newspaper, perhaps we could consider the hypothesis that most readers do not want an exclusive diet of liberal claptrap.  So just perhaps Rupert is choosing his editors for their perception of their reader's interest.

I gathered that the same liberal managed an "independent" environmental group.  Just coincidentally she also managed a "research group" on the environment.  She remarked words to the effect "our independent scientists confirm climate change".  One wonders what qualifications were necessary to be employed?  How many engineers, specialists in fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, radiation, heat engines etc were employed?  And what proportion were economists and had other liberal arts degrees?


It was reported in the Australian December 11th that (Deep Storage a Viable option) carbon capture and storage (CC&S) had been achieved.   Apparently 65,000 tonnes of CO2 had been injected into an old gas mine at a cost of about $40 million.  That works out at only a bit more than $600/tonne.  Perhaps somebody should float an IPO to do CC&S at the government offered price of $23/tonne?  If there are people who really think CC&S is a viable option, perhaps they can be persuaded to put their money where their mouth is?

As a mechanical engineer I have always been extremely suspicious of the economics of CC&S.  Separation alone (from flue gases) would be an expensive procedure.  Offhand a more viable option would be incomplete combustion of the carbon fuel and the capture and sale of the soot resulting.  That might only cost about $100-$300/tonne (in redesign and lost power).

The choosing and subsidising of "green power industries" is also likely to result in extremely expensive options.  As witness the extremely expensive subsidies for photoelectricity, or the high electricity costs and noise pollution by wind turbines.

Of course the real solution
to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is a carbon tax that provides just enough finance to deal with the (predicted?) problems resulting from the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.  For instance:
And so on.  You get the idea.


Cycling up Oatley Road Paddington I noticed a lot of workers digging up the footpath.  A ten ton truck was parked in the Renny street roundabout leaving enough space for a car to pass.  A couple of men were operating a small dozer and a shovel.  What grabbed my attention was the fact that there were five RTA persons redirecting traffic.  Given that traffic could pass the truck, I was surprised that there was any need for traffic redirection, apart from a couple of "Men at Work" (or "People at Work") barriers.

I decided to photograph the scene, and immediately drew the attention of one of the (female) traffic control officers.  She wanted to know what I was doing, and demanded my name (I said "no") then proceeded to call the police.  I waited around for ten minutes, then left.

So now I know how my traffic fines are spent.  They are wasted on five unnecessary traffic control officers, who would be better employed wheeling barrowloads of dirt or making tea for the two workers rather than generally annoying the public by unnecessarily redirecting traffic.

MAIL comments