Australian DIARY


ARCHIVES 1997-2007  --- ARCHIVES 2007 +

JUNE 2016

I first noticed when they killed 4,000 in New York, but that was far away, so I was silent.

Then they killed 200 in Bali, which was next door to Australia.  But that is a foreign country, so I was silent.

Then they killed Jews and Spaniards and English and French and Arabs and Indians and Chinese and Nigerians all around the world, but still I remained silent.

Then in Australia, my home, they killed one here, two there, but the police said they had it in hand, that it was the unorganized work of maniacs, so I remained silent.

Then they killed 49 LGBTI's in Florida as Mohammed ordered in the Hadith.

I am an unbeliever.  I am afraid that I may be next.

But I must remain silent because our leaders say the Muslim religion is a religion of peace.  And if I speak otherwise I will be prosecuted and possibly jailed under one of the "Hate Speech" laws.

Because we in Australia do not have a "First Amendment" protecting free speech. I cannot say things that "minorities" might not like, even if it is the truth.  Because it might hurt their "feelings".

In Australia I am not even allowed to buy a gun to protect myself if they come for me.  Because we in Australia do not have a "Second Amendment" that allows law abiding citizens to buy and carry a concealed gun.


The ABC ran a story about a Chinese Australian (born here I believe) who obtained very good university qualifications in commerce and then went to China where he apparently was on the point of closing a deal and becoming quite wealthy.

Then he got arrested, tried in a closed court and sentenced to ten years. After 5 years he was repatriated under an exchange agreement to an Australian jail to serve out his sentence.

The point that caught my attention is that one of his convictions was for his appointment of the manager of a taken over company as a director of the new holding company.  This was considered by the court to be "corruption".  The ABC narrator said that similar appointments were normal practice in Australia.  The excuse was "because that person would have lots of information which would be useful to the new management."

Which got me thinking. Broadcaster Alan Jones has been highly critical of retired National Party cabinet politicians for taking Directorships to, or even "Advisory positions" with, the very same mining companies they had previously granted mining permits!

Maybe Premier Xi has got the right idea after all!


The cheapest prescription glasses that I have found are from an online overseas vendor "eyebuydirect" (with an Australian office I believe).  The cheapest prescription glasses from local chain "specsavers" costs $39.00  From Eyebuydirect that same prescription costs $7.00.  Delivery is about $11.00 per order.  (i.e. two pairs can cost $7+$7+$11=$25.)

So three cheers for Malcolm for buying our military's spectacles from a super cheap overseas company.

The amount of the military order is not trivial.  I was somewhat surprised to learn that the cost was around $30 million p/a  No wonder Australian manufacturers are starting PAC to fight this election.


It is instructive to see the treatment meted out to eminent tennis star Maria Sharapova.

Consider. Of what is she guilty?

Apparently for taking a performance enhancing drug for around three months after it had been banned.  For that she has been excluded from the competition circuit for two years.  She has declared that she was unaware of the prohibition.  No evidence has been given that she was advised that the drug was now prohibited.

I would have thought an appropriate sentence would have been removal of any prizes won during that time, and a prohibition from competition of equal length to the period of infringement.  That way the three month period of advantage is cancelled.

But maybe the drug has an effect for two years?

Or maybe Maria has made a few enemies in high places?


Thoughts from a perspective in the USA.

"After this Florida terrorist incident I am
certainly not going into a school or theatre or nightclub unless I am carrying a concealed handgun.  Oh, that's right, handguns are banned in Schools, and some theatres.  But (come to think of it) that didn't stop gun terrorists in schools all over or the one theatre in Denver that banned guns, did it?  In fact, it seemed to make those places more desirable targets.

Well at least I can go nightclubbing armed.  Of course, up until now, I personally didn't bother carrying a concealed gun anywhere, confident in the belief that some nearby law abiding citizen or three would be carrying.  That does not seem to have happened in the gay nightclub in Orlando.  Maybe gay people have an aversion to handguns?"

Oh!  But I am not in the USA!
  And our well meaning control freak John Howard enacted even more stringent control laws after Port Arthur!  I mean we haven't been permitted concealed carry in Australia in my lifetime, (1940) and that did not stop Port Arthur, (35 killed,) and Norway's gun controls are even stricter than ours, and Brevik in Norway killed 77 in 2011.

Sure, removing guns halved Australia's annual death toll by gunshot.  Interestingly, those lives not taken by a bullet were almost exclusively suicides.

Sadly, the count of suicides did not drop.  The poor bastards just found a different way to do it.


First let me define: what is a denier?

  • I do not deny that the Carbon Dioxide (aka CO2) content of the atmosphere has risen from around 0.028% to ~ 0.04%.
  • I do not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which means that, other things being equal, increasing CO2 will cause warming.
  • I note with interest the controversy about how much warming might occur as a result of the CO2 increase, with various authorities citing ~ 2.5C rise by 2100 and a sea level rise of around 30 centimetres.(Wikipedia)

Where I differ from the mainstream is in the longer term projections, and the effect of those rises on human existence.


I have created a webpage here that catalogues our current best understanding of global ice ages since our planet Earth was formed about 4.6 Billion years ago.  You will note (Fig.1.) that we have just recently (around 3 million years ago, Figure 2) entered the 5th or Current ice age.

Figures 3, 4 & 5 show the temperature estimates during the last half million years of the fifth ice age.  These results are from multiple studies by multiple scientists from different lands, and all indicate that during the current (fifth) ice age, the normal global temperature fluctuates in an (about) 100,000 year cycle.  For 90,000 years it is 9C - 10C (=16F - 18F) lower than it is currently.  Then it rises to our present world temperature for around 10,000 years (aka an "interglacial period"), then falls 9C -10C and repeats the cycle.

This fact was known in the early 20th century, and scientists then speculated that the then falling global temperatures signalled that the current interglacial period was ending, and the fifth ice age resuming.


The "Warmists" are alarmed by the rising global temperature of the last few decades, and insist that the damage that will be done to our environment must be reduced by reducing the use of carbon fuels.  They are supported by organizations such as the UN's IPCC and various government studies such as the STERN review.

The warmists seem to totally ignore the fact that the effect of the resumption of the fifth ice age would be far more catastrophic than the 3C - 5C of warming that government paid warmist are alarmed might happen.

11,000 years ago the sea level was 400 feet, (120m) lower than it is now.  You could walk from Britain to Europe.  The Mediterranian Sea was a string of four lakes. Italy was joined to Tunisia.  Indonesia and Australia were joined to (i.e. were part of) Asia.  The air was filled with dust which reduced photosynthesis.

So I cheer global warming in the earnest hope that it will stave off the resumption of the fifth ice age.  Because I believe that if it were not for all that CO2 that we have been pumping into the atmosphere, it would be getting colder, we would now be reentering the fifth ice age

And let me warn you, you really do not want that.

Oh. and about money and sponsorship.

It goes without saying that a negative finding by warmist institutions would result in a cessation of their funding.

To summarize: the worst damage that has been authoritatively suggested is:
  • The sea level will rise up to 30cm by 2100AD
  • The weather will become more violent & rainfall patterns will be changed.
  • Food production will thereby be reduced
  • The Great Barrier Reef will die.
  • Fish in the ocean will lose their habitat.

ANSWERS to those issues in seriatim

  • A gradual sea level rise of the order of meters is not a catastrophe. The Dutch have been building dykes for centuries to protect their farmland and cities from rising sea levels.  Where dykes are impractical to stop flooding, then populations must migrate, (or perhaps ask the Chinese to build them artificial islands.:)
  • If the weather becomes more violent we amend the building codes.  If rainfalls change we move farmers from the old farms now deserts to new farms previously deserts now high rainfall areas.  Worst case, we grow stuff in greenhouses with hydroponics.  (Which means healthier, because in a greenhouse we need no pesticides, no herbicides.)
  • CO2 does not reduce food production.  It acts like a fertilizer.  When CO2 increases up to 0.04%, it is a FACT that green things grow faster and require less water.  Higher CO2 and temperatures should continue that known trend.
  • There is some disagreement about whether the Great Barrier Reef is dying.  In any case, I personally did not find it very impressive, and would not particularly care if it died back to rock.  Maybe the reef tour guides could then make their living by taking horrified Greenies out and showing them the graveyard of coral?
  • Fish lose their habitat?  Gimme a break.  They have more problems with being overfished.  In any case, we could establish safer less polluted fish farms on land.  Worst case, we all turn vegan.

According to Stern it would cost 5% to 15% of planetary GDP forever to slow the use of Carbon.  Think!  A 10% reduction in YOUR income, but everything still costs the same, or your income stays the same, but everything you buy costs 10% more.

Then weigh that cost against the cost of a few dykes & revised building codes. As for food costs, farmers already grow lettuce hydroponically and fish on fish farms at a competitive price.

Especially since photoelectricity is soon going to be cheaper than carbon based power.


As predicted last Month, it looks very much as though Rupert has started supporting Turnbull.  Stories about Labour are becoming quite negative.  OTOH the ABC seems to have become aware of it's exposure to the highly likely coalition government and changed it's tune.

25/6 I also note that the Murdoch papers were pro brexit. 
Looks as though Rupert has taken the movement of the world against the politically correct to heart.  The politically correct are blaming brexit on racist nazis.  My explanation of brexit was a move against elitist big government.

26/6 I also note that Murdoch is meeting with Trump.  Again Murdoch is moving against the PC crowd, who accuse Trump of hating just about all Females, Gays, Mexicans, Moslems and anybody who is not a WASP.

mail responses to: