MAY 2017


Much ado about the hacking of Hillarius' Email server.

Let me put it to you this way.  Do you want to know the TRUTH about a candidate for elected office, or do you only want the carefully scripted facts that the candidate's advisers consider palatable to your sensibilities? (i.e. you only hear the stuff that they think will get the candidate elected)

If you want to be shielded from the truth, then the Democrat's arguments about Wikileaks "conspiracy" by the Russians makes sense.  If OTOH you want the truth, then you should be thanking the Russian hackers (supposing that is who did it!) and Julian Assange.  And if that truth is what altered your vote, then you are doubly indebted.


There are two narratives on Comey's sacking as director of the FBI.
  • President Trump has sacked Comey as director of the FBI in what is being alleged as an attempt to forestall investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential elections.
  • Before he sacked Comey, President Trump asked Comey if the FBI was investigation himself (Trump).  This is being alleged to be an improper question, being somehow a "conflict of interest".
OK. Lets look at the first point.
  • The FBI admits that there is not a shred of evidence of Russian involvement.
  • Trump has alleged that there were two million "illegal" votes in the presidential election.
Who do YOU choose to believe, and why?

As for the second point.  If he hadn't asked Comey whether he was being investigated, how could he have sacked him without the possibility of a conflict of interest?  For instance Comey (or more likely his Democrat supporters) could have argued that Comey was sacked BECAUSE he was investigating the President.


Noam has come out stating the Republicans and Trump are the most dangerous group ever, even including Hitler.

On what, you might ask, does he base that opinion?

Well actually because the Republicans and Trump do not accept the "Warmist Alarmist" views on Climate.

Well it just so happens that I think the "warmist alarmists" are the most dangerous group ever.  They are bought and paid for by the wind/solar manufacturers, and they are stopping the prevention of the most lethal climate change (a 10C temperature drop) in 100,000 years.

On my Climate page I have presented the arguments.  Resumption of the Fifth Ice Age glaciation is due.  This will probably be initiated by a drop in solar insolation (i.e. cooling sun).  Once glaciation starts it will be impossible (with present day technology) to stop.  There are positive feedback mechanisms (Earth's albedo in particular) which once deployed are practically impossible to counter.

OTOH what is the alarmists problem?  By calculations using the IPCC approved Arrhenius equation, (see Fig 9 with sensitivity 2.48,)

Taking current CO2 as 400ppm and today's temperature as baseline,

Temperature Rise above present is dT = 2.48 * Ln (CO2ppm/400)

Solving for CO2ppm from today's value of ~400ppm shows that:
  • to produce a 1C rise, CO2 has to rise to ~600 ppm
  • to produce a 2C rise, CO2 has to rise to ~900 ppm
  • to produce a 3C rise, CO2 has to rise to ~1350 ppm
  • to produce a 4C rise, CO2 has to rise to ~2000 ppm
(You picked it.  Where a 200ppm increase (400-600) produced a 1C rise when starting from 400ppm, it needed a 650ppm rise to produce a 1C rise when starting from 1350ppm.

In other words, as baseline CO2 ppm increases, you need to add ~150% more CO2 to produce each 1C temperature rise.
  • And yes, the IPCC has "cherrypicked" ppm & T values to get the sensitivity constant they offer.
  • Note also that the IPCC has studiously ignored/downplayed the increasing effect of more efficient photosynthesis on their CO2 ppm predictions.
I invite criticism responses to the above calculations.  It's not rocket science.


It was with amazement that I learned in today's Australian that the ABC was PAYING FOR ADVERTISEMENTS WITH GOOGLE to increase it's audience.

At first glance that appears to be an entirely reasonable response to renovate a diminishing audience.

But wait!  Consider!  Why do we have an ABC?

Isn't it to satisfy the demand by the Australian people for an unbiased news and entertainment source? 

If the demand is not there for such a service, (or such other service as the ABC can seek to divert it's resources to) then should not the ABC's budget be cut?

(I would suggest that bunch of opinionistas at 24 hour news needs a bit of a shakeup.  The liberal biased 6AM show has driven me to 2GB.  And I have become tired of switching off repeated 15 minute interviews with totally uninteresting non entities.  But then, the ABC management is probably aware of the idiosyncrasies of the audience it has lost.  I guess they are safe as long as the Senate is unowned.)

Apparently the "political bias" also happens in the BBC, which was recently found to be massively opposed to Brexit.

NOTE TO OUR POLITICAL MASTERS:  It's about time you enacted a regulation excluding "Commentators" from obtaining airtime on our national broadcast platform.  It's bad enough that ABC bosses get to "select" what is "NEWS" without granting them the additional power of providing a biassed commentator to "explain" that news.

mail comments to: