Political correctness gone mad Pt II

Seriously we have to ask again, how does someone come out with studies like this and expect people to take them seriously. And we have to ask was this study actually taxpayer funded.

SANTA Claus has been accused of acting in ways that could “damage millions of lives”.

As the mythical man in red zooms around the planet delivering gifts, he is an unwitting promoter of obesity, unhealthy products, disease and even drink driving, according to an Australian academic.

“Other dangerous activities that Santa could be accused of promoting include speeding, disregard for road rules and extreme sports such as roof surfing and chimney jumping,” said Dr Nathan Grills, public health fellow at Monash University’s Department of Epidemiology and Preventative Medicine.

Despite the risks of high speed air travel, Santa is never depicted wearing a seatbelt or helmet.”


Why they should stop saying sorry for everything

The only thing Krudd has managed to do in the last two years is apologies for problems that happened years ago. Instead of apologies for all of these failings of the past how about he actually do something about fixing these problems and ensuring that they “never let them happen again”.

I could not agree more with what Andrew Bolt says about this in his latest article.

HOW easy – how smugly satisfying – it is to apologise for someone else’s mistakes.

You get all the credit for being noble, but suffer none of the pain of remorse.

And so I watched last month’s apology to the “Forgotten Australians” with, I admit, the deepest cynicism – a cynicism that has in this past week turned into anger.

Both Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and then Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull joined in Parliament to sanctimoniously damn former politicians, welfare officials and churchmen for having put up to 500,000 children in care.

As their apology stated: “Sorry – that as children you were taken from your families and placed in institutions where so often you were abused.”

But was it Rudd himself who’d snatched these children, screaming, from their parents? Was it Turnbull who’d then flogged them with a polo mallet, or forced them to work as slave labour for Goldman Sachs?

Of course not, or else (knowing those two egomaniacs) we’d have got from them not sorries but spin. Not confessions but denials.

No, Rudd and Turnbull were much more at home in apologising on behalf of people they did not know for crimes most did not commit, than they would be in saying sorry for anything they actually did themselves.

What made their apology even worse was that it wasn’t offered only to those of the 500,000 children who’d been treated badly in government homes, but to every one of them for having been taken at all.

What a dreadful deceit.

How could they call a crime the rescue of children who’d in many cases had been bashed at home or neglected, or abandoned or even raped?

Here, for instance, is the story of Hazel Connelly, now 78, who was singled out by The Age as a “forgotten” child most deserving Rudd’s sorry:

“We were neglected children, and that’s why we became wards of the state,” she says.

Her father regularly walked out on the family and came back and walked out again. Her mother struggled to take care of nine children – four boys and five girls – by herself. There wasn’t enough food, clothes, or blankets. So welfare took the children away.

We should say sorry to Connelly for being rescued?

I’m not denying some children in care were abused, and that many suffered terribly for lack of a parent’s love.

But shouldn’t the people most fervently saying sorry to the “Forgotten Australians” be their parents, rather than the government and church carers who tried gamely with little money to save children who had been so shamefully betrayed?

But what really should make us gag most about last month’s fake apology by people with nothing to lose and only vanity to please was this passage in the motion passed by Parliament:

And let us also resolve this day, that this national apology becomes a turning point in our nation’s story. A turning point for shattered lives. A turning point for governments at all levels and of every political colour and hue, to do all in our power to never let this happen again.

“Never let this happen again”? Now that’s a solemn vow, and if the people making it fail to keep that promise they’d finally have something of their own to say sorry for, right?

So where are they today, all those apologisers for the mistakes of others, now that they indeed have their own – our own – to confront?

Where’s the apology from these “never again” politicians for the fact that record numbers of Australian children are being raised by the state right now, with more than 34,000 on care and protection orders as at June 30 last year?

Why will no politician say sorry for having hired on the cheap so many child protection workers who are barely out of childhood themselves, and then piling them with too many cases for even the wise to handle?

Where are the statesmen’s public tears for having rootlessly shuffled foster children – some just babies – from one temporary home to another, or for farming them off to carers who raise them, unsupervised, just for the cash?

And where are the promises of “never again” to the rescued children we today hand to angelic foster parents (like two friends of mine) to be nursed back to health, but who are then handed back to their drug-addled mother for a final, final, final chance to prove she can look after a toddler she’s treated like dirt?

In fact, almost every newspaper in the weeks since Rudd and Turnbull’s apology has carried items that made me wonder how our politicians had the time or hide to say sorry for the treatment of children decades ago when there’s so much to be sorry about the way we treat children now.

Item: We were told yesterday that on any night up to 120 Victorian children who’ve been rescued from abuse and neglect are put up in run-down motels or caravan parks.

Item: We learned this week that a 12-year-old girl in Victorian state care was raped by five men and often left her welfare unit to live with three middle-aged men who gave her drugs.

Item: We read last week that the NSW Department of Community Services did not properly follow up 34 reports that toddler Dean Shillingsworth was in danger, leaving the two-year-old to be murdered by his mother, who then stuffed his body into a suitcase and tossed it into a pond.

Item: Last month we discovered that Victoria’s child protection system was so short of staff and good managers that the Ombudsman said it was failing to protect children from abuse, and had not even assigned a case worker to a fifth of the children it was supposed to be minding.

If we once acted too quickly to rescue children, it’s surely clear we now move too slowly.

One of the cases cited by the Ombudsman was of a child – suffering with cerebral palsy – who had to be fed through a tube, but was left in the care of a mother battling schizophrenia without any contact or help from child protection workers.

So where are the politicians now, with their fine sorries and sacred tears?

Where are the Prime Minister and premiers with their resounding chorus of “never again”?

Ah, but saying sorry is so much easier, isn’t it, when the sins aren’t yours, and there’s nothing left to do but strike a fetching pose?

We’re so sorry about that, children. But adults’ pride comes before your fall.

The lies of Copenhagen

Taken from

In the Grand Ceremonial Hall of the University of Copenhagen, a splendid Nordic classical space overlooking the Church of our Lady in the heart of the old city, rows of repellent, blue plastic chairs surrounded the podium from which no less a personage than Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, was to speak.

I had arrived in good time to take my seat among the dignitaries in the front row. Rapidly, the room filled with enthusiastic Greenies and enviro-zombs waiting to hear the latest from ye Holy Bookes of Ipecac, yea verily.

The official party shambled in and perched on the blue plastic chairs next to me. Pachauri was just a couple of seats away, so I gave him a letter from me and Senator Fielding of Australia, pointing out that the headline graph in the IPCC’s 2007 report, purporting to show that the rate of warming over the past 150 years had itself accelerated, was fraudulent.

Would he use the bogus graph in his lecture? I had seen him do so when he received an honorary doctorate from the University of New South Wales. I watched and waited.

Sure enough, he used the bogus graph. I decided to wait until he had finished, and ask a question then.

Pachauri then produced the now wearisome list of lies, fibs, fabrications and exaggerations that comprise the entire case for alarm about “global warming”. He delivered it in a tired, unenthusiastic voice, knowing that a growing majority of the world’s peoples – particularly in those countries where comment is free – no longer believe a word the IPCC says.

They are right not to believe. Science is not a belief system. But here is what Pachauri invited the audience in Copenhagen to believe.

1. Pachauri asked us to believe that the IPCC’s documents were “peer-reviewed”. Then he revealed the truth by saying that it was the authors of the IPCC’s climate assessments who decided whether the reviewers’ comments were acceptable. That – whatever else it is – is not peer review.

2. Pachauri said that greenhouse gases had increased by 70% between 1970 and 2004. This figure was simply nonsense. I have seen this technique used time and again by climate liars. They insert an outrageous statement early in their presentations, see whether anyone reacts and, if no one reacts, they know they will get away with the rest of the lies. I did my best not to react. I wanted to hear, and write down, the rest of the lies.

3. Next came the bogus graph, which is featured three times, large and in full color, in the IPCC’s 2007 climate assessment report. The graph is bogus not only because it relies on the made-up data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia but also because it is overlain by four separate trend-lines, each with a start-date carefully selected to give the entirely false impression that the rate of warming over the past 150 years has itself been accelerating, especially between 1975 and 1998. The truth, however – neatly obscured by an ingenious rescaling of the graph and the superimposition of the four bogus trend lines on it – is that from 1860-1880 and again from 1910-1940 the warming rate was exactly the same as the warming rate from 1975-1998.

click to enlarge

4. Pachauri said that there had been an “acceleration” in sea-level rise from 1993. He did not say, however, that in 1993 the method of measuring sea-level rise had switched from tide-gages to satellite altimetry against a reference geoid. The apparent increase in the rate of sea-level rise is purely an artefact of this change in the method of measurement.

5. Pachauri said that Arctic temperatures would rise twice as fast as global temperatures over the next 100 years. However, he failed to point out that the Arctic was actually 1-2 Celsius degrees warmer than the present in the 1930s and early 1940s. It has become substantially cooler than it was then.

6. Pachauri said the frequency of heavy rainfall had increased. The evidence for this proposition is largely anecdotal. Since there has been no statistically-significant “global warming” for 15 years, there is no reason to suppose that any increased rainfall in recent years is attributable to “global warming”.

7. Pachauri said that the proportion of tropical cyclones that are high-intensity storms has increased in the past three decades. However, he was very careful not to point out that the total number of intense tropical cyclones has actually fallen sharply throughout the period.

8. Pachauri said that the activity of intense Atlantic hurricanes had increased since 1970. This is simply not true, but it appears to be true if – as one very bad scientific paper in 2006 did – one takes the data back only as far as that year. Take the data over the whole century, as one should, and no trend whatsoever is evident. Here, Pachauri is again using the same statistical dodge he used with the UN’s bogus “warming-is-getting-worse” graph: he is choosing a short run of data and picking his start-date with care so as falsely to show a trend that, over a longer period, is not significant.

9. Pachauri said small islands like the Maldives were vulnerable to sea-level rise. Not if they’re made of coral, which is more than capable of outgrowing any sea-level rise. Besides, as Professor Morner has established, sea level in the Maldives is no higher now than it was 1250 years ago, and has not risen for half a century.

10. Pachauri said that if the ice-sheets of Greenland or West Antarctica were to melt there would be “meters of sea-level rise”. Yes, but his own climate panel has said that that could not happen for thousands of years, and only then if global mean surface temperatures stayed at least 2 C (3.5 F) warmer than today’s.

11. Pachauri said that if temperatures rose 2 C (3.5 F) 20-30% of all species would become extinct. This, too, is simply nonsense. For most of the past 600 million years, global temperatures have been 7 C (13.5 F) warmer than today, and yet here we all are. One has only to look at the number of species living in the tropics and the number living at the Poles to work out that warmer weather will if anything increase the number and diversity of species on the planet. There is no scientific basis whatsoever for Pachauri’s assertion about mass extinctions. It is simply made up.

12. Pachauri said that “global warming” would mean “lower quantities of water”. Not so. It would mean larger quantities of water vapor in the atmosphere, hence more rain. This is long-settled science – but, then, Pachauri is a railroad engineer.

13. Pachauri said that by 2100 100 million people would be displaced by rising sea levels. Now, where did we hear that figure before? Ah, yes, from the ludicrous Al Gore and his sidekick Bob Corell. There is no truth in it at all. Pachauri said he was presenting the results of the IPCC’s fourth assessment report. It is quite plain: the maximum possible rate of sea-level rise is put at just 2 ft, with a best estimate of 1 ft 5 in. Sea level is actually rising at around 1 ft/century. That is all.

14. Pachauri said that he had seen for himself the damage done in Bangladesh by sea-level rise. Just one problem with that. There has been no sea-level rise in Bangladesh. At all. In fact, according to Professor Moerner, who visited it recently and was the only scientist on the trip to calibrate his GPS altimeter properly by taking readings at two elevations at least 10 meters apart, sea level in Bangladesh has actually fallen a little, which is why satellite images show 70,000 sq. km more land area there than 30 years ago. Pachauri may well have seen some coastal erosion: but that was caused by the imprudent removal of nine-tenths of the mangroves in the Sunderban archipelago to make way for shrimp-farms.

15. Pachauri said we could not afford to delay reducing carbon emissions even by a year, or disaster would result. So here’s the math. There are 388 ppmv of CO2 in the air today, rising at 2 ppmv/year over the past decade. So an extra year with no action at all would warm the world by just 4.7 ln(390/388) = 0.024 C, or less than a twentieth of a Fahrenheit degree. And only that much on the assumption that the UN’s sixfold exaggeration of CO2’s true warming potential is accurate, which it is not. Either way, we can afford to wait a couple of decades to see whether anything like the rate of warming predicted by the UN’s climate panel actually occurs.

16. Pachauri said that the cost of mitigating carbon emissions would be less than 3% of gross domestic product by 2030. The only economist who thinks that is Lord Stern, whose laughable report on the economics of climate change, produced for the British Government, used a near-zero discount rate so as artificially to depress the true cost of trying to mitigate “global warming”. To reduce “global warming” to nothing, one must close down the entire global economy. Any lesser reduction is a simple fraction of the entire economy. So cutting back, say, 50% of carbon emissions by 2030, which is what various extremist groups here are advocating, would cost around 50% of GDP, not 3%.

17. Pachauri said that solar and wind power provided more jobs per $1 million invested than coal. Maybe they do, but that is a measure of their relative inefficiency. The correct policy would be to raise the standard of living of the poorest by letting them burn as much fossil fuels as they need to lift them from poverty. Anything else is organized cruelty.

18. Pachauri said we could all demonstrate our commitment to Saving The Planet by eating less meat. The Catholic Church has long extolled the virtues of mortification of the flesh: we generally ate fish on Fridays in the UK, until the European Common Fisheries Policy meant there were no more fish. But the notion that going vegan will make any measurable impact on global temperatures is simply fatuous.

It is time for Railroad Engineer Pachauri to get back to his signal-box. About the climate, as they say in New York’s Jewish quarter, he knows from nothing.

This is what KRudd will give us

These are the stupid kinds of ideas that we will end up if KRudd grows the government even further, these people can’t manage themselves let alone the people they are supposed to serve.

• Between 2002 and late 2006, the Committee on Information Technology — responsible for coordinating all city departments’ hardware and software purchases — didn’t meet at all. Hardware and software purchases, meanwhile, continued — to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, much of it wasteful.

• In a similar vein, the Department of Technology has been trying since 1997 to update the criminal justice department’s system of tracking court cases. Originally scheduled to be implemented by 2001 for $15.5 million, the upgrade isn’t expected to be in place until 2011 — and will cost at least $22 million. The budget analyst claims this fiasco came about because the project “lacked a single person or entity that [was] accountable.” Sound familiar?

• San Francisco installed crime cameras in dangerous areas, which are proven to reduce crime if someone is watching them. The city, however, forbids anyone from watching them until after a crime is committed, out of privacy concerns.

• San Francisco’s Entertainment Commission is stocked with industry insiders who own some of the businesses they regulate.

• The city has defunded one program (Asian Neighborhood Designs) to train high-risk youth and find them jobs in order to spend more money on another program (CityBuild) with a worse record of success.

• The city spent millions to fund a Community Justice Center that would refer those who commit quality-of-life crimes directly to social services — and then slashed those social services.

• San Francisco police didn’t receive e-mail and voicemail accounts until 2009. Police stations had only single phone lines, and the best way to reach an individual officer was by sending a letter.

• The city raised nearly $5 million in private funds for an antipoverty program, Communities of Opportunity, then spent more than half the money on administration and marketing to “raise awareness” of the program among poor people. There wasn’t enough money left to offer substantive assistance, and, after five years, an audit found no discernible results for the money spent.


Stop playing the racist victim card

This article from News.com.au where Ernie Dingo plays the victim card is just so over the top. Stop blaming others Ernie, as you yourself say, you (indigenous people) only have to say no to alcohol, the white man is not forcing anyone to actually drink it.

INDIGENOUS icon Ernie Dingo has hit out at hypocritical “white people” who lecture Aborigines about alcohol consumption.
“What you should be worrying about is who is giving them access … who sells alcohol? Not black people,” Dingo said.
“We (indigenous people) don’t have a problem. Our problem is to say ‘no’ to you blokes, to white people … ‘no’ is not really part of our cultural background.

Climategate- Where the focus should really be

Interesting article from the Wall Street Journal arguing that the focus on climate change is wrong. If they actually wanted to make a difference to people’s lives stop focusing on wasting money on trying to change the temperature and instead spend the much much less money and impact on so many more lives. Maybe this does speak to the fact they don’t actually want to save peoples lives and see us as pollutants ourselves as the talk is now starting to come out that some want to implement a one child policy to reduce the global population.

Everywhere we went we found people who spoke powerfully of the need to focus more attention on more immediate problems. In the Bauleni slum compound in Lusaka, Zambia, 27-year-old Samson Banda asked, “If I die from malaria tomorrow, why should I care about global warming?” In a camp for stateless Biharis in Bangladesh, 45-year-old Momota Begum said, “When my kids haven’t got enough to eat, I don’t think global warming will be an issue I will be thinking about.” On the southeast slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro in Tanzania, 45-year-old widow and HIV/AIDS sufferer Mary Thomas said she had noticed changes in the mountain’s glaciers, but declared: “There is no need for ice on the mountain if there is no people around because of HIV/AIDS.”

There is no question that global warming will have a significant impact on already existing problems such as malaria, malnutrition, and water shortages. But this doesn’t mean the best way to solve them is to cut carbon emissions.

Take malaria. Most estimates suggest that if nothing is done, 3% more of the Earth’s population will be at risk of infection by 2100. The most efficient global carbon cuts designed to keep average global temperatures from rising any higher than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels (a plan proposed by the industrialized G-8 nations) would cost the world $40 trillion a year in lost economic growth by 2100—and have only a marginal impact on reducing the at-risk malaria population. By contrast, we could spend $3 billion a year on mosquito nets, environmentally safe indoor DDT sprays, and subsidies for new therapies—and within 10 years cut the number of malaria infections by half. In other words, for the money it would take to save one life with carbon cuts, smarter policies could save 78,000 lives.

Stavros Flatly

What a great Father/son pair. You can really see the love that they have for each other.