Popping Into Being

As a result of a conversation on another blog I was motivated to Google for the following scientific hypothesis:

The “popping into being” idea is that the probability of a universe popping into being is not (quite) zero, therefore it’s gonna happen.

Its One Of Hawking’s

Hawking explains the “popping into being” theory in “Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created From Nothing” (2007)

It’s an entertaining read. The theory is based on work done by:

Richard Feynman a brilliant physicist at the California Institute of Technology. He proposed that a system got from a state A, to a state B, by every possible path or history.

Each path or history, has a certain amplitude or intensity, and the probability of the system going from A to B, is given by adding up the amplitudes for each path. There will be a history in which the moon is made of blue cheese, but the amplitude is low

Come Again ?

So non-existence is posited merely as a state which can be moved freely from or to and is achieved by traversing all possible paths, including the one in which Invisble Pink Unicorns tap dance on tables at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe. You are expected to take this seriously, even once you swallow the concept of non-existence as a valid state.

Non-existence as a state is a logical contradiction. Its like asking where you want the immovable object put.

Hawking goes on:

The picture Jim Hartle and I developed, of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe, would be a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water.

The idea is that the most probable histories of the universe, would be like the surfaces of the bubbles. Many small bubbles would appear, and then disappear again. These would correspond to mini universes that would expand, but would collapse again while still of microscopic size. They are possible alternative universes, but they are not of much interest since they do not last long

As I understand this, Hawking is talking about the expansion of the Universe fom a singularity. Which seems to me that Hawking wants to have his Invisible Pink Unicorn and eat it too. If the Universe is non-existent, where did the singularity come from ?

Perhaps I misunderstand the article. I am happy to be corrected.

Science. Yairs. *Cough*

So there you have “popping into being”. As might be expected from an untestable and highly entertaining idea from the realms of pure creativity it is full of preposterous nonsense and downright contradiction.

But because it is labelled “Science” many swallow it without bothering to read the label. And for many on the Left, or fanatical atheists like Stepehn Hawking and Richard Dawkins anything that ejects God from the room is axiomatically justified.

The Weirdest Christmas Card I Ever Sent

Season’s Gruntings.

As Christmas roars toward us I am reminded of the cheapest box of Christmas Cards I ever purchased. I am a cheapskate and love digging around for specials of say 800 Christmas cards for $1.50 – that would be ideal. So I buy such a box and start happily posting them off, admiring their awful quality and designs only tangentially related to Christmas, when one stopped me in my tracks.
The design was a bunch of animals playing in a playground sliding down slippery-dips, bouncing on trampolines etc. There was a Walrus, a Penguin, a Bear and maybe a Fish. It was as if a Birthday card for a two-year old had been mislabelled “Merry Christmas”.

Next day the penny dropped. The animals were all the kinds of animals you would find at the North Pole…where Santa lives…so that was the connection to Christmas. It was a generic “things associated with ice” card.

I am looking for this year’s set which I’m told feature Russian Nuclear Powered Submarines surfing through fields of anchovies.

Merry Christmas!

A. A. Milne And The Messing Up Machine

My son celebrated his 4th Birthday recently and his aunty gave him the collected stories of Winnie The Pooh by A. A. Milne. What a delight those stories are: whimsical, humorous, tender, with a keen eye of love for the emotions, thoughts and imaginitive life of Christopher Robin, A. A. Milne’s amaneusis and 5 year old son.

A. A. Milne And Me

As I read the adventures of Winnie The Pooh I immediately recognised them as Milne’s equivalents of the stories I tell my own son. In the same way my boy says, “Daddy, tell me a story about how Cheetah went to play at his friend’s house” and I say “Ah..yeah..sure…Lessee…One day Cheetah woke up and [spies stuffed Parrot] rang Parrot on his Mobile Phone and said [spies Lego action figure] Hawk-Man needs our help to find a big chocolate crocodile…[etc]“, I recognised Milne’s characters and plot as the spontaneous creation of a Father’s bed-time stories.

And I was delighted to find that, like the literary legend Milne, I injected my son as a character into my stories the same way he did.

All Dads Do It

Recognising the fraternity of Dads and Christopher Robins worldwide I don’t think Milne would be insulted to have my own family’s bedtime stories recounted next to his. So here goes:

Bob The Bandicoot’s Messing Up Machine

Bob The Bandicoot (this character’s species plagiarised from ‘The Magic Pudding’) lived in the sandhills not far from the Bunnies carrot patch. (The Bunnies in the sandhills are long-time bedtime story characters from a camping trip we did to Bulli Caravan Park where rabbits live in profusion).

Bob is an inventor and loves to make machines. One day, looking around at the mess in his shed he said “I know, I’ll build a tidying-up machine”. So he got a whole lot of metal, old engines, fish hooks, blades from an old fan and lots of string and built a tidying up machine. Then he put the batteries in and turned in on. ‘Hoot-Hoot!’ went the machine. (This Noise plagiarised from Professor Branestawm’s Automatic Bowling Machine)

‘Hello, tidying up machine’ said Bob. ‘Could you please tidy up all my nails ?”
“NO!” said the tidying up machine and he stomped his legs and took his remote control off Bob Bandicoot and put it in his pocket. Then he tipped out all the nails, pushed over the cupboars full of metal, took the milk out of the fridge and poured it on the ground and got the string and tied it all up into knots. Then he went stomping out of the shed and ran off into the sandhills.

‘Oh no’ said Bob Bandicoot, ‘The Messing Up Machine is headed for the bunnies burrow. I better tell Mr. Crocodile.’ So he rang up Mr. Crocodile straight away.

RING-RING went the phone in Mr. Crocodile’s house. ‘Who is it ?’ said Mr. Crocodile.
‘It’s me, Bob Bandicoot’, said Bob Bandicoot. My tidying up machine is all cranky and he messed up my shed and now he’s going over to the Bunnies’ carrot patch. Can you please help ?
‘Sure thing’ said Mr. Crocodile ‘I’ll be right over’ And he got straight in his bus and but some strong rope in it and went driving off to the Bunnies Burrow.

Just then the Bunnies were having breakfast.
“White Bunny, ” said Mummy Bunny, “can you please go up to our patch and bring back two nice carrots for our breakfast ?”
“Sure thing” said White Bunny and he went up the burrow to the surface but as he got near the top of his burrow he heard a terrible big noise outside. White Bunny carefully stuck up his whiskers and nose and had a peek. Oh No! The Messing-Up Machine was getting his hooks and pulling up all the Bunnies’ carrots and throwing them around and making a huge mess! White Bunny went straight back down his burrow. “Mummy, a big machine is hooking up all our carrots and throwing them around and making a big mess!” “Hmmm. I know ” said Mummy Bunny, “I will call Mr. Crocodile”

RING-RING went Mr. Crocodile’s phone again.
“Who is it ?”, said Mr. Crocodile.
“Its Mummy Bunny”, said Mummy Bunny “A nasty big Messing Up Machine is wrecking all our carrots and throwing them everywhere. Can you please come over and help ?”
“I’m already on my way” said Mr. Crocodile, “I’ll just be a few minutes”

“Brmmm-whz-bang-toot-toot-POP! (This noise plagiarized from Madness, 80’s Two-tone Ska band “I Go Driving In My Car”) went Mr. Crocodile’s bus as it came to a stop outside the Bunnies Burrow. “Hello there, Bunnies, I’m here. Can I come in ? Where’s the Messing Up Machine ?”
“Over there in our carrot patch” said White Bunny
Mr. Crocodile got out his binoculars and had a look. The Messing Up Machine was still throwing carrots everywhere and making a huge mess.

“Hmmm.” said Mr. Crocodile. “I Know what to do. Let’s build a big hole and make Messing Up Machine fall in.”
So the Bunnies began to did with their paws because they have big paws and are very good at digging burows and holes. And Mr. Crocodile began to dig too because he can dig holes in the muddy river bank, so he swished his big tail and helped the bunnies dig a big hole.

“Now let’s cover it with sticks and branches” said Mr. Crocodile “so the Messing Up Machine can’t see it”. So the bunnies and Mr. Crocodile got stcks and branches from the trees in the sandhills and covered up the hole.

When the hole was ready, Mr.Crocodile whistled to the Messing Up Machine. “Hey machine! Come over here. Here’s some crunchy carrots you missed”
The Messing Up Machine stopped throwing carrots and went stomping towards Mr. Crocodile. “Give me those crunchy carrots!” he said.
“No, said Mr. Crocodile, “you come and get them”
So the Messing Up Machine came stomping over but when he stepped on the sticks, what happened ? Yes, he fell in the big hole with a big CRASH!!

“Now” said Mr. Crocodile, “give me back your remote control”.
“NO!” said the Messing Up Machine. And he stomped and went HOOT-HOOT and smoke came out his ears.
“OK” said Mr. Crocodile “you stay in the hole then”

Messing Up Machien stayed in the hole a long time and then it began to rain and all the sand at the bottom of the hole turned into sticky mud.
“Aww.” said the Messing Up Machine “I don’t like this mud. I’ve been a naughty machine” and he called out for Mr. Crocodile “HOOT-HOOT. Mr Crocodile!”

“Yes ?” said Mr.Crocodile/
“I’ve been a naughty machine ” said the Tidying Up Machine “I want to be good now and be helpful. Can I come out the hole now ?” And he gave Mr. Crocodile back his remote control with one of his big hooks.
“Yes you can said Mr. Crocodile” and he got the strong rope and tied one end to his bus and the other end to the tidying-up machine. Then get started his bus “Brrm-BRRM-Whiz-Bang-Toot-Toot-POP!” went the big engine and then the bus pulled the Tidying-Up Machine out of the hole”.

“Sorry” said the Tidying-Up Machine and he went back to Bob Bandicoot’s shed and put all the nails back in their tray, wiped up all the Milk with with a superwipe, picked up the cupboards and used his hooks to get all the knots out of the string.

Then he sat down and had a nice drink of oil and petrol and two bananas and four pieces of toast and a chocolate biscuit for tea.

======== The End ============

Symbols And Their Meanings

The story is about obedience and discipline
Messing Up Machine: A toddler or small child.
Mr. Crocodile: Daddy

Others In The Series

How White Bunny Turned Green And Then Turned White Again.
Cheetah Goes On Holiday

The Terror Of The Boat People: Howard Inciting Racially-Linked Fear and Prejudice

Maximum Nasty

Here’s an incident from the 2001 Federal Election that shows John Howard’s nastiness to maximum effect. Specifically, it shows how Howard incited racially-linked fear and prejudice in the electorate for political advantage.

I record it here as a way of giving more publicity to the insidious poison that Howard leached into the mainstream during his tenure as Prime Minister. Truly a nasty little era.

The incident is related in Mungo MacCallum, ‘Political Anecdotes’, 2003, p. 274, the original source being Peter Charlton in Solomon (ed.) Howard’s Race (2002) pp. 127-128.

The Terror Of The Boat People

“As Tom Allard of the SMH reported after the election, ‘It was past deadline for most papers so The Courier-Mail’s political editor Dennis Atkins had his laptop computer open and was showing his fellow reporters the front page splash the Brisbane newspaper was running the next morning. The article…began: “Australia had no way to be certain terrorists, or people with terrorist links, were not among the asylum seekers trying to enter the country by boat from Indonesia, Prime Minister John Howard said

The article went on to say that Howard had linked terrorism and Australia’s border protection stance for the first time. It paraphrased Howard comparing the current situation with the end of World War II, when Nazi war criminals had slipped into Australia.

As Howard passed by, Atkins showed the story to him. ‘Good’ Howard said, ‘Excellent’“

‘Excellent’. Yes in a hateful kind of fear-mongering way. Howard’s definition of excellent.

Let’s Give That Another Run

Samantha Maiden of The Australian recalled the Atkins article in her piece ‘Terrorists On Boats Claim Date Back To Howard” in Oct. 2009 as she reports on the shameless Wilson Tuckey rehashing the old bile in relation to contemporary Sri Lankan Tamil refugees.

Record Muslim Immigration Under Howard

It is sometimes claimed that Howard cannot be racist and does not hate Muslims because a record number of Muslims entered Australia under conventional immigration programs during his tenure and Howard did not ban or compromise Federal Funding of Islamic schools (e.g Paul Sheehan Still a Land Of Fair Go Despite Fabrications) To my mind the facts referred to by Howard’s defenders only succeed in making Howard’s culpability worse.

Howard does not specifically detest Muslims more than he does against any other non-Anglo (apart from his general mistrust of any non-Anglo or less than fully assimilated aussified immigrant), except that Muslims are associated with 9/11. But Howard actually knows that the vast majority of Muslims are as sensible, peaceful and law-abiding as anybody else.

So Howard is 95% as content to allow Muslims to immigrate to Australia as any other low wages immigrant. After all Immigrants are a necessary part of Australia’s low wages unskilled and semi-skilled economy. Anglos on the whole are too proud to clean toilets or take comparable low wage, low status jobs. Business needs these people and Howard is a servant of the Business class.

But when convenient Howard uses Muslims as community scapegoats for political purposes. In other words Howard uses people as objects of his ambition. People are instrumental vehicles to him, means to ends. He doesn’t hate Muslims or Chinese particularly. He’ll just use abuse, discard, embrace, scapegoat, or exalt them in whatever form serves the interests of J. Howard Esq.

And that’s an offence against basic decency.

Why Australia Is Obliged To Accept Refugees

Boat people, however, are not conventional immigrants. They are refugees. Refugees have internationally-recognised legal status under The United Nations Refugee Convention of 1951 to which Australia is a signatory. Because we signed the convention, we are obliged to accept refugees.

[T]he term ‘refugee’ shall apply to any person who…owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his [sic.] nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.
- Refugee Convention, Article 1(A)(2)

As Robert Manne explained in his excellent essay from 2004“Sending Them Home” The United Nations Refugee Convention of 1951 was created as a consequence of the fate of Jews before World War 2 and displaced persons immediately following World War 2. Jews unable to flee, or returned to Nazi Germany were of course liquidated. As Stalinism spread across Eastern Europe similar tragedies occurred with many innocent persons seeking to escape totalitarian rule.

Thus the convention was created as an act of good conscience by nations supporting liberal democratic principles and basic justice and humanity.

Thus recognized, Howard’s de-facto rejection of the 1951 Refugee Convention is an act of a deeply mean spirit. And Howard’s specific comments above, where those fleeing totalitarianism are themselves described as the totalitarians, represent an inversion of the humanitarian spirit of the treaty. This is disgusting enough; but when we remember that Howard does this purely for political expediency we have come face-to-face with a souless man.

Howard’s Bare Point

Howard is a sneaky and deceitful person. And like all sneaks he uses even the truth where expedient to try to deceive. Yes, some Nazi’s did conceal themselves amongst the tide of legitimate refugees in order to escape justice, but to use this bare point as a justification for towing all refugess boats into the open sea is to focus on the gnat in the herd of camels. In usual form Howard is using fear to manipulate the electorate which is, as always, contemptible.

Nothing Empowers The Third Eye Better Than Taxpayer-Funded Chardonnay

Watching the Liberal Party rend themselves to pieces over Climate Change this week I perchanced to pick up a paper I had printed out from the John Howard Decade Conference held at the Australian National University, Canberra, 2-3 March 2006.

This particular paper is entitled “‘You lucky, lucky bastard!’. The Extent Of John Howard’s Political Genius.’ by noted chardonnay swillers Wayne Errington and Peter van Onselen. An extract appears on-line here under the far less spicy title of ‘Howard The Ideologue’

Errington and van Onselen note that Howard extinguished true liberals from the Liberal Party and sound a warning from the dark ages past of early 2006 that Howard’s suppression of moderates and championing of the ideological right within his party sharpened factional lines within the Liberals while concealing this division behind the whitewash of electoral success. They state that:

While this doesn’t seem to have done much harm in terms of the harmony and discipline of the party in government, a less successful federal Liberal Party may reap the whirlwind of the divisive practices of the Howard years.

And further:

The extent of damage caused by Howard’s factional warfare will only be known well after he has retired, and will likely cause some reassessment of his political skills

Got That Right

Well many congrats to Errington and van Onselen. The John Howard Decade Conference at elite feminist pinko bludger central ANU no doubt set international records for the consumption of taxpayer-funded Chardonnay, but also produced an Oracle for the future. Surveying the Liberal Party in advanced factional rabble mode must be causing Errington and van Onselen to emit quite a glow of professional satisfaction as their predictions settle nicely into history.

As the Lavartus Prodeo commenter, Katz, succintly put it “This is the end of the party that Ratty made.”
Nyet

Nick Minchin is the perpetuator of the Howard example of ideological refusenik. Nyet! No stolen generations; Nyet! No multiculturalism; Nyet! No acknowledgement of any latent Australian racism; and now Michin’s contrribution Nyet! No climate change.

Minchin, like Howard, is chained to the past but Howard’s chains were cultural, not political. Howard at least gave lip-service to Climate Change, but Minchin is dying in a ditch on this and could take the entire party with him. Psephological analysis of the electoral devestation to be wrought on a Climate Change Denialist Liberal Party shows that the only electoral survivors will be those on the ideological right – leaving essentially a rump of old men sailing surely into an ideologically blinkered, though iceberg-less, oblivion.

The Taste Of Stale Rump

My contention that the Liberals will be left as a ‘rump of old men’ is based on polling that shows it is men and non-capital city dwellers that are Australia’s AGW Denialists according to this poll and analysis by Possum with the 55 yrs plus demographic easily the Coalition’s best demographic at 47.5% voter share vs. 38% across all voters as of 1st December 2009.

Surveying the electoral prospects of an AGW denialist Liberal Party, The Australian poll and article of Nov. 28 bluntly forecast “Liberals Facing Election Rout” due to metropolitan Libs deserting a Climate Change Denialist Lib/Nat coalition.

Part of Howard’s legacy then, his championing of the ideological right, may end up contributing to the consignment of the Liberal Party to complete irrelevance – a DLP that will slowly peter out of existence. To be fair to Howard, he was smart enough to know that Climate Change was a vote-winner and he wouldn’t have nailed his party’s colours to such an unsteady mast as Climate Change Denialism as Minchin has so foolishly done.

So while Howard elevated the right to dominance, it is Senator Nick Minchin, who, unlike Howard, has never faced the electoral pressure of a MHR will bear the ultimate credit or blame for the fate of the Liberals over the next election and beyond. I hope he enjoys the view from the ivory tower of his unloseable no.1 Senate ticket position.

The Minister For Sucking Up To Big Business

While Mr. Minchin inhabits an ivory tower of electoral invulnerabilty, that ivory tower remains within instantaneous contact of any Multinational willing to donate a few (million) quid to the Liberal Party. The Australian today reported that Mr. Minchin is not only a Climate Change Denier but also a Tobacco/Passive Smoking Denialist.

In the mid-1990’s Senatorpor Minchin dissented from a Senate Committee opinion that Passive Smoking could cause Cancer, his ’scientific’ basis being a report sourced from the Tobacco Institute Of Australia.

The Senate Committe report said:

“Senator Minchin believes these claims (the harmful effects of passive smoking) are not yet conclusively proved. . . there is insufficient evidence to link passive smoking with a range of adverse health effects.”

But, reports The Australian:

Senator Minchin’s stance flew in the face of voluminous reports by the US Surgeon-General, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, documenting nicotine’s addictive hook and the serious health risks for people exposed to secondary cigarette smoke. Even the US and British tobacco companies acknowledged the health hazards from passive smoking in internal corporate research documents from the 1970s, obtained by the US congress and placed on the public record in 1995.

So Minchin is exposed as a patsy for fraudulent ’science’ produced by International Corporations with massive financial interest in the continuation of sociopathic consumption of poisons. The man is seriously deluded or simply not interested in truth.

A Great Day For New South Wales

Nathan Rees has sacked Joe Tripodi !!

NSW may actually have a government again instead of operating solely as a standing lunch order for Tripodi and his coterie of trough-swillers.

I sent an email to Mr. Rees:

Congratulations on your courageous decision to remove factional rights to Cabinet selections and your immediate Cabinet reshuffle.

You struck me as a decent bloke when you took over but the seeming imprisonment of yourself and your Cabinet colleagues to the will of Joe Tripodi and others of his ilk made me despair for this State.

I am very happy to be proved wrong.

That took guts.

I am sure the rest of the electorate will applaud the immediate effects of your decisions.

For those of you who don’t know yet Rees took a motion directly to the floor of the NSW ALP State Conference to wipe out factional rights to appoint Cabinet Ministers. He didn’t consult Caucus or the Ministers. He just went straight to the floor and called the vote. Brilliant!! Pantsed the lot of ‘em.

The rank and file supported the notion near unanimously and a few hours later Tripodi was sacked.

Strewth, half of Sussex St will be filled with paramedic teams resuscitating ALP Cabinet Ministers choking on Spring Rolls, or in Joe’s case Lobster Thermidore.

Well done Mr. Rees. On yer mate!

The Libs must be spewing…

Debnam’s Moral Hazzard

Not Feeling Well

A popular definition of insanity is ‘doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results’. In which case the NSW Liberal Party should start shovelling the Lithium in with their Weet-Bix.

Ex-Federal Senator and former ALP kingmaker Graham Richardson recently gave testimony at the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into circumstances surrounding the assassination of the colourful identity Michael McGurk.

This inquiry luxuriates in its formal name of Badgerys Creek Land Dealings And Planning Decisions Inquiry – General Purpose Standing Committe No. 4

Richo cheerfully gave evidence into how he lobbies NSW ALP govt. ministers and bureaucrats into land rezonings and other favours to make Richo’s property ‘developer’ mates (and himself) richer and fatter.

Such ‘lobbying’ is legal but serves no public purpose. It’s just another name for graft and nepotism and in my opinion should be outlawed.

Every Move You (May Or May Not) Make

Six weeks before Richo’s evidence, Liberal MP Brad Hazzard, Shadow Minister for Planning, issued a mildly hysterical press release alleging the nefarious Richo was centrally operating NSW Property zonings in cahoots with Joe Tripodi and Minister for Planning Kathleen Keneally, or perhaps without Keneally and just Richo and Tripodi running the lot.

On October 22, two days after Richo’s evidence Hazzard moved a motion against Keneally censuring her for her policy of deliberate ignorance in relation to Richo’s meetings with NSW Planning bureaucrats.

The relevant bits of Hazzard’s press release of Sept. 9, Minister Fails To Answer For Accountability follow:

Minister Keneally fail[ed] to answer what actions she has taken to ensure appropriateness of meetings [of NSW Planning bureaucrats] involving Graham Richardson
…
Graham Richardson also allegedly told media that he had met with Joe Tripodi who is the factional master of Kristina Keneally.
…
As Mr Richardson represents a number of developers, it raises the question as to who is pulling the strings on planning decisions in NSW.

The Thing

The thing is, Tripodi flatly denies ever speaking to Richo about Planning and there is no evidence that he has. The allegation is unprovable.

I wrote the Mr Hazzard asking for the source of his contention that Tripodi has been meeting with Richo. His advisor, Lee Dixon, wrote back saying:

I refer you to the Sydney Morning Herald article “Fixer Richo still working in the shadows” of February 6, 2009.

I also refer you to the Planning Ministers response to a question in Question Time on September 10 where she does not deny that meetings take place between Graham Richardson and Minister Tripodi.

The SMH article does not say that Richo met with Tripodi (though Richo did admit to one phone call to Tripodi) and Keneally’s silence also does not prove that Richo is meeting with Tripodi.

Tripodi flatly denies having any meeting at all with Graham Richardson in relation to zoning or planning. Here is Tripodi, completely relaxed, fielding questions directed at him by Trevor Khan of the National Party supposedly the Coalitions best Inquiry performer, on Sept. 14 at Budget Estimates for Ports and Waterways (pages 11-13)

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Minister, in the time that you have been Minister have you met with or had telephone discussions with Graham Richardson?
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: Yes, I have met Graham Richardson.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Have you met with him in his role as lobbyist?
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: He has never lobbied me on issues to the best of my recollection.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Have you met with him in his role as lobbyist?
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: No.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: When was the last time you had a discussion with Graham Richardson?
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: I do not remember a specific event. It was a fleeting conversation—hello, goodbye. I cannot remember when that occurred.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: When was the last time you had a telephone conversation with him?
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: A very long time.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: When was the last time you had—
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: Sorry, I have met Graham Richardson. I have said that to you. To the best of my recollection he never raised any issues with me relating to Mr Medich.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Have you met with Mr Richardson in your offices?
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: No. Not that I can recall for quite a long time. It would have been years ago if I had.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Have you met with Mr Richardson in Parliament House?
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: If I have it has not been for many years.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: For many years? How do you term “many years”? Is that one year, two years or three?
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: It is definitely more than one, so it would be at least two or three years. As I say, not within recent memory.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: In the last 12 months, how many times have you either spoken with or met with Mr Graham Richardson?
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: In the last how long?
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Twelve months.
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: Once or twice. It was hello and goodbye, crossing paths. Never had an organised meeting.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Does that include telephone conversations as well?
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: Yes. I have not had a telephone conversation with him for quite a long time.
(etc.)

Hazzard Has Nothing.

This is reminiscent of the 2007 NSW State Election, where then leader Peter Debnam made shocking allegations about the Minister Jack Debus in Parliament, for which he had no proof. This caused a sea-change in sentiment against the Libs who were polling well at the time.

Debnam from then on was regarded as a bit of a dill, a perception reinforced by his penchant for allowing himself to be interviewed wearing nothing but budgie-smugglers and by his assertion that ‘transport is not an election issue’ the day before a peak-hour train breakdown on the Harbour Bridge wreacked mayhem with city traffic (OK he was unlucky there).

NSW Labor Deserves The Flick

… and that mob of gluttonous nest-featherers deserved it years ago, but if Hazzard and the rest of them continue to make unprovable assertions they will mess it up again as in the last Election where Debnam went too far with his allegations.

The Libs are not yet polling that well that they are home free.

NSW Labor has plently of provable ‘form’. Stick to that, it should be plenty…or it should have been.

Nathan Rees, who struck me as a decent bloke from the time he came into office looks like he’s plucked up the considerable guts to take on Tripodi. I wish him well and if he succeeds he might get the NSW ALP back in.

Smoke Etc

In fairness to Hazzard, there’s more than a whiff of smoke around the Richo-Tripodi-Keneally troika. Keneally got her job due to the sponsorship of Tripodi, she deliberately chooses not to know or be informed about her bureaucrats meeting with Richo or anyone else’s parasitically motivated lunches, and Richo by his own admission has phoned Tripodi once. One can safely assume this is would be in relation to Planning/Zoning issues.

Hazzard calls Keneally the ‘Minister for Tripodi’ (to her outrage) which is true enough since the entire cabinet is the ‘Government for Tripodi’, surely the last person on earth you want within barge-poles distance of the public interest.

Here’s Joe and Richo in action, helping their rich mates the community yet again:

Mr Richardson told the Herald that he lobbied the head of the NSW Planning Department, Sam Haddad, last month over his refusal to rezone Mr Medich’s land. If rezoned, the land Mr Medich bought a decade ago for $3.5 million would be worth about $400 million.

Several months ago Mr Tripodi’s friend, the Fairfield jeweller Michael Daniele, took out an option for $5 million to buy the rural block owned by retired concreter Rinaldo ”Ron” Morlin. The land, which is worth less than half that amount, is estimated to be worth $25 million if rezoned.

Mr Daniele, who was praised in Mr Tripodi’s maiden speech to Parliament, is the sole director of Mr Tripodi’s private company, New Arm Investments. Mr Tripodi has previously declared his stake in the company on his pecuniary interests register. Corporate records show that the minister resigned as a director in 2005.

Mr Morlin, 73, confirmed Mr Daniele had taken out an option a few months ago. When asked if the option was worth $5 million, he replied, ”Mamma mia, you know too much about it.’

But you need proof to support specific allegations. Debnam didn’t have it and neither does Hazzard.

For his part, Richo says, I think quite plausibly, that he does not actually need to meet with Tripodi or any Ministers to get his back-room deals done. From the SMH ‘Fixer’ article of Feb 6th

“I don’t have to talk to ministers, I can get things done through other means,” Mr Richardson said.

Asked to expand, Mr Richardson said he did not have to reveal any such thing.

“Often it’s better not to talk to them [ministers] because if I do, people like you want to make something of it,” he said.

“I have known people in the bureaucracy for years. I have lots of contacts, lots of ways to press for things. I can get done what I need to get done…”

In the meantime, if anyone can source any article where Richo says he has met with Tripodi or vice-versa then I would be interested to read it.

US Creationists And Climate Change Denialism

What’s With Them Rednecks ?

It is occasionally noted during discussions of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) that Creationists are a stronghold of AGW Denialism. For example, The Guardian (UK) ran an article in April 2009 entitled “Just What Is It With Evangelical Christians And Global Warming” citing a survey from the Pew Forum On Religion and Public Life which showed only 34% of US White Evangelical Christians accept the AGW hypothesis.

Here is an extract from the Pew survey of 1,502 Americans, which has a sampling error of plus/minus 3%

Percentage of Americans who believe in AGW:

Total Sample: Yes 47% No 45% Don’t Know 8%
Non-Religious: Yes 58% No 35% Don’t Know 7%
White Mainline Protestants: Yes 48% No 44% Don’t Know 8%
White Evangelicals: Yes 34% No 55% Don’t Know 11%

What Is The Correlative Factor ?

Given that Pew found that the rate of acceptance of AGW amongst the Evangelicals was significantly lower than that of the general population and in view of the fact that Creationists would be more strongly respresented in this group than the others, it is fair to assume that the correlation between Creationism and anti-AGW exists. This being the case, what is the correlative factor ? What is it about US Creationists that predisposes them to reject AGW ?

The Wall Street Journal of Sept. 28, 2007 ran an interesting article, “Split Over Global Warming Widens Among Evangelicals”. In this article the views of pro- and anti-AGW Evangelicals are canvassed and the following anti-AGW viewpoints/rationales given:

- Senior US Evangelicals believe that AGW distracts clergy/believers from their core responsibility to elucidate Jesus’ message. A similar argument has been advanced by Cardinal Pell of the Catholic Church in Australia.
- Theological reasons advanced against AGE by certain Evangelicals.
- White Evangelicals are overwhelmingly Republicans hence toe party line.
- Conservative inertia. Southern Baptist Convention cites Climate Change not settled among scientists. 50 years ago refused to acknowledge Racism as an issue.

In my opinion the correlative factor between Creationists and anti-AGW is that of political allegiance to the Republican Party, the third factor cited in the Wall St. Journal article.

Creationist and Republican

The Religious Right is a constituency of the Republican Party. In the 2008 US General Election 73% of Evangelicals voted Republican according to the Pew Research Centre in this article, Voting Religiously

Republicans, Republican Pastors and AGW

The Republican Party is haven and wellspring for anti-AGW ideology.
Environment Magazine in Sept/Oct 2008 carried an article entitled “A Widening Gap: Democratic and Republican Views On Climate Change”. In data, data sourced from Gallup Polls showed that only 40% of Republicans subscribed to AGW compared to 72% of Democrats.

In a similar vein, Pew Research Centre in Oct. 2009 found that belief amongst AGW is very low amongst Republicans. In April 2008, Pew found only 27% of Republicans subscribe to AGW, dropping to 18% in Oct. 2009. The comparitive figures for Democrats were 58% and 50%.

Despite the disparity between the Gallup and Pew figures, both polls make clear that Republicans are far less likely to subscribe to AGW than Democrats.

To summarize the Pew Data:
27% of Republicans believed in AGW as of April 2008
18% of Republicans believed in AGW as of October 2009
34% of Evangelicals (mostly Creationists) believed in AGW as of April 2009.
73% of Evangelicals vote Republican.

In general terms then: Creationist correlates to Republican correlates to anti-AGW.

Some hard data which supports the above correlative chain comes from Lifeway Research, an arm of the Southern Baptist Convention. They polled 1,002 pastors and found that the more conservative their political beliefs, the more likely they were to reject AGW. The research appears in their article LifeWay Research studies global warming beliefs among Protestant pastors

When the pastors’ personal beliefs are factored in, the differences grow even more pronounced. Among pastors who consider their political ideology liberal or very liberal, 93 percent agree that global warming is real and man-made, and 79 percent of self-perceived moderates agree. Among those who identify themselves as conservative or very conservative politically, however, agreement is only 37 percent and 16 percent respectively

Disseminating Republican AGW Denialism To Creationists

The Religious Right (RR) has a very effective network of radio and television stations through which it can disseminate its opinions to members and sympathizers. These TV and Radio networks are controlled by the older members of the RR who are more conservative and more pro-Republican than the younger members.

AGW represents a massive challenge to the economies of the West, addicted as they are to chronic over-consumption. For the Republican Party, with its array of prominent financiers and backers from Big Oil, AGW represents a second and even more immediately serious challenge which is how to maintain the legitimacy of unlimited Oil Production and Consumption. AGW represents a threat to the power, money, authority and thus the very survival of the Republican Party. These challenges can only be met by de-legitimizing AGW.

Fissures In The Religious Right Over AGW

From the Pew figures it can be seen that Evangelicals, and hence Creationists, are less likely to reject AGW than the average Republican. (34% vs. 22% approx.)

During the 2008 US Federal Election campaign, fissures in the Religious Right began to appear as younger members began to assert their agreement with the AGW hypothesis and pressure Evangelical organisations to adopt AGW platforms and practices.

The younger Creationists turned to the Biblical concept of ’stewardship’, a centuries old cross-denominational position on mankind’s relationship to the environment to support their notion of ‘Creation Care’ and argue for an AGW-friendly agenda in the RR media and secretariat.

For Senior Evangelics acceptance of AGW represented a second-order heresy of ‘turning Democrat’ the party not only of Al Gore, whose entire political career was predicated around the environment and Climate Change, but also associated in their minds with Gay Rights and Abortion.

Those that control the RR, with their established links to Republican politicians and centres of influence use theri position and control of RR resources to broadcast their anti-AGW opinions at the expense of pro-AGW opinions to the Evangelical rank-and-file.

The Contempt Of The Left For The Bible And Christianity

It is sometimes posited by left-leaning journalists and bloggers that the Creationists are anti-AGW for theological reasons: that Creationists believe the Bible teaches anti-AGW, or that Creationists are simply anti- or non-scientific because the Bible, itself putatively an anti-scientific document is the arbiter of truth for them.

Such leftists group Creationism and anti-AGW as equally non-scientific beliefs. Creationists are held to be innocently or defiantly ignorant of good science. A contempt for Creationists is apparent among many leftists, prominent in this contempt being the general refusal of Creationists to accept the Theory Of Evolution as incontrovertible fact. This contemptuous tone is very evident in the Guardian article cited above.

The contempt of leftists for Creationists leads them to attempt to locate the reasons for Creationist anti-AGW sentiment in the Bible, a document leftists love to mock as being non-scientific, not least because it is the source for the Creationist position.

The desire of leftists to mock and ridicule the Bible thus causes them to overlook the most obvious reason for US Creationists being anti-AGW. They are Republicans.

Theological ‘Proofs’ For Anti-AGW

To be fair to leftists, it is absolutely true that theological ‘proofs’ are used by certain prominent Creationists to argue against AGW.

But the quality of these ‘proofs’ is very poor, suggesting that theological argument is being coerced from the Scripture by certain Creationsists in order to to buttress a political (anti-AGW) position, rather than being derived inductively from Scripture. These Creationists are trying to force the Bible to say something that it really doesn’t say.

In short, anti-AGW interperetations are being retro-fitted onto Scripture by those with motive to coerce such interperetations from the Bible.

A theological ‘proof’ for anti-AGW is very palatable to the senior RR movers and shakers as it allows them to reconcile their Political and Theological ideologies into a coherent whole and stave off leadership and/or policy challenges from younger members.

Consequently, senior RR members allow such ‘proofs’ airtime or print space and leftists gleefully pounce on these theologically impoverished proofs to support their own bias, that the Bible is anti-Scientific and to give them further excuse to ridicule Scripture and Christians (not that they generally need much encouagement).

But again, to be fair, most leftists do not have sufficient Biblical literacy to properly evaluate theological argument.

Theology and Anti-AGW

The concept of Dominion as expressed by certain Creationists to theologically disprove AGW relies on a highly innovative understanding of Dominion. It is in fact so ‘innovative’ that I suspect that it has been invented expressly to cover the proponents real objections to AGW which I would say is that it challenges the rapacious corporate-government ‘free market’ paradigm beloved of the Republican Party.

The US Evangelical organisation Cornwall Alliance, a faith-based ant-AGW advocacy group, strongly infer that the Dominion of Humankind over Earth means that Humans can only ever be an agent for improvement in the natural environment and never an agent of destruction.

Cornwall, quoted in the Guardian article say:

Many people mistakenly view humans as principally consumers and polluters rather than producers and stewards. Consequently, they ignore our potential, as bearers of God’s image, to add to the earth’s abundance… Our position, informed by revelation and confirmed by reason and experience, views human stewardship that unlocks the potential in creation for all the earth’s inhabitants as good. Humanity alone of all the created order is capable of developing other resources and can thus enrich creation, so it can properly be said that the human person is the most valuable resource on earth… While some environmental concerns are well founded and serious, others are without foundation or greatly exaggerated… Some unfounded or undue concerns include fears of destructive manmade global warming, overpopulation, and rampant species loss.

The concept that humans can only ever exercise a positive effect on the natural environment is not taught in scripture. What is taught is that it is God’s mandate and gift to humanity that we, of all creatures, have the primary responsibility for the care of the planet and the most capacity to enjoy its beauty and wonder, as it was prepared very much for mankind’s enjoyment, but not solely for that purpose, as other scriipture goes on to tell us.

Other creationists teach, as did for example John Shimkus, a Republican House Of Representatives member testifying before the US House SubCommitte On Energy And The Environment in March 2009, that since God is sovereign, only He can destroy the planet, not humanity, thus AGW cannot be real.

Shimkus also ingeniously posited that AGW cannot be real because it would cause a second Noah’s Flood, which God said He would not do. This ignores the fact that God is not causing AGW (note that ‘A’).

Theologically Agnostic To Climate

Finally on climate and theology, it has been sometimes posited that Evangelicals are anti-mitigationist because they believe in The Rapture (thus it doesn’t matter what happens to the climate) or because they are looking forward to the destruction of the planet beause that’s when Jesus will return.

It is plain that the first belief should not be correlated to anti-AGW as it renders the entire debate moot, while the second could easily lead to a pro-AGW position because it makes Jesus’ return more likely to be sooner.

To Summarize

Creationism correlates to an anti-AGW belief because Creationists are Republicans.

Creationists are less likely than most Republicans to be anti-AGW because traditional Christian concepts of stewardship undermine the Republican position that humans are not responsible for Climate Change.

Theological arguments in support of anti-AGW exist but are theologically impoverished. Their role is to reconcile the political beliefs of Republicans with the Bible, but do not successfully do so.

The Author Speaks

I contacted the author of the Guardian article, Leo Hickman, and said I felt he had left out the obvious fact that Evangelicals are Republicans. He was kind enough to reply and said:

Not sure why I didn’t make that direct reference at the time but I think perhaps I felt many would make that link instinctively.

In other words, its obvious.

In which case the opening sentence of Mr. Hickman’s article just looks more like he’s enjoying putting the boots into Christians due to standard leftist antipathy. That sentence:

Just what is it with evangelical Christians and global warming? I
doubt we’re ever going to get a satisfying answer to this long-running
question…

So Why Do Creationists Vote Republican ?

Evangelicals have identified with the Republican Party since the 1960’s. Prior to that time they were politically disengaged, but several issues coincided in the 60’s, to make Evangelicals identify with the Republican Party as the party of traditional Christian morality.

These isues were the advent of a the Catholic presendential candidate, John F. Kennedy, fielded by the Democrats, the rise of the 1960’s counter-culture with its ‘progressive’ social views and libertarian sexual morality and Supreme Court decisions legalizing abortion and banning prayer in schools.

This identification solidified during Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign and presidency such that by 1984 the formation of the Evangelicals as a Republican Party constituency was completed in the form we know today.

While, the Evangelical vote is overwhelmingly Republican, it is not monolithic. African American Evangelicals (15% of all Evangelicals) vote Democrat because they place jobs and the economy of higher electoral importance than Abortion and issues of traditional morality.

As noted above, in recent times the younger Evangelical vote has fissured from the more conservative older generation. The younger generation of evangelicals did not favour the Iraq War and are AGW-friendly. Only 45% of younger Evangelicals were in favour of the Bush administration during 2008.

In general, however, Evangelicals vote Republican because they see the Republican Party as caring more for issues of concern to them. A survey commissioned by the Barna Group in January 2008 and reported at World Net Daily found:

Evangelicals’ top concern – by a wide margin – was abortion (94 percent). This was followed by the personal debt of Americans (81 percent), the content of television and movies (79 percent), homosexual activists (75 percent), and gay and lesbian lifestyles (75 percent,)”

So, Why Are Evangelicals Sceptical About Global Warming ?

From, Evangelicals Go “Green” with Caution, Barna Group, Sept. 2008

In particular, evangelicals express the greatest caution regarding their perception that media has hyped the story (65%), their belief that cyclical climate change is not primarily caused by human activity (62%), and their concern that proposed solutions would hurt the poor, especially in other countries (60%).

While Evangelicals enunciate specific objections to the AGW or mitigationist view , the overall picture given by history and data is that the Evangelicals associate the AGW hypothesis with the Democratic Party and its legions of godless liberals.

AGW is perceived as a Democrat cause along with Gay Rights, Abortion, and the banning of prayer. On the other hand, the party that Evangelicals identify with and trust, the Republican Party is anti-AGW. The specific reasons given by Evangelicals to oppose AGW are Republican Party propaganda points.

Sure, Evangelicals do not say ‘I oppose AGW because the Republican Party say so’, but that is in effect the case.

The Basic Issue Is Trust

…and Evangelicals do not trust the Democratic Party.

An evangelical couple from Texas, Katharine Heyhoe and Andrew Fairley who are respectively a climate change scientist and a pastor have specifically identified lack of trust as central in Evangelical resistance to the AGW hypothesis.

They have wrotten a book aimed at answering questions commonly put to them by the Evangelical community.

When it comes to conservative Christians, I think the real question is who can we trust on this issue?” Farley said. “The scientist who has opposed us in the past, perhaps on issues such as evolution versus creation? Can we trust the local radio talk-show host on conservative radio who seems to be vehemently opposed to the idea that climate change is happening and speaks out quite passionately? Should I trust my local pastor who has a B-minus in high school biology?”

Many of the questions put by Evangelicals are recycled from the arguments of conservative celebrities who act wittingly or not as Republican Party functionaries

“Glenn Beck is saying this, Laura Ingraham is saying that, Rush Limbaugh is saying this, and these people are well-respected in conservative communities, so where are these talk-show hosts wrong and how can you show that they’re wrong with data, not slick talk?” [Fairley] said.

Older Evangelicals will not abandon the Republican Party while it is their personal Hezbollah (Party Of God), nor will they abandon their mistrust of the godless Democratic Party.

While these factors are salient and the Republican Party opposes AGW, so will older Evangelicals.

But the younger generation is moving on and this is fuelled in part by the Bible because its natural reading on the environment supports an ecology-friendly approach to living. The tortured, coerced and debased Dominion Theology used by Republican Party loyalists in the Evangelical movement falls to pieces in the face of the genuine article.

Is There Anybody Graham Richardson Does Not Know ?

Dog Bites Man

I found it utterly unsurprising that Graham Richardson was connected in the web of contacts centering on the colourful Michael McGurk.

That Will Be $264,000 Please

What services is Graham Richardson, Lobbyist, offering his Property Developer clients, just one of whom has paid him more than a quarter of a million dollars in recent times, and his contacts in the ALP ?

Well it’s cash, both ways.

Richardson uses his contacts in the NSW ALP to engineer Property Development approvals, rezonings whatever. Once the NSW ALP State Kleptocracy approves the rezoning, Richardson is paid. Later on some donations find their way into Sussex St. coffers.

As The Daily Telegraph reported:

He [Richardson] chirpily reported to the committee that he does advise clients to donate to the Labor Party and the Liberal Party although he was unable to really explain why his clients were donating hundreds of thousands to NSW Labor but meagre amounts to the Liberals.

Why does the ALP use Richo ? Contacts, does not keep records, utterly discreet, trusted by the ALP.

Richo is untouchable. He fronts a Parliamentary Inquiry, tells us how he….does business….and swans off laughing his considerable guts out.

The Naked Latte

As the perceptive Pablo noted in this Lavartus Prodeo thread, the Planning Department bureaucrats who attend the court of Richo at various Leichhardt coffee shops are also ex-ALP Ministerial personal staff or aspiring ALP candidates. This fact reveals a further layer of nepotism in the ugly charade of government perpetrated by the Tripodi/Obeid NSW Inc mutant spawn of Bob Carr….

…which the current NSW Planning Minister Kristina Kenneally only fosters by studiously ignoring any and all meetings of her Planning staff with the voracious Richo, thus allowing the racket to flourish. And Ms. Kenneally was championed into her position by (who else) Joe Tripodi.

Richo, it appears, was on the outer when Frank Sartor was Planning Minister. As the links in this post above show, Richo’s contacts with Planning department have ballooned in line with his bank balance since Sartor gave way to Ms. Kenneally as Planning Minister in Tripodi’s last reshuffle…all of which taken together shows Kenneally is a cipher for Tripodi, which means that Richo and Tripodi have a friendship/business relationship/mutual enrichment society in operation.

Here’s the NSW power relationship succintly put in an excellent article by David Penberty Of The Australian, “Declare state of civil war, kill the factions”

When Rees took over from Morris Iemma last year he used his first press conference to promise a “fresh start” and “a red-hot go”, then, at his second presser, said pathetically that he’d been given a list of names by caucus to assemble the front bench and gave Tripodi a promotion.

Tripodi is running NSW. Heaven help us.

The Government We Deserve

I voted Debnam last NSW State election. Even though he was an unimpressive candidate, Bob Carr’s horrendous legacy, the current NSW ALP, run by Joe Tripodi, was too disgusting to contemplate.

During the election campaign, Stateline reported Debenham ‘does not have the confience of business’. Only following the disgraceful Wollongong Council/State ALP/Property Developer scandal did the general public know what that really meant. Richo is feeding off the same rotten system.

Al Gore Is Not A Hypocrite

Are You Eating Your Fox News ?

My Dad, mindful of my political health, wanted me to check on some things about Climate Change that Al Gore said. Specifically, that a British Court had ruled that Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was incorrect in nine specific assertions and that Al Gore was a personal hypocrite on Carbon usage. In this way, Dad hoped to cleanse me of wrong-thinking on Climate.

Broadly Accurate

Here’s an article I found in ‘The Times’ of London Internet Edition which talks about a court case in which a British judge was asked to rule on whether Al Gore’s film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was ‘scientific’ and could be shown to school-children.

The judge found that:

1) What Al Gore said was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of Climate Change.

In other words the judge agreed that Climate Change occurs through man-generated Carbon pollution (car exhaust, coal-fired Power Stations etc.)

2) But the judge also said that some of Gore’s claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of Al Gore’s political thesis”.

So, according to the judge, Al Gore is basically correct and anthropegenic Climate Change is real, though some of his specific claims were exaggerated. That means that the British judgement supports the climate change thesis in direct opposition to how my Dad heard the story which is that the British judgement contradicts the Climate Change thesis.

People Who Live In 20 Room Mansions Shouldn’t Fly Around In Private Jets

Dad also wanted me to look into claims that Al Gore was a hypocrite because he wantonly consumes Carbon as Boy George and Ultravox once consumed eyeliner.

I found that there is no evidence that Gore is a hypocrite in regard to his personal Carbon usage. Here’s an article that I found summarized below:

Al Gore’s home is a huge mansion. It used to use 12 times more energy than the average home in Nashville, where the Gore’s live, but it used no more energy than other houses of similar size in the same area.

However, the Gores purchase Carbon Offsets, i.e. pay people to plant trees to consume CO2. By doing this, the Gores’ nett carbon footprint is zero.

Since 2007, the Gores have remodelled their home, installing solar panels, rainwater tanks, geothermal heating and energy efficient light globes. They also pay a premium on the energy bill ($432 per month) to source some of their electrical power from renewable energy. This would equate to about one-sixth of their electricity bill if this bloke’s calculations can be believed.

Another specific claim is that Gore recklessly guzzles Carbon by flying around the world in a private jet (perhaps simultaneously bathing in a spa of bubbling petrochemicals and quaffing raw Diesel from Crystal Bowls).

First, Gore does not own a Private Jet. He flies on regular commercial flights most of the time. However, he is a former US Vice-President and thus receives occasional death threats. On these occasion, or when his schedule is so tight as to demand it, he flies in a private charter jet and for these flights purchases carbon offests.

Finally Dad claimed that Gore always leaves all the lights in his house on. The only thing I could find about this was that he did not turn ALL his mansion lights off during Earth Hour one year. OK he probably should have, but this is nitpicking. He did turn off his major lights. And at least he purchases Carbon Offsets.

Overall, given the above I would say Al Gore is not a hypocrite. If everyone did what the Gores did our homes would be more energy efficient, More use would be made of renewable energy and there would be more forests and trees due to extensive purchase of Carbon Offsets.

Yet Again

So once again, data bought to my attention by a Climate Change sceptic actually supports the climate change thesis.

The Power Of A Good Lie

I think the smears against Gore, guilelessly repeated by my Dad, are a good example of the power of propaganda. A few omissions here, a few Chinese Whispers there and by the time middle-class Australia hears about it, Al Gore is transformed from Patron Saint Of Climate Change into to pint-size planetary disaster, a kind of Godzilla-sized sentient chimney belching CO2 from behind the controls of a personal coal-fired 747. In short, a scarlet hypocrite, who must therefore have his own secret agenda for personal aggrandisement, power, money and/or fame.

Probably Gore did choose the worst case scenarios to deliberately alarm us into thinking about Climate Change. In doing so he has provided fodder for his enemies, but the additional and unrelenting smear campaign directed against him shows that someone, somewhere has a lot to lose by acknowledging, as the British Judge did, that anthropogenic Climate Change is real.

Is Gore Just A Bitter Old Loser ?

Getting back to Judge Burton, he commented that, in his opinion An Inconvenient Truth, while broadly accurrate, was also a vehicle for “alarmism and exaggeration in support of Al Gore’s political thesis”.

I decided to watch An Inconvenient Truth for myself and see. I was pleasantly surprised. I had been expecting an hysterical rant, but instead witnessed a brilliant and gently-paced presentation.

Judge Burton is partly correct. Gore’s bitterness at the Republican Party is certainly tangible, though not overstated. Gore makes it clear that he has spent his political career patiently advocating for the planet on the basis of sound and obvious science. Against him all the way have been the Idiots and Monsters (my characterisation) of the Republican Party.

Gore submits two soundbites as milestone markers of his struggle: Reagan opposing environmental regulation by stating that the bulk of air pollution is caused by trees (Reagan said: ”Approximately 80 percent of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation so let’s not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources.”
‘), and Bush Senior lampooning Gore for championing Spotted Owls over Jobs. It is plain in the film that Gore regards both comments imbecilic, as I concur.

Additionally, of course, Gore had the Presidency of the US denied him at the General Election of 2000 in controversial circumstances.

So yes, Gore’s bitterness at being thwarted and stalled by the GOP is quite apparrent in the film and Judge Burton has picked up on that. But the film makes its case well. Gore’s resentments do not dominate the film even though he makes it plain who the bad guys are.

In return I think that the intensity of the viciousness directed against Gore by Republicans reflects to some degree their misgivings at the way Gore was denied the Presidency. Republicans feel the need to denigrate Gore and portray him as a deluded moron in order to justify their Election Victory (though not on the popular vote) of 2000.