I had heard about it. I have even really stories that confirmed it really did exist. But even in my wildest dreams I never imagined that it could possibly be real (and quite this bad).

The carbon price is going to lead to the great hairdresser collapse of 2012. Just you wait. Historians will be writing about it for centuries. They will write of the once great cities built on back of fashionable haircuts, leg waxing and tanning that crumbled as their salon economy was crushed by the weight of the carbon tax and the evil socialist government. Civilization as we know it will fall thanks to the bowl cuts and poor quality hair foils that will start flooding the streets. THE VERY FABRIC OF SOCIETY WILL TEAR APART AROUND US AND WE WILL ALL FALL INTO A FIERY PIT OF MAGMA AND BURN SLOWLY TO DEATH.

Or… not.

Turn some fucking lights off and open a window, Angela. Perhaps hair could dry out naturally instead of blowdrying with every single cut. Unplug your straighteners when you’re not using them. And if that doesn’t work, and your power bills still rise “over a thousand dollars in the first year”, I reckon you could maybe knock the price of a cut and colour up a few bucks.

Maybe, just fucking maybe, you will be okay.

And then:

“For no environmental benefit”

Get. Fucked.

And the Australian Trade and Industry Alliance can do the same.

Australia is the largets per capita emitter of greenhouse gasses in the world: if we don’t have a moral responsibility to reduce our carbon emissions, who do you think does?

You can’t, as your website claims, “support action on climate change” and then go running around with your hands in the air screaming “BUT NOTHING WE DO WILL HELP ANYWAY” at the same time. Any policy that reduces greenhouse emissions is going to make a lot of high polluting companies less profitable in the short term. It happens when you reorganise a business. But last I checked, the mineral and energy companies were doing okay, so I’m sure you will find a way to deal with it.

But don’t claim you support action on climate change because you fucking well don’t. You could start reducing emissions tomorrow if you wanted to. You’ve had plenty of time to do it, but you haven’t, so now you get the stick.

You avoided the stick last year when your self-interested bullshit took down a Prime Minister. Who knows, you might bring down another PM with more of your self-interested bullshit.

And thanks you groups like The Australian Trade and Industry Alliance, we’ll get fucking Tony Abbott.

Then will the fuckers be happy?

No. They’ll need more tax cuts lest economic armageddon reigns down upon us. They’ll need more skilled labour provided to them free of fucking charge by the tax payer.

Train your own fucking workforce, you cretins. We’re already giving you our mineral wealth.

And maybe you can start polluting less too. Seeing as we’re giving you our land, maybe we can keep the air.

Have at it!

Greenhouse gas levels are one-third higher than before the Industrial Revolution, and higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years. As a result, global temperatures have risen 0.7 degrees celsius over the past century and continue to rise. The last decade was the world’s hottest on record, warmer than the 1990s which were in turn warmer than the 1980s. In fact, globally 2010 was the equal warmest year on record, tied with 2005 and 1998. 2010 is the thirty-fourth consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th Century average. In Australia, average temperatures have risen almost one degree since 1910,and each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the one before.

That warming is real. Its consequences are real. And it will change our lives in real and practical ways. More extreme bushfire conditions and droughts. Falling crop yields. Loss of species. Increased cyclone intensity. More days of extreme heat. Coastal flooding as sea levels rise. Bleaching of our coral reefs. And a substantial decline in alpine snow cover. Indeed, Professor Garnaut’s latest report indicates that the need to act is greater than ever. And the scientific consensus is stronger than ever.

Given these realities, I ask who I’d rather have on my side: Alan Jones, Piers Akerman and Andrew Bolt. Or the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science, the Bureau of Meteorology, NASA, the US National Atmospheric Administration, and every reputable climate scientist in the world.

(My bold)

Continue to call out the trolls. Continue to do it loudly and publicly.

I don’t want to patronise anyone, but earlier today I asked my wife what air was made up of. My wife is a university-educated woman but she couldn’t tell me the gasses that were in air. I reckon she’s like most people who don’t really know that sort of thing. Anyway, air is made up of — and excuse me for rounding the percentages here — about 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen. The nitrogen is a useless, filler gas, and oxygen is the stuff we need. There are also a bunch of trace gasses like argon. There’s also carbon dioxide, which is the gas we’re told is responsible for global warming, and it’s found in air in about the concentration of a tiny fraction of a percent. That’s air.

Now, when we breath in we take in a lungful of air — 80% nitrogen, 20% oxygen, and a range of trace gasses including carbon dioxide — and our bodies use about a quarter of the oxygen. When we breath out can you guess how much carbon dioxide is in our breath? Remember, only a fraction of a percent of this global warming gas went it. Well, we breath out 4% carbon dioxide. That’s right, our bodies actually produce carbon dioxide which we’re told causes global warming. There are seven billion of us on the planet, each of us breathing ever five seconds, or three seconds for children, and each time we breath we produce carbon dioxide.

And you know what? I’ve never heard a single scientist talk about this.

Flushed with pride after pwning the world’s entire scientific community, Oldfield took a call:

Caller: I just think that if they come here they shouldn’t try to make it like it was at home.

Oldfield: Yeah, well you’d think that if things were so bad at home, and things are so much better here — which is why 99.999999% of them apply to come here in the first place — then they wouldn’t want to change this place once they got here.

Caller: Yep. This is not a Muslim country and they should stop trying to make it one.

Oldfield: Well, I don’t think that it’s so much Muslim culture as it is Middle East culture, and people shouldn’t come over here and try to build Middle East culture in the place of Australian culture.

Then Oldfield brought a news story to the attention of his listeners:

Four men have been charged over a credit card skimming scam. Three of them, it turns out, are boat arrivals who are now either citizens or have permanent residency. The government says that its vetting procedures are sound but obviously they’re not.

I just can’t believe this because what we have here is a case of three people accepting Australia’s compassion and then turning around and biting the hand that feeds them.

And finally, Pauline Hanson’s ex-colleague took a call and jumped on the dump button.

Oldfield: We have [caller] on the line. Hello, [caller].

[Caller] (with thick accent): Hello, David. I just wanted to talk about the Jews killing the Muslims.

Oldfield: Um, well, we won’t be allowing that call. We can’t broadcast racism. Racism is when you make sweeping perjorative statements about one group of people instead of restricting those statements to only those individuals for whom those statements might apply.

Got that?

The doctors were unfamiliar with Sarah’s condition, but further investigation showed she had measles. The delayed diagnosis wasn’t due to any shortcomings in the National Health Service, but because a vaccine had all but wiped out the disease and none of the doctors, including experienced pediatricians, had actually seen it before. Luckily Sarah had that vaccination, as part of the Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) injection, and while she showed the symptoms she never suffered the full effects, which could be deadly.

So why did my daughter get measles in a first-world city, two decades after a vaccination had all but eradicated it? The BBC’s policy of giving all issues and views equal measure regardless of their credibility had something to with it.

In the late 1990s a report was published in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet, which claimed that the combination of the three drugs in the MMR vaccine (to lessen the amount of injections for babies) was linked to children with autism. The report by Andrew Wakefield was released just months before Sarah caught the measles but, as we witnessed, its impact on scaring parents out of vaccinating their children and bringing a dormant disease back to life was immediate. Wakefield was later proven to be a dodgy bastard and The Lancet retracted the article in 2007.

What does this have to do with the BBC? Because it’s charter meant it had to give crackpots like Wakefield and his believers equal time to sprout their bullshit against scientists and doctors who, backed with years of research could demonstrate that there was absolutely no link between MMR and autism. Scare campaigns work brilliantly when children are involved, so as long as the issue was discussed parents had to agonise over whether or not to vaccinate their children at all, often with with tragic consequences.

Which makes the above a rather long, but fair analogy in the context of the ridiculous speech by ABC Chairman Maurice Newman, who said ABC journalists needed to give more time to climate change sceptics.

Newman, a self-confessed climate-change agnostic, claimed there is a “groupthink” among ABC journalists on the side of climate change believers, which had led to the sceptic point of view being pushed away and not given an equal airing by the public broadcaster.

Putting this appalling insult to the ABC’s editorial integrity aside, Newman’s call to give climate deniers a say regardless of their credentials and evidence is alarming. I’m all for giving opposing views equal measure, but it’s credibility that needs to be quantified rather than time. A 15-minute interview with a highly renowned climate scientist pointing to evidence of global warming on Catalyst should be taken to task, but not by Andrew Bolt on Insiders.

 The reason why the view supporting climate change gets more of a run on the ABC is because there are relatively few climate change denialists whose views are based on hard data that’s widely supported within the scientific community. This doesn’t seem to matter to Newman, who wants stories about the impact of climate change to be offset by zealous viewpoints by the likes of Bolt and Lord Monkton, who base their arguments on selected facts and figures. The only reason they get any credibility at all is because, as shown during the MMR debacle, people will believe what they want to believe as long as there’s at least one fool to justify it.

Behold the graphs I made below:

This means that in the whole scheme of things, people don’t care what Andrew Bolt has to say about Global Warming.

This means that in the whole scheme of things, people don’t care what Andrew Bolt has to say about Climate Change.

This means that Andrew Bolt is almost as fat as Al Gores.

This means that in the whole scheme of things, no one cares about Andrew Bolt and even less care about “Climategate” whatever “Climategate” was.

Next week I will explain Climate Science to a Climate Scientist.

Citizens Electoral Council of Australia
Media Release 1st of December 2009

Queen flexes muscle to demand Copenhagen genocide treaty

Just as the climate change hoax is about to derail completely, Her Britannic Majesty herself, Queen Elizabeth II, whose family spawned the modern green genocide movement*, has pulled rank on the Commonwealth group of nations—her repackaged “Empah”—to demand they deliver a treaty at Copenhagen.

*(Royal Consort HRH the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip, founded the World Wide Fund for Nature [WWF] in 1961, as a charity vehicle for his fellow European aristocrats and their corporations to finance green movements around the world to stop economic development and reduce human population.)

The Queen’s extraordinary intervention smacks of real desperation—she knows her family’s long-term survival as modern feudal monarchs depends on her carefully-cultivated image as a powerless, quaint figurehead, so the stakes must be high for her to feel the need to flex her considerable muscle, which is derived from her royal “Prerogative Powers”, which include the powers:

• to declare war;
• choose and appoint all commanders and officers by land, sea, and air;
• convoke, adjourn, remove, and dissolve parliament;
• dismiss the prime minister and choose whom she will as the replacement;
• choose and appoint all judges, councillors, officers of state, magistrates;
• bestow all public honours, including creating a peerage for membership of the House of Lords or bestowing an order of chivalry;
• conclude treaties;
• initiate criminal proceedings, and bestow pardons;
• and many others, which she has shown in the past she is willing to use, notably when she sacked the Whitlam government in 1975, whose “buy back the farm” policies were a threat to her own control of Australia’s raw materials wealth exercised through her ownership of Rio Tinto.

For the British imperialists, what is at stake if the global warming fraud fails, is the continuity of empire itself, in the form of globalisation. To survive in the face of the global economic collapse, nations are reasserting their national sovereignty, backing away from the free trade and deregulated finance policies that are the cornerstones of British imperialism.

(In a world of total free trade, freed from government regulations and protections, it is money which dictates terms, not governments, and that money is directed from the City of London—that is the British Empire. When nations reassert their sovereign laws to exert national controls over money, the City of London—the Empire—is defeated.)

“Climate change” promised to be the mechanism to both further globalisation, in the form of binding international treaties, global government institutions, and a new financial architecture centred on carbon emissions trading, as well as to deliver on the Prince Philip-led goal of human population reduction, by denying nations the right to develop high-density energy sources and high-technology primary and secondary industries, thus condemning them to poverty, squalor and mass death.

In the countdown to Copenhagen, that plan derailed: China and India refused to bow to the treaty’s demands to slash agriculture (China, India, South Africa and Brazil issued a joint declaration in Beijing on 27th November, promising to walk out of Copenhagen to protect their national interests); hackers or whistleblowers exposed the actually deliberate scientific fraud by the world’s leading so-called climate scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU); and in Australia, which under British agent Kevin Rudd was appointed to take the lead on global action on climate change, the parliament deadlocked, and was unable to pass the key climate change legislation, the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which Rudd was hoping to parade as “action” at Copenhagen.

This is the context in which the Queen herself has intervened, but a revolution is underway: instead of the usual grovelling acquiescence she’d expect, aside from the biggest nation in her Commonwealth, India, lining up against her (see above), her ordinarily very loyal Opposition in Australia has shifted under intense public pressure, and dumped the climate change believer Malcolm Turnbull as leader, for avowed sceptic Tony Abbott, to stymie the ETS bill altogether.

Um, yep.

Why?
To combat climate change caused by man-made carbon emissions. The idea is if companies have to pay to pollute they will pollute less; the climate will stop changing and baby polar bears will live to become big polar bears allowing them to scavenge through Alaskan rubbish tips.

But companies pollute because they make things or produce power. How will they be able to keep providing us with their important products and services?
This is the smart bit. They will pay the ETS and the government will give them the money back so they can continue what they’re doing to protect jobs and working families. At the same time they will pass the ETS costs to the consumer which means some polluting companies and industries will be better off under an ETS despite not actually reducing their carbon footprint.

That’s sounds ridiculous!
That’s your interpretation, but at least the government will look like it’s doing something to stop climate change.

But will an ETS stop climate change? Surely once the Antarctic sheds millions of tons of ice and sea levels rise there’s not much we can do to stop it. It’s like trying to stop a freight train with a wet kipper.

You know, for a dummy you’re quite the smart arse! Listen, this isn’t about stopping climate change it’s about feeling good that we’re doing our best without having to actually give up anything that causes pollution. We’ll still use electricity and drive cars, but we’ll do it safe in the knowledge that it really gives conservatives the shits.

You’re a deranged lefty idiot. This isn’t about climate change at all, it’s about idealism.
Oh dear, is that the time… ?