andrewmcintyre.org

“How do I know that increased CO2 will not kill the coral reefs and shellfish? Let me count the ways”     Patrick Moore

Patrick Moore, a co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace has skewered yet again the monstrous dissembling of the global warming carbonistas. If their silly science is so certain why do they need to lie and exagerate so much?

The propaganda is ramping up again as we approach the Paris climate summit. Since the temperature on Earth has stubbornly stopped rising, the new scare is ocean acidification and the constant threats to our Great Barrier Reef.

But according to Patrick Moore this is just more lies coming on top of a lack of evidence.

Something dire was needed to prop up the climate disruption narrative. “Ocean acidification” was invented to provide yet another apocalyptic scenario, only this one required no warming or severe weather, just more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Moore takes the reader through chapter and verse of why the menace of increased CO2 and ocean acidification is plain wrong-headed. Through the last half a billion years when life forms emerged, the CO2 content of the atmosphere was up to ten times higher than at present. As one would expect, the sea also has its own way of resisting acidification.

Then there is the obvious practical observation:

Finally, it is a fact that people who have saltwater aquariums sometimes add CO2 to the water in order to increase coral growth and to increase plant growth. The truth is CO2 is the most important food for all life on Earth, including marine life. It is the main food for photosynthetic plankton (algae), which in turn is the food for the entire food chain in the sea.

Moore concludes rather forcefully that:

For some reason, the proponents of catastrophic global warming ignore this fact. They talk of “carbon pollution” as if CO2 is a poison. If there were no CO2 in the global atmosphere there would be no life on this planet. Surely, that should be enough to permit questioning the certainty of those who demonise this essential molecule.

Don’t expect Will Stephan, Tim Flannery or any other of the highly paid carbonistas to respond to arguments of common fact with specific counter arguments. After all, who was there to correct the leader of the free world President Obama when he publicly announced that CO2, or was it global warming, was causing his daughter’s asthma attacks.

Oh dear…

“A celebration that was once simple communist propaganda can, and should, be repurposed to celebrate the forces that actually lift people out of poverty and inequality.”

Yes, here it is again.  It always sounds, to my ears, like Earmuffs day, or Quilting Day, or Lips Appreciation day, or Lost Puppy Dog Day. It’s seems unnecessary and mildly patronising: a sort of giant ‘Whatever’ Day.

Not surprisingly, International Women’s Day’s origins were in American socialism and Eastern European communism. It was originally declared by the American Socialist Party in 1909,  Apparently, according to Leon Trotsky, it indirectly triggered a series of events that sparked the Russian February revolution in 1917.

It’s all about equality you see, but the rub is that equality of women is highest in prosperous, capitalist, free market societies. The feminist collectives would of course not understand this but there is massive evidence that this is the case. It is also a reason why people like Julie Bishop dissociates herself from this ideologically bend crowd, as recently seen on ABC’s Q and A.

A timely article was reprinted in The Australian that clarifies the issue.

As compared with men, women in economically freer countries hold more elected seats in government, have longer life expectancies, achieve higher education levels, and earn higher incomes than do women in less economically free countries. In short, in freer economies, women’s lives are longer, more prosperous and more self-directed.

So, there you have it. Nor is it true that this is only because these countries are richer and therefore able to afford more equality.

If we restrict our vision to the poorest countries, the same pattern emerges. Comparing the Fraser and UN data sets, we find that, of the poorest 25 per cent of countries (as measured by per capita GDP), the half that are more economically free achieve more gender equality than do the half that are less economically free. According to the UN’s own numbers, women suffer less inequality in poor, economically free countries than they do in poor, economically unfree countries.

One wonders why so many feminists seems to take the anti-capitalist side of almost any debate whilst also studiously ignoring the women and children in appalling conditions in those countries where freedom plays almost no role.

A landslide of evidence over the past century shows that, regardless of our good intentions, the more we allow governments to control markets, the more poverty and inequality we experience.
There is no better time to note these facts than on International Women’s Day. A celebration that was once simple communist propaganda can, and should, be repurposed to celebrate the forces that actually lift people out of poverty and inequality. The evidence suggests that equality doesn’t come at the end of the government’s gun, but at the end of the free market’s handshake.

Triggs helped Abbott  —  Turnbull helped Abbott  —  Hicks helped Abbott  — the ABC’s leak obsession helped Abbott  —  Muslim appologists helped Abbott.  The Left understands nothing and this also helped Abbott

The dramatic rise in the polls for Tony Abbott is heartening. The Left, as usual, does not understand why.  Abbott is changing. He is appeasing the Left less and standing on principle. They hate him with a loathing and this drives them mad and reminds people why they got rid of Labor a year and a half ago.

The Prime Minister pointed out the bias and the disgrace Gillian Triggs has brought on herself and the Human Rights Commission. Voters understood, in spite of the reactionary support from the ABC, the ALP swinging handbags, Fairfax and the Left generally.

The Prime Minister’s honest comments about the pathetic claim by the same media that David Hicks had somehow been vindicated for joining, not one, but two terrorist organisations and shooting machine guns at the Indian Army shows that the electorate likes straight talking.

The Prime Minister’s honest comments about Muslims and the double standards of the commentariat in the name of multiculutral harmony may be at an end. People are aching for a leader to speak up and call out the traitors in our midst. They know what “Je suis Charlie” actually means.

Malcolm Turnbull’s honest comments about Triggs and a while back about the  ABC’s balance was a timely reminder to  Abbott supporters and Liberal backbenchers exactly what he does stand for.  This is probably sufficient to blow his chances for leadership clear out of the water. Thank God and thanks Malcolm.

What an irony that Fran Kelly thinks quite the opposite. The poor woman is deluded into thinking that voters are turning back to the Liberals because Turnbull looks a shoe in to roll Abbott. Even Michelle Grattan scoffed at Fran on air, “a bit far fetched” she thought, for suggesting such an implausable idea. A priceless exchange from from “Their ABC”.  

This stridency from the media makes people sit up and notice. I always think back to the 1988 Referendum, which invited us to vote ‘Yes’ on four questions. Supported by both parties and most of the media, the Australian people, smelling a rat with such collusion, gave all four of the propositions a resounding ‘No’, with their collective upturned finger. That reassured me immensely about Australian democracy and our plain ordinary, reliable common sense.

In other words, when things in the media become too shrill people become suspicious.