Mangled Thoughts

Theory

There is no theory of climate, and the AGW claim is nothing less than the claim is a theory of climate. The reason is phsyics and what the universe is. Against Agwers, scientists have been discovering some things but the problem is what the universe. The AGW claim is worse than a trivialisation of fundamental science, it is a rejection of science of Climate for a quick and dirty and capricious story which explains nothing at all. This is territory which belongs to scientists engaged in sound, fundamental scientific inquiry. As opposed to climate, the following quote provides a sharp contrast and, amusingly, contains a remark on the very matter of computers, `computer modeling?, and approximation:

1. A Voice from the Whirlwind
Thunderstorms are intriguing in that scientists have a complete theory for all parts of it, yet the physics cannot be used for computational predictions. This means that climate models do not treat storms, and many other things, from first principles. Instead they use approximations which stand in for physical theory.

The above is from a chapter precis of,The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming, Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick. One has a has a reason for commencing with citing the Essex - McKitrick book, which will be set out further on.Having just come across thetitle, here, it is worth pointing out, from the precis,a chapter attends to explaining the nonsense of `computer modelling?. Be sure of it, one will obtain a copy. Some quotes :

3. Theory Versus Models and Metaphors
Our challenge to the reader is that undoing the damage of the Doctrine requires that people be willing to learn the science. This is true even of scientists for whom atmospheric physics is not their specialty. This chapter looks at the differences between theory, models and metaphors. There is no theory of climate, but we discuss what might be involved in developing one. We also introduce the theme of “averaging” as a way of moving up scales of detail, and why this must be done carefully or it can lead to false conclusions. We look at how models function in lieu of a theory, and what their limitations are. Finally we show that metaphors like “the greenhouse effect” and the “global temperature” have served as replacements for both theory and models and further confused the discussion.

Louis Hissink has been attacked in the past for laying out precisely this:

4. T-Rex Devours the Planet
This chapter takes up the theme of averaging in the context of averaging temperatures. There is no physical rationale for constructing average temperatures, nor is there such a thing as a “global temperature.” Average temperatures correspond to nothing in the actual climate system. So what do those famous graphs really show? In this chapter we argue that it tells us nothing useful about the physical world, that it is at best an ill-defined index, and that different but equally-valid methods for producing the index could generate completely different graphs.

This is worth throwing in too:

Chapter 8. Ceiling Fan Gases and the Global Blowing Crisis
Discussion of the “impacts” of global warming follows from the Doctrine of Certainty, but a better understanding of the climate problem makes this discussion problematic. Why don’t we talk about global average wind speed and the global blowing problem? Or global humidity and the global moistening problem? The discussion of impacts reflects an inordinate focus on temperature, whereas climate is more complicated and peoples’ relationship to climate more complex yet.

By `Doctrine of Certainty? belief is meant and asserted as dogma, and it is dogma, not science, is driving the Agwers. The reason for citing Essex and Mckitrick is, Mann is still at asserting the veracity of his Hockey Stick, and Mckitrick and mcIntrye are still on the receiving end of another feature of the AGWers, their habitual abuse of anyone who doesn?t merely say no, but mounts solid reasons why the AGWers claim is nonsense. Tim Dunlop and his fans show not only the talent for it but their ignorance. And smear Louis Hissink and Miranda Divine . That tribe of ignorarmuses really just don?t have a clue as to why Mckitrick?s and McIntyre?s examiniation of Mann?s claims and evidence, such as it was, is so devestating. One of Dunlop asserts the two scientists have failed to demonstrate anything more than skepticism ( not Dunlop?s fan?s expression by the way). Well, this:

On, The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming, the following recommendations are pertinent:

1.

I just finished reading your book “Taken by Storm”. What a great read.!! I was bent over laughing in certain spots in the book. In parts it reminded me of Alice in Wonderland’s, “Who stole the tarts”! In others you had me thinking of a Tolkein, “thermodynamic ring”, casting an evil spell over the sensibilities of those in possesion of it. …I have to imagine that you and your co-author must have received quite the barrage of backlash from the circle of certainty. The tentative nature of science does not appear to be very well understood in these circles.
G.H. (Professor of Thermodynamics)

2.

Brilliant! And: overdue! And: generally precise on the mechanisms which around us produce pseudo consensus on items which are politically sensitive. I have just discovered and finished ?Taken by Storm?? - and I?m now recommending it to almost everyone I know who has a functional brain. Our politicicians should be fired if they haven’t read it by september 11. Aside from the actual debate on climate, you show convincingly the history-proven weakness of the human mind against group think and pathetic, but mediocre authority.
M.K.

3.

I really enjoyed your and Chris’ book. The greenhouse discussion is right on and, I confess, I had not known this. But, to me, the real deal is the Navier-Stokes discussion and the intertwined chaos. I loved that, as some of my work has been on this… Great work.
A.D. [Professor Emeritus of Mathematics]

4.

>”Global warming is happening and if you don’t believe it you’re living in a fantasy land!”, that’s what my grade 12 Chemistry teacher shouted to me. Luckily I believed my dad (a Chemical Engineer Ph.D.) and stuck with my skepticism. Now as a Chemical Engineering student myself, I can judge the data. “Taken By Storm” is a comprehensive and sweeping study guide for global warming.
-P.A.

5.

Once I was a passionate supporter of the Kyoto Accord. Then I read this book. Now I’m a passionate opponent. I even loaned the book to my MLA. The book makes it hard to believe in global warming at all, and even harder to believe the Kyoto Accord will do anything about it even if it’s real. It raises and then smashes every argument there is to promote the accord. The arguments are presented in a logical way that is difficult to accuse of bias or partisanship. It’s not just a different set of statistics, it’s an argument on the validity of any statistics in predicting climate. And when statistics are used, they’re usually right out of the UN’s own reports that led to the accord in the first place.
- D.B.

6.

Carl Sagan once suggested words to chisel on the gravestone of Johannes Kepler: “He preferred the truth to his dearest illusions.” You guys destroyed my own dearest illusion, and I thank you for it.
-D.M.

7.

Thanks for writing this. I’m a biologist by trade and worked in the area of climate and the effect on forest disease…If I had been able to take the time away from work I would have liked to produce a book along the lines of the one you completed. It’s long overdue. You have my warmest congratulations.
-T.R.

8.

Bravo to you both. I got the book for Christmas and finished reading it a couple of days ago. I thought it was very well written and your argument is, of course, correct. I know of quite a few people, in oceanography anyway, who share your view on the models (myself included). Where I stand, you have done a great job and you are to be commended.
Gordon E. Swaters, Ph.D.
Professor of Applied Mathematics
University of Alberta
Edmonton, AB Canada

9.

I am nearly finished reading Taken by Storm and have thoroughly enjoyed it. I also learned a lot. I have degrees in math and meteorology and have been active in the profession for over 30 years, but many of your concepts and descriptions treated this “old field” in a new and refreshing way. In particular, your descriptions of the meaninglessness of “average temperatures” were superb! Thank you again for your service to climate science.Bravo to you both. I got the book for Christmas and finished reading it a couple of days ago. I thought it was very well written and your argument is, of course, correct. I know of quite a few people, in oceanography anyway, who share your view on the models (myself included). Where I stand, you have done a great job and you are to be commended.

Gordon E. Swaters, Ph.D.
Professor of Applied Mathematics
University of Alberta
Edmonton, AB Canada

10.

The monograph by Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick occupies a very important place among ?non-orthodox?? publications…Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick have written the most timely (preparations of the IPCC Report-2005 have already started) and very important book…there are many ideas and concrete information in the book which may be useful to start at last productive scientific discussions in those basic scientific journals which did not allow ?dissidents?? to speak before.
Prof. Dr. Kirill Ya. Kondratyev
Academician, Counsellor, Russian Academy of Sciences
Research Center for Ecological Safety
St. Petersbug, Russia

11.

Essex and McKitrick have written a good natured but ultimately serious, well documented, and scientifically careful analysis of how a crisis defying both common sense and normative science engulfed the popular imagination, the body politic, and much of the scientific community. One hopes the message of Taken By Storm can be absorbed before that damage, not due to global warming but rather to the surrounding hysteria, becomes even more painful and wasteful. Dr. Richard P. Lindzen,
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology,
Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

12.

“Taken by Storm” by Chris Essex and Ross McKitrick in a single sitting one recent Saturday. I feel lucky to have found these two clear voices from your great country–Canada. The book conveys a sense of calm (despite the action-packed narrative) and inspiration (knowing that there are still a few caring and honorable scientists out there) — since Chris and Ross have the exceptional ability and courage to clarify the physics of proposed “global warming” by atmospheric CO2 without all the usual watered-down explanations. Yet they really are able to tell it with such great humor, unique insights and helpful summary of where we are in the actual scientific understanding of the key questions to date. So, I strongly recommend this book in case you have not had a chance to read yet.
Chris and Ross are two solid contacts to put on your speed dial when it comes to the sorry politics behind the confusing non-scientific assumptions and claims regarding carbon dioxide and a supposedly disastrous warming world, too often blamed by simplistic thinkers on the hopeless greed of big-bad fossil-fuel industries and CEOs.
Dr. Willie Soon
Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Harvard University

13.

Their arguments are scientifically sound and they make some good points. Both authors are accomplished scientists…all the arguments made about the meaning of temperature and averages are correct. As we always say, however, “given two scientists there are three opinions”. So, Essex and McKitrick will face up to some arguments. I am sure (judging from their writing style) that they will not mind that. I think that this is the great contribution of this book. It offers a different view that is against the mainstream. There is nothing wrong with this. Lets open up a debate and lets see who is willing to participate.

Professor Anastasios Tsonis
Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, Atmospheric Sciences Group
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Comments 1-7 are from general readers, noting, however, 1,3,4 and 7 are by no means lay to science readers.

Comments 8-13 are statements by “published and unpublished feedback from academic and professional colleagues. Unpublished comments quoted with permission. ” To read more, web Taken By Storm home page for the book, They are just a few of the many statements by a glaxay of professors from distinguished universities, for the remaining academic reviews this page of the site. Why point that out? For several reasons:

1. The AGWers, and that inlcudes the media, Fat Aunty Bolshevik Collective, her mudder, The Bolsheviki of Bolsheviks Collective, the newspapers Moa’s Little Red Age, Sydney Smut Moaning Herald, Steve Bracks’ Herald Shoeshine Boy Sun,
The unFinancial Times for anyone who wishes to find out mysteries but not finance and markets and economics, et al, shout `scientific consensus.’ The above list of scientists is but a tiny fraction of the sheer number of scientists who have written papers, signed evidence to the U.S. Congress, rejecting the AGW nosense as just that. It is just one more exampleof scientists who say, AGW/Man Causes Climate Change is not merely a false hypothesis, they say it is rubbish and say so not from dogma but from science.

Science is not run on consenus, it is an endeavour of individuals who are equipped to do it, bother to continue beyond a graduate degree in fundamental science and, all who are scientists, and, in my books, they no longer inlcude who for what amounts to nothing less than the venal motive of grabbing hold of real taxpayer’s money courtesy of politicians and bureaucrats who have made charlatanism highly profitable for each of them: Yes, correct, those who were scientists who have taken up this latest effort in alchemy are no longer scientists ( take note Chris v., noting your degree, and that it is neither Louis Hissink nor I who has missed the point, but yourself and that liar Tim Lambert. Chirs, it is your `argument’ which is rubbish, though you read chemistry- though by ignoramus one intended not you but Lambert and his fan club, which we will touch on).

2. Sneering Dismissal, a la the above medja tribe, the `skeptics…’:

The sneer isn’t against scepticism per se, it is the assertion, anyone who rejects man causes global warming/climate change is now a fool because man causes global warming/climate change is established theory. A layman can have cause to reject the AGW claim for no less a reason, what is entailed, man must be able to manipulate climate in a magical way.

Consider readers:

Co2 is a shade under 4% of elements consituting the atmosphere. The ration of Co2 due to human activity is a miniscule fraction of that 4%, it is in the order of .0000348%,so ridiculously low it is as good as zero. And, Man is supposed to be altering climate on a ratio of a ratio so low that the greater ratio itself, 4% is so trivial that the notion the chemical Co2 is heating up the planet is even sillier than the believing a flea can bite the head of big old tusker of an elephant.At least the flea has a fang.

That’s a layman. Scientists, however, in physics, and the AGWers and their media sycophants sneer at them too, sneer at scientists whose objections are grounded in fundamental science. A layman can rightly pass from skepticisim to convinction the AGW claim is not only false but charlatanism writ in capital letters, while a scientist is doing more than just that. The scientists, and they are not a mere ten, 17, 38, but thousands, have publicly stated AGW is rubbish and have done so not out of dogma but out of science. I can’t, off-hand recollect how many thousands, and one will do a number count from the records to date, but, the numbers who have stated it is nonsense, as a % of the number of working scientists is a very large percentage of scientists. Indeed, the ratio is higher, in the hardest of all sciences, physics.

3. When the sneer fails, then smear.
I don’t listen to the ABC anymore. I used to listen Robyn Williams’ Science Show. It was a light coverage science, from what one can dimly remember. Whatever it once was, it is not a science show, and Robyn Williams is no science commentator, not after this exchange in December 2005:

“Robyn Williams: What do you make of the naysayers then, who say the science is crap - many of them coming supposedly from science itself?”

“David King: Well, I’ve got three categories of naysayers. The first category is the armchair critic, and unfortunately this includes some people who would appear to be scientists who are capable of producing what I would say is very na?ve, scientifically na?ve criticism of the very detailed model of climate change that has been produced since Fourier, the great French mathematician in 1827. There’s a great body of data there and the scientific community has been challenging, each amongst the other, just as scientists do; we’ve all got big egos and we like to say we’re the best and you’re wrong. But there is a point where consensus emerges. Now these armchair critics will fire off a criticism which is wholly irrelevant to the issue, and some of the ! statements I’ve seen in the press since I’ve arrived in Austra! lia are frankly laughable. The second group of critics are lobbyists. These are the same kind of people I would suggest who would argue perhaps in the pay of tobacco industry that cancer has no relationship to cigarette smoking. The third category would be the serious scientists who have been part of that challenging process within the climate science community. Richard Lindzen is perhaps the most famous of these …

By, `The third category would be the serious scientists who have been part of that challenging process …’, Sir david King means, those who believe in AGW but quibble about details or argue about how the chairs are arranged around a table, as the rest of the quote shows:

Yes, and he raised the question of aerosols and water vapour and the complications there. There is no question that Richard raised very good points. The climate science community has been addressing his challenges as scientists do and I believe those challenges have been met. But he?s within the camp, as it were, and challenging and that?s a very proper role for scientists to play.

In other words, according to King a scientist is one who believes the same as he does, in AGW. Full transcript is here.

So, without any ado both King and Williams, both eating at real taxpayers’ expense, have dismissed scientists and science for a mystical belief. The smearing of anyone who doesn’t believe in AGW is plain enough in the above passage. Their smears, in this case dleivered in the sneering mood but still a smear, is the politist of smears. On Monday, we shall continue this, not foregetting the subject of this part of the item on the great chicken gut oracle is Theory, but, until Monday,folks, I have to buzz off. Merry weekending.

Recapitulating the essentials of the A.I. project the claim was, a machine could be made which is exactly the same as brain, and thus could fuction exactly as the brain does.Tricks were asserted to be evidence that A.I.ists had succeeded in articulating some structures of the brain. The evidence, however, was nothing more than functions which can be coded into machine language, thus are trivial to what the brain does. The claim lead to not simply an oversimplified notion of the brain, but a fallacious notion of the brain and how it works so that speech is possible, rational reasoning is possible, imagination. They drew on the false mind-body dualism, asserting a programme can htus be rendered exactly as a mind residing within mere material body the computer hardware. Well, there is only brain, not mind in brain. Even minus the rubbish of dualism, however, the A.Iists. didn’t, at bottom, pay attention to what the brain is at all. While neuro-scientists have, over some two hundred years of inquiry have achieved very fine fndamental advance in understanding the brain, there is yet much which is still a mystery, much is yet to be discovered, as one distinguished neuro-scientist once related. There is, as yet, no exhaustive theory of the brain, and, yet that is what the A.I. claim entails, an exhaustive theory of the brain.The whole A.I. project, from the begnning, was a descent into charlatanism. There were good consequences:

1.GUI was developed to serve the A.I. project. Bill gates saw the real value of GUI, it could deliver a computer to noncomputer experts, and he went further, the value of that resided in, he worked out how he could deliver a computer at cheap prices, and the rest is history.

2. Engineering advances which have translated into robotics, applied in manufacutring, surgical technology, and a myriad of other applications.

Some of the A.Iists are upset, they believe they `deserve’ some of the prfits from such inventions. The short answer is, if they had not been so besotted with a false hypothesis, and exercised entrepenurial get up and go, who can tell, it might be some of them whose names were attached to successful enterprises. As it is, they have nothing to complain of at all. They were paid by institutions , the U.S. Govt. threw large sums to them to run their project and thus they havbe not been cheated of anything at all. To the contrary, they wasted considerable sums, much taken from taxpayers, to waste on charlatanism, or, to use a telling word, alchemy.

Computer modelling of climate suffers from the same defects as A.I. The claim, climate can be `modelled’ on a computer, entails reality can be replicated in a computer machine. Next, it assumes science has an exchaustive account of climate, and, the account of climate happens to show climate ca be rendered in machine code and programme - in short, climate behaves a s deductive logic machine does. Indeed, one pin of that in the AGW suggests that erroneous notion, the determinism of man causing global warming/ climate change. It cannot be otherwise because, boosters of the rubbish of AGW are asserting `scenarios’ generated when running the programmes or, to use the obfuscating term, `models’, are true.

It might be objected by AGW modellers, their claim is not the same as that for A.I. , they are not trying to instantiate reality in a machine at all, that all that they have done is write programmes which are only approximate simulations of climate. That does not eliminate the objections at all. In fact, it makes the use of computer programmes to run climate epxeriments worse.

First, an exhaustive theory of climate, how it is generated, is required. If computer modelling is to be coounted as epxerimentally true, it cannot be left at an approximation of reality, it must replicate reality. Why, is an amusing question in this case, for all we have to do is to refer to the paragraph above on:

Output of scenarios showing man causes global warming, and hideous consequences because of that human manipulation of climate, has a probability of being generated by a `model’/programme of random chance only. Nothing has been demonstrated to confirm the AGW claim at all, and that failure is on the assumption climate can be recreated in a computer.

Nothing at all has been demonstrated to confirm the deterministic arrow from man to claim. The result is thus even far wrose for the AGW mystogogues. For, taking the starting point, the models are only approximations of climate, though programmed with sufficient instructions and terms and search trees to capture enough of how climate is generated, then, any `scenario’ generated having only a low probability, must have an even lower probability of occurring at all. In other words, if there is a period of climactic patterns which is the same as a scenario generated by the computer, it is not because it was predicted, it is because so many scenario’s have been generated that there might be one scenario which is a match. The force of that implication is clear enough, that a scenario might match a period wopuld not be a fact of correlation between the machine and reality at all. The match would be absolutely meaningless, nonsense entirely. But it is worse than that.

The computer models are absolutely meaningless,even if it were the case the AGWers have written approximate programme, that entails the elimination of physical factors. The scenario generated is generated, in short, in a machine `universe’ which is not the same as reality, the machine `universe’, because it does not instantiate reality, is not generating data about reality, it is gnerating data testing the run of a programme only. Machine results, therefore, have no value at all as scientific evidence, none at all. The climate models are only well written, valid programmes. Irrespective of output, the result is true if the programme is a true deductive argument, if it is not there is no output.

The above objections run just on the assumption the climate modellers have approximated reality in machine code. The next set of objections deal the final death blow to the claims of the climate modellers.

The AGW claim and the climate modelling claim rests on the assertion of a complete theory of climate. Folks, that assertion is false, entirely false. That it is entirely false, is amusingly, already disclosed in the ludicrous determinist assumption of man causes global warming.The determinist assertion is not science, not the scientific definition of cause and effect at all. The determinist assumption is just one more debasement of science by the AGW/Climate Change mystogogues. So, there are several things to shred, beginning with theory.

[Taking a short break]

That is what the bogus science of AGW amounts too. Having compared AGW to it’s proper equivalents, the quackery of keynesians , sociology, pyschics and other mystic mikes. The believers continue to make ad hominem attacks on `skeptics’ and, the problem is, the `skeptics’ aren’t simply skeptics, they are scientists and they are shredding the AGW belief apart because it is not science and those engaged in it are not engaged in science, they are debasing science for supersitition and voodoo. It is rubbish, and so why has it been cultivated and proliferated. The culprits can be identified, politicians and bureaucrats. Consider Oz: apart from Greens and Dems m.p.s, and a couple of Earth worshippers in the Coalition and ALP, the rest in the major parties have embraced AGW only as an excuse to impose more exactions and controls. It can’t be, surely, they do believe it. There is no other reason and, later, we will back this up with evidence.

That scientists have demolished `evidence’ collected by boosters is something that is conveniently ignored. One strand of this `evidence’ one will recapitulate, `computer modelling’ and generated `scenarios’. The Federal Minister is fond of, or was, of proclaiming from the steps of parliament, `I have seen scenarios proving AGW’. Such statements,` I have….’, bye the bye, are alone a very crude indication of, what-ever the `experimenters’ are doing it does not include scientific experiments. The output of computer `models’, however, is most amusing. It has been found out, the generation of `scenarios’ `confirming AGW claims has a probability of no more than random chance. It has been found out, the out-put of one AGW type requires a large number of runs. So, what is never disclosed is the sheer number of `results’ which falsify claims. The most that can be said, if computer modelling is a true experiment, a warmer climate is one possibility but not the only one and that the probability of it is so low that, to the contrary of the claim of AGW boosters, there is no necessary determined relationship at all between human activity and climate warming . That there is no relationship at all, no cause and effect at all, is the force of those computer modelling results. Further, the results are such, it cannot be said there is a deterministic arrow of causation from human activity to climate at all, which is the force of, any possible scenario is no more than a random possibility and any one possibility has a very low probability attaching to it, so low that it barely satisifies one of two conditions of probability, it must be greater than zero.

The claim, however, computer modelling is a scientific experiment yeilding valid evidence, is entirely false. The problem is exactly the same as it is for A.I claims, a human mind can be instantiated in a computer. That is, what a brain is can be replicated in a machine. That has not been achieved and never can. All the `successes’ claimed by boosters of A.I. have been trivial tricks.
Rodeny Hide once posted a link on his website to one such trick.

The site, set up as world wide project in A.I., ran a programme, claiming the computer learns as you answer its questions -the first trick - anthropomorphism. Trick two. The programme run is intiated with what seem to be the most general of questions but in fact are narrow, e.g:

Do you have anything in your mouth?

The programme tree, contains lists of things which anyone might place in their mouth, e.g.cups cigarettes, lollies, biros.

Once the code ( the answer yes if yes) has been entered, the programme runs the next tree:

Question: Is it round /square/ oblong/ ( whatever shapes you care to code into the programme)?

Answer: Round

Q. Long, short

A. long

Q. What colour?

Now, readers can see what has been done, proceeding form the most general descriptions, each answer narrows the next set of possible descriptions so, carried to the last step, the computer arrives at the output, ` it is a cigarette’. And that is how such programmes are written. To amplify this, I did a run and to the questions:

Q. Does it taste nice?
A. Yes.
Q Is it enjoyable?
A. Yes.

And a number of such questions, the run reached the conclusion: `I give up, what is it.’

Answer , a cigarette.

The next output by the computer was;

That is incorrect because, a cigarrette does not taste nice, it smells, it leaves ash, it is unhealthy, it is unpleasant, smoke is unpleasant.

Computers don’t reason, imagine, make associations, just to name a few things the brain does. A computer is a machine, and a progamme is just an extended deductive argument. It replicates nothing. The range of possible output is bound, no ouput which does not run from the programme is possible at all. Thus, computers can never learn anything at all, which is only to point up the nonsense of A.I.

Thus the point to using AI as an illustration, what has been `replicated’ in computer form is not the brain. What has been replicated is to,use a simpler example from maths, addition, with the addition function coded as algorithmic progression.

So long as any programme is a valid code, that is, the code is, as it were, grammatically true, the programme will run. The output, therefore, which has meaning only for the user of a computer, is trivial, it can be anything, even `garbage in and garbage out’, it can be completely useless, is trivial - or, to put it another way, a badly written programme is no use at all to some-one who wants it for financial analysis, or an engineer running calculations for a bridge.

Computer programmes do not at all, in conclusion, instantiate reality, no matter how impressive the output might seem. The output of Deep Blue was impressive but more impressive was the chess masters who analysed Kasparov’s moves and the positions during each game, and the It team who translated the recommendations of the masters into code and thus added search trees and instructions. Kasparov did not play against a computer, he played against those who built the computer, the chess masters and an IT team.

[I will finish this tomorrow, I have to buzz of now, but readers have enough for now to guage some of the lines of argument]

The left and Fat Aunty Bolshevik Collective are desperate to see ALP on the federal Treasury Benches. Beazley,his first time around was their saviour, a second time, and now a third time, and in between, it was Simon Crean, then Latham. Unable to fathom at all why the ALP will be defeated on the next federal civil war day but, having grasped one thing, they will be defeated, they are sobbing, quivering heaps. Already over-dosing on the turps, the leftoid medja are crying for yet another saviour. It escapes them, there is one Christ and one Christ only and he wasn’t a politician,and certainly not a National Socialist fool committed to all the pet causes of the left, including those of Pol Pot’s fan club the Greens, these few facts escape also the leftoid clergy including bishops and a cardinal. Come to that, Christ wouldn’t recognise most clerics as his apostles, Marx’s yes, but not his.

In their dementia, in their fevered sorbet brain containers, out of their wildest fantasies and delusions, amidst wailing and gnashing of teeth, the medja have acclaimed another saviour, or rather, had a mystical experience. `It should be a Tony Blair type saviour. Allelulia, Allelulia, Alleluia, tummty, tummty, tummty. ‘ This is too funny, Blair and Brown are driving HMS Britannia onto the reef of marked Economic Carnage and Commie nastiness, the bows are already shredding on the reef, and the media cry, `Hail, oh Vision of the Holy National Socialisto Redeemer.’ Come election time, with the shadow cabinet already stuffed with unelectable delinquents, including Beazely himself, the last thing they need like a hole in the head is to be not only compared to LP, bad as that would be for the ALP, but have an Oz spitting image of Phony Tony. Any voters toying with throwing their lot to the ALP, will look across the ocean waves,see the burning, sinking wreck ,and cross themselves and vote for the Coalition once again.

It is worth marking,on the domestic front, so rotten are the many measures of the LP that, the streets are safe only safe for vicious criminals, The decent are prosecuted for, well, being decent. Regulations are turning Britain into a secret police state. Taxes, regulations and the sheer rate of forging currency is sinking Britain and fast. What is emerging is,flight of capital out of Britain, things will be as bad as the dark days before the Prime Ministership of the Iron Lady. In fact, LP is magnification of the realities of Brackstaniland and the Bracks lead Victorian ALP. Ideed, the analogy runs closer, as Doyles paper Doyleys proceed to hand another election victory to Bracks and his stalinist Junta, instead of having ensured they were flung into prison long ago, the Tory party too has been highjacked by the socialistos who have ruined the Tory Party. So rotten are they, one cannot fathom at all why Howard regards the bum and his fellow commie bums so highly and as a friend.

Yet, Beazley is an Oz Blair, as it were. Beazley is all hot air, spin. Like Blair, he is a Catholic whose `grand vision’ rather concords with Cardinal Pell’s, which one will shred in a separate view. Beazely, like Blair, is all for `social justice’ , which has nothing to do with justice and the rule of common law, it is a vaccuous euphemism for the diktat of dictators. Like Blair he is an international socialisto who, through Rudd, would make Oz a lap dog to that den of commie gangsters the U.N. He is all for saving dah world, throwing lots and lots of stolen property to all the worlds problems, even if none exist. Like Blair, he believes individuals must be sacrificed for the greater mystical being, dah nation. Like Blair, he has a shadow treasurer who will forge money faster than it currently is being forged, and that is already at a hideous rate. like Blair, he is all for national socialist brainwashing insitutions euphemistically called universities. Like Blair, he is committed to politicial correctness and all such rotten causes. Like Blair, he is committed to the garbage of man’s causes global warming, and thus to crippling Australians economically for a non existent problem - by this, punish far more stalinist measures than the rotten punishment the Coalition is dishing out to placate that greeny Goddess of Death, Mudder Nature.

Unlike Blair, he has the merit for leftoids, Beazley has attacked the Coalition over the Iraq war. What the leftoids might not appreciate is, Beazley is like Blair, he enjoys the main job of P.M., commander in chief. Beazley’s attack against Howard over Iraq is only a nasty display of venal oppportunism. If Beazley were P.M., the fat hypcorite would have, as much as Hawke did in GWWI, not only ordered the troops in against Saddam but with enthusiam (like Hawke in GWI) - unlike Howard . This is why, Beazley states, it is the wrong war. What makes it a wrong war is, because he can’t play at being a war leader, it wasn’t him in charge.

He should never be put in that positionfor, as it was, as defence minister, he was a rotten bastard. Here is another common thread, Blair and LP has tried to make the British armed services comply with political correctness and other leftoid-bureaucratic demands and has done considerable as a consequence,so Beazley when he was defence Minister.

Beazley, like Blair, would let loose the commie leftoids in the party and all observing what is being done in Britain, and even in Blair’s first couple of years in office, and what is being done by the Bracks Junta, recognise one thing, stalinism backed by jackbooted goon squads.Beazley, will of course, return employment back to the good old days of the IRC gang of criminal thugs.

The above is only the beginning of a long list of points which shows Beazley is an Oz Blair. Beazley is frightening the crap out of voters. Looking at Britain and LP and Blair only confirms what is very obvious. Perhaps the medja mean, a super duper Oz type Blair, that Beazley-Blair Boy needs a bit more bloating up. O.K., that can be done.

Imagine Bracks and Beazley fused, now that would be a supper duper Oz type Blair. Now, the reaction of Victorians suffering the Bracks Stalinist regime would be a predictable scream, `Run for your lives.’ All the ALP’s election day material would be returned in their unopened boxes.

The leftoid dominated media, so deluded by their U.S.-Israel-Jew-Howard-Bush hate filled fantasies cannot recognise the bleeding obvious, even when its fat belly smacks them in the face. `Who was that?, theycry. They cannot face up to it, Beazley Boy is the Oz Blair. His cabinet is an Oz Blair-Grodon Brown leftoid dominated type cabinet. They cannot face it, because of the frightening resemblance, voters have refused to elect him before, as so Latham, and find Beazley and his gang of oafs still as odious. There cannot be two Oz Blairs, only one, and Beazle Boy is it. Yes, they have their amazing saviour, and not just a Vision of the Holy Shit Odious Redeemer of commie dreams and fantasies. This should tell the leftoid journos something, Aussies are not yet so crushed by commie politicians that they will numblingly vote for the Fat Oz Blair Boy and his cabinet of good for nothing commie liars out of fear. The journos don’t get it, voters look at Beazely and they can see Blair, and, as Aussies have shown, election after election, they just find the prospect of any of them on the benches which count a horrifying prospect.

Oh, well, it’s back to the Christ drawing board for the leftoid dominated medja, after swallowing more gallons of turps. Designing christs who bear rather more resemblance to Stan the Man Satan’s helpers is more than a mere design flaw. Stan himself might not be impressed, either, he doesn’t wish to scare off punters by frightening images. He prefers smoothies - ah, I see, the journos reckon Blair is a smoothy but then, right from the first it was easy to spot what Blair was, just another bloody national Socialist bastard. It shows, the paint fell away in large chips early and quickly. That he and the LP have survived so long shows how many Britains are sunk in the slimey, vile, totalitarian crap of National Socialism ? No, it’s a tribute to how mauch the Tory socialists have ruined the Tory Party that they made the L.P. look only plausibly smooth - there’s an object lesson in that for the Oz Coalition parties.

Next to reducing some of the unemployment, to the extent the new arrangments still impose constraints, employers now have some leeway to get rid of thugs.

Sacked workers ‘may have case’

29mar06

EIGHT unionists sacked by a Melbourne company as new labour laws came into force could have a case for unlawful dismissal, the Federal Government said today.
The National Union of Workers and the ACTU allege the workers were sacked because of their union membership or union activities.

It’s not a matter of union membership, if unions were simply no more than as any other association - including businesses, fully under the rule of law. It’s `the activities’ which has been the problem. It’s not simply a matter of employers either, but non-union employees who have suffered at the hands of union thuggery. It get’s down to the old IRC regime which paced unions above the rule of law. Firms still have troubles with unions trying to penetrate their businesses, which, if a union is successful, it’s the beginning of the troubles as it were. So much trouble enough firms have eliminated the problem and shut down.

There is another problem. Premises are private property, the notion that unions have some special right to enter private property is rubbish, but it is warose in some companies who are forced by govt. to also supply office space for union thugs. Why? It
’s a problem too under bracks many stalinist decrees which has asserted more `right’ of entry for entry by the 1govt.’ onto private property, under such Acts as the 2004 OH&S ACT and the goons called `inspectors’ are, surprise, surprise union thugs engaged as `OH&S Inspectors’.

The rubbish the ALP and the ACTU are shouting to the sky and into the sewers, employers will engage in an orgy of sackings, is just rubbish. Freedom to sack employees who prove unsuitable, and sacking worse, thugs, is hardly a malevolent conspiracy cooked up by employees. Yet it touches on another problem, the freedom to hire and fire whomever an employer has been undermined by not only `unfair dismissal laws’ but also `anti-discrimnation laws’.

Discrimination, is a fundamental everday act, as one has put before, it is essential to getting on with life in reasonable order. The notion that it is a criminal offence to exercise discrimination on anything, not just employment, and thus has to be proscribed, is the real crime perpetrated by politicians who were preceded by politically correct leftoids.

The `labour laws’ is repalced administrative order for the old club of gangsters the IRC, rather thna leaving just to free markets and common law. That explains why Kevin Andrews is also prone to bilge:

Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews said if the ACTU claim was correct, the eight men could have a case for unlawful dismissal against Triangle Cables

At bottom, is the right to employ whomever an employer and it is none of any politicians damned business.

The capriciousness of subsituting regulation for the rule of common law shows up in this sort of rubbish too:

A firm with 100 employees and below is exemped from the `unfair dismissal laws’. Firms with over 101 employees plus are subject to the full force of the rotten decree, besides all the rotten employment decrees the States’ socialisto politicians have rained down upon the heads of employers.

Understandably, firms might well `restructure’ to get another odious decree off their backs, the `unfair dismissal law’.

The left, of course, are fond of depicting employers as vicious, cruel, oppressors of employers. Well, there might well be some who are unpleasant but, employees tend to walk out on them. In so far as there are, so what, employees are not bound to them as serfs, they are free to tell an unpleasant employer, `I quit, you are a nasty bastard, I’m off to work for Harry down the road. Good riddance.’ Employees do it, freequently, not because the employer is nasty, they just don’t like the job, the firm, whatever and go elsewhere. Employers, more-over, do rather a great deal for employees as opposed to unions.

Employers give employees a start, the opportunity to learn things and acquire higher order competency of great value to firms,pay them earnings or- rather customers do through firms. What do unions do, union officials enjoy a high life by exacting `fees’ and `fringe benefits’ and work hard to ensure employees loose jobs and so earnings and ssut firms down. It’s a pretty good incentive for employees to request of employers to sack union thugs and that is never mentioned in the leftoid dominated medja, it’s not just hirers, but the hired who are keen to get rid of such criminal extortionists. Kevin Andrews should mind his own bloody business, the company is in the right, in common law, and is serving the real interests of why that firm is in business and those of its employees by shoving out onto the streets right rotten thugs.