Mangled Thoughts

Tim Blair has a credibility problem and it is his. He should peer at Bolt and shudder. Blair reports on and attacks leftists and their fellow travelers in the media for distorting truths, flying intervention for interests, smearing those who stand in the way of their aims. Fine, but for one thing. He is stone cold silent when it comes to his Rightwing pals and their equally vicious antics. Blair isn’t bright, but he should lighten up, particularly in view of that dolt Bolt.

The sheer hypocrisy and stupidity of Bolt cannot be concealed from the public. It’s on show all the time. Bolt’s snidely expressed deliberate falsification of the truth that there is a deepening international crisis in food production, and the callous dismissal of the real suffering and sheer economic carnage that is driving it and why it is occurring, the ethanol swindle, is typical of the Right. One hasn’t, however, accused the fishwives infesting clubrooms ludicrously named free market think tanks of being the dolt Bolt is. To return to Bolt’s big lie, I have saved one further telling comment for this item. What else is wrong with what Andrew Bolt said:

The lumpenmasse of India have never had it so good (funny, that’s the line he used when calling modest Australians ingrates). It is obvious, because “they are all fat”. They are ‘fat’ because “they are eating more”.

According to Bolt, the teeming masses of India are eating so much that the international food crisis is only a short run supply-demand adjustment, and prices will fall once farmers increase production. The recent food riots according to Bolt have nothing to do with a food crisis. He then continued his flippant snide remarks by saying fashionable westerners react by doing the opposite, eating less and getting thinner. Bolt observed bulimia is “the it” thing to sport.

Bolt should consult Jason Soon to discover what else is wrong with what he said. After all, even Soon can manage the explanation – he does parrot the undergraduate econ textbook. For Tim’s benefit:

1 Bolt holds there is no food shortage.
2 The price rises, which have induced a false panic, are due to the Indians eating more than before.
3. Thus, the rises have nothing to do with a cut in food supply; it’s only gluttonous Indians behind it - the devils.

On the other hand, following Bolt, why should prices rise when as he says, Westerners in fashionable reaction to the unwashed of India enjoying themselves, are starving themselves. Following Bolt, is there any reason why they should not roughly cancel out and thus no price rises? On the other hand, even if he was capable of taking sound advice and digesting it, he has motivation to bury sound advice to this effect:

The prices aren’t merely rising, they are skyrocketing because supply hasn’t been simply reduced. It is being sliced, quartered and diced as huge tracts of land in countries around the world are taken out of food production for ethanol. This is exactly what Bolt supports. Bolt is disappointed Canberra and the States are not shoving the rest of productive land into ethanol.

Bolt waxed lyrically about what a great boon it would be for farmers. Is he joking? Some farmers only. Others requiring material for their production are savaged. And, the majority of Australians are hit to prop up the scam, which is also a destruction of capital. The joy of joys is, many Australians can starve for the sake of ethanol and Bolt’s pals behind the swindle. Next, this great freedom fighter refuses to face the fact, the swindle is in force only by government fiat.

The man is so dense he does not have a clue as to the sheer carnage that is being caused by criminal fraud he fully supports. Committed to the scam, he is deliberately ingoring and suppressing all the evidence rolling in. Well, he has to; it bursts his fantasy of an ethanol Eldorado.

The force of the scheme was predicted roughly a decade ago. Ah, and where were the Right when Rightwing Ministers cooked up this scheme. Indeed, where were they when Jeff Kennett as Premier tried to ram down his version of ‘the great leap forward’, and seize Victorians private property and throw it at incompetent farmers to grow material for ethanol? Nothing, not a hint of a public fight. Stone frozen cold silent. There was one economist who wasn’t, Jackson:

Kennett’s snake-oil economics,‘green gas’ and ‘corruption’

Bolt is a walking polar icecap. In using his employer’s newspaper to promote the ethanol scam, he didn’t realise what he was saying when he opened his mouth Tuesday morning this week. Jason Soon has sufficient grip to at least explain to Bolt the economic basics, using wooden blocks. But that’s Jason’s limit, as demonstrated by two things:

Despite being an admirer of Hayek, Soon, and his pal Humphreys don’t recognise Austrian economic analysis when they see it - this alone is risible. As for the CIS and its seminars on Hayek, it’s best to pass over them in silence.These matters are not all that they cock up. History of economics is another, though they are not nearly so crude as Berg and Kemp and their entire fabrication, “Islam and the Free Market” that the IPA supplemented with a worthless, trivial exercise called “Christianity and the market”. The image of infants wielding bright crayons on butcher’s paper occurs to me for some odd reason, so I’ll just mention it just in case.

Fancy that, eh Blair, only Leftists write tripe and palm it off as history? Where is the outrage over the Right’s falsification of history, and historical facts? Why the silence Tim?

Secondly, Soon, Humphreys, Greg Lindsay and pals blunder over what the real force of carbon taxes is. In this respect, that lot are on Bolt’s wavelength. The ethanol fraud is a tax on capital, it is destructive of capital. Bolt doesn’t realise that, and the CIS are no better, which is really amusing. Soon doesn’t bat for the ethanol version of the carbon tax precisley because of the above reasons. That is, working within the confines of textbook, perfect competition bound economics, he knows cuts in supply raises prices, so he won’t commit the Boltism.

The above is why, Tim, Soon has committed another of what he is prone to, contradictions. He can entertain the carbon tax because its real, true force doesn’t register with what he regurgitates. Indeed, on the force of ethanol, he doesn’t have to trouble himself with capital and the lattice of production either. A man has to know his limits but a reasonable man would be deeply disturbed if his were as low as that pillock’s are.

Ah, and then there is also Soon’s advocacy of intensification of the Australian version of the Sherman Act. What is terrifying is, these giants are typical products of Australian university schools of economics. The Rightwing think tanks, Blair, are actually kerplunk tanks - lead hitting shallow water.

Tim Blair attacks Leftists for their callous, mendacious, incipiently totalitarian aims and their viciousness towards others. What do we see but Bolt deliberately deceiving the public over the ethanol fraud, sneering down at the rapidly increasing very large numbers of victims, and promoting a hard core Leftist aim. Tim is stone cold silent. He is silent not only on this.

Tim is also frozen over his other Rightwing pals and their aim to immiserate Australians through carbon taxes. Tim is silent on the fact his mates are pushing the Green lie, Co2 emissions causes global warming and what should be done about it. It’s a real puzzle Tim, how can a chap attack this by zeroing in on only the Left? I say, Tim, the Left have grounds to lodge reasonable complaints against you. The count is bias and suppression of these inconvenient facts. What a courageous journalist Tim is - he, a journalist, does have to explain this very strange omission.

Tim is silent on the fact his pals act in the same way as vicious leftists. They smear genuine Liberals and in particular, those they fear the most, guns. We know why they do it, the fat cheques they collect from donors and clients.

Tim, while happy to attack the venality of Leftists, e.g. living high on ‘government grants’, ignores the venality of his pals. He attacks cowardly leftists but ignores his pals flying the same colour, bright yellow. Tim covers over his pals are as ignorant as many a leftist is. He is silent on; for all this, as the Left, his pals nonethless expect donors to line their bank vaults for the rot they trot out and, worse, they as the Left get away with it.

Who, Tim, are the parasites? They are not all Leftists. Tim covers up so many things, I’m beginning to ponder whether Tim does know all this - being the good, impartial, investigative journalist he is. That, he only puts up a public front. At home, he downs a few fingers measured from the bottom to the neck of a bottle of scotch, in order to fight down his disgust at the truth of what his pals are.

Tim, your pals are no better than leftists are. They act like tyrants too, brooking no debate. This is why when they publish papers they are shot full of errors and fallacies, and enough of them are unconscionable in force. What counts is the Party line. They are, as Tim freely charges leftists, brain dead, confined to parroting textbooks and lines. Finishing off the accomplishments of these new wave cadres, as Tim charges Leftists, they also bottom out in their callousness and contempt for modest Australians. These are your pals Tim.

What is worse Tim, your pals are so venal and craven they distort truths and facts as well as the Left. Tell me Tim, who are the fascists? They ain’t only leftists. It is easy to eviscerate the Right, they supply hard evidence by the day. Tim, being a toughened journalist, has an even greater advantage. He has penetrated into the Right’s inner circles. Tim has the goods, the juice, the oil on them first hand and, what are his front-page making revelations? Nothing, zip, not a pip. Tim’s lips are sealed with tarzan grip.

Now we see the problem. Tim does not attack the Right for the very things the Left also must be properly hit for. It’s a complete moral failure. Why even, according to Tim, the treacherous Left is not ok but the treacherous Right is. That, it is ok for the Right to hold many Australians in contempt and trample over them as so many stinking serfs who just don’t know how lucky they are to be shoved around by a pack of thugs. Yet, it is not ok for the Left to do the same thing? Tim must have superior penetration in moral philosophy because I am completely stumped at fathoming the justification for the distinction. After all, one absolutist hell hole is as good as another is and the Right and the Left are driving down that alley.

Tim, it’s no good attacking the Left on matters, when you shield your pals from just punishment. Matters, bye the bye, that should have been well pulped long ago, if it were not for the Right. What is the distinction between Rightwing and Leftist thugs? Where is your credibility Tim? It’s fast going up in smoke, unless you lighten up in quick time. Where is your journalistic integrity Tim?

A journalist is supposed to be independent, objective, principled, and courageous. Look at Bolt, he is none of these things, and he is a dolt to boot. Right now, Tim, you follow in that fat bastard’s footsteps. Oh, I forget, Tim is in with the Rightwing think tanks too. The IPA even has a bibliography of articles by Tim Blair it has published in its Review. Is Tim to them, as Bolt is to Kroger, Costello, David Kemp, and the criminal thugs behind the ethanol fraud? Is this why Tim protects his pals, he is ductile too?

Oh, Tim might not like what I have to say, but consider this: The Right has said as much against Leftist journalists, mixed with the ripest abuse too. Tim has freely hurled such abuse at Leftists. Yet, Tim is dishonest in playing along with this. Rightwing journos, including Janet Albrechtsen, are no better. Bolt is right there with the lowest of Leftists. Tim’s credibility is whiffy too. He’s protecting his pals, and not nervelessly scrutinising and reporting what that lot actually do. Bravo, Tim Blair. This appears to be another Boltist suppression of inconvenient facts.

The Right has adopted Tim because; he has the two virtues they require of a prospective toady, ductility, and cowardice. Tim hasn’t yet sunk to Bolt’s depths, bottom of the ocean, but currently, as a journalist he is not credible. Don’t fool yourself Tim, you are not in the fighting game, you are not hurting leftists, you are not putting a genuine liberal case to the public in fine polemical form, you are not reporting on facts (of the Right). Tim is (currently) compromised. Tim, so far, is a journalistic dud.

Tim, get serious or stick to your strength, motor cars. In the meantime, Murdoch should sack that walking paper bin called a Bolt. What a disgrace. Hey, Murdoch, you can pay me $3,000+ a week to peer at a telephone and even better, I’ll use the bloody thing – and, how’s this for a bargain, you can remove the office mirror parked on Bolt’s desk - only ladies and Andrew Bolt use it. Oh, my mistake, the ladies would use it but they can’t shove him out of the way.

In, Tim Blair attacks the Left for their callousness, but not the Right. Part III,(29/4/2008), attention was drawn to, amongst other miserable failures, Soon’s deliberate deception and smears he published on the Leftwing site, Lavartus Paredo. These offences are compounded by the deceit of not only Soon, but rather too many of the Right and their “free market think tanks”. The deceit compounds their repugnant contempt for those made unemployed due to fixing wages above real market rates.

Soon deceived those readers in pretending it is the Right and their think tanks that defend the unemployed and empathise with them in their plight. None of their statements I have read and heard supports that claim. Thus, it is understandable why the Left made headway also on this matter.

In misleading the public, the Right also suppresses the truth and smears genuine Liberals who do defend the unemployed. Having mentioned three gentlemen who are noted for defending the unemployed, a little expansion is in order, since they smeared one of these three, Mr. Jackson.

In the first instance, reading carefully Mr. Jackson’s articles on labour markets, defending the unemployed is ever present. The true, sound economic explanation alone eviscerates the false claims of those who consign many to unemployment. It is a solid moral fact Jackson has reiterated:

Imposed effective minimum wages is a brutal assault on many Australians. Giving many Australians a 100% pay cut is savage. This is only one of the many points Jackson has stressed in his many articles on labour market economics. However, Jackson has written articles dedicated entirely to extended defence of the unemployed. Here are two of them:

The Liberal Government and its supporters must stop kicking the unemployed

BULLYING THE JOBLESS

Compare even only these two items with the slops put out by the brutalist school the Right.

A less charitable chap might say Soon not only smeared a fine economist, he also told a lie. He is, though, a vicious fishwife, who holds a worthy place with the best of them - the likes of Quiggin.

Coming from Soon and and Co, though, defending the unemployed by kicking the poor sods in the groin when they’re down has to be acknowledged as compassionate concern.

Mr. Tim Blair, what a decent gent of a pal you have in one Mr. Jason Soon, the intellectually and spine challenged juvenile that pretends to be an adult and an economist.

Fed up with the bilge pumped out by the mainstream media, Quadrant, IPA and CIS, in the mid 1990’s I searched around for a genuinely hard-edged, analytically solid news and economics magazine. Thanks to Microsoft, the chances of finding economics magazines worth reading seemed good. Sadly, however, it proved otherwise for Australian on-line publications.

After enough time expended fiddling with searches, one eventually came across Mr. Jackson’s first online magazine, The New Australian. I was stunned. At last, here was a magazine written by an Australian for Australians that was worth reading. Superceding, The New Australian, Brookesnews continues it’s fine and forthright work.

For a number of years, I stored articles by fine economists around the world. The article below is one of them. Published a decade ago, the article laid out the case as to why the ethanol scheme is a swindle, predicting what would be the upshot should it be imposed. It is as fresh today as it was the day I first read it. Then, that is due to sound economics.

Kennett’s snake-oil economics,‘green gas’ and ‘corruption’, Gerard Jackson, 12-18 January 1998, read in “Continued”:

(Continued)

To the Left, Andrew Bolt is a lovable buffoon. To genuine Liberals, he is a blundering, vicious idiot - I know because genuine senior Liberal Party figures are fed up to the gills with the Kroger-Costello-Bolt-carbon taxing propaganda machine. This is your Rightwing pal and human bilge pump, Tim Blair. The contradiction is, the Right pretend to be compassionate, and considerate of modest Australians, while grinding them into the dust.

I will refer to remarks made by Mr. Jason Soon. I’ve kept them up my sleeve, from the days of the fight for labour market reform. He made them on the Leftist site, Lavartus Paredo. The subject was labour market reform, and in particular the indeed the bureaucratic device of AWAs:

Under, The Unbearable Sadness of Being a Lefty [boo hoo], Kate wrote on why she “just had to sign an AWA”. She asserted the ACTU false claim of monopsony, with employers holding a ‘balance of power’ over employees’. For someone who claims to be an admirer of von Hayek, one of the doyens of the Austrian school, Soon failed miserably to put the true argument and rebuttal.

I’ve never so much as skimmed over a contract in my employment life once I know what the pay is and whether there are any unusual provisions. What negotiation? No need for a talkfest. The most potent form of negotiation is the ex ante one - you go for the interview and if the employer gives you a number you don’t like, you go elsewhere.

Yes, Sir, that was as effective as Hugh Morgan’s effort, fresh from acquiring a $700,000 oil painting, telling modest Australians they are over-paid. We can tell because Kate jumped all over it to great effect:

Indeed Jason but the rhetoric around Workchoices is that we will be able to Choose! And Negotiate! And most of us probably won’t… just like the pre-Workchoices days. I’ll leave the heavier economic analysis for the Smaht people.

As an aside, some of us rather foolishly have chosen to work in industries where jobs are somewhat scarce. Now, this is a matter of supply and demand and it does push wages down and I accept that I’m not going to make a fortune pursuing my chosen career path.

Which is ok, because I get a lot of other good things from my career which are more important to me than earning $200k plus a year.

However, in my position the idea of ‘choice’ can be rather ludicrous at times. If I want to work in my field I expect to have limited job choice and it’s very hard to walk away from an employer when I know the next good job offer could be years away

Soon failed to nail what underpins rates of pay, and what raises pay, and thus unpack Kate’s concerns correctly. Instead, $200,000 a year man Soon showed the same callousness as Morgan, and also $200,000 a year man Bolt who, in calling modest earners ingrates, declared they don’t realise that they could be as wealthy as he is if only they stopped resenting their lot as vassal serfs.

Notice the perpendicular “I”. Soon doesn’t have a clue about the real world, and what many modest Australians have to do to earn a paypacket. Taken with his defective economics, he substitutes the great example, himself and how he can knock on any door and collect another $200,000 per annum income. What they saw is as Kate complained of, the Right telling them they are paid too much and should take a hefty pay cut and be grateful they still have a job, any old job.

On the unemployed, Soon pretends to defend them and sympathise with their plight. He does nothing of the sort; neither did his CIS chum Professor Saunders. Their compassion is this: how to push the unemployed into jobs and cut unemployment payments. What’s wrong with this? If Soon is the Austrian school economist he claims to be, he would know why, and would not have written the rot he did.

Unemployment benefits are compensation for being deliberately shoved into unemployment because effective minimum pay rates have been, by coercion, pushed above real market rates. The Right is oblivious to this - another indication of their callousness and reflected in their pet scheme they rammed down on the unemployed, ‘mutual obligations’.

Who has defended those forced into destitution? Gentlemen such as von Mises, Hazlitt, and Mr. Jackson. Again, Soon failed miserably to state the Austrian case. He not only failed to do it, for good measure Soon also smeared Jackson, calling him a brutal rightwing extremist. I say, that is also a deliberate lie. Indeed, rather than a gentleman, Soon shows all the style and elan of a vicious housewife.

Does Mr. Blair appreciate why the Right wrecked the case for labour market reform and brought about the defeaat of the Liberal Party last year? No, he is not that bright. His pals in the Right’s think tanks did not have a grip on what the true, and highly moral case for reform is. Instead, in getting the economics completely wrong, they, not Austrian economists, showed their callousness to the modest voter - ‘It’s alright to push modest Australians into destitution, because, they the good and true know what is good for dumb oafs.’

Jason Soon after all, argued Australia’s Sherman Act and its intensification by Rudd is a good thing. The Rightwing consultants, including the CIS and the IPA, receive their fees by deceiving companies, telling them regulation is good for them. But what are they really telling firms, and ultimately the majority of Australians? This:

A measure that breaks up companies, smashes their capital, cuts production, cuts pay, and forces consumers to pay more for far less is a jolly good thing. That is what he has argued in the paper linked in the item, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announces his version of the “Sherman Act”(Monday, April 28, 2008).

What sort of free market economists are they, when they stand up in public and shout from the rooftops:

“Measures no genuine Austrian school economist would contemplate because they are truly destructive are fine, fine, fine, fine.”

What else is to be expected of Soon and his pals when they advocate capital destruction through carbon taxes, and then tell Australians, ‘but you will to still be well off because fatuous, ruinous fantasies will plug the gaping holes blown into the hull of the ship HMAS Economics?’ They push hot red Green measures, hardcore leftist measures, and they claim to be fighting the Left defending free markets, and defending Liberty, truth and all good things.

These are the sods who put the ALP into office. The ACTU knows it, the Left knows it, even Rudd knows it as thick as he is. Genuine Liberals know it. They they are still at it, ‘destroying great causes, wrecking fights that have to be not only fought but won. And, for good measure, they sink their boots into those who can fight fights that have to be won, and not simply Mr. Jackson. I’ve previously mentioned they have trampled over scientists capable of street fighting.

Tim Blair finds nothing wrong with these moral and intellectual pygmies. He cites them as bright, learned, compassionate, principled, ferocious oppressors of the Left. Blair persists in pretending that they have not advanced the Left’s aims and discredited genuine liberalism.

He has failed to deal with his Rightwing pals in a forthright manner, a sure sign he is not serious at all. It is worth reminding Blair; it was types like that lot who paved the way for fascists such as FDR, Hitler, and Mussolini. Types like that paved the way for central planners, for tyrants waiting in the wings. Types like that paved the way for FDR’s new deal and what do we see in Australia today, the Right paved the way for Rudd’s fascist aims. Spiffing, absolutely spiffing.

Tim has a problem. He’s a journalist and his credibilty is at stake. Bolt doesn’t have any credibilty, he made sure of that himself. That doesn’t excuse Tim. Attacking the Left but remaining silent on the Right for the same reasons is a contradiction. He can’t stick by his pals too look good. Stick to your subject Tim, motoring, or get serious. Your Rightwing pals are not as bad as the Left, they are worse.

They are destroying the Liberal Party, and have discredited the great, thoroughly sound case of genuine Liberalism in the eyes of the voter. They are also cowardly, backstabbing vicious fishwives. Tim calls that lot his pals? It doesn’t look good at all Tim.

Oh, dear, we haven’t finished with Tim’s predicament, but the three parts today is enough for Tim to stew over, until tomorrow. A journalists’ credibility Tim - keep that in view, Bolt is an object lesson in what it is not.

While content to jab his finger at leftists for advancing ruinous propositions, Tim is strangely silent when his Rightwing pals do the same. He hasn’t caned Bolt over the ethanol swindle. Funnier is, when he attacks leftists over another criminal fraud, he doesn’t mention that his Rightwing pals also back it to the hilt. No hint of even a gimcrack, and here is Mr. Blair in action:

WORLD COOLING ON WARMING
“The first victims of poseur environmentalism will always be developing countries,” writes Mark Steyn…

Another enviroscam may cause hardship locally:

The other ‘environscam’ Tim Blair refers to is carbon taxes, in the form of carbon credit trading.

He links an article dedicated to one consequence of carbon taxes that Mr. Jackson, and others have dealt with. However, the article ignores the full appalling force of carbon taxes. It is the destruction of capital, thus the destruction of production, and this means the immiseration of Australians.

There is no point in worrying about the impact of the tax on lower-income families. They won’t have an income to be taxed. Their pay will be smashed and wiped out altogether because the source of income, capital and capital accumulation has been wiped out.

Blair is silent on his Rightwing mates, who have pushed for carbon taxes. They are rightwing Liberal Party (ex-) MPs, and his pals in the CIS and the IPA. Despite Moran’s paper, the IPA still published the Davidson-Berg paper that slips in advocacy of carbon taxes. The IPA has a collection of papers on the theme of how Kyoto compliant ‘regulations” - in effect carbon taxes, might be imposed the ‘right way’.

Blair is totally silent on the fact his friends, John Humphreys and Jason Soon are pushing hard for carbon taxes, and that their position is the position of the CIS. He is completely silent on his pals’ “case” for carbon taxes is the case the Rudd Cabinet is using to justify the demolition of capital and the immiseration of millions of Australians.

Soon and his pals advocate capital destruction on a hideous scale through carbon taxes. They then have the hide to tell Australians, “but you will to still be well off, and even do better, because fatuous, ruinous fantasies called ‘alternative’ energy will plug the gaping holes they have blown into the hull of the ship HMAS Economics.” How bright are they Tim? What about you Tim?

After all, your pals are advocating what you are ostensibly attacking, and why you linked that article in The “Spencer Street Soviet” Age. Will you be consistent and hit them too? Face it Tim, they are pushing hot red Green measures, hardcore leftist measures, and they claim to be fighting the Left defending free markets, and defending Liberty, truth and all good things.

You, Tim Blair, while you jab the Left, don’t have the spine to face up to the treacherous Right

I have challenged Mr. Blair to get serious, or stick to the subject he is expert in, motor cars. One aspect of getting serious is facing up the fact his Rightwing pals are as rottenas as the treacherous as the Left.

Tim Blair has an embarrassing problem, his rightwing pals, the likes of Andrew Bolt, Jason Soon, et al, and their deliberate deception of the public.

This morning, Andrew Bolt, on radio, denied there is a worsening international food crisis. In his typical sarcastic trivialisation of serious matters, for which the Right are as culpable as the Left, he said there is no food crisis. To the contrary, according to Bolt:

The lumpenmasse of India have never had it so good (funny, that’s the line he used when calling modest Australians ingrates). It is obvious, because “they are all fat”. They are ‘fat’ because “they are eating more”.

Ah, I see. According to Bolt, the teeming masses of India are eating so much that the international food crisis is only a short run supply-demand adjustment, and prices will fall once farmers increase production. The recent food riots according to Bolt have nothing to do with a food crisis.

He then continued his flippant and snide remarks by saying that fashionable westerners react by doing the opposite, eating less and getting thinner. Bolt observed bulimia is “the it” thing to sport. He was alluding to the cut in food supplies in Britain, Europe and the US, and not just in Asiatic countries. (It was recently reported that the British are struggling with food shortages and spiralling prices for available supplies.)

Bolt has deliberately deceived the public about the deepening food crisis, the real hardships it is causing, and the political fall-out inclusive of violence. He papered over real suffering in Asiatic countries, and islands. This callous, Rightwing bastard has decieved the public on radio, and it is no secret why he did so.

He uses his column to promote the very reason why there is a major, international, deepening food crisis, the ethanol fuel fraud. He has not yet apologised for it. He sung its praises, what a great boon it is for farmers seeking an easy way out of running a real agri business. Mind you, it was his rightwing mates in politics, including his equally ignorant friend Peter Costello who rammed this watermelon criminal scheme down in Australia.

Bolt papered over what the criminal fraud is causing, the wrecking of the lattice of agricultural production around the world. Now, I don’t know whether poor Indians have been eating better than in the past, but the improvement has ended. They, in Bolt’s snide and flippant usage, will thin down fast, and many around the world will join them in the exclusive, expensive Quick Slim Programme… ah the Brits are already on it. Joy.

Moreover, economists warned 12 to 13 years ago what the consequences would be if the ethanol fraud were to be imposed. They spelled it out; the destruction of efficient food production.

That callous blatherer, Andrew Bolt, ignored the published evidence. Then, Bolt is not merely ignorant. He is evidently incapable of even picking up a telephone to contact those who could have advised him accurately. Struth, what is Murdoch paying him $3000 plus a week for? To peer at a telephone, then rush of to admire himself in a mirror?

It’s funny but, on this grave matter, the truth for Bolt is not in contention. This foghorn accuses leftists of lying, and distorting facts, and using their positions to promote vicious tyrants such as Castro. Yet, he does the same thing; conceals facts, distorts the truth, and promotes swindlers who are wreaking havoc. How much havoc? Famine is a real prospect.

That, Mr.Tim Blair, is your Rightwing buddy in action.

As damaging, and ruinous as Australia’s version of the Sherman Act, the ACCC, already is, Kevin Rudd has decided to intensify this protectionist measure.

The Rudd Government will today announce new measures aimed at promoting competition and cracking down on anti-competitive behaviour by big businesses.

Monopolies and cartels exist and endure only as government imposed arrangements. This was understood, as was also theory of capital until the 1930’s, which due to the rise of central planners and novelties purveyed as economic theory fell out of view. It was why until the 1930’s monopoly was never discussed - all understood what a monopoly is. As DiLorenzo summed up (of the US):

The Truth About Sherman

Today regulation is generally recognized as a mechanism by which special interests lobby the government to create barriers to entry or other special privileges. Research has shown, for example, that the Civil Aeronautics Board cartelized the airline industry, the Interstate Commerce Commission helped monopolize the railroad and the trucking industries, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation sharply limited entry into the banking business, and occupational licensing created entry barriers into hundreds of occupations. Much of the history of regulation chronicles monopoly privileges procured through the auspices of the state….

Those politicians responsible for the Sherman Act (1890) deceived the public by claiming it was a measure aimed at protecting consumers against ‘trusts’ - monopolies and cartels. It was a protectionist measure aimed at preventing entry into markets of competitive firms run by entrepreneurs. The object of damaging successful firms is to protect, as Di Lorenzo also related, “incompetent businesses from superior competition, not to protect consumers from monopoly”. Entrepreneurial firms, consumers and labour all lost out with the imposition of the Sherman Act.

It is ironic to consider that in contrast to today, Unions in America did not demand and support the Act. Today, they are demanding the Act be weilded against companies such as Walmart. What those Unions would thus do, is assist protectionists in condeming labour to less productive jobs and with that, falling income.

The Sherman Act was used against the free market, competitive firm, Microsoft. The irony in this action was that some of the hostile parties - software firms inclusive of Java, ride on the back of Microsoft’s operating system and integrated software. Next, they were not producing products that could displace Mircrosoft. Contrast this to the British firm Unix and the development of its pc version, Linux, and Apple’s redevelopment of its products. As Gates correctly said, Microsoft is not a monopoly. 240 economists signed an open letter, published in the major US papers against the Act and the action:

“An Open Letter to President Clinton From 240 Economists On Antitrust Protectionism.” It said, in part, “Consumers did not ask for these antitrust actions - rival business firms did. Consumers of high technology have enjoyed falling prices, expanding outputs, and a breathtaking array of new products and innovations. … Increasingly, however, some firms have sought to handicap their rivals’ races by turning to government for protection. … Many of these cases are based on speculation about some vaguely specified consumer harm in some unspecified future, and many of the proposed interventions will weaken successful U.S. firms and impede their competitiveness abroad.”

It should be noted that there are US Judges who are blunt about the real force of the Sherman Act. Justices Bork, smeared by the Stalinist Democrats, and Posner have firmly set out that the Act punishes entrepreneurs, protects inefficient interests, punishes consumers, imposes real losses and burdens. Indeed DiLorenzo quotes Bork in the above linked article:

Robert Bork might not have been exaggerating when, writing in his book, The Antitrust Paradox, he remarked that if government were to somehow force the economy into “competitive equilibrium,” it would have approximately the same effect on personal wealth as several strategically placed nuclear explosions.

Well, that is what Rudd, and the Right - courtesy of the CIS are about to do Australians with their carbon tax, so why not finish the serfs off properly!

Australia has its own Sherman Act, the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission. The assumption used to justify this protectionist regulatory regime is the falsehood of perfect competition. The defining test (also fallacious) is market concentration. The fallacy of perfect competition in fact serves those who are hostile to free markets. Portectionists, as DiLorenzo observes, seized on it. This fact points up how palpably bad the “free market think tanks” in Australia are - the CIS and the IPA:

Once the economics profession embraced the “perfect” competition theory which…means “the absence of all competitive activities,” it also embraced antitrust regulation. For…

The related falsehood of monopsony was used by the ACTU against labour market reform. Shockingly, the Right conceded that lie. Yet, it is understandable why they did so - apart from the monstrosities the likes of Hugh Morgan and Des Moore put up as theory of labour markets. The Right believes in the lie of perfect competition.

The ACTU’s objective is a mercanitilist’s aim. That is, to extract effective minimum rates higher than real market prices. This means enforcement of protection of unionised labour. It’s funny but this, if any monopoly exists, really looks as if it is exerted by central government for selected interests. There, it was, under the old IRC regime.

The ACCC is also appallingly destructive, as this case illuminates:

Anti-merger laws are bad for the Australian economy, Mr Barnaby Joyce

… go back to 2000 when the express trucking company McPhee and four of its executives were fined $4 million in a federal court for…

Then there is the recent, infamous case of Richard Pratt, his Visyboard and Amcor. In fighting the action, they must have been advised by ignoramuses - not only their lawyers, but, since it turns on economics, also ‘economic advisers’.

One is not altogether sympathetic to Pratt. He has supped with the Devil and the Devil seized his dining cutlery, rammed it up under his rib cage and rummaged around his gizzards. Dick Pratt fully supports ‘evironmentalism’ and watermelon red measures. Seeing that greeny-hugging bastard suffer is not an unmixed joy.The fly in the ointment is, he was skewered for the wrong reasons.

Rudd is an ingornamus, and so is the rest of his Cabinet and their advisers. What, exactly, is the Right’s excuse for committing economic sabotage throught the Australian version of the Sherman Act? More so in view of, despite their public propaganda efforts, the Right has never advanced nor defended the case for free markets and genuine Liberalism. They have acted with deliberation for contrary aims.

One target of protectionists is the supermarket majors. The public campaign against them asserts the chains are supposed to:

1. sell to consumers at low and even lowering prices;

2. but not at a price that puts the inefficient out of business;

3. will pay some protectionist suppliers prices higher than their real market values.

4. The majors are in violation of 1,2 &3;

5. this means they must be operating as a cartel.

It’s a bizarrely schizophrenic list of demands that can only be imposed by government coercion. Yet, it doesn’t require much effort to draw the correct conclusion, efficient producers, consumers, and employees and capital can only be damaged by the imposition of those demands.

One type of protectionists are those pretending to be in the business of agricultural production. To repeat, 40-45% of farms are successful business operations, supplying 95-98% of total output. The other 50-60% producing a very expensive piffling 2-5% of output are fully propped up by transfers. It is this lot who are trying to extract more out of much abused successful producers and consumers, by the deliberate attempt to force retailers and, in reality, consumers, to pay more. Take, for example, meat :

The ineffectual are complaining the majors are forcing livestock prices down while charging profit taking prices to consumers. Hey presto, they are running a cartel. A figure shows how absurd this claim is: The major’s build their earnings on thin margins of 1% to 2% on products sold.

What is funny is, according to the fallacy of perfect competition, the numbers of butchers is large. From the fallacy of perfect competition, by definition the markets in meat are highly competitive.

There are many, sole proprietor, single shop butchers in suburbs and towns, and a number of small independent butcher chains. This is in addition to independent supermarket/mixed business shops and small chains. There is also a reasonably large array of types of meat sellers. Victorians have dozens of alternatives within a matter of minutes of their doorsteps. They are not bound to major supermarkets for meat. So if the majors are making profit, why aren’t a significant number of others selling at lower prices, thus eliminating those profits?

The reason the protectionists give is, the majors have negotiated high volume supply contracts with a limited number of large-scale, efficient producers. This is, they assert, proof of monopoly,with the smoking gun of ‘collusion’. No, it is evidence of producers and buyers resolving efficient production of meat. The objection is nothing less than the incompetent crying foul because they are not successful in the business of meat production.

What is really going on in meat pricing is buried under the whining and also the fallacies of perfect competition. The reality is protectionists, to get their way, are supporting measures that will damage successful retailers and consumers. They are using fallacious ‘economics’ to push their case.

Rudd has made this clear, the object is to force successful firms and consumers to subsidise the inefficient and handover to them unearned incomes. It’s a policy of capital liquidation and deliberately forcing down the real incomes of consumers so that a lucky few can enrich themselves even though they are failures as businessmen and businesswomen. Successful enterprises and consumers can get stuffed. Rudd has made this plain:

Where appropriate, legal cases involving a misuse of market power will be heard in the Federal Magistrates Court rather than in the Federal Court.

The reforms will also strengthen the role of the ACCC

Australia’s Right never did unwind the “Sherman Act”. They fully support it and, in reality, have told Rudd to screw Australians. Oh, not intentionally. No, it is because the Right parrots the textbook, as does Jason Soon, who seems oblivious to the force of what he has written in:

Tackling price-fixing cartels

The force of the Australian version of the Sherman Act protecting “incompetent businesses from superior competition”, and its fallacious economic justification, perfect competition, is the breaking up and smashing of the latter. Rudd can cut to the chase and decree his own great leap forward.

Rudd can order the break up of BHP, Shell, Woodside Petroleum and Caltex. Next, order every Australian household to drill for oil and distil ethanol in their backyards. In five years time there willl be a gloriously competitive market with many producers producing ‘efficiently’ and selling at much lower prices. Hail, Chairman Kev!

It is risible that Soon and the CIS regard themselves as authorities on Hayek. The Right are oblivious to the genuinely ruinous force of Australia’s version of the Sherman Act, and to the fact that Rudd’s decision to intensify it will compound its ruinuous impact. Their economic shallowness fuels their demonstrated callousness.

Why did Papuan New Guinean politicians cave into the Rudd Cabinet’s scheme to rob landowners and reduce them to mendicancy? Perhaps the inducement is Australian politicians Left and Right having successfully reproduced themselves, are propping them up with transfers straight out of the pockets of Australians. For they didn’t require much convincing to agree to what is nothing less than larceny –“Listen, do as we tell you or we shove you off the gravy boat”. Whatever, the PNG administration caved in.

The Rudd, Garrett and Swann have stolen the land along the Kokoda trial from its rightful owners. The excuse is, because the owners wish to better themselves through economic development, the mining venture. One Aussie halfwit spoke enthusiastically about the ‘native porters’. Yah, right, that’s why the poor sods want to get rich, they are fed up to the gills with destitution and being treated as nothing more than vacantly grinning natives who simply love living in squalor by Oz ‘middle class’ boors out to feel some sort of mystical thingy - “Do you admire my navel too”, “Yes, mastah’ .

Garrett, being a corrupter of youth and a Chief High Priest of the Green’s death cult, is a hardened liar much admired by boors. To make up for the massive theft of private property, and fiat killing of the mining venture, he announced the Australian Government will ensure ‘sustainable economic development’. The only clue that parasite has about economic development is how to fill his own bank account.

The truth is the Rudd cabinet will finish those bloody natives off by reducing them to permanent mendicancy. They are to be kept in their place - the misery of destitution. Compounding their criminal actions against the local landowners, Australians will be savaged again in the way of additional transfers, not as compensation to the locals and the mining company. No, the sums will be handed to the bums in Port Moresby. Why should it be otherwise? Australia’s Left and Right don’t give a stuff about the serfs who litter Australian cities, so that the PNG locals might aim for something higher than that miserable condition is an aspiration that has to be killed stone dead.

It is property theft. It is also a deliberate, criminal action to reduce the local landowners to permanent destitution, unlike wealthy parasites such as Kevin Rudd and Peter Garrett. Not that Australia’s Right did much to genuinely liberate those poor sods in PNG.

Rudd, Swann and Garrett, these three crims have opened the Australian Government to criminal charges on precisely these causes. What a disgrace. What a disgusting, racist action against villagers whose great crime would be to prosper through real economic development of their own property, their land.

Ah, it would be a lie to hold they are not crimes because the PNG Government agreed to let the Rudd Cabinet steal that land. That land doesn’t belong to the PNG Government either. The fraud involved is compounded by the transfers Rudd has promised to Moresby. Transfers that will be no compensation what-so-ever to the landowners and the mining company and their joint venture. There is no good reason why the landowners should not launch criminal actions against those parties guilty of these crimes.

Mind, Australia’s Right also see nothing wrong in stripping many of their real rights. They have done it to many Australians many times over. So why should they be disturbed and stir themselves for mere bloody natives who can be depicted as happy, smiling village idiot serfs only too pleased to carry the bags of boors from Oz? Besides, even if they had an inkling it is the right thing to do, as soon as ‘stand and fight’ was uttered they’d scream, bolt their steel doors and, sweating profusely, sedate themselves.

The Right used to laugh at the Greens as merely a gaggle of bong sucking louts. I always took the Greens seriously as a threat. The Greens, to sum up again, was a front the KGB set up in the 1960’s to undermine the West. The old USSR has collapsed, but KGB thug, Putin, is collecting the payoff; noting he is rearming Russia’s armed forces with new weaponry, and it is aimed at the West, the U.S. in particular. Putin himself has been open about this.

Yobbo, avid fan of the CIS and their studs over at Catallaxy, joined in the hilarity over “Mad Doug”. I found the gags amusing, even touching. However, Yobbo has a problem. He’s a pastoralist in WA. His capital stock is sheep, as he once related on his site. I have noticed the Green’s twin, PETA, is now making the same inroads that saw the Greens converted into what it now is - a major political danger, they are no longer simply protean economic saboteurs.

PETA’s aim is not merely to stop mulesing. Their aim is the outright destruction of lamb and wool production. The aim is certainly well known in Victoria, because one of its thugs during a recent interview on a Melbourne radio station declared that it is their aim. They want merino sheep eliminated in Australia.

After decades of being regarded as merely another pack of bong sucking crazies, PETA is gaining a major bridge-head in Victoria where it counts. It is called Voters. You can tell PETA is securing it because increasing numbers of ‘the man in the street’ now accepting the lies and demands PETA has been pumping out for decades. They cry crocodile tears each time PETA tells lies about the horrors of “mulesing mutilation”.

Peta is now a major political danger, they are no longer simply protean economic saboteurs, and here are a few examples showing why from PETA’s website:

PETA wrote to Nike-owned Cole Haan after receiving numerous complaints about the company’s sale of mink- and rabbit-lined coats and gloves. The CEOs of Nike and Cole Haan immediately informed PETA that they plan to eliminate the use of fur in their products effective fall 2008. Cole Haan and Nike join an ever-growing list of major retailers that refuse to sell fur, including Kenneth Cole, Ann Taylor, Express, Gap, Banana Republic, Polo Ralph Lauren, Forever 21, American Eagle Outfitters, and Calvin Klein.

To this list can be added major retailers who refuse to carry products with Australian merino wool content. This week, Hugo Boss added its name to the list. Hugo Boss has announced it is now its policy to use no more merino wool for production of materials for its products. This is the tip of the iceberg of the sheer amount of economic destruction in the West they have wrought. Here is their 40 pages of major economic sabotage that they have committed.

That is sabotage without including the violence they have committed against scientists and Universities. Not mere violence, but the commission of terrorism. Not only, for example, stalking scientists, but issuing bomb threats for good measure. Why are they not listed as a terrorist organisation?!

You can tell we are in deep touble when not only the man in the street believes their lies and accepts their propaganda as truth. You know you are in deep shite when wealthy types who would never soil their hands in real enterprise, in production of any type, join the PETA wagon, and use their TV and radio shows to promote PETA, and then funnel millions of dollars into their coffers. Use, stage and screen to spout PETA propaganda, for example, this blonde bimbo -

Lying nude and cuddling a rescued lamb alongside the tagline “The Naked Truth: Lambs Suffer and Die in Live Export,” model and actor Annalise Braakensiek appears in a brand-new ad for PETA.

To illuminate, consider these names who fully support the Green Front and that good for nothing corrupter of youth, John Dee:

Pierce Brosnan, Olivia Newton-John, Jamie Durie, Steve Irwin, Kylie Minogue, Dannii Minogue, Nicole Kidman, Tom Cruise, Rolf Harris, Layne Beachley.

They have all starred in that Stalinist front’s public campaigns. Olivia Newton John fancies herself as a high priestess to Mot, god of death. Worse, unbelievable, one entrepeneur whose airline company is being shafted by the Tony Blair-Gordon Brown carbon tax con, Sir Richard Branson, is all for the hard left cause! The man has caved into ideologues out to wipe his companies off the face of the earth.

In Australia, we have the likes of the two Dicks, Pratt and Smith. Of PETA, how many wealthy, clueless types, Right and Left, have lined up behind PETA? With the Greens and their related fronts, including the taxpayer kept “Australian Conservation Foundation”, as an indication, it is most likely a very large number, and pouring millions into PETA’s bank vaults in crisp $100 notes.

Millions is a litote (understatement). Media advertising campaigns are not cheap. It requires millions to mount only one campaign. Multiply those millions by the very many campaigns these Stalinist fronts have run and we are talking about many very wealthy backers. This is before Federal, States and Local Governments topping up those squillions by taxing the hard oppressed real taxpayers and siphoning the proceeds into the accounts of these fronts. This tax transfer is before a second top-up called tax reduction. In Australia, they have philanthropic standing under the tax regime of Australia. Jeepers, what a real entrepeneur could do with all those billions thrown down the throats of hot to trot Reds.

But wait, there is more! PETA will have their way with Australian pastoralists. Kevin Rudd, with the full support of the CIS and their Brahman backers will deliver them victory on fine china plate with the best silver service and butlers in town. The dish is Carbon taxation.

Rudd and his gang of ‘brown pantaloons’ are raising the bills to ram down the tax. Cattle, and sheep are included, they will be served up. Mr. Yobbo will pay carbon tax on every beast he owns because they fart and burp and he can thank his Rightwing heroes for this, because they flung Kevin Rudd and the Soviet Politburo onto the Treasury benches.

It will be a victory PETA didn’t have to even lift a finger for. In Victoria the Greens and ACF exercise real police state goon squad powers. This is no joke, those in rural Victoria know all about it. Those farmers in Victoria who are businessmen, and not mendicants wanting a lifestyle by pretending to be businessmen in the type farming, are furious.

They are not merely furious at the Bracks and Brumby Cabinets. They are furious at the treacherous Right and their Toorak - South Yarra - Malvern backers. They are in no doubt that that lot of congenital idiots landed Victorians in the soup called Brackistan. They are also Liberal Party members and they want that lot smashed, They realize the Left will not be smashed until that lot are shot over the proverbial cliff-edge.

One day, it won’t only be the Brackistan Green police goon squad invading your property, dictating what you can and cannot do, and hitting you with criminal offences with hefty fines attached for breaching Stalinist decree no 2,000,0065. One day, you will receive 4 visits, one from Greens Party, one from Planet Ark, one from Australian Conservation Foundation, and one from PETA. It’s no joke.

PETA is making real inroads, they are making exponential gains in voters’ support for their causes. They are gaining many wealthy backers who don’t give a stuff for modest Australians. PETA is a real political threat. Oh, and as for “bong suckers”, careful examination shows, sarcasms to their expense is one thing. Underestimating them is altogether different. This is something Yobbo also should be careful about. As it is:

Mr.Yobbo will not be the only pastoralist who will awake one day to a bit of joy in the morning, the liquidation of his business. Carbon taxes will brighten his day. The Right are not free market warriors. They are selling out Australians to the hardcore Left. First it was the Greens, now it is PETA.

As for Mr.Yobbo:

Joining the CIS – Catallaxy troll club in a bit of jollity, Yobbo failed to ask himself one question:

If the Heroes of the Right are so tough, their economic reasoning impeccable, their grip on other core matters such as science sure, and their fighting the Left ferocious, then why have they been spectacularly ineffectual? And, not merely ineffectual but have conceded many a lie the Left uses to attack free markets, capital, science, and Liberty?

The farmers alluded to above know what Yobbo is blind to. Yobbo might explain to his fellow pastoralists what a fine thing it is those great heroes of the Right ensuring the Left roll on. I might advise him not to, more out of concern for his personal safety.

Then again, I might not. In the meantime, while Yobbo might be satisfied with the Right’s success in advancing measures that, if imposed, will ruin his business, others are not one bit impressed.

Over a decade of Rightwing MPs in Cabinet and the best that they and their advisers - inclusive of the CIS and IPA, could manage is to ram down watermelon red measures. What a stunning success.

Way to go Yobbo! How the Right biffed and smashed the Left, eh. Oh, and there are those charlies the Australian Wool Council with Ian McLachlan AO as chiefy weify. They have been spectacularly ineffectual too. Yes, Sir, Australia’s Right, a bunch of bungling, ineffectual clowns whose notion of winning is to help the Left bleed Australians to death.

Given the Right and their “thnuk tanks” concede the Green’s lie, man causes globular warming and climatically sheet changing via carbon emissions, this is pertinent:

1. Research Scientist Dr. Roy W. Spencer (the University of Alabama), is so disturbed by the lies governments are using as an excuse to impose destructive policies that he has taken to public polemics. He has been engaged in the fight since at least 2004. His effectiveness is indicated by the sheer number of hardcore Leftists who expend many words smearing him, as even a cursory google search shows.

Author of, Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor, he makes what at first seems a recondite point. Subtle, it is easily missed but, a few moments consideration reflects, the gentleman has delivered a real blow to the liars:

You might be surprised to learn that there has never been a single scientific paper published which has ruled out natural climate variability for most of our current global-mean warmth. Not one…

Instead, since Mr. Carbon Dioxide was found at the scene of the crime — albeit without the murder weapon — there is no need to search for any other culprits or accomplices. The circumstantial evidence has convicted him. Even though Mr. Carbon Dioxide is necessary for life on Earth, we are now calling him derogatory names, like “pollutant.”

As the mass hysteria calling for an end to carbon dioxide production has accelerated…

Not one paper! This is staggering in its force. The left dominated media, and the politicians, not only Leftists, but of the Right and their “thunk tanks”, have asserted the science is in, AGW is true. Secondly, they have resorted to the falsehood of ‘consensus’. Those ‘scientists’ who have been willing to betray sound science to grab hold of the billions of taxed dollars governments throw at the Greens’ cult of death have been more dishonest than has been assumed.

The boosters are covering themselves by slipping in the truth but in such a way it is missed. This is not bad science, it is fraudulent charlatanism. It is corrupt, and it is insidious in the implications. Debasement of science, the rise of the cult of nature, the descent into superstition and mysticism in the 19th century was bound up with the emergence of totalitarian regimes in the twentieth century. This is what “AGW” is.

The Right, given the millions they have poured into their “kerplunk tanks”, have not attacked the movement and politicians with the rigour, vigour and determination required. Instead, they have thrown up three watermelon red Ministers for the Green cult, and pump for the imposition of even harder Greens’ demands. The Rightwing “sputternak tanks” have also spurned scientists who showed the ability to fight in public. Combined with their intellectual feebleness, it is understandable why the Left consider that lot not only to be clowns but also pet lambs, as quiet as Mary’s baaaaaa lamb.

Dr. Spencer was one of 60 scientists who signed this petition:

Open Kyoto to Debate

(An open letter to Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada,
from 60 Expert Scientists)

6 April 2006

Dear Prime Minister:

As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government’s climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with…

Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts…

While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation…

We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand…

“Climate change is real” is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural “noise”. The…

We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today’s global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.

We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic…

Sincerely,

The signatories is a gallaxy of distinguished scientists. What is telling is all the petitions and open letters and documents that have been raised by scientists against Greens’ lies over the years have all been signed by distinguished scientists around the world. John Daly, Still Waiting for Greenhouse, compiled them on his site for all to view.

That much great work has been done for over a decade is a fact that not only Australia’s Left dominiated media conceals from the public, for obvious reasons. It is a fact neither the IPA nor the CIS has promoted, and run on, and certainly never approched any of the thousands of scientists who have acted in this matter. Instead, the IPA is now pretending it, this very year, is uncovering the truth - a fool’s joke and it ain’t April 1 anymore.

Neither have the CIS and IPA accepted scientists’ offers, pro bono, to fight this grievous matter in public debate. I have been told by Liberal Party heavyweights, fed up to the gills with the Right and their “sunk tanks”, they have refused all such offers. And the Right call themselves geniuses. Luckily it is not WW II and these idle ignoramuses commanders because the Wermacht would have destroyed the Allied forces.