Op-Ed piece in Australia's most "left-leaning" daily by a denier who blames climate change on JEWISH bankers

It this is what Australia's most "left wing" daily will do, it is very hard to know just how Australia's "right wing" dailies can top that stunt.

Maybe by having a Op-Ed piece on climate change denial by Hitler himself , back from beyond the grave ?

The Fairfax Group-owned daily The Age is one of Australia's oldest and most distinguished publications and has been known, in recent times, as Australia's only left-leaning daily.

But coal billionaire cum climate change denier Gina Rinehart has bought a big hunk of Fairfax and installed some of her allies on its Board.

Watching the Deniers is now reporting that The Age has now published a long climate-denying op-ed piece by Dave Evans - without mentioning, in the interests of balance, objectivity and disclosure, exactly who Evans thinks is behind the whole climate change debate.

Libertarians blame climate change debate on JEWISH banking families

It just so happens that one of Gina's biggest raves is the husband and wife team of Jo Novo and Dave Evans - both who love to rave against the powers of Big Money taking over the climate change debate.

They don't mean Gina and her billionaire denier buddies though : it is all down to those traditional bete noires of the Libertarian mind set : Jewish banking families like the Rothschilds.

Anti-semitism and climate-change denial : surely a match made in Social Credit Hell .....

Blogger LUX EX UMBRA embarrasses CSE and mainstream media : a lesson for denier-fighters

Bill points 'the way ahead' for denier-fighters

Rarely does Reality confirm Theory as quickly as it did for me between yesterday evening and this morning !

This morning Bill Robinson (and his blog LUX EX UMBRA) is the toast of the Canadian blog-o-sphere and he is being quoted in all of the Canadian media thanks to Canadian Press's Jim Bronskill.

But, he did not do it by fighting another blogger on the other side of Bill's position of greater transparency in governance.

Instead Bill exposing a big change in transparency at Canada's most secretive spy agency CSE, which is part of a shadowy world wide network of establishments that spy on all the rest of us.

If Bill had chosen to focus on exposing errors in transparency-shy fellow bloggers, the media would have dismissed the posts of both sides in this slagging war as "juvenilia" .

But by focusing on someone much bigger than himself (the CSE) and uncovering something other bigger organizations (ie the mainstream media) had missed, he got two david vs GOLIATH stories in one.

let's agree not to give any more oxygen to Watt's up the ass et al

So, fellow denier-fighters, please re-read last night's post in SVE (Denier blogs ; read 'em but don't write about 'em) in light of Bill's success.

And ponder whether we should be ignoring Watts up the ass and focusing on CATO's denying think tankers libertarians instead.....

Denier, denier : heartland on fire : Romney's heartland burns while Greenland threatens to , well , become a GREEN land

This week it was announced that Greenland's icecape is melting like the bejesus.

That continent-sized island may soon be green in appearance, as well as in name.

The amount of water sitting on top of it , if it leaps into the water and melts will do two things very quickly : raise ocean water levels worldwide and leave a huge hunk of land that now absorbs sunlight rather than reflect it.

This land warming will couple to the atmosphere instantly and will greatly strengthen our weather's energy reserves --- our deadly weather bombs will move from the A-bomb to the H-bomb variety.

I may soon have to move inland and upcountry quicker than I had expected.

Sea levels don't need to rise much higher before where I live (coastal Nova Scotia) will only houses lobsters and clams, rather than earthlings and SkyGods.

I don't know what The SkyGods Of The Universe, perched in their eeries, high up in the glass and concrete towers of Wall Street and Threadneedle Street, are making of all this.

That is assuming that these latter-day Harry Limes even care what is happening to the "dots" (earthlings), way down at sea level aka ground zero.

I am sure that their astro-turfing think tankers don't care.

I gather most deniers  - at least in America and probably in Australia as well - don't live by the coast but in the high interior.

Republicans and Australia's Libertarian party both speak of the outback as their heartland for voters.

So today Libertarians and Republicans will continue to deny that the world is getting hotter, from among the hottest hellholes on earth - while watching their crops fry......

new POLL : 70% of Aussies dislike "The Nasty" abbott : Drought in USA hits deniers in the gonads

Romney-the-denier's election hopes wilt in republican mid-west drought

I bring you good news, fellow bloggers, albeit perversely good news.

New evidence is emerging (er, re-emerging) that since more CO2 inevitably comes with more heat, global warming beyond what we already have will not be good news for our main calorie-producing crops like corn and soybean.

Deniers read up, carefully : yep, global warming will NOT be good for the corn and soybean crops of the Republican-Libertarian-Denier heartland of the American Mid-West.

I bet  Mittster-the-denier is wilting along with potential ex-voters' crops .

Apparently all the denier think tankers are not baking on a vacation beach but are back in their air-conditioned beltway offices - sweating the bejesus.

Thomas Homer-Dixon in Canada's Globe & Mail ( you can tell there is a real crisis when even a denier rag like the godawful G&M is willing to give a climate change believer an Op-Ed spot ) says corn and soybean can't stand even short bouts of really high temperatures ---- temperatures that are just beyond the high temperatures they normally demand to flourish.

In denier-speak, that means their response to heat is not linear but dose-dependent.

Ironic what - deniers bitten by their own rhetoric !

The news from America has apparently hit even the shores of  VAN DENIER'S LAND itself.

Aussie voters know one or two things about The Nasty abbott - in particular that he is a big climate change denier.

A  new poll  in the Australian says that 70% of Aussies don't like
him.

I don't like him myself.

I mean I am a Catholic ,like our Tony, and I actually even like some of his social conservative views ( others I hate).

So the man does not want to directly kill the unborn -- he merely wants to promote the slow and indirect killing of all life on this Earth.

  I don't recall seeing that anywhere in my pre-Vatican II daily missal, while growing up RC....

Sorry, Megan, but the Halifax Oceans panel was a microcosm of the problem it seeks to solve

       HALIFAX - The Canadian branch of the International Ocean Institute (IOI-Canada) held its 8th Annual Elisabeth Mann Borgese lecture & panel/public discussion at Dalhousie University's Law School on May 8th 2012, mere weeks before Rio+20 Conference.

    There has been international efforts to improve the state of the oceans against the assaults of man for at least 40 years - plenty of nice words spoken by government leaders - plenty of serious treaties written and signed.
   But basically no action.
   Admittably there has been little action on any environmental front, so why should the oceans be so different?
   Well, it is our oceans - not our land - that makes the Earth uniquely the one planet in a trillion ,trillion, trillion planets that has intelligent life on it ---- that's why this stuff matters.

   Kill the oceans, kill us.
   You'd think sheer self-interest would motivate governments whether pure or nasty, but no.
  I went to the meeting to report upon it for SVE and the only thing new that I heard, the only thing that really alarmed me, was an aside from my favorite Halifax MP.
   Megan Leslie, now deputy leader of the New Democrats and their point person on the crucial environment front, mentioned reading "letters to the editor" as one way to gauge public opinion on issues of the day.
   Well that really got to me - I admit I used to read those letters, I told the panel but not anymore - they were far too polite and far too civil.
    They were like the equally polite and civil public government support for action on ocean problems.
   But since those polite governments did nothing on oceans, despite getting polite support from letters to the editor, clearly something had gone wrong in the linkage between public opinion and government action.
   So I asked how many of the distinguished panel also read the comments under newspaper news stories and columns, instead just the letters to the editor?
  I told them I did and that I found a horrific subterranean world filled with people, ordinary voters, with a very different solution to our ocean problems.
   These people - I estimate maybe 20% of our world's population, have, in effect, tuned out of all discussion on environmental problems.
  They had bought fully into the commensalist (aka green) assessment that unless something happens soon, the Earth was depleted and doomed.
  They just hadn't bought into the commensalist solution.
   For this 20% of humanity, (SPACERS), the solution instead is to bugger off Earth and start up again on a terraformed Mars and then push on when that also got ruined - to the ends of our Milky Way and beyond.
   They freely admit that scientific man may have caused our current problems but that scientific man was also up to correct them.
   Modernist Utopianism, marked as DOA circa August 1945 among polite and civil people, in fact lives on in these peoples' febrile brains.
   Perhaps they were the 'pushback' reason why governments held back on actually carrying out their ocean promises.
   I looked around the audience as least as much as I eyeballed the panel and I saw only one man who didn't seem a NDP/Liberal/Green - judging solely by his discomfort when the audience cheered cliched attacks on PM Stephen Harper and his Conservative government inaction.
   When organizations like the IOI advertise a public meeting widely, offering a highly distinguished panel - including a former Conservative government minister - and refreshments (free wine !) but fails to attract a single person from the opposing side, they are never going to learn of the reasons for, and the true depth of, opposition to action on the oceans.
   By sheer chance ,I happened to meet this conservative-looking man out on the street later and I mentioned that the audience seemed almost entirely on the left hand side of life.
    He said "I am C/conservative!" (conservative and Conservative) but even he seemed to share the audience concern about the oceans, if not perhaps all the solutions.
   While Megan Leslie said she knew she should read the comments under news articles but she found many of them just too awful - the Honourable David MacDonald said he felt this Escapism (what I call 'Libertarians or Spacers') had only arisen in response to recent events : 9/11 , the Iraq War and the decline of the economy.
    I feel, by contrast, this Escapism (Scientism) has never really left us - it was dominate in our cultural hegemony from about 1875 to 1965 , but since then has merely gone semi-underground.
    All that the easy ability to post anonymous comments on the world wide web has done is to ensure that what these people used to  say in private amongst themselves since 1965, they now say in public.
    We can't ignore them - we must 'out them' and confront and challenge their koolaid-drinking level of thinking at every turn, if we are ever to save this planet.
   The 'polite talking to the polite' will never do it - sorry IOI.
    Next time, invite some of the nutters to be on your panel : let the libertarian Spacers try to defend their vision for our oceans - "find'em, frack'em and foreget'em" against the commensalist alternative : now that would produce a real debate* and expose why 40 years of nice talk remains just that - nice talk ...

* Real debates - not love-ins - are what brings the oldstream media out as well as bloggers - because what action on the oceans needs most is ther oxygen of public attention.

CHRIS LADD, GOPlifer, is one Republican well worth reading

     I may not always agree with everything the ole GOPlifer says - but Chris Ladd never fails to amuse and inform as he says it.

     One post by him in particular - on the perpetual popularity of LIBERTARIANISM among those perpetual teenagers - the college student - was definitely "bang on" in my books.
   (Ever wonder what  "bang off " looks like? - I do at times...)

Harridans from Hell : the three women who are destroying our planet

    Destroying all the planet, from the grave.
    All three Harridans - Isobel Paterson, Rose Wilder Lane and Ayn Rand - died years ago .
    But they are still uniquely honored by the mostly male (and male chauvinistic) libertarians of the world as "The Founding Mothers" of Libertarianism.
    Yes - there are no Founding Fathers of this uniquely male-centric theology of greed and self-centredness.

   The Mother of All Mothers for libertarians was a Canadian - Isobel Paterson.
    Who could imagine that such as self-absorbed, self-centred bunch of perpetual teenage boys as the libertarians could have been birthed by women and Canadians, rather than by some hard-bitten Texan macho types .
    Life is stranger than Hollywood....

This century's battle between Webster and the Devil is for the soul of all humanity

    Forget Republican versus Democrat, Liberal versus Conservative, Socialist versus Capitalist ---- they are all yesterday's news, yesterday's papers - throw 'em in the trash, we won't be needing them again.
    Today's battle royal, between a latter day Daniel Webster and a latter day Devil is the battle between the Libertarians versus the commensalists.

    And this time, they are fighting for the highest possible stakes: for the soul of all humanity and for the lives of all Life on Earth - which may just be all the life there is, in the entire Universe.
   Hard to get any more elemental and cosmic than that .
    The old debate, yesterday's debate was how do we - do we - share the wealth of the Earth between humans.
    The new debate, a variant on killing the goose that lays the golden egg, is over how do we - should we,must we - share the wealth of the Earth with the lifeforms that actually produce it.
   Or do we 'slash & burn and move on', treat the earth like the way Libertarians treat their women: "Find 'em, Frack 'em and Forget 'em".
  Do we toss the depleted Earth aside, like a used-up trophy wive, a used condom or  a no-longer-wanted Christmas puppy?
  Do we bugger off to gate ourselves a new community on Mars, the new Earth 1.0% --- leaving those who can't afford to go - the 99% - to bake and broil under greenhouse skies?
   These are the new political questions that will dominate our elections, consume our financial markets and transfix our public intellectuals in the years ahead....

SVE supports unmanned probes of Mars & Venus: makes our rare EARTH more precious still

     It won't be wise - would it ? - to use the EARTH as a laboratory to prove up the concept of what a runaway greenhouse effect can do to a planet.
   We don't have to - not that the libertarians/deniers/SF fans among us aren't doing their darnedest to try anyway.
    Instead we can just consider the latest science on Venus, a planet somewhat close to us in features, where a classic case of runaway greenhouse gases destroyed any hopes of Life on a planet somewhat similar to ours.

   But in the game of Life, somewhat close isn't even close to being good enough : it is the precise/exact/perfect constellation of a dozen or so features that makes Earth that rare - perhaps even unique - planet in the universe with human-like life upon it.
    Planets close to being like Earth are expected to number in the trillions throughout the entire universe. But if they have human-like beings all watching TV and playing the internet, we haven't yet detected even the faintest whiff of electronic pollution from any of them.
    As Fermi said : if Earth-like planets and Earth-like human beings are so theoretically common : "WHERE ARE THEY ?"
   The latest pictures from Mars, a planet even closer to Earth than Venus, in most features,  reminds us of how hard it is to get the exact/precise/perfect mixture of features right, to make a place inhabitable.
    Without a stable atmosphere and wind currents to even temperatures differences out, Earth would be like Mars - the day side of Earth hot enough to boil all known life - even the most extreme of extreme bacteria -the night side cold enough to freeze all known forms of life - even the bacteria.
  Die by day - die by night - die by day - die by night. On and on.
  Mars has a winter like Earth, as well - and during that period even the low energy (because unmanned) NASA OPPORTUNITY rover now on Mars had to hunker down, conserve energy and wait it out for months.
   It climbed to just the right spot to have its solar panels lined up with the weak low rays of Sun during the long Martian Winter , to give it just enough energy to keep it ticking over.
   If OPPORTUNITY was a fungi or a bacteria,we'd call it a 'spore' .
   Hardly an attractive place for a high maintenance, high energy using being like us Earthlings.
   But for the libertarian Skygods - a paradise - in their dreams anyway.
   There is Life and there is SF (F standing for Fantasy) : let us never mis-confuse the two...

the LIBERTARIANS versus the LIMITERS

     I find the term 'denier' just a tad oblique: what these people deny, most fundamentally,is the idea of any limits on their freedom, aka humanity's potential, all bow down.
     (This is the latest variation of the age old war over the limits, if any, to the physical manifestations of humanity's rational and imaginative mental powers.)
    I prefer a variety of terms, some of them my neologisms, others are commonplace and readily understood.
    For example, Libertarians versus Limiters (rather than Deniers versus Doomers).
     Libertarians are fully comfortable with - only comfortable with - the familiar 'old shoe' of 19th Century Science of  Newton and Dalton and Darwin and Euclid that is still the only science being taught in most 21st century schools.
     By contrast, Limiters being those who ignore their high school teachers and who accept the latest findings of the science that there are definite biological and material limits (restraints upon) to humanity's potential.  
    Or Cartesians (dualists who see Man above Nature) versus Commensalists (Humanity entangled within Nature.)
    Why not Pie-in-the-Sky Utopians/Idealists versus Down-to-Earth Realists?
   Lab scientists versus Field scientists, aka Natural Philosophy versus Natural History?
    Plato versus Aristotle.
    Small "l" liberals versus small "c" conservatives.
    And finally - and obviously - Cartesian Sky Gods versus down-to-earth Earthlings.
    While it is an age old battle, this century is different.
    Because it is no longer simply a case of one philosopher debating another philosopher.
     Rather it is the fact that one side is, at last, fully able to try out its theory upon the world and the other side is busy crying out " Please God - dont ! - your experiment will go deadly wrong and destroy the only lab - the only world - that Humanity has."
   I will report this battle fully, fairly, but always from the general side of the commensalists, limiters and earthlings, making no bones that I am hoping ,above all else, to alter the course of that battle in my side's favour....