The PRODOS blog

List of films the PRODOS Film Society (Melbourne, Australia) will be including in its 2010 programme: HERE (2 MB PDF file)

The PRODOS Film Society is a member of the Federation of Victorian Film Societies. Our constitution is HERE.

Our purpose is to present and study movies that promote and explore free market thinking, capitalist ideals, the history of ideas, the life and work of creative heroes.

Listed @ http://www.meetup.com/prodos/calendar/past_list/

Dr Alan Moran, Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne Australia

Dr Alan Moran will be speaking about and answering lots of questions on

THE ECONOMICS OF TAXING CARBON

Further details at DISCOVER CAPITALISM™

Above, a few people give their feedback after the PRODOS screening of NOT EVIL JUST WRONG on Sunday October 16 2009 in Melbourne, Australia.

Thanks to Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney for creating this superb documentary and for organizing the worldwide “tea party” Premiere.

Thanks also to Tim Andrews and Andrew Landeryou for their assistance.

Tim Warner, Prodos, and Dr Alan Moran (a real goddam economist)

After spending so much time on the brain-numbing Greg Lindsay/John Humphreys Carbon Tax, how refreshing to study a real economist!

With some of my own comments and highlighting of points included, here is Dr Alan Moran, Director of the Deregulation Unit, Institute of Public Affairs – speaking and getting grilled at a Senate Hearing on the Rudd government’s proposed ETS.

Must-read Bonus: Senator Doug Cameron (Australian Labor Party) dresses in a Panda suit and gets shot out of a cannon.

Read the rest of this entry »

Here are transcriptions of the two videos first presented at my blog post, John Humprheys and Greg Lindsay promote Carbon Tax for Australia

I’m providing these transcripts after coming across a number of misrepresentations of the content I inserted into these videos.

Unless otherwise indicated, indented quotes are of segments inserted into the original video by me.Their exact placement in this transcript isn’t quite accurate since some of the inserted segments rolled out over time while the presentation was going on.

Unless otherwise indicated, the non-indented text is of  John Humphreys (Mannkal Scholar/Research Fellow, with the Economics Programme at the CIS) speaking.

Read the rest of this entry »

While starry-eyed supporters of Greg Lindsay and the Centre for Independent Studies  proclaim undying loyalty and admiration for the man who proudly:  “… has NEVER personally taken any position at all on global warming,” Australian  Senator Steve Fielding (Family First Party, Victoria, Australia) has decided it’s his responsibility to now TAKE a position – by first informing himself carefully and rigorously about the “real debate”.

No, not the one about whether it’s better to wreck our living standards with an Emissions Trading System (ETS) – OR – a Carbon Tax.

The other.The REAL “real debate”.

Steve Fielding:

So far I don’t think there’s been a real debate about the science

Shortly after returning from a Climate Skeptics conference at the American Heartland Institute, he wrote in The Australian:

It  seems every Australian has an opinion on the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme. Green groups have been calling for stronger emissions targets while businesses have been pushing for more assistance to be granted to affected industries. Others simply argue that Australia should be waiting until Copenhagen before rushing ahead with any scheme. The one question, however, that no one seems to be asking, is whether or not we even need an emissions trading scheme at all?

… Perhaps CO2 is not the bogeyman of the climate world as many would have us believe.

AAP reports:

Senator Steve Fielding wants to debate the cause of global warming with government scientists before voting on climate change legislation.

Andrew Bolt writes:

… Fielding, an engineer, is now insisting he be shown the proof that the world is even still warming, and the (Australian) Government must at last justify its plan’s most basic assumption.

Its “most basic assumption”? But that’s the one Greg Lindsay and John Humphreys use as their “starting assumption” – cunningly opposing an Emission Trading Scheme for Australia … by proposing a Carbon Tax for Australia. Isn’t it?

With a vote coming up soon on the government’s proposed ETS -  Senator Fielding said:

he wants the science “cleared up” before he decides how to vote.

When a happy-clappy Christian politician makes more sense than a Hayek-inspired free market think tank, it’s enough to makes devout atheists start wondering, what on earth is God really up to?

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant

Des Moore: Alternative energy sources will lower living standards

Des Moore, Institute for Private Enterprise, writing on Australia’s Henry Thornton blog

Read the rest of this entry »

ARE YOU A MORON?

Do you believe in …

• Global Warming?
• Scientific Consensus?
• The Debate is over?
• Renewables?
• Taxing Carbon?
• Green Jobs?
• CO2 is a pollutant?
• ARE YOU A MORON?

Green Poppycock merchandise @ WeLoveCapitalism.com

A Happy CO2 to you too!

Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant

Greens Lie - People Die

A Happy CO2 to you too!

Green Poppycock merchandise @ WeLoveCapitalism.com

Greg Lindsay, Centre for Independent Studies

Below, 2 videos of John Humphreys, Mannkal Scholar and Research Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS)  promoting a Carbon Tax for Australia.

Greg Lindsay, CIS founder, although not seen in these videos excerpts, is present at this Climate Change Policy roundtable discussion.

The ostensive purpose of the meeting is to argue why a Carbon Tax is better than an ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme).

Achieving CO2 reduction is treated as a “starting assumption”.

The “No Tax – No ETS” position is not discussed.

At odds with Greg Lindsay’s professed understanding and support of Hayek – and presumably Hayek’s extensive writings on Capital Structure – a “revenue neutral” Carbon Tax is proposed and even lauded as a “no regrets” approach.

This is combined with an “extrapolate the past – accelerate the future” narrative, composed of technological “optimism” mixed together with an interventionist re-definition and usurping of the concept of “the price mechanism” by John Humphreys. The effect is surreal.

The complete, un-edited video of this CIS roundtable can be viewed HERE.

Text comments by me inserted throughout both the following two videos:

Read the rest of this entry »

My late and brilliant friend, Stephen Speicher, introduces Dr Lewis Little who will talk about his Theory of Elementary Waves in the first of of 18 YouTube videos,  originally recorded in 2000 at JPL (Jet Propulsion Labs).

To view all 18 videos, visit: http://www.youtube.com/tewlipdotcom

To study and discuss the Theory of Elementary Waves and issues in quantum and relativity physics, visit TEWLIP.com

To find out about Dr Little’s new book CLICK HERE

Listen to my November 2008 interview with Lewis Little HERE.

The Double Slit Experiment, conducted by Hitachi scientists:

Whenever electrons are observed, they are always detected as individual particles. When accumulated, however, interference fringes are formed.

Please recall that at any one instant there was at most one electron in the microscope. We have reached a conclusion which is far from what our common sense tells us.

Snapshots at different times:

Electrons go through a double slit, one by one, but over time form a wave-like interference pattern

The only explanation of these results which does not postulate nonlocal particles or nonlocal waves, is that provided by Dr Lewis Little with his Theory of Elementary Waves. Learn more @ TEWLIP.com

The Theory of Elementary Waves, by Lewis Little

In collaboration with Dr Lewis Little, I’ve re-started TEWLIP, the forum for studying and discussing Dr Little’s Theory of Elementary Waves, which deals with Quantum and Relativity physics.

To register for the forum: TEWLIP.COM

To purchase or find out more about Lewis Little’s new book, The Theory of Elementary Waves: A New Explanation of Fundamental Physics CLICK HERE

The move to the new server and the closing down of the old server has finally been completed.

A big thanks to Robert Redl of Austria and Davide Villani of Italy for their great help in managing this very challenging job.

I’m looking forward to now resuming more productive activities.

Several sites have been placed in maintenance mode for now.

This week all newsletters were delivered via the new server and the new mailing list system (Free World Express).

The Free World Express™ mailing list/email newsletter service has now been converted to a modified version of  PHPLIST and moved to the new server.

We were using OemPro before which offers many more features. But I found their tech support incredibly unreliable.

Moving the Free World Express™ mailing list system to the new server. Or trying to.

Due to a silly blunder – I accidentally initialized the database and lost all  the settings I’d configured over the weekend (Ahhhh!!!) – so I’m now running a couple of  days late on this.

A boring, laborious chore.

A bunch of PRODOS sites and systems on my Australian server – but not including the THINKER TO THINKER™ blog platform – were hacked a couple of days ago.

Files types targeted were:

• index.php
• admin/index.php
• admin/help/index.php
• admin/home.php
• index.html

iframe tags enclosing a known .cn “attack site” URL were included within these tags and injected into the files, causing sites to break.

After two days of working at it I think I’ve now repaired and restored everything and added extra security here and there.

Unfortunately I haven’t been able to identify the exact point of vulnerability which allowed the code injection into the system. That potentially leaves the sites opened to be re-hacked. Still working on it.

This repair job has delayed finalizing the move of the mailing list service to the new server, unfortunately. So, if you’ve applied for a mailing list account, it’s going to be a couple more days before I can set this up for you.

Wife of Prodos, Barboo (Sydney Kendall) loves the new TTT Themes. Here she is on her way to celebrate Valentine’s Day 2009.

New blog Themes created for THINKER TO THINKER™ blogs.

Title: “Gather Your Thoughts”
Provided 13 color variations.

Title: “Make New Friends”
Provided 10 color variations

A bunch of new Plugins tested and installed into all TTT blogs, including:

• Nested/Threaded comments
• Quicktags comment editor
• Comment subscriptions
• Printer friendly per post
• And others

More to come.

Launched new weekly contest with a small cash prize for TTT bloggers …

Here’s what you need to do for this week’s contest.

Over the next week write 3 posts on your TTT blog – each of which includes at least one quote from any of these “Big Seven” Thinkers:

* Aristotle
* John Locke
* Adam Smith
* Thomas Jefferson
* Frederic Bastiat
* Ludwig von Mises
* Ayn Rand

Q: Can all 3 quotes come from the same Thinker?
A: Yes. You can write 3 posts and, for instance, have a quote from Thomas Jefferson in each post. Of course, you can’t use the very same quote three times. Well, you can but it’s only counted once.

Q: Can I have one quote from this Thinker and two quotes from that Thinker?
A: Yes. Any combination – across 3 posts – is fine.

Q: Where do I get the quotes I’m to use?
A: You have to find them yourself.
AND … you have to provide the original source of the quote.
For instance, if you quote from Aristotle, you need to specify which of Aristotle’s works that quote came from. If you use a quote from Bastiat, you have to specify which essay or book of Bastiat’s it comes from. The attribution cannot be a website. The attribution has to identify the original source of the quote.

Q: In what way must I utilize this quote?
A: It’s up to you.
For instance, you can include it as part of another article. You can do a post that’s specifically about the quote itself – for instance, explaining why you find this quote valuable. You can pick a quote and elaborate further on it just as a thinking exercise. It’s up to you.

Q: Can I criticize the quote?
A: A quote that’s used in order to criticize the quote is not counted within the three quotes required for this competition.

Q: How do I win the five big smackeroos?
A: It will be difficult. Very difficult. Fortunately you are not put off by such considerations. You embrace the challenge. You look forward. You are driven by your vision of a better world.

Q: I plan to win. How will you send me my hard earned cash?
A: PayPal

Q: What can I buy with five dollars?
A: Glory

Q: Why are you doing this? Are you insane?
A: I feel fine. Thanks for asking. Good luck.

Q: I don’t need luck. I’ve got a TTT blog.
A: That’s not a question. But I get it and I’m glad.

Happy blogging!

Pictured above: Little Adam Villani and his super coder Daddy, Davide in Rome last week

The THINKER TO THINKER™ blog system has been converted, upgraded, and moved to a new server. It’s taken several months of daily effort to get this done.

The original TTT system was custom-built for the PRODOS Institute years ago – before multi-user platforms were anywhere near mature – and it was way out of date.

We’re now using a modified version of Wordpress Multi-User 2.7. Converting from the old system to WPMU was … challenging, to put it mildly. (Money, time, energy, and general headaches.)

A special thanks to Davide Villani of Italy (pictured above)  for his wonderful help in de-bugging the system and getting it all working beautifully.

Thanks also to Zhiyan of China for working on the proto-type of the conversion script.

I’m currently designing a new batch of themes for TTT blog owners and adding plugins/modules to the system.

Last but not least, thanks to all my fellow THINKER TO THINKER™ bloggers for their enormous patience and support.

Here it is as a PDF.

EMAIL ME and I’ll send you the answers.

Created for the Melbourne DISCOVER CAPITALISM meeting of December 19, and won by Charles Richardson, pictured below holding his crossword and prize.

And here are some of the delicate souls he crushed asunder …

Click here to download and print out.

Write to me and I’ll email you the answer sheet.
Created for the Melbourne DISCOVER CAPITALISM meeting of December 12 2008 and won by Barboo (Sydney Kendall) pictured below.

Now online at prodos.solidvox.com – An interview I recorded over a year ago with Alan Schaeffer from the Alliance for the Separation of School and State talks about why schools should be privately owned and operated.

Melbourne, Australia.

Monday, November 24, Melbourne Discover Capitalism™, will discuss:

THE MORAL FOUNDATIONS OF CAPITALISM:
Comparing Adam Smith and Ayn Rand

Speakers: Timothy Warner & Prodos

Further details HERE

Obama: “.. when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody”

A quick translation …

When “you” = When I (and my pals) = those who did not create/earn it.

“THE wealth” = YOUR wealth. YOUR money/income/profit. “THE” wealth = What YOU have have earned but don’t assume you can keep it or decide what to do with it. It’s not YOUR wealth any more. Now it’s “the” wealth.

“spread the wealth around” = take your income/money/wealth/profits from you and give it to others, according to standards set by Obama and his pals.

“it’s good for” = Me and my pals will judge what’s good and right. You don’t get a say. You don’t get a say because you created that wealth. By creating “the” wealth you have lost your rights over it. Others who have less than you now have a claim over your wealth, BECAUSE they have less than you. The good is determined by need (as defined by me and my pals). What’s good is not to be based on your values and priorities, but on mine (Obama & Pals). What’s good is not what you say is what’s good – It’s what I say is good.

“everybody” = Everybody except you. It’s everybody who has NOT earned that wealth. Everybody = everybody else.

Zomblog has located a 1997 endorsement by Barack Obama of a William Ayers book.

Obama provided the following:

A searing and timely account of the juvenile court system, and the courageous individuals who rescue hope from despair

The book is called Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court.

FoxNews quotes a passage from the book that mentions not only Barack Obama, but praises Louis Farrakhan and his “security force.”

Our neighbors include Muhammad Ali, former mayor Eugene Sawyer, poets Gwendolyn Brooks and Elizabeth Alexander, and writer Barack Obama.Minister Louis Farrakhan lives a block from our home and adds, we think, a unique dimension to the idea of ’safe neighborhood watch’: the Fruit of Islam, his security force, has an eye on things twenty-four-hours a day.

Patterico.com provides evidence that in 1995, two years before Ayers’ book was published, Obama launched his political career in the home of William Ayers.

There is evidence by Stanley Kurtz, AmericanThinker.com, and PowerLineBlog.com – and others linked to from these sites – that at the time, Obama was a member of “New Party” – created by the Democratic Socialist Party – backed, driven and steered by ACORN people and putting forward a clearly anti-capitalist, re-distributionist agenda.

Here is a 1995 article by Hank De Zutter at ChicagorReader.com, with extensive quotes from Obama and from one of his enthusiastic supporters – Madeline Talbott – at ACORN, about Obama’s work in running workshops.

After making sure Barack was not in the room, Jeremiah Wright
calls out “God daaamn America!” Sneaky little devil! He always does that!

“Will somebody help?!!”

[Hat tip: Uncle Tom & The Real Michael]

I have now commissioned a programmer to upgrade the THINKER TO THINKER blog system.

Completion should be within the next 2 weeks or so.

All existing blog themes will be removed. The current batch is way out of date, and not compatible with the latest blog platform.

All blogs will be reverted to a default theme, and blog owners will have a large collection of new themes to choose from.
There should not be any significant disruption when we switch over to the new system.

There should be no loss of content (including formatting, images, categories).

A couple of the existing plug-ins will become obsolete, but replacements will be available along with many new features.
Thanks to those donors and supporters who have made this possible.

All PRODOS websites and systems will be migrating to a new server over the next few weeks.

I don’t envisage any significant disruption as I’ve become quite adept at doing this now.

A special thanks to Robert Redl for his assistance and support.

We’ve had server problems today which took most PRODOS sites, mailing lists, and online services offline for most of the day. Things seem to be back to normal at present.

If you tried to use our contact form or to register for a project, please re-send or re-register. Thanks.

Todd and Sarah Palin

CLICK HERE to listen to Rush Limbaugh explain on Fox News how Sara Palin is a “breath of fresh air.”

Rush Limbaugh:

Have you ever asked … your average run-of-the-mill politician, “Why do you want to be President … Why do you want to be a member of Congress?”

He proceeds to caricature the usual pseudo high and mighty answer given by the usual politician. Then he recalls the answer Governor Palin gave:

Characterizing Sara Palin’s response:

“Because my school was screwed up and I needed to get to the PTA to help my kids”

Rush observes:

She takes the complex [and] she makes it understandable …

About politicians:

… she threatens Washington because those people [politicians] like for us to think their jobs are very complicated, very complex. And we ask them questions about how they do what they do and they come back with answers that are hard to decipher.

But with Palin:

… she – flat out – can tell people why she’s doing what she’s doing, why she wants to do what she wants to do, why she’s done what she did.

Sarah Palin and John McCain

As easy on the eyes as she may be, I rarely read Anne Coulter (pictured above). But I wanted to see how she defended Sarah Palin.

So I followed THIS LINK to WorldNetDaily to find out.

I was appalled to read the following by Anne Coulter …

That summer, in 1776, Gen. George Washington – a charter member of the Founding Fathers – rallied his troops, saying: “The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves. … The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of the army.”

So Washington not only used the phrase “under God,” but gave us one of the earliest known references to the rights of the “unborn.” That’s right! George Washington was a “pro-life extremist,” just like Sarah Palin.

It may well be the case that Washington was anti-abortion. I don’t know, and I don’t know who does.

But I’m pretty sure the above-quoted statement by Washington was NOT a reference to or defense of fetuses or embryos, or that General George Washington was in any way motivated at the time of making this speech by any desire to prevent abortions.

The term “unborn” can certainly be used to refer to fetuses and embryos.

But it is also used to refer to “future” – not yet born – as in not even yet existing within a womb. As a reference to generations to come, perhaps centuries or more into the future. Not even alive yet in any sense – not physically conceived. The context of Washington’s statement is clearly this line of meaning.

Elsewhere in my reading of George Washington’s letters – and those of the other Founding Fathers – it is clear that they did not consider the ideals for which they fought as relating just to Americans. They considered them to rest on Universal truths and principles that were valid for all people, everywhere, for all time.

The “unborn millions” are the future generations – of Americans and probably of others. They are not the “about to be born” (provided they’re not aborted).

(Note: There is also another, far less common meaning of the term unborn: “existing without birth or beginning”)

Furthermore, I’m not convinced that Christianity, the Old Testament, or the New Testament prohibit abortion.

The PRODOS server – and therefore most sites – was down for several hours.

It’s been re-booted and is working again.

It seems there is a hardware problem which has been causing intermittent breakdowns.

We’re looking at moving to a new physical server very soon.

Fox News presenter, Bill O’Reilly, gets a cameo appearance in “An American Carol” – the forthcoming film send-up of Michael Moore, and starring Kevin P Farley as “Michael Malone” who sets out to eliminate the Fourth of July.

Also stars General Patton, President Kennedy, and a large cast of Mohammeds.

Here’s O’Reilly presenting the trailer:

Offline for a few days as we fly back to Oz.

Tim Warner and Anna Blainey Warner visited Barboo and Prodos in Cincinnati

“The people of Georgia have cast their lot with the Free World. And we will not cast them aside.”

In clear and uncompromising terms, President George W Bushexplains why the United States of America supports Georgia, criticizing Russia’s incursionand insisting South Ossetia will remain with Georgia.

Some brief excerpts transcribed from the video …

… Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected. Moscow must honor its commitment to withdraw its invading forces from all Georgian territory.

… Georgia has become a courageous democracy.

… Since the Rose Revolution in 2003 the Georgian people have held free elections, opened up their economy, and built the foundations of a successful democracy.

…. Georgia has sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq to help others achieve the liberty that they struggled so hard to attain. To further strengthen their democracy, Georgia has sought to join the free institutions of the West.

… Unfortunately, Russia has tended to view the expansion of freedom and democracy as a threat to its interests.

…a contentious relationship with America is not in Russia’s interests

… Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st Century

Jack Wakeland writes that Georgia’s President Mikheil Saakashvili (above) has the eloquence, spirit, and ideas of Winston Churchill (below).

Reproduced belowin fullwith permission from from TIADaily(a subscription-only newsletter produced by Robert Tracinski) yesterday’s compelling article by Jack Wakeland …

We Need a New Warsaw Pact Against Russia

by Jack Wakeland

August 14 2008 – (c) 2008 The Intellectual Activist

I do not agree with the hopelessness and defeatism that has crept into much of the commentary on the Russian invasion of Georgia. America and the rest of Western Civilization have not entered an irreversible decline. All forces inimical to liberty have not forged an iron-clad, unified, and unassailable front against us.

Do not be in awe of evil. Do not tremble when its power briefly rises to equal a fraction of our own. This is an invalid perspective, and it is a betrayal of confidence in what we all know is the deep well of power that the good can always draws from: that we are right.

We should know our own power. Being right matters. If you don’t think so, ask yourself why it is that Russian tanks stopped outside of Tbilisi?

Did the Georgian army destroy Russia’s armored columns? No. The tanks were stopped because the Georgians put up a fierce fight for Tskhinvali, the provincial capital of South Ossetia (and for the Kodori Gorge in northeast Abkhazia Province). Georgia’s brief defense of Tskhinvali served as a deterrent, not because it was successful (it wasn’t), but because it was fierce. The only defense that the small nations of Eastern Europe have ever had against the “big dogs” of Russia and Germany is to make themselves into fierce little porcupines and hope that enough quills delivered into enough noses will cause the dogs to give up the quarry as not worth all the trouble.

The Russians were deterred by the prospect of fighting this same force in a terminal battle in a European capital city of 1.5 million people. Reducing a capital city the way they reduced Grozny in Chechnya is a bit too much evil for the Russians to stomach at this time. Tbilisi is a bit too prosperous. It looks a bit too much like Prague or Vienna or Krakow. And most of all, its people—those who would be murdered in the tens of thousands—are too much like the people walking the streets of Milan, Frankfurt, Manchester, Sapporo, or, for that matter, Chicago. They’re too much like us—the 800 million of us who live in Western civilization. Their murder would draw too many of the people of Western Civilization together in a common and militarily hostile front against Russia.

With the assault on the city on hold indefinitely, Tbilisi has become West Berlin, drawing leaders to impudently protest, in public, under Putin’s guns. The big rally Wednesday night in Tbilisi of as many as 200,000 Georgians (10% of the refugee-swollen city’s population), hosted by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and joined by the presidents of Georgia, Poland, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia was a spectacle of besieged liberty. It is as good as one more armored division.

It turns out that Georgia’s greatest strategic asset is the attitude and the eloquence of President Mikheil Saakashvili. In his written essays, TV interviews, and public speeches he is a lion. We have found that he has Winston Churchill in his soul.

President Saakashvili has Prime Minister Churchill’s eloquence and his spirit—and his ideas. Saakashvili proved himself by turning Georgia into an engine of prosperity based on stable republican government, the rule of law, recognition of private property, and the effective suppression of corruption. Georgia’s police forces were rated as one of the most corrupt in Eastern Europe, and that is some achievement. Opinion polls showed that only 5% thought that the police were generally trustworthy. Under President Saakashvili’s leadership, this year 70% of Georgians polled thought they could trust the police.

With Winston Churchill’s good ideas, eloquence, and indomitable spirit came his rashness and his self-promotion. These are traits President Saakashvili shares. As egoists, we Objectivist should find no vice in Mr. Saakashvili’s grandstanding and little in his impetuousness.

Saakashvili is the greatest strategic asset the West has in Eastern Europe.

Russian hesitation at the brink of mass slaughter inside a European capital city and the inspired leadership of President Saakashvili have given the West the opportunity we need to make a mess of Russia’s plans for domination, one at a time, of the former Soviet Republics of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia, and Ukraine.

Enough time, that is, if the US shows decisive leadership.

I am not saying that it is the responsibility of our nation, of our brave young men and women in the military, to go to Georgia to confront Putin’s army and to fight. But Georgia is a nation of people—even as small as it is—so determined to defy dictatorship and fight for their freedom even when the odds are grim, that we must join them and fight on their side in some way. If we are American, if we are men, we must do something substantial, something that materially affects the situation on the ground in Georgia—something that begins to change the strategic advantages that Russia has over all of its smaller, liberal neighbors.

In the past few days, the United States has finally entered the conflict in a clumsy and cautious way—but America has entered the conflict, and America is instantly a central part of everything that is going on.

The interesting thing about the way that the US is stumbling into the conflict zone is that we’re not being led by George Bush and the command structure at the Pentagon as much as we’re being led by the articulate and passionate statements about liberty—a battle cry—by Saakashvili. He is someone we cannot say “no” to without saying “no” to our own identity. Ultimately President Bush, architect of the Forward Strategy of Freedom, cannot say “no” to him either.

Mikhail Saakashvili is our leader now.

Here is the overall foreign policy advice I would offer to the Bush administration on what to do.

Because of America’s deep cultural, political, and strategic connection to it, Poland can reasonably count on a major commitment of US military power—including public acceptance of significant and painful military losses—in the event of a Russian invasion. America should exploit our deep military commitment to Poland by encouraging them to serve as the anchor for a new Eastern European military alliance; an alliance that is independent of NATO.

An independent alliance between Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Georgia, and Ukraine—an inverse Warsaw Pact—would be a tremendous asset to liberty. With Poland at its base (protected by its NATO membership and the US nuclear umbrella), this alliance could be a strong deterrent to Russia’s renewed military expansionism.

(Because Romania and Bulgaria have kept a relatively low profile in the affair with Georgia, their enthusiasm for an anti-Russian alliance is doubtful. The same goes for Hungary and the Czech Republic. The new Warsaw Pact should be made up only of republics that are truly on the edge—the countries that are between NATO and Russia.)

A group of nations in such a difficult place, led by a secure country that is a full member of NATO and assisted by the United States, would be far more willing to use military force than the fratricidal and self-loathing nations of NATO as a whole. Thus, they will produce a far more intense threat, and far more substantial deterrent against Russia—especially if their anchor member, Poland, either had the full strategic commitment of the United States behind it, or their own independent nuclear deterrent.

A core cultural goal right now should be to clear some of the woolly-headed European pacifism from the minds of Eastern Europe’s leadership. They need nuclear weapons. Without them, the Russians will be free to probe their border provinces with strong tank and mechanized infantry forces and bomb any defenders that move against them, destroying towns and cities everywhere along their borders from the Baltic to the Caspian. Without nuclear weapons, ineffective resistance to a series of military incursions will enable the Russians to work themselves up to a murderer’s only concept of self-confidence: that he can get away with it. When that day comes, Russia will invade and occupy its smaller neighbors.

Nuclear weapons proliferation is a good thing when the good guys get nuclear weapons. The good nations that border Russia should get them as quickly as they can. And the United States of America should help them.

(c) 2008 The Intellectual Activist

A splendid satirical piece about the Barack Obama phenomenon, by TimesOnline.co.uk writer, Gerard Baker:

He ventured forth to bring light to the world…
(Here are afew excerpts)

… He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media.

… For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

… And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child’s very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

… And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

… And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child’s journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over ….

If only that includedthe media infatuation.

Below,are 3 YouTubes of the 2003 Penn & Teller: Bullshit! show titled: Environmental Hysteria, (Season 1, Episode 13) including their highly successful petition to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide (i.e. H2O… i.e.Water).

Part 1 of 3

Part 2 of 3

Part 3 of 3

By the way, Penn Jillette of “Penn& Teller” is a research fellow at CATO Institute.

According to LogicalScience.com: “This gives Penn Jillete a conflict of interest when it comes to any topic that might require government regulation.”

Dr Anna Blainey about to marry Timothy Warner.
Pictured entering the Church with her Dad, Professor Geoffrey Blainey.

Australian Historian, Dr Anna Blainey, wrote to me the other day:

It’s interesting – the global warming advocates have always claimed that the only people who have any reason to object to global warming reduction measures are those who make profits from fossil fuels, “big oil” etc.

The idea is that anyone else would welcome a carbon tax (or emissions trading or whatever) with open arms.

The fact that you can’t punish “big oil” or “big coal” without hurting their employees and consumers – and the employees of their consumers! – is never mentioned!

When the general public feels the pinch of high energy and transportation costs, and the protests come from the working people and not just the energy tycoons, the greens are going to have drop the pretence that they’re the big daring champions of the underdog fighting big bad big business.

That’s when things will really start to unravel.

The places where fossil fuel taxes (or emissions trading) might have a less drastic impact [on working people] are those which have a cheap alternative energy already in place eg, France and Sweden who have most of their energy already coming from nuclear power.

However, Australia is not one of those places.

In an email to the media, Australian Artist and controversial political commentator, John Pasquarelli, provides a quick-fire overview of the multi-level madness that is today’s Global Warming hysteria:

Where will it all end?

Big Brother is now bombarding us with dramatic climate change ads,red “P” plates in Victoria [Australia] are now green, footballers are driving hybrid cars,celebs are out there doing their “green” thing and primary school kids are being scared witless about global warming by their teachers.

Radio talkback and letters to the editor pages clearly indicate that “Joe Blow” and his mates are totally confused and seriously concerned about what lies ahead.

Watching an economist recently on “Lateline” explaining emissions trading left me embarrassed at my inability to comprehend! [Like this one? Or this one?]

The billions spent globally so far on espousing the apocalyptic predictions of global warming explains the involvement of so many scientists and large chunks of the media- this stuff is big bucks and makes New Guinea cargo cults and Nigerian scams look pretty small beer.

Being a sceptic attracts ridicule and even vilification and we are where we are without a proper and balanced debate. The man who was so drunk has left Penny Wong carrying the can on this one but the penny won’t really drop until those big domestic power and water bills come rolling in.

While we dither, it’s business as usual for China and India.

Watch the new John McCain campaign video giving us a sample of how the mainstream mediaisbarracking for Barack Obama.

And here’s a bit Michael Jackson and The Jacksons with “Can You Feel It?” ….

Since Physics & Society invited a SCIENTIFIC non-politicized debate on Global Warming, the American Physical Society has been running around like a Chicken Little with its head cut off.

I’ve got a plane to catch, so can’t share my observations with you at present, but here’s something which will give you an inkling of how Yellow the Green APS has become.

Benny Peiser, Editor of CCNet has circulated the following letter from Christopher Monckton to the American Physical Society.

CCNet Xtra – 19 July 2008 — Audiatur et altera pars

THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: LETTER TO THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY
——————————————————-

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has asked me to circulate the attached letter which he sent today to the President of the American Physical Society. Christopher Monckton’s paper together with the contentious APS disclaimer can be found here:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

The Announcement by the APS editor of Physics & Society to open a debate about the IPCC and its scientific critics is available online here:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

Benny Peiser
Editor, CCNet

——————-

19 July 2008

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Carie, Rannoch, PH17 2QJ, UK
monckton@mail.com

Arthur Bienenstock, Esq., Ph.D.,
President, American Physical Society,
Wallenberg Hall, 450 Serra Mall, Bldg 160,
Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA 94305.

By email to [ ... ]
Dear Dr. Bienenstock,

Physics and Society

The editors of Physics and Society, a newsletter of the American Physical Society, invited me to submit a paper for their July 2008 edition explaining why I considered that the warming that might be expected from anthropogenic enrichment of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide might be significantly less than the IPCC imagines.

I very much appreciated this courteous offer, and submitted a paper. The commissioning editor referred it to his colleague, who subjected it to a
thorough and competent scientific review. I was delighted to accede to all of the reviewer’s requests for revision (see the attached reconciliation sheet). Most revisions were intended to clarify for physicists who were not climatologists the method by which the IPCC evaluates climate sensitivity – a method which the IPCC does not itself clearly or fully explain. The paper was duly published, immediately
after a paper by other authors setting out the IPCC’s viewpoint. Some days later, however, without my knowledge or consent, the following
appeared, in red, above the text of my paper as published on the website of Physics and Society:

“The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the
world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.”

This seems discourteous. I had been invited to submit the paper; I had submitted it; an eminent Professor of Physics had then scientifically
reviewed it in meticulous detail; I had revised it at all points requested, and in the manner requested; the editors had accepted and published the reviewed and revised draft (some 3000 words longer than the original) and I had expended considerable labor, without having been offered or having requested any honorarium.

Please either remove the offending red-flag text at once or let me have the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to it who considered my paper before the Council ordered the offending text to be posted above my paper; a copy of this rapporteur’s findings and ratio decidendi; the date of the Council meeting at which the findings
were presented; a copy of the minutes of the discussion; and a copy of the text of the Council’s decision, together with the names of those
present at the meeting. If the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific
justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts primo, that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had; secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no
evidence) to be the “overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community”; and, tertio, that “The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions”? Which of my
conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific grounds (if any)?

Having regard to the circumstances, surely the Council owes me an apology?

Yours truly,

THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY

In the meantime, Steve Milloy of JunkScience.org has offered to purchase Physics & Society and poses a few questions to them.

July 18, 2008

Arthur Bienenstock
President
American Physical Society

Dear Dr. Bienenstock,

I am writing to inquire about purchasing the newsletter Physics & Society from APS. I very much appreciate the difficult position in which the newsletter has recently placed APS.

The newsletter wants to conduct a public scientific debate on global warming, while the APS’ seems to not be able to run away fast enough screaming, “The debate is over! No debate allowed!”

I would like to relieve you of the burden of this intolerable nuisance publication. What nerve… imagine wanting to debate science! You wouldn’t want to risk your reputation with that.

Please let me know what the price is.

Finally, to purge APS of the undesirables who are out of lockstep with the organization’s position on global warming, you may want to compare your membership list against the 31,000+ scientists who signed the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine’s petition rejecting global warming alarmism. (See http://www.petitionproject.org )

Maybe you could conduct your own Nacht der langen Messer.

Sincerely,

Steven J. Milloy
Publisher JunkScience.com

Gotta fly!. Literally! Bye.

My wife and I are flying to the USA in a few hours, so I’ll be offline for a few days. Probably until Tuesday.

We’ll be staying in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Returning to Melbourne, September 04.

Bye for now.

Indian PM Manmohan Singh and US President George W Bush

Foreign Affairs commentator, Greg Sheridan, in The Australian today:

There is so much theology in climate change it makes your head spin.

… But I am, like Catholic Archbishop of Sydney George Pell, a modest sceptic, open to evidence.

There isn’t all that much evidence around.

… I think the big developing countries are not going to do anything to cut greenhouse gas emissions. They may cut the rate of growth of emissions, but that is all.

[ ... ]

Earlier this year I had the pleasure of interviewing Kapil Sibal, India’s Science Minister. I asked him about greenhouse gas emissions, which are rising very rapidly in India.

… He pointed out that India’s per capita emissions were much less than those of all Western countries and concluded: “This is really a non-issue for India.”

Recently India has released its own climate change action plan. It contains absolutely no targets or binding actions at all.

Every Indian development paper I’ve seen for many years has talked about the need to increase the energy intensity of India’s economy.

[ ... ]

China is building better than one coal-fired power station a week and every few months adds the equivalent to the entire Australian economy’s emissions.

[ ... ]

Europe’s political leaders, the Elmer Gantrys of public eco-moralising and private pleasuring, have produced a carbon trading scheme that has not resulted in one zot of decrease in greenhouse gases.

[ ... ]

If Australia were serious about this greenhouse business, the first thing we would do is sell uranium to India to encourage it to move from coal to nuclear power.

I have a lot of faith finally in the pragmatism and common sense of the Rudd Government, its senior ministers and the federal bureaucracy. They have no mandate to destroy the Australian economy by moving vastly in advance of the rest of the world, which is going to do very little indeed.

No one, in fact, is acting as if this were really a crisis.

Still, a lot of harm, say in discouraging foreign investment in the Australian energy industry, could be done inadvertently.

I suspect, nonetheless, that we will speak loudly and carry a very small stick. Good thing, too

Excerpts from “Apocalypse? No!”

Global Warming Skeptic, Lord Christopher Monckton, Third Viscount of Brenchley, has published an article in Physics & Society, titled “Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered” in which he exposes step-by-step the incredibly sloppy methodology used by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) to support its case for Anthropogenic Global Warming.

After a quite thorough technical demolition job, Lord Monckton concludes:

Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible.

Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming.

Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic “greenhouse-gas” warming is entirely absent from the observed record.

Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking.

Even if per impossibile the models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines.

Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue.

Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate.

Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them.

Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful.

In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong.

If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated.

There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001.

Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all.

At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything.

The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.

Part 1: 35 Errors in Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”

Part 2: 35 Errors in Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”

Derryn Hinch joins the Andrew Bolt school of global warming skeptics

A couple of days ago Derryn Hinch (Radio 3AW Melbourne, Australia – nicknamed “the human headline”) declared that he now considers himself a global warming skeptic.

CHICKEN LITTLE TIME

I’ve been coming round to this opinion for some time. The thought that just maybe, perhaps, no dammit! I’ll say it: The Emperor has no clothes.

I’m talking about global warming and carbon footprints and the emission trading scheme. And I have joined the Andrew Bolt school of sceptics.

… We have been swept along by the Ruddster (Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd) and if you challenge any of the dogma you are either an imbecile or a selfish, materialistic environmental Nazi who doesn’t give a fig about the future of our children and their children’s children.

… One Garnaut sceptic is the New South Wales Labor Government Treasurer, Michael Costa. He says “Chicken Little’ warnings about the dangers of climate change are no substitute for a rigorous economic and scientific debate.

… It is true we are being flooded with the economic arguments. But what about the scientists?

On The ABC the other day Prime Minister Rudd said that we must put a cap on the carbon pollution we put out into the atmosphere because if we just keep letting it rip, then the planet gets hotter and hotter and hotter.

And yet a meteorologist of 35 years experience told me carbon is not a gas … Carbon dioxide is a trace minor greenhouse gas in the greenhouse effect that controls the heat exchange of the planet.

He says water vapour primarily controls the earth’s heat exchange. So “when 99% of commentators talk about co2 as the key heat valve
you are seeing profound and basic misunderstanding of what it is all about.”

That’s why I want to hear more from the scientists and less from economists and politicians who have vested interests. And if that makes me a Doubting Thomas. Well, I can live with that. And sleep at night.

The next day Derryn Hinch spoke further on this with New Zealand’s Newstalk ZB, Larry Williams. Click here for mp3.

Some excerpts from my transcription …

Larry Williams: … Global Warming skeptics are starting to come out of the woodwork.

Derryn Hinch: … they’ve had so much hammering from the … gloom-and-doom-sayers and what we call the Chicken Little Brigade … last week we had the Garnaut Report … and he’s saying Kakadu could be gone in fifty years and the Great Barrier Reef and everything … now some of the … scientists are saying hang on, let’s look at Carbon Dioxide. Carbon Dioxide is not a major Greenhouse gas. … Water vaporizing is the main thing to do with temperature …

… you had the G8 [meeting] in Japan who have now said they will aim at a 50% reduction in [carbon] emissions before 2050. But Australia is going for [significant emission reductions by] 2010. That’s only 18 months away …

Larry Williams: … Australia a bit like us [New Zealand] [is contributing] … very minute emissions … it all comes from other countries … They’re saying [i.e. the G8] … half emissions by 2050, I saw that, but it won’t happen, will it? The developing countries – China, India – they won’t have a bar of it.

Derryn Hinch: China and India are virtually saying, When we get our emissions up to what you’ve been doing for the last 50 years then we’ll look at it. But … we’re not going to wreck our economies and out own industrial revolution – that you all had – just to keep you happy.

It’s a selfish attitude but I can understand where they’re coming from.

Larry Williams: … there’s something like 30,000 scientists who disagree with what’s going on here, but they are called “deniers”.

Alexandra Mary Mirabella with Prodos (that’s me on the left)

Just got back from welcoming Greg and Sophie Mirabella’s brand new, darling baby girl to the Universe.

Mother and child are doing very well. Healthy and happy.

Congratulations Greg and Sophie!

Love and Best Wishes to you from Barboo and me.

So much for the … ehm … “consensus”

Australian columnist, Andrew Bolt, links to the just-screened Channel Nine Sunday show titled Questioning Science – with narration and interviews by Adam Shand – which challenges the pseudo-scientific content and cult-like character of Global Warming alarmists.

As well as giving Green Believers like Flim-Flam Flannery ample opportunity to expose their hostility to proper scientific debate, this is a beautifully produced and entertaining episode.

From the Sunday site …

there is a school of thought that our knowledge of climate systems is as yet insufficient to be so conclusive on the causes of global warming.

Today Sunday examines the political consensus building that has portrayed global warming as the most urgent crisis humankind has ever faced.

Skeptics point to the gaps in the knowledge base and the flaws in the measurement of vital climate and weather data upon which the consensus is based.

Social researchers also highlight the dangers of conducting science as a form of religion, divided into believers and deniers.

They warn that as governments prepare to make expensive policy decisions, such as carbon emissions trading schemes, this consensus may not reflect the best science.

I also recommend browsing through some of the astute and often hilarious commenters on Andrew Bolt’s blog.

Here are three YouTubes of the “Sunday” show …

Part 1 of 3 …

Part 2 of 3 …

Part 3 of 3 …

Click here to watch Michael Yon report on progress
in Iraq and how Al Qaeda is getting hammered into the dirt.

Although I completely disagree with his conclusion, Michael Yon has written a beautiful and powerfully reasoned argument against the use of torture.

Disagreements aside, what is most striking and worth reading about this article, however, is not its flawed call for the banning of all forms of “torture”. It’s the presentation of what Michael Yon most elegantly refers to as “the strategic advantage of our values“.

A couple of excerpts …

… once we defeated the Axis, we helped rebuild their countries.

Our Greatest Generation acted with honor and great wisdom. It was the right thing to do, but also the strategically intelligent thing to do. Now Germany and Japan are stable, prosperous democracies and close allies.

When this war is over in Iraq, we do not want a generation of Iraqis thinking that all we did was invade their country and torture and kill people.

We want them to know that, despite whatever mistakes we made, we have no ill-feelings toward Iraqis.

…We want the Iraqis to know that Americans are warriors, but not barbarians. They already know that our young folks will fight like wolverines.The Iraqi insurgents learned that lesson the hard way. American soldiers and Marines have died fighting, with great honor, to bring the region a step forward. By contrast, al Qaeda has murdered tens of thousands of Iraqis, and committed atrocities that have turned the people against them.

Al Qaeda and other terrorists fight without honor. And simply put, that’s why we’re winning in Iraq.

We recaptured the most important strategic territory in guerrilla war – the moral high ground, while never laying down our sword.