The old "I'm just being reasonable" line

I see Sinclair Davidson is again running with the old "I'm just being reasonable" line in which he seeks to downplay his active promotion since at least 2007 of public disbelief in the seriousness of climate change.

Here are some of his cute lines today:

To the extent that we all agree that CO2 emissions are a problem, and we want to do something about those emissions, then theory tells us that the least-cost solution would be to impose a tax on CO2 emissions...

So, a person who is an high ranking member of the IPA, and who runs a blog with contributors who are all openly dismissive and hostile towards climate change as a serious issue is suggesting that he agrees that "CO2 emissions are a problem"?   Or is there some subtle interpretation I am missing out on here?

Well, the next paragraph notes that some people don't agree that there is a CO2 problem at all - (yeah, like every single contributor to his blog.)

Would Sinclair like to explain whether he is within the some people, or would he prefer to keep it somewhat  vague so he can try to distance himself from his fetid IPA colleagues when, as is widely expected by the scientists he routinely seeks to discredit, the next change in the Pacific sees the temperature increase its rate of climb? 


I think I have known the answer to that one for quite a while now.

Reason for optimism?

The Economist has a short article on the potential for "distributed generators" and large scale batteries to beat down things like big coal.  It starts:

WHO needs the power grid when you can generate and store your own electricity cheaply and reliably? Such a world is drawing nearer: good news for consumers, but a potential shock for utility companies. That is the conclusion of a report this week by Morgan Stanley, an investment bank, which predicts that ever-cheaper solar and other renewable-energy sources, combined with better and more plentiful batteries, will allow many businesses and other electricity users to cut the cord on their electricity providers.

Tesla Motors, an American maker of electric cars, recently said it will build a “gigafactory”, which by 2020 will turn out as many lithium-ion batteries as the whole world produced last year. These batteries can do more than power cars; they can also store electricity which is produced when it is not needed, and discharge it when it is.

Is everyone fed up with Andrew being fed up, yet?

You know, I think Andrew Bolt might be playing the martyr line to such a tiresome degree that even his supporters may be wavering in their loyalty.

I was going to write something about how, if you don't want to be labelled a racist (even if in error), it probably helps to not spend so much time rubbishing aboriginal activists, arguing that every single "stolen generation" claim is bollocks,  and pointing at and deriding pale skinned people who claim aboriginality. 

But the opening paragraph in a wry Guardian opinion piece (semi sarcastically imploring Bolt not to quit) sort of summed up the situation well:

There is a classic scene in The Simpsons parodying the borderline un-parody-able Fox News, wherein the network’s news helicopter is emblazoned with the slogan “Not racist, but #1 with racists”.

It was the first thing that sprang to mind upon reading about poor, maligned Andrew Bolt and his claim that, so hurt by an accusation of racism by Marcia Langton on Q&A, he didn’t turn up to work on Tuesday (freeing him up to write a cheeky 14 posts on his blog, happily).

What? You mean no productivity crisis either?

One graph that completely contradicts Australia's 'productivity crisis' | Business Spectator

Last week, I noted there was no wages growth crisis in Australia.

As Kohler points out, the Australian government is also happy to tell foreign investors that there is also great crisis in productivity either.

I just heard that unemployment was steady at 6%.  Not great, but not a crisis either.

And all of this happening while we still have a carbon tax, and no certainty it will be gone in July.

Odd, that.  [/sarc, of course.]

History: A medieval multiverse

History: A medieval multiverse

This somewhat interesting look at the theories of a medieval scholar and bishop includes this bit:

The possible existence of more than one universe was indeed a live issue
of the period, and a highly contentious one — appearing, for example,
in the Papal edict of 1277 that banned a list of scientific teachings.
But it was a debate that Grosseteste apparently chose to avoid. None of
his surviving treatises discusses the possibility of other forms of
universe, however close he came to implying it in his cosmogony.

I wonder what else was covered in that Papal edict of 1277.

Catholic conundrums

Pope Francis at one year: Why intense focus on the papacy is bad for the Catholic Church

I quite like this article, particularly when it talks about the problems the Catholic Church faces in trying to resolve the contradictions which came out of Vatican 2.  (The fundamental one, which was brought into sharp focus in the minds of tens of millions of Catholics because of the Church's contemporaneous  rejection of the Pill, was the renewed emphasis on individual conscience, while insisting that a good Catholic conscience cannot disagree with the Church's pronouncements on matters such as contraception.)

This passage rings true:

These divisions, and the disputes they provoke, are mind-numbingly
familiar. What is a “faithful” Catholic to think about artificial birth
control; homosexuality and same-sex marriage; divorce; the exclusively
male, celibate priesthood; the possibility of electing bishops; the role
of the laity, especially women, in church decision-making; the
relationship between popes and bishops; religious pluralism; and clergy
sexual abuse and the unaccountability of the hierarchy? These and other
questions go to the heart of Catholic self-understanding, yet a church
notorious for valuing discipline and unanimity remains deeply divided on
all of them. Catholics on both sides of every issue claim to be the
true heirs of the Second Vatican Council. All agree that Vatican II
promulgated the most authoritative understanding of the church’s
teachings. Yet they read the council’s documents in diametrically
opposed ways.

How is that possible? The answer lies with the documents themselves.
On the one hand, the proclamations of Vatican II opened startling new
possibilities for how Catholics might engage both one another and those
outside the church: “The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the
anxieties of the men of this age, especially those who are poor or in
any way afflicted, these too are the joys and hopes, the griefs and
anxieties, of the followers of Christ,” the bishops insisted at Vatican
II, in an unprecedented spirit of ecumenism. At the same time, however,
the council effectively reaffirmed the Catholic absolutism of the past.
The distinguished Lutheran theologian George Lindbeck, an official
Protestant observer at Vatican II, described the resulting dilemma as
one in which “radical and fundamental ambiguities in the most
authoritative” statements promulgated by the council—including those on
papal infallibility, relations with other Christians, and the challenge
of reconciling Catholic tradition with the Bible—enabled those on
different sides of every neuralgic issue to find ample textual support
for their interpretations. “When the supreme law of the land directly
authorizes rival, perhaps contradictory, positions and provides no way
of settling the disputes,” Lindbeck concluded with genuine regret,
“conflict becomes inevitable and, unless changes are made in the supreme
law, irresolvable.”

Little has changed in the nearly 40 years since Lindbeck offered his assessment.

That Groucho Marx club quip comes to mind

The Society of Mutual Autopsy  -  Mind Hacks

The brief explanation:

In October 1876, twenty Parisian men joined together as the Society of
Mutual Autopsy and pledged to dissect one another’s brains in the hopes
of advancing science. The society acquired over a hundred members in its
first few years, including many notable political figures of the left
and far left. While its heyday was unquestionably the last two decades
of the century, the society continued to attract members until the First
World War. It continued its operations until just before World War II,
effectuating many detailed encephalic autopsies, the results of which
were periodically published in scientific journals.

Andrew Bolt, professional martyr

I see that Andrew Bolt's self assigned job (although encouraged with much hand holding by the IPA and, I suspect, News Ltd itself) as professional martyr continues unabated.  Today, complaining that Marcia Langton was mean to him, he writes:

I could prove that my banned articles argued against racism and racial division by republishing them - but the Federal Court has ruled that I may not. Mein Kampf can be published, but my articles fighting racism cannot.

The articles remain (and as far as I know, have always been) available on his own blog, although they are headed by a notice required by the Court that it had made findings that they were inaccurate.  

As for Langton, she may (for all I know) have been exaggerating as to the effect Bolt's comments on Misty Jenkins, but Bolt is also being disingenuous if he is claiming he was not having a go at her for identifying as aboriginal.  The quote in Q&A:

Page four has a feature on Dr Misty Jenkins, a blonde and pale science PhD who calls herself Aboriginal and enthuses: “I was able to watch the coverage of Kevin Rudd’s (sorry) speech with tears rolling down my cheeks ...

Given that we know the question of self identification of aboriginality has been a strongly contested matter even with aboriginal circles, and has been commented on by other right wing figures even in the Australian without there being any legal consequences, the matter has always been not that Bolt deals with the issue, but how he goes about doing it.

Andrew is not big or sensible enough to recognise this, and right wing activists (with who knows what corporate backing) are happy to see him play the role.  All a bit sad for Bolt, really.   As with his gullible acceptance of climate change denialism, he just really continues to prove he's not so smart.

(Oh sure, getting rich on his Fox Lite media performances, no doubt.   But showing himself to be dumber by the day.)

In related news:   it's amusing to read today that the IPA is stamping its feet over the prospect that the Abbott government is not going to repeal s18C in its entirety.  Fairfax writes:

 The dispute is likely to get worse, especially if Senator Brandis introduces, as some expect, a new criminal offence of racial vilification. IPA executive director John Roskam said he would rather there were no changes to the law than a new criminal ban on hate speech. He also said it had ''got back to me'' that Senator Brandis had been criticising the IPA in private conversations.

Oh noes!  A politician who might be rather sick of the bullying blowhards and culture warriors of the IPA (see Sinclair Davidson publicly suggesting that Brandis shouldn't be re-elected if he doesn't toe the IPA line) says he doesn't appreciate their attitude.   How surprising.

Great moments in American "rights" law

Watching what American courts get asked to determine as matters arising from their legislated approach to rights provides some excellent reasons for never going down that path:

The US Supreme Court on Monday let stand an appeals court ruling that seventh- and eighth-grade students in a Pennsylvania school district have a free speech right to wear bracelets proclaiming “i ♥ boobies!”

School officials had asked the high court to take up the case and reverse the ruling to allow administrators more leeway to censor messages worn by students at school. The high court turned aside the appeal without comment.

The bracelets were designed to build awareness of the struggle against breast cancer, and wearing them became a fad among a group of 11- to 14-year-old middle-school students in the Easton Area School District in eastern Pennsylvania.

Rupert knows everything

Has anyone been paying attention to Rupert Murdoch's twitter account lately?   He's taken to making some very big (and very, very dubious) calls:

On Sunday:

 777crash confirms jihadists turning to make trouble for China. Chance for US to make common cause, befriend China while Russia bullies.

Why bother investigating when you can just give Rupert a call?

On 1 March (following the mass stabbing in China):

Obama should all Chinese President following today's incident and say " we both have the problem of Muslim terrorism. Can we work together?"

So, the US has a role to play in dealing with Chinese internal Muslim issues?  What - looking at ways to stop the spread of knives amongst terrorists?  

On religion:

Pope Francis appoints brilliant Cardinal Pell from Sydney to be no.3 power in Vatican. Australia will miss him but world will benefit.

Um, no.  A small rump of hard core conservative right wing Australian Catholics will be sad to see George disappear into the Vatican in a low public profile job.   The large majority of church attending Catholics, including priests and bishops, will be happy to see his pompous style go.  

On the weather, now that he has no young wife with liberal friends:

Wild winter in US, UK, etc. no respectable evidence any of this man made climate change in spite of blindly ignorant politicians.

Rupert confirms he is old and has jumped the shark.   It also sounds like he sits around watching Fox News all day.  I wonder if his new squeeze is already searching the internet for high end nursing homes in Manhattan?

An odd result

In an article in The Atlantic, about how gay marriage has made substantial grounds in public approval in even the conservative Southern states of America, the writer notes this surprising polling result:

While 48 percent of southerners now favor same-sex marriage, only 37 percent of southerners say sex between two adults of the same gender is morally acceptable. To put it bluntly, support for the legality of same-sex marriage outpaces moral approval of same-gender sex by double-digit numbers.

There follows a fair bit of discussion about it in the comments that follow.   

The article also notes the (well known) incredible divide between young folk and old folk on the issue.   I do not really know that anyone has convincingly pointed out the cultural reason as to why this happened amongst younger people, so quickly. 

A very accurate drought prediction?

Climatologist Who Predicted California Drought 10 Years Ago Says It May Soon Be 'Even More Dire' | ThinkProgress

It's not so often that some modelling work seems to have made such an accurate predication, but in this case, the 2004 work seems to have been very close to the mark.

Tamino has a post on the same issue (it's via him that I found the Romm article), taking to task NOAA's Martin Hoerling, who has written that there is no evidence of global warming being behind the Californian drought.

I have noted for years that NOAA has been prominent in issuing quick denials of connections between  AGW and extreme weather.  I'm not sure if Hoerling is the one who has always been behind this policy; I would have to search back a bit.   In any event, as I have argued before, dismissing connections too quickly is not a very sound approach in something as complex as climate and weather.

As I expected

Solidoodle 4: Testing the home 3-D printer.

I have always felt rather cynical about the claims for the revolutionary nature of 3D printers, and this Slate writer's experience with trying out a domestic model seems to justify my doubts.

The open secret

Abbott’s paid parental leave will do little to bring women to the workforce | Business | theguardian.com

Greg Jericho column is pretty good on the topic.

What I find most amusing about this is how everyone - and I mean everyone - knows that Abbott has no support at all from anyone, even within his party, for the policy.  Yet he has decided to stake his reputation on it.

What a loser, with poor judgement.   

Organising health care

What makes a community healthy? - latimes.com

A somewhat interesting article here arguing that differences in how health care services are organised in the US are very important.  I see in the map on the site, nearly all of Texas is shown as performing poorly, but also large parts of California.  Odd.