Welcome To The Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Sandpit Stats

  • 1,073,016 hits

Blogroll

Play Chess online

check out the source of these clever cartoons by clicking the image

check out the source of these clever cartoons by clicking the image

My Car Blog

Just personal and not that political

Just personal and not that political

Sweet as, in Sydney

likes a drink

the name says it all

Cafes life and food

Life in London

Living and love

Amusing and witty Canadian

Photography NZ style

Gender Issues

Gender Issues

No to feminist oppression

Good sense on Domestic violence issues

No Misandry here

Enviomental sites

Environment and global warming

String theory and debunking AGW from a physicist's point of view

Jo does it for me

Anthony debunks "Global Warming" with wit and style

AGW Scepticism NZ style

Steve knows his sums

Jennifer rocks!

definitely not futile

mainly the other side

mainly the other side

Decaffeinated Soy Latte Sipper

libertarian central

Legal Eagle and Scepticlawyer

A Good Leftie

The good lefty

knowledgeable on Islam

Conservatives

Conservatives

a wise head on young shoulders

he rides true

Bing Bing

kae

Feisty Carrot top blogger

Godd stuff !!!

Good stuff here!!!

Mild Colonial Boy

more than legal tender

Hated by leftards because he cuts them to shreds

Good sense on mid-east questions

from her bunker in Londonstan

Witty, amusing and hated by leftards

Has the right attitude to cyclists

Mark Richardson

Tony puts the media in its place

Its interesting to watch the vision for this incident and to see a confident Tony Abbott deftly put Nicola Berkovic in her place at the press conference yesterday:

 

After Mr Abbott arrived, the first question of the day was from Nicola Berkovic, a journalist from The Australian newspaper.

‘‘Prime Minister, do you trust this government, the state government, which is proving to be corrupt, to deliver your major infrastructure plans?’’

The question was perhaps poorly worded as no state Liberal has been found corrupt.

But Mr Abbott was not in a forgiving mood as he tried to turn his prime ministerial authority back on Berkovic.

‘‘That, if I may say so, is an entirely unjustified smear,’’ Mr Abbott said.

‘‘Let me not mince my words, madam. An entirely unjustified smear, and frankly I think you should withdraw that. There is no evidence whatsoever for that.’’

He then asked Berkovic, a former press gallery journalist of the year for her coverage of the Rudd government’s home insulation scheme, what her evidence was.

Another journalist tried to restore normal press conference service by asking Mr Abbott if he would remember receiving a bottle of wine from his birth year.

But Mr Abbott would not be deterred. Waving off the interruption, he returned to Berkovic.

‘‘Please, please, I’ve asked what the evidence of that statement was and none has been forthcoming,’’ he said, holding up his hands.

Berkovic replied: ‘‘I think that voters will have questions to ask about a premier who specifically said yesterday that if he was delivered a bottle of that nature he would remember it. Today a thank you note has been uncovered and he has resigned. I think voters would be quite sceptical about the way this has unfolded.’’

Mr Abbott said that was a very different statement from the previous one and called on everybody to lift their game.

Amusingly some minions of the left are suggesting that the put down of a woman journalist was “bullying” its similar to the line run by the Guardian yesterday as I see it we should expect a certain standard from all journalists and I hope that Nicola Berkovic   was just having a momentary lapse in judgement but some how I doubt it Maybe she should have stuck to puff pieces in Cleo about how to make lots of money when you are new to a career..
Cheers Comrades
n

Nicola Berkovic

 

 

Expensive Beano: O’Farrell Quits Over Wine Lie

Originally posted on The Red And The Blue:

NEW SOUTH WALES Premier Barry O’Farrell has resigned this morning, caught out over incorrect testimony he gave to an ICAC corruption scandal; as others have learned before him to their detriment, ICAC plays no favourites. Whilst the high standards it enforces are responsible for O’Farrell’s demise as Premier, the NSW Liberals now have the opportunity to replace him with someone who will work more constructively with the Abbott government.

If NSW’s politicians have learned nothing else about ICAC in the 20+ years it has been operating, it is that it sets an unimpeachably high standard for that state’s public figures to adhere to; there are those who will complain that the bar is set too high, but — to be very blunt about it — that’s what it’s there for.

I was going to post on this last night, believing as I did when the story broke yesterday that Barry O’Farrell was…

View original 890 more words

Is it time to shut down CSIRO?

Iain Hall:

I can’t believe that I feel moved to reblog a post form this site, because usually I just see pieces here as a place to fight the good fight against the silliness of the left. Instead this piece says something that I have long thought about the way that “science” positions itself as a sort of secular religion and that it uses all kinds of moral pressures upon government to maintain its churches institutions even when they produce nothing of substance and they duplicate other places of higher learning.
A most interesting argument that deserves deep consideration.
Cheers Comrades

Originally posted on AusOpinion:

(via everythingneat.wordpress.com)

(via everythingneat.wordpress.com)

On Thursday, 7 August 1919, the conservative Queensland MP, Littleton Groom, gave the second reading of the Institute of Science and Industry Bill.

[K]nowledge in its highest scientific form must be applied in connexion with industries. That knowledge must be obtained by means of a properly constituted organization, which will enable the introduction as quickly as possible of the latest inventions and discoveries, the latest information regarding experiments connected with plant life and diseases affecting animals and plants, and the latest processes in connexion with manufactures. The object of this Bill is to establish in Australia an institution which will assist to bring scientific knowledge, information, and experience to bear upon the practical development of production and manufacture. [Source]

This was the rationale for funding an entity whose entire purpose was industrial research.  Back then, Australia had very few universities and lacked an environment for high quality research.  In order to avoid being left behind, the Commonwealth Government…

View original 797 more words

Breaking on through, again

click for source

click for source

I hope that readers can forgive me the immodesty of this but against my expectations I managed to get another tweet up on QandA .  I am quite pleased about this and I can’t help thinking that there has to be a good academic study in just how the ABC decides which tweets to put up on to the screen.

Cheers Comrades

Woman-Brick-Breaker-Head-GIF

 

 

WTF is infanticide?

John the Other puts up interesting vids on You tube about Men’s rights and gender issues and I think that this vid has a lot to recommend it if you believe in the quaint notion that men and women should be treated equally under the law when they are  before the courts.

Cheers Comrades

Murder Is Dangerous - illus Norman Saunders, 1951-1

 

Statistical Jokes (49): Statistics Are Dangerous

Iain Hall:

A lovely joke and funny because it is just so true to life
Cheers Comrade Filip Spagnoli

Originally posted on P.a.p.-Blog // Human Rights Etc.:

An engineer, a chemist and a statistician are working in a lab when a fire beaks out in a wastebasket. The engineer says: “We need some water to put out the fire!”, while the chemist says: “We don’t need water, we just need to cover the waste basket and prevent oxygen from getting to the fire, and it will go out.”

A heated argument between the engineer and chemist ensues over the better method of putting out the fire. Meanwhile, the statistician, having listened intently to the other two, begins running around the lab setting more fires. On realizing this, the engineer and chemist say to the statistician, “Wait! what are you doing!! You will burn the whole building down!!!”.

The statistician replies, “Look guys, if you really want to know which method works better, you are going to need a larger sample size.”

More on sampling. More jokes.

View original

Absolutely Retro Minimalist Simplification revisited

Cheers Comrades

 

 

The IPCC now says it’s OK to adapt to ‘climate change’

Find below an excellent piece by Don Aitkin about the shift in the IPCC focus from mitigation to adaptation, which is something that I have been rabbiting on about for many years both here and elsewhere. I republish it here under the  terms of its creative commons licence. Further this post is dedicated to PKD  who still has not produced that long promised essay on Climate change.

When I first became interested in global warming ten years ago what puzzled me at once was the insistence on ‘mitigation’ — reducing or abolishing carbon dioxide emissions — and the  almost complete indifference to ‘adaptation’ — preparing in advance to deal with droughts, floods, high temperatures, and all the rest of the climate possibilities. We seemed to  be doing something in that direction, but hardly enough.

Professor Bob Carter, one scientist that has been sceptical from the beginning of the global warming scare, suggested long ago that Australia adopt  and adapt the New Zealand civil defence management system, which is built around the ’4 Rs’ — Reduction, Readiness, Response, Recovery. As any Australian of mature years knows, we are prone to natural ‘disasters’, and our SES system is one form of our own preparedness.

But the IPCC has never been interested. For it the key thing has been to get carbon emissions down before disaster overwhelms us. As I have argued many times, this strategy has three weaknesses: it is practically unfeasible to do it quickly, it cannot be done on a global scale, and the outcome of whatever any country does will have no discernible effect on temperature there. Given ‘the pause’, now approaching 18 years on one measure, one could also argue that there is no immediate need to do anything at all in the mitigation department. Isn’t it time, for example, that we built some more ‘flood-proofing’ dams?

Well, the IPCC has now given what seems to be a cautious go-ahead to adaptation. According to Chris Field , one of the co-chairs of the new report,

The really big breakthrough in this report is the new idea of thinking about managing climate change… Climate-change adaptation is not an exotic agenda that has never been tried. Governments, firms, and communities around the world are building experience with adaptation. This experience forms a starting point for bolder, more ambitious adaptations that will be important as climate and society continue to change.

Dr Field also declaredThe natural human tendency is to want things to be clear and simple. And one of the messages that doesn’t just come from the IPCC, it comes from history, is that the future doesn’t ever turn out the way you think it will be… being prepared for a wide range of possible futures is just always smart.

Does this mean that the IPCC is giving up on ‘mitigation’. No. But, at least it seems to me that, the IPCC may well be coming to the view that if it is to survive, it will have to have more than the mitigation arrow in its quiver. If I am right, then we can expect more IPCC papers on how best to adapt. Judith Curry devoted her 30 March blog to this subject, which drew 787 comments at last count. She cited an article by Andrew Lilico she had read in the Telegraph (London), which put forward the following:

… the global GDP costs of an expected global average temperature increase of 2.5 degrees Celsius over the 21st century will be between 0.2 and 2 per cent. To place that in context, the well-known Stern Review of 2006 estimated the costs as 5-20 per cent of GDP. Stern estimates the costs of his recommended policies for mitigating climate change at 2 per cent of GDP – and his estimates are widely regarded as relatively optimistic (others estimate mitigation costs as high as 10 per cent of global GDP). At a 2.4 per cent annual GDP growth rate, the global economy increases 0.2 per cent every month.

So the mitigation deal has become this: Accept enormous inconvenience, placing authoritarian control into the hands of global agencies, at huge costs that in some cases exceed 17 times the benefits even on the Government’s own evaluation criteria, with a global cost of 2 per cent of GDP at the low end and the risk that the cost will be vastly greater, and do all of this for an entire century, and then maybe – just maybe – we might save between one and ten months of global GDP growth.

Whereas previously the IPCC emphasised the effects climate change could have if not prevented, now the focus has moved on to how to make economies and societies resilient and to adapt to warming now considered inevitable. Climate exceptionalism – the notion that climate change is a challenge of a different order from, say, recessions or social inclusion or female education or many other important global policy goals – is to be down played. Instead, the new report emphasised that adapting to climate change is one of many challenges that policymakers will face but should have its proper place alongside other policies.

Our first step in adapting to climate change should be to accept that we aren’t going to mitigate it. We’re going to have to adapt. That doesn’t mean there might not be the odd mitigation-type policy, around the edges, that is cheap and feasible and worthwhile. But it does mean that the grandiloquent schemes for preventing climate change should go. Their day is done. Even the IPCC – albeit implicitly – sees that now.

It’s all too soon to say where this is going. But it would seem to me that the Abbott Government could pick up the drift and win a brownie point or two by talking sagely about ‘adaptation’ — and quote the IPCC in so doing.

I am on twitter as theiainhall

Previously at Iain Hall…

News and Views

pn1 Inspirations  
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 240 other followers

%d bloggers like this: