Hawai'i Free Press still in hot water over Lehman Brothers-Obama-Rezko-Auchi

Last Monday Wikileaks posted an article from Hawai'i Free Press which had lawyers firing off letters left right and centre and updates show that this battle which commenced in 2008 goes on into 2009.

For a bit of amusment this Sunday, Hawai'i free Press has published some of the legal letters it sent and received here.

A few words on climate change from those hearings on the hill

The Senate Select Committee on Climate Change hearings in April-May 2009 threw up these lines in the battle between believers and sceptics, in a brief sampling of the transcripts published so far:

Senator BOSWELL—Has that sea level started to rise? Is there a rise in sea level?
Dr Raupach—Yes, it is starting to rise. It is going up at over three millimetres per year at the moment. The point is that these areas have economic implications. I am also not an economist but I cannot imagine that any of those three or other climate change impacts that we are talking about would be free of economic implications. It is not the economy versus the climate.

Prof. Steffen—If you want to know what is happening to the climate system, do not look at the atmosphere, look at the ocean. You will really see what is happening there. There is no cooling since 1998 in the ocean. In fact recent corrected measurements done by John Church and colleagues show that the ocean has warmed 50 per cent more than we had thought, once we got our sensors improved and their interpretation. The ocean records are absolutely clear. The earth's climate system is warming. It continues to warm. There has been no cooling trends over the past 10 years.

Senator CAMERON—The Science of Climate Change from the CSIRO—

Prof. Franks—I notice it is a very thin document.

Senator CAMERON—What will this appearance do for your careers?

Prof. Carter—A very important point of your question is that the same week that those 2,000 people, not 2,000 scientist, were meeting in Copenhagen, 700 people, mostly scientists, were meeting at another climate conference in New York that came to diametrically the opposite conclusion to the Copenhagen conference.

Prof. Karoly—My guess is that you will not get very much of a range of perspectives, but you may. First of all, Bob Carter and Stewart Franks are in fact in a minority of both scientist and climate scientists in Australia. In fact, neither of them is a climate scientist who publishes actively in the climate science literature.

Senator BOSWELL—That is not what they said. They said they did publish.

Prof. Karoly—Not in climate science literature. They publish in small journals.

CHAIR—Senator Cameron?

Senator CAMERON—Witnesses, professors!

CHAIR—Do not be overwhelmed, Senator Cameron. We are all senators.

Senator CAMERON—I am nearly professored-out today, I must say.

Prof. Karoly—If Professor Plimer is correct he will win the Nobel Prize for proving that climate change is not happening due to increasing greenhouse gases. I think the chances of that are much lower than the chances of anyone else on this panel winning the Nobel Prize.

Senator BOSWELL—Have you read the Australian today?

Dr Simshauser—Sorry, Senator, I have not.

Senator CAMERON—Is that the Australian you are reading, is it?

Senator BOSWELL—Yes.

Senator CAMERON—Oh, no.

Senator BOSWELL—That is the paper that actually got you elected, so I would not complain too much!

Senator IAN MACDONALD—Good call, Bozzie!

Senator BOSWELL—I do not know whether we achieve a great deal when one group of scientists puts the boot into another group of scientists. I do not know who is right and I do not know who is wrong and I do not believe we will ever find out. What I do understand—

Prof. Steffen—The point about science is that it is not just one group of scientists putting the boot into another group of scientists. Science is not like politics or religion. It is not what you believe and you debate that; it is an observation and evidence-based activity in which we constantly challenging each other. Members of the panel challenge each other.

CHAIR—Thank you very much, gentlemen. Whoever wants to respond to this can do so.

There was a fairly significant article in the Australian last week talking about ice in the Antarctic.

Senator IAN MACDONALD—As there was again this morning.

CHAIR—You might be able to enlighten us about that.

Dr Allison—My specialty is in ice. I have been working in glaciology for about 40 years, in both ice sheets and sea ice. I am not sure how familiar the panel is with ice in Antarctica, but a lot of misinterpretations get into the press about what is going on and why it is going on. I have a cartoon here, which I might try to talk to. I have a few copies that I will hand out. A lot of the reports that you see in the press confuse ice on the land, ice that originates from snowfall—what we call 'meteoric ice'—which is in ice sheets, glaciers and ice shelves, with what is called sea ice, which forms largely by direct freezing of the ocean in the polar regions. I have not seen the Australian, but there has been a recent report on an increase in the extent of Antarctic sea ice. I will put that aside for a moment.

Dr Allison—In my opinion, the newspaper article that you are talking about was selective. It concentrated on a rise in ice in East Antarctica. There is a very much greater loss of ice from West Antarctica. There is clear evidence now that overall the Antarctic ice sheet is losing ice at a rate of somewhere between 0.2 and 0.3 millimetres of sea level per year. The East Antarctic is very close to imbalance. There may be a slight increase, but it is more than offset by the loss of ice from West Antarctica by discharge and from the Antarctic Peninsula.

Mr Gunn—I think there is absolutely no doubt that the scientific consensus is that this is a global problem that needs to be fixed up globally. I do think it is inappropriate, sitting in a public servant's chair, to comment more broadly on policy within Australia, but—
Senator CASH—That is why I asked that political issues be put aside.
Mr Gunn—It is a very simple question. This is a global problem and needs to be addressed globally.

I always forget that I have grey hair....

When I stand before the mirror each morning making myself tidy for the coming day, I do notice the head of grey hair and eyebrows threatening to follow suit as well as other signs which show that the svelte young thing with a honey blonde bob left the building many years ago.
However, when I quit the bathroom I quickly forget my appearance.
So when waiting at a bustop last week a pert young thing in her thirties stood back to let me enter the bus first, saying "Elders first", I was shocked.
Did she really mean me?

Down at The Bunker Cartoon Gallery, Coffs Harbour

Time for a laugh?

The Bunker Cartoon Gallery holds a collection of approximately 16,000 cartoons. Council took over responsibility for the care of the gallery's permanent collection from the Rotary Club of Coffs Harbour City in September 2006, and recognises the Cartoon Collection as a very valuable community cultural asset.

Regular themed exhibitions are drawn from the Bunker's collection of cartoons and caricatures and hung in the foyer or the main gallery space for a number of weeks, often coinciding or linking in with travelling exhibitions.

Location: The Bunker Cartoon Gallery is located on John Champion Way, City Hill, Corner of Hogbin Drive and Albany Street, Coffs Harbour.

Cost: $2 adults; $1 children.

Opening Times: The Gallery is opened Monday to Saturday from 10am to 4pm.

Contact: The Bunker Cartoon Gallery can be contacted on (02) 6651 7343.

Rudders & Co charge towards the global warming guns

Rudders & the Council of Australian Governments are re-enacting the political stupidity of the Howard era and charging down the valley towards the guns of global warming armed only with the forlorn hope that government can again defer doing anything meaningful about greenhouse gas emissions.
Yesterday's COAG communique tells teh plebs exactly what is expected of us - use less energy, pay more for what energy we do use, invest in renewable energy products for our homes and handover the credit for any energy savings to whatever big polluter needs to hide the fact that it's refusing to clean up its act.
By the time Rudders has bent over backwards to please every big industry player and political donor, there will be almost no large business paying for carbon credits or obliged to invest in renewable energy.
So many are exempt under Rudders latest massage of the renewable energy target scheme that it fair sticks in the craw.
COAG is obviously hellbent on taking part in a 21st century version of the Charge of the Light Brigade, when stupidity amongst the officer class resulted in annihilation.

Andrew Bolt redux

The vast wealth of information out there in cyberspace means that few have a place to hide past mistakes these days.

In 2000 journalist Andrew Bolt wrote one of his trademark snarky articles We pay our magistrates good money to UPHOLD the laws.

Here is his shining moment in the full glare of a legal judgment which followed in Herald & Weekly Times Ltd & Bolt v Popovic VSCA 161 [2003]:

224. Mr Bolt then wrote and published -
     

     "How outrageous to so bully a prosecutor for simply arguing the law must be upheld against demonstrators who destroy the property of others."

225. Mr Bolt only published a portion of the exchange between Ms Popovic and the prosecutor, and it is arguable that his observation about the bullying of the prosecutor was supported by what he published. But when the whole exchange is revealed, the context shows beyond doubt in my opinion, that there is no basis for the observation made by Mr Bolt. He has distorted what in fact occurred, with the result that he was able to make a critical comment. If the whole transcript had been published, it would have been clear to the reasonable reader that there was no basis whatsoever for the comment.

226. By distorting the facts, Mr Bolt has conveyed to the reader a false impression. As a result of the false impression, Mr Bolt was able to make a critical comment concerning Ms Popovic which arguably was supported by the distorted facts. But the true position was that the exchange between Ms Popovic and the prosecutor did not justify or even arguably support the critical comment made.

227. According to the evidence, Mr Bolt received a faxed copy of a report of what had occurred at the hearing on 30 November, and attached to it was a version typed by the police of the discussion between Ms Popovic and the prosecutor which had been recorded. The exhibit now before the court is faded and difficult to read. However, Mr Bolt read the report and the transcript and highlighted parts of the latter document. According to Mr Bolt, he took the view that there had been an error in the transcript where it read - "MAGISTRATE: I am warning you, now, I don't wish to enter an argument with you." Without seeking clarification and without asking to hear the recording, Mr Bolt formed the view that there should have been a full stop after the word "now". He said he was correcting an error and described it as an "ungrammatical error". He went on to say that he thought the punctuation mark was missing. It was then put to him that it was an example of "selective quoting changing the meaning of what was said, do you agree?" and he replied, "Certainly not". He was also asked the question, "And do you agree now that you changed the meaning of what was said?" to which he replied, "Absolutely not". He was then asked this question - "So without reference back to Mr Mohammad or anyone in the prosecution section and certainly no reference to the magistrate who said it or to the official court reporting people you entered a full stop after the word `Now'?" Mr Bolt replied - "Yes, I think I was right to do. I would have liked to have had the whole sense because I think it would have been even more damning to include it. I did not." His denials cannot stand in light of the full transcript of the exchange. No reasonable jury could have accepted his oral evidence.

228. In my opinion no jury could, in light of the distortion of the facts, come to the conclusion that the making of the publication was reasonable in the circumstances. The facts were not in dispute. It is noted that two of the three imputations relied upon by Ms Popovic were based upon the comment made by Mr Bolt concerning bullying a prosecutor for simply arguing the law. Mr Bolt's conduct in the circumstances was at worst dishonest and misleading and at best, grossly careless. It reflects upon him as a journalist. [My highlighting]

It's cyber warfare when government advocates it and left-wing extremism when dissidents use it

In early 2009 President Obama ordered a review of U.S. cyber security.

When the U.S. begins to openly discuss a cyber warfare command it is seen as a legitimate weapon in the arsenal, albeit allegedly for defence.
Cyber assault is also seen by governments around the world as a legitimate vehicle for espionage.

However, when the U.S. canvasses what non-government agency or individual might use cyber attack to achieve a political aim, then it's all about the left wing and hacktivism according to a U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security report.

Not only is it about the left-wing; it's about particular types of so-called left extremists - anarchists, environmentalists and animal rightists.

And among these three groups, singled out for particular mention are anti-logging protestors and anti-GM activists because loggers and farmers use IT technology now.

I'm sure many who oppose old forest logging or the introduction of GM crops to Australia will be amused to find that the U.S. Government considers them extremists and a threat if they happen to own a computer.

However, what is really amusing is the thought that no-one at Homeland Security appears to believe that the right-wing is computer literate enough to mount increasing numbers of cyber attacks over the next decade.