Thursday 30 August 2012

Hot air trading beats Tulip fraud!






From: g87
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:57 AM
Subject: Hot air trading beats Tulip fraud!

Hot air trading beats Tulip fraud!

Commendations are due to your brilliant environment writer Graham Lloyd for his A Plus article Going for broke. The Australian 30/8.

Our incipient Carbon Trading scam plainly beats the Tulip bulb sham of 1690 and the Albanian pyramid / Ponzi scheme of 1997.

It seems even those involved in policing it all admit that ''Given the recent experience with corruption, EU negotiators have highlighted the difficulty in policing an open global scheme.''

And worse: this asinine government is unaware that it is plainly our planned involvement with the corrupt European Carbon Trading system that is keeping a floor under the ever - sinking price!

Never mind the lack of a commodity: exactly what are you supposed to deliver to fulfil obligations? Hot air?
Never mind even the lesser – known disasters they glibly create – like farmers being encouraged to grow trees and not cash crops!
There are so many more; yet these twirps gayly contemplate that the sky has not [yet] fallen in!

Lloyd writes:
''Carbon prices on the European exchange have been erratic, if not chaotic. Huge spikes in prices have come crashing back to earth in the wake of the global financial crisis and revelations of corruption and the involvement of organised crime.''

This Labor government feels no obligation to answer the hundreds of questions rational people need to ask.
1997 rebellion in Albania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Geoff Seidner
13 Alston Grove East St Kilda 3183

03 9525 9299
03 9525 9290
################################################################################################################################################

Going for broke

BlueScope Steel
BlueScope Steel works at Port Kembla, NSW. There are dangers for Australian companies hoping entry to the European ETS market will guarantee lower prices in the future. Picture: AP Source: AP
THE decision to link Australia's carbon trading scheme with the much-maligned European system has answered the hotly debated question of where the federal government wants Australia to stand on the global spectrum of climate change response.
By linking directly with Europe, Australia has positioned itself squarely with the group that has led the global politics for action.
For critics, Australia has signed a two-way deal to access a scheme that has been dogged by controversy, corruption and unpredictability in the name of providing certainty and price stability, when neither can be assured.
It has either pulled off a diplomatic coup or risked leaving the world's highest per capita carbon emitter -- Australia -- vulnerable to the dictates of bureaucrats from half a world away.
By agreeing to link carbon markets, the government has signalled its willingness to sign up to a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol when it expires at the end of the year.

This is at odds with Japan and Canada, which have withdrawn from Kyoto and are refusing to sign up for a second period.
Australia has made it clear it believed, in the absence of a legally binding global agreement, the future would rely on regional and bilateral agreements.

The Durban conference last November reached an 11th-hour agreement to negotiate a new framework that included the world's biggest carbon emitters, China, the US and India.

Under the agreement, the framework for a global deal is to be finalised by 2015 with the deal to take effect by 2020. But while there is agreement that the inclusion of China, India and the US was crucial to success on cutting emissions, divisions about the responsibilities of developed and developing economies remain.
Expectations were low for talks that got under way in Bangkok yesterday to set the ground rules for the first round of talks including heads of government scheduled for Doha at the end of the year.
The Australian Climate Commission's deputy director, Erwin Jackson, says it was always going to be a difficult year for global climate change negotiations after Durban. "It is a case of taking one step forward, half back," he says.
But he adds that Climate Commission analysis shows if Australia does not commit to a second Kyoto period this year -- before the global deal is done -- it would make all further discussions about linking with the European carbon trading scheme more difficult.

The key elements of the agreement announced by Climate Change Minister Greg Combet this week are for Australia to scrap its floor price of $15 a tonne from 2015 and instead link our carbon trading scheme directly to the European carbon market.
This means companies will be able to buy carbon permits directly from the European carbon market to cover obligations in Australia.
Complex discussions have begun for a two-way link from 2018, which would allow European companies to buy permits on the Australian market.
The latest agreement to link Australia with the European carbon trading scheme has been sold as having something for everyone.
Those who want tough action on emissions claim joining the world's biggest scheme is a demonstration of good faith.
The deal also may also open a new stream of income for farmers under the carbon farming initiative if European companies are allowed to invest. Business groups have applauded the scrapping of Australia's $15 a tonne floor price to prevent Australia locking in a system that was more expensive than elsewhere in the world.
The assumption has been the deal will lower the carbon price for business.
But the risk for all sides in the carbon tax debate has always been in popping the champagne corks too early.
Carbon prices on the European exchange have been erratic, if not chaotic. Huge spikes in prices have come crashing back to earth in the wake of the global financial crisis and revelations of corruption and the involvement of organised crime.
The price of emissions permits tripled in the first six months after they were introduced before collapsing by half in a one-week period in 2006, and falling to zero across the next 12 months. Most recently the price has bounced along below $10, compared with Australia's starting price of $23.
A police report in 2009 estimated 90 per cent of carbon permits traded in some European countries were fraudulent.
Theft aside, the main problem facing the EU market is the over-allocation of carbon permits.
According to the European Commission, the surplus up to 2020 will be equivalent to 2.4 billion tonnes of CO2. A slowdown in economic activity is largely to blame. Allowing Australian companies to enter the market will provide additional demand to soak up the oversupply.
But there are dangers for Australian companies hoping entry to the European market will guarantee lower prices in the future.
History may show that Australia agreed to join the European scheme at the bottom of the market. There is an incentive for companies to buy EU permits cheaply now to surrender against their carbon obligations in 2015. But where prices will be in 2015 is far from certain. The deal also opens a new level of exchange rate risk should the Australian dollar fall from its present high level.
As the EU prepares to enter its third round of carbon permit auctions and allocations next year there is growing pressure on European regulators to take decisive action to boost prices.
A review of the emissions trading scheme by the European Commission later this year is expected to recommend sweeping structural changes.
It is therefore possible that a linkage with Europe will increase, not reduce, the cost to Australian businesses.
Greens leader Christine Milne is highlighting forecasts of a European carbon price of $50 a tonne compared with today's market of less than $10. And lobby groups, including in Australia, are urging the EU to act to get it there.
Sustainable Business Australia, which describes itself as the nation's peak body for the low carbon and environmental goods and services sector, says Australia's decision to join the EU market would provide further incentive to act.
"It would encourage the EU to examine measures such as withholding carbon permits from auction to bolster their flagging price," SBA chief executive Andrew Petersen says.
Alongside concerns about the environmental need to cut global carbon emissions there is no shortage of self-interest at work.
Green-tech companies in Australia and across Europe are concerned that carbon price levels are too low to drive large-scale low-carbon investment.
Having decoupled compensation payments from the actual carbon price, the federal government also has a vested interest in the European carbon price rising.
The Climate Institute's Jackson says it is likelier that prices in Europe will be pushed higher. "That is where the debate is in Europe -- what can be done to increase prices," he says.
New demand from Australia for permits could help in the short term. "Australian companies will probably look to pull out 60 million to 200 million tonnes from the European scheme at a difficult time," Jackson says. He adds that the Greens' estimate of $50 a tonne for carbon "reflects where it has been in the past".
"Our forecast is for $30 a tonne by 2020."
Such price uncertainty undermines the government's core carbon tax pitch of business certainty.
That's something Tony Abbott has been quick to exploit. "If the EU price goes up, our economy is devastated," the Opposition Leader said yesterday. "If it goes down our budget is devastated."
Speaking at a clean technology research facility where carbon dioxide is used to grow algae for bio-diesel or feedstock, Abbott says the federal government is looking in the wrong direction. "Europe is not the rest of the world," he says.
"The US, India, China, Canada, Africa, our trading partners are not introducing a carbon tax.
He questions "this idea we secure our economic future by tying to Europe when Europe is going backwards and Asia is going forwards".
Combet has been keen to highlight the fact China is considering a limited carbon tax and trial cap-and-trade system.
Lobby groups say the creation of a fungible Asian carbon market is an important next step.
"Progressive Australian business will be looking to the opportunities that will emerge with the creation of a new inter-linked international carbon market imposing a unified carbon price on key markets in Europe, China, South Korea, Japan, New Zealand and California, all of which could be in place by 2020," the SBA's Petersen says.
Given the slow pace of negotiations within the UN framework, a system of bilateral or regional carbon trading agreements is certainly likelier than a global deal for a single market.
But linking with some countries, particularly China, will not be easy.
Negotiations between Australia and the EU may yet demonstrate exactly how tough they will be.
The ability of European companies to access the Australian carbon market from 2018 will depend on the successful agreement on a range of key policy issues.
These include measurement, reporting and verification arrangements: the types, quantities and other relevant aspects of third-party units that can be accepted into either scheme.
Included will be the role of land-based domestic offsets; trade-exposed industries; and comparable market oversight.
Given the recent experience with corruption, EU negotiators have highlighted the difficulty in policing an open global scheme.
And Frank Jotzo, director of the Centre for Climate Economics and Policy at the Australian National University, told Britain's The Guardian newspaper that linking with the EU trading scheme was not without risk for Australia.
"From an Australian point of view, the EU is in quite some economic turmoil and it is somewhat difficult to judge what policy changes may be around the corner," he says.
Australia has agreed to be a junior partner in a deal in which the linked Australian-EU scheme is likely to be much more strongly influenced by decisions in Brussels and Berlin, than in Canberra.
As a country with massive coal exports, energy-intensive industry and the world's highest per capita carbon dioxide emissions, Australia could find itself very vulnerable to harsh dictates from half a world away if negotiations are not handled well.
Carbon price
Source: The Australian

########################################################################################################################################


Editorial 

Swings and roundabouts in EU carbon price link



BY deciding to scrap the $15 a tonne floor price for carbon in 2015, the Gillard government has invited the obvious question of why our businesses must pay $23 a tonne for their carbon emissions until then. Given the new plan will lock Australia's carbon price into the European Union scheme, the price in Europe is now directly relevant to the domestic debate.
The price had been languishing below $10 on Tuesday when the announcement by Climate Change Minister Greg Combet triggered a flurry on the European market, taking the price to a two-month high of $10.25 before settling again around $9.70. So this begs the question of why, for the next three years, we have burdened our companies with a carbon price that is more than double - or over recent months three times - the price imposed on our trading partners in the EU. This is not to say the decision wasn't a step forward for Julia Gillard as she grapples with the political and economic difficulties inherent in her carbon tax package. The Australian had previously called for the elimination of the floor price and welcomed Tuesday's announcement. But while we have consistently supported a market mechanism as the cheapest and most efficient way to reduce carbon emissions, we have steadfastly argued that Australia should not get too far ahead of the rest of the world. To this end, delaying the emissions reduction scheme would have been wise, especially in the wake of the global financial crisis. But given the scheme is in place, the sooner we shift to a market price without a floor - rather than a fixed-price tax - the better. The reason the Prime Minister won't contemplate this move any sooner than 2015 is because the intervening budgets have already factored in and allocated the money raised by what is now exposed as an exorbitantly high $23 a tonne carbon tax.

So Australia has put itself at the vanguard, ahead of its trading partners in North Asia and North America, by moving to an economy-wide carbon price. When it comes to Europe we have placed ourselves ahead by at least double the price, for now. What we can say for certain about the abolition of the floor price is wholly good but limited to this - we are now guaranteed that as of 2015 our domestic industries will not suffer a carbon price disadvantage compared to the countries of the EU. Where they will stand in comparison to their competitors in China, India and the US is mere speculation but most observers would concede those countries are unlikely to have imposed a broad carbon price by then.

If that is the economic reality, the political benefits of this for Ms Gillard are more difficult to quantify. Certainly she has alleviated a concern of business, so their worst-case scenario after 2015 is to pay no more than Europe. While it can be argued this backflip raises more doubts about competence, perhaps it also signifies to the wider electorate that Ms Gillard is prepared to listen and modify her policies. And when the attack comes about the government moving Australia too far ahead of the rest of the world, Ms Gillard can point to our future carbon price synchronisation with Europe. Then again, this does not seem to be the most opportune time in history to hitch your economic and political wagon to the labouring behemoth that is the EU.



########################################################################################################################################

Lining up with Europe carries inherent risks

I AM floored by the decision to remove the carbon tax floor price in favour of linking the price to the European carbon unit. This is a backflip on a policy that sought to give assurance to those of us who depend on the Australian economy.
The backflip came with pike and twist in lining us up in anything to do with the sickly European economy.
The exorbitant price was set in the first place because the federal government thought it was a good idea at the time to create stability.
Now that the floor price has been dumped, it is becoming more and more apparent that the carbon tax is an albatross of increasing heaviness around every Australian taxpayer's neck.
John Bell, Lyneham, ACT
HOW did we know the federal government would get the carbon tax wrong? Everything it touches turns to (using Julia Gillard's word) crap. And hooking us up to the sinking ship that is the EU must be the craziest, most irresponsible decision since Kevin Rudd lost his nerve and abandoned the greatest moral issue of our time.
I don't need to list the backflips, bad policies and abysmal implementation over the years because it's common knowledge. But I'd like to know how they formulate their policies. Those multi-million dollars the government spends on consultants is a complete waste of our taxes.
Don Stallman, East Brisbane, Qld
IN the lead-up to the introduction of the carbon tax, there was no mention of its effect on the climate but the implication was that Australia was a big emitter of carbon dioxide on a global basis because we have a high per capita generation of the gas.
However, since we have a small population, adding up this per capita generation produces less than 1.5 per cent of the global emissions of CO2. Also, our predicted expanding population was never factored in.
Meanwhile, I have not seen any comments by climatologists as to the effect of the tax on climate change. I believe that we should improve the efficiency of power generation in line with other industrial nations but not make our industries non-competitive by having a carbon tax way above that of our trading partners, knowing it will have no measurable effect on the global climate.
John Morris, Avoca Beach, NSW
FORMER Queensland Labor treasurer Keith de Lacy was right to label the carbon tax an exercise in collective insanity. The federal government's backflip on a carbon floor price simply confirms that opinion, as does the malfeasance in science that supposedly required an emissions trading scheme in the first place. There remains no valid proof that carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming, and it remains a fact that temperature reductions due to emissions trading will be measurable in thousandths of a degree, if at all.
Just to rub in the absurdity of it all, Germany opened a new coal-fired power station this month to partly replace its lost nuclear-power generating capacity.
G. M. Derrick, Sherwood, Qld
IN February, extreme weather in eastern Europe froze the Danube. If that is repeated the European carbon price would decline significantly. It could even go to zero.
From 2015, Australia's carbon price will be linked to European carbon markets. This will link this revenue source to the weather and the economy of Europe. Is this sensible?
Brent Walker, Killcare, NSW
AS the world learned in 2007, where there are markets, there are market manipulators. Many are selfish and shortsighted, and we cannot expect market setters in Europe to care much how their schemes affect me and every other Australian. Seemingly our trusting federal government does.
Paul Kunino Lynch, Elizabeth Bay, NSW
##############################################################################################################################################




Carbon floor price had to go to protect our economy



LESS than two months after its introduction, the shape of the carbon tax has been dramatically altered in a way that will minimise pain for domestic industry and aid enmeshment with international markets. The abolition of a $15-a-tonne floor price when the tax transforms into an emissions trading scheme in 2015, and the establishment of direct pricing and trading links with the European scheme, make sense.
Now, whatever price Australian companies pay after 2015, it will not be massively out of kilter with international markets - as is the case now, with the fixed $23 tax more than double the European price. In dealings with at least one major trading bloc, the EU, our industries will not be exposed to any discernible disadvantage.
For Julia Gillard, given the government's defence of the floor price over the past year, this dramatic backflip will have some political cost. A week ago Climate Change Minister Greg Combet told Sky News, "we've legislated the floor price ... we're committed to arrangements we've legislated". Finance Minister Penny Wong warned about the financial risks of abolishing the floor price when she appeared on Australian Agenda in February. "You'd have to be very careful that that didn't have a very negative effect on the budget," she said, "because if you move to a floating price, obviously household compensation quite rightly is fixed, there's obviously budgetary risks there." Despite these political and budgetary difficulties, the government has done the right thing.
The most influential people in Sport
Just seven weeks ago The Australian called for a rational debate about "the potential economic benefits of moving to a cap-and-trade system sooner rather than later, without a floor price". We argued there was no need to force our companies to pay "a price that is so much higher than that imposed by other nations". The Prime Minister has come to similar conclusions. Ms Gillard and Mr Combet have shown admirable flexibility in adjusting their scheme, rather than rigidly sticking to a flawed model. To the extent independent MPs, including Rob Oakeshott, have helped to force the change, they should be commended.
This compromise was foreshadowed in our pages last month in an exclusive report by Sid Maher. Since then the government has won crucial agreement from the Greens, in perhaps their first sign of compromise since joining a formal alliance with Labor. Greens leader Christine Milne is convinced the Europeans will ensure their carbon price rises so that by 2015 it will be at least $15, meaning the floor price would have been redundant any way. Treasury modelling agrees, predicting $29. Yet the current weakness of the European price suggests some risk of a lower price. Either way, Australian businesses will now be insulated from disadvantage against international carbon prices.
Given the household compensation that is already locked in to the forward estimates it would appear impossible to move to a market price any earlier, so Ms Gillard seems to have adopted as much remedial action as is possible at this time. No doubt she will be hoping these changes help to bed down the scheme, ease the concerns of industry, and increase any resistance to the idea of a Coalition government coming in to undo all of this work.


Wednesday 29 August 2012

Edifice of Climate Lunacy destroyed herein

VIEW THIS FIRST....
http://cognatesocialistdystopia.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/joannenovacomau-re-cc-in-oz.html

Apart from our own needs, part of our global responsibility is surely to claim ownership of that science and make it broadly available. As a working biomedical scientist with no expertise in climate science, I take notice of findings by active researchers who deal with real data and publish in quality, peer-reviewed formats. Then, in the climate space, we are informed by websites from substantial agencies, like the CSIRO, the BOM, the US NOAA, the national academies and scientific societies like the American Geophysical Union, The Geological Society of America and the American Meteorological Society that have clearly stated positions. Nothing I read leaves me with a sense other than that the world's oceans and land masses are progressively warming, that we are rapidly losing ice cover at both poles, and that, globally, we are experiencing more extreme weather events with greater unpredictability.



If Doug Hurst has either an hypothesis or data that overturns the scientific consensus, he should publish so that competent investigators can scrutinise his analysis.
Peter C. Doherty, Nobel Laureate, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic
RATHER than arguing about whether humans are having a climate impact, we should be discussing whether more carbon dioxide is good or bad. Faced with a rapidly growing population and a potential food shortage, maybe a warmer, wetter world with enhanced plant growth feeding on higher carbon dioxide levels might be our saviour


G. R. Ryan, Atherton, Qld
#################################################################################

Climate facts






  • The Australian 
  • August 28, 2012 12:00AM


  • IN criticising Joanne Nova's commentary ("Manne is anti-science on climate", 25-26/8), Peter Doherty (Letters, 27/8) tells us that "every significant science academy supports the case made by the climate science community" but doesn't tell us what that case is.
    If the case is past forecasts by climate scientists of dangerous and unprecedented increases in temperature, sea level and extreme weather incidents then the good professor should check the facts.
    Endless alarmist forecasts in these areas have not come within a bull's roar of reality. The temperature (according to satellite data) has remained virtually constant for 15 years despite rising carbon dioxide levels, the sea-level increase rate is tiny and slowing, and the incidence of severe storms has fallen in the past decade.
    Good science should produce good predictions and we are clearly not dealing with good science with much of the climate community. Nova is right to point this out, along with the fact that most climate alarmists are funded by government and most sceptics are independent of politics and not dependent on study grants and government jobs to pay their bills.


    Doug Hurst, Chapman, ACT

    #################################################################################

    Climate scientists are not failing to convince others






  • The Australian 
  • August 27, 2012 12:00AM

  • Every significant science academy supports the case made by the climate science community. These academies encompass the full spectrum of science and members are elected by merit.
    As a researcher in immunobiology, I watch the climate field from the sideline, go to some seminars, talk to scientists, monitor key websites and read leading journals such as Science and Nature.
    Climate researchers are rigorous and conservative, and I don't see anything that gives me unease. The Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO, for example, input 50,000 pieces of new data every day. These are the people who dedicate their lives to grappling with the massive experiment we're doing with our atmosphere. Unlike my field, this is an experiment that can never be repeated.
    Peter C. Doherty, Medical School, University of Melbourne, Vic

    ############################################################################


    Manne is anti-science on climate






  • From:The Australian 
  • August 25, 2012 12:00AM

  • Robert Manne
    Robert Manne thinks internet surveys of scientists are a valid way to test whether planetary atmospheric dynamics is changing in dangerous and unprecedented ways. Picture: Aaron Francis Source: The Australian
    ROBERT Manne declares in the current issue of The Monthly that the "Denialists are Victorious" but his sole reasoning that the victorious are "deniers" is merely that some chosen experts tell us a disaster is coming and he feels they could not possibly be wrong.
    Argument from authority is a fallacy known for 2000 years, and it is a key point; it is the disguise of the witchdoctor - "Trust me, I am the chosen one". The one defining difference between science and religion is that the devout can argue from authority but the scientific cannot. In science there are no gods and there is no Bible - what matters is the evidence. The highest experts may declare the world is headed for catastrophe, but if 3000 thermometers in ocean buoys disagree (and they do: see the Argo program), the scientist questions the opinions and goes with the observations.
    Manne thinks internet surveys of scientists are a valid way to test whether planetary atmospheric dynamics is changing in dangerous and unprecedented ways. It's an anti-science position. Since the dawn of time, tribal witchdoctors have been forecasting storms and asking us to pay tribute to their idols. Debate of climate science has descended into abject farce.

    To understand the danger of quoting surveys of scientists, let's look at the three Manne names.
    The first (Anderegg) is a blacklist of "good guys" and "bad guys" in the world of science. It doesn't measure the climate, but it is a reasonable proxy for government grants. Just add up the salaries of all the believers v the unconvinced and the ratio would be similar.
    The US government bestowed $79 billion (1990-2009) on scientists who looked for a crisis, but very little on those looking for natural causes or holes in the theory. It is a non-event of no proportions that 

    there are more believers publishing papers than sceptics, and the ratio is similar to the funding (though quite a few sceptics manage to publish despite having no tenure, no staff, and no easy access to data). The number of papers tells us nothing about the quality of the research: it's not hard to write papers that are irrelevant or repetitive, or the output of another flawed climate simulation.
    His approved "climate scientists" might as well be a list of anointed preachers of the Cult of Climate Science. The esteemed?
    The second, Doran and Zimmerman, was a two-minute survey sent to 10,257 scientists, but the figure of "97 per cent of climate scientists" came from only 77 people who were deemed to be "qualified" (75 of 77 agreed).
    Climate scientists are failing to convince scientists from other disciplines (who usually have no vested interest in the outcome). The petition project shows that 31,500 scientists (including 9000 PhDs) disagree with the 75 in the government-anointed official climate science positions.
    The petition does not tell us about the "truth" of the climate either, but it rather makes a mockery of the idea of a consensus. Sure, the opinion of a climate scientist is worth more than the opinion of a physicist, but is each climate scientist worth more than 420 other scientists? Who knows? The answer to that is that it's a stupid question. We won't know anything for sure about the effect of trace gases by researching opinions of hominids. Instead, we ought pay attention to weather balloons and satellites, or ice cores and pollen assays.
    Manne also quotes Naomi Oreskes, author of The Merchants of Doubt; her work was equivalent to a Google search on words in scientific papers. Again, confused researchers study proxies for grants instead of proxies for temperature. Oreskes and Manne posit the unlikely conspiracy that oil funds dominate the debate (as if Exxon were funding thousands of dissenting scientists).
    Government funding out-spends oil giants by 3500 to 1 (or more). Oreskes can name virtually no significant funding for sceptics, who are almost all unpaid volunteers, working out of professional and patriotic duty, appalled by the illogical, anti-science sentiments of people such as Oreskes and Manne.
    Manne treats climate scientists as if they were infallible gods of science. They-who-must-not-be-questioned have issued their decree and anyone who questions is a denier. Manne's petty name-calling shows how unintellectual his arguments are.
    This adulation of individuals and tests of character, "success", or popularity is the antithesis of what the great brains-trust of science ought to do. In science, all minds test theories against the universe, and only the real world matters. The petty world of human reputations is steeped in bias and conflicts of interest, with personality defects and political power grabs, not to mention the corrupting influence of money.
    Science achieved success for civilisation by freeing us from exactly this cesspool of complexity, to rise above the posturing and consider only impartial observations. There is a good reason the club of climate scientists are failing to convince other scientists - their evidence is weak - and any good scientist can see that.
    Science is not a democracy. Natural laws don't form because anyone says so, and the only way to find out the answer is to look at the measurements from the planet, not from the people.
    Joanne Nova is a graduate in molecular biology and former associate lecturer in science communication at ANU. Her blog is read by 450,000 people a year from 200 countries:joannenova.com.au


    Friday 24 August 2012

    The eternal asinine debate: is she stupid or merely immature?

    The eternal asinine debate: is she stupid or merely immature?

    My postulate is that a so - called  'immature'  adult is simply stupid.
    One can vary the moniker to naive, very young - or whatever, but that so designated person remains - STUPID, ASININE; whatever similies my thesaurus would show.

    Most intelligent people agreed with me when I ran a personal survey about 18 months ago. I did not have Gillard in mind.

    I will not disclose who I had in mind: it matters not. For all you know it could have been myself.

    What worries me is that a few bright people plainly disagreed with me: I would have thought it was a no - brainer. Sigh.

    This essay / scribble may be continued









    Slush Funds: You cant stay young forever. But you can be immature for the rest of ...



    slush fund



    noun
    1.
    a sum of money used for illicit or corrupt political purposes,as for buying influence.
    2.
    Nautical . a fund from the sale of slush, refuse fat, etc.,spent for any small luxuries.

    Oh she was a young ranga....

    Julia Gillard rambles about being young, naive and immature back in the halcyon days when she created those ''union slush funds.''

    The dictionary of 20 years ago and the current on - line version has this definition:

    slush fund

    noun
    1.
    a sum of money used for illicit or corrupt political purposes,as for buying influence.
    2.
    Nautical . a fund from the sale of slush, refuse fat, etc.,spent for any small luxuries.


    How is it that the PM can so openly admit to corrupt political activity' - basis merely what she admits to having done when she was an 'immature' 35 year old?

    How is it that she cannot be asked to impeach the dictionary in parliament?

    How long can she claim to be young forever and not be immature for the rest of her life?

    Or is she claiming the nautical derivative / and to be all at sea?
    I would enjoy being sued for libel merely quoting the woman.

    Danger: sexist, mysogynistic and affirmatively Emily / inane!

    Geoff Seidner
    13 Alston Grove East St Kilda 3183

    03 9525 9299
    03 9525 9290
    \############################################################################
    ######################################################################################


    http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1343953273/266

    Australian Politics Forum - Is Gillard about to be exposed

    12 posts - 3 authors - 16 hours ago
    The “slush fund” that Gillard had created three years earlier was a legal ... for her side to debate: sexism, misogyny, the Mudoch hate media, the nasty ....SQUAWK&&&&"Informal To complain or protest noisily or peevishly. v.tr.



    Welcome to - EMILY's List

    www.emilyslist.org.au/Share
    EMILY's List Australia has helped elect 153 women to parliaments across Australia. You can help Julia, Jenny, Tanya and Penny and so many more women by ...

    You cant stay young forever. But you can be immature for the rest of ...

    www.searchquotes.com/quotation/You_cant_stay_young_fore...Share
    You cant stay young forever. But you can be immature for the rest of your life. ...Our goal is to help you by delivering amazing quotes to bring inspiration, personal .... I really hate money orientated people and can't stand arrogant people!

    http://www.hotheadlines.com.au/redirect.php?h=Gillard_admitted_setting_up_union_slush_fund&artid=1628940

    Gillard admitted setting up union 'slush fund'

    Re-election fund created for former boyfriend Bruce Wilson. 22 Aug 2012 1:54 PM.... Published: 23/8/12 3:54am in Business Spectator


    An allegory of journalistic decline - The Drum - ABC News ...

    www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-23/green-an...of.../4215850Share
    1 day ago – The journalism of 2012 has made its bargains with sensation, celebrity, ....under question admits he had not read the statement then this morning changed ..... "Julia Gillard set up 'work safety' entity that was a slush fund", The ...