Right Pulse

Amusing. Looks like those anti-whaling pirates that are harassing Japanese whalers don’t know how to steer – from aap:

And the after effects:

Probably a deliberate tactic to demonise the Japanese and garner sympathy from Surry Hills types - people that either don’t eat meat or don’t know where it comes from.

Predictably, the anti-whaling pirates have run home to mummy – the ABC – claiming that the Japanese deliberately rammed their vessel. The reality is that the larger vessel has the right of the way and it is up to the quicker and smaller more nimble vessel to get out of the way. The pirates are at fault.

The opposition environment spokesman – the biggest bed wetter in the opposition front ranks – has said the following:

“It is a time for a immediate dispatch of a non-military observer vessel to protect and also to capture and chronicle the slaughter of Australian whales in Australian waters.”

Oh boy. I didn’t know we owned those whales. Are they micro-chipped? And ever since we agreed to suspend our claim to 40 per cent of Antarctica, the surrounding waters stopped being enforceable.

There is justice:

LARA Bingle’s $250,000 Aston Martin has been stolen in what appears to be a targeted attack.

The dark blue James Bond-style 2008 Vantage Coupe disappeared from a secure carpark at the base of the couple’s luxurious Bondi apartment block.

The luxury vehicle was bought for the model by her partner, cricketer Michael Clarke.

My only question is, what exactly was Aston Martin thinking when they sold her the car to begin with? Maybe they saw the error of their way and decided they should get it back, along with any semblance of respectability.

According to the Herald Sun, Rudd has said that going from a 23 mega bit connection to a 100 mega bit connection – at a cost of $43 billion plus –  as part of this National Broadband Network will:

…reduce Australia’s carbon emissions by five per cent…

Okkkayyyy. And this number comes from where? Rudd mentioned the figure as part of his address to the UNSW, in which actually said:

…it has been estimated that broadband can help reduce Australia’s annual emissions of greenhouse gases by five per cent.

Is it greenhouse or carbon emissions? Don’t know because there is no citation, no indication of where the savings will be and it is not clear if it is a net figure. So basically a meaningless reference.

5 per cent of Australia’s annual net emissions (about 550 million tonnes) represents about 30 million tonnes. According to the US EPA, this equates to taking 5 million cars off the road for a whole year or nearly 8 coal fired power stations. Is Rudd seriously suggesting that such an increase in internet speed – apparently not subject to the laws of diminishing returns – will save us that much in emissions from transportation and power? Presumably this is where the saving will be in. And of course the mainstream media dutifully and uncritically report Rudd’s ramblings.

This as reported by the Punch from the ALP ACTU propaganda chief:

9.18am: Greg Combet argues we’ve just had the hottest November on record in Sydney so the Liberals should pass the emissions trading bill.

So, will the emissions trading bill stop Sydney experiencing a record hot November again? Will it do anything to stop record hot temperatures? No and no. I wonder if Combet is willing to make his statement an election promise?

…the world heated up by 6 degrees:

…(it) would have irreversible consequences, rendering large parts of the globe uninhabitable and destroying much of life on earth.

And what if the Earth collided with another planet? That wouldn’t be good either.

The study by Professor Corinne Le Quere, from the British Antarctic Survey and East Anglia University, is the most comprehensive so far of how economic changes and shifts in the way people used land over the past 50 years have affected CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

Who says it is the most comprehensive, bestest, most awesome study ever in the entire history of the world? The East Anglia University press release, so dutifully repeated without question by the Daily Telegraph. Scared yet? Well get ready to burnrnrnrn!

The temperature rise was made public by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007, when it was then only a worst-case scenario.

But according to Professor Le Quere it is now all but inevitable.

Great, so why waste valuable resources on an ETS when we could use those resources to adapt to the impending and inevitable burning? Funny how the study comes out right before the meeting in Copenhagen. Geee, I wonder if these lobbyists come scientists are trying to pressure anyone, or was it just by coincidence that study was completed at this time?

The Australian has an article about a couple members of Rudd’s chattering class that spent $28,000 covering their roof in solar panels. As you can see by the picture, they covered the entire roof:

In the three months to April, they used 1384 kilowatt hours and produced 388 kilowatt hours of excess power, for which they received the princely sum of $12.96 after taxes.

“Governments are not being serious about reducing energy consumption with lousy amounts of money like that,” Ms Bragg said….

Ms Bragg said she hoped the carbon permits scheme would be flexible enough to allow households with renewable energy to be paid for the gross amount of power produced — not just the excess — as happened in Germany and some other countries.

So that’s 2160 months or 180 years before they break even, ignoring depreciation costs on the solar panels, the roof and hook-ups. These people clearly have too much money too spend and not enough sense to justify what could be the first of many environmental bailouts for a government solar panel scheme that clearly does not work.

It’s global warming:

Police did not say why the woman jumped into the enclosure. She had to climb over a fence, a line of prickly hedges and a wall to get in.

“The woman has proved herself to be careless by jumping into the enclosure,” a police spokesman said afterwards. “Logic tells us that polar bears will do this type of thing in this situation.”

It was confirmed last night in the Senate Committee for Finance and Public Administration that Treasury intends to issue $200 billion in bonds (debt), in accordance with the Government attempts to amend the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911 to raise the debt threshold from $75 billion to $200 billion. The Coalition intends to vote against the amendment to the Act. So it is no longer $42 billion, but $200 billion in debt that Ruddlin wants to drive the Commonwealth into. This indicates the Government intends to spend-a-lot more pork in the future.

I was waiting for this to happen.

Some of the most radical unions in the country are taking Rudd to the UN’s International Labour Organisation, claiming the new workplace relations bill does not go far enough in handing unions power to dictate to employees how they will work and what they will get paid:

The group of Victorian unions has gained legal advice for a complaint to the International Labour Organisation, alleging that the Government’s new workplace legislation falls short on freedom of association and collective bargaining rights.

The proposal to shame Labor in the ILO, a special agency of the UN dedicated to improving labour standards, could prove highly embarrassing to the Government’s international reputation.

Ya think? Of course these were the same people that lobbied Hawke in the 1980s to do away with appeals to the Privy Council on the grounds of national sovereignty. The main issues are as follows:

…outlawing industrial action in support of multiple-business agreements, known as pattern bargaining….continuing “prohibited content” in agreements that would ban bargaining fees for non-unionists and other things from workplace negotiations.

Freedom of association? According to this plan all employees in an industry, regardless of their workplace union association, would be forced into a union agreement. For this forced ‘privilege’, a non-union worker would be forced to pay a fee to the union. A fee for an agreement and a union they don’t want. What about freedom from association?