Article: MSNBC. Obama’s climate policy is ‘practically worthless,’ says expert 

Hat tip: Obama’s climate policy is ‘practically worthless,’ says Dr. James Hansen

“The actions are practically worthless,” said James Hansen, a climate researcher who headed NASA’s Goddard’s Institute for Space Studies for over 30 years and first warned congress of global warming in 1988. “They do nothing to attack the fundamental problem.”

Considering that Mr. Obama's policy proposal is to end reliance on coal to fuel electrical power generation in the US by government fiat, one wonders exactly what a "worthy" policy actually involves.

Hansen suggested a gradually rising fee for fossil fuel extraction, collected at the port of entry or, in domestic cases, the place where the material actually comes out of the ground. “As long as fossil fuels are allowed to (appear to be) the cheapest energy, someone will burn them,” he wrote in an email to msnbc. “It is not so much a matter of how far you go. 

"Gradually rising" to how much? Until all fossil fuels are too expensive to use? What will substitute for them? ("Renewables" are too unreliable.)

Article: Saudi Arabia may go broke before the US oil industry buckles

This is a reminder that the US may not be as nimble as a dictatorship, but a free market economy always beats a centrally planned one in the long run.

An extended look at the US shale oil (and natural gas) revolution, its continued and rapid technological advances, and the economic and political ramifications to the Saudi Arabians.

While it may be too optimistic about the US oil industry and too pessimistic about the Saudis, a lot of it confirms what I am reading elsewhere, in one neat package.

And, at least partly, the bad news for the Saudis is good news for the US; they will have less money to spend on fundamentalist Islam.

Article: ‘Deny’ and ‘Hoax’: Trump Words Intended to Shut Down Debate

The reason “deny” or “denial” or “deniers” is such a useful appellation to slap on people you disagree with is because of a phrase that entered the lexicon to describe an actually deranged point of view: Holocaust denial. Every time a variation on “deny” is used in such willy nilly fashion, the user is implicitly linking the target of your words to those who reject that the Holocaust happened.** Leave aside the damage this does to the ability to have a rational debate on the issues: that’s just a gross misappropriation of a humanitarian tragedy to score cheap political points. 

[snip] 

Now look: there are any number of reasonable debates to be had over this practice [Planned Parenthood selling "baby parts"]. Maybe the practice of selling dismembered-fetus organs actually saves lives! Maybe it is not only legal but also moral! Supporters of Planned Parenthood could try to convince us of these things. Instead, however, they say things like: [HOAX!]

Ad hominen logical fallacy. Don't deal with the facts, don't deal with the argument, shriek "Denier!"

And he does not even deal with Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming deniers. 

ABC News: GOV. JERRY BROWN BLASTS CLIMATE-CHANGE NAYSAYERS AT VATICAN SYMPOSIUM

Huffington Post: Jerry Brown Takes On Climate Change-Denying 'Troglodytes'

Breitbart.com: GOV. JERRY BROWN SLAMS CLIMATE-CHANGE SKEPTICS AS ‘TROGLODYTES’ AT VATICAN CONFERENCE

Governor Jerry Brown spend 3 years studying for the priesthood before completing a bachelors of arts in classics. He then earned a law degree from Yale University. He has a fine mind, trained to read, interpret, and think. He is not a scientist, however, and is not trained in dealing with how science operates. His opinions about global warming are just that, opinions. And these opinions are informed by the deep, leftist bubble he has lived in all his life.

"Right in the middle of this problem, we have fierce opposition and blind inertia and that opposition is well financed. Hundreds of millions of dollars going into propaganda, in falsifying the scientific record, bamboozling people of every country, television stations, political parties, think tanks, PHDs, university personnel," Brown said.

Biblically, even legally, this is slander. Oddly enough, I agree with it, because this is true of the climate-acedemic-media complex that operates in the US that promotes global warming. The only people "falsifying the scientific record" are the global warming activists, including NOAA and NASA's Goddard Climate Center.

[Rome’s Mayor Ignazio] Marino, a former surgeon, underscored the problem of organ trafficking, saying the phenomenon was on the increase, with tens of thousands of operations carried out each year around the world to extract organs—particularly kidneys—for sale to rich patients. Marino’s statement came just after it was revealed in the United States that the nation’s largest abortion provider Planned Parenthood has been harvesting organs from aborted babies and offering them for sale.

The Catholic Church has long had deeply thought out, theological positions against abortion, slavery, prostitution, homosexuality and organ theft. What are Gov Brown's positions with regard to these issues?

1. Brown’s newfound love for Saint Paul seems to gloss over the apostle’s strong words condemning homosexual practice, which would clash with the governor’s favorable position on same-sex marriage. 

2. A former Jesuit seminarian studying for the priesthood, Brown has evolved considerably since his seminary days, and his support of abortion in opposition to the Catholic Church’s defense of unborn children has earned him the plaudits of Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice groups.

Why have such a person, who is in opposition to important parts of Catholic theology, show-cased at a meeting in the Vatican?

Gov. Brown: troglodytes, deniers, bamboozled, un-Christian, greedy swindlers.

"Climate change deniers" is a straw dog logical fallacy. NO ONE denies that the climate changes. Gov Brown is calling catastrophic anthropogenic global warming "climate change" and then saying people are denying that it is happening.

Name calling is a logical fallacy called the ad hominen logical fallacy.

If it is necessary to use these fallacies, it is evidence that you know your arguement is actually very weak, and the only thing you can do is to fake it.

Governor Brown: "God is not mocked for whatsoever a man soweth that he shall also reap and what Saint Paul said in reference to God, we can also say about God's creation. We have heard what we are doing to that creation. What a trillion tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses will do," Brown said.

So, how well does Gov Brown's fine mind interpret the Bible?

The Bible: Galatians 6:6-10 (NASB)6 The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him. 7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. 8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9 Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary. 10 So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.

The context of Paul's admonition is to be generous to those in the church who teach and lead. Gov. Brown is advocating sowing to the flesh (concern about the things of this world).

If he is going to sow slander, that is what he will reap. If he sows hate, that is what he will reap. If he calls his opponents "un-Christian," and judges and condemns them, that is what he will reap. If he sows the murder of innocents, then that is what he will reap.

And may God have mercy on his soul.

Morons and Global Warming

I like to look at the orign and uses of words, how their meanings change over time, and why they come into use and go out of use.

At the bottom of the post, I have listed a number of words that at one time had a specific, legitimate medical use which have since fallen out of favor: idiot, cretin, moron, retard, imbecile and lunatic. All are Greek or Latin derivities, transferred into English as medical terms. All of them have similar meanings to the English word "fool" which itself is derived from Latin.  All of them are "no longer in technical use; considered offensive."

So what do morons have to do with the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis?

I do not wish to imply that those accept or deny the hypothesis are morons. Rather I wish to illuminate something about the shift from using CAGW to using climate change.

Over the last 5 years or so, proponents have shifted away from using CAGW, or even just global warming (GW) to using climate change. Why?

The first reason I see is that CAGW and GW have become "considered offensive." That is, the shrillness and the extremism of CAGW proponents have become offensive to ordinary people and to some scientists.

The second reason is that the more extreme predictions (the "catastrophic" part) have already failed to pan out and climate warming is in a hiatus (only relieved by manipulating a single set of data). No one likes to be reminded of their failures.

The third reason is that "cimate change" is new, and there is no negative connotations.

The fourth reason is that it is a neutral phrase, not implying warming or cooling. It is a "safe" phrase. It is also cowardly because all climate phenomena can now be ascribed to "climate change:" warming or cooling, drought or floods, ice caps melting or increasing, increased storms or decreased storms.

Additionally, anyone who disagrees with CAGW can now be called a "climate change denier." This is a straw dog logical fallacy because no one denies that climate changes. The deniers can be dismissed as "anti-science."

In conclusion, the shift from CAGW and GW to climate change is an admission of failure on the part of advocates of the CAGW hypothesis.

Word study:
The definitions are word origins are from online resources include the online Webster Dictionary.

idiot

a stupid person.
synonyms: fool, ass, halfwit, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, cretin, moron, imbecile, simpleton; More

MEDICINE archaic: a mentally handicapped person.

Psychology. (no longer in technical use; considered offensive) a person of the lowest order in a former and discarded classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.

Origin of idiot

1250-1300; Middle English < Latin idiōta < Greek idiṓtēs private person, layman, person lacking skill or expertise, equivalent to idiō- (lengthened variant of idio- idio-, perhaps by analogy with stratiōtēs professional soldier, derivative of stratiá army) + -tēs agent noun suffix

Moron
Psychology. (no longer in technical use; now considered offensive) a person of borderline intelligence in a former and discarded classification of mental retardation, having an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69.

Origin of MORON

irregular from Greek mōros foolish, stupid
First Known Use: 1910

Feeble-minded.
Psychology. (no longer in technical use; now considered offensive) a person of borderline intelligence in a former and discarded classification of mental retardation, having an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69.

Mentally retarded. 

subaverage intellectual ability equivalent to or less than an IQ of 70 that is accompanied by significant deficits in abilities (as in communication or self-care) necessary for independent daily functioning, is present from birth or infancy, and is manifested especially by delayed or abnormal development, by learning difficulties, and by problems in social adjustment

In reference to low intellectual ability, the terms retarded, retardation, and mental retardation [and retard] are now usually perceived as insulting.

Lunatic

affected with lunacy :  insane

Middle English lunatik, from Anglo-French or Late Latin; Anglo-French lunatic, from Late Latin lunaticus, from Latin luna; from the belief that lunacy fluctuated with the phases of the moon
First Known Use: 14th century

Imbecile

Definition of IMBECILE

usually offensive :  a person affected with moderate mental retardation

The noun imbecile is used informally as an insult to mean "fool". Its origins are in the Latin word imbecille, "weak or feeble," and it was an official medical term for people with a specific (and low) I.Q. in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Patients who were classified as imbeciles were said to have no more intelligence than a seven year-old child.

Origin of IMBECILE

French imbécile, noun, from adjective, weak, weak-minded, from Latin imbecillus
First Known Use: 1802

Cretin

n. a person suffering from cretinism. Cretinism - a congenital disease due to absence or deficiency of normal thyroid secretion, characterized by physical deformity, dwarfism, and mental retardation, and often by goiter.

Word Origin and History for cretin
n. 1779, from French crétin (18c.), from Alpine dialect crestin, "a dwarfed and deformed idiot" of a type formerly found in families in the Alpine lands, a condition caused by a congenital deficiency of thyroid hormones, from Vulgar Latin *christianus "a Christian," a generic term for "anyone," but often with a sense of "poor fellow." Related: Cretinism (1801).

Water for the farmers of California.

Democrats are against it. For decades, Democrats in general and California Democrats in particular have fought dam and reservoirs.

Article: An Engineered Drought

We do know two things. First, [current California Governor Jerry] Brown and other Democratic leaders will never concede that their own opposition in the 1970s (when California had about half its present population) to the completion of state and federal water projects, along with their more recent allowance of massive water diversions for fish and river enhancement, left no margin for error in a state now home to 40 million people. 

Second, the mandated restrictions will bring home another truth as lawns die, pools empty, and boutique gardens shrivel in the coastal corridor from La Jolla to Berkeley: the very idea of a 20-million-person corridor along the narrow, scenic Pacific Ocean and adjoining foothills is just as unnatural as “big” agriculture’s Westside farming. 

Article: House passes another bill to bring more water to California farmers

The House on Thursday passed GOP-led legislation designed to bring more water to California's farm belt amid a severe and lengthy drought. 

Similar legislation has failed in the last two congressional sessions, and the White House and Democrats remain opposed. 

The 170-page bill also sets deadlines for the completion of feasibility studies to build or enlarge five dams in the state and ends efforts to build up salmon populations in the San Joaquin River.

Article: House Democrats float new California water bill

The Democrats’ proposal omits new water storage projects or changes that boost irrigation deliveries to San Joaquin Valley farms, which have anchored House Republican drought-fighting efforts. Instead, it includes an array of water recycling grants, watershed protection programs, groundwater cleanup assistance and desalination studies, among other efforts.

Article: California flexes muscles in water tussle with farmers

California water regulators flexed their muscles by ordering a group of farmers to stop pumping from a branch of the San Joaquin River amid an escalating battle over how much power the state has to protect waterways that are drying up in the drought.

As the rest of the article makes plain, the farmers have long-standing, legally-binding water rights that (Democrat run) California are trying to take away.

Article: Developments in the Framing of Climate Change as a Public Health Issue in US Newspapers

The article completely buys into the "climate change not global warming" mythology. All they talk about is effects of global warming, but they cannot use a discredited phrase.

The public health frame stresses climate change’s potential to increase the incidence of asthma, allergies, disease, heat stroke, and other salient health problems. 

Global warming as an environmental issue: You are all going to die because the oceans are rising.

Global warming as a public health issue: You are all going to die of heat stroke.

In the process, the public health frame makes climate change personally relevant to new audiences by connecting the issue to health problems that are already familiar and perceived as important to the American public.

Or, "if you asthma, global warming is going to make it worse."

With regard to previous postings about law, honor, and fear cultures, this is clearly an attempt to manipulate people using fear. Sadly, many people are suscaptible to that kind of "framing."

Article: Pres/CEO Harry C. Alford in Investor's Business Daily: EPA Clean Power Plan Will Hit Blacks And Hispanics Hardest

President and CEO of the Black Chamber of Commerce.

[W]hat effect will the regulation itself have on minority communities? A new study commissioned by my organization, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, answers this question.

The Clean Power Plan will lead to lost jobs, lower incomes and higher poverty rates for the 128 million blacks and Hispanics living in America. This should serve as a warning to federal and state lawmakers as they prepare for this sweeping regulation to go into effect in the coming months.

The Justice Department has been pushing a doctrine called "disparate impact." That is, if something, anything has a disparate impact on women or any minority, then it is by its very nature, sexist, racist, etc.

In fact, one basis for the new EPA regulations is that most coal-fired power plants are near concentrations of minorities. For example: 

The NAACP study, “Coal Blooded: Putting Profits Before People,” looked into the overall toxicity of emissions or the “dirtiness” of coal plants. It combined the emissions of power plants with demographic data to rank a coal plant’s impact on the people who lived in communities near the facilities. 

The NAACP study examined the emissions of 378 plants and found 75 of them deserved an “F” rating. That would affect the environment for the approximately 4 million people who live near the lowest-rated plants.

The study showed 78 percent of African-Americans live within 30 miles of a coal-fired plant and 71 percent live near the dirtiest plants.

Most African Americans live in a big city. Most older power plants were build near the point of highest energy usage, that is, cities. There is nothing intrinsicly racist about the siting of power plants, but that does not stop the doctrine of disparate impact.

By the standards of the NAACP, the EPA, and the Justice Department, regulating coal-fired power plants, with its increase in energy costs and its decrease in energy reliability will hit minorities hardest.

The EPA's own regulations are objectively racist.

Article: The “Other” is but a Foil for the Self

I have been thinking about the topic of "tribal signalling," that is, the methods we use to signal to members of our tribes that we belong.

Once one realizes that this is common, the reason for most posts and tweets on social media become obvious.

At any rate, I Googled tribal signalling and found this article which I found enlightening.

There are three reasons to be skeptical of just about any conversation that hinges heavily on professed interest in the well-being of strangers: 

1. Low information: We aren’t there; we aren’t on the ground; we don’t know these people and what they’re really going through. We’re getting our information second or third or more-hand. There is always a good chance that we are completely wrong. 

2. No negative impact from being wrong: If I advocate for a water-conservation strategy for California that turns out to be totally wrong, Californians will suffer, not me. If I advocate a bad foreign policy position, foreigners will suffer, not me. If I advocate for laws that harm people or businesses in Indiana, I remain unharmed.

3. People don’t really care about strangers: Most people care deeply about their close friends and family, their pets, and some groups they identify with, like “Harley riders,” “Linux users,” or Muslims. They don’t actually care that much about strangers. The average American, for example, spends more money feeding cats than feeding starving children in Africa. 

[snip] 

...[I]f socially signalling group membership is of direct benefit to the individual (which it generally is,) then people will signal group membership by saying whatever is useful to say about others–and reality be damned.

Although one place I would qualify. He seems to imply that stating opinions about people or their situations that one is not familiar with is wrong. It is, if one does not have an external standard of objective truth to compare the people or behavior to.

If one has an external, objective truth that murder is wrong and mass murder is very wrong, one has a basis, then, for condemning totalitarian mass murder. Otherwise, one is merely expression an unsupported opinion based on an emotional state.

Article: Meet the ‘Know-Betters,’ America’s Not-So-Secret Political Party Squeezing the Life Out of You
Some people believe they are simply entitled to rule over you.

Most politicians, bureaucrats and pundits (except for explicitly libertarian ones). Almost all "-ists" and "-isms."

Prohibition, school food Nazis, college anti-sex crusaders, global warming activists, "Greens," some and others.

Article: Against Tulip Subsidies

Not about tulips, but rather uses tulips, subsidies, and the Dutch tulip mania of the 1600's as an extended metaphor about the pernicious effects of subsidizing post-secondary education.

The author discusses his own medical education.

He notes that we use a college degree as a credential, costing thousands of dollars, to get a job or get an advance degree, that does not require an actual college education.  (His bachelor's degree was in philosophy, then he earned a medical degree in Ireland, a country that does require an undergraduate degree to begin a medical education.)

He notes that is unfair to the poor who cannot afford the education to do a job that they might otherwise be qualified for.

Article: Climate denial is immoral, says head of US Episcopal church

The highest ranking woman in the Anglican communion has said climate denial is a “blind” and immoral position which rejects God’s gift of knowledge.

"Immoral." I don't think that word means what you think it means.

From the Wikipedia article on Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori of the US Episcopal church:

She caused schism in the church:

Jefferts Schori's tenure has been highly controversial and marked by nearly unprecedented schism, with four dioceses having broken off to become part of the Anglican Church in North America...

She is vindictive:

At her direction the national church has initiated lawsuits against departing dioceses and parishes, with some $22 million spent thus far. She also established a policy that church properties were not to be sold to departing congregations.

She is a supporter of sexual immorality and of government intrusion into church life:

Jefferts Schori is a supporter of same-sex relationships and of the blessing of same-sex unions and civil marriages.

She is a supporter of killing the pre-born:

Like her predecessor, she is a supporter of abortion rights, stating that "We say it is a moral tragedy but that it should not be the government's role to deny its availability." She also supported the HHS mandate on birth control.

Feel-good article of the day

Article: Five Ways Liberals Ignore Science

Five major ways, and a host of minor ways, the left ignores science. And pushes an agenda behind that ignore-ance.

Article: Obama’s 1.6 Billion Dollar Ivanpah Solar Plant Can’t Pay Its Bills – Needs Bailout

Alternate title: Google's billion dollar bird killer goes bankrupt.

In May 2012 Barack Obama highlighted the Ivanpah Solar Plant in his Weekly Address.  

He said the solar plant will “turn sunlight into energy” and put “1,000 people to work.” 

He granted the plant a $1.6 billion construction loan. 

. . . . 

The Ivanpah solar electric generating plant is owned by Google and renewable energy giant NRG, which are responsible for paying off their federal loan. If approved by the U.S. Treasury, the two corporations will not use their own money, but taxpayer cash to pay off 30 percent of the cost of their plant, but taxpayers will receive none of the millions in revenues the plant will generate over the next 30 years.

This is the same solar power plant that was reported to kill thousands of birds yearly.

Article: Those Ebola Vaccines in Testing Now? You Can Thank Dick Cheney for That

After 9/11, former Vice-President Dick Cheney saw that various exotic viruses might be used as bioterror weapons. He urged increased spending on studying the viruses in general and specifically on vaccines.

Article: 'This Changes Everything' tackles global warming

Book review: "This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate" (Simon & Schuster), by Naomi Klein

Cutting the vast amounts of man-made pollution that feed global warming is an enormous challenge for societies that gobble up coal, oil and gas. But in "This Changes Everything," Naomi Klein argues that those fuels aren't the root problem — capitalism is. 

The country that emits the most carbon dioxide gas is a communist one: China.

Is blaming capitalism for climate change just rhetorical hot air — or a brutal and uncomfortable truth?

For educated, knowledgeable, informed Americans, it is hot air.

For low-information voters, the Left, Academe, the liberal punditocracy, and Paul Krugman,  who perfectly embodies all the preceding, this is a brutal truth. And no amount of information, or thinking, will change that.

And like everyone else, Klein struggles with perhaps the toughest global warming challenge: how to cope with the explosive growth of newly capitalist economies. 

China is now the world's largest emitter of carbon pollution…

So, China became capitalist? Has someone informed Mao?

Most of China's industries are owned, like the good little Marxists and international socialists that they are, by the government. How is this capitalism? And, no, communist countries do not have capitalist economies.

I am stopping here. This drivel is not worth my time.

Article: Where science is concerned, I must part company with some of our economists:
To transform our nation, we need to facilitate innovation in science on a scale we’ve never achieved. That’s too important to be left to chance, or to ‘market signals’

Ian Chubb is the "Chief Scientist" for Australia, a position he was appointed to by a Labor Party Prime Minister

It was fun to skim his editorial/commentary. He is obviously a socialist. The article itself is mostly bureaucratic waffle from a leftist point of view. What I am going to do is pull the "socialist-isms" out of article.

Let us start with the title:

"Transform." What? Is something so appalling wrong with Australia that it needs to be transformed? Tell us what it is. That might make a more interesting article than this one.

And why do you want to disparage your own country? What is so awful about it? Even that would make a more interesting read than this.

"Too important to left to chance or market forces." This is a slam on free-market or capitalist economies (not the same thing). Why is it "too important"? Because the enormous innovation that we have seen from the capitalist world, but not the socialist world, over the last century did not happen or was too puny?

I want an Australia that is more than just what is left after the economic trimmings work their way through the community’s digestive system. I want an Australia in which our economy is organised to support our aspiration and not to limit it.

"I want an Australia in which our economy is organized." The Marxist/Fascist/Communist/Fabian Society/Labor Party/Socialist dream of an "organized economy."  Every time the more extreme versions of it have been tried (the USSR and Maoist China), they have failed. Half-measures, such as in England and the EU, are failing.

I am happy to agree that our children would welcome a budget in decent shape.

I loathe being manipulated by a "for the children" appeal. If that is one of your best arguments, then you have lost.

I don’t think all our debts will be measured in dollar terms, however. 

Fiscal debt, a budget deficit, is not real debt. Real debt is something else. It appears to be air pollution.

There are other things our children should expect. 

Breathable air, for one. Oceans to swim in. Food that’s good to eat. The chance to raise a family and grow old. I seem to recall saying that a few times, too.

Ah, those you oppose are for bad air, bad oceans, bad food, forced celibacy and childlessness, and killing older people before they can "grow old."

I would be an idiot if I could not see science’s centrality to every challenge Australians face. 

No, you are an idiot because you claim to see something that is not there. How do want to apply "science" to the various challenges involving the Aborigines? Eugenics? DNA testing to determine who is a "real" Aborigine?

On one point, it strikes me that we can all agree. Science builds industries, boosts productivity and drives human progress. It is critical to national growth.

No, traditionally, industry paid for the science that gave them technology to build new things. Then the government got involved.

So science is awesome. So far, so good. Then we come to where the debate really lies today: the role of government in building science capability. It is here that I part company with some – although by no means all – of the economic commentariat.

Socialists see a government role for everything. Why not science? We have had 50 years of increasingly heavy-handed government intervention and we are in the state you are complaining about. The policies you have advocated have caused the problems you want your policies to fix.

And about those policies. Why do you think that 19th century, Marxist, "scientific socialism" (or even Labor Party, socialism-lite) will solve 21st century problems? You are an old-fashioned, backward-thinking, "apres-garde" reactionary.

There is a view in this country that too much thinking about the sort of Australia we want gets in the way of the “market signals” – the invisible rays that persuade 15 year olds to study physics, or not, that attract graduates into science teaching, or not; and convince the market to wear the risk of bold new ideas, or not.

OOOOH! "Invisible rays!" Your contempt for a free-market economy is obvious. The idea that "the invisible rays… persuade 15 year olds to study physics" is a straw dog logical fallacy. Only a socialist is stupid enough to argue that position.

Do you want to "convince the market to wear the risk of bold new ideas?" Cut taxes, if not across the board, then specifically for R&D budgets. But you would not be a socialist if you could abide reducing taxes for any purpose.

It adds up to the message that she’ll be right. And it would be an easy message for a chief scientist to sell – if it wasn’t contradicted by the evidence.

OK, do you have any evidence? Because if you do not, you just made a "proof by assertion" fallacy.

Yes, logic says Australian businesses have an incentive to innovate. 

"Logic says." Yes, but what does the Australian government say? Does it pursue policies freeing business from red-tape so that new companies can be created to force innovation in the older ones?

Red-tape protects existing companies. Cut it and innovation will happen, or the non-innovative companies will die. But you would  not be a socialist if you could abide reducing government regulations.

Three in five of them still say they don’t, while just one in five say that they have introduced new or significantly improved goods or services. 

Yes, it sounds like red-tape to me. A company that say it does not have to innovate is a company that is being protected by government regulation.

Yes, it makes sense to study a science at senior levels. Australian schools show a decline in the rates of participation in “science” subjects to close to the lowest level in 20 years.

OK, but why? Generally, people do what they are rewarded for doing. Over the last 20 years, what has changed about Australian government, society and schools to make STEM less rewarding? The Left has mostly taken over education at all levels (at least, this is true in the US). Maybe this has something to do with the problem.

We throw programme after policy into the mix, with no sense of how it all adds together to make a stronger Australia. 

Maybe that is the problem: "throw[ing] program after policy into the mix." If it was less of a problem before all that throwing, why do you think that MORE polices are going to help?

By-and-large, governments have found that rather than seeking to mandate conditions, they can and do help to create environments in which business, researchers and educators are able to perform at their best—in a cooperative and coordinated way.

Yes, by reducing taxes and regulations. By getting out of the way.

"Creating environments" certainly sounds better than "mandating." But again, the "mandating" was usually a policy of the left in the first place, how much are actually going to differ?

There is the lesson for us: top-performing stem economies are united not by their size or geography but by their capacity to organise then grasp their opportunities.

Dr. Scientist, how about data? Which countries? Which policies have been successful? Name one. And don't say things like "alternate energy sources." Anything can be "successful" if subsidized by enough government monies.

The US has been one of the "top-performing stem economies" and we don't do much organization.

Israel is, for it's size, the top-performing stem economy in the world. Why don't you look at they are doing and announce to the world that you are going to emulate them?

Oh, right, the loud-mouth Left/Labor Party in Australia hates Israel and would rather commit scientific suicide that emulate them.

I am old enough to remember when Japan was held up as a powerhouse economy that would over-take the US economy shortly, blah, blah, blah. They had great partnerships between their (near-monopoly) industries and government.

Nice, cozy, crony partnerships that kept the money flowing into politics. And for some reason, they are stagnate now.

The country that gave us the Sony Walkman now gives us "Hello Kitty."

Article: 5 Terrifying Facts From the Leaked UN Climate Report

Hysterical over-reaction from Mother Jones.

The typical pattern for an IPCC report is as follows: The scientists write out the sections in their specialities. Then the politicians pull out all the worst case scenarios from the actual reports and create a summary. The summary is then "leaked" to various sympathetic outlets, like "Mother Jones" which in turn hype the worst case scenarios as if they were the core of the report.

This week, a big report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was leaked before publication
This "Synthesis Report," to be released in November following a UN conference in Copenhagen, is still subject to revision. 

This follows a pattern of previous IPCC reports: leak all the scary things first, then get around to toning them down in the actual report that comes out later.

I am not going through the whole article here.

Propaganda words and phrases used: ghastly, horrid, awful, shocking, grisly, gruesome, carbon pollution (instead of carbon dioxide), greenhouse gas (also carbon dioxide), crisis, "irreversible" ecological and economic catastrophes.

Here are five particularly grim—depressing, distressing, upsetting, worrying, unpleasant—takeaways from the report.

Article: Mythologies and Pathologies of the California Drought

The current drought is a product of nature, which has a bad periodic habit of withholding rain and snow over California, a natural occurring and long-recorded phenomenon that has nothing to do with global warming. We used to accept that fact and its corollary: most Californians preferred to live where there was the least amount of state rain and snow — and were willing to pay for the necessary infrastructure to make showering in Malibu or Monterey as natural as in Crescent City or Lake Tahoe.

The drought is caused by a long-term kink the Jet Stream. Air masses have become "stuck" and a dry one is over California for the time being. Sometimes these last for years. Sometimes for decades.

[T]he California coastal strip is an environmentally unwise place to locate millions of Californians; its swarms exist largely by water transfers from either Northern California or the Sierra Nevada mountains.

The Coast gets its water from the far eastern part of the state. In between is the "Central Valley" where so much of America's produce is grown using irrigation water. The same water the Coast wants. Who wins? A few farmers? Or the wealthy, populous, connected, wired Coast?

Greener neighborhoods proven better for birthing babies: Urban planners hardest hit!

Article:  Greener neighborhoods lead to better birth outcomes, new research shows

Mothers who live in neighborhoods with plenty of grass, trees or other green vegetation are more likely to deliver at full term and their babies are born at higher weights, compared to mothers who live in urban areas that aren't as green, a new study shows.

The findings held up even when results were adjusted for factors such as neighborhood income, exposure to air pollution, noise, and neighborhood walkability, according to researchers at Oregon State University and the University of British Columbia.

What about adjusting for marital status? It should be easy to figure that in. Or is that too controversial to deal with? More unmarried women in urban environments compared to suburban environments may be the missing factor here.

What about adjusting for easy access to the mother's mother? The grandmother can have a huge, positive impact on the mother and her baby, both before and after birth.

What about adjusting for a car culture versus a bus-and-cab culture? A pregnant woman is going to think twice about a lot of activities if she has to use a bus, or subway, or a cab.

Think of all things beneficial to pregnant women that are easier to do if she has access to a car: grocery shopping, visiting the parents or the in-laws, keeping a doctor's appointment,going to religious services. Even running away from an abusive man is going to be easier if you can throw all your stuff into the back of a car and drive away.

The title of the article implies cause-and-effect. This may be simply "correlation is not causation." Living in a "green" area and having better birth outcomes may both be caused by another factor entirely.

About my title. One thing that the Obama administration has been doing is to pursue policies that will force people out of the suburbs and back into cities. Or, rather, slow down or shut down new suburban development.

They have been doing it on the QT, but...