…
Malcolm Roberts
Some in the love media have real trouble understanding preferential voting. Big numbers seem to confuse them.
There are headlines that Malcolm Roberts “only got 77 votes” as if to delegitamize the skeptic. The Courier Mail put it on the front page. What they couldn’t find was one voter who voted for Pauline Hanson who was unhappy about where their vote went. And there were plenty to ask: Hanson’s party got 593,000 first preference votes nationally and won four Senate seats.
Apparently to be considered a real senator the magic number of first preference votes this year is “100″.
In South Australia, Stirling Griff of the Nick Xenophon Team won “103″ votes, and Sky Kakosche-Moore won “129″. Alex Gallacher, Australian Labor Party, won with “330 votes”. No newspapers seem to be suggesting that they don’t deserve to be there, or that their success is a reason to axe preferential voting.
In WA, the Liberal Party won fully 3 of their 5 Senate seats on a average of just 600 “votes” each. Let’s ignore that the Liberal group ticket in WA had 510,000 votes. They ended up getting five senators elected with less votes than the Hanson party got. Welcome to Senate voting. So?
The AEC site tells me that at least 12 Senators were elected on less than 1,000 first preference votes. Who cares?
The media didn’t mention Malcolm Roberts or air his views before the election, but they now criticize him for the low profile that they created.
The media are the problem. They are not even trying to hide their bias.
UPDATE: For some mystery reason another post two days later replaced this one for a few hours. Fixed now.
It’s the same in the US at the moment, the media is doing everything they can to get Clinton elected and have no qualms about how much they lie. Australian media is no different and the same applies to the rest of the world. Only a few outlets provide an alternative narrative.
But the good thing in case is that the media didn’t get their way, Hanson et al are in and I hope they take a leaf out of Trump’s book and give the media hell. The time has really come for conservatives to push back and not give the media ground on any issue. And never, ever, apologise for anything. If that’s what the media demands, go at them even harder.
411
‘Allons enfants de la Patrie…’
git rid of ‘our’ costly $ ABC
that only permits the views of
the loony left though funded by
the taxes of the productive right,
‘n regardless of real world evidence.
… And while we’re about it,let’s git
rid of that tyrannical Regulation 18C,
limiting free speech.
380
Clinton can’t be their number one priority. They still give air time to Trump. I’ll tell you what I think their number one priority is.
The USA media are doing everything they can to prevent Gary Johnson getting elected.
If you didn’t know there’s still a third candidate in the presidential race, it just proves my point.
In Australia “Our ABC” has mentioned him exactly once in the last 12 months and a passing mention at that.
02
Sorry Andrew but American politics do not work that way. The primary reason that Gary Johnson is ignored is that he doesn’t have a chance in hell of winning. Very few third party candidates break through the 10% barrier. H. Ross Perot was the last candidate to tap into that vein of disillusionment. Johnson, with all his foibles, hasn’t found a way yet.
I’m glad you like him but he hasn’t got a chance. As Trump continues on his road to self-destruction, most of his votes will go to HRC.
02
Jo,
As you know, it is more than bias the ‘MSM’ shows, it is propaganda for the grand narrative.
Cheers
Mentat.
210
One wonders if the problem is that the media is full of “Young-uns”. It is well known that most people start off with an ideological view of how the world “Should be” and slowly move to the conservative side as they see how the world really works – For example using 1/2 the corn crop for Ethanol results in starvation for millions of poor people.
People start of believing they should “give a man a fish” and end up thinking they need to “teach a man to fish”. It’s a natural progression, but of course we retire people about the same time they make the transition so most conservatives don’t have a voice in the media.
I think we need to keep some older voices in there to protect things like our superannuation that Turnbull is stealing from current and future pensioners. All the parties seem to have the same view – that we should steal the savings of past and future pensioners.
Bull, I say, these people with the Million dollar savings are the same ones that paid most of the tax in the last 40 years and will impact the welfare budget the least in their retirement. The government should reward their service to the nation instead of demonising them.
Cory Bernadi seems to be the only voice in the Libs that gets it.
272
Oh, I might point out the the population IS aging, Conservatism (or should I more correctly say pragmatism) will have its day – soon. People ARE more important than socialist ideals contrary to what the greens and 3/4 of labor voters think. It’s only a matter of time before the GenX’s switch to conservatism once the government starts trying to steal their savings instead of the BBs.
120
Are these the sort of people you are talking about: https://www.facebook.com/ukipsociety/photos/a.246514648872828.1073741828.246314792226147/496608123863478/?type=3&theater, bobl?
20
Just wait until she’s saved a 1/2 million (after the governments already taken a million in tax) and the government decides to confiscate some of those savings for themselves. Bet she changes her socialist ideas real quick.
Problem is Mr Rodent, that our system works the best when the government keeps their dirty nose out of private citizens business and concentrates just on developing community assets like roads schools and hospitals, instead of what lighbulbs people use, what people eat, drink or breathe out, whether they own dogs, or “saving the planet”.
The government should get out of peoples faces and do what we pay them to do, and that is NOT impeding our success, increasing our costs, or stealing our hard-earned savings.
180
On the “give a man a fish” parable, in South Africa, it’s more like “Give a man someone else’s fish and he’ll vote for you”.
110
In Australia it is
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Teach a man to fish and the Greens will declare a Marine Park and he will starve to death.
10
The media are the problem. They are not even trying to hide their bias
The MSM don’t need to. Nothing happens to them, no matter what. Falsefacts may be going broke but that is essentially due to web sites cannibalising real estate advertising, not the ugly bias in the “news” they choose to present.
150
Did you read Hendo’s takedown of FalseFacts mistakes on the Smear Campaign of Cardinal Pell on http://thesydneyinstitute.com.au/media-watch-dog/
Falsefacts refuse to acknowledge that they published smears totally unsupported by evidence.
80
I was approached by the ABC today for any comments I’d like to make….so I did.
“Your job is to either simply report the news or if an opinion is given a counter opinion is offered as balanced reporting to give the public both sides so they can make a personal judgement on those opinions formed in the spirit of free thinking, in my view you have failed on all counts by being stenographers to a political ideal that is destroying our sovereignty and therefore committing treason.
You get paid 14 cents a day from every Australian to commit these crimes which either makes you diabolical for participating or us insane for allowing it.”
Sunned open mouthed silence followed by an awkward exit, yep that’s our ABC.
514
Nice one, Yonnie!
I have no problem whatsoever with the MSM being total prats (as Pointman would put it). They actually create a business niche for companies that can look underneath the prattishness, to provide a balanced and considered analysis that is somewhat closer to reality than the vaporous luvvies can conceive.
Long may they continue to constantly misplace reality.
100
Sometimes you are more weird than I.
Myself, would like to enjoy a large outdoor party featuring beer, barbecued MSM idiots, with your sauce, other clowns (politicians) and several really good looking ladies.
Would you like fries with that sir?
All the best! -will-
40
With apologies to the original
To not watch the ABC is to be uninformed
To watch the ABC is to be misinformed .
00
Actually I think the media are too stupid to even have biases. It’s more that they can pick a couple of points up that are not very relevant, spin them any which way to make a headline, get a sale, and move on to do it all again.
ACTUALLY, the maths behind preferential elections are very complex, but preferential elections are also (demonstrably) the most democratic.
I think the Senate outcome shows that we have a reflection of the will of the people. Some of the chattering classes don’t like that and the media think its a wonderful circus set up for them to jeer at, but is *is* the will of the people. Get over it.
30
Privately owned MSM shouldn’t have to either.
Their final role in life is to make sure their owners and shareholders get good value for money and you do that by knowing your market.
Sure you may get to a stage where your publication becomes entertainment rather than news but it is your cash investment and your product. If you think you can sell newspapers by telling the world the sky is yellow and kangaroos are really aliens then go for it. No real skin off my nose and, most importantly, no cash out of my wallet.
The ABC on the other hand is state owned and funded. They are so corrupted that they need to be burnt to the ground and reformed from scratch.
20
Sounds like the love media department of the MSM have be at it, loving themselves again. Hope they wash their hands afterwards. No wonder they look so sad. The sky hasn’t fallen as they were told it would. The city’s having been flooded as they were told it would. Twenty odd years and still waiting for that one. And the windmills aren’t turning enough in South Australia. So they have to criticise someone to stay on there high moral horse now don’t they. What’s the word I’m looking for, inferiority complex anyone.
60
He got in because EVERYONE who could have someone else for a 1st preference, PREFERRED him instead of Libs, Labor, or Green.
Get over it MSM !!!
134
darn.. meant “EVERYONE who couldn’t….
54
When you say “everyone” you mean all 77 of them, right?
15
No, I mean ALL the people who voted for the ONE NATION party.
That was enough to give them 4 members of the Senate, TWO in Queensland, TWICE AS MANY as the Greens got.
31
And next lection, watch for the Greens DYING , and One Nation Expanding
People have had ENOUGH of the far-left sycophantic, psychotic agenda.
They want a REAL life, with REAL freedom, without the far-left totalitarian PC rubbish in their face all the time..
31
He makes more sense on climate that any politician ever to open his/her mouth, he wants to see the empirical evidence, is that too much to ask ?
111
As you can see, my spellcheck makes up words as I type. ‘that’ should be ‘than’
20
… my spellcheck makes up words …
Everyone uses that excuse. If the spellcheck programme is so inept, don’t use it. End of need to apologise for an inert software programme.
30
What is wrong with ‘fat fingers’ or ‘dronk’?
20
Spelling problems? This will save us all …
http://www.greaterthings.com/Humor/Spelling_Chequer.htm
20
We (usins) still cannot outdo Brad Keyes in weird! Have you a reply to:
MALCOLM ROBERTS: It’s very important. It’s very important to the country, Barrie, because at the moment, a lot of people are afraid to speak up. What tends to happen is we address the messenger rather than the message. This issue is not discussed instead because people are afraid of speaking up. This was all done, as I understand it, to nobble Andrew Bolt, and Julia Gillard did that. So we have to remove this so that we can have a recent – a decent discussion on the actual issues.
BARRIE CASSIDY: But do you see though it has the potential to hurt and humiliate minorities?
MALCOLM ROBERTS: Not at all, because, Barrie, you can call me short, you can call me fat, you can call me a Queenslander, you can call me a cane toad, whatever you want to call me. The only person who decides whether I’m upset is me.
BARRIE CASSIDY: But then again though, it can be used in that way, it can be used and abused and minorities will be offended and you’re just saying that goes with the territory?
MALCOLM ROBERTS: Free speech is free speech. Anything less than that is not free speech. I agree with David.
BARRIE CASSIDY: David Leyonhjelm, on that, unfettered use of the language.
DAVID LEYONHJELM: Well, I think I agree with Malcolm. If you want to take offence, that’s your choice. You have the choice of choosing another feeling. Offence is always taken, not given. So if you don’t want to be offended, you – it’s up to you, don’t be offended. That’s it. We’re not responsible for the feelings of other people. None of us are.
30
Who reads the Courier Mail??? Left wing crap printed for the sheeples. Idiot journo and more idiot editor for front paging it.
31
Boris
The on-line version has a use –
it points at headlines for you to check elsewhere
00
The MSM thinks Malcolm Roberts is a ‘loon’ because of his conspiracy theories on banking and climate change. The media pack will savage him.
The good news is that the other Hansonites are being brought up to speed on the reality of climate change by this man of principle.
282
Well said el-gordo
50
It is surprising how many “conspiracy theories”, put forward by “loons”, turn out to be real, with the benefit of hindsight.
Of course, hindsight requires some memory retention, and the ability to think critically about what you have already written and placed in the public domain. The lack of these abilities is what isolates the MSM from actually having to face reality in all of its nasty manifestations.
91
For sure.You need conspiracy theories otherwise you would have no theories,and you know what that means.Unfortunately it’s given a pejorative label.Conspiracy theories have elements of truth and are at other times fully true. I’ve got a few myself.Anyone interested?
20
Yes, I am interested. Please send me a mixed half dozen, c/o poste restante, Falkland Islands.
30
Are you after the gluten free or the high fibre Regular versions?
10
I hab many fine pitchforks suitable for trade with “conspiracy theories” perhaps we can meet in a afiable location with many dancing girls!
00
What is this? The plot for a novel you are planning?
14
A science fiction novel.. based heavily on anthropogenic global warming
21
Ah, but Rereke is talking about “conspiracy theories” that have turned out to be true.
So far as I know, that is the plotline of many novels – not so much a fact of life…
17
Thing with CAGW is that the conspiracy driving it has been stated UP FRONT by many of the alarminati.
21
Well, all I can conclude from that, is that what you know, is about as far as the back gate.
You have obvously not attended any instruction in psychology, or if you have, you have seen it as a convenient excuse for a nap.
The initial reaction to a hypothesis that is “uncomfortable”, or “threatening”, or runs against the current wisdom of the minute, is to go into denial, and then allow paranoia to kick in and assume that it is anthropogenic, and is therefore is a conspiracy.
Of course, a conspiracy is no more than people plotting something in secret. Every product launch is organised in secret, and is therefore a conspiracy. A surprise party, likewise. Do I need to make a list?
They happen all of the time in everyday life. The fictitious conspiracy theories only exist in novels, and within your limited understanding of reality.
50
The reaction from the typically left press tell us something good. The press are very unhappy with Pauline Hanson’s success.
In a world where the Press, especially Fairfax and their ABC think they and they alone should determine election results, that must be a good thing.
Who put a qualified engineer in parliament? He is neither a lawyer nor a journalist. Unthinkable. Great.
190
And.. Malcolm also holds a masters degree in business administration from the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business.
Again, what were the people thinking when they gave him their second preference?
100
Malcolm Roberts was not given second preference. He got 77 votes in his own right. The rest flowed from above the line votes. See #12.
20
An above the line vote means – First vote to the top candidate, second vote to the second candidate, third to the third candidate – People voting above the line knew this, so Pauline’s excess flowed through to Malcolm, nothing mysterious in this – perfectly legitimate. This is what the voters voted for and the result is exactly as I predicted.
Truth though is that people at this election were also allowed to exhaust their vote, that is they were able to say to the Electoral commission, if none of these choices get up do not flow my vote on to anyone else. I just wish we could do that in the house elections too.
81
He came out of a hostile interview with Emma Alberici on ABC’s “Lateline” last Friday night as a clear winner: clearly espoused views in an unflustered manner despite Alberici’s frantic attempts to cut in on him with constant interruptions. I’ll be very happy to see more of him on our taxpayer-funded network.
131
The media used to be the watchdogs of society. Now they are the cockroaches of society.
150
Now that’s a bit harsh. You are maligning useful insects, even the awful termites which clean up old trees.
50
They are now the guard dogs for the Establishment Left.
10
OMG the media writes rubbish that the gullible and ignorant are fooled by?
70
Election now!
Wait, sorry, that’s your line.
30
… the media writes rubbish …
It’s malicious rubbish – that’s the point you evade all the time. Ad homs are easy serves for malice, addressing substance is not.
Intellectual honesty is a handicap for the MSM.
51
Exactly and I’m always the victim. It is me they are trying to get, especially that rubbish Murdoch press like the one featured here.
Stop picking on me press.
31
We feel your pain. OK everybody, we have to make a concerted effort to de-press Gee Aye.
60
Rereke Whakaroo @ # 11.2.1.1
.
Last time I tried that on something it let all the hot air out!
30
Is there evidence that GA was ever ‘pressed’?
40
Again with the mis-use of “ad-hom”, revealing you quite possibly have no idea what it means.
I’m not aware the media is saying “Malcolm Roberts is wrong about climate change because he is a nob”.
Pretty much what is going on here is, the media are saying, “heh! We’ve got a live one! Quick, interview him to death before…”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4
I mean – have you had a look at his website?
http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/
*Seriously*, you read this stuff and wish to be associated with this nutbaggery?
16
“Malcolm Roberts is wrong about climate change…..”
Thing is… he is NOT !!
Its is purely desperation on the behalf of you and your ilk.
51
Hey Craig… you should be EDUCATING yourself by watching the BOLT REPORT
Come on.. you can LEARN… if you try !!
Just open your mind from the brain-washed far-left MIASMA that you luv to float in.
41
Thank you for the link; I can now answer, “Yes.” It is rather good, isn’t it? Verifiable facts, plainly given, without any superfluous padding; very refreshing.
Have you actually read anything on that website?
If so, where is the “nutbaggery”?
11
Hey Craig,if you don’t like it here,LEAVE.
00
a MUST-READ”
7 Aug: Bolt Blog: Hyperbolic abuse from ACMA and the Age when they can’t fault my warming facts
Once again, someone allergic to the facts and to free speech calls in the free-speech police – this time the Australian Communications and Media Authority – to shut me down…
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/acma_and_the_age_go_hyperbolic_over_my_warming_facts_which_they_cant_fault/
what a joke – ACMA & the MSM.
122
I thought that was a great decision – Bolt got off by pleading that the Bolt Report is non-factual. Brilliant defence, and very much a factual one.
28
Sorry to point this out, but you have comprehension problems again, Craig.
Bolt “got off”, as you term it, by being totally factual in pointing out that the ACMA had been somewhat selective in their interpretations of the contents in a previous Bolt article. Reading the actual article that Pat references may assist with your comprehension.
Quis custod ips custodes. Who shall guard the guards? Who shall provide oversight of the ACMA?
52
Huh? The ACMA decision clearly rests on Bolt’s defence that he doesn’t offer fact on the Bolt report.
16
Not the distorted fact as you present.
NOTHING that what AB said was incorrect.. ACME actually said that.
FACTS.. the ENEMA of the far-left drone like you.
31
Hmm, you appear to have a nasty reading comprehension problem there Craig.
Those symptoms could be brought on, by having a nasty case of preconception, leading to an attack of bias.
Don’t worry, it can be treated, but it will require you to adopt a rigourous practice of rational thought.
31
“rational thought”, Craig ????????????
ROFLMAO.
Never, not in this lifetime or his next.
11
Once more, you supply us with evidence that you are not reading the links that you are giving us – either that, or you do not comprehend what you are reading. Bolt does quite clearly conclude, is his penultimate paragraph, “My piece was actually factually accurate, and exposed the factual inaccuracies of Aly’s fellow travelers. [sic]” One is rather puzzled as to how anyone who has a modicum of knowledge of the English language (strange as it may seem, this does include
manymost Australians) could see this as pleading that it is non-factual.21
It seems to be true that Malcolm Roberts only got 77 first preference votes. But that is only votes below the line
Pauline Hanson got 20,927 votes as first preference. I assume that means votes below the line. The total votes for the Pauline Hanson Party (in Queensland) was 250,156, which was 1.19 of a quota. That meant that another 47,529 votes flowed to Malcolm Roberts. So after distribution of first preferences Malcolm Roberts had 47,603 votes. That was enough votes to put him above most of the other candidates and a lot of them flowed to the Pauline Hanson party.
The same thing has happened for the last senate candidate for the Liberals.Labour and the Greens in this and previous elections.
Hence Malcolm Roberts got elected! It is not like this is unprecedented, Take Ricky Muir in the last election. Malcolm Roberts deserves his Senate seat more than most.
130
Goodness gracious. Don’t confuse them with numbers. It’s Tha Sciernce that matters.
40
Ah! You must be holding your cards/beer in the complex conjugate position!! Do not try to pee!
10
… especially if you are waiting in a queue.
10
MSM will be relentless:
7 Aug: Sky News: Senators clash over climate change
One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts says he’ll only support policies based on empirical evidence, and he doesn’t believe the evidence shows any need to tax carbon dioxide.
Liberal Democrats senator David Leyonhjelm says his small-government party just doesn’t believe there should be more taxes, on anything.
‘Our policy is we’re politicians or political people, we stay out of the scientific debate,’ Senator Leyonhjelm told ABC TV on Sunday’Excuse me just a minute, David,’ Senator Roberts replied.
‘That’s disappointing to hear that you’re going to make policy without basing it on data.’…
Senator Roberts, a mining engineer and climate change sceptic, also issued a challenge to ABC staff to provide him with ‘the measured data that shows that human production of carbon dioxide is affecting our climate and needs to be something done about it’.
Insiders host Barrie Cassidy, who was interviewing the senator, offered to give him the Climate Institute’s most recent report…
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/federal/2016/08/07/senators-clash-over-climate-change.html
how does Nicole go from “strong result” for ON to an immediate comparison with Palmer’s party imploding?
7 Aug: SMH: Nicole Hasham: ‘Highly intelligent’ Pauline Hanson will hold One Nation together, colleague insists
Speaking on ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday, Senator Roberts, the climate sceptic who secured One Nation’s second Queensland Senate spot last week, also challenged anyone at the national broadcaster to provide “empirical evidence” that proves human production of carbon dioxide is affecting the climate…
One Nation has snared four senate positions in an unexpectedly strong result that gives it the balance of power, along with the three Nick Xenophon senators, if Labor and the Greens combine to block bills.
???The result has raised questions over whether One Nation will go the way of the Palmer United Party, which collapsed in the last federal Parliament…
???All the world’s major science academies and about 97 per cent of published scientists accept climate change is caused by humans…
Fellow interviewee, newly returned Liberal Democratic Party senator David Leyonhjelm, was asked if he agreed there was no empirical evidence to suggest that the climate was warming.
“Oh, no. Our policy is we’re politicians or political people; we stay out of the scientific debate,” he said…
“Our view is the government shouldn’t do anything unless Brazil, Russia, India, China, US are all doing something then little Australia should join in for trade reasons.”
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/highly-intelligent-pauline-hanson-will-hold-one-nation-together-colleague-insists-20160807-gqmskh.html
30
Well the stops are out in the rush to denigrate and put down Malcolm Roberts – The unwashed of the media have got the official line.
Dismiss anything that Malcolm Roberts says as a nutter, which will echo with the extreme left of the warmist brigade so they will be happy to ask no questions and go along with the meme.
I thought Sam Crosby’s purile performance on Viewpoint tonight,a confirmation of that intention. Crosby is a clever idiot at the centre of the dismiss and don’t give him any air in the media.
There will be no effort to discuss the science, just ad hominems, personal putdowns, and that will continue unabated unless there is a ground swell of communicated dissatisfaction by thinking people directed at the media. Failing that this type of behaviour in the Media will continue and anything of value he might say will be laughed at, pushed aside and he will be treated as a nutcase or simpleton.
That is their clear objective – The left media want to shut the door on any re-opening (as they see it) of the Climate Change debate and if we all allow this to go unchallenged, then same treatment that we have had for years will continue.
Good science, our opinions completely ignored and if possible censored off the political stage.
The culpable media is attempting to frame the debate and set the scene to shore up the meme by again silencing the community and their representatives and make it so no scientist will risk their reputation by speaking out.
Lets make it hard for them and help Malcolm Roberts keep the Bastards honest. We need an Inquiry and opportunity for honest scientists to speak out and be heard in an Australian scientific Forum so no one has to put up with censoring bullies like Crosby!
61
A French wit recently described journalists as “bank employees”. When you think about it…
60
🙂
30
7 Aug: Guardian: Paul Karp: One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts denies being ‘sovereign citizen’ and urges change to race law
Senator accuses Greg Hunt of introducing a carbon tax and says there’s no empirical evidence carbon dioxide causes global warming
In reference to the safeguards mechanism in the Direct Action policy, Roberts said: “Greg Hunt has passed through the Senate last year a carbon dioxide tax that came into effect on 1 July.”
The mechanism is supposed to ensure that increased emissions from heavy industry and electricity generators do not undo the reductions bought through the government’s $2.5bn scheme, by setting baselines for their emissions.
Leyonhjelm, a Liberal Democrat senator, rejected the view there was no evidence for global warming and said his party “[stays] out of the scientific debate”…
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/07/one-nations-malcolm-roberts-denies-being-sovereign-citizen-and-urges-change-to-race-law
ex-pat Aussie Wilson, who also writes for progressive left Alternet, gets US “experts” to smear Roberts:
5 Aug: Guardian: Jason Wilson: What you need to know about One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts and ‘sovereign citizens’
One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts says he’s not a sovereign citizen but experts say his tactics bear the hallmarks of the far right movement. Does it matter?
(Jason Wilson is an Australian-born writer living in Portland, Oregon)
Roberts has denied in an ABC radio interview that he identifies as a “sovereign citizen”…But Sunshine (Brooklyn-based Spencer Sunshine, who researches the far right for Political Research Associates) and another expert – Mark Pitcavage, director of fact-finding for the Anti-Defamation League – both had the opinion that Roberts’s tactics and rhetorical style bore the hallmarks of sovereign citizen thought…
Like all far-right movements, SovCits thrive on human desperation…
Pitcavage also says that social media has played a big role in facilitating the free flow of sovereign citizen ideas…
An additional preoccupation for Roberts appears the idea that climate science, and efforts to address the climate change it has demonstrated, are part of an effort to institute one world government, at the expense of the individual sovereignty that is at the core of his political theory.
This is more like the ***so-called Agenda 21 conspiracy theory, but Pitcavage says it’s common for people on the political fringe to have “a constellation of conspiracy beliefs”.
It might all seem simply barmy, but sovereign citizen type beliefs can lead people to dark places…
Late last year, New South Wales police warned of the rising threat of domestic terrorism from the growing number of sovereign citizens in the state…
That Pauline Hanson has associations with far right conspiracists is only to be expected…
???If history is any guide, One Nation will fragment when it’s under the national spotlight…
???What should ***WE do? …
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/05/what-you-need-to-know-about-one-nations-malcolm-roberts-and-sovereign-citizens
10
Pat, it is a fact that CO2 *does* cause warming.
Your host here has previously tried to help her fans stop embarrassing themselves on numerous occasions, for example:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/why-greenhouse-gas-warming-doesnt-break-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
37
Just What is a Craig Thomas? Seems like some disturbance in the etheric! Kitten scowls “Wars my food” 🙂
63
Craig,
Let’s play the empirical science game, shall we?
1. Take a glass vacuum jar, and place a celcius thermometer inside, so that the temperature can be read through the side of the jar, and then seal the jar. Also ensure that the inlet and outlet valves are closed.
2. The jar now contains ambient atmosphere at ambient room temperature. Record the temperature reading on the thermometer. Repeat the temperature readings over a period of time.
3. Now connect a low pressure source of CO2 to the inlet valve, and open it. Also open the outlet valve. Co2, being heavier than Nitrogen and Oxygen, will displace a significant portion of the original atmosphere.
4. After about a minute, close off the inlet valve to stop the flow of Co2, and then close the outlet valve to return the jar to its sealed state. The jar now contains a significant proportion of Co2. Record the temperature reading on the thermometer.
5. At one minute intervals, for fifty minutes, reread the temperature showing on the thermometer.
6. Explain any and all variances in the temperature readings.
Now Craig, from the above “experiment”, please let us know what you expect the results to show, and why?
82
I’m just wondering if you’ve overlooked a couple of important factors, without which your “experiment” is a worthless waste of time:
– gravity
– A vacuum
– an external source of radiation
Maybe get back to us when you’ve figured out how to design a science experiment.
26
“– A vacuum”
Look in the mirror. !!
51
Craig,
You made a statement that CO2 *does* cause warming. Your emphasis. No if’s, no buts, just *does*.
I was intrigued by the concept that warming could spontaneously occur in the presence of CO2.
So I hypothesised a High School level experiment to see if CO2 really would cause warming, according to your assertion.
I did mention gravity, albeit obliquely, by saying that CO2 was heavier than Nitrogen and Oxygen, and would therefore force those gasses out of the container.
You made no mention of a vacuum in your original statement, so obviously you did not consider it relevent. Of course, if you have a vacuum, then by definition, you don’t have any CO2, so the question is moot, wouldn’t you say?
And then we get to the nub of the question – an external source of radiation. But not just any old radiation, is it Craig? It has to be radiation in a specific wave band, or harmonics thereof. Would you care to enlighten us with details of the resonant frequency of the Carbon Dioxide Molicule? And while you are at it, can you give us a list of all the other molicules that might also resonate at that frequency, and thus be a factor in global warming?
31
“Pat, it is a fact that CO2 *does* cause warming.”
RUBBISH
There is absolutely NO mechanism that allows CO2 to cause warming in an open atmosphere.
52
Convection and conduction RULE in a lower part of Earth’s atmosphere up to the troposphere at least, and that is governed by the atmospheric gradient and incoming absorbed energy.
42
comment #15 is in moderation.
[Nothing held in moderation, Pat. Perhaps it became #17, in which case we have “fixed” it -Fly]
40
I posted this yesterday on another thread but I reckon it’s worth another run here.
Did anybody see lateline on Friday?
“An example of the ABC’s treatment of people who question their persuit of personal ideolygys was there for all to see last night.
Alberkerky interviewed Roberts last night on lateline and just flatly refused to shut up after asking question after question.
The questions she was asking required a little more than a one word answer. A couple of sentences into his answers she’d cut him off with another question requiring a little more detail. This went on for six or seven minutes with the “flashing” sign on her fore head, I’m a global warmist for all to see.
She lost it towards the end of what I would describe a bludgeoning rather than an insightful interview.
In desparation rolling out in closing of her one sided “opinion piece” the old furphy of the 97% scientific consensus on global warming.
The same rude treatment, for example, is simply not given to say the “serial climate pest” Flannery to describe him politely.
If you can get a replay of the show he was the last interview.”
121
Exactly, Leigh, Alberici was at her most rabid. The tragedy is that it is our taxes that pay her salary and entitlements along with all the other tossers at that network.
121
Her forehead was glowing towards the end of that interview and her facial colour was tending towards puce. Not a pretty sight!
81
Sounds like an example of a hyperbolic “journalist”, and their hypergolic response when they are thwarted.
50
I just love the green ‘hypergolic’ stuff used to start the two J58s on the SR-71. Always: ‘WOW woodja look at dat’! All standing well back!
The pilots were the ones with the BRONZE balls!
10
I’ve seen that look so many times when this subject comes up.Agitation,red-faced withe spittle flying and eyes rolling.Curious behaviour. I reckon I can unhinge any alarmist just by staying cool and measured.
20
One of the best interviews I have seen on the subject of climate change, had an interviewer who insisted on making statements, and then expecting sound-byte rejections of them, without any room for explaination.
After a couple of these “questions” the scientist responded, “That is interesting, why would you think that?”, and “Surely that position is taken in jest?”, and so on …
I was waiting for the interviewer to explode, but unfortunately they cut to the news roundup prior to that happening.
20
PeterS @ #9
PeterS has managed to sum up very accurately, precisely and succinctly in a one line, two sentences post everything that I try to say below about the media in ? paragraphs.
Way back in the pre WW2 and post war periods, journalists began their careers in the local news sheet or the local radio stations.
And they began their new careers often straight out of school right at the very bottom as did all apprentices of those long gone days.
They most likely learnt their journalistic craft at the feet of a tough old editor who didn’t take mistakes or any bad or misleading reporting very lightly at all.
As he, all “he’s” in those long gone days, the editor of any small local and regional news sheet was going to cop it in the neck directly from the local parties involved or named if his reporters got their facts wrong or let their biases show too much.
Mind you, those old editors often told it as it was amid often some considerable pain to some local outfit that had got a bit big for its boots.
It did wonders on many occasions to sort some big time politicians out plus many other wannabe big timers many a time
We had a couple of really good Wimmera wide regional paper editors locally through the 1950’s,60’s and 70’s who were de-rigueur reading even it was reported for the Vic premiers of the times who had our local newspaper on their desk each morning of publication to keep up with what was happening in the western Vic regional areas.
Those old journalists and editors dealt with the locals because they themselves were locals or came from a background which the local outlook was a part and parcel of any news reporting business be it in ink or radio.
And they, those new rookie journalists as rising journalists were a part of the local’s scene and reported the local, regional and national news with one eye always cocked towards the local impact and the local reaction.
As they gained journalistic expertise and experience they climbed that ladder of skill and seniority but always they were conditioned from their formative journalistic days to keep a weather eye on the their readers and they shaped how the news was imparted to those readers based on their own long formative journalistic experiences.
Their whole journalistic outlook was shaped by those formative years in those local small news sheets and newspapers where the locals could make or break a budding journalist and / or a news paper if the quality of the news and opinions offered was not in line with the local cultural outlooks or paid enough attention to the local viewpoints or just indulged in bad and misleading and biased reporting.
The around possibly the 1970’s or even as late as into the 80’s here in Australia and the western world generally, the universities and assorted and various academic wannabes of the so called “higher learning” began offering journalism courses to any wannabe journalist that came out of the wood work.
And the nexus between the news reporter’s responsibility for true and accurate reporting to his / her readers was broken almost completely for the decades ahead into the here and now.
With the intrusion of academia into journalism the whole news reporting concentration of journalism became linked in its entirety to reporting from a position that as an academically trained journalists, they, the journalists are intellectually superior to the common street herd and therefore no longer needed to lower themselves to reporting from the street herds levels but instead should report the news as seen from the levels of the political, academic and business elites.
Read the business sections of the news papers if you really want to get an eyeful on reporting from the business elite levels.
Small business as in small business at any level gets sweet FA reporting in the news sheets and small business is the real driver of employment and innovation and wealth creation everywhere in the western world.
[ I have just counted 15 university outfits now offering a total of 50 undergraduate courses in journalism .
Plus another 34 post graduate university journalism courses including some from another 6 new universities with those post graduate journalism courses ]
So quite suddenly we have a whole cabal of supposedly trained journalists coming out of an academic environment , journalists who have the qualifications but no experience and most critically no real connection with what will be that journalist’s audience and the consumer of his / her posturings and news reporting.
Nor has there been any apparent attempt by the universities to ensure that budding journalists have any level of responsibility to their audience or any connection with their consumers of their reporting and opinions.
In fact because of the increasing disconnect between the posturing leftists academics of the universities and the people in the street, they now appear to be trying to enforce their own watermelon beliefs onto trainee journalists.
So the newbie journalist enters the field believing he / she is highly qualified to impart their own personal biases and beliefs as being the only correct interpretation of what the news and opinions should actually consist of and impart to the public consumers of their offerings.
But it gets worse.
As with any profession particularly those who have been to the same or similar pillars of academia, academically journalists are quite defensive about their own breed and will often take an attack line towards any outsider who dares to question journalistic claims or journalistic standards or complete lack of the same as carried out by many news and opinion publishing outfits today of very doubtful and publicly responsible moral and ethical standards.
So not only is there now a network of journalists who have no real connection any more to the people they are supposedly reporting for but there is now also an academically created insinuation that journalists are far smarter than those dumb ignorant stupid masses of bovine humanity that they are supposedly reporting too.
Furthermore there is now a whole class of integrity and ethical lacking journalistically trained political machinating individuals in an almost innumerable number of politically powerful but well hidden positions in a whole range of politically important positions in any number of departments where they can influence and provide the political fodder to drive their own personal and increasingly intolerant leftist agendas.
And through the old school tie university system of journalistic training which does not train to be loyal to the truth and fair comment as it is handed down to the street level consumers, they can tap straight into a whole cabal of opinion and news reporting journalists who they then use to drive the various agendas they are following.
But which cynically they often don’t even believe in themselves but it suits theirs and their political bosses and paymasters purposes for the moment.
And the hell with the public interest as far as they and the rest of the current academically trained journalistic cabal are concerned including truth in reporting and any fair balance in reporting those who don’t follow their own personal and increasingly hard left agenda.
They, the academically trained journalists are of course today and unlike those old journalists who grew up and practiced their craft amongst the people, are numbered amongst the elite and as such it is the role of the public to desist from trying to express their own opinions and to bow to the opinions and judgement of the journalistic elites reporting of the political and business and academic elites.
To quote PeterS @ #9 and his so perspicuous post;
122
The Fourth Estate is now the fifth column for Big Government and its elitism.
(And yes wikipedia gets it so wrong)
52
Excellent explanation of modern day journalism, ROM! I’ve sent this one straight to the pool room, ie clipped to Evernote.
51
ROM
Remember when the ABC radio news was 5 minutes world, 5 minutes Australia and 5 minutes local?
One can apply various terms from the processed food industry today IMO
40
The hidden virtue of a state-owned media, such as ABC, BBC, or CBC (Aus, Britain, Canada) or a nominally free media that is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic National Committee, CBS, ABC, NBC, NYT in the US, is that folks have learned to filter them the way the Russians used to have to filter Pravda. If 100% of what is disseminated is propaganda, then the truth is found between the lines. A good example is projection; accusation of one’s adversaries of what one is doing. The Left in the US fights Voter ID tooth and nail. Most now understand that this is to hide their own attempts and voter manipulation. The left fights charter schools tooth and nail. They must be succeeding, and threatening the monopoly. The left claims that government spending is investment. It must be waste, or crony capitalism.
The FCC is now in a large push to regulate the internet. Large co-conspirators among the tech companies are showing a nascent interest in limiting conservative viewpoints. For now this tells us they are both valid and threatening tot he interests of the left.
Thus there is no stronger testimonial to the success and efficacy of proportional voting than attack from the left wing media. The success of your elections in Aus have left many of us thinking it would be a good model for our primary elections, as a good way to express a more nuanced set of preferences from the electorate than our first past the post minority rules system.
30
We voted for Malcolm, first below the line. Five in our electorate.
King makers? Lol.
50
Malcolm on Insiders.
http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/
Not afraid to face the detractors.
50
Andy May in a guest post at WUWT gives us an indication that the MSM has reached a sorry state. Pure and simple, on CC journalists pump out propaganda.
‘You change what someone says so the statement goes from true to false and then attack the changed statement? Is this journalism today? Is it no wonder that only 28% of people believe journalists contribute a lot to society? Another poll shows that fewer than 25% of Americans think journalists are honest. A whopping 78% of people have an unfavorable view of the press. Certainly the Politifact articles discussed in this post don’t help the profession and they certainly do not inform the public about the climate change debate.’
30
Does anyone know what Barry Cassidy handed Malcolm on Insiders on Sunday 7 August ?
Apparently it constitutes the proof of AGW !
I’d like to see what it was so we can offer our collective intelligence and analysis skills to the document ans support Malcolm in a response.
50
I am ready now: “constitutes the proof of AGW”
Stomp it into the earth ’till only a grease spot remains, Burn the grease spot. Then pave over all until not even a remembrance remains!
01
all the MSM had to do was report on what they saw and heard at the rally, or report on what they saw and heard on the readily-available video of the rally, or report on what persons wrote online about what they saw and heard at the rally, etc…
but no, they allowed this rubbish to fester for days, travel the world, and now claim credit for the MSM as the fact-checkers proving Trump was telling the truth all along! disgusting.
6 Aug: CBS: Reena Flores: Report: Donald Trump never threw a baby out of a rally
Some new developments are unfolding in Donald Trump’s babygate controversy…
The enterprising fact-checkers at the Washington Post tracked down two sources — an eyewitness to the proceedings and the mother of the said baby — and determined that Trump was, in fact, telling the truth Friday…
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-donald-trump-never-threw-a-baby-out-of-a-rally/
this nonsense was repeatedly reported by our disgusting MSM for days…especially ABC, where every presenter seemed to have a go:
3 Aug: ABC: Donald Trump kicks out crying baby while campaigning in Virginia
Politicians usually jump at the opportunity of being pictured with babies while on the election trail but one crying baby appears to have gotten the better of Donald Trump…
3 Aug: ABC: On the campaign trail on Tuesday, Mr Trump further dropped jaws by telling a mother and her crying baby to leave a rally…
no sign ABC will be picking up the 6 Aug CBS/WaPo admission it was all a lie. in fact, ABC is on to a new non-story today, which is from 3 Aug, & which has only been picked up by the likes of UPROXX, DailyDot, CrowdfundInsider, Patch and a couple of other non-entities.
great use of taxpayer dollars, ABC!
8 Aug: ABC: US election: Fundraiser aims to ‘send Donald Trump to war’ to earn his own Purple Heart
Decorated Army veteran Cameron Kerr started the petition in a stand against Mr Trump’s comments…
So far more than $US40,000 has been raised through the page.
Mr Kerr said the funds would not be directed to “help Donald realise his conveniently retroactive military fantasies”, but instead would be donated to organisations aiding Syrian refugees.
The International Rescue Committee, Syrian American Medical Society and Refugees Welcome International will benefit from the fundraising.
The hashtag #PurpleTrumpsOrange has been used as a fundraising promotion on social media…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-08/fundraiser-aims-to-send-donald-trump-to-war-to-earn-purple-heart/7699200
the death of the dinosaur media can’t come soon enough for me.
20
Total block at Spencer’s site try here for comment.
Tim Folkerts says: August 7, 2016 at 12:14 PM
Here is what MODTRAN is:
“MODTRAN is an atmospheric radiative transfer model developed by Spectral Sciences Inc. and the US Air Force Research Laboratory. It has been extensively validated and serves a a standard atmospheric band model for the remote sensing community.”
This is but your complete BS Tim!
ModTran is but an obsolete Fortran relic that uses the HiTran database established in the 1960s, 70s by the US Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory, Hanscom Field near Boston. That entire effort was only to establish the attenuation of amplitude and spatial modulation of EMR radiative signaling through Earth’s atmosphere. That attenuation of “modulation” is both by atmospheric absorption of variance above 300 Hz (amplitude) or scattering at angles above one milliradian (spatially). That data base was validated, partially by me, for its intended purpose of atmospheric ‘seeing’ at many wavebands.
The complete SCAM by Hanson et.al. was to use this database to indicate some absorption/attenuation by the atmosphere of claimed surface exit flux to space. Et Cetera, Et Cetera, Et Cetera!
There is no effect on surface temperature. This SCAM is monstrous! There is no evidence of thermal radiative exitance from Earth’s surface anywhere close to that of a 288K black-body!
42
What the media do not understand is that only 77 people gave Malcolm a (1) on the ballot sheet, instead of giving it to Pauline Hanson (who was first in the list). However, over 500,000 gave One Nation a (1) above the line, meaning that Roberts got sufficient second preferences to get a seat in the senate. That’s how preferential voting works.
20
PeterPetrum August 8, 2016 at 2:43 pm
“What the media do not understand is that only 77 people gave Malcolm a (1) on the ballot sheet, instead of giving it to Pauline Hanson (who was first in the list). However, over 500,000 gave One Nation a (1) above the line, meaning that Roberts got sufficient second preferences to get a seat in the senate. That’s how preferential voting works.”
Can you explain? Us in the North America US of ‘whatever’ do not get it! What the hell means “above the line” or “second preference”? Here in US, some still go to vote, but that can change nothing whatsoever!
All the best! -will-
42
Will Janoschka:
For the lower house (Representatives) you get a small voting form listing anything from 4 to maybe 12 people. You have to number each choice. If your No.1 choice gets the least votes they are eliminated from the counting and your vote goes to your No.2 choice. If he/she (or it) gets eliminated the vote passes to your No.3 choice and so on until there are only 2 candidates and one of them will get the most votes. In the seat of Herbert recently the difference was 8 votes and after the recount 36 (recounts are mandatory for differences less than 100, and every vote is scrutinised by both parties who lodge objections trying to get a vote for the opposition declared invalid). In theory, the person least disliked gets elected.
With the upper house (The Senate) the voting paper resembles a tablecloth in size. At the top running horizontally is a list of the parties (order determined by lot) with a LINE underneath. There may be 25 or more ‘parties’ (e.g the SEX Party and the MARIJUANA Party shared one grouping in my State. Most voters, once they stop muttering, mark “above the line” by listing their first 6 choices; they can continue if they like.
Below the LINE the party candidates are listed vertically in the order determined by their Party. Voters who choose to vote below the line are allowed to vote for any individual candidate providing they choose at least 12, but most of the eccentrics (like me) fill in the whole lot which could run over 100. [ It is best to start with those you hate the most and give them the maximum number so they will never get the benefit of your vote].
The votes above the LINE are distributed as the Party has registered; in the example above over 500,000 voted above the line for Pauline Hanson and 77 voted directly for the No.2 on her list (Malcolm Roberts). The object is to get to a QUOTA which is the total number of voters in the State divided by (the number of positions +1). Once Pauline got her Quota the excess votes flowed to Malcolm Roberts.
For the major Parties this flow-on usually goes as far as their No.4 or 5 listing. The fun comes when a party doesn’t get a quota, for then its votes flow to the party of their registered choice, and if that isn’t enough then the votes flow to the party chosen by that second choice (and pre-registered before the election). With enough minor parties this can be a time consuming process and some odd choices wind up voted in. e.g. in the 2013 election The Motoring Enthusiasts Party got their No.1 pick in Victoria (Ricky Muir) into the Senate [Curiously he turned out to be one of the most suitable one elected.] with 0.5% of the overall vote.
This dog’s breakfast of a system is the result of the major parties trying to get an advantage, but it usually backfires. Thus in 2013 there were 8 ‘independent’ Senators but this time there are 11 (not counting the Greens).
30
And by the way, voting is compulsory or you get fined**. If you are going on holidays abroad then you can make a postal vote before the election.
There are 3 exceptions.
You must attend a polling booth and place the voting papers in the respective box, but you don’t have to mark them so they don’t get counted and are listed as INFORMAL.
You can choose not to fill in the form as required or write in character analyses of the candidates (quite entertaining in some cases according to friends who done scrutinising as the votes are counted) but in both cases you vote also becomes Informal.
The third case is that you appear in the magistrates court with a valid excuse, which can be that you were well away from any polling station, unable to attend because of a flooded river crossing, that you are a peer of the realm or a minister of religion or mentally incompetent. In one case a non-voter got away by claiming that the 2 candidates were mentally incompetent to be in Parliament and the Magistrate let him off.
40
Graeme No.3
Thank you sir for your effort in explaining your voting system in a place where the voter is not armed! In the US, weapons are disallowed near/at the voting place as they are similarly disallowed in a court; a place of law, In court unfortunately police ossifers (goons) still can have weapons so as to intimidate all now inside without weapons. This can be civil as all inside goons know that outside are many others somewhat interested in the going on but also have more bigger weapons.
Your explanation however leaves me with a complete loss of what your “election process” is trying to accomplish, except that such is completely unintelligible to any and all of your voters!
00
Something strange happened to this post today. I published a new post which ended up replacing this one for a few hours. I’ve fixed that and restored this post, though there may be some comments that below on a different thread.
10
“Confused” was the only applicable description around here late today!
10
Dronk! also works!
00