“Mann-made” global warming shown to be a fraud

I remember meeting Tim Ball because it was on the day that Donald Trump was elected and so it was a double pleasure to have shared the moment with him. And now he has won his libel lawsuit against Michael Mann, the inventor of the “hockey stick”, who sued Tim because he described Mann’s science as fraudulent. Let me fill in more of the details via Powerline: MICHAEL MANN REFUSES TO PRODUCE DATA, LOSES CASE.

Some years ago, Dr. Tim Ball wrote that climate scientist Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” At issue was Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph that purported to show a sudden and unprecedented 20th century warming trend. The hockey stick featured prominently in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), but has since been shown to be wrong. The question, in my view, is whether it was an innocent mistake or deliberate fraud on Mann’s part. (Mann, I believe, continues to assert the accuracy of his debunked graph.) Mann sued Ball for libel in 2011. Principia Scientific now reports that the court in British Columbia has dismissed Mann’s lawsuit with prejudice, and assessed costs against him.

What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.

Beyond even that, with Tim Ball, Mark Steyn, who has also been sued by Mann, and myself all Canadians by birth, it is also an indefensible case of cultural appropriation for Michael Mann to have used the hockey stick for his imagery.

The will to murder Jews did not come with the founding of Israel

Do you have any doubt that these women – Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib – not only wish to entirely remove the present Jewish population of Israel but would murder them if they could? Is there any doubt that they represent a very large numbers of others who all wish to do the same?

So let me bring in this 90th Anniversary of Arab Massacre of Jews in Hebron and Safed, which I particularly wished to include as a reminder that Jews were living in what is today Israel well before the founding of the Israel in 1948, well before the end of World War II in 1945, well before the Holocaust which began at the start of the 1940s, and well before the election of Hitler as Chancellor in Germany in 1933. This massacre, which was hardly the first of its kind, occurred in 1929. Israel was founded in 1948. The hatred and will to murder Jews did not come with the founding of Israel.

Ninety years ago, in 1929, Arabs went on a murderous anti-Jewish rampage in the British Mandate for Palestine, ransacking ancient Jewish communities in Hebron and Safed (Tzefat). In the course of the week, a total of 130 Jews were dead.


We covered the 1929 Hebron Massacre in 2016, Anniversary of 1929 Hebron Massacre and Ethnic Cleansing of Jews:

Hebron is a hot spot in many ways. Hebron and its immediately surrounding Arab areas are the single largest source of terror attacks during the so-called Knife or Stabbing Intifada.

It’s also a place where anti-Zionist and left-wing “liberal Zionist” American Jews love to gather to protest the Jewish “settlers” who live in a tiny section of the city. That section is under Israeli military control by agreement with the Palestinian Authority, with good reason. Hebron has a long history of violence directed at Jews.

Hebron also is the place of the Cave of the Patriarchswhich I visited in 2015.

Hebron had one of if not the oldest continuous Jewish communities in the world, dating back several hundred years at least. Until 1929.

On August 23, 1929, the Arabs attacked the Jews of Hebron along with numerous other Jewish communities.

But in Hebron it was particularly vicious. It was a blood frenzy in which the Jews were set upon with particular glee and slaughtered with knives, machetes and anything else available.

This old Palestinian woman remembered the massacre fondly:

Interviewer: Please tell us who you are.

Sara Jaber: I am from Hebron. The Jaber family.

Interviewer: What is your name?

Sara Jaber: Sara Muhammad ‘Awwadh Jaber.

Interviewer: How old are you?

Sara Jaber: I am 92.

Interviewer: So you remember May 15, 1948, the day of the Nakba.

Sara Jaber: Why wouldn’t I remember? May Allah support us. I hope we forget those days. Allah willing, you will bury [Israel], and massacre the Jews with your own hands. Allah willing, you will massacre them like we massacred them in Hebron.

Interviewer: What does this day mean to you? You have lived 63 years since the Nakba. You have experienced the entire Nakba…

Sara Jaber: 92 years. That’s 92. I lived through the British era, and I lived through the massacre of the Jews in Hebron. We, the people of Hebron, massacred the Jews. My father massacred them, and brought back some stuff…

Interviewer: Thank you very much.

What’s changed since then other than that the Jews now have the means to defend themselves against such evil. The question really is whether I&T intended to bring a peace proposal with them on their trip to Israel. If not, why not? And if they have one, where is it?

And just for added emphasis on how bad things now are, this is from The Simpsons.

PLUS THIS: Another telling of the Hebron story, with additional detail.

Idlers and good-for-nothings

I’m in the midst of a book on the coming of Keynesian economics into the world and the disappearance of classical theory. I have just now finished a section discussing the first Keynesian textbook ever written, Lorie Tarshis’s The Elements of Economics, which I thought I might share a bit of which with you.

Tarshis’s text made Samuelson and other economic writers more cautious in how they discussed Keynesian theory. A passage such as the following would never again enter a Keynesian text, as accurate a reflection of the theory though it may actually have been.

“To put it bluntly, employment and income, in money terms, can be expended to respond equally whether the government sponsors useful public works like highway construction, or completely useless ones like digging ditches and filling them up again. In either case, because the income of the newly employed would be higher than before, they would increase their spending, so that the output of consumers’ good would be expanded and the upward swing begun. Naturally we should prefer projects which directly add to our real wealth. Flood-control projects, highways, parks, school buildings, research projects, housing, and so on are better than leaf-raking and useless excavations. But the latter are better than nothing, for even though the projects are useless, carrying them out leads to an increased output of consumers’ goods. And even though the men responsible for the increased demand were idlers and good-for-nothings, their dollars, in our economy, are as powerful as any others in increasing consumption, income, and employment.” (Tarshis 1947: 518)

Possibly the most revealing passage in the entirety of Keynesian literature.

It was overrun the following year by the first edition of Samuelson’s Economics, in part because Samuelson’s was a much better book, but also because he was a bit more candid about what Keynesian theory meant in practice.

This land is my land, this land is Greenland

From the icy tundra
To the icy tundra
This land was made to protect the Arctic from the Russians and the Coms

From out of left field it definitely is, but filled with sense and sound political instincts. Also taken seriously here, if a bit whimsically: YES TO ACQUIRING GREENLAND!, although mostly taken seriously among the comments:

Why is no one talking about PDJT’s true motivation, which is to keep the Chi-coms out of the Arctic? They have already approached Denmark with the idea to build airports there. The Danes may think they’re too smart to fall for a BRI swindle, but that’s irrelevant. Their Navy isn’t nearly as impressive as it was 1000 years ago, and their sovereignty over Greenland is only as strong as their armed forces. They should sell it while someone is still willing to pay.

Greenland is not a part of Denmark, it is a dependent territory with some self rule. Offer each family in Greenland $1Mil and have them vote on it. It could acquire status similar to Guam or PR, if not statehood. And yes, Greenlanders most certainly feel looked down upon by “mainland” Danes. BTW, it would not be the last real estate transaction between the 2 countries. US bought the Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917.

China apparently tried to build 3 airports in Greenland recently, an obvious threat to the US. Also, the US is trying to check Russian efforts to gain strategic and economic control of the Arctic. It may not be long before Denmark has no choice in the matter. If Denmark were smart, they’d negotiate a percentage of mineral and tourist revenues.

I connected the dots yesterday when I read an article about a speech Pompeo recently gave to the Arctic Council about the need to defend the Arctic from Russian-Chinese encroachment. It mentioned that Greenland has a claim under international law to a huge swath of the Arctic and surrounding ocean. It also revealed that Democrat hero and MSM icon Truman formally offered $100 million for Greenland for the same reason, but was turned down.

Denmark only holds Greenland because of NATO. Without U.S. security guarantees it would be part of the Soviet Union today. (Without U.S. security guarantees there would be a Soviet Union today.)

If they can bring on a recession to sink Donald Trump they will

Let me start with this sage piece of advice from Henry in the previous post:

No sensible purpose is served by the facile criticism of the administration that increasingly pervades the Australian media, and the equally facile ­questioning of the alliance that ­invariably accompanies it. For these issues are deadly serious; unless they are treated seriously, the consequences will be deadly too.

And then there’s this from Instapundit to bear in mind.

ADHERING TO LENIN’S “THE WORSE, THE BETTER” DICTUM: Recession Warnings Music to the Ears of Democrats. 

66Posted at 2:13 pm by Stephen Green

And today from the front page of The Australian: Global recession warnings as sharemarkets sink.

Which follows on this from The Economist: Markets in an Age of Anxiety, which begins:

Financial markets are often accused of complacency. However, the mood just now is not complacency but anxiety. And it is deepening by the day. In Germany interest rates are negative all the way from overnight deposits to 30-year bonds. In Switzerland negative yields extend right up to 50-year bonds. In America, meanwhile, interest rates on ten-year bonds are lower than on three-month bills—a harbinger of recession. Angst is evident elsewhere, too. The safe-haven dollar is up against many other currencies. Gold is at a six-year high. Copper prices, a proxy for industrial health, are down sharply. Despite Iran’s seizure of oil tankers in the Gulf, oil prices have sunk to below $60 a barrel. Plenty of people fear that these strange signals portend a global recession. Yet a recession is so far a fear, not a reality. The true problem is that firms and markets are struggling to get to grips with uncertainty. And that is the result of the trade war between America and China.

Artificially low interest rates are as sure a way to cause an economy to stall as I can think of. That along with vast oceans of unproductive public spending.

JUST FOUND THIS TO ADD TO THE ABOVE: Drive-By Media Hell-Bent on Talking Us Into a Recession. It’s from Rush Limbaugh.

MEANWHILE: Starts about 15 minutes in.

Politics as a fashion statement

True story.

She: Who did you see at this Conference?

Me: Nigel Farage.

She: Who’s he?

Me: The leader of the Brexit Party.

She: Yuck! I hate Brexit.

There is no arguing with such people since argument and reason have nothing to do with it. She knows nothing and if I actually try to say anything to her she says she is absolutely uninterested in politics which is clearly untrue. Wilfully ignorant and dead to any discussion contrary to her present beliefs. An extremely nice person, one of the most treasured people in my life, but made up her mind not ever to examine any issues on her own, but just to see what’s going in her own personal circle of friends and then get on with life.

Yet she endangers herself, her children, her wider family and friends. She does the same for my children, my family, my wider circle of friends. She cannot be talked to, will never listen to a thing. There is no possibility of engaging her in any discussion or opening up, even remotely, the possibility of seeing things in a different way. Being on the left is the one and only way she believes that kind and considerate people think. Doing otherwise is, to her, despicable. I remain close to her only because I never push my ideological luck in any conversation. Not only would she not read my Art of the Impossible on Donald Trump, not only would she not open the book to any page, she point blank refused to hold the book in her hands.

It is not, of course, the other way round. She can say what she likes to me, never fears I will cut her out of my life. She is certain of her virtue. Nothing disturbs her, not the millions who have died at the hands of totalitarians, not the horrors that are caused by socialists, not the deaths and misery due to various forms of terrorist activities, not the dangers of radical Islam. Impregnable in her certitudes, she is shocked that anyone can support Donald Trump. Thinks that people like him and me are the cause of the world’s political and social evils. Never anything to do with people such as herself.

There are millions and millions and more millions of others just like her. She had a great time on her visit to Cuba a couple of years ago.

An idiotic idea so bizarrely stupid it defies sense

From this morning’s Oz a story I have just gotten round to now:

The Reserve Bank governor is calling for 3 per cent wages growth across the public sector, apparently to help the rest of us. Ratcheting up public sector pay would damage the economy far more than help it, undermini­ng economic growth, productivity, increasing inequality and further eroding respect for government.

Adam Creighton calls it “a bad idea”, but that is only because he is polite. It is actually an idiotic idea that is so bizarrely stupid that it demands that he explain how it could possibly provide any positive assistance to the economy whatsoever.

How does someone with so little understanding of how an economy works get to make such decisions? But you have to get to the last line of the story to find out why he wants the least productive people in the economy to absorb even more of our productive capabilities:

The Reserve Bank wants higher­ wage growth to boost inflation, which has hovered below its 2-3 per cent target for almost five years. Meeting an arbitrary inflation target is hardly justification to damage the economy and increase inequality further.

He wants the most securely employed people in the country, with the lowest contribution to output, to receive large increases in wages so that the inflation rate can rise even further. It really is infuriating.

Beyond belief






It’s as blatant as that, but who will be blamed do you think? Unbelievable in every sense of the word.