Chris Pyne- take note. Somebody is on to you and the rest of the political class.

MemoryVault: Ship of Fools reality check

MemoryVault

January 4, 2014 at 11:19 am · Reply

 

Can we please drop the misconception that this jaunt had anything to do with “science”?

It was, from beginning to when it went pear-shaped, a propaganda exercise designed to counter growing climate skepticism, run jointly by Twerkey, the University of NSW (UNSW), the BBC and the ABC, with backup from the Guardian and Fairfax newspapers.

The UNSW provided $1.5 million in seed capital. Twerkey provided the pseudo-scientific veneer, the ABC provided the technicians – camera operators and sound technicians, and the BBC provided one of their chief talking heads as “anchor” – one Andrew Luck-Baker. Given this guy is the BBC’s latest incarnation of Sir David Attenborough, you can safely assume he had his own hair stylist and make-up artist on board as well. Plus a twenty-something “research assistant”.

Also on board were journalists from the Guardian and Fairfax – more of them later.

There is never enough money for these block-buster extravaganzas – just ask George Lucas. Plus they needed some “extras” to be filmed doing “scientifical” things in the background, while Luck-Baker interviewed Twerkey in different locations, discussing dying penguin colonies and receding sea ice, and all manner of things that “proved” climate change.

So Twerkey hit on the idea of advertising for PhD students, science teachers and the like, to pay their own fares (or more likely, for their faculties to pay for them out of public funds), so they could be unpaid TV film extras expedition research assistants. The response was so overwhelming Twerkey had to employ taxpayer-funded professional explorer Greg Mortimer to vet the applications and pick the “best team”.

Those lucky enough to be amongst the “Chosen Few” paid between $8,000.00 and $19,000.00 each, for the privilege, the amount depending on how much of the voyage they were partaking in – it was apparently broken down into “legs”.

The end result of all this was meant to be a BBC documentary on the “Effects of Climate Change on Antarctica”, which would be screened jointly by the BBC and the ABC. Obviously advance publicity would boost audience viewing numbers, hence the presence of the Guardian and Fairfax reporters, who were supposed to provide a continuous supply of articles for the print and online versions of their respective newspapers.

How do we know all this? Because the ABC, the BBC, the Guardian and Fairfax were running stories on this “largest and most expensive Australian Antarctic Expedition ever”, fully a month before it ever left. Only back then they were all “climate scientists”, not “passengers” or “tourists”.
To the best of my memory, this is the largest, most blatant, fraudulent misuse of public funds in my lifetime. That they were funds allocated from the Education Budget at a time when we are being asked to throw even more billions into that socialist-controlled cesspit just makes it even more astounding.

That this fraud was an attempt to use Australian taxpayer’s funds to produce a climate change propaganda film to be used by the ABC and BBC, both publicly-funded bodies themselves, just adds to the indignation. That the effort has now led to the ruination of not one, but three countries’ Antarctic research for this year, simply heaps on more shame. That the entire disgusting sham was hidden from public view by outright lies propagated as “news” by the ABC, adds a completely new dimension to the concept of dishonesty.

But as outstandingly disgusting as all those facts are, none of them represent the absolute bottom of the sewer. That place is indisputably reserved for the members of our duly elected “conservative” government, who individually and collectively have managed to remain totally silent as all this has unfolded. Ten days of drama and revelation of wrongdoing involving millions of dollars and with ongoing international ramifications, and not so much as a peep.
.
So bring on your red thumbs, all you Liberal Luvvies. After this display of wanton cowardice any of you who still think this mob of gutless, lazy, corrupt trough-swillers are any different for the last lot of gutless, lazy, corrupt trough-swillers, is in serious need of psychiatric help.

 http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/australian-taxpayers-will-pay-400000-cost-for-climate-scientists-ship-stuck-in-ice-total-cost-millions/

Australian taxpayers will pay $400,000 cost for climate scientist’s ship stuck in ice. Total cost “millions”. « JoNova

Australian taxpayers will pay $400,000 cost for climate scientist’s ship stuck in ice. Total cost “millions”. « JoNova

Don’t whinge on Jo’s site; take a few minutes to tell the minister you are very unhappy at the misuse of our hard earned dollars. His address is ….
greg.hunt.mp@environment.gov.au

---

A lesson from a Davy Crockett constituent | Tea Party

A lesson from a Davy Crockett constituent | Tea Party

The following story is an excerpt from the book ” The Life of Davy Crockett” by Edward Sylvester and re-printed in the Ted Nugent book “Ted, White and Blue”:


Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of congress, when our attentions was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt something had to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I was a man plowing the field and coming toward the road. I spoke to the man and he replied politely, but I thought rather coldly.

I began: “Well friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates and—”

The men replied “Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again.”

I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

Well Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste your time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended but you gave your vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. I intend this only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine;

And I will say to you what but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.

The man continued “But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the honest he is.

“I admit the truth in all you say, but there must be some mistake. Through I live in the back woods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?

Colonel Crockett said, “Well my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just the same as I did.”

The farmer replied, “It is not the amount Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle.

 In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes.

 But that has nothing with the question.

The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be.

What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the U.S. who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you have the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give it all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this could open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.

No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. 

The farmer continues; “Individual members give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.

If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief.

There are about 240 members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. So you see Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.”

Colonel Crockett thought; I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was fully convinced he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him and I said to him:

“Well. my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I may wish to be shot.”