The Red And The Blue is an online political column and discussion forum published by Yale Stephens, examining and analysing issues in Australian state and federal politics, international politics, and providing comment and perspectives from an independent conservative viewpoint.

Chiefly, this column is a discussion centred on electoral behaviour and what influences and changes it. From time to time, however, less overtly political matters are examined.

Alternative viewpoints are welcome here — please come prepared to argue the case! — and debate is encouraged.

Abuse, obscenity, defamatory content and personal attacks will not be published. “Sock puppet” accounts and persistently vitriolic trolls will be blocked and blacklisted from the site. Astroturfing will not be tolerated, and its practitioners will find themselves similarly excluded from participating in discussion.

Yale is a Melbourne-based freelance blogger and writer. He has a lifelong passion for politics (with British politics a specialty interest, bordering on obsession) and has intimate knowledge of Australia’s political, electoral and parliamentary systems.

A conservatively-minded member of the Liberal Party for most of the time since he was 18, he nevertheless speaks independently and critically of his “own side” when issues and circumstances warrant.

Originally from Brisbane before coming south in 1998, he was a “flag waver” as the Liberal candidate for the safe ALP seat of Bundamba at the 1995 Queensland State Election.

The Red And The Blue…clearly, Yale sits in the blue corner…

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER: @theredandblue

Conservative Torch Logo

THE FLAME OF LIBERTY…torch logo used by the Conservative Party in Great Britain in the 1980s and 1990s, later adapted and emulated by Centre-Right parties in other democratic countries.

I run this forum in my spare time; other commitments (which pay bills) always take precedence.

If I disappear for a few days every now and then, be assured: I’ll be back.

Anyone looking for my lifestyle and social comment column can access it here.

33 thoughts on “About

  1. Hi Yale,
    Kristian Nelson here. I just discovered your site. Very informative. Well done, and hope you are all well.

    • Hi mate, and thank you! Didn’t hear back from you last time i tried to get in touch; hope you’re both good. We shoud speak soon. In the meantime, feel free to have a look through the site — it’s early days, but starting to get there…Y.

        • Hi Werner. feel free to repost links to my articles if you would like to do so.

          It disturbs me greatly where things are headed and especially if the ALP returns to office — far divorced from all the pronouncements of sweetness and goodness and compassion, all they want is to sit in the power seats. The problem is bad enough as it is without them merrily indulging themselves and making it worse.

          I look forward to your further remarks if you would like to comment on any of the articles, within guidelines, specifically.

  2. Keep up the good work.

    I would love to see your insight into Peter Garrett’s recent gun toting resignation threat and Julia’s capitulation,


    • Hi Don, and welcome; glad you’ve enjoyed what you’ve already seen here; I do aim to present balanced analysis and comment (with the rider that I am, personally, firmly in the “blue corner”).

      Please feel free to visit regularly, and to comment; all shades of opinion are welcome — one of the objectives of this site is to get people talking about politics and to stimulate discussion; it’s not intended simply as a mouthpiece for the Liberal Party. Occasionally I also cover some controversial topics and/or items that aren’t strictly political in the most direct sense.

      I hope you enjoy this site and if you do, please spread the word! I look forward to seeing your thoughts on the issues I raise.

  3. I’ve been reading your blog for some time (and enjoyiing the prose and the ideas) but never ventured into the “about” dimension and always wondered who is behind it. My wife one day commented that I should create a blog, by my response was that there are plenty out there already. I spend too much time on Andrew Bolt’s, and try to cover a whole raft of realist science blogs regarding the climate fraud. Perhaps when I am, fully retired………..

    • Thanks for the message karabar, and my apologies for the delay in responding; I am glad to hear you enjoy the articles and discussion covered here. As always, I simply ask that you spread the word if you do enjoy reading — the scope to advertise and market an independent blog is limited, and as such I am reliant to an extent on readers spreading the word. By the way, I do hope to resume “normal” frequency of posts within the next few weeks.

      If you intend to start a blog, I wish you the very best!

  4. Thank-you for the reply, Yale. Unfortunately I won’t be reading your blog very much in the next two months. My wife and I are off on a two month cruise on Saturday morning. I’ll check in when we return.

    • Hi Deknarf…I am not sure exactly what you are talking about; this column has always welcomed discussion and alternative points of view. As you know!

      I have no idea who you are, and I suspect we don’t know each other; thus, you may be unaware of the colossal demands on my time at present which have seen my postings here fall from six or seven each week to an average of one to two…so if you mean I am not responding as frequently, you’re probably right.

      Fortunately, I should have more time for posting articles and communicating with readers in the next few weeks — in the meantime, however, I derive no income from this column, and so other activities have to take precedence.

      If, however, you’re talking about something else altogether then I am at a bit of a loss…whilst we clearly differ in our outlook at a fundamental level on questions of the political, I certainly enjoy your input. If I have been less-than-usually attentive then I do apologise, but beyond that I am unsure as to what might make you think I have abandoned tolerance of differing viewpoints!

  5. Hi Yale,
    I found your blog while searching for Myki articles. As much as I don’t really have an interest in politics, I’m still drawn to political discussion. But usually only as an eavesdropper. I’m increasingly finding myself disillusioned with all political parties, especially with their unaccountability with public funds and their increasing desire to protect fools from themselves.
    Anyway, I didn’t intend to rant. My apologies. I’ll be following to keep an eye out for more views.
    Cheers! 🙂

    • Hi Richard, and welcome; glad to have you with us. “Rants” are welcome here so long as you have an opinion and/or something solid to back them (if you look through the comments in this site, there are many — including a few quite heated debates — and including from viewpoints that differ from mine).

      The liberal in me says people should be free to make their own mistakes and opportunities, whilst the conservative in me says there’s no place for big government or big brother…among other things 🙂 so I hope you find the articles I post here of interest.

      And please feel free to join — or start — discussions.

  6. Hi Yale, I like your diverse opinion. I had heard rumours a few months ago that Julia would call an early election, I was wrong. Is it likely that Roxon had prior knowledge of the arrest of Thompson? I read your old article about Garret and shuffling the deck chairs…. Same old same old.
    Anyhow thanks, I appreciate your hard work and intellect.

    • Hi Fulton, and welcome; yes, the early election was a bit of a hoary chestnut the media put out there, wasn’t it? I don’t think she ever had a chance of winning one, but I wouldn’t have been surprised if she pulled one on just to throw the Houses of Parliament out of kilter to force a half-Senate on Abbott next year.

      Looks like this reshuffle was ready to go before the announcements were; the only eyebrow-raising aspects of it were the promotion of a key marginal seat holder (Yvette D’Ath in Petrie) and the holder of the “bellweather” seat of Eden-Monaro into the ministry; I don’t think it will save either of those electorates for the ALP when the election comes around.

      I’m glad you enjoy to viewpoints discussed here, and thanks for the feedback; please feel free to comment on anything we publish that catches your eye. And to spread the word; there is very little marketing undertaken of this site and it has grown organically, aside from Twitter and Facebook, so word-of-mouth is certainly a welcome adjunct.

  7. Just found your website – so agree on your blog about FECCA. I could add a dirty joke to that but I’ll refrain – they probably wouldn’t understand it anyway, it’d be too Aussie. Need I say I was so mad last night after reading the article about us softening our accent and stopping our slang, that I couldn’t sleep? It seems to smack of racial discrimination to tell us to stop what makes us Aussies, so the migrants can understand us. Need I mention how often I’ve had to ask migrants to repeat what they’ve told me as I couldn’t understand them? Sometimes more than three times??? How often I’ve sat down to find a group of migrants talking in their own language – and they don’t stop in my presence? It doesn’t worry me, so why the hell should it worry FECCA or that other chick, Kate whats-‘er-name? I have a secret suspicion that with job cuts, they’re desperately trying to validate their work – big fat no from me! Oh *&^!, I can’t say fat… Anyway, so does FECCA include our indigenous population in that as well? After all, they have the oldest Aussie accent out there! I am so tired of watching our culture and way of life being chipped at. I’m a proud Aussie, and I’m staying that way – fair dinkum!

  8. Hi Yale,
    Found this blog of yours only a few months ago. It inspired me to make my own comments, to at least one of your stories. Only last week I discovered that you replied to my comments on wasteful governments, and you agreed with me, or I with you. How refreshing to get feedback from the host! Anyway, I suppose I will be posting a few more comments in the future, depending on the topic. Let me thank you for providing the opportunity to rave on a bit, it’s good to get these things off your chest.

    • Hi LABCR-TV, thanks for your comment. I do talk to my readers — not all the time, and perhaps not as often as I would like — but I read every comment and I’m mindful of the balance between joining the discussions this site generates between its readers and hijacking them.

      The whole point of this site — from the perspective of one who knows the system inside out, but is not connected to it in any way other than a branch membership — is to pull back the level of discussion a bit so everyone can relate, and to get people talking. Yes, I present from my own conservative viewpoint. But all shades of opinion are welcome in discussion of the material I present, so feel free: I have only ever blocked comment from one reader (a serial pest who writes from time to time advocating extreme violence against one particular section of the community) and apart from issuing a couple of warnings over the years for abusive remarks I haven’t chopped anything either. Be assured that if I don’t comment, I am taking remarks on board and watching the debate. From time to time, you’ll hear me mention those debates in articles. I’m glad you’re enjoying the column — all I ask of anyone who does is to spread the word.

  9. Hi Yale. … Just read your latest article and subsequent comments below, It’s all a lot more red than blue. Australia already has Andrew Bolt, why would they want another? Not everything is so black and white in politics – it’d be nice if you wrote that way. If you look critically at both sides THEN put forward your argument you’d be more likely to persuade those on the fence or on the other side of it. Anyway, i hope you take those comments on board, Australia needs a lot better political discussion than what it gets at the moment. All the best, Josh.

    • Josh welcome, and thanks for your remarks; with this column very openly presented as “conservative comment” and the traditional colour of conservatism (outside the USA) being blue, I’m a little worried you would describe it as red!

      I do look critically at both sides of the fence here, and that includes making hard calls on “my own” side when warranted; haven’t ever shied away from it when appropriate. These things are timely as I suspect you will understand, and right now in my view the realities behind what is going on in the Senate transcend even a traditional Left-Right divide (with the rider that a conservative government is the target: my position is that the Senate shouldn’t be an instrument to preclude EITHER side from government, but that is what it is being turned into).

      I agree that there needs to be a lot more political discussion in Australia and that is what this site is for. I am heavily partisan in my views (and disclose these fully) but try to aim the discussion here at “Joe Public” level rather than the kind of highbrow, excessively insiderish or jargon-laden material that is one of the things that puts so many people off the subject in the first place. We have a lot of lefties who come through here and their views are welcome from the perspective of diversity of thought even if some readers and I disagree.

      As for Andrew Bolt, I have no aspiration to emulate him…I do read his material, but I could count on the fingers of one hand (probably with room to spare) the number of times I have used his material as the basis for subsequent discussion. I do have my favourites and a couple in the Murdoch stable of known right wingers are among them, but Bolt isn’t.

      Thanks for your readership and comment. Please feel free to do so whenever you wish and to engage with other readers. I do review every comment (even if I don’t respond) — I try not to do all the forum talking once the articles are up so others lead the discussion, but I see everything that’s contributed and I’m easy enough to get in contact with if the discussion warrants it. Cheers.

  10. Thank God for the Bolter. Bolt is about the only source of Truth in this country. On the other side is Australian Pravda Propaganda (abbreviation ABC), the Fauxfacts Press, (about to go under), The Marxist Crikey, the academic idiocy of “The Conversation”. It doesnt seem very ‘balanced’ to me.

      • The pope is a specialist in fairy tales. Imaginary phenomenon such as “global warming” appeal to his Branch Carbonian cult. (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/08/the_branch_carbonian_cult_1.html)
        It will be interesting to see how the pope deals with reality when it becomes obvious that solar inactivity is duplicating the Maunder Minimum. In case you are not familiar with orbital mechanics, it was the Little Ice Age that was a result.
        Perhaps some day the pope will discover the definition of “climate” and discover that the term “climate change” is sheer nonsense.

      • Here are six urban legends for you Roger:

        In 1823 the first Professor of Geology at Oxford University the Right Rev. William Buckland excavated Paviland cave in Wales, looking for evidence of Noah’s flood. As an ordained minister in the Church of England he firmly believed in the unquestioned authority of the time Bishop Ussher, and his conclusion that human life started on the Earth in October 4004 B.C.
        So when Buckland unearthed a skeleton and some ivory ornaments made from a mammoth tusk, it seemed obvious to him that the grave had been made on top of those ivory pieces at a later date. After all it was believed that humans were not living when prehistoric animals like mammoths were roaming the Earth, because of Bishop Ussher. Indeed editors of british journals refused to publish contrary evidence for another 37 years. The fact that both the ivory pieces and the bones were stained a deep reddish colour couldn’t therefore be due to staining from the earth as they must have been buried at different times, hence the bones had to have been stained as a funereal practice. As gentlemen in Georgian England didn’t use rouge the bones had to be that of a women, possibly a witch. Dating the burial to the earliest Roman times followed as it seemed compatible with an early settlement nearby. Hence the Red Witch of Paviland.
        Nowadays the male skeleton – anatomy wasn’t Buckland’s forte – has been radiometrically dated to 18,000 years ago, and the staining was of course from minerals in the soil. From an initial assumption of faith a chain of choices had led to a quite wrong conclusion.
        In modern times Buckland could have become a well-known Climate Scientist. To explain that thought, I set out below 6 of the better known beliefs current among the gullible.
        (A) CO2 is causing global warming:
        The Earth orbits the Sun, which radiates energy to the Earth. The IPCC claims that the Sun’s energy output doesn’t vary enough to explain global warming. 30 years of measurements are apparently enough for them to explain the sun’s part in the last 500 million years.
        The Earth is in radiative equilibrium says NASA and other unquestioned authorities in Climatology. Solar energy in = energy radiated into space, but the temperature of the Earth is rising because the level of carbon dioxide is rising. How? If there is equilibrium then there can be no change as there is no extra heat to warm the Earth. We are told that it is created by “greenhouse gases” radiating back to the ground in a sort of perpetual motion. Then they wave their hands about and talk of insulation. Why? Insulation only slows heat loss, it doesn’t generate any heat. And every bit of that back radiation has to end up in space to maintain the equilibrium, so it can’t stay behind warming the ground or the oceans. The heat to cause warming is really the missing heat.
        What they are saying is if you put a kettle on the stove but don’t light the gas it won’t warm up; there is no extra heat to warm the water. But according to Climate Science if you had filled the kettle with soda water, the dissolved CO2 would bubble out into the air space and the kettle would warm up. bullshit.
        To carry this further consider those farmers who inject CO2 into their greenhouses at levels about 4 times that current in the atmosphere. Do they use less heating? NO, but the plants grow much better. “Greenhouse gases” don’t work even in a greenhouse.
        So for global warming to occur there has to be surplus energy coming in. Either the radiation measurements are wrong or there is some other way for energy from the Sun to reach the Earth. If either is found to be the case it will show that Climate Science is bullshit. So there is no reason to conclude that CO2 is causing global warming, yet that ASSUMPTION pervades the whole of Climate ‘Science”.
        At this point someone who knows very little about science, a mathematically challenged Chief Scientific Advisor or a President of some Society will utter the claim that the extra heat is from burning fossil fuels. bullshit – do the calculations first! Still, it is nice to think that they wouldn’t hesitate to change “the settled science” while still claiming it is “settled”.
        (B) The ICE CORES are PROOF:
        We are bombarded with claims that temperatures are rising, this or that recent year was the hottest EVER. From the assumption that CO2 causes warming, the argument is that a higher level of CO2 means the temperature MUST be higher, and with a further assumption that CO2 is higher than ever before that it is warmer than EVER. EVER turns out to be a variable time span of 40, 100, 160, 1000, ten thousand, half a million or the last five million years, getting longer as the ignorance of the speaker increases.
        We have ice cores going back 800,000 years which ‘prove’ CO2 causes warming, Climate ‘scientists’ and other spokesmen say. For those of you who saw “An Inconvenient Truth” remember Al Gore on his cherry picker? He used an out of date, low resolution chart which obscured the timing of the changes, but Al Gore is no scientist so let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn’t mean to mislead people. Ice cores show climate changes well because the effect is first felt in the polar regions, and there have been numerous natural ice ages interspersed with warm interglacials, like the current Holocene. Al Gore and climate ‘scientists’ claims that the temperature fluctuations follow a rise in the CO2 level, and at the lower resolution they do seem to go up and down together.
        Ignore the critics who claim that a higher resolution chart shows the reverse with CO2 following a temperature rise, and just look at the changes in climate. The cycle frequency changes but apart from the present one there have been 4 interglacials in the last half million years. They have all reached a temperature above the current one with CO2 levels not above 300 ppm. In the Eemian (approx. 125,000 years ago) the Earth was definitely 2 to 3? warmer than now as confirmed by the fossils of lions, giraffes, elephants and hippos found in the Thames Valley. Yet the CO2 level from the ice cores was 285 ppm.
        So the ice cores show that the temperature has been much higher than present in the distant past, and not dependent on the level of CO2. So what of the Holocene (the last 10,000 years)? Archaeologists know that the climate has changed a number of times during the Holocene. The warmer years since 1850 are opening up Alpine passes in Europe, showing that they have been in use in the past. Not possible according to climate ‘science’ because the CO2 level in the past was lower than now, so those passes MUST have been impassible. bullshit !
        That the Sahara was green and well watered about 7,000 years ago during the Holocene Optimum is shown by the Tassili frescoes. Humans were living in what is now a quite inhospitable desert, but drawing giraffes, hippos and various bovines in their surroundings. The CO2 was at the same level that 125,000 years ago led to a sub-tropical Thames Valley, but according to climate ‘science’ that doesn’t mean a wet green Sahara was possible. Similarly the known warmer times of the Roman and the Medieval periods have been retrospectively been declared impossible according to climate ‘science’. Why? Because CO2 is higher than EVER so the current temperature MUST be higher than EVER, so any contrary evidence must be ignored.
        Do you get the feeling that an initial assumption of faith has led to a series of quite wrong conclusions?
        Temperature adjustments:
        That the official figures published show a rise in temperature is hardly surprising. Taken from carefully selected sites ( “cherry picking” is only used of sceptical figures) and adjusted and homogenized (with added vitamins?) into showing just that. Much indignation has been directed at this processing, but misses the main point that they are quite useless.
        The old saw that if you only have a hammer then everything looks like a nail has some bearing. Trying to reconstruct past trends the climatologists used the daily temperature recordings, showing just the maximum and minimum figures, and averaged them. These figures were never intended to show the average temperature of that day.
        To explain – Suppose you have a temperature gauge on a snow-covered airfield. It is overcast windless day and the maximum reading has been -10? all day, even overnight. Suddenly one of the airplane exhausts sends a puff of hot air towards the gauge for 5 minutes. The maximum reading climbs to 10?. The daily average will now be 0?. Suppose the warm air blast lasts for 10 minutes, the ‘maximum’ now becomes 30? and the daily average is now said to be 10?. The local member of Greenpeace starts screaming hysterically and running round in ever decreasing circles, and the World’s media in a serious voice tell us that “it is worse that we thought”.
        Now suppose all the airplanes are busy ferrying delegates, officials, reporters and hangers-on to the latest Climate Conference. Any change in the readings is ‘natural’. Instead of a flat -10? for 24 hours there is half an hour before the time for reading the minimum when a wind blow the clouds away. The temperature drops, so now the daily average becomes -15?. So the record from that site could be -15?, -10?, 0? or 10?, yet the temperature there was -10? for 97% of the day. In other words the records are quite useless as a measure of the climate.
        And how many of the “official” stations are actually fit for the purpose. A survey by WUWT found that 80% of stations in the USA were not of acceptable standard. Whole areas have no stations so ‘estimates’ are added.
        Every year for the last 18 years a figure for the temperature of the Earth has been trotted out showing a very slight increase. The gullible are reassured that most of these years are the hottest EVER, thanks to minuscule rises below the level of accuracy. But, say the climatologists, all we have to do is take dodgy figures (“accurate” to the nearest decimal point) and homogenize them with equally dodgy figures from selected other stations and then average all the averaged and homogenized figures and we can announce a World temperature accurate to 2 or 3 decimal points. Anybody who believes that bullshit should bundle all their money and send it to the IPCC immediately – it will save time. Persons trying to send other people’s money to the IPCC should be bundled out of office.
        Parts of the World have warmed since 1850; the melting of glaciers alone proves that. In climate ‘science’ it is impossible since the whole World has to warm, the heat to do so is missing. So parts of the Earth may be warming and others cooling to maintain the average, or extra heat is appearing in a manner unknown to climate ‘science’.
        Even in the official figures the rate of temperature change in the warm cycles is the same regardless of the rate of CO2 rise in the atmosphere, therefore any warming caused by CO2 is not affected by the rate of increase in CO2. So if it is not the level of CO2 nor the rate of change affecting the temperature, claiming that CO2 is the cause is hardly the sort of reasoning that you would expect from a good scientist, let alone the President of The Royal Society.
        And it is merely an interesting observation that the “warming” in the 1980’s and 90’s occurred as the old style thermometers were progressively replaced by electronic ones much more sensitive to short-term fluctuations. I wonder how seriously they were calibrated against the originals.
        Ocean acidification:
        One of the latest bogeymen being touted by those who failed chemistry at school is the impending disaster of the seas becoming acid. Some group somewhere claimed to have found a small drop in the pH of sea water over several years. Ignoring the fact that sea water varies about 10 times as much naturally, they leapt to the assumption “it is all due to CO2”. Quickly they used the computer to extrapolate back to the 18th century and a scary press release. There is no way to check the figures they quote because there were no pH measurements for the first 150 years of their graph, and precious few for the rest. ‘Science’ like that is not even third rate.
        But it got the gullible like Barak Obama and Ed Milliband believing that more CO2 means more dissolved in the ocean, generating acid which will wipe out marine life. bullshit.
        Firstly, about 98% of the CO2 dissolved in sea water remains as a gas subject more or less to Henry’s Law and not lowering the pH. More CO2 in the air, more dissolves; but a higher temperature causes the gas to be less soluble in water. So what these people are saying is that more CO2 will NOT cause any warming, otherwise there would not be any problem. The “Science is UNsettled?”
        Secondly the necessary conversion of CO2 to carbonic acid is dependent on the pH. The lower the pH the less is converted, a feedback mechanism never mentioned in case you start to have doubts. There are other reasons centering on carbonic acid being a weak acid, hence sea water is buffered and pH changes (due to CO2) are minimal. Yes, sea water will become slightly acid if pure CO2 is forced in under pressure, but if the atmosphere reaches 1 million ppm (pure CO2) there won’t be any sea creatures to be affected.
        People who’ve seen the White Cliffs of Dover should realize that they were laid down by sea creatures over millions of years in the Cretaceous Era when the CO2 level in the atmosphere was 4 times (or more) that today, and think a little about the claims of climate ‘scientists’.
        (C) Geo-Engineering:
        On the lunatic fringes there are those who want to “save the World” by destroying it.
        Assuming that CO2 will cause warming they want to counteract this by adopting vast schemes for cooling with unknown side effects.
        Solve a non-existent problem by causing another? bullshit.
        The “settled science” cannot describe the climate; the models they use have failed again and again to predict what will happen. “Oh, we’ve adjusted them” they say, “we are now 97% right … in hindsight”. It is just the future they’re clueless about.
        Mad, Bad and Dangerous to listen to.
        (D) Too many people:
        In the last century the population of the Earth has increased so much that some people living secure, comfortable lives in advanced economies are getting agitated. We have to reduce the population they say; they’re very coy about the means, and even who will get the chop.
        Perhaps I can make a suggestion about who is surplus to requirements. We want to be democratic don’t we? So I suggest a committee of 3 to decide who gets eliminated.
        Composed of One peasant from the slums of China, forced off his farm when it was expropriated for industrial development. Now living in a polluted environment and employed at one of factories making goods for export to the EU.
        One peasant from South America recently dispossessed of his land (and livelihood) by a Foreign Company wanting his land to grow biofuel for shipment to Europe.
        An African who recently lost 2 children because no vaccine was available after 2 cloudy days meant no power to run the refrigerator at the Clinic. In accordance with IPCC and EU dictates the Clinic had to use a small solar panel not a diesel generator.
        They could choose a small target for a trial; some small overcrowded island off the NW coast of Europe perhaps? Then the slaughter could be expanded through the overcrowded Low Countries and into Germany. It will be easier in the latter country, with infrastructure already available. Surely many Greens will volunteer for elimination, especially at the spiritual home of the german Greens – Auschwitz.
        So ladies and gentlemen of Europe, be it understood that you will be leaving out own dear planet for our dear planet’s good. What’s that you’re saying? This isn’t who we want to kill. What makes you think that you will have the choice?
        Are you left thinking that climate ‘science’ is an initial unchallenged act of faith followed by a chain of assumptions leading to quite wrong conclusions? Just like Professor the Rev. Buckland. And to round off the analogy the greens want us to go back to living in a cave.
        What are you going to believe? Archaeology, Paleontology, Geology, Chemistry, Physics, History and Thermodynamics or Climate ‘science’.
        I say Climate ‘science’ is all bullshit.

  11. Good result for NZ – Key’s Nationals increased their share of the vote to 48.1% and Labour down 3% to 24.7%..a bit disappointing for Aunty, this’ll get short shift in today’s ABC news.

  12. Saw you making homophobic and rude tweets. I am embarrassed because I just recommended this blog to my colleagues as an insightful and tasteful source of analysis. Good luck with analysis but our party really doesn’t need your brand of hate.

    • Homophobic – no, although I would add that if you’re one of those people who thinks anyone who opposes gay marriage is “homophobic” then your problem is not with me, old sport.

      Rude? If you didn’t notice, tonight’s conversation on Twitter shows just how vicious the state election now due is going to be.

      Since you examined my tweets so closely you will also have seen the exhaustive attempts to discuss things reasonably and logically before getting (I admit) very frustrated.

      But this site is aimed at precisely the kind of discussion you allude to, not an unseeing street brawl. People may disagree with my views in this forum (after all, there is nothing wrong with topicality) but blanket assertions that my party sets out to negligently kill people are the kind of things I will respond to — and forcefully if need be. They are untrue assertions. And they are not, if you please, what political debate in this country should be focusing on.

  13. This article is indicative of the untruth of all sides of politics, not just “Bullshit Bil” and his gang. Both sides lied to the Australian voting public with their nonsensical jobs, jobs, jobs mantra, when the opposite was true: they want to collapse the economy. At least we might get rid of Bullshit Bill? I certainly hope so, the disgraceful little mongrel!!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s