Agmates

We all know them, people who drop names, are into one-ups-man-ship, always having to make themselves look better than anyone else in the room. In Australia we call them ‘bullshit artists’, ‘blow hards’, ‘big noters’ or just plain ‘up themselves’. Whatever, they have a serious ego problem and are usually a pain to be around.

Our Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has an ego problem. As with all people who make up stories to make themselves look good, it usually come back to bit them on the bum. But not with consequences that the ‘big noting’ threatens strategic alliances with a ’super power’.

THE leaking of a sensitive phone call between Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and US President George W. Bush, and inaccuracies about what was said, will have ongoing consequences for relationships between the two countries.

After the call, on the evening of Friday, October 10, Mr Rudd reportedly told guests he had insisted to Mr Bush that the G-20 was the appropriate vehicle to co-ordinate a response to the ongoing crisis affecting world markets.

“What’s the G-20?” Mr Bush reportedly replied.

That remark, and the notion Mr Bush had not already been considering the G-20’s role have been denied by a US national security official who monitored the 30-minute conversation.

Senior diplomats at the highest levels of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) have confirmed to The Sunday Telegraph that Mr Rudd’s indiscretions have put at risk Australia’s alliance with the US.

“Gobsmacked” was the way one senior diplomat described the reaction of colleagues in Washington to the story in The Weekend Australian.

“From the point of view of other countries, the view will now have to be that their leaders will have to be much more guarded in their dealings with Kevin Rudd.”

The issue is the best example yet that Kevin Rudd is on a huge and dangerous ego trip. So desperate is he to impress those present at the dinner that he made up absolute ‘bullshit’ story that was designed to make him look smarter than the US President.

I would have thought just getting a personal phone call from the US President while at dinner would have been an impressive enough party trick.

Our Prime Minister has a serious self image problem and an ego that is dangerously out of whack.

This appalling episode makes Prime Minister Kevin Rudd a deserved winner of the Agmates Bullshit award.

.

Have Your say!

.

I am offended by the Rudd Government and more particularly Climate Change and Water Minister Penny Wong [ pictured ] spending $14 million dollars on climate change ads since July.

Back on the 1st of September we nominated these ads as worthy of our Bullshit Watch award.

In the article I stated that these ads are just blatant propaganda.

.

The Government has set aside almost $14 million for a four-month climate change campaign, which started in July and ends next month.

.

If the government is fair dinkum about tackling climate change why wasn’t this money put into alternative energy. It could have been spent on installing solar hotwater in 7,000 homes at a $2,000 rebate a home.

They could have invested it in developing an accurate, reliable and simple to use accounting methodology for soil carbon. It could have been used to lobby the UN to accept soil carbon sequestration or a myriad of other constructive ways to cut our CO2 emissions.

The other reason it is outrageous is because it would suggest that Minister Wong is being a hypocrite.

.

“When in opposition, Senator Wong, as Labor’s spokesperson on public accountability, repeatedly attacked the then Howard government for running government advertising before legislation has passed the parliament.”

.

There is nothing that turns us off a politician more than them being an obvious hypocrite.

.

Have Your say!

If you were watching the 7 o’clock ABC News in QLD tonight you would have seen a story on Climate Change threatening Kangaroos.

The same story was run in the Brisbane Courier Mail today in on Page 24.

Unfortunately I can’t link you to it, because it is not posted on their site. And who could blame them. What an absolute beat up this is - just tell me how this could possibly be news worthy, let alone make the national news.

From the Courier Mail Today - notice the use of the words, Could, If, Might, predict, would (if something else happens), expected, may, possible.

The Heat’s On Skippy

Brian Williams - Environmental Reporter.

Australia’s best known international symbol, the kangaroo, COULD be devastated by just 2C rise in temperatures.

Scientists have found the territories of some of the most common species, WOULD contract severely IF climate change hits as expected.

And they warn at least one species of roo MIGHT be at risk of extinction IF global warming PREDICTIONS prove correct.

James Cook University researchers Elizabeth Bolitho used three years of field studies and COMPUTER MODELING to PREDICT how LIKELY temperature changes over the next half-century MIGHT affect four species of Kangaroos.

They studied the red kangaroo, the eastern grey, common wallaroo and the antilopine wallaroo and found temperature increases as small as 0.5C WOULD START to shrink their geographical ranges. An increase of 2C MIGHT shrink ranges by UP TO 48% while a 6C increase MIGHT shrink their territories by a massive 96%.

Look I could go on and on. You’d have to be a journalist to even squeeze a story out of the might, could, if rubbish. But there is one paragraph I have to give you, its a classic.

“IF dry seasons ARE TO BECOME hotter and rainfall events more unpredictable, habitats MAY become depleted of available pasture for grazing and water holes MAY dry up,” they said. “This MAY result in starvation and failed reproduction or POSSIBLE death due to dehydration for those species that are less mobile.

.

Can you believe that absolute dribble. There is no mention if the study is peer reviewed. They name one researcher who modeled what might, could happen based on a computer model.

Now I can believe the Courier Mail would run this rubbish, but the ABC National NEWS. Come on Aunty, we expect better than this from our national broadcaster.

.

.

For this effort the Brisbane Courier Mail and The ABC TV 7pm National News are both worthy recipients of the Agmates “Bullshit Award”.

.

Have Your Say!

.

Got a tip off, article or have you seen a video or item you’d like to be seen by the Agmates Community? If so please email it to us at news@agmates.com

There appears to be a very close and cosy relationship between Brisbanes Only Daily Newspaper The Courier Mail and radiacl Green group WWF.

In todays issue alone they have run a disgraceful article with WWF using 2-3 year old figures and gross unfounded accusations putting pressure on Natural Resources Minister to ban QLD farmers from clearing woody weed regrowth.

Then online on they team up again to run this disgraceful story labeling 11 energy companies including Alcoa & Rio Tinto as ‘economic Dinosaurs’.

.

ONE of Australia’s biggest miners is amongst a group of 11 power generators labelled carbon emissions “dinosaurs” by an environmental group… Rio Tinto and and aluminium giant Alcoa, are among the group that failed a WWF scorecard on carbon reduction performance.

WWF had sent a survey to each mining company asking them to declare how much they’d spent on low carbon technology and then rated them accordingly.

The organisation found about half the 19 generators performed very badly, scoring less than two out of five stars. Alcoa, Intergen and Rio Tinto were the worst performers.

.

The Courier Mail then goes on to extensively quote WWF spokesperson Paul Tony, but curiously it does not mention anybody from the energy companies labeled as ‘economic dinosaur’.

.

“WWF spokesman Paul Toni says the companies know they should be doing more to cut emissions.

For two decades there has been no wringing of hands, no worrying about the future or the impact on our environment, just business as usual, without a second thought for anything but short-term profits,” he said in a statement.

It’s remarkable how these dinosaur companies can complain about their future and ask for handouts but do zero to reduce their emissions.

Some companies had been making an effort to reduce carbon emissions, Mr Toni said.

The appalling results of companies such as Rio Tinto and Intergen are in stark contrast to industry leaders like Origin Energy, TRUenergy, Babcock and Brown, Transfield Infrastructure Services and Verve.

.

Well the same story as it happens was reported on ABC’s Lateline Business the night before and Lateline reporter Jayne Margets did talk to some of the ‘economic dinosaurs’ mentioned.

.

JAYNE MARGETTS: Both Rio Tinto and Alcoa say the findings are inaccurate, because they didn’t provide any information to the WWF.

In a statement Alcoa said:

‘It’s absurd to suggest that Alcoa is unprepared for a low-carbon future. Alcoa’s operations in Australia are among the most greenhouse and energy efficient in the world’.

.

And when Jayne Margets put this to WWF’s Paul Toni - he shifts from foot to foot and stammers:

.

PAUL TONI: Well, all I can say is that they were given the opportunity to respond.

.
OK So Rio, Alcoa and a host of other Energy companies told WWF to ‘bugger off’ with their survey and so WWF rank them as ‘No Stars’ out of Five, label them ‘economic dinosaurs’ and run to the the Courier Mail with their ‘credible survey’.

One can only assume that the Courier Mail did not bother to either ask Paul Toni for the actual survey data or contact Rio or Alcoa for comment on the article.

If they had spoken to Rio or Alcoa or any of the others companies that were ranked so lowly by WWF simply because they’d refused to give them any information the Courier surely would have not run the story, realizing the survey was worthless.

Its either lazy journalism or a grubby conspiracy between WWF and The Courier Mail. The article only appeared online without a bye line. However it was on Environment writer Graham Readfearn’s page who we have had issues with before.

What do you think?

.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

.

Have Your say.

According to the Greens in Western Australia Climate Change is going to drown Perth to the Top of its tallest buildings.

Perths tallest buildings are about 200 metres.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.We hope the good people of WA give these scare mongering fraudsters a huge miss in this weekends state election.

.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

.

Have your say! Is this craziness or what?

.

Bob Long has made an offical complaint to the ACCC over the governments blatant ‘climate change’ TV ad that it is spending $9million dollars of tax payers money on to re-educate us.

The ad is blatant propaganda and registers on our Bulls**t Watch.

If you have not seen it the offensive ad is in the video below followed by Bobs Complaint.

.

I wish to complain about the Australian Government “Climate Change” advertisement currently showing on Australian TV (August, 2008).

I claim the advertisement fails these Advertising Standards Bureau Truth and Accuracy issues:

1. Misleading or deceptive advertising.
2. Misrepresentation in advertising.
3. The exploitation of community concerns in relation to portraying a product or service as benefiting the environment, if it does not.

A. The advertisement says, “scientists warn”, without qualification or reference to whom those scientists are. There are many scientists who dispute that climate change will cause significant problems. [1], [2], [3]

B. There is no qualification of what “hard hit” means.

C. There is no qualification of how high temperatures are supposedly going to rise; thus it is impossible to know from the advertisement whether such rises are significant and will thus result in a “hard hit”.

D. There is no qualification of whether “more scare” water applies to certain areas of Australia, nor of how significant such scarcity will be.

E. The reference to “economists warn” does not reference those economists, or that there are dissenting economists with differing views.

F. The advertisement uses the term “carbon pollution”. That is a meaningless (and misleading and deceptive) phrase. Carbon is an element. In the context of the climate change discussion, carbon as an element is not part of the discussion. The advertisement should refer (at least) to carbon dioxide, which is a gas.

G. The advertisement states that “carbon”, hence carbon dioxide, is a pollutant. But carbon dioxide is an essential gas present in trace amounts in the atmosphere. Without it, life on earth would not exist. Except in high concentrations, carbon dioxide is harmless to humans. There is considerable doubt that increases in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are a significant cause of increased temperatures. [4], [5]

H. The advertisement implies all climate change is something to avoid (”We’re developing a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to tackle climate change…”), but does not mention that climate has been changing for thousands of years, with the earth having been both colder and warmer than it is now. That is a misrepresentation of facts. [6]

I. The advertisement exploits community concerns by attempting to cause fear by using the phrases “hard hit”, “must act now” and “can’t afford not to”.

J. The claim that we “must act now” are misleading because it implies temperatures are rising at a dangerous rate. In fact, global temperatures since 1998 have not passed that 1998 peak, and early 2008 global average temperatures are marginally less than the equivalent period of 1988 (repeating: 1988, not 1998). [7],

K. The claim that a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will “tackle climate change”, presumably successfully, is false and deceptive. Australian greenhouse gas emissions are less than 1.5% of global emissions, so even if such a scheme were to be totally successful in eliminating all Australian emissions, the effect globally would be minuscule.

L. The phrase “We can’t afford not to” is misleading and deceptive. There is no qualification as to what the costs will be, so it is impossible for the advertisement to so claim.

M. The advertisement displays images of both cooling towers and “smoke stacks”. Both are deceptive. In the case of cooling towers, the only emission is of condensed water vapour. In the case of the smoke stacks, there is a misleading confusion of particulate pollution with colourless carbon dioxide gas.

The advertisement thus fails, in many instances, the tests for truth and accuracy.

Bob Long

.
………………………………………………………………………….
.
Have Your say? Do you find it offensive that the Government is spending $9m of tax payers money on blatant propaganda like this?
.
.

The Courier Mail and ABC radio continues on with its Climate Change scare mongering and hence register on our Bulls**t Watch.

The headline screams “Homes at Risk from rising sea”. in todays Courier Mail.

Online the headline reads: “Sea level rise from climate change ‘underestimated’.”

.

“THE speed at which the climate is changing has been significantly underestimated, with thousands of Australian homes potentially at risk from rising sea levels, a conference has heard.

Ports, harbours and airports situated near the ocean are also vulnerable to the immediate effects of climate change, said keynote speaker Jo Mummery. Preliminary modelling has found that if there is a rise in sea levels, 269,505 houses could be at risk in NSW and 2,875 houses in the NT.”

.

And again on ABC Radio:

.

“Australian expert says sea levels to rise four metres”

.

“Dr Jo Mummery, from the Department of Climate Change, told the delegation that if sea levels rose just one metre - exclusive pockets of the Gold Coast would be completely washed out.

She says if water enters a 200 metre buffer zone almost 559,000 residential buildings would be affected across the country.”

.

In both the Courier Mail Report and the ABC they quote:

.

“The head of the climate change unit at the Australian National University and science adviser to the federal Government, Professor Will Steffen, says he believes the scientific community is underestimating the speed at which the climate is changing.

“The evidence over the past 12 to 18 months suggests that we have underestimated how fast this aspect of the earth’s system can change,” he said.”

.

Are you alarmed yet? Don’t be - Below is a graph showing actual sea level rises from 1991 to 2005.

.

.

And in the last 12 months sea levels have actually fallen almost 10mm.

.

.

Since global warming plateaued in 2001 sea levels have risen just 5mm or so in 7 years. Even the alarmist IPCC reports predicts sea levels will rise 50cm by 2100.

Here is a graph of sea level changes over the last 24,000 years. The graph shows that sea levels in Australia have risen 20 metres or so in the last 8,000 years.

.

.

And in the last 128 years they have risen less than 20cm.

.

.

It’s difficult to take scientists seriously who make such outlandish predictions of sea levels rising 1-4 metres in the next 90 years. Those claims immediatley register on the Agmates Bulls**t metre.

.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

.

Have your Say!

Graeme Samuel and the ACCC is under fire over its report into grocery prices prepared for the Federal government.

The report maintains that farm gate prices for things like eggs, milk and meat are rising at the same rates as supermarket prices.

Any one in the farming industry will tell you thats Bulls**t.

Now academic’s and peak body groups have looked at the way the ACCC has analyzed the data and they agree.

.

Frank Zumbo, associate professor of the Australian School of Business at University of NSW, says key ACCC indexes in the Government’s report are “misleading”.

“They have different start dates and don’t go back as far as available data …. This is inconsistent with best practice in econometric testing of data. Economic analysis is sensitive to start and finish points.

In short, any economic analysis and results produced can be misleading, depending on the start dates. We also need to ask the reason or motive behind the choice of different start dates by the ACCC.’

.

It seems that the ACCC has fudged the starting points for measuring prices in each industry to give the results it or the big supermarket duopoly’s wanted.

Economics best practices for testing data is to have a common start date to analyze from. Instead the ACCC has beef pricing starting in 1998, milk in March 2002. Both were low points in the farm gate commodity price cycle and the results show a favorable result for the supermarkets.

The Eastern States Young Cattle index below back to 1996 shows this graphically. Had the ACCC chosen the beef start year in 2001 it would show that beef producers are actually receiving less today for they’re cattle then they were seven years ago. Whats happened to input costs and supermarket prices in the last 7 years?.

You know there are lies, lies, lies and dam statistics.

.

The ACCC is claiming that the start dates are just a coincidence (yes right), but Craig Kelly of the Southern Sydney Retailers reckons:

.

The odds of randomly selecting different base years which just “co-incidentally” match up with the low point for the farm-gate price, is about 1000 to 1.

The only conclusion that can be reached is that these dates have been deliberately selected. And by selecting the low point in farm-gate prices, it falsely shows that farm-gate prices have “increased” when in reality they have remained depressed for a long period of time.

.

Graeme Samuels in his article in the Australian today defends his findings -

.

…..the ACCC has a mandate to be rigorous and independent. After all, our sole vested interest is that of 21 million Australians.

.

That would be 21million Australians minus a couple of hundred thousand Auatralian farmers wouldn’t it Mr Samuel? .

Full marks to The Sydney Morning Herald and its reporter Michael West for exposing this issue. Also thanks to Agmates Reader Sally for bringing it to our attention.

The Grocery Inquiry Report scores 85/100 on the Agmates Bulls**t Metre

…………………………………………………………………………………..

Update: 5.26pm 12th August:

A farmer, Vince Heffernan….. “As a farmer I find the inquiry into food pricing insulting … The reality is that supermarkets have been making 18 to 20 times the profit per kilogram on meat that farmers make - not bad for 10 days to 14 days’ work as opposed to the 17 months the farmers put in for their meagre earnings.”

.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

.

Have Your say! Have your farm gate prices been rising in line with supermarket retail prices?

In the tradition set by the Rudd Government with Fuel Watch, Grocery Watch, Water Watch we are launching Bullshit Watch.

Todays Bullshit award goes to Brisbanes Courier Mail Journalist Graheam Readfearn for his article Call to Act by Pioneer on Climate.

American Scientist Professor Gene Likens (pictured) is speaking at the invitation-only presentation at Griffith University’s Nathan campus.

The presentation is on problems being faced around the globe with drought and climate change. He and other like minded people, that is climate change believers will be delivering their message to policymakers and politician including Queensland Minister for Climate Change Andrew McNamara, National Water Commissioner Chloe Munro and water commissioners from Queensland and NSW.

“Does the climate change problem exist? Yes,” Professor Likens said.

“The scientific consensus is so strong and so universal - there are just a handful of doubters on this.

“Yet (those doubters) get such high media attention and a lot of support.”

That statement light up my “Bullshit” metre straight away. Would the “handful of Doubters” the good professor is referring too be the 31,072 AMERICAN Scientist including 9,021 PhD’s who signed this petition.

The Courier Mails Graham Readfearn would have to live under a rock to have not know that this petition exists.

But wait - it gets better, turns out Graham Readfearn is none other than the author of The Courier Mails own Green Blog. It is a classic.

His profile reads -

“Graham Readfearn

Environment blogger Graham Readfearn sorts the green from the green-wash and the eco from the no-go - one climate-friendly posting at a time. Green news, views and the odd shot-down eco-skeptic.”

This guy is a rabid greenie, supporter of WWF (World Wildlife Foundation), Greenpeace etc, just have a look at his first article - 100 months left or try this classic - How much is enough - Eco-sinner?

No mention in the papers bi-line that Graham Readfearn is a rabid one eyed greenie - no the bi-line would have the average reader believe that is is just an unbiased major newspaper reporter, searching for the truth and writing a balanced article. Apparantly Not. Shame on the Courier.

What the good Readfearn also forgets to tell us is that the good professor Likens is an ecologist - not a climatologist.

This fine piece of journalism rates a healthy 90/100 on the Agmates Bullshit Watch metre.

……………………………………………………………………………………………

See anything that you think will register on the Agmates Bullshit metre. Just click here to send it to us and we’ll check it out for you.

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Have your say!