Hard to argue with Rodney

Speech to ACT Upper South Regional Conference; Cotswold Hotel, 88-96 Papanui Rd, Christchurch; Sunday, September 7 2008.
ACT is the only Party that stands four-square for freedom.
Our founding principles are individual freedom and personal responsibility.
That makes ACT the only Party serious about cleaning up crime and making our streets and our homes safe - we can't be free living in fear of thugs and bullies.
Our commitment to freedom means we are the only party opposed to Helen Clark's bossy boots nanny-knows-best Government. We don't want the Government telling you what to pack in your kid's school lunch and what light bulb to buy.
Our founding principles make ACT the only Party committed to a prosperous future. The key to prosperity is not clever economic management by government. The key is freedom: the unlocking of our entrepreneurial talent and imagination of what could be, not what is. That means the removal of the heavy yoke of excessive taxation, government waste, suffocating red-tape, and business management by government committee.
ACT's commitment to freedom commits us to something else too - something vitally missing from our politics at the present time - reason. Side-by-side with freedom stands reason - our human ability to think, to discover, to know, and to grow our knowledge by testing our ideas against logic and experience makes freedom possible.
We can't be free without reason and we can't reason without freedom. They are indivisible.
ACT's commitment to freedom, reason and therefore limited government puts us out of favour with our present government.
It means that we want honest government, not dishonest government. We want government policies to be reasoned and our government ministers to tell the truth, not immerse themselves and our government in a web of deceit, deception and downright lies. We want our government limited to what it can do well, and leave us free to do what we do best, and we want our government held to account by the same law that our government would hold us to. Our ministers should tell the truth, be expected to tell the truth, and not be above the law, and that includes the Prime Minister. That's not happening at the present time.
It's ACT that's making sure they don't get away with it. Kiwis want their government honest. That's the standard that ACT is enforcing. We will not be deterred by the bluff, bluster and lies. It's not for nothing that we chose the slogan "The Guts to Do What's Right".
Next week Parliament is poised to pass the wealth-sapping Emissions Trading Scheme. ACT is the only party opposed to the ETS although National's opposing Labour's ETS preferring an ETS of their own making that we have yet to see.
ACT opposes the ETS because we favour reason, freedom and prosperity. The ETS opposes all three.
A warmer climate with more CO2 in the atmosphere is an unambiguous benefit to New Zealand and to the world. I don't know what we are scared of. A New Zealand that was one or two degrees warmer would be a better place to live and better environment for agriculture. The same is true for CO2. We pump the stuff into our greenhouses to stimulate plant growth. It's the number one nutrient with carbon through photosynthesis being the source of all life.
New Zealanders who can afford it go to the Gold Coast for their holidays, not Invercargill. We would like it to be warmer. It seems strange to me that we are rushing to try to stop something that I can't see as bad.
The changes we are talking about are small. The IPCC's best estimate through their computer generated scenarios has the world two to four degrees warmer by century's end and the sea level 20-60cms higher. That's hardly catastrophic. Indeed, dragging New Zealand temperature-wise closer to the Australia would be a good thing.
The world was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, a time when civilisations flourished, the Vikings settled Greenland, the Polynesians explored the Pacific, and Maori sailed to New Zealand.
We should remind ourselves too that while these scenarios are generated by scientists they themselves are not science. They are projections based on computer models. They are educated guesses, not science. Science is about theories and the testing of theories against the facts. It's not lab coats, high speed computers and committees of wise people.
I remain sceptical that we know what the weather will be in a hundred years. I remain sceptical that greenhouse gases are the cause of a global warming. That's because of the facts.
During the past 100 years there were periods, such as 1940 - 1975, when temperatures fell, even though CO2 levels increased. All official measures of global temperature show that temperature peaked in 1998 and has been declining since at least 2002, and this is in the face of an almost five percent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1998.
The facts don't fit the theory.
The ETS creates a market in greenhouse gas emissions and therefore a price to emit. The aim is to change our behaviour as producers and consumers. The aim of all other political Parties bar ACT is to price carbon emissions sufficiently to change every New Zealanders behaviour radically. That's the policy's point. It is a radical policy to reshape our economy and our lives.
It will drive businesses under, farmers to the wall, cost untold jobs, make us much poorer and drive up the cost of everything. That's the policy's purpose.
Oh and it will also subject every part of our lives to government control and regulation because the carbon cycle is central to life, to agriculture and forestry and the burning of fossil fuels drives our industrial economy and our standard of living.
The IPCC models show that none of this will make a jot of difference to world weather. Indeed, we could shut New Zealand down and it would not make a difference. Of course, the policy aim is not to shut New Zealand down. They say that would be silly. The goal is just to half shut us down and render the other half subject to strict government control because of Minister Parker's absurdity that we are now living in a "carbon-constrained world". Nonsense.
The ETS won't work. The market to be created is a cheat market that is entirely artificial that will only exist because of government policy. It will produce scam after scam with New Zealand having to pay big dollars for phoney credits in a world-wide swindle that will make New Zealand First's funding look simple, straight-forward and honest.
I get asked by people why they should give their Party vote to ACT. I say they should Party vote ACT for honest government because they're sick of the lies. They should Party vote ACT because they want a prosperous future with their kids coming home, not going away. I say they should Party vote ACT because they back themselves and don't want to be bossed about by government. I say they should Party vote ACT because they value reason and freedom, just like ACT.
These past couple of weeks have proved once again that ACT is the Party of freedom and reason with the guts to do what's right. Remember: we are the one Party that can stand up proud when we say please give us your Party vote, Party vote ACT.
Thank you.
ENDS
Authorised by Nick Kearney, 137 Beach Haven Road, Auckland

Baby brag pics

Some photos of my darling grand daughter Tiana with her Mum Phillipa having feed, her uncle Richard and Aunty Amy.

Winston Update

OK, so what do we know now.

We know Helen Clark was informed by Owen Glenn that he donated money to NZ First/ Winston Peters back in February.

We know she took no effective steps to find out what really happened. Or maybe she did but didn't like what she found out.

We know she lied by omission by not contradicting Winston Peters when he was ranting to the public about how the journalists had got it so wrong.

We know she has even now not sacked Peters as a minister.

And we think we know the Spencer Trust did pass money on the NZFirst and we think we know it did pay hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bills for NZ First.

So we now Winston is a liar and either so are the whole top team at NZ First or they are plain stupid.

The Spencer Trust is just like the Waitemata Trust - Yeah Right

Helen appears to be nailing her colours firmly to Winston's flagpole.

This morning, during her interview with Paul Holmes, she said that the Spencer trust appeared to be the same as the Waitemata Trust, which used to funnel money to the National Party.

And it's true that The Waitemata Trusts did collect donations and pass them on to the National Party. However there are some major differences:
1. The party leaders of National did not solicit funds for the Waitemata Trust.
2. The funds that were collected were passed on to the National Party and declared as donations.
3. the only secret was the source of the funds given to the Waitemata Trust - everything else was transparent.

And now let's look at the Spencer Trust - according to media reports:
1. The party leader solicited funds for the Spencer Trust
2. The party leader decided what money went to the Spencer Trust instead of directly to the NZ First Party.
3. No donations of over $10,000 seem to have made it to the NZ First Party from the Spencer Trust
4. At least one donor to the trust fully expected his money to go to NZ First - and it didn't.
5. The Spencer Trust is possibly the most opaque funding arrangement in place in NZ politics - secret does not even begin to describe it when even the NZ First President knows nothing about this trust.

Now let's look at the strategy being employed by Winston and Helen.

1. Deny any illegality (possible because nothing actually illegal happened)
2. Stonewall any attempts to find out where Sir Bob Jones' money went
3. Refer any questions about the trust to Trustee Wayne Peters - who will then stonewall and refuse to answer any questions
4. Question other people's ability to recall events correctly - create a 'he said vs he said' situation where no-one can prove who's right.
5. Become extremely offended when your integrity is questioned.
6. Attack the people who question you and question their motivations - they must have a hidden agenda.
7. Etc.

We all know no-one, except possibly the prime minister, can manage this kind of strategy better than Winston Peters.

So what can we guess about the Spencer Trust and where the money went?

1. There was money collected by the Spencer Trust
2. None went directly to NZ First
3. Winston decided what the money was spent on
4. At least some went to pay Brian Henry's fees
5. The NZ First president knew nothing - which is why I am guessing none of the money went to NZ First.
6. it's the most despicable trick played on honest donors and the public of NZ by any politician - the only exception would be the $800K stolen by Labour for their last campaign.

Where to from here?

I don't know. There's chance the strategy outlined above will work. Stories die without light and oxygen, and the tactics described above will deprive this one of life-sustaining sustenance.

Our best hope of finding out the truth is that Sir Bob Jones will find out what happened to his money and tell us.

Otherwise we may well be left with a huge mountain of suspicion, but little in the way of hard fact with which to hang Winston with.

Either way, I suspect he's finished and will no longer be an MP by December 2008.

If the voters don't, then his own caucus should toss him out. It's them he's betrayed most of all.

Recipe - Roast Pumpkin Risotto with Mushrooms and Chicken

I made this last night and my husband loved it! I just had some leftovers for lunch.

Olive Oil
Onion - 1 large, diced
Aborio Rice - 1 - 1 1/2 cups
White wine - about 80mls
Chicken stock - about 2 cups - hot
salt & pepper
Parmesan Cheese - about 1/3 cup grated
1 1/2 cups sliced beans

200gm diced pumpkin
olive oil
balsamic vinegar
salt & pepper

4 large, flat mushrooms
olive oil
balsamic vinegar
salt & pepper

Chicken slices - enough for 4 people
olive oil
salt & pepper

Pre-heat the oven to 200C. Mix the pumpkin, a couple of good slugs of oil, a single slug of vinegar and salt & freshly ground pepper in a bowl. Tip into a roasting dish and pop into the oven. Roast for about 20 minutes or until tender, adding mushrooms about 1/2 way through. Mushrooms should be peeled and have a light dressing of oil, balsamic vinegar and salt & pepper.

Put a couple of slugs of olive oil into a pan, and saute the onion until tender. Add the rice and stir until it's coated in oil and heated through. Add the wine and cook, stirring, until it is absorbed. Add the stock a ladle-full at a time until all the liquid is absorbed and the rice is tender. If you run out of stock use hot water. Season well with salt & pepper and stir through the cheese at the end of cooking.

Pan fry the seasoned chicken in a little oil while you are cooking the risotto. Cook beans either stove top or microwave until tender but still bright green.

Toss the cooked pumpkin cubes and beans through the risotto.

To serve place a mushroom on each place, spoon over the risotto and serve with the chicken on the side.

Understanding the IPCC Reports on AGW

I have just read this report by Dr Vincent Gray*, where he picks apart the IPCC Reports.
I thought I'd summarise some the information that was new to me, but please go read the whole thing. It's only 32 pages.

First, while I understood that the surface air temperatures were difficult to measure, and a lot of the stations were poorly positioned, I did not realise that the information they gather is so compromised that it is almost worthless.

There is no quality control on meteorological stations. Nobody knows how many sites are close to towns, buildings, central heating pipes; what instruments are used, who measures, how often.

Also:

Another factor that has influenced the weather station record is the variable number of stations available. The large increase after 1950 was mainly an increase in rural stations and of stations at airports and it partly accounts for the fall in the combined temperature from 1950 to 1975. The wholesale closure of mainly rural stations in 1989, combined with the increased energy release at airports, partly accounts for the increase in the combined temperature record since 1989.

Indeed, the most accurate way of measuring the air temperature is via satellites.

The most reliable and most accurate comparatively recent measure of globally averaged temperature anomalies is from the measurements at several levels in the atmosphere by Microwave Sounder Units (MSUs) on NASA satellites since 1978, which derive temperature from the microwave spectrum of oxygen in the atmosphere.

The MSU record faithfully shows temperature anomalies from observed volcanic events (El Chichon 1982, Pinatubo 1991) and from ocean oscillations (particularly El Niño 1998), but it does not show the rise in temperature of the surface record, which is attributed to “global warming” from greenhouse gas emissions between 1979 and 1999 and between 2001 and 2007. The temperature shift of about 0.3ºC for the period 2001-2007 is already beginning to decline.

And then he concludes:

Despite the inadequacy of all the data, there is general agreement from all of it except the “mean global surface temperature anomaly” that there is no overall warming of the climate, but in several cases evidence of cyclic or intermittent behaviour, indicating temperature peaks and troughs some 65 years apart. These fluctuations are influenced by changes in solar activity, cosmic rays, ocean oscillations and volcanic eruptions.

The “mean global surface temperature anomaly” is undoubtedly biased by urban and land-use changes, but this is the only observable“ anthropogenic” effect.

Let's talk about Water Vapour:

Tyndall (1865) showed that the chief greenhouse gas is water vapour. In order to find whether the influence of greenhouse gases is changing, it is necessary to have a record of water vapour concentrations everywhere in the earth’s atmosphere for a past period. No such knowledge is possible, so no attempt to calculate its effects is possible. The attempt to study water vapour was therefore abandoned in favour of the next most important greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide.

The contribution of water vapour to the total greenhouse effect is difficult to assess because the infrared absorption bands of water vapour overlap those of carbon dioxide. Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) obtain a figure of approximately 60% of the total, but provide no uncertainty figures.

The concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere is said to range between 0 and 4% but actual figures or even estimates are elusive.

We better go back to those satellites then. They show that:

Most of the water vapour is over the tropics and becomes zero over the poles. In July the concentration rises slightly over the Northern oceans, but there is little change in the South. The very large difference in concentration of water vapour between the tropics and the poles and its variability diurnally and with the seasons and night and day means that any change in its radiative influence will be very different for all these different circumstances.

Yet the IPCC assumes that its influence can be treated as a “feedback” to a temperature change, assuming that the influence can be regarded as uniform. This assumption is ridiculous since its radiative influence with changes in climate will be very different with latitude “global warming”.

The IPCC conceals the very large difference between atmospheric water vapour concentration of the tropics and the poles and only publishes “trends” and “anomalies”.

Then there's the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We must all agree that that can be measured, surely? After all, that's what all the fuss is about! Apparently not.

Climate scientists think that tucking water vapour under the carpet as a “feedback” releases them to place all their emphasis on the minor greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Yet they immediately run into a problem similar to water vapour, since carbon dioxide's concentration is variable, but its variability cannot be measured.

Beck (2007) has documented some 90,000 measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which have been made using chemical methods, since 1812. All of these were in respectable, peer-reviewed scientific journals and some of the authors were Nobel prize winners. They indicate that the concentration is highly variable. Trying to calculate “greenhouse forcing” from such a poorly characterised distribution is impossible.

The IPCC has chosen to suppress all observations between those of Arrhenius (1865) and 1958. Solomon et al. (2007) has a Chapter 1 entitled “Historical Overview of Climate Change Science” without mentioning the existence of all the early material. It was found by Keeling (1989) that if measurements are strictly confined to only a few marine sites, restricted to constant wind conditions, they can claim that this is a “background” figure which can be claimed to show that the gas is “well-mixed”. The procedure is described by Manning et al. (1994) as follows:

A baseline event is normally defined as one in which the local wind direction is from the South and the standard deviation of minute-by-minute CO2 concentrations is <0.1ppm>This means that most measurements are rejected and only a small proportion selected. The great majority of the measurements are rejected and never published. They are simply suppressed to support the impression that carbon dioxide is “well-mixed” in the atmosphere.

Hardly any measurements are made, or admitted anywhere else, by sea or land. These measurements are claimed to be “contaminated” by “noise”. “Noise” might be described as “unwelcome data”. The only published measurements of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere over land surfaces are from the South Pole and Wankie Peak in Bavaria. The nations of the world, who are engaged in trying to limit carbon dioxide emissions, do not know or even want to know whether their efforts are successful over their countries. The IPCC 4th Report Solomon et al. 2007) has as its first Chapter “A History of the Greenhouse Effect” without mentioning all this early work, which has now been publicly documented by Beck (2007).

So he concludes:

Greenhouse gases are not “well-mixed” and the attempt to pretend that they are means that all calculations based on this assumption are unreliable.
The variability of water vapour in the atmosphere means it cannot be treated as a uniform “feedback” to climate models.
The distribution of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is unknown, so its general or local effects cannot be assessed.

I'll skip over the argument over treating correlation as proof of causation, but it's very interesting, so go read it.

So how about those computer models. They prove AGW, don't they? Hmmm. No.

In the face of all the insuperable difficulties it is most important that any computer model of the climate should be thoroughly tested before it can claim to represent a future climate. The process for such testing is called “validation” by computer engineers and it must involve a proven ability to forecast to a known level of accuracy all circumstances for which the model may be used. It is simply not enough to attempt to simulate the past.

The first IPCC Report (Houghton et al. 1990) had a Chapter “Validation of Computer Models”. When the same title appeared in the first draft of the next Report this author (and possibly others) commented that since no computer climate model has ever been validated the word was wrong. They forthwith changed it for the next draft to “Evaluate” no less that fifty times and they have never since claimed to have validated any model. They have not even provided a discussion on how this process should be carried out.

They have also abandoned all attempts to pretend that the models are capable of forecasting future climate. They use, instead, the word “project”.

Then he asks:

So, how have the general public and many governments come to believe that these models are capable of forecasting future climate?

The answer to this is rather surprising. They seek the opinion of the very people who have been paid to produce the models and classify these opinions as various levels of “likelihood”. They then apply spurious probabilities to these levels. In this way they present the opinion of “experts” with a conflict of interest as an alternative to a scientifically tested forecast.

They ensure that none of their “projections” can ever be tested by always giving “estimates” which are so far ahead that nobody alive will ever know that they are wrong. The usual period is one hundred years, but there are some for fifty years.

and:

Forecasting requires the combination of a properly validated model with a plausible and frequently updated system of futures scenarios. The IPCC admit that they are unable to do this when they say:

“Scenarios are not predictions of the future and should not be used as such.” (Houghton et al 1992).

They have, as a result, refused to make any “predictions” throughout their reports. Instead they make “projections”, defined as follows (Solomon et al. 2007. Glossary):

“Projections are distinguished from predictions in order to emphasize that projections involve assumptions concerning, for example, future socio-economic and technological developments that may or may not be realised and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty.”

So here is an admission of the substantial uncertainty of all their “projections”, which is compounded by the fact that they do not attempt to check whether any of them correspond with the actual emerging behaviour of the climate.

I do love this bit:

The most dishonest statement in the 4th Science Report of the IPCC (Solomon et al. 2007), is to be found in the “Frequently Asked Questions" section on page 104:

“A common confusion between weather and climate arises when scientists are asked how they can predict climate 50 years from now when they cannot predict the weather a few weeks from now. The chaotic nature of weather makes it unpredictable beyond a few days. Projecting changes in climate (i.e., long-term average weather) due to changes in atmospheric composition or other factors is a very different and much more
manageable issue. As an analogy, while it is impossible to predict the age at which any particular man will die, we can say with high confidence that the average age of death for men in industrialised countries is about 75.”

This statement makes no logical sense. If “the chaotic nature” of “weather” makes it “unpredictable” then how can changing its name to “climate” suddenly make it “a more manageable issue”? The question is supposed to be about forecasting, yet we are given an example suggesting that an “average” has “high confidence” when an individual figure has not — a completely irrelevant proposition. There is no guide on how future “averages” or individual figures for the age of death might be forecast. If the suggestion that future “climate” can be forecast when future “weather” cannot were true, one might ask why weather forecasters seem to be unable to find a way of suddenly removing all the “chaos”. The “analogy” is ridiculous. There is no suggestion that we can predict either the average age of death or that of an individual by any known method.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the “chaos” associated with the weather has been eliminated or made “more manageable” merely because they changed the name to “climate”.

Here's his overall conclusion in full:

GENERAL CONCLUSION
All climate data are currently defective. Distributions are unknown, so that plausible averages do not exist.

Studies of global and local temperature records supply no evidence of a steady increase that could be attributed to increases in human-produced greenhouse gases. Instead, the observed oscillations and fluctuations can all be explained by a combination of natural influences, such as the sun and cosmic rays, ocean oscillations, and volcanic eruptions.

Surface measurements are, however, influenced by urban and land-use changes, not evident in corrected country records, many of the more reliable local records and in the lower atmosphere.

The best statement of the reality of our current knowledge of the temperature changes of the climate was made in Chapter 1 of Houghton et al. (2001):

“The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th century and that other trends have been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural.”

The authors of this true statement have been punished in “Climate Change 2007” (Solomon et al. 2007), as the entire first Chapter has been replaced with a “Historical Overview of Climate Change Science”, which is little more than a publicity document for the IPCC.

Computer models of the climate are all based on assumptions that the earth can be considered to be flat and influenced only by average energy components. Variability of all of these components and in the concentration of the main greenhouse gases is also assumed to be non-existent, contrary to all the evidence.

No computer climate model has ever satisfactorily predicted any future climate sequence, so none are suitable for forecasting. This is even admitted by the IPCC, so they assess the value of their “projections” entirely from the opinions of those paid to develop them.

With such a conflict of interest, these assessments are worthless and should be ignored.
There are no plausible scientific arguments currently available which support the view that human greenhouse gas emissions are having a detectable influence on the climate.

Can anyone tell me why the hell we are imposing ridiculous costs on ourselves with such poor evidence and flat out bad science as the only proof of harm?

*Vincent R. Gray , M.A.,Ph.D., F.N.Z.I.C. Climate Consultant

Australia - NZ One Labour Market

We need to keep trying to get the government's collective heads out of the sand with regard to competitiveness with Australia.

What we have is essentially one labour market, with much more attractive rules on the other side of the Tasman.

The coming budget could see Air NZ and Qantas add an extra flight a week to Australia to their already busy schedules.

Surgery gone wrong

I have a very dear friend, who is obese. Her doctor suggested that her health would be improved if she lost a lot of weight, but the diets she has been on have not worked.

(See here for info on the risks of being obese, and here for info on the actual deaths after surgery for weight loss.)

97% of people who diet do not lose weight long term.

So she decided to have a lapband fitted.

It nearly killed her. There were complications that saw her admitted to hospital a week after the initial surgery for two further operations, and another 22 days in hospital.

She went home yesterday, but will need care and will not return to work for at least another two weeks.

It breaks my heart that she felt the need to have the surgery. But I was not surprised at the complications as these are far more common that people know about. (See here for more background on these surgeries.)

We see programmes on TV that tell us how wonderful this kind of surgery is, and what a difference it makes in people's lives and health. There was one on NZ TV just last week.

But they never tell you about the very serious risks. My friend was not told she was risking death.

And they don't tell you that the five year follow-up shows that surgery is often not successful long term in keeping weight off.

While we are constantly told about how sick being fat will make us, we are not told have being fat can keep us alive. Here is a link that talks about the Obesity Paradox.

“Obesity paradox” is a funny term when you think about it. It’s only a paradox — that fat people generally live longer than thin people — because it runs contrary to what a lot of people have come to believe. All we hear nowadays is that being fat is a disease and virtually every health problem experienced by fat people is somehow uniquely horrific.

Read the whole page, then have a look at the other posts by this medical blogger. Really good stuff.

Where does the time come from?

I saw a piece on one of the 7pm shows (I can't recall if it was Campbell Live or Close Up) about a guy in Dunedin who tried public transport to get to work. He said it took him 10 minutes to travel by car and 60 minutes to take the bus.

I have a question... Given that in Auckland this would be even worse, where is this extra time to come from? Is it to come from our family time? Or do we work reduced hours?

Seriously you greenies out there who think it's such a good idea to subsidise public transport because it's better for us, do we sacrifice earning time or family time to take the bus?

Telecom Incompetence

My sister, who lives in a small provincial NZ City, had a home phone line connected to her unit when she moved in about 16 months ago.

No problem. Then three months ago she started getting billed for local, international and mobile phone calls she was not making. After several phone calls to complain, she was credited with the calls, and Telecom said they had fixed the problem that caused the calls to occur. Next account arrives, and once more there is about $80 worth of calls she did not make on her account. Again, she called Telecom, but this time they decided it was her fault, so no credit. So Diane had her phone line cut off to stop the problem while she prepared for battle. After many calls and Telecom eventually FIX the problem, and Diane has her phone reconnected and they credit her for the calls she did not make. It took far longer and far more perseverance than it should have on her behalf. But they fixed it, right?

Um, No.

Now pay attention, because the next bit is almost unbelievable. Next account, and Diane has been charged for calls made while her phone was disconnected.

So once again, Diane sets aside a hour or two to the sit on the phone and try to find someone to sort the issue out.

On finally reaching a real, live person, Diane has to explain the whole story again, and asks for a credit for the calls made while her phone was disconnected. But no, they have to 'investigate' the issue and will call her back within 24 hours. Only they haven't, and it's two days now.

My point, after all this, is how many people just give up and pay because it's not worth their time and energy to fight through Telecom's 'customer service' system?

Anyway, they have lost a customer. Maybe Telecom could include some Valium tablets with their account each month.

The Thompson Questions

What I find really interesting about this sordid affair, is that a woman with a post graduate degree from Victoria University felt it necessary to invent a PhD...

She's obviously an intelligent, articulate woman with such good management skills that she is generally well respected and has been promoted within the public service.

Why did she lie? Why did she use such bad judgment over helping her relatives?

And is this whole PhD a rather large and effective smokescreen to stop us looking more closely at the Labour Cabinet Ministers' involvement in corruption in the Immigration Service?

You can stop wasting money on vitamin supplements now.

Here is a very good analysis of the recent Meta-Analysis of the effect of taking antioxidants and vitamins on longevity.

This review, all 191 pages, was just published online by Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, having been previously published in a February 2007 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. So, its methods have already had a year of external peer-review and corrections, in addition to JAMA’s peer-reviewers. Researchers, led by Dr. Goran Bjelakovic, M.D., DrMedSci, at Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group, Copenhagen Trial Unit at the Center for Clinical Intervention Research at Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark, set out to determine if antioxidant supplements can reduce premature deaths and prolong life. They wanted to see if antioxidant nutrients are effective for primary and secondary preventive health care.

If you read the report, you'll see that, while the study was limited by the fact it was a meta-analysis, it showed pretty clearly that:

Healthy lifestyle programs and anti-aging diets rich in ‘healthy foods’, fruits and vegetables, and special supplements, promise to prevent chronic diseases, promote optimal “wellness,” slow aging and add years to our life. The trouble is, there’s no scientific support for such beliefs, and things have gone way beyond basic nutrition.

The free-radical theory of aging serves as a basis for the prominent role that antioxidants have in the anti-aging, ‘lifestyle medicine’ and the preventive health movement, yet it is based on misunderstandings of how cells detect and repair the damage caused by free radicals and the important role that free radicals play in normal physiological processes. Research on flavonoids and super reds, concentrated antioxidants from colorful fruits and vegetables, and other superfoods, for instance, continues to show no credible scientific evidence for any special healthful virtues or powers to heal or prolong life.

The role of food and lifestyles in causing or preventing cancers is where misinformation is especially ripe. As Dr. Barnett Kramer, deputy director in the office of disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health, said: “Over time, the messages on diet and cancer have been ratcheted up until they are almost co-equal with the smoking messages. I think a lot of the public is completely unaware that the strength of the message is not matched by the strength of the evidence.”

So we are left knowing that expensive supplements and special diets are unnecessary for health.

Isn't that great? Now, whatever you do, don't try to add up all the dollars you have wasted. Just think of how much you can now save.

Apt quote

"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted." Bertrand Russell - 1950 Nobel Prize winner

Hat tip: Richard Worth.

Frightened by global warming? Then read this...

This is far, far scarier.

It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.

There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.

Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases.

There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet.

The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years.

The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years.

The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027.

By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining.

These are the words of Phil Chapman, a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in San Francisco. He was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.

He also says:

We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades.

The probability that we are witnessing the onset of a real ice age is much less, perhaps one in 500, but not totally negligible.

All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.

It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.

In the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

This scares me far, far more than anything the AGW scaremongers say.

Hat tip: No Minister

Question, Question, Question

There have been many stories about how the 'epdimic' of obesity in children was leading to an 'epidemic' of Type II Diabetes.

But here you can see that there is no reliable evidence that the 'increase' has been anything more than a change in the diagnostic threshold and the increased use of testing.

"Is the overall incidence of diabetes rising? It is difficult to say. This is because the standards for diagnosing diabetes have changed radically over the last 30 years. We have gone from measuring glucose in the urine to carrying out an elaborate procedure known as the oral glucose tolerance test and finally to relying solely on fasting blood glucose. The level defining diabetes was dropped from 140 to 126 mg/dL in the 1990s. Loosening the diagnostic standards greatly increased the number of people classified as diabetic. Also, screening for diabetes has been stepped up, and now most people over age 45 are supposed to be checked every 3 years. In contrast, the average fasting blood glucose level in the adult population is about 85 mg/dL, and this value has not changed in decades. If there truly were an epidemic of diabetes, the average blood glucose level would rise, just as the average body weight has risen."

So it pays to question the use of the scaremongering stats that we are killing our kids with food. Question, Question, Question.

Also you may be familiar with this:

In 2002, Dr. William Klish of Texas Children's Hospital told the Houston Chronicle: "If we don't get this epidemic [of childhood obesity] in check, for the first time in a century children will be looking forward to a shorter life expectancy than their parents." Since then, Klish's statement has entered the lexicon of obesity scaremongers, making its way into countless articles, editorials, and even Congressional testimony—all without so much as a shred of credible research to back it up. Klish himself told the Center for Consumer Freedom that while he is the source of this pessimistic prognostication, his claim does not come from "evidence-based research." Rather, he explained: "It's based on intuition."

So basically, he just made it up. But he's not alone:

On March 17, 2005, more than three years after Klish first suggested the theory, The New England Journal of Medicine released a deeply flawed but highly publicized study that appeared to justify Klish's assertion. It claimed that because of obesity, the "youth of today may, on average, live less healthy and possibly even shorter lives than their parents." But like Klish, Dr. S. Jay Olshansky and his co-authors admitted that their dire prediction relied on their "collective judgment" rather than empirical, scientific evidence.

But what about the truth?

In May 2005, Science magazine published an article on the controversy over obesity deaths following the publication of a paper by Dr. Katherine Flegal and co-authors that said the number of deaths from excess weight was just one-fifteenth what the CDC said it had been. In the article, Olshansky appeared to back off his conclusions about life expectancy. According to Science:

"Olshansky now says that in light of Flegal's recent paper on obesity deaths and a companion paper that she, Williamson, and other CDC scientists authored in the same issues of JAMA, his life expectancy forecasts might be inaccurate."

Even before the Flegal study, Olshansky had more than his share of critics. "The Olshansky piece is seriously flawed," explained Dr. James Vaupel, director of the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Germany. "His perspective is that of an advocate making a case rather than a scientist evaluating the body of conflicting evidence."

So again, we need to question, question, question everything and don't just believe the health nazis.

Mike Williams should resign from more than the Labour Party

As Liberty Scott points out:

"Helen Clark rejected the idea, it is time for Williams to lie down on the sword and go. He has too many roles in too many government agencies that make his position in ALL of them untenable. This is his record:

- Board member of Transit New Zealand;

- Board member of Ontrack (New Zealand Railways Corporation);

- Board member of Genesis Energy;

- Board member of Auckland Regional Transport Authority;

- Director of the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd."

Williams' position on all these boards makes a mockery of good governance. He must go right now.

Shame

I wonder where the shame has gone. Mike Williams, president of the Labour Party, was caught telling nine lies, one after another, blatantly on TV on Sunday morning.

Sometimes, the only thing that stops someone telling lies is the shame they will feel if caught out. It appears there is no shame left in the people who run Labour Party.

Where are the Labour Party members, MPs, senior party people... why are they NOT calling for Mike Williams to fall on his sword?

Do they condone his 'confusion'? or condemn his blatant lies? Which is it?

Pumpkin Soup

I have been asked for my Pumpkin Soup recipe. People seem to like it. So here it is.

1 onion diced
1 rasher of bacon
Olive oil
1 (floury) potato - peeled and diced
1 small or 1/2 large pumpkin - peeled and diced
water and a teaspoon of chicken stock powder (or use real chicken stock if you have it)
salt, pepper and nutmeg
Milk
Sour cream and nutmeg to serve

Saute the onion and bacon in the olive oil until the onion is soft. Add the potato, pumpkin and sufficient water to almost cover. Season with some salt, pepper and freshly grated nutmeg. Cover and simmer for about 30 minutes until the veges are soft.

Puree with a stick blender, or mash, or transfer to a blender or food processor and process until smooth.

Return to the pot and stir in enough milk to make it the consistency you prefer. I like mine quite thick.

To serve, ladle it into a bowl, add a swirl of sour cream and sprinkle with a light dusting of freshly grated nutmeg.

Yum.

Separate Seat for Maori

Here, Pita Sharples is says we need separate seats for Maori on an Auckland-wide council.

Um, No.

Starving Toddlers Mistaken for a Healthy Diet

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Here is a blog post about how well-intentioned parents and childcare workers are inadvertently starving toddlers of the nutrients they need, by feeding them a diet too high in fibre and too low in fats and protein.

'Nurseries are applying the principles of adult healthy eating to the food they are supplying to young children,' said Sarah Almond, a consultant specialist paediatric dietician who has analysed the results of a trading standards study into nursery food.

'We expected the study to show nurseries were serving children food that was too high in calories, fat, saturated fat and salt, and low in vegetables and fruit. Instead, we found that the majority of nurseries had gone to the other extreme and appeared to be providing food that was too low in calories, fat and saturated fat, and too high in fruit and vegetables.' This situation was putting children at the risk of developing nutritional deficiencies, she said.

An adult diet is not suitable for young children.

And this post talks about how interfering with the diets and exercise of children at school has also been unsuccessful in changing obesity rates or any other indicator.

"Since every school-based childhood obesity intervention to date has failed to show lasting improvements in children’s diets, activity levels or health outcomes, or in reducing obesity, this study has added importance. As the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and even the Institutes of Medicine have concluded after reviewing 6,900 studies and abstracts, there is no quality evidence to support these childhood obesity interventions. And the government’s own statistics even negate the need for them, as there have been no significant increases in the numbers of children considered “overweight” since 1999-2000 and children are healthier and expected to live longer than at any other time in our history.

And you might be tempted to ask:

Did it do any good?

You might be tempted to think that after 2 years, this pervasive school-based “healthy eating” initiative might have at least led the kids to eat more fruits and vegetables. Before the study began, these inner city, poor and minority children had been eating an average of 5.64 servings of fruits and vegetables a day.

Remember, the stereotype about how awful poor, minority children in obesogenic environments must be eating?

Among the kids who completed the study, the number of servings of fruits and vegetables they were eating — after 2 years of “healthy eating” education — had dropped. The intervention group had decreased their servings to 4.17 a day. The control group kids were actually eating slightly more fruits and vegetables than the kids in the intervention group.

Most worrisome, how many young people had eliminated meat, milk, fats and carbs from their diets believing they were eating “healthier” and that those foods made them feel weak and unhealthy? How many were restricting their eating trying to control their weights or due to fears of ‘unhealthy’ foods that would give them heart disease, cancer and diabetes? How many were already developing dysfunctional relationships with food that will follow them for years to come, rather than eating normally? While the authors reported no nutritional analyses, and the dietary intakes were self-reported, the available data indicates cause for concern. The kids in the program were eating about 234 kcal/day less on average than the control group (notice, once again, with no effect on weights). Based on their average heights, weights, age, and activity levels, it would appear these girls were undereating — and eating fewer calories than recommended by the Baylor College of Medicine Energy Needs Calculator for children (used by the 2005 U.S. Dietary Guidelines) for good health, growth and development, and nutrition.

There is also no evidence to support that these interventions improve the health of these children, which should be a greater priority than what size clothes they wear. And what happened to their academic performance and test scores, while they were spending so much class time counting calories and reading food labels? Given the CDC, RWJF, and thousands of special interests are promoting these comprehensive school “healthy eating and activity” programs which have no evidence of effectiveness, parents and taxpayers might ask if educational and healthcare resources might be better spent in other ways that could better children’s futures, especially for underprivileged families.

Hmmm... Let's keep the busybodies out of our kids' lives.