Tag Archives: #JAFA

TurbineGate – More #JAFA Fraud Posing As “Science”

27 Jul

On Monday evening, ABC’s Four Corners ran a story about wind farms and alleged adverse health effects.

I didn’t see it.

But I did see this story from Yahoo!7 referencing the Four Corners program.

And reading the last part immediately elevated my blood pressure (emphasis added):

Electrical engineer Graeme Hood from the University of Ballarat used audio equipment to check sound levels near the turbines.

He said although the turbines don’t sound very loud, they’re actually producing sound at a frequency too low to hear.

“The brain thinks it’s quiet, but the ears may be telling you something else or the body may be telling you something else, it’s much louder,” he said.

Anti-wind farm campaigner Dr Sarah Laurie said people within a 10km radius of turbines could be at risk of health problems such as elevated blood pressure and headaches.

But University of Adelaide professor Gary Wittert, who has conducted one of the first independent studies into wind farm health issues, denies there’s any link.

He used data from the the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to compare medical prescriptions of people living in areas with and without turbines.

His study involved 12,000 people living within a 10km radius around wind farms in South Australia and Victoria.

“There is no hint of any effect on a population basis for an increased use of sleeping pills or blood pressure or cardiovascular medications whatsoever,” he said.



So that’s how a scientific “study” into possible adverse health effects is conducted is it?

Just scan the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme database, for purchases of certain kinds of prescription medication. 

And if people in areas near wind farms have not been running off to the doctor-thence-chemist to drug themselves up with prescription medicine at a demonstrably higher average rate than in other (unnamed) populated areas, then you come out singing for your politically-correct Clean Energy Future funding supper by claiming your “independent study” finds that there are no adverse health effects from wind farms.

A couple of really basic questions, Professor.

1. Were the comparative sample regions (wind farm vs no wind farm) identical geographically, and more importantly, topographically?

After all, we are talking about possible health effects that, if present, it is only logical to first hypothesise will be health effects most likely caused by physical forces (ie, “sound” or compression waves).  And thus, the “lay of the land” (ie, the topography), % ground cover, vegetation type and coverage, variant resonant effects of differing soil types, air temperature and density, even the prevailing wind direction and strength relative to both the compression wave source and the population centre/s, are all critically relevant factors, and thus must all be as nearly identical as possible between the sample sets, in order for a so-called “study” based solely on prescription medication purchases to have even a shred of relevance or credibility.

2. Were the sample subjects (the people) 100% commensurable in terms of their socio-demographs? In all respects?!

Like … were you comparing, say, areas of predominantly hard-working tough-‘n-hardy rural folk living near said wind farms (and miles by car-only from the nearest doctor), with areas of predominantly obese TV-addicted couch potato welfare bogans living in non wind farm areas with half a dozen GP’s within a 10 minute taxpayer-subsidised bus ride?

In other words, were you comparing subjects who, in a socio-demographic context, are equally predisposed socially, psychologically, and financially, to run off to the doctor for prescription meds every time they feel a bit of a headache?  In a world where the standard societal “prescription” response to a headache – paracetamol and/or codeine – are readily available over-the-counter?

Here’s an idea, Professor Wittert.

Show us your raw data.

All of it.


Galileo, Copernicus, Nicolas of Cusa, Newton, Einstein, and Feynman must be turning in their graves.

Oh … and just one other, tiny little thing.

Could Professor Wittert’s pathetic, insult-to-intelligence foray into the world of bullshit “science” studies that just happen to come out in support of a Big Dollar, financially-important sub-area of the Great Global Warming Hoax, have anything at all to do with the fact that his last funding grant runs out this year?

From the University Of Adelaide’s website (emphasis added):

Professor Gary Wittert, MBBch, MD, FRACP

Current Funded Research

2003-2006    Florey Foundation: A study of health and ageing in north-west Adelaide men           $450,000
2003 – 2007  University of Adelaide: Healthy Aging Research Cluster  $300,000
2004-2006    ARC linkage Grant: Obesity, Health, Social Disadvantage and Environment in Australia:   Relationships and Policy Implications    $1.4 Million
2005-2006    Brailsford Roberston Grant (CSIRO & Uni.Adelaide Trust for the Centre for International Nutrition Collaborative Research): Dietary interventions for overweight/ obese women prior to pregnancy–safety & efficacy of low calorie & low carbohydrate diets.         $200,000
2006-2008    Premiers Science Research Council: Florey Adelaide Male Ageing Study                  $300,000
2007     Medical Benefits Foundation: Effects of obesity and rapid weight-loss induced using a modified very low calorie diet on cardiovascular risk factors, vascular and ventricular structure and function in obesity.  $146,955
2007-2008      NH&MRC equipment grant: Automated image analysis systems for the    high- throughput  immunohistochemical analysis of clinical and experimental samples.  $150,000
2007-2009    ARC Discovery: Declining mental efficiency, cognitive performance and individual differences in aged function  $450,000. 
2007-2011    NH&MRC Centre for Clinical Research in Nutritional Physiology  $2.0 Million

Oh crap!

My big funding grant for the centre for research into “nutritional physiology” runs out this year.

Better find a new intellectual wank area of “study”, wherein to hoist aloft my medically-credentialled #JAFA flag, and land myself some more funding for the next X years.

Hey … what about that Clean Energy Future racket?

Hasn’t the government proposed a $10 billion “picking winners” Clean Energy Finance fund to be administered by the Greens?

There’s got to be a way that a medical researcher can get some of that moolah.

Hmmmmm … thinking, thinking.

Ah ha!! Of course!

I’ll just do a totally BS, from-the-comfort-of-my-office, behind-a-computer, without-ever-actually-studying-or-physically-examining-any-of-the-comparative-sample-area-subjects-or-their-respective-environments “study” into the claims of adverse health affects from wind farms.

I’ll say – as a medical “expert” – that there is no evidence of any.

Hope that no one points out that my entire study conclusion rests on the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium.

And the movers and shakers in the Clean Energy Future regime will all love me, and throw some of that lovely green money my way.


This “science” funding game is too easy.

It’s Astounding! The World Bank’s New Treasurer Is Former Lehman Bros’ Global Head Of Risk Management

30 Jun

“It’s astounding;
Time is fleeting;
Madness takes its toll.
But listen closely…”

You really can’t make this stuff up.

Remember Lehman Brothers?

The Wall Street bank whose collapse in September 2008 sparked the global meltdown known as the Global Financial Crisis?

It seems that putting the whole world inside a real-life Rocky Horror Show through your galactic incompetence, corruption, and/or “voyeuristic intention”, is just the kind of stellar accomplishment to earn you the attention – and the anointing – of the premier banksters on the planet:

World Bank Appoints Madelyn Antoncic as Treasurer

Press Release No: 2011/564/EXT

Brings “record of leadership, innovation, and integrity,” Zoellick says

WASHINGTON, June 23, 2011 The World Bank today appointed Madelyn Antoncic as its new Vice President and Treasurer, hiring an experienced senior executive from the financial industry who has been active in the regulatory and policy debate.

“Known for her forthrightness, I am delighted Madelyn is taking up this important role,” said World Bank Group President Robert B. Zoellick. “She brings to the Bank an extensive background in the financial industry and a demonstrated record of leadership, innovation, and integrity.

As Treasurer, Antoncic will be responsible for maintaining the World Bank’s high standing in financial markets and for managing an extensive client advisory, transaction, and asset management business. She will be responsible for leading seven Treasury business lines: the Capital Markets Department; Investment Management Department; Pension & Endowments; Quantitative Risk Analytics; Treasury Operations Department; Banking & Debt Management, and Sovereign Investment Partnerships.

Biographical details:

Antoncic began her career as an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York where she carried out research on economic and money market conditions as well as on finance. In 1985, she began 12 years at Goldman Sachs in various posts, including as head of market risk management, special assistant to the co-vice chairmen and more than seven years trading structured products. She then had a 2-year stint at Barclays Capital as the Americas’ Head of Market Risk Management and Treasurer.

After leaving Barclays in 1999, Antoncic joined Lehman Brothers as Global Head of Risk Policy and subsequently Global Head of Market Risk Management; from 2002-2007, she served as Chief Risk Officer. In 2007, she was moved to an externally focused role as Global Head of Financial Markets Policy Relations. After the Lehman bankruptcy, Antoncic agreed to stay on for a year as Managing Director and Senior Advisor at the Lehman Estate to help maximize the value to Lehman creditors.

Since 2007, Antoncic has been active in the regulatory and policy debate, working with industry groups advising senior policy makers on regulatory reform and systemic risk issues. She was a policy member of the Counterparty Risk Management Policy Group (CRMPG) III and a member of the Institute of International Finance (IIF) Committee on Market Best Practices.

A U.S. national, Antoncic holds a Ph.D. in Economics and Finance from New York University.


David Theis: 202-458-8626

Broadcast— Natalia Cieslik: 202-458-9369

Did the World Bank also interview Bernie Madoff for the job?

Or did his prison sentence, and his little Ponzi scheme’s abject failure to shaft billions of ordinary people (he only screwed thousands … of wealthy people), preclude him from being in the running?

And on that truly inspirational note – Happy End of Financial Year to you all!

Sing along everyone …

It’s astounding;
Time is fleeting;
Madness takes its toll.
But listen closely…

Not for very much longer.

I’ve got to keep control.

I remember doing the time-warp
Drinking those moments when
The Blackness would hit me

And the void would be calling…

Let’s do the time-warp again.
Let’s do the time-warp again.

It’s just a jump to the left.

And then a step to the right.

Put your hands on your hips.

You bring your knees in tight.
But it’s the pelvic thrust
That really drives you insane.
Let’s do the time-warp again.
Let’s do the time-warp again.

It’s so dreamy, oh fantasy free me.
So you can’t see me, no, not at all.
In another dimension, with
voyeuristic intention,
Well secluded, I see all.

With a bit of a mind flip

You’re into the time slip.

And nothing can ever be the same.

You’re spaced out on sensation.

Like you’re under sedation.

Let’s do the time-warp again.
Let’s do the time-warp again.

Well I was walking down the street
just a-having a think
When a snake of a guy gave me an
evil wink.
He shook-a me up, he took me by surprise.
He had a pickup truck, and the
devil’s eyes.
He stared at me and I felt a change.
Time meant nothing, never would again.

Let’s do the time-warp again.
Let’s do the time-warp again.

It’s just a jump to the left.

And then a step to the right.

Put your hands on your hips.

You bring your knees in tight.
But it’s the pelvic thrust
That really drives you insane.
Let’s do the time-warp again.
Let’s do the time-warp again.

Think about it.

Final Proof That RBA Governor Glenn Stevens Is Either A Liar, Or A Blithering Idiot

13 Jun

Illustration - John Shakespeare

Reserve Bank of Australia Governor Glenn Stevens has been criticised at this blog previously:

Stevens’ Nonchalance ‘Stunning’

Stevens: ‘Risk Of Serious Contraction’ Passed

Stevens’ Australia’s Most Useless?

Now, conclusive proof that our Guv’na … who earns $1.05 million per annum, including a $234,000 pay rise at the peak of the GFC … is an ignorant, incompetent, ivory-towered #JAFA who should be sacked immediately, if not sooner.

From the RBA’s own website, behold! Stevens’ official speech to the Australian Business Economists Annual Dinner, Sydney, 9 December 2008.  That’s right around the time that you, dear reader, were cr@pping yourself about the imploding global sharemarket … and he was enjoying a $234,000 pay rise.

Let’s see what he had to say about the Global Financial Crisis, and the events leading to it (emphasis added):

Many people have said to me recently that the times are ‘interesting’. My response has been that they are, perhaps, a little too interesting. I need not remind this audience of the international financial turmoil through which we have lived over the past almost year and a half, nor of the intensity of the events since mid September this year, in particular.

I do not know anyone who predicted this course of events. This should give us cause to reflect on how hard a job it is to make genuinely useful forecasts. What we have seen is truly a ‘tail’ outcome – the kind of outcome that the routine forecasting process never predicts.

Mr Stevens, you are either a liar.

Or, you are a blithering idiot.

Here’s a paper referencing more than a dozen international economists who all predicted and forewarned of the GFC for years in advance, and propounded cogent analyses as to why a GFC was coming. One of them, Australia’s own Dr Steve Keen, won an award voted on by his international economic peers for having done so:

This paper presents evidence that accounting (or flow-of-fund) macroeconomic models helped anticipate the credit crisis and economic recession. Equilibrium models ubiquitous in mainstream policy and research did not.

[* So is it any wonder then, that our much-ridiculed accountant in the Parliament, Senator Barnaby Joyce, is always the only one on the ball when it comes to correctly predicting the risks of what is coming?]

Indeed, here’s Dr Keen on our national broadcaster’s premier political program, The 7:30 Report, way back in November 2007 – 10 months before the Lehman Bro’s collapse kicked off the GFC main event – talking about the RBA’s latest interest rate increase, and warning of the dangers of high household debt levels:

So right there is one prominent Australian economist, who was loudly and very publicly forewarning of a coming GFC. For 3 years prior!

Indeed, lots of other, ordinary people like me saw the GFC coming too, and so were able to protect themselves from the financial devastation.

Devastation that you, Mr Stevens, somehow could not see coming.

You say, “I do not know anyone who predicted this course of events”.

Well mate, our taxes say it’s your #&^%! $1.05 million job to know!

Millions of good, decent, trusting Aussies lost hundreds of billions from their retirement savings, thanks to a GFC that jumped-up, mainstream-theory-blinkered imbeciles like you couldn’t see coming.  When so many others – little people, with simple commonsense – did.

You are a national disgrace. And your Million Dollar Man salary, a despicable waste of taxpayers money.

Sack Glenn Stevens now.

Barnaby Bamboozles Chief Of Climate Change Modelling Unit … Again

8 Jun

Meet Meghan Quinn.

Head of the Department of Treasury‘s Climate Change Modelling Unit

h/t Sleetmute for the following amusing encounter (emphasis added):

Hansard, June 1, 2011

Senator JOYCE: Just out of curiosity, Dr Nigel Ray calls it ‘climate change modelling’. So, of all the other things, did you model how much the climate was going to change; and, if so, how much will it change?

Ms Quinn: Perhaps I could take that question. The Treasury looks at the economic implications of climate change mitigation, and we have been very clear about that in terms of the skill sets and the types of analysis that we look at. We do not look at the science of climate change. We have not looked at the implications of climate impacts on the Australian economy.

Senator JOYCE: Do any of these models give any sort of prediction about any sort of change in the climate?

Ms Quinn: That is a question you would have to ask a climate scientist.

Senator JOYCE: Why do you call it ‘climate change modelling’, if you have no idea of what it is going to do to the climate?

Ms Quinn: We call it ‘climate change mitigation modelling’.

Senator JOYCE: So how much is it mitigating the climate by?

Senator Wong: Senator, those questions should go to Climate Change.

Senator JOYCE: I am just curious. It just seems peculiar to go through all of these things and they do not actually do anything for the climate.

You ‘aint seen nuthin’ yet.

Barnaby has questioned Ms Quinn before.  On the important topic of all those “green jobs” we’re supposedly going to see.

WARNING:  Hold onto your sides, and keep your coffee / tea / beer / scotch / Red Bull / absinthe well clear of the keyboard –

Hansard, June 3, 2009

Senator Barnaby Joyce: In your modelling as you transfer people into jobs, where were those jobs, Ms Quinn?

Meghan Quinn: The general shift from higher intensive emission industries to lower intensive emission industries. So there is a table on 6.12.

SBJ: Give me an example of the Top 3.

MQ: Increases in the electricity supply for renewable energy.

SBJ: The supply for renewable energy, so what are those people doing?

MQ: The supply of renewable energy covers all types of energy, hydro, wind, geothermal potentially by 2050.

SBJ: These people want to turn up to work what are they actually doing. What do they look like, are they construction workers, are they electricians, are they accountants?

MQ: The actual electricity supply … the people working in the industries. People who are looking after the production of the actual wind farm, the operation of the wind farm. The construction component would be captured by the construction sector.

SBJ: What is the person who is operating the wind farm? What is he or she doing?

MQ: I am not a technical engineer so I don’t think I can answer that question.

SBJ: Have you been to an actual wind farm lately?

MQ: I’ve seen a wind farm, yes.

SBJ: How many people did you see working there?

MQ: Well there was a person taking me around.

SBJ: Generally no one?

MQ: Well I don’t know. There must be some.

SBJ: Been out to a coal mine lately?

MQ: Not lately.

SBJ: From what you have seen on television does it seem like many people working there?

MQ: There has a been a reduction in the share of people working in the mining industry generally.

SBJ: What’s your next big one?

MQ: Forestry

SBJ: Forestry? OK, so what are the people doing there in forestry. What are the people doing there?

MQ: I presume they are looking after trees.

SBJ: Have you been to a forest lately?

MQ: Yes.

SBJ: Did you see many people wandering around there, any people working?

MQ: I am not an expert on the particular industrial structure of these industries.

SBJ: What’s your third one?

MQ: They are spread over a number. Other manufacturing.

SBJ: What are they actually manufacturing in the other manufacturing?

MQ: A whole range of manufacturing. I can give you a breakdown. I would have to check the categories. I know what it is not. I know it is not motor vehicles, metals or metal products.

SBJ: Can you think of anything they would be manufacturing in the other manufacturing?

MQ: I would have to take it on notice.

SBJ: I am just going looking for those green jobs, I have to start finding them now.

MQ: Employment redistribution in the employment model is not necessarily what you would think of as green jobs. There are shifts in employment in what you might not think of as green jobs as we move from high to low emission industries.

SBJ: That’s constructing wind towers?

MQ: There is a reallocation in the Australian industry from high emission to low emission. It doesn’t necessarily relate to renewable energy, it’s simply producing goods that are low emission.

SBJ: It stands to reason. You take someone out of a mine you give them a brush cutter and tell them to start to wander around the forest. This is all fanciful.

The mind boggles, does it not.

It is just these kind of disconnected-from-reality, parallel-universe-dwelling, ivory-towered, holier-than-thou, commonsenseless, flittering pixie JAFA theorists who are getting paid a fortune – using our tax dollars – to “model” the legislation that will determine our future.

Great, isn’t it.

Unelected, Unaccountable JAFA Garnaut Calls For Unelected, Unaccountable, Unholy Trinity Of Carbon Gods

1 Jun

The Labor/Green/Independent government’s hand-picked, unelected, unaccountable, Solomon Islands strip-clearing, water polluting, gold mining, $5 Million taxpayer-salaried, Grand Poobah #JAFA, Mr Ross Garnaut, has decreed called for a trinity of unelected, unaccountable, unnamed “independent” persons to oversee the totalitarians wet dream Eco-dictatorship.

From the Herald Sun:

Do not give the unelected a power to tax you

One idea in Ross Garnaut’s report to the Gillard Government yesterday must be fought by every democrat.

No, this country must not let its future be decided by an unelected committee.

It’s already bad enough that we’ll get a foolish tax the Government promised before the election not to impose.

But sneaking around the people’s will seems the mission of today’s warmist.

Garnaut, the Government’s global warming guru, yesterday recommended an “independent” committee decide how much we cut our emissions – which, in turn, influences the level of any carbon dioxide tax.

This essentially means unelected people will decide how much to jack up your bills for power and petrol, and everything made with them.

Yes, their call can be overruled by the Government, but the aim is to make a political decision “non-political”.

The Government seems keen on Garnaut’s plan because of the very reason it should never be adopted.

Labor and the Greens are squabbling right now over how much to cut our emissions in their negotiations over next year’s carbon dioxide tax.

Labor wants our emissions cut by much less than the Greens demand, because it fears what voters might do to it once they realise what this useless sacrifice will cost.

But if an “independent” committee made that decision, the Government could claim its own hands were clean. Blame the committee, instead.

This is frankly sold as an anti-democratic move that warmists need.

As one media report approvingly noted: “Garnaut has concluded the only safe way to manage a carbon price going forward is to keep politicians as far away from the process as possible.”

You can punish politicians. Bureaucrats, you can’t. So Garnaut’s plan will leave the policies to people beyond your influence.

That may please Garnaut, but the rest of us should fight.

Already we will get a tax we didn’t vote for. Now we are told the tax will be overseen by people we’ll never vote for.

Protest. Do not surrender your power.

Andrew Bolt is right.

But he misses a crucial point. Because he does not Follow The Money.


One of the three gods in Garnaut’s unholy trinity of “independent” regulatory entities, is an “independent” Carbon Bank.

We have looked at this evil idea before (see “Our ‘Squeeze Pop’ Carbon Bank”).

It is nothing more than a ruse to allow banksters – the same people who gave us the GFC – to get their hands on billions of taxpayer’s money right from the start. Even before the move from an initial fixed price “tax”, to a legislated-to-rise “market” priced Emissions Trading Scheme in “3 to 5 years”.

And it is this particular unholy god that will bankrupt the country.


One of the “powers” that the eco-fascists like Garnaut and the peak “clean energy” lobby group want an “independent” carbon bank to be granted, is the power to BORROW against future CO2 tax revenues, and “invest” those borrowings:

An independent carbon bank, similar to the Reserve Bank, should be set up to oversee a carbon price and investment in clean technology, the peak renewable energy lobby says.

The Clean Energy Council will today release a discussion paper proposing the carbon bank, which it says could be allowed to borrow money to invest in renewable energy projects against the future revenue of Labor’s proposed carbon tax and emissions trading scheme.

Note that well.

Borrowing … and “investing” … against the future government tax revenue.

In other words, the government … meaning taxpayers … would be the guarantor for any losses on those “investments”.

In a bankster-designed, multi-trillion dollar, global air-trading derivatives market.

We have all seen just how well things work out for the little people, when governments pass laws that effectively give unelected, unaccountable banksters free reign over markets (and thus, our economy).

It’s time to stand up and be counted.

To take our country back, before the eco-fascist banksters bankrupt us all. Once and for all.

Make your voice heard.

Call your MP’s and Senators today.

#JAFA – Just Another F***ing Academic

26 May

In recognition of last week’s “independent” Climate Commissioners’ report on global warming – handed down from on high by dinosaur bone “scientist”, “Mr Panasonic” Tim Flannery – and in honour of the new anti-carbon tax Galileo Movement, I’m going to make a commitment.

To inaugurate a new Twitter # tag in my future tweets whenever global warming, carbon dioxide taxes/trading, or climate “science” is topical.

#JAFA. Just Another F***ing Academic.

True science has always been about questioning the “consensus” view. Doubting the “experts”.

Perhaps my favourite scientist of all time is 15th century genius, polymath, mystic, and Catholic Church cardinal (!), Nicholas of Cusa.  One of his master works is titled, De Docta Ignorantia.

On Learned Ignorance / On Scientific Ignorance.

In the words of another true scientist, 20th century Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman:

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts

Hope to see your own ‘learned ignorance’ flowing on the #JAFA stream.

%d bloggers like this: