Web Statements

Truth

As we are concerned with lies that we are being told, we need to clarify what we mean by truth.

We can consider truth as a type of map. A traveller will use a map to plan an optimal path across terrain. If the map is accurate, a traveller can plan the most efficient path from A to B. In this way, they can enjoy the best features of the trip and avoid the dangers such as precipices and raging rivers. On the other hand, a traveller does not need an accurate map of an area they are not traversing. If I choose to hike in Tasmania, it is of no concern to me that a map of Queensland might be totally inaccurate.

In life, truth serves the same purpose. If we have the full facts about a given situation, we can then determine the best course of action or the best type of response to that situation.

The two most controversial topics of discussion are politics and religion. The reason they are controversial is that no-one has all of the facts and the debate consists mainly of personal surmises.

There are at least two circumstances in which the truth is of no concern to us:

1. If we have no need to respond.
2. If the information is of no benefit to us.

An example of the first circumstance occurs when a politician is found to be having an affair with his secretary. What response is necessary? Who cares? Of course, his political opponents will spread the word widely in the hope of discrediting and possibly displacing him.

When faced with some accusation of impropriety that is of a private nature, the best response of a politician should be: ‘It’s none of your business’.

Information is of no benefit when it may be hurtful to the recipient. Let us say that a very dear friend of yours is on his deathbed. As he is sinking, he takes your hand, thanks you for your loyalty and mentions that you are the only associate that has never tried to hit on his wife. What would

then be the use of you telling him the truth that, in fact, you have been having an affair with his wife for years and that there is some question about the parentage of his children?

From earliest childhood, we are taught to tell the truth at all times. What is more, we have all been conditioned to expect pain if we do not tell the truth. We therefore undergo psychological stress whenever we tell a lie. It is the physiological changes which occur as a result of this that

makes a lie detector useful.

• Excerpt from “The Lies of the Land”

Lecture vs teach

We have a plethora of lecturers in this country but very few real teachers – and there is a difference.

A lecture has been defined as a process by which the notes of the lecturer are transferred to the notes of the student without passing through the minds of either.

Teaching, on the other hand, is a quality assurance process by which the ideas of the teacher are inculcated into the mind of the student.

Let us say that I manufacture ball bearings and you come to me with specific requirements – e.g. ball bearings of specific size, hardness, etc. I now set my machine to produce a run and test to see that they meet these requirements. If they don’t, I re-set my machine and produce further runs and tests until the requirements are met.

Do teachers ever do this? No. They give a lecture without ever testing whether the student has absorbed or even understood it (exams are a test of the teacher’s competence rather than the student’s). And we wonder why students are not interested in STEM subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) or why we get applicants for teacher training who can’t manage a 50% academic score.

Marie Curie

Madame Curie once stated: “There is nothing in this world to be feared, only to be understood. Let us understand more that we may fear less”. When politicians seek to control us by fear, let us first understand their motives.

Global warming

15 years ago, the term “Global Warming” was the buzz word. We hear no more of global warming – the bete noir is now “Climate Change”. This is because virtually every catastrophic prediction of the global warming alarmists has now been proven false. In spite of this, the cry is still: “Something must be done” – namely a reduction of Carbon dioxide emissions.

But, there is absolutely no statistical correlation between Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and atmospheric temperature. So the gas that had absolutely nothing to do with global warming is now  the cause of climate change even though it has absolutely nothing to do with that either

The percentage of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only 0.04% compared to Oxygen 21% and Nitrogen 78%. Both of the latter gases have higher specific heats (heat retaining capacities) than Carbon dioxide – which explains why there is no correlation between Carbon dioxide and atmospheric temperature.

Even if emissions caused global warming, one large bushfire would offset a year’s total emission restraint. Restriction of emissions is therefore a costly imposition and a useless solution to an entirely different problem.

Climate fluctuations are due to solar radiation, not man-made emissions.

LAKE EYRE

Why is the government  planning to waste $2billion making a relatively useless upgrade to the Snowy Mountain scheme when a much cheaper scheme – the engineering of Lake Eyre – would provide immeasurably greater benefits.

A pipeline from the Southern Ocean to Lake Eyre would keep the lake permanently full. Evaporation from Lake Eyre is about 1 cm per day. This has 2 effects – atmospheric cooling (for those worried about global warming) and an increased rainfall over the Eastern states. Increased rainfall would provide more water to the Murray Darling basin and increased river flows to South Australia.

But wait, there’s more!

What if the pipeline were engineered to contain electricity-generating turbines? A 1 metre rise in ocean tide would deliver about 26 billion metric tonnes of water in and out of Lake Eyre twice per day. This would continue to provide continuous cheap electricity for as long as the moon circled the earth. Would we then need any Solar, Wind-powered, Coal-fired or Nuclear power stations?

MAGNA CARTA

 The law of the land is not only a series of prohibitions, it is also meant to offer protections as well.

It is a basic principle of law that that which is not prohibited is allowed. Hence, any person who does not engage in prohibited conduct should have the protection of the law against arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. This principle of British law goes back to the signing of the Magna Carta by King John at Runnymeade in 1215:

ARTICLE 39.       No freeman shall be arrested or imprisoned or deprived of his freehold or outlawed or banished or in any way ruined, nor will we take or order action against him, except by the lawful judgment of his equals and according to the law of the land.

ARTICLE 40.  To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay right or justice.

Peer Review

 Peer review is a way of silencing troublemakers. Peer review is being used to prevent debate and to silence unwanted criticism. Unchallenged information may profit an individual or propaganda unit but it is a fraud on society. A postulate can only be true if there are no exceptions to it. But a postulate does not become true simply by suppressing evidence that it is false. Suppression of fact and claims of “peer-reviewed” are widely used to protect demonstrably incorrect assertions of political propagandists and even scientists working in fields ranging from climate change to cosmology

One must realise that a peer, by definition, is an equal. Providing a journal can get a few mates to deny suitability for publication, the matter is closed. There is no guarantee (and indeed no likelihood) that anyone with a view contrary to that of the editor ever takes part in a review.

Any published garbage can claim to be peer reviewed. I could publish an article claiming that people with ingrown toenails are all half-wits. I don’t have to get anyone to agree – I simply say that the article is peer reviewed. When have you ever seen the names of the reviewers attached to any article? Peer review was originally used to advise that an article was worth reading – not that it was necessarily inviolable truth.

The fact that billions of taxpayers’ dollars (here and abroad) are consumed each year on shonky scientific research might explain why peer review is so useful to those receiving the benefit of such funds.

Pumped Hydro

Anyone with a basic knowledge of physics realises that Pumped Hydro-electric Power is an exercise in stupidity. We expect this from politicians but not from engineers.

Let us say that the energy contained in a given volume of water falling from a higher level to a lower level is E. The total energy extractible from that fall is therefore E. If this water is passed through an electricity generator, the maximum electricity that can be produced is, at best, 0.9E as the best efficiency of any engine is 90%.

Now, to restore the energy of the water that has fallen, back up to its higher level will also require an application of energy of E. But for a pump to apply an energy, E, to the water, it will have to use an energy of 1.1E (remember that the pump, at best, is only 90% efficient)

Thus, pumped hydro requires 110 units of energy to be applied for every 90 units of power generated. Why not apply that former 110 units directly to the electricity grid rather than wasting it on a needless pumping of water?

The above total waste of money and effort does not include the design, construction and maintenance of a useless system.

Reduce parliament.

Why do we need a Senate? What other organisation has two management boards – one to determine policy and another to obstruct it? The upper house of the British parliament (the House of Lords) wasn’t created to provide superior legislation, it was created to protect the aristocracy from the hoi polloi.

The governments of Queensland and New Zealand have both abolished their upper houses with no damage to administration. In Australia, we have 75 Senate members – each drawing a weekly minimum salary of $5000 and providing only nuisance value to government.

Then we have the same over-priced membership of the lower house which consists of 150 members. About half of these (the opposition) simply obstruct the government and the only obligatory function of two thirds of the remainder is to put their hands up when they are told.

Now that 1/3 of the population cannot afford to put food on their tables, we can no longer afford the $50 million annual cost of the present 200 redundant MPs as well as the profligate perks and pensions they have voted for themselves.

Surely now is the time for a cleanout.