Wall Street Journal

Hacking and Double Standards in the media

Everyone know that I was hacked but a gutless coward who skulks in the shadows.

Our media as a result of the hack treated the conduit, Nicky Hager as a hero, pursued me, my friends and hounded people out of jobs.

We had done noting wrong, nothing illegal and yet they pursued us. We were vilified in the media, in social media and yet the fact remains that we did nothing wrong.

Our only ‘crime’ was to have differing political views to the hacker, to Nicky Hager and to the haters who vilified us.

Those same investigative journalists have never once attempted to investigate who the hacker was, who was involved or why they did it. There was zero balance., it was just a feeding frenzy in an attempt to unseat a popular government.

Now they are speaking at hacking conferences making themselves complicit in the hack.

Simon Brew at Den of Geek talks about the Sony hack and the lack of ethics from news outlets and journalists who have revelled in the hack.

Then, we’re at the Sony hack. This wasn’t a leak of a set picture, or a tip off from a source. This was people hacking into a company’s servers, stealing private information, and making it available without their consent. Thus, not only have certain films leaked, but so have documents relating to an assortment of Sony projects. These involve major franchises and a lot of human beings.

The major news outlets couldn’t wait to delve through them and run the stories.

Let’s make no bones about this either: there were some juicy, major stories in there. Huge ones in some instances. However, I can’t shake the feeling that they were obtained by theft. That outlets such as the Wall Street Journal, Variety and The Hollywood Reporter – to name just a handful – are, ultimately, benefitting from stolen property, and feeding on the spoils of it. Some are reporting it as a leak. But it’s not a leak. It’s an illegal hack. Bluntly, a theft.¬† Read more »

Wheels coming off the global warming trolley

For sometime now it has become increasingly obvious that none of the predictions of the climate change alarmists have come true.

The models are hopelessly flawed, the glaciers aren’t disappearing, neither is the sea ice at either pole.

Basically pretty much everything is being shown to be a lie.

Now the statistics are unravelling as Judith Curry points out in the Wall Street Journal. The numbers simply don’t add up.

According to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, preventing ‚Äúdangerous human interference‚ÄĚ with the climate is defined, rather arbitrarily, as limiting warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures. The Earth‚Äôs surface temperatures have already warmed about 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1850-1900. This leaves 1.2 degrees Celsius (about 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) to go.

In its most optimistic projections, which assume a substantial decline in emissions, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that the ‚Äúdangerous‚ÄĚ level might never be reached. In its most extreme, pessimistic projections, which assume heavy use of coal and rapid population growth, the threshold could be exceeded as early as 2040. But these projections reflect the effects of rising emissions on temperatures simulated by climate models, which are being challenged by recent observations.

Human-caused warming depends not only on increases in greenhouse gases but also on how ‚Äúsensitive‚ÄĚ the climate is to these increases. Climate sensitivity is defined as the global surface warming that occurs when the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles. If climate sensitivity is high, then we can expect substantial warming in the coming century as emissions continue to increase. If climate sensitivity is low, then future warming will be substantially lower, and it may be several generations before we reach what the U.N. considers a dangerous level, even with high emissions.

The IPCC’s latest report (published in 2013) concluded that the actual change in 70 years if carbon-dioxide concentrations double, called the transient climate response, is likely in the range of 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius. Most climate models have transient climate response values exceeding 1.8 degrees Celsius. But the IPCC report notes the substantial discrepancy between recent observation-based estimates of climate sensitivity and estimates from climate models.

Read more »

Hand in your man card

What a pathetic half man…at least he won’t be breeding so that is a bonus.

A meteorologist who has covered weather for the Wall Street Journal tweeted that he has decided not to have children in order to leave a lighter carbon footprint, and is considering having a vasectomy.

He also vowed to stop flying after the world’s recent climate-change report made him cry.

Eric Holthaus was reacting to the findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which released a report on Friday that found it was ‚Äėextremely likely‚Äô that humans are causing warming trends seen in the last several decades.

On Friday afternoon the weatherman tweeted: ‘No children, happy to go extinct, which in and of itself, carries a certain sadness. #IPCC’

His next tweet said: ‘Its a very emotional decision. Mixed feelings. adios babies?’ ¬† Read more »

Calling the Slowly Sinking Tabloid out for crap reporting

The alarming lead headline and story in today‚Äôs SST is nothing but a media beat-up. And who has started this beat-up and ‚Äúfroth‚ÄĚ… one Lucy Craymer and Charles Anderson.

Let’s take a real look at the issue.

Thanks to Lucy Craymer’s scaremongering of the worst kind, she has placed New Zealand’s global reputation at risk. Lucy is the stringer for the Dow Jones Newswires and the Wall Street Journal in Wellington.

Here’s a picture of her for the thousands of farmers who now have their livelihoods at risk and for the hundreds of thousands of Kiwis that have employment thanks to New Zealand’s agriculture sector.

image003

Read more »

The Global Warming Farce Continues

ŠĒ• Wall Street Journal

People are starting to very slowly wake up to the fact that the calamity predicted hasn’t happened.

What is happening to global temperatures in reality? The answer is: almost nothing for more than 10 years. Monthly values of the global temperature anomaly of the lower atmosphere, complied at the University of Alabama from NASA satellite data, can be found at the website http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/. The latest (February 2012) monthly global temperature anomaly for the lower atmosphere was minus 0.12 degrees Celsius, slightly less than the average since the satellite record of temperatures began in 1979.

The lack of any statistically significant warming for over a decade has made it more difficult for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its supporters to demonize the atmospheric gas CO2 which is released when fossil fuels are burned. The burning of fossil fuels has been one reason for an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere to around 395 ppm (or parts per million), up from preindustrial levels of about 280 ppm.

Pretty soon there is going to be some very angry people searching for the perpetrators of the fraud.

What if the All Blacks played by teachers’ rules?

hat tip Not PC

Fran Tarkenton (Former NY Giants and Minnesota Vikings quaRterback)¬†makes an observation in today’s¬†Wall Street Journal¬†that I‚Äôve translated into New Zealandese for you:

Imagine NZ Rugby in an alternate reality. Each player’s salary is based on how long he’s been playing in the Super 15 or the All Blacks. It’s about tenure, not talent. The same scale is used for every player, no matter whether he’s a three-time winner of the IRB‚Äôs Rugby Player of the Year or the man who regularly never makes it off the bench until the seventieth minute. But for every year a player’s been in the Super 15 or ABs, he gets a bump in pay. The only difference between Dan Carter and Stephen Donald is a few years of step increases. And if a player makes it through his third season, he can never be cut from the roster until he chooses to retire, except in the most extreme cases of misconduct.

From the original article at Wall Street Journal:

Perhaps no other sector of American society so demonstrates the failure of government spending and interference. We’ve destroyed individual initiative, individual innovation and personal achievement, and marginalized anyone willing to point it out. As one of my coaches used to say, “You don’t get vast results with half-vast efforts!”

The results we’re looking for are students learning, so we need to reward great teachers who show they can make that happen‚ÄĒand get rid of bad teachers who don’t get the job done. It’s what we do in every other profession: If you’re good, you get rewarded, and if you’re not, then you look for other work. It’s fine to look for ways to improve the measuring tools, but don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Our rigid, top-down, union-dictated system isn’t working. If results are the objective, then we need to loosen the reins, giving teachers the ability to fulfill their responsibilities to students to the best of their abilities, not to the letter of the union contract and federal standards.