Feb 2011 good for this blog

Just beginning to look at the stats. 4,000+ visits here – best ever!

Sad about my ACER computer though. When I get a chance I’ll see what may be done. Meantime Baby Toshiba has been revamped and is doing pretty well.



The thing for tidying desktop icons is Fences, a great free program from Stardock.


ACER dying? Mine, that is…

Here are the symptoms:

Now coming to you on Baby Toshiba!

I downloaded every movie, bit of music and document to an outrigger disk via Karen. Karen is fantastic.

Some recent posts on THOSE issues…

1. Multiculturalism

Fascinating European perspective: Monoculturalism is dead: multiculturalism has yet to come by Claus Leggewie in Eurozine.

In Germany, conservatives criticize a pastiche of multiculturalism to justify authoritarian policies and deflect attention from decades of neglect, argues Claus Leggewie. Failure to recognize Muslims as part of society is to risk repeating an historical mistake.

Daniel Cohn-Bendit once said that he knew the ’68 movement in Germany had won by a comment from a conservative colleague: "It doesn’t work with the Muslims, they harass their women." We’ve been hearing for years that multiculturalism has failed, and now the German chancellor – who, incidentally, could only become chancellor because ’68 and ’89 did work – has added her voice to the chorus. Gender equality a success, integration of immigrants a failure?

Despite the flak it’s coming in for at the moment, multiculturalism lives and will prevail. As the one to import the term "Multikulti" to Germany (I titled a book after Don Cherry’s eponymous band in 1990), allow me to explain not only what Cohn-Bendit, but also liberal conservatives like Heiner Geissler, meant by it. Not, namely, as Angela Merkel recently put it, in front of an audience of cheering young Christian Democrats: "Now we’ll do a bit of multikulti and live side-by-side and everyone’s happy." Anyone who has read the original arguments and the numerous subsequent studies knows that multiculturalism was not demanding arbitrariness or the Sharia, but rather the republican integration of diversity.

That included abandoning an utterly antiquated law on nationality, adopting forwards-looking social and employment policy, guaranteeing religious freedom as stipulated in the constitution, and a whole range of educational initiatives. The problems today indicated by terms such as "parallel society" and "schooling failure" were predicted by the advocates of multiculturalism pretty exactly. It was they who were the realists…

One of a growing number of examples of the fact that the present debate about multiculturalism here (most inappropriately) and overseas is in fact Islamophobia: Sam Harris — SAM HARRIS’S GUIDE TO NEARLY EVERYTHING.

For Sam Harris morality is “an un-developed branch of science” that is all about separating lies from truth. Evil stems from lies, willfully blind to facts and reason. Good comes from rational, evidence-based standards for debunking lies and evaluating truths about the human condition. In this worldview, “Only a rational understanding of human well-being will allow billions of us to coexist peacefully, converging on the same social, political, economic, and environmental goals.”

But here’s the rub: the road to redemption is blocked by religious conservatives who “believe that values must come from a voice in a whirlwind.” Then, seeping from “the ivory tower,” come “secular liberals,” with their “multiculturalism, moral relativism, political correctness” borne of collective guilt “for the crimes of Western colonialism, ethnocentrism, and racism,” which leads to cowardice in the face of dogmatic bullies. So blow ye the trumpet and sound the alarm: if we don’t act soon in the ways this man suggests, then Western civilization could well succumb: “The juxtaposition of conservative dogmatism and liberal doubt . . . has hobbled the West in its generational war against radical Islam; and it may yet refashion the societies of Europe into a new Caliphate.”…

Say what???? Seems anyone can be a bigot these days, even atheists.

Irfan Yusuf is Australian, Muslim, has his feet on the ground and is rightly pissed off – as I am – by the turn this debate is now taking.

Jeremy Sammut is a research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies. He has a PhD in Australian social and political history from Monash University. He has written about child protection laws and health policy.
And now he is writing about what he describes as the ‘M&M’ debate. M&M equals "multiculturalism and Muslims". His article appearing on the CIS website has been reprinted on the opinion page of The Australian.

Sammut writes about the “multicultural industry” which seeks to stifle “a legitimate debate about the success or otherwise of Muslim integration”.

Sammut’s evidence is one part of Sydney…

All this raises a few issues. Well, actually more than a few. I’ll list some:

[01] Was Jeremy Sammut around when many used to refer to Cabramatta as ‘Vietnamatta’? Was he aware of the large number of media reports and conservative commentators talking about ‘Asian crime gangs’ and the difficulties ‘Asians’ faced integrating?
[02] Is Sammut talking about Muslims as a race?
[03] Is Sammut asking us to believe that a certain ethnic group of Muslims in Lakemba is reflective of all Muslims across the country?
[04] Sammut argues that …

It is because most Australians believe in the immigration and integration of all comers that what is going on in southwest Sydney is of concern. Perceptive politicians have picked up on this.

Could he name some of these perceptive politicians? Does he agree with their perceptions and statements?…

Julia’s gymnastics and carbon pricing

I liked Nicholas Gruen on this.

…I’m a bit of a promises guy – I think if a politician promises something they should deliver it. And it’s bad if they welsh on the promise.  So I begin unsympathetic to Julia’s broken promise. After all she said that she wasn’t introducing a carbon tax.  Now she is.

Anyway I read a bit of the transcript with Neil Mitchell and have to admit that I’m kind of convinced by her case. Firstly circumstances are different in a hung parliament, but I don’t think that’s very firm ground on which to base a rearrangement. Circumstances always change.

And when Julia said “Get out every statement from the election campaign … all of the ones where I talked about the need to price carbon” I wasn’t particularly convinced either.  But then she said this.

The Australian people voted for me knowing I believed climate change is real and that I was determined to act on it, and that the Labor way of acting on it was to price carbon. People were going to say ‘Well isn’t that going to work effectively like a tax’, and we were going to have one of those silly debates about whether or not I would say the word tax. So I just clarified yesterday that the first few years with the fixed price do work effectively like a tax. This is the right thing to do to price carbon.

Well I’m not sure it’s all that clearly expressed, but at that stage I kind of ‘got it’.  Julia went to the election saying she was going to put a price on carbon. Not denying that prices would rise, thinking she’d do it using permits she ruled out a tax. If John Howard was in her shoes right now he’d be arguing that it’s not really a tax, it’s a fixed price permit system. Which it is.

Anyway, it all seems pretty OK to me.  Then again I’m not particularly enamoured of the Abbot led Coalition, so that’s no doubt influencing my judgement….

On the issue of pricing carbon – you will recall Malcolm Turnbull being very firm in another life than any policy on climate change that did not put a price on carbon was bullshit – you may care to read Prudent Risk:

Consider the following analogy: you’re driving your car, and you start to feel that the brakes aren’t working quite properly.  Most people would agree that the prudent path involves spending a modest amount of money to take the car to a mechanic, because if the brakes go out, it presents a potentially catastrophic scenario.  This sort of preventative action is good risk management.

In this case we’re dealing with the global climate, on which every living thing on the planet relies, and we’re facing a disaster in the most likely scenario if we continue on the business-as-usual path which the "skeptics" tell us is "prudent".  The "skeptics" would have us continue driving the car in the blind hope that the brakes will never give out.  After all, we haven’t gotten into a wreck so far, so continuing to drive with faulty brakes must be safe!

To sum up:

  1. If we continue in a business-as-usual scenario, the results range from bad to catastrophic.
  2. The cost of reducing carbon emissions and changing paths is minimal.
  3. The benefits of reducing carbon emissions outweigh the costs several times over.
  4. In trying to make their case to continue on the business-as-usual path, the "skeptics" contradicted themselves on major issues.  By a factor of ten.  Twice.

You tell us – what’s the prudent path forward?

Pure nostalgia

I can at least remember 78 rpm records personally, and the times a gramophone was not called a record player.

Recently, while looking for some music for my Christchurch post, I stumbled upon this YouTube channel:

gramophoneshane's channel

The first item I found was a 1908 recording of baritone Peter Dawson singing “Lead, Kindly Light”:

And just now:

It isn’t just Peter Dawson either:

There are things of more recent vintage as well.

What a treasure-house!

BOM’s Dr Ayers, Ian Plimer, or famed climatologist Cardinal Pell: who do you believe?

In The Senate Estimates Committee 21 February 2011


CHAIR—Dr Ayers, we are all waiting with great anticipation to hear your statement in relation to Cardinal  Pell. Would you like to make that statement now?

Dr Ayers—The issue from my point of view and why I sought leave to respond is that the cardinal has, in terms  of  the  letter  we  incorporated  in  Hansard,  made  a  number  of  propositions  about  aspects  of  climate  science that I have feel should  not remain unanswered  on the public record in this  place. I would  have been happy to have responded directly to the cardinal but he has not approached me and I am not aware that he has spoken with any others in the climate science community. I thought it was important to respond.   The difficulty with the assertions made in the cardinal’s letter is that they are based not upon contention in the  climate  science  field  but  on  a  book  written  by  Professor  Plimer  entitled  Heaven  and  Earth—Global  Warming: The  Missing Science.  The  contents  of  the  book  are  simply  not  scientific.  I  am  concerned  that  the cardinal has been misled by the contents of this book and I do not think it should stand on the public record for that reason.

Why would I say this book is not science? It is not me who says it so much, although I have read it myself;  it  has  been  widely  reviewed  by  people  in  the  scientific  arena  and  it  has  been  very  heavily  criticised  for  not presenting science but presenting a polemic from one individual. It has not been scientifically peer reviewed. I would like to step you through each of the assertions in Cardinal Pell’s letter. The cardinal I do not anticipate would be an expert in these fields of science, so he has quoted very heavily from this book and the book is, frankly, misleading to all Australians in terms of what it represents.

I will read you once scientific review to give you a sense of what one scientist from the University of New South Wales said about the book. He said: “Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science, and the dedicated scientists who are trying to understand climate and the influence of humans, by publishing this book. It is not “merely” atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics. Plimer’s book deserves to languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken.”

That is from Professor Michael Ashley from the University of New South Wales. That is very strong, I am sure you will agree. I have read the book myself and it contains phrases that had nothing to do with science. There is  a  somewhat  gratuitous  attack  on  Chancellor Angela  Merkel  on  page  441,  the  same  page  essentially  that contains a gratuitous attack on Minister Wong. Page 470—

Senator IAN MACDONALD—That does not make the book—

Dr Ayers—No, the point is, Senator, that it is  not science. The book says that it is Global Warming: The Missing Science. Were it science, that would be fine. To quote Professor Ashley again: “The book is largely a collection of contrarian ideas and conspiracy theories that are rife in the blogosphere. The writing is
rambling and repetitive; the arguments flawed and illogical.”

Senator IAN MACDONALD—But Dr Ayers—

CHAIR—Senator Macdonald, Dr Ayers is  making a statement. You can ask questions after  he  makes the

Senator IAN MACDONALD—We are on limited time. It is additional estimates. In Cardinal Pell’s case, he did a written response, which we tabled. I wonder whether it might not be more appropriate for Dr Ayers to do a written response which can be tabled. I can assure Dr Ayers that I will be making sure his comments are passed on not only to Cardinal Pell, but also to Professor Plimer who says these same sorts of things about the people you are quoting.

CHAIR—Senator Macdonald, I do not want you to enter into the argument. I know where you are coming from.  My  position—and  our  rule—is  that  Dr Ayers  can  put  his  statement  on  Hansard.  He  does  not  need  to write it; he is prepared to put it on Hansard now, and it is on Hansard.

Senator IAN MACDONALD—You said that we have a limited time. How long is the statement likely to  be?

CHAIR—I am prepared to have it put on—

Senator IAN MACDONALD—The rest of us want to ask questions.

CHAIR—Senator Macdonald, you have had plenty of time to ask questions. You are the one wasting my
time  now.  I think  that  you should let Dr Ayers  go on. Dr Ayers, how long  do  you think the statement  might

Senator BOSWELL—Mr Chairman, I am very happy for Professor Ayers to make the statement, but I do think we should give the same opportunity to Dr Plimer. You have got every right to criticise him, but I think he has a right to defend himself in the same forum. So if you are going to—

CHAIR—I do not know whether it is appropriate for Dr Plimer to be before estimates. 

Senator BOSWELL—It is just as appropriate—

CHAIR—Dr Ayers, how long do you think it will take?

Dr Ayers—It would probably take between five and 10 minutes.

CHAIR—I think that we should continue.

Senator IAN MACDONALD—Being aware that I will send it to Dr Plimer and ask him to write a written response to incorporate.

CHAIR—Very good. 

Dr Ayers—Just responding to Senator Macdonald, I will be making contact directly with the cardinal after these estimates. As  I said at the  outset, from  my  point  of  view  I am  disappointed that I was  not  having this discussion with him directly. I am very happy to do that.

Senator IAN MACDONALD—His letter is dated July—that was seven months ago.

CHAIR—Dr Ayers,  I  would  ask  you  not  to  engage  directly  with  Senator  Macdonald.  That  will  lead  us down  a  blind  alley,  I  can  assure  you.  I  am  saying  that  you  should  make your  statement  and  then  Senator Macdonald can ask you questions.

Dr Ayers—Chair,  my  proposition  here  is  that  there  are  about  half  a  dozen  assertions  in  the  letter  and  I would like to respond to each one, if I may. First of all, I should just say that a critique of Professor Plimer’s book is available. There is another university professor, named Ian Enting, at the University of Melbourne and if  you  put  ‘Enting’  and  ‘Plimer’  into  a search  engine  you  will  come  up  with  a  55-page  document  detailing mistakes,  misunderstandings  and  misrepresentations.  That  is  available  and  I  will  be  sending  that  to  the
cardinal. Everybody who wants to dig into an analysis of the book can do that.

On  the  first  thing,  the  Roman  warming,  Professor  Plimer  asserts  that  the  temperatures  during  that  period were two degrees to six degrees warmer than today. If you go through the book, there is not a single scientific reference in the book that makes that statement. It is an assertion without any scientific evidence. The example of a book by Lamb, published in 2007, is about as close as you get. The strongest statement in that says: By late Roman times, particularly the fourth century AD, it may well have been warmer than now— Now being the mid-1970s when the book was written. In fact, we know the earth was a little warmer. So there is no cogent evidence being provided at all for that statement. I have no idea—

Senator IAN MACDONALD—East Anglia University—

Dr Ayers—I have no idea where the two degrees to six degrees comes from. I will heed the chair’s advice. What is interesting about that is that there were things like assertions that grapes were grown in England and that the two  degrees to six  degrees  would support that.  Grapes are grown in England today. There are  more than 400 vineyards. That sort of level evidence is not science; it is anecdote. If Professor Plimer has time he should publish it in a scientific journal and then we can have it level. That is that: there just is not any evidence
in the book.

If we move on to the medieval warm period, he references a study of 6,000 bore holes. These are holes in rock  where  the  temperature  diffuses  down  and  with  a  mathematical  technique  called  inversion  you  can reconstruct what the past temperatures would have been based on thermal diffusion. The reference appears to come  from  an  article  by  Professor  Wally  Broecker,  a  renowned  oceanographer,  written  in  2001.  Professor Plimer does not quote Professor Broecker’s conclusion, which is: “The case for a global medieval warming period admittedly remains inconclusive.” So that does not support it. What Professor Plimer then does is take one of the references from this book and refers to a 1997 paper by an author list led by someone named Wang. What is interesting about that is that the same authors in 2008 published a subsequent paper which says, in fact, that you cannot use their first paper for
the purpose. They say: “The results of our earlier paper cannot be used for comparing the medieval warm period to warmth in the 20th century.” Which is exactly what Professor Plimer does. This paper was available in 2008, a year before he published his book.  He  has  used  a  paper  that  the  authors  themselves  say  cannot  be  used  in  a  particular  way.  That  is  not

A second thing to do with the medieval warm period is on page 66, where he says: Bore holes give accurate temperature histories for a thousand years into the past … Northern Hemisphere bore hole data shows the medieval warm period and the cooling of 2 degrees from the end of the Little Ice Age. When you go and look at the scientific paper—which you assume is about bore holes, Northern Hemisphere, medieval warm period—you discover the paper is actually not about bore holes but about an ice core; it is not taken in the Northern Hemisphere, it is from the Antarctic; and it is for the period 10,000 years to 20,000 years ago, not the Roman warm period. That level of getting references wrong is not science. So the book does not provide evidence about the medieval warm period or the Roman warm period.

The  cardinal  in  his  letter  says  that  he  has  metadata  analysis—that  is,  an  analysis  that  sits  above  all  the papers that are random reviews—but he just cannot find it. That’s okay. If he can find it I would be happy to look  at  it.  I  know  of  three  metadata  analyses,  though.  One  of  them  is  in  the  Intergovernmental  Panel  on Climate  Change Working Group I report from the Fourth Assessment Report. It answers all these questions. However, there are those who feel that the IPCC is somehow biased, so they would not use it. At the time it was being written in 2006, the US National Academy of Science carried out an independent review and wrote a report entitled, Surface temperature reconstructions for the last 2,000 years, because there were those  who said the IPCC  process was not robust. So we have an independent report from the National Academy of Science. Their conclusion is:

•  It  can  be  said  with  a  high  level  of  confidence  that  global  mean  surface  temperature  was  higher  during  the  last  few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. 

They go on to say:

• Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. 

The medieval warm period is in there. Presently  available  proxy  evidence  indicates  that  temperatures  at  many,  but  not  all,  individual  locations  were  higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900.  The Roman  warm period  was 250 BC to 450 AD. So they  do  not support it. That is two  metadata analyses. They were both available to Professor Plimer. They are not mentioned in the book. So it is not a fair review of the  scientific  literature. 

The  final  point  I  will  make  is  that  the  US  EPA,  in  December  2009,  published  the administrator’s  results  on  the ‘endangerment’  and  ‘cause  or  contribute’  findings  for  greenhouse  gases  under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. This was a process in which the Administrator of the EPA made a finding that the current and projected concentrations of six well-mixed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere threatened the  public  health  and  welfare  of  current  and  future  generations.  I  will  not  go  into  the  ‘cause  or  contribute’ finding, but the point was that there was a profoundly careful review. They had a 60-day consultation period for  public  comment, and 380,000 public comments were taken in. They all included  the statements  made in Professor Plimer’s book that have unfortunately misled Cardinal Pell. Not one of them was supported. So there are three metadata reviews—from the IPCC, from the National Academy of Sciences and from the US EPA—
that do not support the propositions that are being put.

I will move on to carbon dioxide, where Professor Plimer has brought to the attention of anybody who reads the book—and Cardinal Pell has picked it up—that 90,000 measurements of CO2 were done over the last 150 years by a particular method. He contrasted those with the carbon dioxide record from Mauna Loa in Hawaii, which  from  the  fifties  has  documented  the  increase  in  human  activities.  It  looks  as  though  that  is  a  fair comparison, but it is not. It is actually verging on disingenuous. The fact is there are 150 stations measuring CO2  worldwide,  110  of  which  meet  the  standards  such  that  the  annual  analysis  done  by  the  World Meteorological  Organisation’s  World  Data  Centre  for  Greenhouse  Gases  uses  those  to  describe  CO2
everywhere. You simply cannot, if you pay attention to all the data available, reach the conclusion that CO2 levels were higher in any other period in time.

Professor Plimer does not mention that in 1986 all the old data that were collected over the last 150 years were  reviewed  in  a  paper  by  Fraser  et  al.  I  can  give  you  the  citation  if  you  like.  The  issue  here  is  that,  in Australia, we have, at Cape Grim in Tasmania, one of those 110 high-quality baseline stations measuring CO2. If you look at that and if you look at the work done in the Antarctic Division on ice cores and firn, which is the loose layers of snow that compact down at about 80 metres—air has been extracted all the way down from the present down into the past, through the firn layer and into the ice cores, back 2,000 years—there is absolutely no possibility that the global CO2 levels were 400 parts per million last century. It is just implausible. Yet, on the basis of 90,000 measurements from a paper by a fellow named Beck, that is the conclusion put in the book and that is the conclusion picked up by Cardinal Pell.

Professor Plimer also did  not cite the fact that, during the year after the Beck paper came out, there  were two rebuttals published in the same journal pointing out the errors in it. They were not referred to. So there is  very selective use of data the whole way along. The Australian scientists who have worked on the carbon cycle include those working in Canberra at one of the two international offices of the Global Carbon Project, where on an annual basis CO2 levels are reviewed, the carbon cycle is reviewed and the budget of carbon going into the atmosphere, the oceans and the land surface is all reviewed and published. It is not in this book because, if it were in the book, the conclusions that are in the book could not be reached.

So what I am going to suggest to Cardinal Pell in due course is that he comes with me and visits a range of climate change science establishments in Australia and has a look at the science directly, not through this book but through the lens of what men and women in Australia are doing in scientific institutions that is valid, that is published and that has real credibility. My contention is that Cardinal Pell may well become an ambassador for the quality of climate change science if he is exposed to the quality of the science that is done. That is my aspiration. He  can  make  his  own  decision about whether the science says what  Professor Plimer says, but  I think he will become an ambassador for the quality  of the science we  do in this country. It is absolutely  not honoured by this book.

I know these are strong statements but I am the  head of a national agency and the information that is out there is not adequate based on what I know. So I am taking my job seriously and making a strong statement.

There are some other things in Cardinal Pell’s letter that I will not go into because I can see people’s eyes will start to glaze over. I will just make two other comments. At one stage he lists greenhouse gases. Included in the list is the gas nitrogen. That is not a greenhouse gas; it is 78 per cent of the atmosphere. You cannot have people out there telling the public that nitrogen is a greenhouse gas, because it is not.

The final point I will make is on the statement from Professor Plimer that CO2 from fossil fuels accounts for 0.1 per cent of the greenhouse effect. There is a parameter called climate sensitivity. It is the temperature increase you would get if you doubled CO2. The conventional view, which is very well attested to in scientific literature, is that it is about two or three  degrees. That is roughly it. At equilibrium, when  everything comes into balance, that is what the temperature of the Earth would go up by. Professor Plimer says that is not right; he says it is only half a degree. At least, he says that in one part of his book. In another part he says that it is 1½ degrees. So he is not consistent with himself. You can do a very simple calculation. Professor Enting—the guy who has done the 55 pages collecting problems with Professor Plimer’s book—shows you how to do the calculation. You can compute the change from 280 parts per million pre the industrial age to 385 now. Using
Professor Plimer’s climate sensitivity, it would increase temperature by 0.23 degrees. We have seen about 0.7, but  he  has  put  his  sensitivity  below  that.  If  0.23  degrees  is  only  1.1  per  cent  or one  thousandth  of  the greenhouse effect, it implies that the  greenhouse effect is 223 degrees and without it our planet would be as
cold as the outer planets. So the calculations in this book are just erroneous. I will give up at this stage. There is plenty more I could go on with, but I will not.

CHAIR—Dr Ayers, thanks for taking the time to take us through those issues. So you are going to convert the cardinal and make him a missionary for climate change?
Dr Ayers—No. In fact, I think that—

Senator Ian Macdonald—Who suggested to you that you might read this out tonight, Dr Ayers?

Dr Ayers—Nobody. As I said, I felt that it needed to be in the Hansard.

Senator Ian Macdonald—Yes, I am quite sure it should have been, but a written response would have been equally as good because unfortunately Professor Plimer, should he choose to respond, can only put in a written response. He cannot make the commentary that you have made.

Dr Ayers—I am happy for Professor Plimer to write to me.

Senator Ian Macdonald—No, it needs to be done here. This is the trouble. The chair has allowed this to happen. This is going to go on forever now.

Senator SIEWERT—You were allowed table that letter last time.

Senator Ian Macdonald—But that is tabling. I agree with that. He should have been able to table a reply. I agree with that. Professor Plimer will not be able to come and talk to the committee.

Senator LUDLAM—He can publish another work of science fiction

CHAIR—Order!  I  am  not  going  to  have  a  debate  taking  place  across  the  chair.  If  you  want  to  ask  any questions  of  Dr Ayers  on  what  he  has  just  said,  I  think  it  is  perfectly  appropriate  to  ask  them  now.  Senator Macdonald, I invite you to ask any questions you have of Dr Ayers on what he has just put.

Source: Hansard.

Report of the above: Cardinal’s climate change views flawed, says BoM director

The head of the Bureau of Meteorology has rebuked Cardinal George Pell for his scepticism about climate change, insisting the cardinal has been misled, reports the Sydney Morning Herald.

Sydney’s Cardinal Pell is an outspoken disbeliever in man-made global warming, arguing that it was hotter during the Middle Ages and carbon dioxide levels are not historically high.

Bureau director Greg Ayers used an appearance at a Senate estimates hearing yesterday to criticise the cardinal’s personal views.

He said the core of his arguments were based on a book by Australian scientist Ian Plimer called Heaven and Earth: Global Warming the Missing Science

Spot on, Maralyn Parker!

You are SO right! Smile 

Having been an ESL teacher in the 90s and noughties I know exactly what you mean. Anyone who finds fault with this article must have been under a rock for all those two decades.

Public school teachers in this state who follow the education department’s multicultural policy must be bemused by politicians arguing about whether it has failed or not.

Our schools have had a multicultural policy – where the cultural backgrounds of children are acknowledged, valued and used to help educate them – for decades.

It makes you wonder if some Aussie pollies know what is going on in the nation’s classrooms.

They should be inviting the leaders of Britain and Germany – who recently blamed multiculturalism for home grown terrorists – to visit a few public schools in Sydney to see how it is used to teach children.

I believe our high level of tolerance for people from other races and cultures as revealed in recent research by The University of Western Sydney’s Professor Dunn comes from the long tradition of teaching multiculturalism in public schools.

It is not unusual for one school of only a few hundred students to be educating children from 60 or more different cultural and language backgrounds.

Accepting and respecting their cultural backgrounds is vital to these children being successfully educated – and for them to feel their contribution to their school and ultimately to Australian society is valued.

19eb9eec2565c61101256c4949530871In fact NSW public schools have gone beyond simple activities such as feast days and music festivals to do that.

We reached a new much more sophisticated level of teaching multiculturalism where our schools actively embrace the cultures of the dominant groups in their community and use them to connect families to the school.

For example a school with a high number of children with Pacific Islander background will employ a person from that community to liase with parents, to support the children at school and to instruct staff about specific customs or attitudes that might impact on school life.

The school hall and grounds may be used for church services and classrooms for social clubs involving local community leaders after school hours.

Public schools with a high number of children who are Muslims might allow older children to leave during school hours to attend special services at the local mosque or set aside a room for prayers during the school day.

During Ramadan teachers will be sensitive to the fact that many children are fasting and will avoid lessons with a high level of physical activity.

Children who are fasting might be given a special place to sit or play while other children eat their lunches.

These days most public schools will also try to connect with the cultural knowledge and experience of the school community by including a study of that particular country, language or culture in the school program.

At the same time all lessons are in English – the common ground for connecting – and children are taught the strong secular, public school values that men and women are equal and discrimination based on gender, race, religion, sexuality and disability should not be tolerated.

This particular Australian brand of multiculturalism is working well.

We have good reason to congratulate and be proud of our public schools for sustaining it.

The DIVISIVE ones are those who cannot accept that anyone who has pledged loyalty to Australia or has been born here is an Australian — those who say instead “this lot OK Aussie ”  but “this lot not OK Aussie.” 

Multiculturalism as practised in our schools is NOT DIVISIVE.