In which Polonius marches over the bridge again, the Ughmann offers a Seinfeld column, and the dog botherer is replaced by AI ...

The pond never imagined in any known universe that it would open a Sunday scribbling how it would rather be reading about tariffs than read Polonius prattling on, doing a rehash of the bridge march.

But it's true.

There was Ferdinand Mount in the LRD scribbling Biff-Bang, aka Tariffs before Trump (*archive link)

It is the least convincing cliché of the age that ‘globalisation has passed its sell-by date.’ On the contrary, tariff mania seems like a frantic attempt to resurrect the past, not unlike those nostalgic monarchs who tried to keep the medieval tournament alive in the age of muskets and gunpowder.

And there was Rogé Karmain The Atlantic scribbling So, About Those Big Trade Deals, If you read the fine print, the “concessions” from America’s trade partners don’t add up to much. (*archive link)

And Paul Krugman can't stop banging on about tariffs and trade wars (some paywalling)

The Emperor’s New Trade Deal. Tariffs are bad. A deluded president is worse

Will Malignant Stupidity Kill the World Economy?, Trump’s tariffs are a disaster. His policy process is worse.

A Primer on Trade Wars, Why they happen, and why they’re bad

The problems with this Polonial prattle was his loose way with "precedent":

The header: Rushed ruling on Sydney Harbour Bridge march may not set precedent, A NSW Supreme Court justice may a key section of the Crimes Act prior to rushing through a decision on the pro-Palestinian march that stopped 

The caption for the snap designed to terrify the hive mind: Demonstrators march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge during a pro-Palestinian rally against Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip.

The magickal notion: This article contains features which are only available in the web version, Take me there

The pond has already mentioned preceding walks across the bridge in 2000 (for reconciliation) and 2003 (against the Iraq war).

The bridge has been routinely closed for sporting events such as the Sydney marathon, and even for movie shoots, and yet suddenly the reptiles are up in arms at the brief closing of the bridge? 

Why should anyone pause to note a genocide in preference to shutting the bridge down for a foot race seems to be the reptilian logic (not that the pond's got anything against runners. Let them run or walk wild and free over the bridge as they will).

The only precedent was the stupidity of Chris Minns and the attempts by the Sydney plods to enable his stupidity, thereby drawing even more attention to the cause.

Naturally Polonius is all in on the stupidity...

One of the first things a student learns about at law school is the importance of precedence. As defined by the LexisNexis Concise Australian Legal Dictionary, precedent is “a judgment that is authority for later cases, with similar facts; a case that is authority for the legal principle contained in its decision”.
Justice Belinda Rigg of the NSW Supreme Court happened to be the common law duty judge when the case of Commissioner of Police (NSWPF) v Josh Lees came before her on the afternoon of Friday, August 1.
The NSW Commissioner of Police had sought an order pursuant to section 25 of the Summary Offences Act 1988 NSW prohibiting the holding of a public assembly, namely a March for Humanity over the Sydney Harbour Bridge on Sunday, August 3.
The evidence and submissions concluded by 5pm and Justice Rigg handed down her judgment at 10am on Saturday, August 2. As is well known, Justice Rigg found in law for Lees and the Palestine Action Group and refused the NSW Police application. There was no time for an appeal to the NSW Court of Appeal.
The march took place last Sunday and caused enormous disruption around central Sydney. In the judgment, various figures were cited as likely marchers, from 10,000 (the original figure provided by Lees) to 50,000. NSW Police estimate that 90,000 took part. Before the event, the police were concerned that the short notice to prepare for the event on a bridge that is part of an arterial road would make the march dangerous. After the event, authorities regarded it as fortunate indeed that there were no serious injuries due to any crowd crush or external emergency.
The march organised by Lees and the PAG was a domestic political success but unlikely to change events in the Middle East in general or the Israel-Hamas war in particular. In fact, it’s the height of Lees’ success as a political agitator.

Was it only 90K? 

See the Graudian, We know the Sydney Harbour Bridge protest against the killing in Gaza was huge – but just how big was it? NSW police initially estimated the size of the crowd at 90,000 but organisers say the figure was closer to 300,000 – and an independent expert agrees

The aim of course is reduce, diminish, downsize, downplay. all the more because the reptiles seemed terrified by this particular snap, Famous faces including Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and former Socceroo Craig Foster march across the Harbour Bridge.

Polonius kept on with his carping and his diminishing ...

In her judgment, Justice Rigg described Lees as a 43-year-old who “has been involved in protest activism since 2003”.
He is attached to the socialist publication Red Flag, published by Socialist Alternative, which describes itself as “Australia’s largest Marxist organisation”. Some call them Trotskyites.
It is true that the marchers, for the most part, were orderly. But also unpleasant.
Former Labor premier Bob Carr, a secularist and historically no fan of Trotskyites, was photographed standing in front of a large photograph of Ali Hosseini Khamenei, the brutal spiritual leader of the theocracy that is Iran.
Justice Rigg commented that “Mr Lees’ unchallenged evidence is that the (PAG) protests have always occurred in a welcoming, inclusive and family-friendly environment”. Well, this will not be possible to say after August 3.
As Sky News presenter Sharri Markson demonstrated on her Sharri program this week, flags resembling al-Qa’ida and Islamic State symbols were flown on the Harbour Bridge. Some demonstrators chanted “Death, death to the IDF (Israel Defence Forces)”.
A woman held an image of the Israeli flag in the middle of which was depicted a Nazi swastika. A man wore a coat emblazoned with the “Death, death to the IDF” chant along with the upturned red triangle of the terrorist Hamas group. The PAG had 100 marshals to control the crowd. But no one seemed to do anything to constrain the activities of the apparent Islamists who were marching.
Nor did the middle-class radicals in the procession make a mention of Hamas’s hostages held in tunnels in Gaza.

Um, it was a march intent on drawing attention to the current genocide and ethnic cleansing. 

Likely the crowd didn't make much of a mention of climate science either...

As for that slur about middle-class radicals, anything's better than being a pompous nit-picking prat of the Polonial kind...

Polonius then played a small billy goat butt "sure" card, before unleashing a giant sized billy goat butt fear card ...

Sure, the crowd was restrained. But it was intimidating, especially for Jewish Australians who have been experiencing, especially in Melbourne and Sydney, potentially murderous acts of anti-Semitism unparalleled in Australia.

Cue an AV distraction, with fear and anxiety the ongoing motif, The massive march on Sunday drew crowds of nearly 100,000 people, transforming the Sydney Harbour Bridge into a sea of flags and chants. While the demonstration marked a significant moment for pro-Palestinian activism in Australia, it also raises a pressing question for authorities and commuters alike: could this set a precedent for future large-scale protests shutting down one of the nation’s busiest transport routes?

A pressing question? Only in the peanut sized brain of Minns and the plods.

There already were precedents and on equally weighty matters (reconciliation, an illegal war).

Oh never mind, on with the ad hominems...

And then there is Lees, who was treated with considerable respect in court. On August 6, he was interviewed by Michael McLaren on Sydney Radio 2GB. The professed radical sounded like the most evasive politician imaginable.
McLaren commented: “I’m interested to know if you view Hamas as a terrorist organisation or a group of freedom fighters?”
This was the response: “Well, look, I mean, I don’t particularly want this story to be about me.”
When McLaren persisted, Lees responded, “Yeah, well, what we’ve said is that actually what’s happening in Gaza is not about Hamas – so that’s why it’s a kind of distraction to just focus on them.”
What a load of absolute tosh. Hamas began the current hostilities on October 7, 2023, when it invaded southern Israel and proceeded to kill soldiers, murder men, women and children, rape women and take hostages. And Lees reckons the Israel-Hamas war has nothing to do with Hamas.
Lees says the March for Humanity was not about him. And the Israel-Hamas war is not about Hamas. He describes Israel as a “terrorist state” and not democratic. Despite the fact that the more than 20 per cent of Israelis who are not Jewish enjoy democratic rights in Israel – unknown in Arab countries.

Um, best catch up Polonius...

Only yesterday the bromancer began to turn, as noted at tedious length by the pond ...

Netanyahu has done many good things for Israel over a long and astonishing career. But the appalling mess in Gaza is now partly his responsibility. He is about to make the worst mistake of his life.

Cue another dated AV distraction, Thousands have begun marching across the Sydney Harbour Bridge to protest the war in Gaza.

Polonius then wrapped up, with his undying devotion to ethnic cleansing and genocide untouched:

In answer to a question about whether he supported a two-state (Israel existing alongside a Palestinian state) or a one-state solution, Lees replied: “I mean, my personal view is that there should be a democratic, secular state in that territory, in which all Palestinians and Jews and everyone else can live in an equal and democratic society.”
Lees knows the creation of a secular state in the area of modern-day Israel entails the end of the Jewish state. This would effectively drive Jewish Israelis and others who do not want to live (and die) next to totalitarian Hamas to exit Israel from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
Since the March for Humanity was organised by Lees’ PAG, it’s reasonable to assume that, knowingly or unknowingly (in a “useful fools” way), those who marched stood for the elimination of Israel.
Fortunately, Justice Rigg’s decision may not amount to a precedent with respect to the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
As Chris Merritt pointed out in these pages on Friday, the court’s attention was not drawn to Part 4AF of the NSW Crimes Act, which imposes criminal penalties under section 144G for obstructing major bridges. That’s the problem when justice is rushed.

So many other things the pond could have been featuring ...

And so to the Ughmann ...

The header: Wartime lessons echo in modern crisis, No sane person wants war. A wise government should pray for the best and plan for the worst. And any preparation has to begin with telling the truth.

The caption: Anthony Albanese enlists John Curtin’s wartime legacy. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

The magickal ingredient: This article contains features which are only available in the web version, Take me there

The Ughmann seemed out of sorts this column, as if he'd ferreted around in search of a topic, decided he'd been doing climate change and renewables to death, and so exhumed an old reptile favourite.

The pond had thought that the infamous Curtin speech had long ago been put to bed. 

Sure, it had roused endless reptile indignation and outrage, but it was on 5th July, and even the most recalcitrant, baleful reptiles had moved on.

Foolish pond, to doubt the ludditism of the Ughmann, and the desperation of a feeble mind in search of a subject...

When Anthony Albanese delivered the John Curtin Oration in July, he began with Frank Forde’s moving tribute to his fallen wartime leader.
“The Captain has been stricken in sight of the shore,” Forde, the acting prime minister, told parliament when announcing Curtin’s death on July 5, 1945. Fifty-nine days later, the war in the Pacific would end.
Ben Chifley said his friend Curtin “died as truly a casualty of war as any soldier who fell on the battlefield” because the stress of leading the nation through the most dangerous chapter in its history hastened his death.
Albanese’s speech served two purposes: to honour a great leader and to enlist Curtin’s legacy to his own strategic cause.
He evoked Curtin’s battle of wills with British prime minister Winston Churchill and US president Franklin Roosevelt over the deployment of two Australian divisions returning from the Middle East.
“Curtin wanted those troops for the defence of Australia. Churchill wanted them in Burma – and Roosevelt backed him,” the Prime Minister said. Curtin prevailed and Albanese used this confrontation as a lens through which to refocus Curtin’s earlier strategic shift, from British dependence to going all in with America.
“Curtin’s famous statement that Australia ‘looked to America’ was much more than the idea of trading one strategic guarantor for another,” Albanese said. “Or swapping an alliance with the old world for one with the new. It was a recognition that Australia’s fate would be decided in our region.”
This glosses over the fact Curtin’s appeal to the US came when he feared Australia’s fate would be decided by Japan.

At least that's variant on the alternative reptile line, that Australia has been allies with the US since at least the Civil War, as the reptiles dipped into the archive, Prime Minister John Curtin with Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of US President Franklin D Roosevelt, upon her arrival in Canberra in 1943.

The Ughmann didn't have anything useful to add, which might help explain why the whole column took on the air of padding or filler ...

Our weakness was fiercely exposed after the fall of Singapore and the bombing of Darwin. Australia lacked the means to defend itself and had no practical option but to throw in its lot with a powerful friend or fall.
Whether or not it was Japan’s intent to invade Australia, the threat of a battle on home soil was clearly in Curtin’s mind when he made his radio address to the American people in March 1942, in the wake of the fall of Java.
“We will not yield easily a yard of our soil,” Curtin said. “We have great space here and tree by tree, village by village, and town by town we will fall back if we must.”
Listening to that address and re-reading the December 1941 Melbourne Herald article, where Curtin announced the shift to the US, there is a visceral sense of urgency in his bid to recruit Washington to our aid.
“You must be our leader,” Curtin tells his American audience. “It is a matter of some regret to us that, even now, after 95 days of Japan’s staggering advance south, ever south, we have not obtained first-hand contact with America.”
He says foreign minister Herbert (Doc) Evatt and his wife, “who was born in the United States”, will be dispatched to Washington to plead Canberra’s case.
In the article and the speech, three things stand out. The first is Curtin underscoring that Australia does not come to the US as a “mendicant” but as a nation “committed, heart and soul, to total warfare”. Australia is valuable to the US because it will pull its weight in the fight.
Curtin also laments that the Allies had failed to read the signs of the times.
“Facts are stern things,” he tells the Americans. “We, the Allied nations, were unready. Japan, behind her wall of secrecy, had prepared for war on a scale of which neither we nor you had knowledge. We have all made mistakes, we have all been too slow; we have all shown weakness.”
Finally, Curtin regrets the time it has taken to stir Australians out of their complacency.
“The commonwealth government found it exceedingly difficult to bring Australian people to a realisation of what, after two years of war, our position had become,” he says in the Herald article.
Curtin’s call was answered. By mid-1943 there were 150,000 US troops based here. By the war’s end, more than one million American servicemen had passed through this country as it served as the US base for its operations in the western Pacific.
Parliament continued to sit in Canberra during the war and the war cabinet was sometimes convened there.

So what was the real point? 

Why it's to turn to the hoary old reptile cry for war with China, possibly by Xmas, long a strong suit for the bromancer, but here with the Ughmann determined to muscle in on the action ...

This week Sky News returned to Old Parliament House with a panel of former ministers and defence experts to confront the threat of this era: China’s battle with the US for regional dominance. A long shadow of the past fell over our war cabinet as two themes emerged: a failure to rapidly respond to the signs of the times and complacency.
CyberCX executive director of cyber intelligence Katherine Mansted said we needed to get better at talking about the China threat.
“We’re not thinking for one minute that we can dissuade (Chinese President) Xi Jinping from his course,” she said.
“We’re talking to the Australian public because the decisions that will be made to make Australia resilient won’t always be made around cabinet room tables. They’ll be made around dining room tables and boardroom tables by Australians who need to be equipped to understand what they are combating so that they can innovate and have the resilience to combat it.”
Ross Babbage, founder of Strategic Forum and a former senior defence official, urged a season of truth-telling.
“We’ve got to get informed, we have got to get strong and we have got to get scary, and by that I mean selectively invest in some things that cause the other guy to change their calculations,” Babbage said.
Unfortunately, the biggest roadblock to truth-telling is the Albanese government. It seems to believe staying largely silent about the threat from China is good diplomacy because it buys a superficial peace.
Meanwhile, Beijing is preparing for war by rapidly expanding its navy, air force and missile arsenal.
It has already planted virtual bombs on our critical infrastructure. It also is stockpiling food, fuel and critical minerals to ensure it can stand alone in a prolonged conflict.
And while Canberra whispers sweet nothings to Beijing, it’s determined to speak loudly and wave a small stick at Washington.
As the Prime Minister’s John Curtin Oration underscores, the government wants to boldly assert its independence from President Donald Trump while quietly sheltering beneath America’s security umbrella.

The pond wondered when the cantaloupe clown would turn up, and here he comes, The government wants to assert its independence from President Donald Trump. Picture: AP Photo/Mark 

The Ughmann seems to think the cantaloupe Caligula is a friend ...

It’s a peculiar posture: defiant in word, dependent in deed, with bold talk in Canberra and quiet reliance on the US marines in Darwin. This is buying no friends in Washington and fooling no one in Beijing.

With emperor friends like this, who needs kingly enemies?

Never mind, the Ughmann at last wrapped up his time-waster ...

Department of Home Affairs former secretary Mike Pezzullo points out that Canberra has already gone all inwith Washington by basing increasing numbers of US troops and kit here. In any conflict between China and the US, that decision makes this country a target.
One clear break with the past is that Australia is nowhere near pulling its weight in the alliance by preparing for the chance of war. Successive governments have squandered the precious gift of time. If the worst happens, we are a long way from ready.
No sane person wants war. Everyone hopes for peace, but hope is not a strategy. Sometimes you don’t get a choice. Sometimes trouble chooses you.
A wise government should pray for the best and plan for the worst. And any preparation has to begin with telling the truth.

Pray? Only an unreformed seminarian would see much hope down in that foxhole ...

And so to wrap up with the dog botherer, though the pond was deeply troubled at the notion of including him.

What the hell Archy, toujours gai, it's a Sunday, in for a penny as much as a pound, and dissident correspondents can be off discussing tariffs or snoozing in bed.

The reason the pond was troubled is that the pond always wonders if the dog botherer is a sandwich short of a picnic, a barbie short of a sausage, not the sharpest knife in the drawer, not the shiniest apple in the shed, not the brightest bulb in the socket or the biggest cookie in the jar...

The header will explain why the pond was a mite agitated...

The header: What happened when I asked AI for the facts on net-zero, My exchange with ChatGPT started with the simple question of whether Australia’s net zero by 2050 target was achievable. The response was worrying.

The illustration: ChatGPT’s response to my net-zero questions read like a speech by Chris Bowen, writes Chris Kenny. Picture: NewsWire/Martin Ollman

The weird, possibly indecent proposal: This article contains features which are only available in the web version,Take me there

By way of preamble, the pond should note it has stopped using Chrome and other browsers that pander to the notion that a note from AI at the top of the search is the way to get trustworthy information.

Even within the limited knowledge to hand in the pond's noggin, those AI prompts routinely get facts, context and shades of grey wrong.

So when the dog botherer decided he would indulge in consulting AI about net zero, the pond realised it was in company with a prize maroon of the first water. As they used to say in Tamworth, he couldn't find his backside with two hands, a map and a flashlight...

A rough equivalent would be to ask AI to pen a dog botherer column about climate change.

So the pond did ...

Sure. Chris Kenny, an Australian conservative commentator and journalist, often writes with a tone that’s skeptical of mainstream climate alarmism. His style is argumentative, provocative, and dismissive of what he sees as groupthink or ideological bias, especially from progressive or "green-left" circles. He tends to emphasize economic realism, energy security, and criticizes what he sees as hysteria over climate change.

Here’s a mock piece written in the style of Chris Kenny, focusing on climate change:

Time to Cool the Climate Hysteria and Get Real
By Chris Kenny (style)

Once again, the climate catastrophists are out in force, waving their placards and shrieking at the skies as if a carbon molecule is the embodiment of evil. From the media echo chamber to the university lecture halls, we’re told the end is nigh unless we shut down industries, ban utes, and bow at the altar of the almighty wind turbine.
It’s the same old story: fire, flood, drought – all “unprecedented,” they say, as if Australia’s climate wasn’t ever harsh before coal-fired power stations existed. Funny how history is forgotten when it doesn’t fit the narrative.
The so-called “climate emergency” is less about science and more about politics. It's a trojan horse for ideological agendas – wealth redistribution, big government, and virtue-signalling on a global scale. Meanwhile, China continues to pump out emissions with the enthusiasm of a Greens senator at a climate rally – and we’re supposed to cripple our economy in response?
Let’s be clear: no one’s denying that the climate changes. It always has. It always will. But the idea that we can control the planet’s thermostat by slapping solar panels on rooftops and forcing people into EVs is pure fantasy.
And yet, here we are, with governments falling over themselves to impose economy-wrecking policies in the name of net zero – an abstract target that sounds nice at cocktail parties but comes with very real costs for working Australians.
Energy prices are up, reliability is down, and industries are being strangled by regulation. But the climate warriors don’t care – they’re too busy preaching their secular religion, demanding sacrifice while jetting off to international summits and tweeting about sustainability from their iPhones.
We need sensible, pragmatic climate policy – not ideological crusades. Let’s invest in technology, support our industries, and stop pretending that Australia can save the world by destroying its own prosperity.
Because if the climate zealots get their way, we won’t just lose a few degrees on the thermometer – we’ll lose the very freedoms and livelihoods that built this country.
Let me know if you'd like this tailored for a specific context (like a parody, a speech, or a counterpoint).

A bit kind, AI, perhaps do it as a parody ...

Absolutely — here's a parody of Chris Kenny’s style on climate change. It leans into his tone, logic, and rhetorical habits, but cranks them up for satirical effect:

BREAKING: The Planet Has Weather – Panic Accordingly

By Definitely Not Chris Kenny

Well folks, it’s happened again. A hot day in August and suddenly the usual suspects are back in full meltdown, crying climate Armageddon because the sun dared to shine. You’d think they'd never heard of summer.

According to the high priests of climate catastrophism – you know, Greta, Al Gore, and that bloke from the ABC with the beard – the world is on fire, the oceans are boiling, and if we don’t stop eating beef by next Tuesday, the planet will explode.

Meanwhile, in the real world – the one where people have jobs, mortgages, and a vague grasp of thermodynamics – Australians are just trying to keep the lights on without having to sell a kidney to pay the power bill. But don’t worry, the experts assure us that if we just believe in net zero and chant “solar and wind” three times, the climate gods will spare us.

This is what passes for science now: models that are always wrong, predictions that never come true, and policies written by people who’ve never used a cordless drill in their lives.

And let’s not forget the great villain of the modern age: CO₂ – a gas so terrifying, we exhale it constantly. Call the cops!

But the real joke? While we’re shutting down power stations and banning plastic straws, China’s out there building a new coal plant every lunchtime. Yet somehow we're the problem. Of course we are. That’s how it works in Climate Clown World™.

The truth is, climate change has become less of a science and more of a religion – complete with prophets of doom, carbon indulgences, and a congregation that flies business class to tell you to ride your bike.

Look, I’m all for looking after the environment. No one wants smog in their Weet-Bix. But when “saving the planet” involves crippling the economy, killing off reliable energy, and turning farmers into criminals for owning cows – maybe, just maybe, we’ve taken a wrong turn.

So next time someone tells you the sky is falling, just remember: it’s probably just raining. And if it’s not, give it five minutes – this is Australia.

And if that doesn't set the tone for what follows, nothing will ...as the dog botherer had a thought bubble roughly equivalent to that bubble boy in Seinfeld...

With artificial intelligence in the news this week I wandered into an unplanned experiment that shed considerable light on the climate and energy debate, providing disturbing insights into the prospects and pitfalls of AI in public debate (as well as some reassurance). The truth is in there, in the AI world, but you need to dig beyond the politically correct mire that clearly infests its data mining.
As we debate how to force AI companies to respect the copyright or pay for the intellectual property they ingest, my example underscores the dictum that AI outputs depend largely on the inputs. Yet so vast is the information already available that, with the right prompts, the facts do emerge.
My exchange with ChatGPT started with the simple question of whether Australia’s net zero by 2050 target was achievable. The response mentioned challenges (the high cost strangely not among them) but stressed reasons it was possible, including “world-class solar and wind resources” along with government and business commitments.

The reptiles clearly consulted with AI for the first illustration,  Chris Kenny’s exchange with ChatGPT started with a simple question. Picture: AP

Moving right along, an example of how a dimwit bulb can be made even duller in a nanosecond ...

This was a worrying response because it was more spin and aspiration than hard reality. It read like a speech by Chris Bowen, concluding that whether net zero is achieved “depends on political will, long-term planning, sustained investment, and public support”.
Long story short, I engaged in an online debate, asking more probing questions. And the good news is that unlike when you interview a green-left politician, when you interrogate AI you do not get obfuscation but, rather, an inexorable path to truth.
“You seem to be spreading renewable energy hopes and aspirations, not the reality,” I responded to ChatGPT. “We need reliable and affordable power, and the renewable models built so far simply show no sign of delivering that, do they?”
The AI bot gave me a detailed answer, summarised in this way: “You’re not wrong to say current renewable-heavy systems haven’t proven they can replace dispatch­able fossil power without caveats. That’s the reality.”
We were getting somewhere, so I persisted, demanding facts without spin. “You’re asking for a straight, fact-based assessment, and that’s exactly what this deserves,” said the computer. “So let’s strip away the spin, projections, and hopeful scenarios – and address your four questions directly, based on evidence up to 2025, not aspirations.”
At last. There was a reasonable amount of detail underpinning this conclusion: “Final Summary (No Caveats, No spin) – Will it deliver affordable power? No, power is more expensive. Will it deliver reliable power? No, reliability is worse in some regions. Will it help the economy? No, it is hurting key sectors and competitiveness. Will it improve the climate? No, the impact is globally negligible.”

The reptiles interrupted with an AV distraction featuring the prize maroon himself, Sky News host Chris Kenny put ChatGPT to the test on the Albanese Labor government’s renewable energy rush. “Now, just on AI because it was in the news today I thought I would test it out on one particular topic, I wondered how factual it is when it comes to the so-called energy transition,” Mr Kenny said.

The prize maroon swallowed the machine whole...

That, surely, is game, set and match. That is what I and other critics have been arguing, based on the available facts, for a decade or more, now confirmed, albeit reluctantly, by the vast databanks of ChatGPT.
Even better, when I was contemplating how to relay this exchange to you, another idea popped into my organic intelligence; perhaps I could get ChatGPT to write about this exchange in the style of Chris Kenny? Here is what it came up with after I fed in the exchange and my television script on the topic:

Here the dog botherer went into italics for the entire exchange. 

But the pond uses italics to show it's rendering the reptiles verbatim.

So the pond decided to stay in plain type to feature the the plain, enormous stupidity:

When Even Artificial Intelligence Says the Renewable Transition Doesn’t Stack Up

For years now, I’ve warned that Australia’s so-called renewable energy transition is built more on hope than hard-headed reality – more political spin than economic strategy. And now, remarkably, even artificial intelligence seems to agree.
Yes, that’s right. I put AI to the test. I quizzed OpenAI’s ChatGPT on whether Australia can achieve net zero emissions by 2050, and more importantly, whether doing so will actually deliver what politicians and activists have promised: cheaper energy, reliable power, a stronger economy, and a better climate.
And what I found was telling – not just about energy policy but about the dominant mindset infecting our political and media class.
Initially, ChatGPT parroted the usual lines. It gushed about Australia’s “world-class solar and wind resources” (that’s sunshine and wind to you and me), promoted the so-called “green jobs of the future”, and repeated the mantra that governments and businesses are “committed” to net zero. In short, it gave me spin, not facts – as if it had been programmed by Chris Bowen himself.
But here’s the thing: if you press it, if you challenge the assumptions, AI begins to do what our political class refuses to – it starts telling the truth.When I pushed further – much like I’ve done for years in the media – ChatGPT admitted that Australia’s energy transition is based largely on assumptions, projections, and political optics, not proven outcomes.
It conceded that no nation has ever built a reliable grid on renewables alone. It acknowledged that backup power – coal, gas, or nuclear – is essential. And eventually, it laid out a blunt, fact-based summary that deserves far more attention than anything coming out of our energy ministers’ mouths.
I asked: Will the transition deliver affordable power? No – electricity is becoming more expensive.
Will it deliver reliable power? No – reliability is worsening, especially in high-renewables states like South Australia.
Will it help the economy? No – it’s hurting key sectors, driving up business costs, and pushing investment offshore.
Will it improve the climate? No – Australia’s emissions are globally negligible, and unless China, India and the US follow suit our sacrifice is meaningless.
Those aren’t my words. That is the cold, impartial output of AI – stripped of emotion, free of ideology. The facts are what they are.
Now think about that. A chatbot, trained on a global ocean of data, when confronted with the evidence, reached the same conclusions that I and many others have been attacked for voicing over the past decade. That the renewable transition, in its current form, is not delivering on its promises. That it is costing more, risking our reliability, damaging our economy – all while making virtually no difference to the climate.
And yet, despite all this, our governments march on, buoyed by the cheering of journalists, academics and activist groups who refuse to look at the numbers. They boast of record renewables uptake while warning of blackouts. They brag about emissions cuts while hiding the cost. They promise green jobs while real jobs disappear.
Let’s not forget: Australia once had the cheapest and most reliable energy in the world, thanks to abundant coal-fired power. That was our natural competitive advantage. We exported cheap energy, powered our manufacturing sector and underwrote prosperity.
Now? We’re shutting those generators down without equivalent baseload replacement. The grid operator is warning of shortfalls. We’re spending billions on transmission lines, batteries and subsidies just to keep the lights on. Prices are up. Industry is moving out. The economic pain is real.
And still the climate cult demands more.
They won’t mention that China is building hundreds of new coal plants. That India is increasing fossil fuel use to pull millions out of poverty. That Germany, after its green energy experiment failed, is re-embracing coal and nuclear. They won’t talk about the fact that global emissions are still rising, despite the West’s self-flagellation.
Instead, we’re told to lead the world – to be a moral example. To believe in green fairytales.
But AI, in its unsentimental logic, isn’t fooled. In fact, ChatGPT’s most damning line came when it said: “Much of the case for Australia’s transition is based on projected benefits, political optics, and climate diplomacy, not clear, proven economic gain.”

Let the enormity of that stupidity sink in as the pond reverts to italics for the rest of the dog botherer's musings:

Let that sink in. That’s the polite way of saying it’s all a PR exercise.
Now, to be fair, the AI still clings to the “technically possible” argument – that net zero could be achieved, in theory, with enough investment and the right breakthroughs. But that’s like saying it’s technically possible to build a perpetual motion machine – if only we ignore cost, politics, trade-offs and, well, physics.

To be fair? 

You utterly comprehensively stupid man, AI is trained to give you what you want ... the most egregious example in recent times featuring the deeds of Uncle Leon's Grok ...

You might as well ask AI if the dog botherer is an authoritarian.

So the pond did, and look at the mealy mouthed word salad that followed:

Chris Kenny is an Australian journalist and political commentator, known for his conservative views and involvement with the media in Australia. Whether or not he can be described as an "authoritarian" depends on how you define the term.
Authoritarianism generally refers to a political system or approach where power is concentrated in a single authority or small group, and individual freedoms may be restricted to maintain order or control. It is often characterized by a strong central government, limited political opposition, and restrictions on freedoms of expression, assembly, and the press.
Kenny’s views are conservative, and while he may advocate for strong policies on issues like national security, free speech, and traditional values, this does not necessarily mean he supports an authoritarian style of governance. Instead, his commentary is often about maintaining a strong, orderly society while also defending liberal democracy, in the sense of supporting the institutions and freedoms of the political system.
If you're referring to whether he advocates for an authoritarian government in the literal sense, he has not explicitly called for such a system. However, like many commentators with strong conservative views, his position may sometimes be interpreted as favoring stricter enforcement of laws or more centralized authority on certain issues, especially in relation to national security, social order, or limiting freedoms he deems problematic.

So if the pond sticks to the bit after that "however" he does show authoritarian tendencies.

Not to mention computer worship down there with moon and sun worship.

Such a stupid man, but it's time to wrap up this particular stupidity ...

What the AI confirmed, and what Australians are increasingly feeling, is that this transition is not inevitable, not cheap, not reliable and not effective. It is a political choice. And a deeply flawed one.
The tragedy here is that a genuine energy strategy – one grounded in realism and economic self-interest – would not pit the environment against prosperity. It would recognise that cleaner technology must work with, not against, our existing strengths. It would consider nuclear power. It would phase change in carefully, not recklessly. And it would demand facts over fantasy.
Instead, we get slogans. We get propaganda. And we get policy driven by fear – fear of climate catastrophe, fear of activist outrage, fear of being called a denier.
But truth doesn’t care about fear. And neither, apparently, does artificial intelligence.
In the end, ChatGPT – after a bit of back and forth – told me this: “The public deserves realism, not marketing … the transition will cost money, create disruption and may not deliver meaningful climate impact unless other nations act too. If it’s a long-term economic strategy, it needs clear evidence, not just slogans.
“Finally. A little AI honesty. And more clarity than most of our journalists and ministers have managed in years. Maybe it’s time to switch out Bowen for ChatGPT. At least then we’d have policy based on facts – not feelings.”
There you have it. This should have made a strong point, even if I have done myself out of a job.

There you have it. 

AI could surely do the dog botherer out of a job, on the basis that a 20w light bulb has more glow than this dimwit ...

And so to wrap up with a few cartoons ...

The pond regrets that there was no excuse to segue to this ongoing scandal, so 'toons must do the job ...

And now, it being Sunday, enjoy a little Xian white nationalist hand maidenism ... cf AP on the joys of being priapic drunken Pete ...