It’s not the Heat, it’s the Stupidity

Australian is going to the polls today, with that smirkingright wing clown attempting to be elected Prime Minister. And of course we’ll all be cheering for him to beat Scott Morrison. 

The fact that the ignorant, science denying, happy clapping, coal-hugging thug pictured above even has a shot at winning indicates the appalling low level of political discourse. We shouldn’t be surprised, of course, but for some reason we are.

Back in 2014, the Maths Masters wrote a column on then Prime Minster Tony Abbott’s climate denialism, entitled How to be Liberal with the Truth. Our editor rejected the column as a “diatribe”, which was fair enough, and we took the rejection in our stride. Nonetheless, our editor passed the diatribe to the Age‘s op-ed desk which published the column as Tony Abbott is a liar: It’s a mathematical truth. Our diatribe was a hit.

The diatribe ended with a prediction:

But what of Tony? Will he be remembered as a liar? Probably, but probably he’ll be remembered for much more. Eventually, and more likely sooner rather than later, global warming will be undeniable. Truly undeniable.Which means Abbott should go down in history as the Australian Prime Minister, the last Australian Prime Minister, to deny physical reality.

We were wrong then. But, maybe now Australia will finally be done with anti-science idiots.


Geez, Australians are dumb. And Queenslanders are dumber.

34 Replies to “It’s not the Heat, it’s the Stupidity”

  1. My financial industry friends tell me that after Mr Shorten becomes PM, the superannuation balances of most account holders will suffer a substantial negative effect over time. This will be due to the removal of dividend imputation. Let’s all pray!

      1. Aaaah, saved! (Nice odds on Betfair). Show me a politician who says they’re honest, and you’ll show me a liar.

  2. I think I shall write an article on “double blind” testing, focussing on those inveterate liars, mathematicians and Politicians… As you (Marty) claim to be a mathematician – as opposed to a “teacher of mathematics”, and one who holds strong views (apparently even on Politicians), let me give you just a few instances of mathematical lies, which, of course you can either reject summarily (by ignoring – I suspect your favourite method) or by defending the following “mathematically”:
    Fermat’s Last Theorem – true by inference though the work of Wiles (and Taylor), yet an unseemly large percentage of mathematicians don’t believe him (Fermat).. can you find the simple solution?!
    Archimedes Cattle Problem – apparently “worked out” by none other than Gauss, yet a ridiculously anachronistic theory by Lenstra, Vardi et al prevails… Are you capable of such simple arithmetic reasoning?!
    Plimpton 322, an “absolute joke” theory from a pair of your averagely educated PhD level “mathematicians” from the land “down-under”… What’s a thousand years of history, versus cold, hard, logic?!

    Just a guess, but I reckon this (my last effort with you) will probably (as have all before) be best ignored, lol

    P.s. You do seem rather proud that your “Tony Abbott” posting was once rejected, so I think it only fair to give you the opportunity to “do unto others…”

    1. Ewan, your post is off-topic and pretty ranty, but I won’t delete it. But please don’t push your luck.

      Back on topic, I’m not “proud” that our Abbott column was rejected, but I’m proud we used our small platform to call out Abbott as strongly as possible as the snivelling little dishonest creep that he was and is. And I’ll now proudly use this smaller platform to call out that sadistic used car salesman Morrison, and his team of born to rule fascists and scam artists.

      1. Thanks Marty,
        At least you guys appear to be able to express your opinions on coal huggers and ex-sales buggers with impunity…Looks like the great Aussie public decided there were “more reasons” to stick with Morrison after all…
        As for myself being classed as “ranty” – well, how could I possibly take offence at such a comment from you, lol

        1. Yes, the “great” Aussie public decided. Doesn’t mean they’re not a pack of fucking sheep. As for you taking offence, up to you. But it’s my blog and I get to decide what is permissible. You were off topic.

    2. Tell me (anyone) what makes a Mathematician an inveterate liar, specifically? In my experience, Mathematicians are the best truth tellers, because their work is so publicly tested. Politicians, I will concede, are able to use vagaries to hide their lies, but Mathematicians I have never known to explicitly lie.

      I am, as always, willing to be corrected on this.

      And having a go at someone for having a PhD is a bit low, don’t you think?

      1. I too think Mathematicians are largely truth tellers. I’m sure there are rare occasions when someone fudges the truth to get fame and fortune, particularly if they think it will be hard to expose their dishonesty. By the same token, there are theories that get shot down and shown to be false. Not lies as such, just wrong assumptions. Learning the hard way is the best teacher of all.

      2. Let me put this claim into context – to my mind, once a mathematical “lie” becomes established, it’s difficult to shift…Just one wee example is the accepted view that the Pell Equation – itself a misnomer – (and unheard of until about a thousand years after the “Archimedes Cattle Problem”, which was aimed at Erasthenes and his followers in Alexandria over 2,500 years ago) – is the key to this puzzle…
        Palpable nonsense, as indeed is my pointing out to the unlearned that this was the Alexandria in Egypt, and “no the wan on the outskirts of Dumbarton, jist in case ye didna Ken”, lol
        To paraphrase an earlier expression of Marty’s – there are a lot of effing sheep out there – when it comes to mathematics…So, inveterate lying – from a Mathematical perspective, is indeed that deep-rooted, entrenched view that permits followers (In a sheep like way) to latch on to an often unproven theory like it was their mother’s teat…
        The classic political lie is often to tell the minions what they want to hear…Most of the electorate – and I digress from Aussie politics to British – seem keen to follow those “Nigel Farage” types that “catch the mood”, not with policies but wish lists – an idea also expressed by Marty – and in the case of Farage and Brexit, wish lists over which they do NOT have any control…
        Brexit was intended to give back “law and decision” making to those insular British politicians, but our democratically elected mob failed miserably to get out of Europe…Ironically, the main stumbling block being the Brexiteers themselves…
        You Aussies are incredibly lucky not to have anyone else but yourselves to account to – bar your Global conscience…
        Slightly “off piste”, I know, but politicians here and in Oz, do have one thing in common with a hell of a lot of mathematicians…They don’t half “take the piss”…
        I do plan to follow up this little rant with appropriately weighted critiques of Mathematical views, but even I despair and have to admit the only way to deal with most political shenanigans is to grin and bear it, in the name of democracy…

        1. OK, there is a lot to digest here… for the sake of informed and polite debate (polite being optional), can you (or anyone) explain in simple (I don’t have a PhD) terms why the Pell equation is a lie?

          This is a genuine question, not a loaded opinion either way.

          1. It’s not that the Pell equation is a lie in itself – it is the fact that it has been applied to a problem (posed by Archimedes that has a straight forward answer) that makes it a “mathematical lie”…The idea that the Archimedes Cattle Problem could be solved via the Pell Equation was first proposed by Amthor around 1880, and has been perpetuated by the likes of Lenstra and Vardi… I do have a paper that includes a proper solution to this – scheduled now for publication on the website for 23/9/2019 (as I can’t publish though journals or the main – no PhD, affiliation to Uni’s etc.)…
            It’s quite appropriate to choose this as an example, as even the attribution to Pell was a mistake, easily checked out through Wikipedia and other sources…
            Oh, and yes – publication on this site does tend to tarnish one as being a crank, but rather that than avoid publication altogether – or, the only other viable alternative, be a blogger, lol

  3. Geoff, correct but still nonsense. I have no time for both sideism. Shorten is no saint, and Labor has some truly awful people, but the venality of the right is off the scale.

    1. Electricity Bill made the biggest mistake of his political career, by greatly misjudging the mood of the Australian voters. People, by and large, want jobs not higher taxes for the so-called “TOP END”. At least my super is safe for the moment. I’ll tell you what is nonsense: The pre-voting polls!

              1. No. You are engaging in proof by definition: whatever “democracy” throws up is correct, because it is “democratic”. It’s an idiotic argument.

                1. Democratic governments are notorious for sometimes ignoring the will of those who elected them, and pushing their own agenda, largely for political and financial gain. Better than the alternatives, though.

                  1. I’m not arguing against democracy, whatever that means. You’re arguing that the voters got it right on this occasion, but your only support for this is definitional.

                    1. No it’s not. I think Australian’s will be better off under the Coalition’s proposed policies rather than Labor’s. About half the people agree with me, half don’t. That’s democracy at work.

  4. Your last sentence is meaningless. All you’re saying is you, and enough Australians, voted for Morrison. Good for you.

  5. Hi Geoff, I’m genuinely curious to know what you think the Coalition’s ‘proposed policies’ were. Beyond a tax cut heavily weighted in favour of people who don’t need it, all I could garner from their campaign was that Australia couldn’t risk Labour. Which isn’t a policy. I think that this election has been particularly damaging to ‘democracy’ in that it will now be a long time before we see any party putting forward any kind of detailed policy platform at all. It will be small target, negative, short termism. For that alone, I think that this has been a disastrous election for Australia.

    1. The main Coalition policies are:

      Create 1.25 million more jobs over the next five years.
      Maintain budget surpluses and pay down Labor’s debt.
      Deliver tax relief for small businesses and families.
      Guarantee increased investments for schools, hospitals and roads.
      Keep Australians safe and our borders secure.

      I like these policies. No mention of removing franking credits etc here. I don’t think any government has ever kept all their election promises. I certainly don’t believe Labor would have kept too many of theirs. Historically, Labor has “destroyed” are economy.

      1. I’ve been trying to bite my tongue, because it’s clear that your views won’t be budged by reason, but…

        As Marty said, these are not policies, they are wishes. Beyond that, they are all actually shared by Labor. There are some small differences – eg. Labor promised larger surpluses, tax relief under the Libs leads to lower income families paying a greater proportion of tax. Then there are some weasel words – ‘Labor’s debt’, for instance. In fact, national debt under this Liberal government has doubled – the majority of our current debt is, in fact, ‘Liberal debt’. ‘Increased investment’ as another example – of course more money has to be put into schools and hospitals as our population grows. However, the increase in funding is not matching the growth – in real terms, funding in both areas are going down. Finally, ‘Historically, Labor has “destroyed” are (sic) economy’. Under Costello and Howard, the money that was coming in to the country through the mining boom was allowed to flow mainly into private hands, rather than going to nation building initiatives. They also introduced reforms such as franking credits, a gift to the well off that we can’t afford as a nation without slashing funds to education, health, welfare, etc. I would argue that, while they presided over surpluses, their economic management throughout this time was disastrous. Labor, on the other hand, were in charge during the GFC and through their economic stimulus packages saved Australia from recession. There is a perception throughout the Australian population that the Libs are better economic managers. The real success of the Libs is built on their ability to maintain this deception, despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

        1. You can’t be serious. Labor’s Utopia is in a galaxy far, far away. The next spaceship leaves tomorrow at 5:30am.

          1. And that, in a nutshell, was the Liberal party’s entire campaign. I’m going to remove myself from this conversation now.

  6. Ewen, I’m sorry for the delay in posting your latest comment. I didn’t realise it was waiting to be moderated.

    1. No worries…but I have unsubscribed (as I do need to focus on my work rather than get “blogged down” as it were), and, yes I did think you were playing “hard ball” with your blog, lol
      Shall be back when i’ve more time on my hands…One hell of a lot of revision to do before ”Aye” publish on about a dozen “Bad mathematics” type problems ~ hopefully by last week of September – 2019…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 128 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here