Monday, 31 August 2009
The next couple of months are crucial to the future for all Australians..
Penny Wong and Kevin Rudd are determined to have some Emissions Trading Legislation on the law books before the next Copenhagen Climate Change Convocation in December. What we do in Australia will also affect what happens to similar legislation in the US Senate. And if Australia and the US provide some lead, we may stem the tide
Too many key Liberals are so scared (or enamoured) of the Greens that they are in danger of caving to some deal with Rudd. The Liberals are also being pushed by Big Business for “certainty” – I prefer uncertainty forever rather than the certainty of execution in the morning.
A majority of the biggest businesses see nothing but profit potential for themselves in trading carbon permits and credits. Others have foolishly and prematurely committed to imprudent “green” investments whose value will evaporate unless the Emissions Trading legislation gets up. These big vested interests are opposed to the interests of ordinary Australian workers, shareholders, taxpayers and consumers. They are pushing our weakest politicians to pass this bill before too many Australians wake up to what is in store for them.
But we can beat them, and our weapon is to mobilize public opinion against the RATS Bill and against those thinking of supporting it. Already the big ocean of public opinion is stirring – we need to add our paddles to the pool.
The first step is to realize that the Global Warming Hysteria was promoted by people with a deep commitment to philosophies totally opposed to our western heritage of individual freedoms and free enterprise.
For some insights into the parallels between today’s philosophies of the Deep Greens and the total government philosophies of the 1920’s see “The Battle of our Times” at:
(Copy & Paste into your browser)
Politics is a numbers game. We thus need to motivate and encourage ordinary people to put pressure on every politician, every media outlet, and every participant in this big debate.
Many individuals become discouraged at the enormity of the job, and say “But What Can I do”. To help them we have produced a guidebook of advice on what every one of us can and should do, starting tomorrow. It is all detailed in “Time to Turn up the Heat” at:
(Copy & Paste into your browser)
“Carbon Sense” is not a party political body. Our aim is to promote rational energy, climate and environmental policies and to oppose this baseless campaign to demonise, ration and tax the use of carbon energy and food. Therefore any politician or party who opposes the RATS Bill has our support.
Barnaby Joyce and the Nationals have been refreshingly unequivocal about the RATS Bill – they will vote against anything that Wong-Turnbull put up. Hence we support them in the Media Release below. We also support Steve Fielding and the Family First Party and those individual Liberals and Labor politicians who see through this scam.
So we now ask for your help. Please distribute our messages, read the reports above, spread them around, and do SOMETHING - whatever best suits your ability and inclination.
In the Roman Senate during the wars with Carthage, Senators ended every speech with the words: “And Carthage must be destroyed”.
So remember and repeat endlessly: “The RATS Bill must be destroyed.”
Sunday, 30 August 2009
(Picture shows Al Gore plugging up two dangerous pollutant links)
From FOX News Politics:
That advice may need heeding if the Environmental Protection Agency declares carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases dangerous pollutants, a move -- expected in the next couple weeks -- that would require the federal government to impose new rules limiting emissions.
But some skeptics say regulating carbon dioxide, a byproduct of burning fossil fuels, may be a difficult task, especially since people emit carbon dioxide with every breath."
Truly, the wrong people are in charge of the asylum
Thursday, 27 August 2009
An opinion piece by Party Member John Rodda
Anyone who wants to install a solar hot water heater because it saves money, should be free to do so. Likewise, anyone who wants to grow tomatoes in their back yard to save money should be free to do so, and anyone who wants to take up knitting to save money should be free to do so ...
However, I cannot see why a government should subsidize any of these activities, nor why we, or any government, should encourage them. They are none of our business as a political party.
One hears, "well, we're going to run out of coal and oil one day, so we might as well start winding them back and replacing them now", but one doesn't hear, "well we're going to run out of iron and aluminium ores one day, so we might as well start winding them back and replacing them now". Why not?
Because it's part of the greenies' attack on energy. Energy is life; life is energy. The difference between a corpse and a living person is simply energy or the lack of it. The greenies' attack on energy is an attack on life, and we must not let ourselves be sidetracked into accepting any of their propaganda. The greenies are afraid of life and all its uncertainties and vicissitudes, and want to control it. They want to control the climate and they want to control us..
We have huge reserves of oil, coal, and gas, and new reserves are being discovered all the time. In due course, it we do get close to running out of them, we still have that inexhaustable resource, human ingenuity, and, as long as we are free to use it, other forms of energy will then be developed in response. There is absolutely no need to force them onto people at great cost, as is being done now.
It is irrational to use expensive forms of energy when cheaper forms are available. Our policies are based on rational analysis.
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
Just received from Marc Morano:
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, trying to ward off potentially sweeping federal emissions regulations, is pushing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to hold a rare public hearing on the scientific evidence for man-made climate change.
Chamber officials say it would be "the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" -- complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect.
The US Chamber of Commerce represents 3 million large and small businesses. The article also mentions that if the EPA denies the request, then the Chamber plans to take the fight to federal court.
At last a representative body challenging the 'sham science' unlike our farm bodies, or people like Heather Ridout of the Australian Industry Group who falls into line behind Mr Rudd. Also unlike our mining unions who should be defending the jobs of miners.
And after that...the treason trials?
In an Article:
It Wants Your Wallet! Beware the Cap and Trade (Same as our ETS) Monster
Stephen Bloom writes:
Those promoting cap-and-trade use feel-good clichés about environmental sustainability, green jobs and green energy, and a prosperously pristine planet. They try to paint an appealing picture. Even the name of their legislation, The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, sounds noble and patriotic. But behind their persuasive imagery is a destructive economic reality.
In fact, one very prominent cap-and-trade advocate did recently go on record describing the pain his plan would inflict on American consumers. His name? Barack Obama, then a U.S. Senator, in January of last year. Listen to the words of his chilling warning: "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."
Well, at least back then, Barack honestly disclosed some of the pain. He didn't talk about the flow-on costs of an ETS.
Our Mr Rudd and also Mr Turnbull do not talk about the pain they are going to inflict on Australia.
Back to the article:
Under cap-and-trade, prices of gas and electricity and everything else we make through carbon-emitting industries are pushed up (way up) on purpose, so you will consume less. Under cap-and-trade, you will drive less, use less electricity, and get less of most everything else, all while paying more. In short, you and most other Americans will be poorer.
The impact of cap-and-trade will be devastating for individuals and potentially catastrophic for our nation's already troubled economy. Leading economic number-cruncher William W. Beach, Director of the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis, foresees grim results. "Inflicting a strong cap-and-trade law on our sickly economy would be like throwing an anemic flu patient into a pool of blood-sucking leeches," warns Beach, "The prognosis for recovery would be dim."
Sunday, 23 August 2009
Letter to the Times by Tim Curtin
Bob Ward's Review of Ian Plimer's sceptical climate change book Heaven and Earth (Hot air on climate change, August 22 2009) combines a pot calling a kettle black with failure to recognize a black swan when he sees it, like that in the adjacent comment on the same page by Daniel Finkelstein on Nassim Nicholas Taleb's book The Black Swan.
Ward finds errors in Plimer but creates his own, like his claim that "2008 was the tenth warmest year since records began in 1850". When David Livingstone reached the Victoria Falls c.1860, he did not find a fully functional meteorological station communicating its daily records by tom toms to the weather centres in England and America. In fact, as even the US government's NOAA admits, there were virtually no weather records in Africa, quite a hot continent, before 1900, which means that all global base line temperature data before 1960, when finally global coverage reached 80%, were biased by absence of records from hot places like Kinshasa, Kampala, Lusaka (until after 1900), and Dubai even later.
Ward's Black Swan is his failure to acknowledge that the absence of any correlation between the records of the rising atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa (in Hawaii) and the flat trend of temperatures at that very location is, like all Black Swans, a decisive refutation of any link between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global warming.
It is a matter of public record that both the US' NASA-GISS and the UK's HadleyCRUT data on global temperatures avoid all mention of temperatures as recorded at Mauna Loa's CO2 station.
To the extent that there is warming, it is wholly due to to the increasing global utilisation of energy from all sources, including wind and solar, in accordance with the First Law of Thermodynamics, that use of energy creates heat. It follows that even if all human use of energy derived only from wind and solar sources, there would then be just as much global warming as there is now,.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide in and of itself creates no heat at all. If it did, BP and the like would be the first to harvest it.
Saturday, 22 August 2009
Monday, 17 August 2009
“The Copenhagen Project”
Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Carbon Indulgences – the 95 Theses
(after Dr. Martin Luther - 1517)
Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions should be discussed throughout the world and should be attached to the UNFCC “Climate Church” door at Copenhagen this December, in defiance of the hegemony of the International Climate Change canon, and as a protest against the corrupt practice of the selling of Carbon Indulgences. In the name of humanity, freedom, peace and prosperity, Amen.
1. The Great Climate Change Preacher, when He forsook the futile pursuit of temporal power, decided that the life of His followers should be carbon repentance and remittance.
2. These words cannot be understood to mean real action to reduce environmental impacts, which is what is believed by the trusting people, but rather symbolic and costly penance via the creation and trade of carbon indulgences.
3. It means inward carbon repentance; and the penance must be performed by diverse mortifications of the economy and distortions of the financial system via the purchases for carbon indulgences.
4. The penalty [of carbon indulgences], must continue so long as the current world order exists, and is designed to continue until much of the developed nations’ wealth and jobs (and emissions) have has been transferred to the developing world, unless averted by war (which would occur likely long before any supposed “dangerous” climate change.)
5. In the beginning, Kyoto did not appear to consider the granting of free carbon permits, with disciples and national economic experts recommending against free permits, rightly arguing that this would place greater load upon those still having to pay for permits.
6. However, to be sure, governments now intend to grant free permits in cases reserved to their judgment and according to their own rules, to various parties but not to others adversely affected. However, if this right to selectively grant free permits and create special rules were not given, support by many large, wealthy and influential organisations would be lost.
7. The Climate Change Lord and Master remits guilt to no one whom he does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to his beliefs and those of the Climate Change body corporate, the IPCC.
8. Governments are to be praised in that penitential carbon indulgences will be imposed only on the living, and, according to them, not on the dead (yet).
9. The IPCC deceive us, because in their decrees they always seek to smother inquiry and disagreement with the false science of consensus.
10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those politicians and international bodies who ultimately seek to tax our nations to the point of penury.
11. The people’s acceptance of this guilt, and necessity for penance, is quite evidently a tare that was sown by propagandists whilst most of our esteemed leaders’ minds were asleep.
12. In all other matters of law, the full evidence of the case is considered before the verdict and imposition of penalties is handed down. In the case of the carbon indulgences, this process is reversed, with guilt and penalties imposed before the facts of the matter have been fully considered.
13. Globe trotting climate preachers act as if they are free from all emissions restrictions; they are already dead to commonsense, and seem to consider that they have a right to be released from the carbon restraints and costs that will be placed upon the common man.
14. The imperfect health of our scientific community and its lust for money, have encouraged this deceit, fear-, and guilt-mongering practiced upon innocent people, in order that climate change funding and careers may increase.
15. This frightening marketing of irrational fear and guilt to the people is sufficient alone to cause them to forget common-sense, and to willingly hand-over their future to the purveyors of despair, increased taxes and false carbon indulgences.
16. The strength of the idea of Climate Hell is significantly increased by the power of the media in striking fear into people’s hearts.
17. It seems that in the Western world, this new irrational religion has replaced the old.
18. However, it seems unproved, either by science or evidenced in the earth’s history, that we are destined to fall over the “Tipping Point” to “Climate Doom”, despite the preachings of the Climate Priests.
19. It does however seem that climate messengers, preachers and catastrophists are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite doubtful of this.
20. By "full remission of carbon emissions”, the UNFCC means not actually "of all real emissions," but only of those as imposed and defined by itself.
21. Those preachers of climate doom are in error, who say that by adopting emissions trading a man is freed from every sin and saved.
22. For emissions trading to be imposed, the origin and true nature of carbon indulgences must be hidden from the people, for fear that such understanding would lead to rejection of this false tax.
23. For according to the UNFCC, the only acceptable carbon indulgences under Kyoto are those approved by themselves, and any nation that has signed the holy word of the Kyoto protocol must thereby follow its rules and decrees. Accordingly, most carbon indulgences must be purchased at a high price from the West’s industrial and agricultural competitors. Nearly half of the UNFCC Carbon Credits are created by the production and subsequent cheap destruction of industrial gases (not carbon dioxide) in the developing world, which can be sold at great profits of more than 1,000%.
24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by this indiscriminate, high-sounding and expensive promise of release from “carbon guilt”, and are blissfully unaware of the origin and nature many such carbon indulgences.
25. The extraordinary power which the IPCC has, in a general way, over adult minds, politicians and the media, seems to be just like the power which a parent or teacher has over the minds of the young. For when it comes to global warming, ordinary adult reason flies out the window.
26. Governments grant carbon remission to us, by the power of our money, which they have fooled us into thinking we owe them for our sins of emission.
27. They preach that as soon as the penny jingles into their money-box, the carbon is diminished from the air, and we are saved.
28. But it is certain that when this penny jingles, the gain and avarice of governments and carbon broker lobbyists will be increased, and their lust for higher carbon prices will grow.
29. Who knows whether all the people leading a prosperous and healthy life wish to be brought out of it, by paying highly for something of no proven value.
30. The Government preaches that no one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; except when it is paid for by carbon indulgences or the redistribution of the wealth of others.
31. Rare as is the carbon broker that is truly concerned about climate change, so rare is also the man who can truly afford low carbon energy, food and goods.
32. The IPCC, UNFCC, governments, climate catastrophists and financiers will be condemned eternally, together with their preachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have the right and power to redistribute our money for their own conscience, ambition and greed.
33. People must be on their guard against those who say that carbon indulgences are that inestimable gift of the UNFCC by which man is reconciled to his future.
34. For these carbon indulgences concern only the penalties placed on the developed Annex 1countries, for all other countries are free from such constraints and may create by artifice carbon off-sets and credits, which may be re-sold many times over.
35. They preach an anti-Human doctrine, who teach that the Precautionary Principle should be paramount in all matters, and that human needs for progress, development, prosperity and health should be ignored when compared to any unproven or surmised needs of the environment. For to follow the Precautionary Principles in all things would be to return to the cave.
36. Every enterprise has a right to pursue wealth and earnings, without having to buy carbon indulgences of unproven effectiveness.
37. Every person should have an opportunity for the blessings of life, without the burden of carbon indulgences.
38. The blessings of life are in no way to be despised, for they are most eagerly sought by those seeking to steal them by trading on our fears.
39. However it will be most difficult in the long term, even for the very best of propagandists, to, at one and the same time, commend the people to believe that their standard of living will keep rising simultaneously with ever increasing energy and food prices.
40. True environmental and social responsibility seeks to minimize impacts, whilst maintaining prosperity and freedom, and does not impulsively react to unproven hypothesis of future doom.
41. All excessive regulations, sin-taxes and undue hand-outs are to be approached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to personal good works and individual responsibility, or that the people become addicted to hand-outs and thus enslaved.
42. People should understand that many climate preachers and their organizations may be profiting exceedingly from the international carbon indulgence trade, by growth of their power and corporate income.
43. People should know that he/she who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying carbon indulgences.
44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by buying carbon indulgences man does not grow better, only more free from needless guilt taught to him by carbon preachers.
45. People are to be taught that when governments have citizens in need but pass them by, and instead make carbon taxes/permits compulsory, that such governments have lost sight of their primary responsibilities to their electors.
46. People should know that unless they have more than they need, they should keep back what is necessary for their own families, and not allow governments to squander it on unproven carbon indulgences.
47. The buying of carbon pardons and indulgences should be a matter of free will, and not of commandment.
48. People need to be aware that the governments, in selling carbon permits, in truth need their devout prayer more than the permit money they take.
49. People should know that carbon indulgences are more environmentally symbolic artifacts than anything of real value, or are mechanisms of wealth transfer, and have this power over us because they were created to reduce our fear simultaneously created by climate preachers, the IPCC, the media and governments.
50. People are to be taught to understand exactions of the carbon-preachers, who would prefer that we live in fear of the future, rather than take pride in and protect our society’s prosperity and freedoms for future generations.
51. It should be the climate bureaucrats’ wish, as it is their duty, to give of their own money to the very many of those from whom hawkers of carbon indulgences cajole money, even though the assets of the state might need to be sold to fund this.
52. The assurance of salvation by the purchase of carbon indulgences is vain, even though governments, nay, even though the IPCC itself, were to stake its electoral future or funding upon it.
53. They are enemies of mankind, who bid the Word of Climate Dissention be silenced, in order that carbon indulgences may be sold and traded.
54. Injury is done to democratic governance, when in the processes and institutions of government, an equal or a greater amount of time and money is spent on matters relating to climate doom and carbon laws, than to improving the common good of the people.
55. Governments use the dramatic threat of catastrophic climate change to distract the people from government failings, mismanagement and over-spending, and to create fear so that they can increase their electoral popularity by appearing to “save us” from the artifice of climate doom.
56. The benefits of the so-called "sustainable future", for whose development governments enforce carbon trading, is not sufficiently defined nor the true costs sufficiently known amongst the people. Nor is it clear by what mechanism a carbon tax/permit and the purchase of carbon indulgences will create a better future for anyone apart from carbon brokers and the power of government.
57. That this “future” is not a temporal benefit is certainly evident, for the vendors do not pour out material treasures or prosperity, but only gather the payments.
58. This merits of this “sustainable future” are not proven, even though our Governments may assureth us of this. Certainly it is hard to see how people’s future financial sustainability is guaranteed by increasing energy prices and exporting jobs.
59. At the birth of modern democracy, people once demanded that there should be no taxation without representation, and that religion and state must to be separate. However, now it seems in all matters relating to “sustainability”, that these fundamental ideals of democracy are forgotten.
60. Without rashness we say that the creation and sale of carbon indulgences, given by the UNFCC’s decree, are a financial treasure for governments and carbon merchants.
61. It is clear that if carbon indulgences and emissions trading show themselves to be unsuccessful, that governments will never admit to this. The refund of these penalties back to the people will never occur and governments will not take any responsibility for people’s loss of jobs and businesses.
62. The true treasure of the IPCC is the most holy gospel of “The Inconvenient Truth.”
63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it seeks to create unreasonable fear and makes impossible demands.
64. The treasure of carbon indulgences is naturally most (financially) acceptable for the carbon preachers and governments.
65. Therefore the treasure of “The Inconvenient Truth” is a net within which people are trapped just as they were formerly trapped by religions of fear, and extortion and slavery by their rulers.
66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which governments and carbon traders now fish for the riches of men.
67. The indulgences which the carbon traders sell as the "greatest off-set" are truly such, in so far as they promote maximum gain for the trader.
68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest degree compared with the gullibility of the public.
69. Our scientists and learned people are bound to admit that the science of human induced dangerous climate change is not proven and that bureaucratic consensus is not the same as scientific proof.
70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the common good of mankind.
71. He who speaks against the truth about climate catastrophism and carbon indulgences, let him be anathema and accursed!
72. But he who guards against the messages of fear and guilt of the climate-preachers, let him be blessed!
73. Where is the world leader who justly thunders against those who, by any art and influence, contrive to traffic in carbon indulgences?
74. But much more do the Western world leaders work against those who productively make goods and run factories, or farm the land, and thereby maintain man-kind’s prosperity and comfort.
75. That there are carbon off-sets that absolve those who spend much of their life flying to climate change conferences, and whose home may consume many times the average energy of a house, is hypocritical madness.
76. We say that carbon pardons do not make for a better society and environment, and that they are not able to remove people’s feelings of inadequacy or lead us to personal fulfillment. More likely they are created by governments and carbon preachers who will try to increase our guilt in order to add to their income and power.
77. It has to be said that the Great Climate Preacher, even if He had become a national leader, could not have significantly reduced national emissions without His country paying an unaffordable price.
78. It is clear that it is easier to appear to be reducing emissions and so appear to be averting “climate doom”, by implementing emissions trading, than to maintain prosperity and properly plan for the wide range of the likely future problems and disasters.
79. To think that the actions of the UNFCC (whose UN logo is emblazoned with olive branches), will increase world peace, is a fantasy, because wars are most commonly fought over the access to, and prices of, fundamental resources such as energy.
80. Governments, climate preachers, media and academics who encourage the talk of unreasonable climate fear to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.
81. This unbridled preaching of climate catastrophe and the “urgent need for carbon trading” will make it no easy matter in the long term, even for learned spin-doctors, to rescue our governments from the shrewd questionings of the common man.
82. To wit: -- "Why didn’t the UN ensure their climate science was correct, before creating an (unproven) system of expensive carbon permits and carbon indulgences, and so adversely affecting people’s jobs, businesses and farms?”
83. Again: -- "Why are cap-and-trade and carbon-indulgences the only ways that the UN/Kyoto allows countries to reduce carbon emissions, when these mechanisms are unproven in their effectiveness?”
84. Again: -- "What is this blind obeisance to the belief in climate doom and the authority of the IPCC/UNFCC, that people and businesses will willingly pay for unproven carbon indulgences in order to paint themselves as the climate pious?”
85. Again: -- "Why are the penitential canons of guilt and original sin long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now reborn by the marketing of climate doom and the selling of carbon-indulgences, as though science and economics have been lost, and we have reverted to the ignorance and doctrinaire society of the Dark Ages?”
86. Again: -- "Why don’t the world’s great climate preachers, whose wealth in many cases is far greater than most others, fund and build just one Carbon Capture and Storage plant and so put into practice their preachings about the affordability and achievability of a low carbon future?”
87. Again: -- "What special privileges are there that the governments remit, and what undue access and influence do they grant, to those organisations, who, by perfect carbon contrition, have supported government carbon policy?”
88. Again: -- "What greater blessing could come to the world if the climate preachers and bureaucrats, NGO spokespeople, and national leaders, were to live as they espouse the common man should live, with low carbon emissions and therefore simply and in poverty?”
89. "Since the UNFCC by the design of its carbon pardons and carbon trading, will transfer wealth, jobs and emissions away from the developed world, why aren’t these fundamental issues discussed openly amongst our leaders?”
90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by denigration, censorship and selective information, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose governments, NGO’s, scientists, the IPCC and the UNFCC to ridicule, and ultimately will make people lose respect for our leaders, science and international bodies.
91. If climate science, carbon mitigation methods, and their effectiveness and costs were openly discussed in our parliaments and congresses, conflicts would be reduced and many issues resolved. But, however, political advantage and income in the form carbon indulgences would be lost, and thereby the main reason for the preaching of climate doom would cease to exist.
92. Away, then, with all those climate prophets who say to the people, “The world is coming to an end” and “Carbon trading will save you”.
93. Blessed be all those who say to the people, “Beware of those who preach fear and doom”.
94. People are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following science, reason and technology, and stand strong against the merchants of panic and fear.
95. And thus be confident of having a life of prosperity, health and freedom, rather than the poverty and loss of freedom arising from a system of carbon indulgences.
To see the original 95 Theses of Martin Luther (1517) put up on the door of the Church at Wittenburg, go to http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html
These modern day “Theses” are not meant to give insult to the “late” Dr.Martin Luther, his descendants and Church, nor to the modern Catholic Church, which have all achieved a lot of good in the world and helped to bring health, education, learning, prosperity and unifying/sound social values to many societies and people in the world. This is a creative work (using the skeleton and concept of Martin Luther’s document of 1517) which has the intention to satirise the weaknesses and flaws in the science, politics and “marketing” of the theory (religion?) of “dangerous global warming”. In particular it seeks to highlight, by humour and analogy to the indulgences of the medieval church, the flawed, uneconomic and unproven mitigation methods/effectiveness of emissions trading and the creation of/trade in carbon credits. The orthodoxy of these two methods of emissions reduction is extraordinary, and they are in fact the only methods approved by the UNFCC and therefore the only mechanisms allowed under Kyoto (for more information go to http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php). This orthodoxy, combined with the average person’s lack of power to change it, plus the cost the carbon permit (tax!) and carbon-credit system, can only remind one of the divine right of Kings and the Church in the medieval times, and their ability to take (tax! Charge for Indulgences!) whatever they wanted from the people, often by using the fear of God and Hell, or ultimately the rule of force. Fortunately our society hasn’t come to that (yet!), although some eco-terrorists may wish it to be so. There is no intention to portray any real, living or dead characters in this document, and any resemblance that may appear is purely coincidental. All people portrayed in this document are purely symbolic, in fact, very much like carbon trading itself.
Saturday, 15 August 2009
From a column in Today's Sydney Morning Herald by the Devine Miranda:
Resmed's Peter Farrell
The Government is determined to resubmit its legislation to the Senate in November, under the threat of a double dissolution election, so that it is completed before the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen in December.
Malcolm Turnbull is busy drafting amendments in an attempt to make the legislation palatable. But the Coalition should embrace a double dissolution on climate change. Bring it on. Call the Government's bluff. It'll be their best chance of winning back office for years.
Do you believe that this will happen? Malcolm Turnbull seems to be welded on to the AGW position. Also in today's SMH, he was talking "Climate Change" with Peter Farrell, founder of ResMed, a company that generates about $1billion a year selling treatments for sleep apnoea. Farrell believes that while climate change may be real, it's not because of human activity. Because of Mr Farrell's sceptic POV, Mr Turnbull said: “Why is everyone a f---wit except you?” I don't think Malcolm will change his mind soon. So, although Miranda says that its the only hope for the Coalition, the Libs seem stuck in the mire of AGW.
What about our friends the Nats? Great work by Barnaby Joyce, Ron Boswell and the other Senators on Thursday. There is hope there, however, a little bird tells me that some of the marginal lower house Nats want to fold and go for the ETS/CPRS rather than face a double-dissolution.
So what about the Climate Sceptics Party? Well, we are not a Federally Elected Political Party.
To Register with the AEC we need to have 500 members. To date we have only around 400.
We need to apply for registration about 6 weeks before an election is called.
This is a cry for help!
We need around 100 new members quickly. Go to http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/join.php and join us.
Wednesday, 12 August 2009
From the Australian by Economic journalist Terry McCrann. (Link in Title)
THE first and most important thing to note about Kevin Rudd's emissions trading scheme is that it is a tax.
It's not called a tax, but if it waddles like one, quacks like one, and most pointedly raises money like one, it's a tax. And not just any old tax -- it's a huge and continually growing tax.
It starts out in 2012-13 raising about a quarter as much as the GST. The budget in May put a number on it for the first time. Almost $12 billion in its first full year, 2012-13.
It is the equivalent of increasing the GST from 10 per cent to 12.5 per cent in that year. And in its impact on people it won't be all that different from doing exactly that.
And from The Herald Sun's Andrew Bolt:
WILL Kevin Rudd’s CPRS scheme lower world temperatures?
No. Even Wong refuses to claim so. Do the sums: Australia emits just 1.4 per cent of the world’s emissions, and Rudd hopes to cut our gases by 5 per per cent of our 2000 levels by 2020.
WILL Rudd’s CPRS at least cut the world’s greenhouse gases?
Not so anyone will notice.
BUT won’t Rudd’s scheme inspire the rest of the world to make cuts, too?
No. Even Rudd admitted last month that the UN’s Copenhagen meeting in December was unlikely to reach any real deal to cut world emissions.
BUT won’t moving to green power - the aim of Rudd’s CPRS - be easy?
No. We need our cheap coal-fired power to stay competitive with other countries and keep Australians in jobs.
Monday, 10 August 2009
The Emissions Trading Scheme will be voted on in the Senate this Thursday, 13th Aug
A protest against it will commence from 9.30 am (assembly time) behind Old Parliament House, then marching to the precinct in front of Parliament house to hear speeches, poems & songs from 10 am.
Speakers will outline the costs of an ETS which includes:
• Fuel prices will initially rise at least 10% but then increase much higher from there;
• Food and transport costs will rise 10 - 25% then rise further from there;
• Power costs will quickly rise by 100% (as has happened in Spain which is converting to more renewable power sources)
• Unemployment will reach over 20% (Spain has just reached 18% , but Australia is more fossil fuel reliant so we will be looking at higher unemployment rates)
• Companies that become unviable will move overseas - therefore exporting tens of thousands of Australian jobs.
• Australia will lose billions of dollars from coal and mining exports
• Farmers will not only have higher power & fuel costs, but will be taxed around $7 - $10 per sheep and $60 - $75 per cow per year for methane emissions after 2015.
• The average taxpayer cost will be $4550 per year starting in 2011 but rising to $91,000 per year by 2060.
• The ETS will be mostly regulations controlled by the parliament so exact prices for carbon, and the percent amount of emissions reductions can be increased by a government (in control of both houses) at will.
All these costs could be voted into force by the senate on Aug13th despite the fact that there is conclusive scientific evidence that CO2 causes climate.
Schedule of Protest in Canberra - Aug13th
Everyone who is against the ETS for whatever reason is welcome to attend the protest / rally.
Various speakers will outline the reasons they are against an emissions trading scheme.
Barnaby Joyce, and Wilson Tuckey will be two of the speakers at the event.
Placards, balloons and speakers are being finalised.
Many people will stay for the vote in the senate to hopefully see it being voted against.
Please bring a placard with a fun or serious comment on it.
About 15 large helium filled balloons will be released as part of the event - with a different reason why the ETS should be rejected written on each one.
The program will be
9.30am Assemble at the point designated in the attached photo.
9.45am March 400 metres to precinct in front of Parliament House.
10 am Speeches , songs and poems
At the end of speeches (11am?) balloons released
11.30 am Lunch & socialising in the Parliament House cafeteria
After lunch - sitting in the Senate chamber watching the debate & the vote process.
6 pm Meet at Canberra Yacht club (Marina Place 500 metres NW of Parliament House near waters edge) to watch various evening news services to see how the ETS vote gets reported.
We would love to see you there
President The Climate Sceptics
PO, Box 721, Mt Gambier SA 5290
Ph 0887259561 or 0887235550
Sunday, 9 August 2009
First it was Steve Fielding asking questions that Penny Wong could not answer, but today, it was Barnaby Joyce’s turn.
On Meet the Press today:
BARNABY JOYCE: Why impose a new tax on Australian people that won't change anything? Ask yourself, ask Minister Wong, will this scheme change the temperature of the globe? Quite obviously, it will not. Will it put people out of work? Yes, it will. What other questions do you need to ask?
Later today on the Insiders, Barrie Cassidy asked Penny Wong: “Will this scheme change the temperature of the planet?” He got a nothing answer so he again asked “Will it change the temperature of the planet?”
She waffled on about global solutions but again did not answer the question.
Any-one out there who is wavering, join us on Thursday. Let the pollies and the people see the groundswell of opposition to this disastrous, useless tax. As Barnaby said on Meet the Press this morning, do you want to pay $100 dollars for the family roast?
Friday, 7 August 2009
Press Release. 7th Aug 09
The Climate Sceptics
US Scientist Dr Jay Lehr Sydney meeting times -
12th & 13th Aug
As part of Dr Jay Lehr's Australian tour speaking about Climate change, these are the details. Interviews are welcomed.
About Dr Jay Lehr:
Economist and Futurist Dr. Jay Lehr combines 5 decades of expertise and experience in Agricultural Economics, Agronomy, and Environmental Science especially as it pertains to climate. With hard science to support his beliefs, he never fails to lift the spirits of the men and women working in every facet of agri-business today. His precise knowledge of U.S. Farm, energy and environmental legislation as well as every international farm support program and the direction they are moving allows him to predict the future for Farm Exports, sustainable energy and for the environment. His vast experience and support for the successful, economically beneficial use of corn in many products including ethanol; and use of soy in many products including bio-fuels and long term safety of advancesin biotechnology serve to answer many of the questions people in industry have. Lehr has spoken to hundreds of groups, seminars, major news networks, radio programs and has written over nineteen books to spread true science, educate on today's hot topics and to dispel the unfair and inaccurate claims made by environmental advocacy groups.
Dr. Lehr is also well known for his athletic accomplishments, including competing in his 10th Ironman Triathlon (while being in his seventies) and holding the world skydiving record for having parachuted from an airplane every month since August 1978 up to today.
He holds a degree in Geological Engineering from
Here is a video of Jay speaking about climate change policy and freedoms on youtube:- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaopWoU-9vs
This video is a bit of a send up of Jay educating people about fertiliser:-
About the Sydney meetings.
"Sorting Fact from fiction on Climate Change"
Jay will present the solid evidence about carbon dioxide, how much warming it can and cannot cause to the planet. He will outline many assumed (and often incorrect) ideas about Carbon dioxide with evidence from all the best scientific bodies in the world. Jay will bring out the implications of these facts to clarify why many plans by governments on climate change will not be achievable. His conclusions may surprise many so plenty of time will be allocated for questions.
Wednesday, 5 August 2009
Sorting Fact from Fiction on Climate Change
Free event, open to the public.
Economist and Futurist Dr. Jay Lehr will speak about climate change this Friday in Melbourne.
Dr Lehr will present in an entertaining way the scientific facts which challenge the popularly accepted view on climate change.
He holds a degree in Geological Engineering from Princeton and has written 19 books and over 900 journal articles in his fields of expertise. On 36 occasions, Dr Lehr has testified before the US Congress to explain the realities of environmental issues as they relate to pending legislation.
Dr Lehr has spoken to hundreds of groups in his ongoing efforts to tackle today’s hot topics and to dispel the inaccurate and often alarmist claims made by some environmental advocacy groups.
Dr Lehr is also well-known for his athletic accomplishments, including competing in his 10th Ironman Triathlon (whilst being in his 70s) and holding the world skydiving record for having parachuted from an airplane every month since August 1978 up to today.
We encourage you to come along - all welcome!
Dr Lehr will speak twice on Friday 7th August:
8.30 - 9.30am at Monash Conference Center,
Level 7, 30 Collins St, Melbourne 3000
7.30pm – 8.30pm at Quality Hotel Manor,
669 Maroondah Highway, Mitcham 3132
Attendance is free. To register, please email: email@example.com
We have contacted the Farm Organisations and it appears that none of them seem interested in openly opposing the ETS.
Are these people stupid? Do they want to protect their constituents? Do they want their own positions to continue?
To quote Barnaby Joyce (Get to know your ETS - Agmates) "Utilising NAB modelling on the price of a carbon permit, a tonne and half of carbon, multiplied by about $50, is equivalent to an additional cost to the farmer of approximately $75 dollars per beast per year. $75 dollars per beast per year = no beef industry in Australia!
No Beef Industry in Australia means no farm federations.
No Beef Industry in Australia also means No Meat and Livestock Australia. And that's no bull!
Why aren't these people actively fighting this crippling tax?
Why are opposition politicians actively opposing the ETS?
It will greatly increase the cost of living. And that's no bull! When the last farm has followed the last factory overseas will they then wake up?
And to draw a line under all this, the man who was to lend us a bull for our protest against the ETS on 13th August has now withdrawn for fear of his wife's job! And that's no bull!
Tuesday, 4 August 2009
Climate Revolt: World's Largest Science Group 'Startled' By Outpouring of Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears! Clamor for Editor to Be Removed!