Wednesday, 11 November 2009

Is Kevin Rudd a traitor(2)?

David Evans has written a letter to Mr K Rudd that begins:

Open Letter to the Australian Prime Minister

Dear Gullible Kevin

The banks want us to trade carbon.

The big financial institutions saw you coming, didn't they? Make you feel all important and “progressive”, save the planet, lead the move to save humanity from disaster. No you patsy, they are just taking Australia's sovereignty and locking in a profitable carbon trading scheme for themselves. A world “emissions” currency manufactured from thin air, world government, and worldwide wealth redistribution based on imaginary carbon “crimes”. There will be no escape.

You are rushing to sign away our wealth and impoverish us, because you wouldn't take a couple of hours to understand the science of global warming and it's weak points. You never audited it did you? Just jumped into the scam feet first. “Oh, all those people said it was right”, you smirk, “and those who don’t believe are so…evil and inferior!” That's the thing about scams Kevin, they always rush you so you don't have time to check it out properly, you just have to get in right away. All those admirers telling you how smart and compassionate you are, for swallowing an unaudited tale about wind and clouds, invisible trace gases, and will-o-the-wisps

Now, I think that David is giving Kevin the benefit of the doubt when he intimates that Mr Rudd doesn't realise that he is signing away Australia's sovereignty. As a Fabian, I think Mr Rudd is fully aware of what he is doing. The left's ideal of World Government could come true at Copenhagen. Even if some of the major Western Governments don't sign, the less developed countries will want to sign on because they have been promised billions of "guilt money" from the countries that have been "carbon (dioxide) polluting for years.

The rest of David Evans' letter:

Smartest man in the ALP, but you cannot understand what the “boneheads” in the National Party already know? The alarmist theory is based on an assumption made in 1984, when there was insufficient data. The chronology is important. That assumption was disproved beyond reasonable doubt in 1999, after the IPCC had been set up, Kyoto was signed, a huge bureaucracy was in place to deal with carbon emissions, carbon trading plans were hatched, and the western climate establishment was lavishly spending billions looking to blame carbon dioxide for global warming. Too much at stake for the bureaucracy and government scientists to turn back. Hence the fracas.

Here’s a clue Kev, find out about “feedbacks”, especially those involving water—clouds, water vapor, humidity, evaporation, rain, and so on. How does the Earth respond when it is warmed a little by our carbon dioxide? Does the Earth amplify the warming, tripling it due to water feedbacks as the carbon dioxide theory claims? Or does it dampen the warming, as any stable system would do, as recent radiosonde and satellite data indicate?

But the banks want carbon trading. Carbon emissions will be the biggest “commodity” market soon, bigger than oil. Carbon traders will trade back and forth, creaming off a few percent on all those government issued permits created out of thin air, and the rest of us will be compelled to pay for them. Brilliant Kev! Why not a carbon tax if you justwant to reduce carbon emissions?
And it's no use asking shiny-pants over in the opposition, because he used to be head of Goldman Sachs in Australia. No wonder he wants carbon trading.

Dr David Evans

PS Find out the basic numbers that show the global warming agenda is driven by financial interests:

The money behind trading carbon emission permits will be colossal. The proposed system bears remarkable similarity to the paper money system: permits are manufactured out of nothing, given value by government decree, traded at a profit by big banks, and then the rest of us are compelled to pay for them. The same sort of game by the same people.

The assumption that was made prior to 1984, about feedbacks, that provides two thirds of the warming in climate models, but which was shown beyond reasonable doubt to be false by 2000:

The future of climate is bogus statistics to justify emission trading, taxes, and world government, and it has already started (see photos):

The global temperature rises and falls in cycles of a bit less than thirty years, and has done since the dawn of time. We had cooling from 1940 to 1975, and there were cries of global cooling in the mid 70’s. We had warming from 1975 to about 2002, and there were cries of global warming. Looks like we’ve started the next cooling phase, to about 2030. Aren’t the politicians who inflict carbon reduction on the voters going to look like chumps as the temperatures goes down naturally for the next two decades?

More about the missing hotspot, the lack of evidence for the idea that carbon dioxide caused most of the recent global warming, and about the author at