Thursday, 30 September 2010
Politicians being called to support a royal commission into the Science on Global Warming
The President of The Climate Sceptics Leon Ashby has announced that its supporters are going to campaign and lobby vigorously for a royal commission into the science on Global Warming over the coming months.
The party is all fired up over the idea that a committee will debate the price and mechanism for reducing CO2, without checking the actual proof that CO2 emissions are the cause of Global warming.
Mr Ashby says "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been discredited. With some of its findings being taken from non peer reviewed comments from various green groups and falsified Temperature records, we owe it to our nation to get our facts correct."
The Environmental award winner believes we need the scientific facts to be clear in this issue.
"If it was conclusively demonstrated that by adding 3 parts per ten thousand of CO2 to the air by 2010 sea levels will rise 6 metres, I will gladly change my views on the matter and campaign for action" he said
"However If the evidence shows increasing CO2 levels will make no discernible difference to global temperatures or sea levels then we must realise a CO2 tax is a useless action.
I believe a royal commission that examines evidence from the worlds leading scientists and researchers would bring the scientific debate to a fair conclusion."
The questions we want answered are these
1) Is Global warming predominately natural or man-made? (i.e. caused by greenhouse gases)
2) Which Scientists have been able to describe, collect data on and calculate the greenhouse effect showing it is (or is not) increasing due to Human Greenhouse emissions?
3) If CO2 levels rise to 700 ppm, what Global temperature and sea level increases are able to be calculated as the result?
4) What will it cost an average Australia family of four (per year) to achieve CO2 levels at 20%, 40% and 100% below today levels?
5) What level of commitment from overseas countries makes CO2 reduction in Australia worthless and pointless?
Once these questions are answered by a royal commission, as a society we can then reach an agreed position on action much more easily.
President The Climate Sceptics
Centenary Medal recipient for services to conservation and the environment
In his column yesterday in the National Times Peter Costello revealed some of the Greens policies, some of their urgent policies.
"I wonder if all those people who voted for the Greens in August expected that? They might have thought that a carbon reduction scheme was the number one Green priority or an end to logging. But it turns out it is euthanasia."
He tables some of their other policies. As I have written elsewhere on this blog, people should go to the Greens website and look at their policies. There is a strong reason why they are called "Watermelons." As a father told his son recently after his son voted Green at the last Federal Election: "So, you don't want to inherit the family house? The Family Assets?"
Peter goes on to point out that the Greens poll strongest in the foetid, gritty, dusty, dirty city and the more you head out into the greenery their vote evaporates.
"Imagine taking a journey from the GPO to the state border. The Green vote is highest where you start - in the inner-city terraces and converted warehouses. In the seat of Melbourne, the Greens polled 36 per cent and in the seat of Sydney 24 per cent.As you move out through the suburbs to the quarter-acre blocks, the Green vote declines. When you get to semi-rural and country areas, it falls even further. In Gippsland, it is 7 per cent and in Parkes (New South Wales), it is 6 per cent."
"One can only hope that Peter Costello might communicate some of these thoughts to global warming alarmist and brother Tim Costello who wants to help the poor by taxing them more, via carbon taxes. Christopher Monckton clarified that the draft Copenhagen Treaty was really about a UN world government rather than saving the planet. He is also highly critical of the UN IPCC climate science. For those that can add 2 and 2 together go to the Greens website and under the "Policies" tab look under "Human rights and democracy" and there you have it "Global governance". Now go out and buy the DVD "Global warming or global governance" and cross your fingers for an early election."Peter Costello has a sting in the tail of his article:
"But the political left has found marketing itself under the label "Green" has a much better appeal.
They are also taking a lot of support from people who think that Green is a description of environmental policies. It is much more than that. It is a clever marketing label. Beyond the label is a fully formed agenda of radical positions on tax, economics and foreign affairs.It pays to look carefully before buying the product."
MOOT CLIMATE BELIEF NO REASON TO DISRUPT
ONCE again environmental group Rising Tide has broken the law to demonstrate opposition to man-made global warming.
Is this justified?
There are measures in place to “solve” man-made global warming, including subsidies, educational programs, grants, new bureaucracies, the Renewable Energy Target and the National Greenhouse Emissions Reporting scheme.
The effect of this will be increases in the cost of living and a chance that electricity supplies will be interrupted. The planned carbon tax will be a further burden. Rising Tide says this is not enough.
It says the science supporting man-made global warming has been settled. But has it?
The Inter-Academy Council (IAC) made up of leading scientists, recently undertook an appraisal of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), the source of the science on global warming.
The IAC found that nearly half of the reports and conclusions of the IPCC were written by environmental groups that share Rising Tide’s view. The other half were by a small group of scientists who write the IPCC’s Assessment Reports. In short, the IAC found that there was no overwhelming consensus supporting man-made global warming.
The IAC found that the scientific conclusions of the IPCC were not backed up by adequate standards of certainty. This also casts doubt over IPCC predictions.
The scientific basis of global warming has been challenged by five recent peer-reviewed papers.
The first, by Dr Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell, found that instead of reinforcing warming, clouds reduce warming. The IPCC assumes that clouds make warming worse.
The second is by Professor Richard Lindzen. The IPCC assumes carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere and that extra heat acts as a feedback to worsen warming. Professor Lindzen has shown that the amount of energy leaving the atmosphere means there is insufficient energy left for the IPCC’s feedbacks.
The third paper, by Dr Ferenc Miskolczi, a former NASA chief physicist, found that the greenhouse effect has not changed in 60 years of NASA measurement.
The fourth, by Dr Blakely McShane and Dr Abraham Wyner, found that the “hockey-stick” could not be replicated. This supposedly shows temperature over the past 2000 years as unchanging until the 20th century, when it increased rapidly. But they show that it is more likely that times in the past were warmer than today.
The fifth paper, by Professor Ross McKitrick, showed that computer models used by the IPCC had failed to predict real temperature movements over the past 30 years. The science supporting man-made global warming is not settled. Man-made global warming is most likely not real, or at least not as bad as the IPCC has concluded.
Rising Tide’s actions are not justified. The group should stick to legal methods of protest
Why Are Climategate Charlatans Still Free? By Alan Caruba
In an excellent column, Alan Caruba has put very succinctly what many of us has thought of Climategate and the follow-up whitewash hearings.
If I had engaged in activities that involved fleecing the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom of billions in public funds in the name of “climate research”, and it was found that I had manipulated the data to advance the “global warming” hoax, wouldn’t I be facing charges of fraud?
Or if the universities for which I worked had benefited from receiving those public funds had conducted hearings that exonerated me, wouldn’t those institutions be considered accessories to the alleged crime?
Alan mentions whitewashes on both sides of the Atlantic, the US EPA's declaration that CO2 is pollution, Al Gore lying under oath....
Alan finishes: " There is no reason why those who provided the data underwriting the fraud of Climategate should not face justice. That may not occur, but the truth will be a form of justice despite the loss and waste of billions in both the United States and the United Kingdom."
Australia has wasted millions as well. We have a Department of Climate Change sitting twiddling their thumbs awaiting legislation to give themselves legitimacy and some work to perform.
Wednesday, 29 September 2010
Charles Hendry, UK energy minister, is quoted as saying; "As developers seek to get wind turbines into deeper waters, where the wind blows more wildly and the waves are stronger, it is vital that access and safety are maximised and costs minimised."
So Britain's Carbon Trust is launching a competition to find a safer alternative for workers to transfer from service boats onto offshore wind turbines in rough seas.
(I wonder if they are also looking for a safer way to stop avian slaughter.)
Reuters adds: "UK offshore wind power costs have leapt over the past five years, and British consumers will have to foot the bill under a scheme to subsidise many low-carbon technologies until they become competitive."
Meanwhile, Closer to home, financial columnist Terry McCrann, in an article entitled Blowing in the Wind notes an oft used deception re Wind Turbine Output. He starts: "BE AFRAID, be very afraid, of our politicians' desperate infatuation with wind. It is going to cost you billions."
The array of 100 turbines, each the height of the Blackpool Tower is touted to produce 300 MW of electricity, enough to power 200,000 homes. If, of course, the wind is blowing. The government's own statistics showed that the average output of Britain's offshore turbines was only 26 per cent of capacity.
So, cut the homes 'supplied' to barely half the claimed number, according to the Telegraph's Christopher Booker. And the 300 MW to a real 75 MW.
And Christopher Booker points out that over the coming years, the Brits: "will be giving the wind farm's Swedish owners a total of £1.2 billion in subsidies. That same sum, invested now in a single nuclear power station, could yield a staggering 13 times more electricity, with much greater reliability."
Oh, and the jobs created, Booker goes on to mention that Climate Change Secretary, Chris Huhne claims: "that it will create "green jobs" – although the developers say that only 21 of these will be permanent. These are thus costing, in "green subsidies" alone, £3 million per job per year, or £57 million for each job over the next 20 years. The Government gaily prattles about how it wants to create "400,000 green jobs", which on this basis would eventually cost us £22.8 trillion, or 17 times the entire annual output of the UK economy."
Gee, Do you think we should send them Wayne Swan to give them financial advice?
Monday, 27 September 2010
After BHP called for a Carbon Dioxide Price, knowing that it would not affect BHP, one of the other big three miners has entered the debate.
Mining Australia reports: "The chief executive of Swiss-Anglo mining giant Xstrata Coal....Peter Freyberg has called on the Federal Government to initiate a proper consultation process on how a price on carbon dioxide emissions would be administered."
He added that we need to think whether carbon (dioxide) should be priced...
Mining Australia adds that "Macarthur Coal chairman Keith DeLacy told ABC TV that most of the industry did not share Kloppers’ opinions. We have got one percent of world emissions - the rest of the world could not care less what Australia did."
Rather than calling for a carbon dioxide tax, perhaps we should be calling for a Royal Commission on the "science" of man-made Global Warming.
There are numerous fraudulent graphs and data that were picked up in the Climategate scandal. This deception indicates we should be thorough before we destroy jobs in our country with a carbon tax.
The scientific facts (if any) that prove CO2 is the cause of climate change need to be brought to light. There is no scientist in the world with research that proves CO2 is the cause while Roy Spencer, Ferenc Miskolczi and Richard Lindzen have research conclusively showing CO2 cannot or is not able to overheat the planet.
Sunday, 26 September 2010
UPDATES: (see link in title)
The final person has been removed from a coal terminal in Newcastle, 9 and a half hours after activists completely closed down operations at all three coal terminals in the world's biggest coal port.
The 45 arrested include:
- 36 people who occupied the coal storage area at one of Newcastle's three coal terminals. These people were arrested by police and then released without charge.
- 4 people who locked themselves to ship-loading machinery using metal locking devices. These people were cut off by Police Rescue officers, taken into custody, and charged with Enter and Remain on Enclosed Lands (two charges each).
- 5 people who abseiled from the top of ship-loading machines. These people were removed by Police Rescue officers in cranes. The final climber was removed at about 3pm. Climbers were charged with Enter and Remain on Enclosed Lands (two charges).
The protest began at 5:30am this morning.
All this without any proof that burning coal causes Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Will we see Main Stream Media reports tonight regarding this act of anarchy?
Senator Lee Rhiannon has ties with this group. Will we see condemnation by her of this action?
In fact, on her official Senator site today we see the following twitter:
leerhianon: Newcastle Coal
port closed down by Rising
Tide activists. Another
courageous protest for real
action on #climatechange.
Far from condemnation! The Greens Senator is supporting illegal activity!
As one of our party members says: "I find it difficult to reconcile an Australian politician with a group that disrupts legal trade in the Port of Newcastle, as well as trying to shut down essential services such as an electrical power generation facility in the Hunter Valley last year."
Temp Reconstruction Clearly Shows Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age: Roman Warm Period and MWP "were both warmer than 1961-1990."
Ljungqvist, F.C. 2010. A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical northern hemisphere during the last two millennia. Geografiska Annaler 92A: 339-351.
The pattern of temperature change over the past 2000 years is important for several reasons. First, if there has been no long-term pattern to it, then any warming in recent decades can more easily be attributed to human activity. On the other hand, if there have been natural cycles or centennial-scale excursions of temperature, then it is more difficult to claim that recent warming is unnatural or unprecedented. Second, impacts of climate change are often based on the assumption that "unusual" warmth is harmful to life and human society; but if it was equally warm, or warmer than today, a thousand years ago, then there is much less basis for predicting harm.
The study of Ljungqvist (2010) expands the data available for reconstructing past climate by utilizing 30 datasets. However, the author felt that data from arid zone tree species should be disqualified, due to the confounding of the effects of warm temperatures with those of drought stress. Thus, bristlecone pine, foxtail pine, and Mongolia data that show a pronounced (and likely spurious) hockey-stick shape were not used.
The CPS (Composite Plus Scale) method of analysis was employed; and the data were linearly interpolated. For each dataset, the data were normalized to zero mean and unit variance. The 30 data sets were combined by computing their mean. The composite score was shown to have a correlation of 0.95 with the Hadley instrumental temperature record for the zone 90-30°N and was scaled to match the variance of the Hadley data.
Read more here
Saturday, 25 September 2010
Some interesting items caused? by the mid 70's cooling
1m36 During 1972 record rains in parts of the US, Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries...
1m58 Man may be somewhat responsible for the COOLING trend
2m08 "...climatologists suggest that dust and other p[articles released into the atmospherte as a result of farming and FUEL BURNING may be BLOCKING more and more sunlight..."
2m50 ...atmospheric pollution...The sooner man confronts these facts, the safer he'll be. Once the FREEZE starts, it will be too late...
3m56 ...it demonstrates clearly that the scientific "CONSENSUS" was concerned with global cooling.
4m30 Stephen Schneider, now a vocal CO2 alarminst, in a 1971 paper wrote: "It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase dminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."
Friday, 24 September 2010
Climate change ranks lowest among issues
Monday, 20 September 2010
Press Release: (NZ) Greenhouse Policy Coalition
The Coalition’s survey found:
• Only 23.4% of people agree that New Zealand should reduce its emissions if it means reducing our standard of living – a fall from 34.9% in 2009.
• 38% disagree that New Zealand should take part in a global emissions trading regime if it costs people $5 each a week – an increase from 32.1% in 2009.
• Just 18.1% agree that we should cut emissions if it costs jobs – down from 24.3% in 2009.
• 45.1% agree with the statement “controlling emissions is mostly about saving our planet – we shouldn’t be quibbling too much about money”, a significant drop from 55.9% last year.
• A drop in support for switching to sustainable technologies if there’s a cost for doing this – from 78.3% to 65.6%.
• A drop in the number of people who think putting a price on carbon is a fair way of reducing emissions. Asked to rate their views on a scale of 0 (totally unfair) to 10 (totally fair), 32.3% gave a rating between 6 and 10, down from 37.9% last year.
• Only 33.9% agree with the statement “I feel fully informed about the ETS”, a slight rise on last year’s 29.4%.
• 45.8% of people agree that climate change is happening and is caused by humans, up from 44.2% in 2009, while 32.7% feel there is evidence that climate change is happening, but it is uncertain whether humans are the cause (down from 35.7% last year).
• There has been a slight increase among those who say the climate change problem effectively doesn’t exist (19.3%, up from 17.5%).
Aono, Y. and Saito, S. 2010. Clarifying springtime temperature reconstructions of the medieval period by gap-filling the cherry blossom phenological data series at Kyoto, Japan. International Journal of Biometeorology 54: 211-219.
Japanese scientists working with historical data and documents determine that the extended Medieval Warming had temperatures exceeding current temps by at least one-half degree. Their research also confirms that the Medieval Warming was global in nature, not just a northern Europe climate condition as speculated by IPCC Climategate scientists. Thanks to Marc Morano and the Idsos.
Tuesday, 21 September 2010
First, - UP! - CO2 Taxes up - the ETS by stealth.
IN the Australian, Imre Salusinsky and Annabel Hepworth report that the "NSW Labor government is modelling a national version of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme (GGAS), which has operated in NSW since 2003...."
They report that under GGAS energy companies have to comply with an ever growing array of crazy greenhouse schemes. No evidence that CO2 is causing warming, no science studies, but, what the heck, let's tax the workers.
Energy Supply Association of Australia chief executive Brad Page has warned that this is saddling power suppliers with significant compliance costs. He is quoted as saying: "All these costs are passed through to consumers. There's no two ways about it."
Origin Energy chief executive Grant King said there was "a myriad" of schemes "where it's not clear that people truly understand the cost of those schemes". (Thanks JeffT)
Second, - OUT! Left-wing Env. Scientist Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement.
Mark Morano reports: "Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt, a former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, has officially bailed out of the man-made global warming movement. In a hard-hitting and exclusive new video released by Climate Depot, Dr. Rancourt declares that the entire man-made global warming movement is nothing more than a “corrupt social phenomenon.” “It is as much psychological and social phenomenon as anything else,” Rancourt, who has published peer-reviewed research, explained in June 8, 2010 essay entitled Some Big Lies of Science.
(Thanks Marc Morano)
Third, - Down! Say Goodbye to Sunspots.
Phil Beradelli reports on Sunspots in Science Now.
In the 17th Century, in the Middle of the Little Ice Age, there was a period of absence of Sunspot Activity. Science Now reports:
"Astronomers have been observing and counting sunspots since Galileo began the practice in the early 17th century. From those studies, scientists have long known that the sun goes through an 11-year cycle, in which the number of sunspots spikes during a period called the solar maximum and drops—sometimes to zero—during a time of inactivity called the solar minimum.
The last solar minimum should have ended last year, but something peculiar has been happening. Although solar minimums normally last about 16 months, the current one has stretched over 26 months—the longest in a century. One reason, according to a paper submitted to the International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 273, an online colloquium, is that the magnetic field strength of sunspots appears to be waning."
And later goes on to say:
The phenomenon has happened before. Sunspots disappeared almost entirely between 1645 and 1715 during a period called the Maunder Minimum, which coincided with decades of lower-than-normal temperatures in Europe nicknamed the Little Ice Age. But Livingston cautions that the zero-sunspot prediction could be premature. "It may not happen," he says. "Only the passage of time will tell whether the solar cycle will pick up." Still, he adds, there's no doubt that sunspots "are not very healthy right now." (Thanks Bruce M)
Wednesday, 15 September 2010
Business Spectator wrote
CLIMATE SPECTATOR: Votes, shoots and leaves
Just a few short observations about the vote itself: The Climate Sceptics Party attracted just over 18,000 votes across the country. If their presence was designed to embarrass the Greens, which by definition must be a climate change acceptor’s party, then they failed. The Greens received 1.26 million votes in the Upper House.
The Greens, as noted before, attracted the biggest swing of 3.9 per cent. This was followed by the Sex Party and the Shooters Party. The electorate has spoken and this might be its plan: tackle climate change, make love and, then shoot the lights out.
An Interesting, but not really well thought through analysis. When Labor tried to introduce their ETS/CPRS there was an amazing reaction finally culminating in a Prime Minister's deposal and a change of leader in the Liberal Party. The ex-leader of the Libs is a AGW believer (we should avoid the misleading term Climate Change as Climate has changed since the beginning of time) and he was replaced by a new Lib who had previously expressed that man-made climate change is crap.
On the logic expressed by Giles -"Greens, which by definition must be a climate change acceptor’s party," one could say that 43.65% who voted for the Coalition were voting against man-made climate change.
Of course, both Giles' proposition and mine are fanciful. However, somewhere between the two would be a more accurate figure for the opponents of the man-made global warming hoax.
Most of the Green voters think that they are nice tree- hugging people and are unaware of the sinister anti-Australian undertone of the Greens party. Some friends of mine (I am reluctant to admit) voted for the Greens "because they are sort of good for the environment.
And Giles, after handing out HOW-TO-VOTE cards next to the Sex party candidate, I can say that, at least in that booth, it was mainly young bucks, resenting having to vote, that said: SEX PARTY! Let's vote for them!
The report The Climategate Inquiries, written by Andrew Montford and with a foreword by Lord (Andrew) Turnbull, finds that the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were rushed and seriously inadequate.
In particular, the report finds that:
- none of the Climategate panels mounted an inquiry that was comprehensive within their area of remit
- insufficient consideration in the choice of panel members led to a failure to ensure balance and independence
- none managed to be objective and comprehensive
- none made any serious attempt to consider the views and submissions of well-informed critics
- terms of reference were either vague or non-existent
- none of them perfo
- rmed their work in a way that is likely to restore confidence in the work of CRU.
James Delingpole of the (UK) Telegraph says:
Climategate whitewashers squirm like maggots on Bishop Hill's pin
Just back from the House of Lords for the launch ofthe GWPF's report on the failings of the three Climategate inquiries.
The official inquiries, as we know, found nothing untoward in any of the Climategate emails – nor in the behaviour of the scientists responsible for them. But the GWPF’s report, by Andrew “Bishop Hill” Montford, begs to differ. At the conference, one journalist asked Montford to try to summarise the juiciest of his allegations. Montford found this difficult: so many and varied are the failings of the three whitewash inquiries, he simply couldn’t decide which ones to choose.
Thursday, 9 September 2010
President of the Climate Sceptics Leon Ashby has called for Rob Oakeshott to co- organise a fair debate between the two positions on global warming.
Ashby ,the Centenary medal environmentalist who has examined the issue for the last 7 years says "those who are sceptical have been called abusive names (e.g. Deniers) but our science has never been examined publicly. We do not question variations in climate - only that greenhouse gases are the dominant cause."
The leader of the lobby and political group says "Dr Ferenc Miskolczi has calculated the greenhouse effect from atmospheric measurements over the last 60 years and shown the greenhouse effect has not increased."
"Professor Richard Lindzen has looked at the radiation (Heat) from the atmosphere over the last 25 years and also shown the greenhouse effect has not increased".
"Dr Roy Spencer has demonstrated that when extra warming occurs on the earth, then extra water vapour will cause rainfall events that cool the earth thereby preventing runaway global warming - A self regulating process".
Mr Ashby concludes "No scientist in the world has yet negated the research or published papers countering these three scientists. So if the science of these three brilliant scientists never gets examined publicly this amounts to either censorship or a cover up".
"I call on Rob Oakeshott to follow his own advice and let the light shine on this subject before parliament ever votes on a carbon dioxide tax".
"If we tax carbon dioxide while science shows it's harmless to the planet - How stupid is that?"
President The Climate Sceptics
Wednesday, 8 September 2010
Looks like the first casualty of the Green/Labor government will be Ms Penny Wong. It appears that SA Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young is not impressed with Ms Wong. Ironic - the party that is pushing for homosexual marraiges is pushing to remove a homosexual senator.
I hope the two Amigos are happy to be joining with the Greens. I hope they want illegal immigrants let loose into the Australian populace. I hope they are happy that our saviours from the GFC - the mining companies - are to be driven out, And I hope they are happy that every Australian will be hit with a Carbon Dioxide tax.
A carbon dioxide tax!
Greens climate change and energy spokesman Christine Milne was the architect of the "climate committee" which replaces Julia Gillard's 150 people picked up from bus stops. According to the broad agreement between the Greens and Labor, they will decide on the mechanism by the end of September.
"Milne’s vision is that it will include representatives from the ALP, the Coalition, the Greens, and the two country independents – Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott – who made climate change one of the key considerations for their decision to ditch the rural conservatism of their constituents in favour of the ALP. She also wants a panel of experts – like Ross Garnault, for example – to sit on the committee."
"Milne wants the pre-condition of membership of this government committee to be acceptance of the science of human-caused climate change and the need for a carbon price."
Hang on to your hats, folks! Here come rising prices and the end to Australia's prosperity.
From the Climate Spectator:
A Clean Slate
There is growing speculation in Canberra that Senator Penny Wong will no longer be in the climate change portfolio when the new ministry is announced early next week.
Three names have been suggested as her replacement – Greg Combet, Anthony Albanese and Tony Burke. None of these are particularly contentious, even among the environmental NGOs, although Albanese’s appointment might be coloured by his animosity towards the Greens that nearly unseated him in the latest poll.
Thursday, 2 September 2010
An Open Letter by The Climate Sceptics Queensland Senate Candidate.
THE POISONED CHALICE.
TO ALL THE GREEN VOTERS.
Australians are fortunate that they can freely choose whoever they wish to support them in the parliament and to govern this once great country. This choice is usually made on the basis that the voter has studied his party’s choice and is WELL AWARE of their policies and what that party stands for. But I find it hard to believe that the people who voted for the Greens are aware of all their policies.
So why did you vote for the Greens ?
Was it as one voter said ‘I thought they were nice people.’ Another said it was ‘because they care about the environment.’ As if no one else does.!!!!
Perhaps you were disenchanted by the major parties and thought you would give your vote to the greens instead, without even knowing their policies or how dangerous they are. I find it impossible to believe that anyone in their right mind would vote for the Greens if they knew the truth. Instead of all the lies they have told and policies that would put the fear into the devil.
Did you know they want to introduce death duties. That horrible archaic tax from the past that has caused an overwhelming amount of misery and grief to so many families. Rich and poor, it makes no difference. Everything is frozen till the tax man gets his share. In the mean time families are torn apart.
They want to allow the boat people and other so called ‘environmental refugees’ free access to Australia without any limitations or health and security checks within two weeks of arrival. Allowing them to live freely in our country, and worse to give them financial aid and housing. The flood of millions from Asia and everywhere else would totally devastate our country and terrorists would be free to attack us from within the country , tearing us apart from the inside.
They want to increase taxes on large and small businesses by another 5%. As if small businesses are not already hanging on by their fingertips desperately trying to survive through a global financial crisis and the painfully slow recovery. This could be a possible death blow to many small businesses.
They will demand farmers "remove as far as possible" all genetically modified crops, which includes cotton worth thirteen hundred million dollars a year. ($1.3 billion) a year.
They want to end "the mining and export of uranium", worth nine hundred thousand million dollars ( $900 billion) a year.
They want to introduce a carbon tax on everything destroying whatever businesses that survive their other holocausts and force the cost of electricity (if we still have any) and other products through the roof.
They intend to lift foreign aid to a minimum of 0.7 per cent of GDP, which means an instant rise in handouts to their fanatics overseas of four thousand million dollars ($4 billion) a year. This is partly due to the fact that their Copenhagen handout of seven thousand million dollars a year, thankfully failed, and this is another way of getting that money.
They want to close down all coal mines in Australia and wipe out an industry that brings to the Australian people over sixty four thousand million dollars ($64billion) a year to help pay for our hospitals, road, schools, family and child care, pensions, national defence, etc. etc. Not only that but it would completely alienate our trade relationship with China, the backbone of our export economy. Without China purchasing our resources our economy would be in total collapse and so would this country.
They want to close down all coal fired power stations and replace them with ‘Renewable energy”. Which might be O.K. if it was at all feasible but it is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE to even achieve 5% renewable energy .Let alone 100% renewable energy. It has been tried over the last thirty years or more in many countries with the resultant abject failure. California has gone bankrupt trying with over 14000 wind generator failures and a return to thermal power generation. The total ‘renewable energy in California after 31 years is 2.3% and falling. Spain is also bankrupt because of their renewable energy fiasco and are importing power. The cost of which has doubled and they now have an unemployment rate of over 20%. Germany has over 7500 wind generators of which 2500 failed last year and they have returned to Thermal power which saved them last winter from total collapse. With Denmark’s 5000 wind generators of which 2000 failed last year they are yet to reduce so called ‘CO2 emissions.’ By one gram and like the other countries rely on thermal power generation for backup. The resultant failures in various countries are always the same from many countries but the Greens flatly refuse to see the failures because they want to bring Australia to its knees and under their communist globalisation control. They have NO interest in our well being, only in their communist ideologies and are determined to destroy our economy.
Under that very thin cover of green is a very bright red of the communist, lead by the fanatical Bob Brown, who is a liar and one of the worst perpetrators of this world scam and he wants total control. If the extremists called ‘greens’ should bring their policies to fruition it will destroy our economy and our country. To the point it could bring about an extremely violent reaction from the Australian people when they finally realise that the Greens are deliberately trying to tear our country apart. By that time it could be too late. The only consolation would be that every Green would pay severely for their treachery.
Now that you have read their policies, and this is not all of them. Are you still proud you voted for the greens. Will you stand up and accept the blame when this country is devastated for this communist agenda. Or will you do the right thing by your country and help get rid of these destructive vandals and traitors. When you voted for the greens you were given a Poison Chalice that we may never recover from. Remember that 173 people were burnt to death because of ‘greens’ policies forced on councils who were too weak to deny them. Also the destruction of over 300 homes and the displacement of over 7000 people. The Greens have NOT been responsible for even one environmental improvement. They are a farce and liars.
If Australia could reduce its total CO2 emissions (a harmless gas essential to all life) by 20% as they want to, it would make a difference of .00000016% or 16 parts per ten millionth to the increase of CO2 in air per year. NOT even measurable. Our future is now in your hands. You are the ones who MUST REJECT the greens and do everything to revoke your vote and stop the communist greens before it is too late.
Terence Cardwell Email:- firstname.lastname@example.org