THE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLAR QUESTION

from Senator Barnaby Joyce
In Senate Economics Estimates today, Senator Barnaby Joyce asked the CSIRO the million dollar question - or should that be the hundred billion dollar question, “Will the Australian Emissions Trading Scheme change the temperature of the globe?”

“The answer confirmed my worst fears,” he wrote, “in that I could not get the answer “Yes”. I was told it would depend on global factors of course! There will be no global factors if the rest of the world is not part of a global scheme. The CSIRO was sensibly and more inclined to tell me that my question was a policy issue. That is correct as it lacks scientific credibility that there will be any discernable change in the climate by reason of an Australian ETS.
Later in the morning, the chief scientist said there would be a change in the climate by way of an Australian Emissions Trading Scheme. She also acknowledged there would be a change in the climate if I personally parked my car in the garage. That is to say an indiscernible change, apart from the fact that the process involved in the most absurd form of minutia, follows the same mathematics as the overall equation of climate change.”

Merely a policy for a huge tax hike !!!
“The Australian Emissions Trading Scheme is merely a policy, a political statement, a gesture. The cost to the Australian citizen of this massive new tax associated with it, is very real however. If you are involved in the emission of carbon, which might be from anything as obscure as ironing your clothes, cooking dinner, putting fertiliser on your field or pouring a concrete slab for your house, you will pay the tax.

You may not see it but you will definitely pay it. The removal of wealth from your life and transferred to the Treasury will be discernable, with the commission going to stock brokers and bankers on the way through.

“I have to query, is the purpose of the Emissions Trading Scheme to cool the planet, which clearly it will not do, or is it to prop up a parlous state of our Government finances? The more I hear, the more I am inclined to the latter. Australians will deliver tens of billions of dollars to the Treasury by reason of this tax in the near future.
There is far more empirical evidence in what it will cost you, the resident of Australia, than any scientific evidence that an emissions scheme will do anything for the climate.”

Further reading:
"Heaven+Earth Global Warming: The Missing Science" by Ian Plimer. Price $40 plus postage.

PROPAGANDA JUST AS BLATANT AS WAS THE SOVIET'S

by Betty Luks
Those of Latvian background will recognise my surname as being of Latvian origin, but I am Australian born of British parents. After WWII, my husband having fled from the Soviet re-occupation of his native-land, had made his way to Australia’s shores early in 1948.
Having experienced the Soviet system at first hand – Latvia was invaded by the Soviets a year before Hitler’s armies invaded the Baltic state and forced the Soviets out – he was well aware of their propaganda methods. He, along with others of European background, recognised the more subtle propaganda Australians were being subjected to through the mainline media, and, many the time he would comment “that is pure propaganda” about some TV program or newspaper article.

The Greenhouse Hoax was one of them
‘Greenhouse gases’ became ‘global warming’ and then ‘climate change’; the media and government articles had spin doctors’ finger prints all over them. (I had forgotten the earlier Ozone Holes scare but Geoffrey Dobbs’ article posted on the League’s website reminded me of it.)
Having been psychologically terrorised, it was assumed by those pulling the government and media strings, the general public would accept the apocalyptic scenario and meekly submit to a carbon trading scheme ‘to save the planet’.

Be that as it may, the facts are becoming clearer, the real purpose behind all that propaganda is a huge world-wide tax that, as Senator Joyce notes in his media release (above): “The removal of wealth from your life and transferred to the Treasury will be discernable, with the commission going to stock brokers and bankers on the way through.” (emphasis added)

I was pleased Christopher Booker Sunday Telegraph 18/10/2009 used the term ‘propaganda’ in his article "Meanwhile back in the UK’s Cold Reality":
“For the third year running there are signs of an abnormally hard winter in many parts of the world. Not many people in Britain were aware, I suspect, that 20 per cent of the entire United States was last week covered in snow, the greatest October snow cover the country had known for years (for details see the Watts Up With That website). Similarly unseasonable snowfalls blanketed central Europe and the Alps. Freak October snows caused traffic chaos in New Zealand. Hundreds of Tibetan herdsmen had to be rescued when blizzards swept their summer pastures weeks early.

This is now the third year running when there have been signs of an abnormally cold winter across large parts of the world. Last year's October snowfalls in the US broke records which in some cases had stood for over a century, prefacing one of America's coldest winters for decades. This summer's Arctic ice-melt stopped nearly 1 million square kilometres short of its record low in 2007. Around Antarctica this year's sea ice-melt was the lowest recorded since satellite data began in 1979, leaving the ice 30 per cent above its 30-year average.
What a startling contrast is provided by all these events in the real world to the ever more surreal frenzy of the ‘warmists’ as – with only weeks to go before their doomed Copenhagen treaty conference in December – they make a last desperate bid to keep climate change hysteria at fever pitch.

Soaring energy bills to rise by 60 per cent?
“Last week the Advertising Standards Authority was showered with more than 200 complaints over a bizarre £6 million campaign launched in the breaks of Monday's Coronation Street. Three ministries, led by Ed Miliband's Department of Energy and Climate Change, are trying to win round an increasingly dubious public to the idea that soaring energy bills are a small price to pay for saving the planet. (Ofgem last week warned that bills could soon rise by 60 per cent to pay for all the measures the Government is now imposing.)

“The Government's advertisement shows a middle-class Dad trying to frighten his little girl with a bedtime story: "There was once a land," he begins, "where the weather was very, very strange." There were "awful heat waves", "terrible storms and floods", and "scientists said" this was all caused by too much CO2 being pumped into the air by "ordinary, everyday things like keeping homes warm and driving cars". (Cue for a cartoon of this filthy, black, polluting "carbon" rising up over a city and turning into a fearsome monster.)
And all this was happening "faster than they had thought". Eventually, "some places could even disappear under the sea", leaving "the children of the land" to face catastrophe. But so long as we all cut down on keeping our homes warm and driving our cars, was the message, there can still be a happy ending.

Government claiming it is ‘objective truth'
“As complainants were quick to point out, this tawdry piece of propaganda appears to breach pretty well every requirement of Section 4 of the Television Advertising Standards Code, which prohibits any advertisement "directed towards any political end". It will be fascinating to see how the ASA responds to the Government's claims that every detail of its babyish caricature represents objective truth which no serious person could dispute.

“Equally surreal was the Gadarene rush last week by ‘warmist groupies’ in the media, led as usual by the BBC, to revive interest in the fiasco of Pen Hadow's Catlin expedition in the spring to measure the thickness of Arctic ice with an old tape measure.
Sponsored by a City firm with a commercial interest in promoting "insurance against climate change", Mr Hadow's forlorn bid to walk across the ice to the North Pole (from which he had to be airlifted less than halfway to his goal because it was so cold) lived up in every way to Watts Up With That's description of it as "the worst scientific joke of 2009".

Greatest scare-story the world has ever known
“Despite Hadow's claims that the ice was "thinner than expected", the scientific value of this publicity stunt was zero. A team of Canadian and German scientists flying across the ice at the same time, measuring its thickness with the latest electromagnetic equipment, found exactly the opposite, that the ice was "thicker than expected", as was confirmed when the summer melt stopped 970,000 sq km short of its 2007 low.

But this didn't deter the Today programme and much of the press from trying, with the aid of a tame Cambridge professor, to pretend that Hadow's tape measure had proved that Arctic ice will soon disappear.
“The debate on global warming has truly become "a tale of two planets", as I say towards the end of my new book, “The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the obsession with climate change turning out to be the most costly scientific delusion in history?”

“On one planet – where David Cameron proved himself to be at home on Friday – we see all these increasingly reckless attempts to keep the panic afloat. On the other, evidence piles up to show that this is the greatest scare story the world has ever known. Alas, it is those who inhabit that first planet who still control the high ground in politics and the media. As we shiver through yet another cold winter, it is high time reality began to break in on their mad dreams.”

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6360124/Meanwhile-back-in-cold-reality....html

TO COPENHAGEN FOR THE TREATY

The Guardian newspaper published the following information on the coming December Copenhagen Conference: “The draft document includes sections on the traditional sticking points that have delayed progress on climate change to date. It is a blueprint to save the world. And yet it is long, confusing and contradictory. Negotiators have released a draft version of a new global agreement on climate change, which is widely billed as the last chance to save the planet from the ravages of global warming.
Running to some 200 pages, the draft agreement is being discussed for the first time this week as officials from 190 countries gather in Bangkok for the latest round of UN talks. There is only one short meeting after this before they meet in Copenhagen aiming to hammer out a final version.

The draft text consolidates and reorders hundreds of changes demanded by countries to the previous version, which saw it balloon to an unmanageable 300 pages. It has no official status yet, and must be formally approved before negotiators can start to whittle it down.
Here, we present key, edited sections from the text and attempt to decipher what the words mean. The text includes sections on the traditional sticking points that have delayed progress on climate change for a decade or longer.
• How much are rich countries willing to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, and by when?
• Will large developing nations such as China make an effort to put at least a dent in their soaring levels of pollution?
• How much money must flow from the developed world to developing countries to grease the wheels and secure their approval? How much to compensate for the impact of past emissions, and how much to help prevent future emissions?

According to the UN rules, for a new treaty to be agreed, every country must sign up - a challenging requirement. The new treaty is designed to follow the Kyoto protocol, the world's existing treaty to regulate greenhouse gases, the first phase of which expires in 2012.
Because the US did not ratify Kyoto, the climate talks have been forced on to awkward parallel tracks, with one set of negotiations, from which the US is excluded, debating how the treaty could be extended past 2012. This new text comes from the second track, which lays out a plan to include all countries in long-term co-operative action.

Behind the scenes, pessimism about the Copenhagen talks is rising. Despite references in the text to a global goal and collective emission cuts of 25-40% by 2020 for rich countries, many observers believe there is little chance such an approach will succeed. Stuart Eizenstat, who negotiated Kyoto for the US, said: "Copenhagen is more likely to be a way station to a final agreement, where each country posts the best that it can do... The key thing is let's not go into Copenhagen with all the same kind of guns blazing like we did in Kyoto."

A top European official told the Guardian
"We've moved on from the idea that we can negotiate on targets. That's naïve and just not the way the deal will be done. The best we can get is that countries will put in what they want to commit to. Once all the carbon offsets – buying pollution credits instead of cutting emissions - and "fudges" are taken into account, the outcome is likely to be that emissions in 2020 from rich countries will be broadly similar to those in 1990, he said. "That's really scary stuff." (emphasis added…ed)

Comment: It’s not really ‘scary stuff’ at all. The purpose of the emissions trading scheme is not to ‘counter global warming’ at all but to introduce another tax – this time a blatant international global tax with the commission – for administering the financial transactions - going to stock brokers and bankers on the way through !!!
When is the overburdened public going to realise the core problem begins with the debt money system and it is here they must look for answers.

Further reading: “The Just Tax” by Geoffrey Dobbs. In a 1994 postscript Geoffrey Dobbs explained how he, a forest botanist, was invited in 1952 to write for a leading theological journal “Theology”, usually written and read by professional clergy. It seems the theological world was ransacked for someone who had any ideas on the subject but no one could be found.
Then, as now, while there was any amount of passionate discussion in the churches about the distribution of the taxation levied, the moral nature of taxation itself, or of the money of which it consists, was scarcely even then considered in the light of Christian theology.
With the recent ‘financial crisis’ hitting them so badly, it could be the Church leaders are also having ‘a reality check’. Copies of the updated version of “The Just Tax” are available for $4.00 plus postage.

THE PUSH FOR A REPUBLIC

David Flint in his Opinion Column writes that we could be in for a nasty surprise in the republicans’ push for a republic. He has drawn on Australia’s history to remind us of why the “For and Against Case” was presented to Australia’s electors before a referendum on changes to the Commonwealth Constitution took place:

“Sending out a “Yes/No booklet” summarising the arguments in a referendum, and providing full details of the proposed changes has been a feature of Australian political life for close on one century. Originally proposed by a Labor government with conservative support, this essentially democratic practice is based on a direction to the Electoral Commissioner contained in Federal legislation, now the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act, 1984 (“the Act”).

This provision was originally introduced in 1912 by a Labor government. The Prime Minister, Mr. Andrew Fisher, acknowledged the strong conservative support for the proposal with these words: “It is pleasing to find both sides are agreeable to this proposal.”
Referring to the fact that this process was followed in relation to the adoption of the Constitution itself, he said: “The object then was to make the electors acquainted with the Constitution which they were to adopt for the government of their country. The proposal here is to enable the electors to obtain in a concise form the arguments for and against the proposals. There can be nothing worse for a country than to expect the people in it to vote for or against the alteration of the constitution without knowing what they are doing.”

The Attorney General, William Morris Hughes, said the measure was based “upon sound common sense. The people will naturally want to know why the Constitutional Alteration Bills have been introduced. I submit that they will be quite unable to ascertain that by attending public meetings because on the platform the honourable member for Bathurst and I will say a number of most interesting things that have no relation whatever to those Bills. Under this measure it is proposed to tell them the plain facts of the case, as set forth by each side.”

The Home Minister, King O’Malley, succinctly described the process as “...sending out to the people the kernel of the speeches which have been delivered on the proposed amendments to the Constitution.”
Speaking for the recently fused conservative opposition parties Alfred Deakin said: “It is our duty, when we ask electors to vote for or against momentous proposals of this kind, to give them the best material we have in order that they may form an independent judgement.”

The right of the Australian elector to know
It is curious then that the distribution of the Yes/No booklet to every voter is under challenge. This is in the context of clearing the path for the holding of a plebiscite. I suspect this is being done if it is decided to hold a plebiscite during the next term – and in an attempt to encourage its being passed." (emphasis added …ed)

DVDs launched at National Weekend:
The filmed presentations of David d’Lima and Jason Oconal on the Constitutional Monarchy at the August 2009 South Australian Seminar and Dr. Fredrick Toben at the Frank Bawden Memorial Dinner were launched at Horsham last weekend.
Two DVDs for $27.00 posted from Heritage Books, P.O. Box 27, Happy Valley SA 5159.

BANKS PLEDGE 'NO MORE GREED '

by James Reed
An amazing headline: “Banks Pledge No More Greed”, (The Advertiser, 31/10/09, p.3). The big banks have pledged not to raise rates above official increases. Previously the banks have raised rates without moves in the Reserve Bank.
Given that the Reserve Bank marches in line to the tune sung by the financial sector anyway, this is not a mercy at all. Consider: an increase of two percentage points will add almost $400 a month to repayments on a $300,000 home loan and over $660 a month for a $500,000 mortgage.

There can be no better argument for social credit because the present system makes people wage slaves just to get a house. It is crazy – the pioneers were far better off, knocking out a log cabin in a couple of weeks. Our very lifeblood is poured into fruitless work that benefits only the financial elite. Social credit says: there is more to life than that.

GENES, EVOLUTION AND THE 'END OF CIVILISATION'

by Brian Simpson
A new book by two professors at the University of Utah, Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending, “The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilisation Accelerated Human Evolution,” (Basic Books, New York, 2009), challenges the alleged orthodox liberal consensus of the irrelevance of genes in understanding the evolution of human civilisation.

The authors state: “For most of the last century, the received wisdom in the social sciences has been that human evolution stopped a long time ago - in the most up to date version, before modern humans expanded out of Africa some 50,000 years ago. This implies that human minds must be the same everywhere – the ‘psychic unity of mankind’. It would certainly make life simpler if it were true. Unfortunately a recent halt to evolution also implies that human bodies must be the same everywhere, which is obviously false. Clearly, received wisdom is wrong and human evolution continued”.

Further to this, a continuation of human evolution refutes cosy ideals of racial equality: “the biological equality of human races and ethnic groups is not inevitable: in fact it’s about as likely as a fistful of silver dollars landing on edge when dropped. There are important, well understood examples of human biological inequality: some populations can (on average) deal far more effectively with certain situations than others”. Indeed, the authors say, “In the light of modern evolutionary theory, it is difficult to imagine how it could have been otherwise”.
Genetic history, based on molecular biology, palaeontology, archaeology and other physical sciences, discards “unproven anthropological doctrine” championed by Marxists such as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin.

It seems slowly but surely the truth is outing the absurdities of liberal equalitarianism.

49 MULTICULTURAL MOMENTS IN ADELAIDE

from Len the Cleaner
Here in boring old Adelaide the media has been beating up the issue about the Gang of 49, an Aboriginal gang. “Wild West: Gang of 49 a Law Unto Themselves”, The Advertiser 10/10/09 proclaimed. Yes, a gang member can be seen on page 1 in full glorious colour, with a rifle robbing a bakery. Three men with guns robbed the bakery and bashed a chef with a gun. There are a string of similar events. Always the call goes out for help from the Aboriginal community to help solve the problem. The call goes unanswered because of the fear factor. It is similar in the Asian, African and Middle Eastern communities. Individuals fear that the police will not be able to protect them if they inform, so logically enough they don’t.

I for one don’t blame these communities. This is a normal part of a multicultural, multiracial society, so we should cherish each moment and enjoy the splendour that diversity brings to us. Adelaide is well on the way to becoming a Sydney, while Sydney is morphing into an L.A.

Hey man, isn’t it cool! To blend in, I will start wearing my baseball cap back-to-front and grow my hair long and tie it in a pig-tail. But I ask: what gang (even a cleaning gang) would want Uncle Len the cleaner? And: why don’t Anglo Saxons have their own home group?

THE ISLAMISATION OF THE WORLD

by Brian Simpson
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has released a report on the growth of Islam, which shatters the popular idea that equates Muslims with Arabs. The global Muslim population is 1.57 billion, which means that one in four people are Muslim. And: Germany has more Muslims than Lebanon and China more Muslims than Syria.

Islam is the world’s second biggest religion (after Christianity at about 2.2 billion) and growing – rapidly, boosted by high Islamic birth rates. Muslim women take breeding seriously. In Europe, Muslims constitute about 5% of the population but this varies from country to country, with Holland and France on-line to have majority Muslim populations by 2050 or sooner. This is the logical conclusion of liberal immigration and multicultural policies, which of course will cease to be liberal once the numbers reach a majority. It is but one more illustration of the great liberal death wish.

B. HUSSEIN OBAMA: FROM NOBEL PRIZE TO OSCAR

by James Reed
B. Hussein Obama, President of the US of A, as you know, is black. Bingo, just for strutting on the world stage and making a few noises about the need to control nuclear weapons (except of course, in Muslim nations such as Iran) he is awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Committee said this nonsense:
“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama, captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population”.

Now there is nonsense on stilts. Obama’s values are those of the global ruling elite and certainly not those of the majority of people. The elites see us as cattle and sheep, to farm, slaughter in wars and harvest. Obama, like Presidents before him, keeps the wheels of the military-industrial complex smoothly spinning. It is absurd to give him any sort of peace prize.

But then again, the Nobel Prize for Peace has been politically correct for some time: after all, Al Gore got one. I would have preferred First Lady Michelle Obama getting one, as she has now discovered her “slave roots”. Oh, and a white ancestor has also been found.

AUSTRALIA 'S OPEN DOOR

by James Reed
“From Kabul to Colombo, Refugees know Rudd has Opened the Door” (The Weekend Australian, 10-11/10/09, p.1) and how they are coming in The Camp of the Saints style. As one refugee puts it: “I know Kevin Rudd is the new PM. I know about him. He has tried to get more immigrants. I have heard if someone arrives it is easy. They have camps, good service and if someone arrives they give us a limited visa and after three years you become an Australian citizen”.

That just about sums it up. Rudd wants more, more, more migrants because like all in the chattering class of power elites, he wants to see the end of traditional Australia. Howard said that he didn’t, but his immigration policy did more than even Keating to end traditional Australia. Rudd is even more gung-ho. The preliminary net overseas migration for the year ended March 31, 2009 was 278,200 persons and rising. With all of our ecological problems, immigration is the final nail in the coffin of a fragile land.