Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label, Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction

11 December 2009 Thought for the Week:

“The mainstream media - with a handful of (conservative) exceptions - do not know what terrible damage they are doing to their credibility by ignoring or drastically downplaying the Climategate scandal. The story is out, a couple of million times over, on the Internet.

What do you think the people reading of this scandal there conclude when they then turn to, say, The Age or the ABC, and find there barely a word of coverage? I’ll tell you: they’ll conclude that the media cannot be trusted to tell even the news, let alone the truth, when it conflicts with their agenda.
Hear that from the ABC’s Melbourne talkback host Jon Faine himself when he explained why he would not even discuss the emails:
‘That was my assessment of whether this was actually of any significance or not, and I decided that it wasn’t and we wouldn’t spend time on it. It suits the conspiracy theorists beautifully…’

The other thing these readers will conclude is that for news involving certain ideologies, they must of necessity turn to the Internet, and in particular to certain blogs they trust to speak freely.
For all those in the ABC and Age who deplore the influence of my blog, my sincere thanks for your part this week in making it more essential reading than ever. Fools. You cut your own throats.”

- - Source: Andrew Bolt Blog, Saturday 28 November 2009  


Finally, the CPRS bill has been defeated in the Senate, with the Coalition voting against the introduction of a massive new tax on the Australian people. What complete insanity the Labor Government was proposing for us. Now we already have Dr James Hansen, the grandfather of global warming, saying an ETS is a failure and we have to look for other alternatives.
Many people have played a part in this massive debate about this massive tax. Make no mistake about it. It is the pressure from the Australian public that changed the political complexion in Canberra.

Now the Labor Party wants to bring the same bill back again. How is that for contempt for the Senate? Mr Rudd is so arrogant; he just does not understand the word ‘No’. Because of Mr Rudd, unfortunately the Coalition and the Australian people will have to get ready to fight again.

This time the people of Australia can concentrate on Labor members of Parliament and Labor Senators. So find their names, find their emails and find their telephone numbers and contact them!

We are in a new form of participatory democracy and maybe that is the one good thing that has come out of this ETS debate. 

- - Senator Barnaby Joyce, The Nationals Senator for Queensland 3rd December 2009


by Dr. Tim Ball
Dr. Tim Ball, environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, Canada, is one of the guest speakers on the DVD “The Fall of the Republic”.

The following statement was issued by Dr. Ball -“Hacked files of the Climatic Research Unit, Global Warming a deliberate fraud” 21st November, 2009:

Global Warming is often called a hoax. I disagree because a hoax has a humorous intent to puncture pomposity. In science, such as with the Piltdown Man hoax, it was done to expose those with fervent but blind belief. The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is a deliberate fraud. I can now make that statement without fear of contradiction because of a remarkable hacking of files that provided not just a smoking gun, but an entire battery of machine guns.

Someone hacked in to the files of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia. A very large file (61 mb) was downloaded and posted to the web. Phil Jones Director of the CRU has acknowledged the files are theirs. They contain papers, documents letters and emails. The latter are the most damaging and contain blunt information about the degree of manipulation of climate science in general and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in particular.

Climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists:
Dominant names involved are ones I have followed throughout my career including, Phil Jones, Benjamin Santer, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Jonathan Overpeck, Ken Briffa and Tom Wigley. I have watched climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists. This small, elite, community was named by Professor Wegman in his report to the National Academy of Science (NAS).

I had the pleasure of meeting the founder of CRU Professor Hubert Lamb, considered the Father of Modern Climatology, on a couple of occasions. He also peer reviewed one of my early publications. I know he would be mortified with what was disclosed in the last couple of days.

Jones claims the files were obtained illegally as if that absolves the content. It doesn’t and it is enough to destroy all their careers. Jones gave a foretaste of his behaviour in 2005. Warwick Hughes asked for the data and method he used for his claim of a 0.6°C temperature rise since the end of the nineteenth century. Jones responded, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” He has stonewalled ever since.

The main reason was because it was used as a key argument in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports to convince the world humans caused rapid warming in the 20th century. The emails obtained are a frightening record of arrogance, and deception far beyond his 2005 effort.

Pervert science in service of social and political causes
Another glimpse into what the files and emails reveal was the report by Professor Deming. He wrote, “ With publication of an article in Science (in 1995) I gained sufficient credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said. “ We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

The person in question was Jonathan Overpeck and his even more revealing emails are part of those exposed by the hacker. It is now very clear that Deming’s charge was precise. They have perverted science in the service of social and political causes. Professor Wegman showed how this “community of scientists” published together and peer reviewed each other’s work. I was always suspicious about why peer review was such a big deal. Now all my suspicions are confirmed.

Emails reveal how process was controlled
The emails reveal how they controlled the process, including manipulating some of the major journals like Science and Nature. We know the editor of the Journal of Climate, Andrew Weaver, was one of the “community”. They organized lists of reviewers when required making sure they gave the editor only favourable names. They threatened to isolate and marginalize one editor who they believed was recalcitrant.

Total Control… left wing conduit to… New York Times
These people controlled the global weather data used by the IPCC through the joint Hadley and CRU and produced the HadCRUT data. They controlled the IPCC, especially crucial chapters and especially preparation of the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM). Stephen Schneider was a prime mover there from the earliest reports to the most influential in 2001. They also had a left wing conduit to the New York Times. The emails between Andy Revkin and the community are very revealing and must place his journalistic integrity in serious jeopardy.

Carbon Credits shell game
Of course the IPCC Reports and especially the SPM Reports are the basis for Kyoto and the Copenhagen Accord, but now we know they are based on completely falsified and manipulated data and science. It is no longer a suspicion. Surely this is the death knell for the CRU, the IPCC, Kyoto and Copenhagen and the Carbon Credits shell game.
CO2 never was a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it was the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing. It is a very sad day for science and especially my chosen area of climate science. As I expected, now it is all exposed I find there is no pleasure in “I told you so.”

You can download the climate change fraud documents from the link below: or

"The Fall of the Republic" DVD from Heritage Books, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley S.A. 5159 $12.00 posted.

Wednesday 2/12/2009:
The Greens, Independent Senator Nick Xenophon, and Family First Senator Steve Fielding joined the Opposition in voting down the scheme.
Liberal Senators Sue Boyce and Judith Troeth voted with the Government but it was not enough to push the scheme through.


Wall Street Journal 30th November 2009:
Climate change researchers must believe in the reality of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God. Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was called—without irony—the climate change "consensus."

To read some of the press accounts of these gifts—amounting to about 0.0027% of Exxon's 2008 profits of $45 billion—you might think you'd hit upon the scandal of the age. But thanks to what now goes by the name of climategate, it turns out the real scandal lies elsewhere. Climategate, as readers of these pages know, concerns some of the world's leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature data—facts that were laid bare by last week's disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, or CRU.

But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists' follow-the-money methods right back at them.

Recipient of $19 million in research grants
Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his centre, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a six-fold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.

Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly:
The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?
Thus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative.
In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.

And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.

Supply, as we know, creates its own demand. So for every additional billion in government-funded grants (or the tens of millions supplied by foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts), universities, research institutes, advocacy groups and their various spin-offs and dependents have emerged from the woodwork to receive them.

Today these groups form a kind of ecosystem of their own. They include not just old standbys like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, but also Ozone Action, Clean Air Cool Planet, Americans for Equitable Climate Change Solutions, the Alternative Energy Resources Association, the California Climate Action Registry and so on and on. All of them have been on the receiving end of climate change-related funding, so all of them must believe in the reality (and catastrophic imminence) of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God…

Australia’s poor databases
Which brings us back to the climategate scientists, the keepers of the keys to the global warming cathedral. In one of the more telling disclosures from last week, a computer programmer writes of the CRU's temperature database: "I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seems to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was… Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight… We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!"

This is not the sound of settled science, but of a cracking empirical foundation. And however many billion-dollar edifices may be built on it, sooner or later it is bound to crumble.”  



by Kurt Schlichter

A trial lawyer reading through the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) will immediately, almost unconsciously, begin generating a list of questions he would love to ask the authors if he were able to face them on the witness stand and under oath. The beauty of the adversarial process is how cross-examination tests and challenges the other side’s position – precisely what the emails indisputably show the CRU and its allies in the climate change scam have gone to shocking lengths to avoid.

There are several lines of examination that come immediately to mind. We can rest assured that it will never happen – as the emails show, the last thing they want to do is be in a position where they have to explain themselves.
But certainly asking leading climate change cheerleader Phil Jones about his email describing his use of a “trick” to describe the manipulation of observed temperature data to “hide the decline” in order to achieve the desired result would be amusing:

So, Dr. Jones, when you used the word “trick,” you really meant that it was not a “trick” at all but a valid, scientifically recognized process of data interpretation?

Can you identify another instance in your experience where a scientist described his valid, scientifically recognized process of data interpretation with a term commonly used to describe a hoax, scam or fraud?

And when you wrote the words “hide the decline,” is it now your testimony that when you used the word “hiding,” you were not actually “hiding” anything, and moreover, though you used the word “decline,” there was no “decline” in temperatures to be hidden in the first place?
So, if I understand your explanation, it is that you commonly use language in your communications which means precisely the opposite of the meaning that you are seeking to communicate?

And if an email from those who disagree with your findings – who you call “deniers” or “skeptics” – were to be made public that described their use of a “trick” to “hide the increase” in temperatures, would you find this to be of no great import because scientists commonly describe their processes as “tricks” and that their act of “hiding the increase” must be purely benign based on the manner of usage you describe?

So, is it only proponents of man-made global warming that habitually use words and phrases that mean precisely the opposite of their common usage to describe their work?

But, as delightful as it would be to pick at particular instances of the activists’ admissions of fraud and their lame attempts to explain them away, there’s really one question that needs to be asked. In fact, if Al Gore would ever expose himself to the questions of anyone beyond the most credulous climate change sycophants, someone ought to ask it of him:
Mr. Gore, would you be happy if tomorrow you were to see irrefutable scientific evidence that mankind’s activities are not causing the Earth to warm?

A normal person would answer with a resounding, “Yes!” A normal person would be relieved that not only is our planet safe, but that we need not spend trillions of dollars and forfeit our most basic freedoms in pursuit of remedies for the bugbear of climate change.

But do you think for a second Al Gore would say, “Yes”? Do you think any of the global warming suckers would? Get real. Understand you would not get an express, “No.”
He would probably just deny the validity of the question (“We know climate change is real so that will never happen”).

But after 15 years of examining witnesses, I have a rule of thumb. Any answer to a question that is not an unambiguous “Yes” is really a “No.”

Investors in ideology - professionally and financially
And to those invested (ideologically, professionally and financially) in man-made climate change, the answer would be “No.” But contrary evidence would make no difference regardless. Al Gore and his ilk would not be shaken in the least by contrary scientific findings because the climate change scam is not driven by science.
It is a campaign driven by the end the believers seek – an agenda of political, economic and social control. The science is simply a convenient means to that end.
In fact, climate change belief is the opposite of science. It is a faith, a pagan religion complete with infallible doctrines, ritual sacrifices and even heretics who must be burned at the (so far) figurative stake.

Belief requires an act of faith
A basic concept in the scientific method is falsifiability, the idea that a scientific hypothesis can be disproven through evidence. If a hypothesis cannot ever be falsified, then to believe it requires an act of faith. Therefore, if the climate change hypothesis is truly based upon science, with the production of satisfactory evidence it could be disproven.

And this leads to one final question for the climate change believers
Mr. Gore, if presented with irrefutable scientific evidence that the man-made climate change hypothesis is incorrect, would you accept it? Of course, believing that Mr. Gore would answer with an unambiguous “Yes” would itself require an enormous leap of faith.


by Betty Luks
Tony Abbott is the new leader of the Liberal Party after ousting Malcolm Turnbull by just one vote. He won the final vote against Malcolm Turnbull by 42 votes to 41 after challenger Joe Hockey was knocked out in an earlier vote between all three candidates. He has stated the Liberals will fight the next election on the Climate Change claims.

Change of personalities not enough – change of policies more to the point
While I might hope for more from Tony Abbott for Australians, I would like to remind readers of Janet Albrechtsen’s words in The Wall Street Journal, (WSJ) 28th October 2009:

Mrs Albrechtsen asks: “Has Anyone Read the Copenhagen Agreement? U.N. plans for a new 'government' are scary.”

Well yes, as we now know Lord Christopher Monckton read it and set out to warn his fellow men just what it all meant. His Youtube address had received a million hits up to the time that Albrechtsen wrote her piece for the WSJ.
“For the first time, the public heard about the 181 pages, dated Sept. 15, that comprise the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change — a rough draft of what could be signed come December,” she wrote.

Lord Monkton warned the "scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention" that starts on page 18 contains the provision for a "government." The aim is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.

Mrs Albrechtsen continues
“Ask yourself this question: Given that our political leaders spend hundreds of hours talking about climate change and the need for a global consensus in Copenhagen, why have none of them talked openly about the details of this draft climate-change treaty? After all, the final treaty will bind signatories for years to come. What exactly are they hiding? Thanks to Lord Monckton we now know something of their plans.”

Have Australians given much thought to the fact that the Rudd government has no qualms about signing our national and personal sovereignty away? In fact, he is anxious to do it. Isn’t this a treasonous act?

Isn’t the climate change project just another scam like the derivatives scam? Or as the Americans term it - another ponzi scheme. Hands up all those Australians who lost their superannuation-savings through the derivatives scam?

Isn’t John Howard’s former government just as responsible for the fraudulent scheme as is Paul Keating's? After all, Keating deregulated the financial system. Howard had plenty of years in power to set matters right. What have the Liberals got to say on the matter?

Have you watched the DVD “The Fall of the Republic” yet? You need to - then you will realise how we were all ‘conned’ by these world-government-bankster fraudsters.

Did Governments quietly change the laws so that the gangster bankers could set up the scams without ever being held legally accountable?

What did/does Malcolm Turnbull have to say on the matter? After all, a former merchant banker wouldn’t be totally ignorant of what it was all about.

When are the politicians going to apologise to the Australian people?
Politicians love to go around apologising to others for all the hurts and wrongs done to various groups of people. The time has come for these politicians to PUBLICLY APOLOGISE to the AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE for legally allowing such a fraudulent, financially corrupt scheme to be set up.

And when are the politicians who were pushing so hard for the Climate Change Treaty, thereby signing our national and personal sovereignty away, going to resign their positions in Parliament ? There was a time they would have lost their heads !


Don’t take our word for it. Read the following portions of the draft paper Lord Monkton referred to in his DVD:
From page 18:
38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

Page 19:

(b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, (c) a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
(c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; (c) a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange…” (emphasis added…ed)

Now is the time to ACT!
Please write, phone and/or email your federal politicians expressing your outrage at such a plan. The following two Liberals to begin with:
The Hon Tony Abbott, Level 2 (P0 Box 450), 17 Sydney Road, Manly, NSW 2095 Tel : (02) 9977 6411, Fax : (02) 9977 8715 E-mail: Canberra: Tel: (02) 6277 4979 Fax: (02) 6277 8407
Senator the Hon Nick Minchin 36 Grenfell Street, Kent Town SA 5067 (PO Box 2141, Kent Town SA 5071) 08/8362 8600 1300 301 647 08/8362 8579 (fax) E-mail:

Now is the time to tackle the Labor government !