|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
15 January 2010 Thought for the Week:
The statements from government and opposition about Peter Spencer's issues are " to have it settled in courts". This is from the people you voted into government and opposition in our two party preferred political system, who either do not know or do not care, that Peter has been to court 200 times over their land theft during the governments of Liberal and Labor.
Listening to both Barnaby Joyce, shadow treasurer, Kevin Humphries MP, NSW Nationals and Barrister Peter King who represents (free of charge) Peter Spencer, (one) reflects that PM Rudd and Tony Abbott are flying on pure arrogance as leaders of the ‘two party preferred’ system and are quite prepared for Peter to die up the tower rather than address the issue - both their parties (were) involved in the THEFT.
Annually, there are some 50 deaths of farmers in Australia from suicide out of desperation of government land theft, carbon theft and unworkable vegetation laws… The Peter Spencer fight to receive compensation for farmers’ stolen assets, along with our stolen democracy needs to be kept up to speed.
Want to know about a more just ‘social credit’ financial system? View…
FARMER PETER SPENCER - VICTIM OF WORLD GOVERMENT AGENDA
How galling. The very political parties who approved the legislation permitting the stealing of Peter Spencer’s land are saying he should take his case to the courts! The courts will try the case based on that same legislation which is now LAW! Australians need to wake up. The one-worlders are in positions of power. They must be disabused as to their role and purpose in Parliament.
“Peter Spencer’s Hunger Strike against unconstitutional carbon-fuelled actions by the Commonwealth Government…”
On the 1st December 2009, high up on a 300m wind-monitoring tower, farmer Peter Spencer of “Saarahnlee” NSW Australia, commenced an indefinite hunger strike until the Australian government meets his demands. Peter claims that the Government has unconstitutionally stolen 109 million Ha of agricultural land from Australian farmers, being that they have not been compensated for the 22% CO2 reduction - that they, the farmers - have contributed to, in order to meet the U.N. Kyoto emission targets. Peter has been arguing his case for over 10 years through the courts and is now taking his stand to the people, where the true power of a democracy lies.
It is time we all put pen to paper and tell our political representatives to get off their backsides and insist that Rudd and his political hacks repeal the legislation that allows governments to steal the farmers’ lands. Our farmers are not to be sacrificial lambs slaughtered for the altar-scam of global warming. Write today.
You can read Peter’s full story at: https://www.clrg.info/2009/12/peter-spencers-hunger-strike-against-unconstitutional-carbon-fuelled-actions-by-the-government/
In On Target Vol.40 No.8 5/3//2004:
The original Commonwealth-State Natural Heritage Objectives Agreement to enact State Vegetation Laws preventing landholders from developing and maintaining their properties was signed on November 5, 1997 by the Queensland National Party leader, the Hon Rob Borbidge along with Minister for Environment, the Hon Brian Littleproud and Minister for Natural Resources, Howard Hobbs on behalf of Queensland…
The Commonwealth Signatories to the Agreement were:
Agenda 21 commits Australia to:
Programme for planning and economic management of the entire world:
Australia's farmers' property rights are definitely under threat, but farmers are not going to be assisted in defending those rights by misleading explanations as to who and what is behind it, and home-spun theories as to what the law is….”
Further study: “Globalisation: Demise of the Australian Nation” by Graham Strachan, available from League Book Services. CD: 'Water Report' on CD.
MONCKTON OFFERS PERSONAL BRIEFING FOR PM KEVIN RUDD
The following letter is lengthy, and the science data not for the faint hearted, but we thought it important to reproduce. The good news is that Lord Monckton may be heading for Australia later in the month. Please note what he has to say about governments stealing men’s lands. [Sub-headings added for ease of reading]
A letter from Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to the PM: 1st January, 2010.
Proposed World Government:
You say I am one of “those who argue that any multilateral action is by definition evil”. On the contrary: my first question is whether any action at all is required, to which – as I shall demonstrate – the objective economic and scientific answer is No. Even if multilateral action were required, which it is not, national governments in the West are by tradition democratically elected. Therefore, a fortiori, transnational or global governments should also be made and unmade by voters at the ballot-box. The climate ought not to be used as a shoddy pretext for international bureaucratic-centralist dictatorship.
Powerful Kommissars of the hated EU:
Carbon Trading – Gigantic Financial Fraud:
The questions I address are:
Let us pretend, solum ad argumentum, that a given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration causes the maximum warming imagined by the IPCC. The IPCC’s bureaucrats are careful not to derive a function that will convert changes in CO2 concentration directly to equilibrium changes in temperature. I shall do it for them.
We derive the necessary implicit function from the IPCC’s statement to the effect that equilibrium surface warming ΔT at CO2 doubling will be (3.26 ± ln 2) C°. Since the IPCC, in compliance with Beer’s Law, defines the radiative forcing effect of CO2 as logarithmic rather than linear, our implicit function can be derived at once. The coefficient is the predicted warming at CO2 doubling divided by the logarithm of 2, and the term (C/C0) is the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration.
All parties to Copenhagen Accord to report back by end of month:
Thus, if and only if every Annex 1 party to the Copenhagen Accord complies with its obligations to the full, today’s emissions will be reduced by around half of that 15%, namely 7.5%, compared with business as usual.
Where today’s CO2 concentration is 388 ppmv –
One-fiftieth of a Celsius degree of warming forestalled is all that complete, global compliance with the Copenhagen Accord for an entire decade would achieve.
Yet the cost of achieving this result – an outcome so small that our instruments would not be able to measure it – would run into trillions of dollars. Do your Treasury models demonstrate that this calculation is in any way erroneous? If they do, junk them.
You say “formal global and national economic modelling” shows “that the costs of inaction are greater than the costs of acting”. You ask for my “equivalent evidence basis to Treasury modelling published by the Government of the industry and employment impacts of climate change”. I respond that the rigorous calculation that I have described, which your officials may verify for themselves, shows that whatever costs may be imagined to flow from anthropogenic “global warming” will scarcely be mitigated at all, even by trillions of dollars of expenditure over the coming decade.
Never seen so cost-ineffective proposal:
Remember that I have done this calculation on the basis that everyone who should comply with the Copenhagen Accord actually does comply. Precedent does not look promising. The Kyoto Protocol, the Copenhagen Accord’s predecessor, has been in operation for more than a decade, and it was supposed to reduce global CO2 emissions by 2012. So far, after billions spent on global implementation of Kyoto, global CO2 emissions have risen compared with when Kyoto was first signed.
Remember too that we have assumed the maximum warming that the CO2 imagines might occur in response to a given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Yet even the IPCC’s central estimate of CO2’s warming effect, according to an increasing number of serious papers in the peer-reviewed literature, is a five-fold exaggeration. If those papers are right, after a further decade of incomplete compliance and billions squandered, warming forestalled may prove to be just a thousandth of a degree.
Are you personally willing to make sacrifices demanded of the people?
There are 114 names on the list. One hundred and fourteen. Enough to fill a mid-sized passenger jet. Half a dozen were all that was really necessary – and perhaps one from each State in Australia. If you and your officials are not willing to tighten your belts when a tempting foreign junket at taxpayers’ expense is in prospect, why, pray, should the taxpayers tighten theirs?
Climate change ‘deniers’? Nasty word Mr. Rudd:
How, then, it is that we, the supposed minority who will not admit that the emperor of “global warming” is adequately clad, are somehow prevailing? How is it that we are convincing more and more of the population not to place any more trust in the “global warming” theory? The answer is that the “global warming” theory is not true, and no amount of bluster or braggadocio, ranting or rodomontade will make it true.
You say that our aim, in daring to oppose the transient fashion for apocalypticism, is “to erode just enough of the political will that action becomes impossible”. No. Our aim is simply to ensure that the truth is widely enough understood to prevent the squandering of precious resources on addressing the non-problem of anthropogenic “global warming”. The correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. No interventionist likes to do nothing. Nevertheless, the do-nothing option, scientifically and economically speaking, is the right option.
You say that I and others like me base our thinking on the notion that “the cost of not acting is nothing”. Well, after a decade and a half with no statistically-significant “global warming”, and after three decades in which the mean warming rate has been well below the ever-falling predictions of the UN’s climate panel, that notion has certainly not been disproven in reality.
However, the question I address is not that but this:
The scientifically-illiterate, economically-innumerate policies that you advocate – however fashionable you may conceive them to be – are killing people by the million.
The scale of the slaughter is monstrous, with food riots (largely unreported in the Western news media, and certainly not mentioned by you in your recent speech) in a dozen regions of the Third World over the past two years. Yet this cruel, unheeded slaughter is founded upon a lie: the claim by the IPCC that it is 90% certain that most of the “global warming” since 1950 is manmade. This claim – based not on science but on a show of hands among political representatives, with China wanting a lower figure and other nations wanting a higher figure – is demonstrably, self-servingly false. Peer-reviewed analyses of changes in cloud cover over recent decades – changes almost entirely unconnected with changes in CO2 concentration – show that it was this largely-natural reduction in cloud cover from 1983-2001 and a consequent increase in the amount of short-wave and UV solar radiation reaching the Earth that accounted for five times as much warming as CO2 could have caused.
Nor is the IPCC’s great lie the only lie
• namely, the egregious cost-ineffectiveness of attempting to mitigate “global warming” by emissions reduction,
It is also a measured fact that, while those of the UN’s computer models that can be forced with an increase in sea-surface temperatures all predict a consequent fall in the flux of outgoing radiation at top of atmosphere, in observed reality there is an increase. In short, the radiation that is supposed to be trapped here in the troposphere to cause “global warming” is measured as escaping to space much as usual, so that it cannot be causing more than around one-fifth of the warming the IPCC predicts.
My list of the Copenhagen junketers from Australia’s governing class is attached
PRINCE CHARLES TRIED TO STOP BLAIR’S WAR
In a report issued by News of the World it is claimed Prince Charles was so convinced the Iraq war was so wrong he actively campaigned against it. The headlines read: Prince thought Tony Blair was wrong on Iraq and mocked him as 'our glorious leader' by Robert Jobson, 3rd January 2010:
“Prince Charles was so convinced Tony Blair was WRONG to take Britain to war in Iraq he broke Royal tradition and actively campaigned against the invasion, the News of the World can reveal. Behind closed doors, the heir to the throne voiced his fears to senior politicians and mounted a staunch anti-war crusade in which he:
Our extraordinary revelations - from the most impeccable inside sources - are certain to pile pressure on former premier Blair as he prepares to give evidence to the Chilcott inquiry into the war. And they come as ex-PM Sir John Major twisted the knife yesterday, accusing Blair's handling of the 2003 invasion of damaging trust in the UK political system more than the expenses scandal.
The question was asked of the readers: WAS CHARLES RIGHT TO INTERFERE?
But the prince's communications secretary Paddy Harverson recently told BBC Radio 4:
Asked about today's revelations, Mr Harverson said: "It's impossible to give any kind of response to this story because it's entirely speculative."
LETTER IN THE PRESS
The Editor, Shepparton News 1st January 2010:
--- Louis Cook, Numurkah Victoria
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|