Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
 
 
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke
Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
 
 
Home blog.alor.org Newtimes Survey The Cross-Roads Library
OnTarget Archives The Social Crediter Archives NewTimes Survey Archives Brighteon Video Channel Veritas Books

On Target

4 April 2014 Thought for the Week:

RT News 24 March, 2014: Russia to launch its own payment system in months, as disruption fears mount. The move by international payment systems Visa and MasterCard to block their use in Russia has unnerved some Russian businesses. Meanwhile, Moscow says its own national payment system may become fully operative within months. Last week MasterCard and Visa stopped servicing some Russian banks, which shows the Russian market remains the monopoly of international operators. Although the payment systems resumed operations with Russia's SMP Bank on Sunday, it is estimated clients withdrew about $111 million from their accounts in just two days. After years of rhetoric over the need to launch a domestic payment system in Russia, it may become a reality soon. "The payment system PRO 100 is technologically ready to provide national processing in the near future. We estimate it will take a couple of months, as key Russian banks, that account for more than 40 percent of the market, are already linked to the PRO 100 payment system," Andrey Nesterov, director of corporate communications at the Universal Electronic Card told RT.

Universal Card
Universal electronic card (Image: Federal authorized organization "Universal electronic card")

Launched as a pilot in 2010, the project Universal electronic card provides for settlements of government, municipal and commercial services via Internet and self-service machines. The card's electronic banking application is based on the payment system 'Universal electronic card', which has a logo PRO 100.

Four Russian banks are technically ready to use the Russian payment system - Sberbank, Uralsib, AK BARS and Moscow Industrial Bank.
Source: here....


THE TRUTH IN BLACK AND WHITE

by Peter Ewer
I had put off reading for review here R. Craven (eds. et. al) “In Black and White: Australians All at the Crossroads” (Connor Court, 2013) because I judged the book by its cover (the colours of the “Aboriginal flag”). But I was wrong – there is much thought-provoking material in this 412-page book. Assembled here is a well-balanced selection of writers addressing the issue of the failure of Aboriginal policy.

Professor Peter Shergold (University of Sydney) says in the Foreword that “the scale of relative disadvantage suffered by Indigenous Australians remained as intractable as ever. I can think of no failure in public policy that has had such profound consequences” (p.x). Chapter 1 by Helen Hughes and Mark Hughes “The Undercover Guide to Indigenous Statistics” argues that Indigenous Australians are so disadvantaged as to be virtually living in another country. The “Indigenous experiment” has resulted in appalling health and housing and a pandemic of violence. Apartheid policies (p.10) such as lack of private property rights on Indigenous lands and communal ownership of property are stifling business creativity. Royalties as well cannot be fairly distributed to individuals (p.12). Indigenous unemployment is three times that of other Australians (p.17). They conclude: “On Indigenous lands, they are denied basic rights such as education and home ownership – and robbed of the most basic responsibility of caring for themselves (p.19)

The book goes on to consider other topics such as violence against women and children (pp.37-55), including promised marriages, the victim status of Aboriginal people and the need for Aboriginal people to take greater responsibility themselves, and the impact of neoliberalism’s “accumulation by dispossession” (p.105).

In all of this it is hard to find a simple set of strategies for addressing these issues because the problems are so multidimensional and diverse. One puts the book away with a feeling that the issues really are intractable.

All of this means that the entire campaign for Constitutional recognition is irrelevant to the real issues facing Aboriginal people. It will do nothing to resolve high Aboriginal imprisonment rates, for example. It is only one more New Class experiment that will serve only to enhance the power of these elites. I am left with a terrible feeling that all of this is going to end badly for all.


SO - I WAS RIGHT AFTER ALL – UNIS REALLY ARE FOR LOSERS!

by James Reed
I was very pleased to see comments by Jack Delosa, founder of the networking group, The Entourage, saying in effect that “Unis are for losers” (The Australian 26 February 2014, p.27). He represents generation Y “intrapreneurs” who have no time to waste on universities, “an obsolete education system designed when the world (was believed to be) flat”.

These go-getters would rather learn from people with experience than from university lecturers. A similar movement in the US of anti-university sentiment is the “Uncollege” which says on its website: “You wasted $US 150,000 on an education you coulda got for a buck-fifty in late charges at the public library”. Alternately, the case can be put that most subjects can be learnt on-line now and that there is no real need for the sandstone institutions which absorb an enormous amount of public money only to poison the blood of the body politic.

Of course the Uncollege Manifesto by Dale Stephens does not take my line on the universities, but I do see it as evidence for my position, arguably. Universities with their massive fees, do not provide for life-long learning. A university degree dates very quickly, what the Manifesto calls “academic inflation”. Self-directed learning is more relevant to today’s world, especially with the internet. The Manifesto mentions the issue of “degree saturation”, and says that 5,000 janitors in the United States have PhDs (p.10). It doesn’t mention in what, but my guess is either philosophy or sociology; I assume that everybody with a PhD in feminism and “queer studies” gets gainful employment. Well, at least for the moment but one day soon the numbers will be up for all university academics.


LETTER TO MINISTER for ENVIRONEMENT – The Hon. Greg Hunt MP Protecting Freedom by Understanding Climate

Dear Greg: Sent by Registered Post with Delivery Confirmation and electronically Re: Your letter dated October 31, 2013. Your reference: MC13-001921
Without prejudice
Thank you for your letter dated October 31, 2013. Congratulations on your appointment as Minister. By now you will have settled into your new responsibilities. The ultimate arbiter of science and the basis for policy on scientific issues is empirical scientific evidence. This letter explains how I know factually that you have no empirical scientific evidence of global warming (aka climate change) by carbon dioxide (CO2) from human activity. Yet you continue to falsely imply, though carefully not state, that you have such evidence. In public statements you contradict empirical scientific evidence and misrepresent climate and climate science.

Your behaviour explained below deepens my concerns. I offer a constructive solution to build a successful future for you, our country and our precious natural environment. You say that the government and presumably you take your, quote: “primary advice on climate science from the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO”. You further imply that you rely on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.

CSIRO, BOM proven to have no empirical scientific evidence of CO2 as cause
It is beyond doubt through documented evidence that both CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) have no empirical scientific evidence of human CO2 as causation of global warming that ended in 1995 / 1998. Yet again, I refer you to:
1. CSIRO and BOM responses to my requests under Freedom of Information provisions: they reveal that no senior member of government since 2004 has received any report providing empirical scientific evidence of human causation from BOM and no report at all from CSIRO’s Chief Executive. This is fact and is publicly documented on my web site https://www.conscious.com.au specifically: https://www.conscious.com.au/letters.html;
2. Correspondence from CSIRO’s Chief Executive Dr. Megan Clark, CSIRO Group Executive-Environment Dr. Andrew Johnson and BOM Director Dr. Rob Vertessy has been received in response to my requests for empirical scientific evidence of causation. All repeatedly failed to provide such evidence. Instead, all misleadingly imply or state false and/or diversionary claims. These are documented in Appendices 6, 6a and 7 to my report on CSIRO’s flagship report on climate change. Please note examples in Appendix 7 showing BOM manipulated data to fabricate warming from data revealing cooling trends. That report and appendices are at: https://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html
3. Detailed analysis of many CSIRO and BOM reports by me and other independent researchers including internationally eminent climate scientists reveal those reports do not contain empirical scientific evidence for their claim of human CO2 causing warming yet misleadingly imply such evidence. This is documented in Appendix 6: https://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html;
4. No organisation anywhere in the world has ever presented empirical scientific evidence and logical scientific reasoning showing that human CO2 caused or will cause global warming. Others and I have checked every major scientific body in Australia and in prominent western democracies. All organisations have no such evidence. If they had they would have presented it. They fail to present any;
5. Empirical scientific evidence has been presented to you personally in the logical structure necessary to disprove human causation. That climate data proves beyond doubt that carbon dioxide does not drive climate and that levels of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere are a result of natural temperature variation. Human CO2 production has no material effect and cannot have any effect on temperature or global climate. See enclosed one-page summary http://bit.ly/1btyTGE linked to documents presenting empirical scientific evidence gathered worldwide. It includes data on CO2 levels cited and relied upon by the UN IPCC. By claiming human CO2 has an effect you ignore or overrule Henry’s Law;
6. Apparent conflicts of interest by the CSIRO Chief Executive, Dr. Megan Clark who previously was on the board of Rothschilds Australia bank and who currently sits on the Advisory Board of Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Both organisations seek to grab trillions of dollars trading paper CO2 ‘credits’.

You have previously been advised of these facts. By doing nothing you condone corruption of climate science funded by taxpayers. By continuing to knowingly misrepresent climate and science you continue to knowingly endorse that corruption.

Please provide me with copies of reports or advice from CSIRO and BOM on which you rely and that contain specific empirical scientific evidence showing human CO2 caused Earth’s latest modest cyclic global atmospheric warming from 1976 to 1998. If you fail to do so your position is not tenable and you are misleading me, your party, the Prime Minister, our federal parliament and the Australian people

Greg, data on levels of CO2 cited and relied upon by the UN IPCC confirm that Nature alone controls the level of CO2 in air. Empirical scientific evidence proves that the level of CO2 seasonally and over the longer term is determined by temperature. The UN IPCC, CSIRO, BOM and you claim the reverse. Thinking that CO2 controls temperature is like thinking that the rooster crowing at sunrise controls the sun. Please see Appendix 4, here: https://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html

In your email reply to Bob Beattie, dated January 12th, 2014 you stated quote: “We take our primary advice from the Bureau of Meteorology.” Yet BOM has no empirical scientific evidence that human CO2 caused warming.

You endorse the UN IPCC yet its proven worldwide to be corrupt
Your letter of October 31st cites the UN IPCC’s 2013 Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in a way that misrepresents it as scientific and implies that you rely on it. You requested and were given paper and electronic copies of documentation confirming the UN IPCC as unscientific and pursuing a political agenda. It confirms the UN IPCC has no empirical scientific evidence and logical scientific reasoning for its unfounded core claim that human CO2 caused global warming.

The UN IPCC has corrupted climate science and peer-review. This is documented in Appendix 2 to my report on CSIRO sent to you at your Canberra office and your Victorian electorate office by Registered Post with Delivery Confirmation in February 2013. It’s here: https://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html. A one-page summary accompanies and is available here:http://bit.ly/1eOOMXf. Each of the UN IPCC’s five main reports to national governments and media is based on a lie. The UN IPCC behaves fraudulently. You have extensive documented evidence of that fact.

The specific most recent UN IPCC report to which your letter refers contains no empirical scientific evidence that human CO2 causes global warming or climate change. Please note that my reading of AR5 includes the sole chapter claiming warming and attributing it to human CO2, Chapter 10 and the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). Both reveal no empirical scientific evidence of causation by human CO2. Both contradict empirical scientific evidence.

There was no unusual warming and there is no ongoing warming
Are you aware that BOM and others have fabricated cooling trends into warming trends? Please see examples in Appendix 7: https://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html. Will you hold an independent investigation and take action to correct and then prevent recurrence of temperature fraud? Will you help restore scientific integrity?

Appendix 2 has been updated in Section 15 to include detailed review (pages 29 & 30-34) of AR5 on which you so heavily rely. AR5 contradicts empirical scientific evidence, reveals traits of propaganda and displays blatant dishonesty.

That UN IPCC report tried to misleadingly hide the fact that contrary to earlier UN projections upon which you rely, ground-based temperatures have not risen since its second report in 1995. For 70% of the UN IPCC’s existence temperatures have not risen. Further, since the start of global atmospheric temperature measurements in 1958 atmospheric temperature cooled from 1958 to 1976, rose in 1976 as a result of the entirely natural Great Pacific Climate Shift and thereafter rose very modestly until 1995 / 1998. Since 1998 every year has been cooler than in 1998. The UN IPCC’s claimed greenhouse mechanism is a supposedly atmospheric effect purported to be warming Earth’s surface. Yet in the 57 years of atmospheric temperature measurements, temperatures have shown no warming or been cooling for 34 years. That’s 60% with no warming. The current trend is 16 years of ongoing lack of warming despite ever- rising human CO2 output due largely to China and India. There is no warming. Fundamentals of the UN’s claimed greenhouse mechanism are investigated here: http://bit.ly/1dO4H4g. It presents empirical scientific evidence, scientific laws and observations in Nature. Can you refute these with empirical scientific evidence?

Would you like to meet with research scientist and UN Expert Science Reviewer Dr. Vincent Gray who has had more than 60 years real-world experience in science including more than 20 years in climate? He has reviewed all five UN IPCC reports: 1990, 1995, 2001, 2007, 2013 and is famous internationally for providing by far the most thorough, detailed and comprehensive review comments on the UN’s 2007 report. He publicly states that there’s no evidence of human CO2 causing warming anywhere in any of the UN IPCC’s five reports. Would you like to discuss the UN’s reports with Canadian climatologist Professor Tim Ball who has expert detailed knowledge of climate, weather, the natural environment and the UN’s climate deceit? Both men are retired and independent.

Your position is untenable
Unless you can specify clearly the location of specific empirical scientific evidence and explain to me with structured scientific logic that evidence’s significance in causal mechanisms proving human CO2 catastrophically warms our planet your claim remains unfounded and false.

Your position on human causation of cyclical global warming is untenable. Yet you continue to frighten and mislead Australians with your unfounded, false and distressing public claims that human CO2 is responsible for changes in sea level, ocean alkalinity, extreme weather, glaciation, ice sheets and sea ice, and ocean heat content.

Empirical scientific evidence contradicts your claim and reveals all are varying naturally in accordance with inherent natural variation. There are no changes or trends occurring. For example, Dr. Judith Curry as Professor and Chair of the Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences in testimony to the USA Senate Committee, January 2014 said, quote: “Arctic surface temperature anomalies in the 1930’s were as large as the recent temperature anomalies.” Appendix 7 confirms the 1930’s as warmer than today: https://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html

Oceans are alkaline not acidic.
In Earth’s past life thrived in oceans and on land when atmospheric CO2 levels were five times current levels and far above the UN IPCC’s (unfounded) worst case projections. In Earth’s past, CO2 levels have been up to 135 times current levels and fluctuated naturally far more than in minor variations during the last million years. Yet life in the oceans, air and on land blossomed. The work of German researcher Ernst Georg Beck reveals 90,000 reliable measurements of CO2 during the last 180 years with some 40% above current levels. Those data include measurements by Nobel Prize winning scientists.
Please refer to my CSIROh! report’s Appendices 4 & 4a presenting empirical scientific evidence: https://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html

You misled the Deputy Prime Minister in writing
I have lawfully and by fair means obtained a copy of a letter dated December 3rd, 2013 from you to the Hon Warren Truss, Deputy Prime Minister and parliamentary leader of the National Party and subsequently sent by Mr. Truss to one of his constituents. In that letter you imply and misrepresent to the Deputy PM that CSIRO, BOM and the UN IPCC provide scientific advice and evidence of human CO2 causing global warming. You falsely claim other organisations have done so. Your implied claims are false.

Further, you implicitly misrepresent facts about Nature, carbon dioxide and climate. You use emotive icons such as the Great Barrier Reef yet contradict empirical scientific evidence. You signed that letter and in doing so misled the Deputy Prime Minister. You placed our Deputy PM in a position of misleading his constituents.

None of the organisations you misrepresented to Warren Truss has any empirical scientific evidence and logical scientific reasoning showing human CO2 caused global warming. The additional bodies you misrepresented are discussed in Appendix 8, here: https://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html. Please note particularly the report by the Australian Academy of Science and the involvement of taxpayer funded academics whose behaviour and roles are revealed in Appendix 9 available here: https://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html. All misrepresent climate, science and Nature.

All were funded by the previous ALP-Greens government seeking political advantage. All those academics named have no empirical scientific evidence for their core claim that human CO2 caused global warming. All contradict empirical scientific evidence. This letter is being copied to Warren Truss for his attention and action.

Were you complicit in misleading Prime Minister John Howard?
Recently former Prime Minister John Howard reportedly conceded publicly that there was no scientific basis for his politically derived position on climate during his prime ministership. He implied it was based on politics and risk management.

During his prime ministership you were outspoken on the matter of human CO2 causing global warming. It seems likely that, together with Malcolm Turnbull your predecessor as (Liberal) Environment Minister, you were responsible for the Liberals’ unscientific and dishonest position in being the first party to introduce a CO2 cap-and-ration- ‘trading’ policy in response to perceived electoral advantage fabricated from Kevin Rudd’s climate lies during the 2007 election campaign.

Your claims are false.
Please provide the specific empirical scientific evidence on which you base your claims and please explain why you continue to rely on a demonstrably corrupt organisation pushing a political agenda.

You are hurting the natural environment and humanity
If so, and it seems likely, your actions have cost Australian taxpayers billions of dollars in wasted money and have cost thousands of Australians their livelihood and led to huge and unjustifiable rises in energy costs through the Renewable Energy Target (RET). The enclosed two-page summary reveals some of the massive costs and consequences of your misrepresentations. It’s available here: http://bit.ly/1g9X10o

Your unscientific contradiction of empirical scientific evidence hurts the environment and humanity. Are you oblivious to or uncaring about the impact on Australians and especially the poor? The economic measures you advocate are a regressive impost most severely hurting the poor and disadvantaged. Do you not care? Dr. Judith Curry again, in her USA Senate committee testimony, quote: “Claiming an overwhelming scientific justification for the Plan based upon anthropogenic global warming does a disservice both to climate science and to the policy process.

You and your department fail to justify your policy
Nor am I the only person to whom your responses have failed to answer fundamental questions. The meticulous work of independent researcher Graham Williamson has probed your position with detailed questions. Your department’s answers highlight your department’s chronic lack of understanding of science and policy. They are an embarrassing insult to policy formulation and to Australians. His email of Friday, February 21, 2014 is merely one of many examples. It’s available here: https://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/gw/Mc14004671SECUNCLASSIFIED(Grah am).pdf

Did Public Servant advisers and agencies mislead you?
Perhaps your department misled you? I refer you to correspondence signed by Allan Behm, Chief of Staff for Minister Greg Combet in his letter to me on behalf of Minister Greg Combet dated March 13th, 2013. Mr. Behm’s comments, like yours, ignore massive corruption of climate science and contradict empirical scientific evidence. Our exchange of letters is available here: https://www.conscious.com.au/letters.html. Please note that he failed to respond to my comprehensive reply.

Perhaps Greg Combet and his department saw no alternative after Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and the Greens locked the ALP tightly into perpetuating Kevin Rudd’s fraud?

Do you condone publicity by people in your department misrepresenting the colourless invisible gas carbon dioxide (CO2) as ‘carbon’ a black solid and then further corrupting it by calling it ‘carbon pollution’? A concerned volunteer is independently holding your department officers accountable as revealed here: https://www.galileomovement.com.au/holding_them_accountable.php Will you withdraw your department’s false labels and depictions and prevent recurrence?

Please advise whether or not you consider CO2 to be pollution and if so your reasons for classifying it as such. Please refer to this publication’s first four pages: https://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/freedom1-CO2.pdf

Were you misled by your department, CSIRO, BOM and the UN IPCC?

Your documented extensive support implementing UN Agenda 21 and your denial of detailed knowledge of UN Agenda 21
More worryingly for Australia’s sovereignty, governance and parliamentary democracy, your false claims raise questions as to your sincerity and allegiance. Your position on climate was established and stated in my previous correspondence as unfounded and contradicting science. Your repeated failure to present empirical scientific evidence and especially your repeated failure to specify any errors in my work when combined with your continued pushing of unscientific policy reveals more worrying concerns.

It seems that you prefer to align with and support the beneficiaries of unfounded climate alarm in its role as part of the UN’s Agenda 21 for the twenty-first century as documented here: https://www.conscious.com.au/docs/letters/GregHuntAG21Rev.pdf

That is placed in context by Appendix 14, here: https://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html and by Graham Williamson’s meticulous work here: https://www.galileomovement.com.au/australia_democracy.php

Unfounded climate alarm is one of three legs of UN Agenda 21, associated with the Rio Declaration. Referring to my previous letters, your personal involvement in implementing UN Agenda 21 yet your denial of detailed knowledge of such provisions raises questions as to your motive in failing to discuss empirical scientific evidence.

Why do you repeatedly choose to fail to reply to my previous letter’s simple question? Are you aware that at its latest state conference the Queensland Liberal National Party passed, with no opposition, the following motion: “That, the Queensland LNP opposes laws and/or regulations being made by Local, State, and Federal governments that enact the policy objectives of United Nations Agenda 21.

Your behaviour and stated or implied claims undermine and destroy science and objectivity. They hurt the voiceless and support taxpayer-funded rent-seekers. Some in politics seem to be saying the issue is political and warrants ignoring science to instead play politics. Is that your way? It’s not the way of honest Australian politicians. This concern is deepened by your letter’s failure again to address my simple, straightforward question about your documented involvement in implementing UN Agenda 21 in Australia. Has your electorate or any group or person in your electorate benefitted from funding directed by the UN’s ICLEI agency with its Oceania headquarters in your state’s capital, Melbourne?

You fail to find error in the evidence you requested and were given
On Wednesday, April 27th, 2011 I demonstrated to you in your electorate office the impossibility of your core claim that human CO2 was a cause of global warming (aka climate change). At our meeting you said my presentation was one of the best you’d ever received. During our meeting it became clear to me that prior to our meeting you were ignorant of the depth of corruption on which you had built your position. It became clear to me that you did not understand the science and that you did not have a scientific basis for your belief that human CO2 caused global warming (aka climate change).

Upon your request I provided you with extensive documentation of corruption of the climate ‘science’ upon which you claim to rely. That file handed to you by Gordon Alderson during our meeting was four centimetres thick. Two days later you were sent the same material electronically to make it easy for you and your staff to check.

Three months later in July I asked you by email to identify any errors in that material. Your reply avoided my straightforward fundamental question. I asked again. Again your reply failed to answer my simple question. I asked again. Again your reply failed to answer my question. In turn you replied that everyone is entitled to their opinion / belief. You have since been repeatedly given personal notification of further facts in writing by Registered Post with Delivery Confirmation and / or by Facsimile with Delivery Receipt. Your responses to my requests repeatedly failed to specify any error in the empirical scientific evidence I present rebutting your false claim of human causation.

With due respect Greg, all members of parliament and particularly Ministers have a responsibility to ensure statements and policies are based solidly on observed science and do not contradict empirical scientific evidence. You have failed to do your due diligence and failed to fulfil your parliamentary responsibility.

Ironically, my first contact with you was via my series of emails sent to all federal parliamentarians starting on May 18th, 2009. That provided facts and emphasised your need to conduct your due diligence. Our communication has come full circle.

I can understand and empathise that some politicians stake careers on a position they perceive as popular and / or emotive and that subsequent admission of error can be perceived as politically embarrassing. Yet your continuing implicit endorsement of corrupt climate science, deception of the Australian people and undermining of Australia’s sovereignty and governance is not sufficient grounds for avoiding or contradicting proven documented facts. I have added compassion for the position in which you’ve placed yourself. Understandably it may be difficult for you as a politician who previously worked for two years as Director of Strategy at the World Economic Forum in Geneva and then built a political position on what is now proving to be pseudo-environment issue.

Your stated and implied claims on climate conflict with our community’s universal human needs for integrity, accuracy and accountability. You’ve repeatedly stated to others and to me that your position is based on your belief. By your admission your position is not data-driven and scientific. It is faith-based and religious. Your public comments and your responses to me on climate do not meet community needs for understanding and truth. They undermine the scientific method that is a foundation of modern civilisation’s objectivity and freedom. Your misrepresentations fail to meet community needs for respect and care for humanity and our precious natural environment.

Your claims are aiding and abetting corruption of climate science and fraud*.

From your actions I conclude that you either do not care about our natural environment, humanity, science, scientific integrity, Australia’s economy, Australia’s governance and Australia’s sovereignty. Or perhaps you simply place them behind your political career and the UN’s corrupt Agenda 21.

I cannot know with certainty your intent in repeatedly stating you have evidence when you knowingly do not. Yet in the context of our discussions and correspondence my initial conclusion is that you are doing so deliberately to mislead and/or possibly irresponsibly to hide your unfounded political position. I conclude that your conscious reliance on corrupted science makes you complicit by endorsing corruption. You benefit at least politically from your misrepresentations and thus one has to ask whether you are committing fraud?

Regardless, by behaving dishonestly and circumventing truth you are damaging your reputation. Further, your claims are detrimental to all Australians apart from those few receiving subsidies associated with climate ‘initiatives’ advocated by you. The easiest way out though, if you want a way out, is to tell the truth.

Are you willing to be personally liable for damages incurred by Australian citizens if you continue your advocacy of measures aimed at combating fabricated and unfounded catastrophe? Are you willing to take responsibility for diverting money from real environmental and humanitarian challenges and wasting it on chasing Nature’s atmospheric trace gas essential to life on Earth? Are you willing to do so when the empirical scientific evidence, including measurements of CO2 levels in air reveal that Nature alone controls global atmospheric CO2 levels and that human output can have no impact on CO2 levels or temperature?

Are you willing to continue endorsing waste of taxpayers’ money on your unfounded and unscientific Direct Action policy when the ALP-Greens government placed our country and your government in a serious budget deficit?

Will you choose to face up to the position in which you have placed yourself? If not, do you realise that the poorest and most disadvantaged in our nation will continue paying the price? Will you choose to allow that to continue?

Your misleading statements on climate support Agenda 21 to undermine national sovereignty and governance.

You continue contradicting empirical scientific evidence and facts
Not only do you not have empirical scientific evidence for your position you contradict empirical scientific evidence. Further you do so after previously being notified in writing and repeatedly failing in your responses to provide any specific counter to the empirical scientific evidence and documented facts on corruption that others and I have presented you.

Please specify your empirical scientific evidence of causation
Please provide me with specific empirical scientific evidence and your understanding of how such evidence proves human CO2 caused Earth’s modest cyclic global atmospheric warming from 1976 to 1998.

Until and unless you can provide me with empirical scientific evidence and factually identify specific errors in my work your policy remains hollow and based on nothing more than an erroneous, false and seriously misleading religious belief.

A stronger political position is available
Contrary to your letter’s implicit claim there is no need for reducing CO2 output by human industry, agriculture or other activity. There is no need for wasteful, inefficient and economically destructive Renewable Energy Targets (RET) and subsidies. Instead, there is a need to restore scientific integrity, Australia’s economic competitive advantage, jobs and prosperity.

You’re in a safe seat. I wonder how many Coalition MPs in marginal seats support your ongoing corruption of climate science when there is an alternative and honest strategy to destroy the ALP-Greens alliance that introduced the carbon dioxide tax after misappropriating taxpayer money to fund their fraudulent corruption of climate science?

Let’s meet again as I’m available to assist you pro bono
I’m willing to meet with you again personally and if necessary accompanied by eminent independent climate scientists. There is something to learn here and I am willing to support your learning and be open to learning of your needs and views.

Truth is breaking out as Nature reveals the UN’s misrepresentations and exposes the CSIRO and BOM as fraudulent. Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull have been tossed on climate. As the Australian electorate awakens, will you be next? Please provide me with copies of reports or other such advice being advice that you imply to have received from the CSIRO and BOM and that contain empirical scientific evidence showing human CO2 caused Earth’s latest modest cyclic global atmospheric warming from 1976 to 1998 and for any other warming period you claim. If you fail to provide me with adequate specific responses will you resign or launch a sincere and independent inquiry into corruption of climate science?

You have misled parliament, your party and its leader the Prime Minister and the people of Australia. Your actions prove you do not care for Australians and our natural environment. Will you care for you? Progressively, as Nature and science reveal the truth about climate and CO2, your room to manoeuvre will continue to shrink until you face two choices: resign or be sacked by your party leader or the Australian electorate.

Is Mark Twain’s wisdom helpful: "People's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."

Have you considered solutions presented on pages 4-8 of Appendix 18 for restoring prosperity in Australia? https://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html Are you aware that Australians previously enjoyed the world’s highest per capita GDP? As Australians develop understanding of factors driving UN Agenda 21 global governance, (Appendix 14) we can restore our country’s potential and ability to rebuild prosperity for all.

Greg, I’ve done everything I can to assist you. It’s more than would be reasonably expected of a citizen supporting you. Since 2007 it’s cost me and my family millions of dollars in foregone income and sale of assets we had set aside for future retirement. I will though maintain my integrity and continue to protect my family and our nation.

Nature is proving that the core issue is not climate or CO2. The issues are corruption of climate science, fraudulent abuse of taxpayer funds and crooked policy. My need and the community’s need is for you to tell the truth and be accurate and honest, to protect freedom by ceasing implementation of UN Agenda 21 and to instead care for real and substantial humanitarian and environmental challenges.

Yours sincerely,
Original personally signed
Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts.
BE (Hons), MBA (Chicago) Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust)

* Fraud is defined as the presentation of something as it is not for personal gain.

My Personal Declaration of interests is available here: https://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/additional%20material/Personal%20declaration%20of%20interests.pdf

URL link to the letter is: https://www.conscious.com.au/docs/letters/20140321/GregHunt,March2014.pdf

Also available here: https://www.conscious.com.au/letters.html


SA INDEPENDENT TO BACK LABOR

SA election: Independent Bob Such has taken ill and will undergo surgery. He is expected to be on sick leave for two months, thus leaving the field open for the other Independent Geoff Brock to decide which main party he would support. He chose Labor.

© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159