JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Regulators wet dreams of controling you

The Planet Under Pressure conference has brought out the clawing powermongers. The Commentator.com team who were brave enough to attend, tell us that no one got very excited about the science, but the word “regulation” was received, well… ecstatically.

The conference was largely focused on how scientists and activists can coalesce to deconstruct the Western way of living and moving to something entirely different, where economic growth and wealth creation is abandoned and replaced, instead, with sustainability targets, trade barriers, regulation and taxation. Indeed there were numerous occasions during the main sessions whereby even the mention of the word ‘regulation’ was met with rapturous applause.

See? The “regulating class” name fits them to a tee.

They have given up on reasoned debate and instead are fomenting a revolution.

According to Lord Anthony Giddens – a preeminent sociologist and speaker at the conference – it means that now is the time for an “activist civil society” to move away from the Western way of life which has proved “too destructive” and toward a radical utopia (read, communes) – all part of what he terms a renewed assault on global warming sceptics.

We can laugh at them, but as Marc Morano points out, they speak from the seat of power (and on taxpayer funds). More of the taxpayers are strongly skeptical than strongly pro-”climate”-action, yet they shamelessly use those funds to promote their own agenda.

And we always knew that “Sustainability” was not a field of science. This prof demonstrates why:

We heard from Sander Van Der Leeuw – Dean and Professor at the School of Sustainability at Arizona State University – that now is the time for scientists to forget objectivity and become citizens once again; for scientists to “better understand decision-making” at the highest level.

How blatant! A call to put politics ahead of science…we’ve been complaining for years that some of the government climate scientists have been doing that, now this professor doesn’t even bother to pretend any more.

—————

ADMIN NOTE: For site maintenance (in an effort to rearrange things to reduce costs) the site may be down over Easter for 24 hours. Don’t panic! Apologies for the inconvenience. — Jo

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (76 votes cast)
Regulators wet dreams of controling you, 9.5 out of 10 based on 76 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/7maompc

64 comments to Regulators wet dreams of controling you

  • #
    Sonny

    Was this before or after they ritually sacrificed a climate [snip] sceptic to mother Gaia?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Was this a gathering of ‘misanthropic, anti-technology, anti-growth, dogmatic, purist, zealous, exclusive pastoralists’, or merely of statist-control-freaks feeling empowered by them? That tasty quote is used to describe modern environmentalists here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/04/kareiva_new_environmentalism_essay/

    The essay is about the views of one ‘environmentalist’ for whom the penny has at last dropped about the ‘eco-mentalists’. The article finishes with these sentences: ‘The problem with turning the ship of environmentalism around to a more humane and less fearful philosophy is that it has been so successful – at least up until now. Although the public, when asked, doesn’t share the apocalyptic worldview, eco-mentalism remains embedded among the political and media elites.

    The environmentalists who have succeeded using this version of Mother Nature now have successful bureaucratic empires as a result; they’re now really the New Establishment, and have seats at the table. They won’t voluntarily give these.’

    The Planet Under Pressure conference sounds like it was revealing, insofar as it may help us gain more insight into these enemies of humanity.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DougS

    Some video snippets of the conference are on the Bishop Hill blog. The one that stood out for me is mentioned above by Jo, viz.

    we need a renewed assault on global warming sceptics.

    Says it all really. No attempt to engage, no offer of convincing (or any other sort) evidence, just an assault.

    Pathetic eco fundamentalists with nothing else to offer!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      grayman

      Remeber, for them the science is settled and the debate was over long ago!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Owen Morgan

      I couldn’t finish watching the video to which the Bishop linked. We were treated to the completely unscientific views of the UK government’s “Chief Scientific Adviser”, Sir Ian Beddington, and the maeandering witterings of our deeply embarrassing “Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs”, Caroline Spelman, who is so thick that she’d struggle to get a job as a village idiot. The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs itself (DEFRA) was set up in 2001, during an outbreak of foot and mouth in Britain, to replace the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods (MAFF), which had demonstrably failed to cope, to put it mildly. Since DEFRA employed virtually the same personnel as MAFF had, DEFRA’s displays of similar incompetence did not come as an overwhelming surprise. Government ineptitude cost the country billions, drove farmers to penury, not infrequently to suicide. How many employees of MAFF/DEFRA lost their jobs or taxpayer-funded pensions as a result, do you suppose?

      Typically, the invertebrate Cameron government has failed to break up the failing ministries set up by Blair and Brown. Hence the catastrophe of Spelman.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Owen Morgan

        I couldn’t finish watching the video to which the Bishop linked. We were treated to the completely unscientific views of the UK government’s “Chief Scientific Adviser”, Sir John Beddington, and the maeandering witterings of our deeply embarrassing “Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs”, Caroline Spelman, who is so thick that she’d struggle to get a job as a village idiot. The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs itself (DEFRA) was set up in 2001, during an outbreak of foot and mouth in Britain, to replace the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods (MAFF), which had demonstrably failed to cope, to put it mildly. Since DEFRA employed virtually the same personnel as MAFF had, DEFRA’s displays of similar incompetence did not come as an overwhelming surprise. Government ineptitude cost the country billions, drove farmers to penury, not infrequently to suicide. How many employees of MAFF/DEFRA lost their jobs or taxpayer-funded pensions as a result, do you suppose?

        Typically, the invertebrate Cameron government has failed to break up the failing ministries set up by Blair and Brown. Hence the catastrophe of Spelman.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Dennis

      These people are dangerous, their cause goes back to the late 1800s, the new world order, world government or if you are Bob brown, world parliament.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Sean

    Was this conference before or after the Queensland election?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    good luck with the maintenance and happy easter, jo.

    this will eventually bring down CAGW. how deceptive is the rationale?

    5 April: Reuters: Britain postpones June carbon permit auction
    Reporting by Jeff Coelho, editing by Jane Baird
    Britain postponed on Thursday a planned auction of 4 million European Union carbon permits to September from June due to uncertainty around the timing of the start of a single, EU-wide carbon registry.
    Britain has generated a total of 1.38 billion euros ($1.8 billion) in carbon auction revenue since it started the process in November 2008…
    “This revision to the auction calendar is due to the current uncertainty around the exact timing of the activation of the Single Union Registry and to provide as much prior notice to the market as possible,” it (Department of Energy and Climate Change ) said.
    The single EU carbon registry, which is partially activated, will enable European countries taking part in the EU emissions trading scheme to open registry accounts and receive carbon permits called EU Allowances.
    The European Commission has said full activation of the single registry will not take place before June…
    Britain’s auction of 4 million carbon permits on May 10 will go ahead as scheduled, the DECC statement said. An additional 4 million permits will be auctioned as planned on July 5, when the registry is expected to be in place…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/05/us-carbon-uk-idUSBRE8340DN20120405


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    the Deregulator, Ron Paul. love the final graphic, given voting isn’t mandatory in the US. the other contenders can barely pack a room, but the MSM has so far managed to control the narrative by virtually ignoring him.
    but, as the good Doc says, sometimes there’s a “stumble”:

    Ron Paul breaks another record with 6,200 people in CA
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d35pQXAZzu8&feature=youtu.be


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tim

    They have now reached the point of saying: “Yes, we are doing this … So what!”

    It really is worth a look at youtube’s – Agenda 21 for dummies


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    The Consensus technique – pre determined outcomes.

    http://sovereignty.net/p/sd/conresponse.htm

    The Consensus Process — often called “collaborative decision-making” — is a process that begins with a predetermined outcome. The agencies or NGOs that assemble an Ecosystem Management visioning council, intend to establish an ecosystem management plan. The instigators know what they want included in the plan before the first meeting is ever scheduled. Those who assemble Sustainable Community visioning councils intend to establish a plan to achieve their vision of a sustainable community. The literature will say that the instigators want broad community input. In reality, the outcome has been decided before the first meeting begins; the real purpose for the process is to “educate” the participants.

    The meetings will be conducted by a trained facilitator. A consensus-building meeting is vastly different from a meeting conducted by Robert’s Rules of Order. In a consensus-building meeting — there are no votes. There is no debate. The idea is to avoid conflict and confrontation between and among differing views. The facilitator leads the discussion with questions that are skillfully crafted to elicit no response. Questions are framed to force respondents to disagree with a statement with which most reasonable people would agree. For example, a facilitator might ask: “Is there anyone who would disagree that we have a responsibility to leave future generations sufficient resources to meet their need?” Obviously, no reasonable person can disagree with such a statement. Silence — no response — implies that a consensus has been reached on the need to protect resources for future generations. The example is an oversimplification, but it illustrates the technique used by the facilitator.

    Despite the careful selection of the participants, the facilitator may encounter an individual who does disagree with the questions. The facilitator is trained to marginalize such an individual by making him or her look silly by asking another, even more extreme question, such as: “Surely you are not telling this group that you feel no responsibility to your grandchildren, are you?” With such tactics, one who objects or disagrees very often is quickly labeled as a trouble-maker and is either ignored or excluded from the group. (See cologic, March/April, 1997, for a more detailed discussion on techniques).

    Eventually, a report will be written by a professional. It will be “The Plan,” or the document produced by the group. Regardless of what the group’s stated purpose may be, the final document will include language that says the plan is designed to integrate ecology, equity, and the economy; environmental protection, equity, and sustainable development.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      cyril of gladstone

      This is the process and it is also designed so that when there is any objection to the plan it can be said that every body was consulted and had input so they should not be complaining now. The only way to avoid this is to not be involved. The minute you agree to become involved you have tacitly agreed that there is a problem that needs to be solved.
      I notice that the Meat and Livestock Association is having meeting with the WWF on “sustainable” large scale livestock farming. The fact that they have agreed to the meeting already indicates that they believe they have a problem that needs a solution. They should realise that the WWF’s solution is to have no large scale livestaock farming and this is the result that the WWF will end up with out of a continuous consultation process.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Mark D.

      Kevin Moore, this is good. Thank you.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    klem

    How can you Australians tolerate this kind of thing. Oh wait, I have the same people here running my government. Ouch.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Dennis

      Most of us can’t tolerate what our government is doing to us but there is nothing that we can do until the next federal election, and that might be another year and a half.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    As I sit here watching the President of The United States and the Supreme Court engaged in what surely must end in a very high stakes game of chicken I’m not all that surprised. They were up to that anyway and we all knew it.

    They no longer fear any adversary, except one — information.

    Keep up the expose, Jo.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The only prerequisite for the power grab they’d like to do, is getting control of our thing – the internet. You’ve been warned, so you know what the next big fight is going to be about. Lock and load, let’s get ahead of them on that one …

    Screw the Apple and **** the core http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhsWzJo2sN4

    Pointman


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    I’m not aware of any attempt at creating a utopia that isn’t drenched in the blood of the innocent.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Kevin Moore

      LENIN AND THE USE OF TERROR

      http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Quotes/leninkeyquotes.htm

      From the 1 September 1918 edition of the Bolshevik newspaper, Krasnaya Gazeta:

      “We will turn our hearts into steel, which we will temper in the fire of suffering and the blood of fighters for freedom. We will make our hearts cruel, hard, and immovable, so that no mercy will enter them, and so that they will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood. We will let loose the floodgates of that sea. Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds. Let them be thousands; let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin and Uritsky, Zinovief and Volodarski, let there be floods of the blood of the bourgeois – more blood, as much as possible.”


      Report this

      00

  • #
    • #
      Tom

      This is actually what you get when “climate change” is actually unmasked as a dangerous, totalitarian political movement: the revival of eugenics promoted by fascist academics with PhDs trying to install themselves as a new know-all ruling class, to whom democracy and liberty are expendable. Such zealots appropriate a saving-the-planet doctrine to give themselves authority in the same way that religious leaders did (and sometimes still do) use a deity: it’s god’s will; bow down before god. Listen carefully for how this return to fascist eugenics is passed off by the usual suspects (Bob Brown, Tim Flannery, etc). If they don’t dissociate themselves from it, they are endorsing it. This lunatic fringe is now in power via the Gillard government and will continue to exert power after Labor is driven from office through federal and state bureaucracies, which will continue to wage a political war through regulation and legislation against “climate change” under a new name, “sustainability”.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Winston

      “Meat patches”- good idea! Perhaps we should force all vegans to wear them, in the interest of solidarity with all us omnivores of course!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      We have surely elevated ourselves well above our level of competence. Dr. Lawrence Peter was right.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    “Add a few drops of malice to a half truth and you have an absolute truth” -Eric Hoffer.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Kevin Moore

      “Add a few drops of malice to a half truth and you have an absolute truth” -Eric Hoffer.

      Malice = love with hate

      Half truth = communist dialectics

      Absolute truth = A lie believed

      But as Julia may well sing, “A spoonfull of sugar makes the medicine go down”.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    5 April: Simone Wilson: LA Weekly Blog: Ron Paul Mania at UCLA: Stadium Reaches Capacity, Students Climb Trees to Get a Glimpse
    Paul’s campaign bloggers (at least we hope they’re getting paid) estimate today that the crowd reached 10,000, although max cap at Straus Stadium is more around 6,000.
    It was probably somewhere in the middle, judging by this amazing photo that @CrusaderMaximus Tweeted from the scene. Students apparently flocked to the stadium’s outskirts, monkeying up into campus trees for a glimpse of Sir Paul (yes, we’re going for the Beatlemania imagery, as did the Washington Times).
    If attendance surpassed 6,200 — the number of bodies at Paul’s personal-record-setting Chico State event earlier this week — then UCLA is indeed the new record-holder.
    Democrat-Media-Complex conspiracy theorists questioned why the Los Angeles Times had no day-before coverage on Ron Paul’s visit to UCLA…
    On the other side, skeptics of the more mainstream Republican candidates have created a pretty hilarious graphic (see left) comparing the turnout at Strauss Stadium to a speech that frontrunner Mitt Romney gave at Ford Field in Michigan, his home state, last month.
    And another Paul supporter at the Examiner notes that…
    “… as Paul set a new attendance record (estimates have ranged form seven to ten thousand), the only mention of Paul on the Fox news site is ‘Paul Increasingly Absent From Campaign.’”…
    http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/04/ron_paul_mania_at_ucla_stadium.php


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    btw there is a video in the LA Weekly page…and plenty more on youtube..


    Report this

    00

  • #

    These people at The Planet Under Pressure conference have no shame, they fear no adversary, but they do fear the spread of information. The Internet is their nemesis.
    Keep up the good work Jo for all our sakes, Jo. We will miss your site even if it is only off for 24 hours.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mawashi

    Good article Jo.

    Of course, deep down it was never about saving the environment anyway. As many have stated before me, environmentalism’s just been a convenient cover for the totalitarians, eugenicists and untalented hacks otherwise unemployable to seize power and sovereignty. Regulation is their way of controlling and restricting our behaviour and blunting the weapons we use to retaliate (e.g. Finkelstein’s sham media inquiry). Money is not the goal – it can be printed at will. It’s the rush of power that motivates these crooks.

    The house built on sand will eventually fail as other such regimes have; in the meantime, however, they’ll wreak obliterating damage on people, businesses and nations.

    We only have to witness the theft of water rights from our agricultural sector at the same time as the federal government allows foreign corporations and government proxies to buy up our productive land to boost their food security at the expense of Australia’s. Bordering on treason if it isn’t already. Or the outrageous dishonesty behind the smart meter rollout.

    In Victoria the Baillieu government allowed a temporary reprieve for opponents of the expensive and unnecessary technology while they conducted an “inquiry” to investigate complaints about the meters and billing system. Of course the outcome was predetermined, since we have to pay higher electricity prices to save the environment and protect power company profits without improving infrastructure. Or something else like that. The other real reason, of course, is simply to demonstrate the regulatory muscle of being able to regulate our power use via remote control of smart meters, blacking or browning out entire areas at whim. Not sure about claims of being able to control air conditioners, fridges or heaters remotely, but restricting available power could render these appliances inoperable while still allowing low-energy appliances light lamps to work. And to compensate the power companies (political donors) for the expected revenue shortfall, rates will go up and low-tariff windows will narrow to the point where we’l be washing clothes between 2-3am twice a week!

    As our natural gas reserves are being exported at giveaway prices, there’s insufficient production capacity at the present to supply it to the domestic market at reasonable prices to fuel power generation. We could look after Australia first, but that wouldn’t be the Aussie way! Besides, some regulatory flunkie would likely highlight an obscure passage in a UN treaty stating that we’re not allowed to use our own resources because some developing nation with a nepotistic dictatorship is more deserving. And our taxes will subsidise it!

    The catch 22 is that these ecotwits are actively calling for silencing of critics and are getting what they want, whereas we more libertarian folk allow free speech no matter how loony it may be. We just have to use our speech to counter these fools before they have us locked up for the crime of common sense.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J.H.

    Everytime I hear these sort of people speak, I see behind them the grinning spectres of Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Lysenko… Rank upon rank of old evil speaking through new mouths.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robert

    This is curious:

    We heard from Sander Van Der Leeuw – Dean and Professor at the School of Sustainability at Arizona State University – that now is the time for scientists to forget objectivity and become citizens once again; for scientists to “better understand decision-making” at the highest level.

    So is he implying that by being objective they have lost their citizenship? Or is he claiming that one cannot be objective and a citizen at the same time?

    Logic would indicate that remaining objective would enable better understanding of decision-making. Strange world these people live in.


    Report this

    00

  • #

     

    Don’t say you haven’t been warned that they want to “deconstruct” our way of living. This is serious, folks, and the hoax will cost lives. Why is it a hoax? Consider this …

    In my view we need to focus on the assumed problem, namely carbon dioxide and, to a lesser extent, methane perhaps. If I refer to trace gases take it to mean these, because I refuse to call them greenhouse gases.

    We have what we have in the Earth’s total system. Somehow, in some way we may never fully understand, a long-term near equilibrium situation has developed. We have some energy being generated in the core, mantle and crust, most likely by fission I think, but I won’t go into that. But it does set up a temperature gradient from the core to the surface which is very stable below the outer kilometre or so of the crust. However, it may vary in long-term natural cycles that have something to do with planetary orbits. Likewise, the intensity of solar radiation getting through the atmosphere to the surface may also vary in natural cycles which may have something to do with planetary influences on the Sun, and on the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit and on cosmic ray intensity and on cloud cover, ENSO cycles etc.

    There is much to be learned about such natural cycles, and we have seen papers by Nicola Scafetta for example which appear to provide compelling evidence of the natural cycles. I believe that in fact such natural cycles are quite sufficient to explain all observed climate change, including what has happened in the last half century or so, right up to the present. The world has just been alarmed because the 1000 year cycle and the 60 year cycle were both rising around 1970 to 1998, just as they did by about the same amount 60 years earlier, and 60 years before that and no doubt further back. We cannot escape the obvious fact that there is a ~1000 year cycle which is due for another maximum within 50 to 200 years. Then there will be 500 years of falling temperatures.

    But the central issue is whether or not trace gases are really having any effect at all on climate.

    In my paper I have explained the physics of heat transfer and demonstrated why trace gases cannot have any effect whatsoever on what we call climate.

    Climate may be thought of as the mean of temperature measurements, usually made in the air between 1.5 and 2 metres above the ground. Thermometers are affected by the thermal energy in that air near the surface. As you can read here thermal energy is distinct from heat. It is transferred by molecular collision processes (conduction and diffusion,) by physical movement (convection) and by radiation. . The energy in radiation is not thermal energy. Thermal energy is first converted to electromagnetic (radiated) energy and then that EM energy has to be converted back to thermal energy in a target. Hence, in a sense thermal energy only appears to be transferred by radiation.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLoT) tells us that in any (one way, independent) spontaneous process, entropy cannot decrease unless external energy is added. There are no two ways about it. If spontaneous radiation emanates from a cooler object (or atmosphere) its EM energy cannot be converted back to thermal energy in a warmer target, such as Earth’s surface. This point is not debatable. A violation of the SLoT cannot be excused on the grounds that there will be some subsequent independent process (maybe not even radiation) which will transfer more thermal energy back to the atmosphere. If you disagree, you are mistaken.

    However, the radiation from a cooler body can affect the radiative component of the cooling of a warmer body. Although such radiation undergoes what I call “resonant scattering” this does involve the “resonators” in the warmer body and uses up some of its radiating capacity. Because the incident radiation supplies the energy, the warmer body does not need to convert an equivalent amount of its own thermal energy. Hence it cools more slowly.

    But, the resonating process involves all the (potential) different frequencies in the incident radiation. There will be far less effect when there are limited frequencies as is the case for radiation from a trace gas in the atmosphere. Furthermore, the effect depends on the temperature of that gas and is less when it is cooler. It is far less from space (equivalent to about 2.7K) and so there is no slowing of cooling for that portion of radiation which gets through the atmospheric window.

    The remaining radiation (when we look at net figures, not all that backradiation) represents less than a third of all the cooling processes from the surface to the atmosphere. The other non-radiative processes can, and will, simply speed up in order to compensate, because they do so if the temperature gap increases. There are further reasons discussed in Q.3 in the Appendix of my paper.

    So there is no overall effect at all due to trace gases on the rate of cooling of the surface. Thus there can be no effect upon climate.

    Discussion on this continues on this thread.

     


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Hladik

    Kyle Reese, speaking to Sarah Connor, shortly after her first face-to-face encounter with the T-101 sent to terminate her:

    “It can’t be bargained with, it can’t be reasoned with, it doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear! And it absolutely WILL NOT stop! EVER! Until you are dead!”

    Apropos to this?

    Regards,

    Mark H.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    “Agenda 21 was the main outcome of the United Nation’s Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Agenda 21 outlines, in detail, the UN’s vision for a centrally managed global society. This contract binds governments around the world to the United Nation’s plan for controlling the way we live, eat, learn, move and communicate – all under the noble banner of saving the earth. If fully implemented, Agenda 21 would have the government involved in every aspect of life of every human on earth.

    Agenda 21 spreads it tentacles from Governments, to federal and local authorities, and right down to community groups. Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 specifically calls for each community to formulate its own Local Agenda 21: ”Each local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local organizations, and private enterprises to formulate ‘a Local Agenda 21.’ Through consultation and consensus-building, local authorities would learn from citizens and from local, civic, community, business and industrial organizations and acquire the information needed for formulating the best strategies.” – Agenda 21,
    Chapter 28, sec 1.3

    Maurice Strong, Club of Rome member, devout Bahai, founder and first Secretary General of UNEP, has been the driving force behind the birth and imposition of Agenda 21. While he chaired the Earth Summit, outside his wife Hanne and 300 followers called the Wisdom-Keepers, continuously beat drums, chanted prayers to Gaia, and tended sacred flames in order to “establish and hold the energy field” for the duration of the summit. You can view actual footage of these ceremonies on YouTube.”

    I urge everyone to go to the website below and view the You Tube video at the link provided. Particularly look for the ageing musician who had his audience including many dignitaries such as the Dalai Lama giving a combined “Wolf howl to Mother Earth”! But also listen to and see some of the “ordinary” speakers.

    My point is, this is a very powerful movement backed by many genuine people with very worthwhile motives and idealistic ideas on the environment with which many of us could agree. The sad part is they do not realise or perhaps care, how they have been deliberately manipulated through the Catastrophic Global warming scare, by the Club of Rome and all the many other powerbrokers through the UN to get the ultimate power plan under way, Agenda 21. AGW, climate change, climate disruption, or whatever other morphed name the scare has gone through have all only been the means to the desired end.

    The threat is very real, it is further along the path than most realise and as ***UN IPCC OFFICIAL Ottmar Edenhofer said before Cancun “Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War……. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

    Rio-20 will provide a massive wake-up call for many who have dismissed the UN Global Governance plans as some right wing “conspiracy theory”!

    http://green-agenda.com/agenda21.html

    ***
    http://thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Of Course Giddens served as Director of the London School of Economics 1997–2003, where he is now Emeritus Professor.

    This is the hangout of Bumbling Bob Ward, who attempted to discredit the venerable Professor Bob Carter and the incomparable Prof Richard Lindzen on the “Science Show” – 2010-10-02 Edition. Hear the fatuous remarks for yourself, and then compare what Wars asserts, with what Carter & Lindzen actually have stated. This exchange was criticised by the Jo Nova blog at the time, and the Fraudulent Climate has cited this as an example of rabid propagandism at the Australian Zombie Politics page at that site. Ward’s rant is a classic of vacuous senselessness.

    Link to Australian Zombie Politics Page is near the top of the main index page just above the first Cyan Divider Bar. See also the 8-part automatic playlist of Lord Monckton’s “The Climate of Freedom” lecture given at the University of Minnesota, USA, in March 2012.

    The Fraudulent Climate of Hokum Science


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Ross

    I have always thought that the only way the scam could be sorted , in the short term , was through the courts. Fred Singer gives a great summary of the situation and what two important court cases in the USA and Canada could do

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/climategate_heads_to_court.html

    Obviously in the med/longer term we’ll just have to wait for mother nature to show them what it is all about.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    MSM control, assisted by Big Oil!

    genuine journalism?

    7 April: SMH: Gavin Gilchrist: Carbon tax clock is ticking
    Tick. Tick. Tick. That’s the sound of the great big national clock that’s counting down to the start of the carbon price less than three months from now.
    The alarm goes off on July 1, but for commercial property owners or tenants, whether it’s a loud noise that seriously upsets your July profit and loss or whether it’s something you’ll take in your stride depends on your preparation…
    Coal is basically solid carbon. Burning it is a dirty business, producing much carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas causing climate change.
    The unique thing about this new tax is that it’s one the Australian government actually wants you to minimise…
    Hit the switch to clean energy. And the cleanest form of clean energy is the energy you don’t use at all. There’s nothing cleaner than a negawatt-hour…
    Stage two will involve bigger investments in upgrading plant and equipment.
    In the long term, you need to lock your savings in with state-of-the-art equipment that will deliver savings well into the future.
    Early on Monday, July 2, when that alarm goes off, whether your business hits the snooze button or whether it leaps out of bed ready for Australia’s next big economic reform is now in your hands.
    Gavin Gilchrist heads energy efficiency firm Big Switch Projects.
    http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-tax-clock-is-ticking-20120406-1wfyx.html

    ok, SMH does mention Gavin’s connection to Big Switch Projects, but would that tell readers the full story?

    BigSwitchProjects: Gavin Gilchrist, Managing Director
    For the past 16 years of Gavin’s professional life has focussed on climate change solutions for business and households. In 2000 he formed Big Switch Projects to help business deliver reduced energy use and carbon footprints through energy efficiency upgrades.
    Before setting up his own company, Gavin worked for the NSW Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA). From December 1997 to March 2000 he was Program Manager for Energy Smart Business where one of his responsibilities was the design, launch and early implementation of the Australian Building Greenhouse Rating scheme…
    ***Prior to joining SEDA, Gavin had spent his working life as a journalist, most of the time with ABC TV News and The Sydney Morning Herald…
    Gavin has a Bachelor of Economics and Masters of Science and Society. He is the Energy Efficiency Council representative on the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency’s NABERS Stakeholder Advisory Committee and also an accredited member of the Department of Energy, Resources & Tourism Consultants Panel.
    He remains a regular commentator in the media on climate change and energy efficiency issues.
    http://www.bigswitchprojects.com.au/who-we-are/our-team/gavin-gilchrist.aspx

    Big Switch Projects
    For the past three years we’ve been running the Business Energy Efficiency Programs of both the Blacktown Solar City and the Adelaide Solar City, flagship schemes funded by the Australian Government.
    http://www.bigswitchprojects.com.au/what-we-offer/government.aspx

    Adelaide Solar City
    The council areas of Adelaide, Salisbury, Tea Tree Gully and Playford are the focus of this innovative ‘real world’ trial. It is delivered in Adelaide by a consortium comprising Big Switch Projects, ANZ, Delfin Lend Lease, Origin Energy, BP Solar and Salisbury Council. Big Switch Projects manage three trials for Adelaide Solar City:
    http://www.bigswitchprojects.com.au/what-we-offer/adelaide-solar-city.aspx

    Blacktown Solar City
    The Blacktown Solar City consortium is delivering this project on behalf of the Australian Government. BP Solar heads the team comprising of Big Switch Projects, Endeavour Energy, Blacktown City Council and Landcom.
    http://www.bigswitchprojects.com.au/what-we-offer/blacktown-solar-city.aspx

    Gavin Gilchrist
    Education University of New South Wales & The Australian National University
    1988-1996: National Medical and Science Reporter ABC TV News http://au.linkedin.com/in/gavingilchrist

    Tick. Tick. Tick. SMH is going down the gurgler. pity they will take so many down with them.

    6 April: Herald Sun: Karina Barrymore: More companies down the gurgler
    A RECORD number of Australian companies went bust in February as the downturn in consumer confidence took a devastating toll, new figures reveal.
    And more records could tumble, with insolvency experts warning that corporate collapses are likely to remain at historic highs for the rest of the year…
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/more-companies-down-the-gurgler/story-fn6bfkm6-1226320146645

    the gurgler article blames everything but the carbon tax and CAGW/environmental costs which have already kicked in and which have so badly damaged business.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Paul Deacon

    Hi Jo -

    A propos of the regulating classes, have you seen the granny in England who was told to find a new National Health doctor because of the carbon footprint of her visits to the surgery (apparently she lives a mere 2 miles away):

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9184693/Surgery-bans-elderly-patient-over-her-carbon-footprint.html

    [Brighton in Sussex is home to Westminster's sole Green Party MP.]

    All the best.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Joe V.

      That was a typical example of ‘carbon footprint’ being used as a proxy for something else. ie. we don’t want you because you complained about one of our doctors. A EUphemism , if you like. in much the same way that ‘elf ‘n. safety is so often invoked to close down any argument.

      The good lady should go back to the practise, seeking treatment for her ‘carbon foot’.


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #
    Kevin Moore

    This is part of PM Gillards address to the Lowy Institute in 2009.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/the-pms-address-to-the-lowy-institute/story-e6frg6nf-1225795141519

    In Australia, we must pass our Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme – to deliver certainty for business at home and to play our part abroad in any global agreement to bring greenhouse gases down.

    President Obama in the United States is also working hard so that he can take strong commitments to Copenhagen. And let us never forget that in the US, as in Australia, under both our respective previous governments, zero action was taken on bringing in cap and trade schemes meaning that the governments that replaced them began with a zero start.

    Other countries are striving to build domestic political momentum in their own countries to take strong commitments into the global deal.

    The challenge we face, and others around the world face, is to build momentum and overcome domestic political constraints.

    The truth is this is hard, because the climate change skeptics, the climate change deniers, the opponents of climate change action are active in every country.

    They are a minority. They are powerful. And invariably they are driven by vested interests.

    Powerful enough to so far block domestic legislation in Australia, powerful enough to so far slow down the passage of legislation through the US Congress. And ultimately – by limiting the ambition of national climate change commitments – they are powerful enough to threaten a deal on global climate change both in Copenhagen and beyond.

    The opponents of action on climate change fall into one of three categories.
    · First, the climate science deniers.
    · Second, those that pay lip service to the science and the need to act on climate change but oppose every practicable mechanism being proposed to bring about that action.
    · Third, those in each country that believe their country should wait for others to act first.

    Together, these groups, alive in every major country including Australia, constitute a powerful global force for inaction, and they are particularly entrenched in a range of conservative parties around the world.

    As we approach Copenhagen, these three groups of climate skeptics are quite literally holding the world to ransom.
    · Provoking fear campaigns in every country they can.
    · Blocking or delaying domestic legislation in every country they can.
    · With the objective of slowing and if possible destroying the momentum towards a global deal on climate change.

    As we approach the Copenhagen conference these groups of climate change deniers face a moment of truth, and the truth is this: we will need to work much harder to reach an agreement in Copenhagen because these advocates of inaction are holding back domestic commitments, and are in turn holding back global commitments on climate change.

    It is time to be totally blunt about the agenda of the climate change skeptics in all their colours – some more sophisticated than others.

    It is to destroy the CPRS at home, and it is to destroy agreed global action on climate change abroad, and our children’s fate – and our grandchildren’s fate – will lie entirely with them.

    It’s time to remove any polite veneer from this debate. The stakes are that high.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @Kevin Moore
    I also remember the Gillard saying ….
    “There will be no Carbon Taxes in a Government that I lead”.

    Liar Liar Pants on Fire !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Only just noticed what Tony Abbott said on 30 Jan:

    “The first act of an incoming coalition government will be to prepare the carbon tax repeal legislation to take the pressure off the power prices and transport prices that feed through to every price in our economy. … The carbon tax will be gone and, with it, some of the upward pressure on prices.”

    but then:

    “The best way to reduce emissions is to invest intelligently in the changes that cost-conscious enterprises are already making to become more energy efficient. That’s what our $10 billion emissions reduction fund is for: reducing domestic emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 by reinforcing what businesses are already doing.”

    Politicians are usually giving with one hand and taking with the other. Gillard was taking with both hands, and Tony Abbott plans to do the same. Abbott is the latest recruit of the Branch Carbonian Cult. Taking 10 billion out of Australia’s collective back pocket, and giving… absolutely nothing in return because 5% CO2 makes no difference whether it is gained or lost.

    Interesting background on the Mad Monk. He married a Rothschild employee, “wasn’t an obvious Liberal and maybe he could have passed for some sort of Catholic Right ALP.” Could have fooled me!

    Abbot says “No one should be fooled by Labor’s carbon tax which is socialism masquerading as environmentalism“.
    Yes, and when you remove any pretence of there being a free market emissions trading scheme, which historic notorious economic pigeon hole do you nominate for your bold plan, Tony? Ten billion in Government taxes being funnelled mainly into barely marginal improvements at a few favoured big companies whilst small businesses are required to do it the hard way. Sounds like you’re giving the F word to the country, and yes, fascism is a dirty word.

    At best this is pork barrelling to soften the green fence sitters. At worst it’s money for mates.
    Ought we be thankful those mates will spend it into the Australian economy Reagonomics-style?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Ted O'Brien

      Don’t worry Andrew, the $10 billion will be reduced dramatically.

      In 1998 it looked like AGW was rampant. In 2007 the sceptics were convinced it wasn’t happening, but more cautious people were still not convinced. By 2009 it was becoming clear to all competent observers that AGW wasn’t happening, and that an emissions trading scheme would greatly disadvantage Australian industry for no good reason. Hence the Liberals’ change of direction.

      In 2012 AGW is just about dead in its tracks. There has been no rise in temps since 1998, and the rise in sea levels is steady near the long term rate. It is politicians and a small number of “scientists” in their hire who are trying to maintain the scam, assisted by incompetent journalists and editors.

      When Tony Abbott is in government it will be necessary to completely reassess climate policy on the new basis. Much of that $10 billion will have to go somewhere else.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Ted O'Brien

    You write of “A call to put politics ahead of science.”

    I remind you that in 1986, two years before the IPCC was set up, the Hawke government changed the management of the CSIRO, placing their own brand of “political scientists” in charge of the real scientists at the CSIRO.

    This enabled those political “scientists” to determine what research programs were undertaken, who was hired and fired, and what results were published.

    I was alarmed at the time, because the only possible explanation for this was that the ALP intended to direct our science to suit their own political purposes.

    A small number of years later I knew for sure that AGW was a scam when one day the full page of a mainstream newspaper was devoted to the headline: “Cows Australia’s biggest source of greenhouse gases”. A CSIRO scientist named Galbally, working in Tasmania, had discovered this.

    Now this was a monstrous lie. I am not a “scientist”, but I know that there is a huge variation in the quantity of greenhouse gases emitted by a cow, depending on what she is eating. It is just not possible to do one trial in Tasmania and get an accurate result by extrapolating the results across Australia.

    Secondly, no research had been done to determine what “greenhouse gases” would have been produced from those acres had there been no grazing on them at all.

    Thirdly, no allowance had been made for the carbon sequestered in the grass that the cows ate.

    So I do not believe that Mr Galbally, or any other real scientist, made the statement published in that headline. This was the work of the ALP/CSIRO publishing machine, using a snippet of Mr Galbally’s work.

    So what was the purpose of this monstrous lie? The agricultural sector was the last remaining sector of Australia’s economy which was still dominated by small business. The last sector where the business owners made the business decisions. The last bastion of the free market economy, not controlled by Marxist unions.

    The purpose of the lie was to convince the electorate that the farmers are plunderers of the “environment”, not to be trusted with the ownership of land.

    That lie stood as current conventional wisdom for years, and was taught in our schools, until somebody did a proper research of the greenhouse gases emitted by industry in Australia. Agriculture was then relegated a long way down the list, but the damage of that headline and its continued publication through our education system remains.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PaddikJ

    Sander Van Der Leeuw – Dean and Professor at the School of Sustainability at Arizona State University . . .

    School of Sustainability?

    Sigh.


    Report this

    00