In a long overdue and refreshing move the BBC finally questions the IPCCs global warming scare;
The best however is found in the comments with this great point;
October 4, 2013 • 06:49 0
August 23, 2012 • 09:47 3
The arts of power and its minions are the same in all countries and in all ages. It marks its victim, denounces it, and excites the public odium and public hatred, to conceal its own abuses and encroachments.–Henry Clay
To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, legislated at, regulated, docketed, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, weighed, censored, ordered about, by men who have neither the right, nor the knowledge, nor the virtue.–Peirre-Joseph Proudhon
Everywhere you turn the globalists and the puppet governments refuse to be accountable, act with impunity and believe they are above the law. Just watching the Gillard ALP in Australia where the government that has presided over more than 700 deaths, hundreds of house fires, tens of billions squandered, corruption at every turn and yet remains in power, refusing to be transparent or accountable to the people. This week has been replete with examples of that as Gillards past corruption comes to light whilst she stonewalls & refuses answers. Her fraud & all the appointments to positions of power she has made for accomplices and mates are finally being laid bare but she refuses to budge.
Then there is Australia’s carbon tax legislation which Gillard ensured to the people pre election she wouldn’t bring in, and yet had every intent on doing so and deceptively did so and that in a manner that defied every democratic process and made a mockery of representational government. To be true we are no longer governed by and for the people but simply ruled by elitists believing themselves to be above the ‘little people’. To Gillard the end justifies the means and has no problem with lying as long as she accomplishes her fabian (creeping) socialist ideals – the pinnacle of which is the carbon tax. Keep in mind that the carbon taxes are nothing but wealth redistribution – historically one of Gillards favorite socialist endeavors, and one that conveniently funds the UN and its global governance as well. The carbon tax is nothing but centralised power & where that power is shifting from a national/Australian level to an international/UN level. All the rules and laws of the carbon tax come from the UN, not from the Australian people and allegiance to the UN is nothing short of allegiance to a foreign power – or treason as our constitution would define it, tyrannical treason.
The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.–James Madison
Also keep in mind the most expensive carbon tax in the world will only go up. Also keep in mind that ex Goldman Sachs bankster Turncoat Turnbull is another globalist puppet waiting ready in the wings to replace Abbott who vows to repeal this law of enslavement. No we the people don’t want Turnbull but what we the people think doesnt seem to matter anymore.
There is no democracy under globalism. The UN is the least accountable bureaucracy in the world. It is also the least democratic as we the people have no say, it has no elections and does as it pleases. Is it any wonder that its socialist puppets behave in the same manner – Gillard & Obama in particular refuse transparency, accountability or scrutiny. The more centralised the power, the less voice that the people have. We would head the wise words;
Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.–William Pitt, the Younger
No where has the impingement of human freedom been more obvious than the fabricated global warming alarmism, where all the free things we hold dear are being removed by the lying excuse of saving the planet. The planet isnt dying, the world does not have a fever, extreme weather events are not increasing – all lies to push a lie. Our green tyrants are turning us into nothing more than slaves. And if the UN’s Agenda 21 gets fully implemented then tragically in comparison the holocaust will look like a picnic in the park.
Fear is what is needed in a despotism. Virtue is not at all necessary, and honor would be dangerous.–Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu
February 16, 2012 • 13:16 0
Recent email correspondence. My apologies for the lack of posts but have had personal issues to attend to. Have been tweeting a bit – twawki on twitter
Mr Doug McIntyre
Dear Mr McIntyre
I am writing to you about the impending release by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (the Authority) of the draft Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
Given your past interest in the Guide to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, I am writing to advise you that the Authority is intending to release the draft Basin Plan for public comment on Monday, 28 November 2011.
The Authority has decided to undertake public consultation on the draft Basin Plan over an extended 20 week period. Any interested person or organisation is able to provide written feedback to the Authority during this consultation period. The Authority will consider all submissions received and, prior to submitting a final plan to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, the Hon Tony Burke MP, will prepare and publish a document that summarises how public submissions received were taken into account.
I encourage you to participate in the consultation process and to use this important opportunity to provide feedback directly to the Authority. The draft Basin Plan will be available on the Authority’s website at: www.mdba.gov.au. Further information about how you can contribute can be found at that website, including instructions for electronic submissions.
22 November 2011
My response as follows;
I wish to applaud you on giving the public adequate time to comment and respond to the Murray Darling Basin Plan. The question needs to be asked why the same amount of adequate time was not given to the Australian people to comment on the Carbon tax? Instead we were given a grossly insufficient and paltry 8 days – not even enough time to read the 11,000 pages, let alone formulate an opinion and educated response. I guess that’s why there are complaints against the government for that with the Human Rights Commission.
As we are all witnessing the world is now cooling – and not warming. The government’s insistence on the unproven AGW theory that is now at odds with climate reality is shaping up to become a hotbed for liability and recrimination for those who push it particularly as the underlying data for AGW is now shown to be mostly fraudulent. It would seem the climate reality that we are facing (cold PDO, more prevalent and stronger La Ninas, low sunspot activity) – at least for the next 2-3 decades – if not longer – is that of a cold and wet climate. Climate history would also support this view.
Within this cold wet future the Murray Darling Basin Plan shapes up simply as a joke. Why are we trying to force restricted water allocations on farmers when the main issue in the next two decades is going to be flooding. Wouldn’t it be sensible to let farmers take what is surplus whilst we are in surplus and that can help mitigate flooding – or is that too sensible?
I also think the views of Dr Marohasy need to be taken into account and that is Murray Darling is a barrier estuary. Any ‘solution’ that ignores this is not a solution at all, even politically expedient solutions.
Like many Australians I also object to the overarching influence of minority green groups who show they are more interested in activism and socialism than real concerns for the environment, whilst the bulk of the people are ignored. It is a travesty that the government is sidelining the majority voices of all the rural communities along the river whilst empowering the green lunatic fringe and that for non solutions. I like many others am also greatly concerned that most of our government policy for the environment no longer democratically comes form the Australian people but the UN. You as elected representatives are accountable to us – not a global governance body that we have no say in.
Wivenhoe Dam is a recent and very pertinent example and warning of government’s relying on the fraud of AGW and consequently causing billions of dollars damage and putting many innocent lives at risk. Unless the Murray Darling Basin Plan is changed to reflect a cold wet climate reality for a barrier estuary then realistically we can only expect the similiar damage and destruction. This is an utter failure of governance and an act of bastardisation on the community.
December 21, 2011 • 10:02 4
It seems anything is fair game with environmentalism and the end justifies the means. In the article Lies damned lies and Enviro Fraud anything, and I mean anything is manipulated for the global warming liars – it get’s to the point where you wonder if there is ANY truth in what they do. It has become such an insidious culture . But then there’s a history, culture and belief system there.
From Climategate 2;
Then there’s the BOM, repeatedly caught out adjusting the data, falsifying the message and this week;
But then in the Global Warming theology departments this is common practice. Eg the CSIRO;
Can the CSIRO explain how is it that an applied science research institution that is supposed to be serving Australians through independence and integrity in science suddenly be politically active in the Rudd Cabinet’s Socialist fraud and participate in making Australians obey it, and use Lysenkoism to break down opposition and to convince Australians it is good for them?
Noteworthy that most of CSIRO directors tend to be … BANKERS!
And what does one of the leading scientists in the world say about global warming?
Sums it up really, doesnt it.
But when you look at the history of the IPCC could you really expect any different!
“it is long overdue that the IPCC was called for what it is, an activist eco-political body driven not by the dangerous manmade warming evidence that it pretends exists, but by the beliefs and philosophies of its sponsor, the UNEP, and by key individuals at the time the IPCC was established“.
“Climategate 2.0 is helping filling some knowledge gaps, for example in the way the IPCC has been slowing killing itself, and several thousands humans to“.
As is now being rumored the IPCC is going to get the boot;
Could it be that the UNFCCC has decided that its dependency on the “science” produced by this, well, Delinquent Teenager who was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert is no longer appropriate – or required?!
Perhaps the UNFCCC is in the process of throwing the IPCC under the proverbial bus – in the hopes of saving its own skin? And don’t forget that the IPCC’s younger sibling, the IPBES, is still waiting in the wings.
Who is the IPBES?
“IPBES stands for “intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services”. IPBES will be an interface between the scientific community and policymakers that aims at building capacity for and strengthen the use of science in policymaking“.
The IPBES to replace the IPCC. Same game of musical chairs by the UN – just different players. No backing down on the fraud, scares, or thieving of billions under false pretense. And the UN thinks it is safe because it has deemed itself to be above the law. The Earth Government that is going to replace the UN probably elevate itself in the same manner.
Who will be stuck with the global warming time bomb when the people make the police come?
November 26, 2011 • 09:47 2
Some new tools up online for people to use;
Growing list of climate skeptic blogs accessible here. If you know of any blogs to add to the list send me a comment below or email me – twawki1 at gmail dot com and put ‘additional blogs’ in the header
Growing list of liberty and freedom blogs accessible here. If you know of any blogs to add to the list email me – twawki1 at gmail dot com and put additional blogs on the page.
New database of Climategate 1 and 2 emails accessible here
Online tool to see whether an image is Photoshopped or not accessible her
And for the general things in life;
Daily link page where you can find a growing list of links for easy access.
Also a how to do page with links to all manner of things to let you know how to do something.
TWAWKI This is the world as we know it
November 24, 2011 • 14:41 12
This is not science the way we were told it works. This is not independent scientists working without conflicts of interest focusing on the data, submitting their results for independent assessment, being at arms length to the assessors and publishers. No this is real life story of the control of the press (Nature, Science and others), control of the editors and attacks on the non compliant ones, control of peer review, vilification of opponents work, manipulating political processes and controlling the narrative. This is a process where more of the ‘scientists’ energy is put into controlling their positions than seems is ever put into the science. And keep in mind these guys are on the government payroll and should be open and transparent in all their dealings.
This is also a story of a select group of individuals in positions of power paid for by the taxpayers, believing they are above reproach and cannot be wrong. This is about the religious fervor with which these global warming scientists banded together on group think to meet, plot and enact compliant acts of vilification against scientists whose studies threatened their work. There are few degrees of separation, if any between these so called scientists and the highest powers in many of the worlds nations. Additionally there is the menace of those in global governance aiding and abetting them. The following emails are almost a script for a movie on global warming eco elite’s subterfuge.
Bold mine, comments in red mine
Formatting removed to make it easier to read. You can read the original file here
Phil Jones, Mike Hulme, Keith Briffa, James Hansen, Danny Harvey, Ben Santer, Kevin Trenberth, Robert wilby, Tom Karl , Steve Schneider, Tom Crowley, jto , “simon.shackley” , “tim.carter”, “p.martens”, “peter.whetton”, “c.goodess” , “a.minns” , Wolfgang Cramer , “j.salinger” , “simon.torok” , Scott Rutherford, Neville Nicholls, Ray Bradley, Mike MacCracken , Barrie Pittock, Ellen Mosley-Thompson, “Greg.Ayers”
date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:39:14 -0400
from: “Michael E. Mann”
subject: Re: My turn
Thanks for your comments, and sorry to any of you who don’t wish to receive these correspondances…
Indeed, I have provided David Halpern with a written set of comments on the offending paper(s) for internal use, so that he was armed w/ specifics as he confronts the issue within OSTP. He may have gotten additional comments from other individuals as well–I’m not sure. I believe that the matter is in good hands with Dave, but we have to wait and see what happens. In any case, I’d be happy to provide my comments to anyone who is interested.
I think that a response to “Climate Research” is not a good idea. Phil and I discussed this, and agreed that it would be largely unread, and would tend to legitimize a paper which many of us don’t view as having passed peer review in a legitimate manner. On the other hand, the in prep. review articles by Jones and Mann (Rev. Geophys.), and Bradley/Hughes/Diaz (Science) should go along way towards clarification of the issues (and, at least tangentially, refutation of the worst of the claims of Baliunas and co). Both should be good resources for the FAR as well…
p.s. note the corrections to some of the emails in the original distribution list.
At 09:27 AM 4/24/Mark Eakin wrote: At this point the question is what to do about the Soon and Baliunas
paper. Would Bradley, Mann, Hughes et al. be willing to develop and appropriate rebuttal? If so, the question at hand is where it would be best to direct such a response. Some options are:
1) A rebuttal in Climate Research
2) A rebuttal article in a journal of higher reputation
3) A letter to OSTP
The first is a good approach, as it keeps the argument to the level of the current publication. The second would be appropriate if the Soon and Baliunas paper were gaining attention at a more general level, but it is not. Therefore, a rebuttal someplace like Science or Nature would probably do the opposite of what is desired here by raising the attention to the paper. The best way to take care of getting better science out in a widely read journal is the piece that Bradley et al. are preparing for Nature. This leaves the idea of a rebuttal in Climate Research as the best published approach.
A letter to OSTP is probably in order here. Since the White House has shown interest in this paper, OSTP really does need to receive a measured, critical discussion of flaws in Soon and Baliunas’ methods. I agree with Tom that a noted group from the detection and attribution effort such as Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley, Jones and Hughes should spearhead such a letter. Many others of us could sign on in support. This would provide Dave Halpern with the ammunition he needs to provide the White House with the needed documentation that hopefully will dismiss this paper for the slipshod work that it is. Such a letter could be developed in parallel with a rebuttal article.
I have not received all of the earlier e-mails, so my apologies if I am rehashing parts of the discussion that might have taken place elsewhere.
Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear Tom et al,
Thanks for comments–I see we’ve built up an impressive distribution list here!
This seemed like an appropriate point for me to chime in here. By in large, I agree w/ Tom’s comments (and those of Barrie’s as well). A number of us have written reviews and overviews of this topic during the past couple years. There has been a lot of significant scientific process in this area (both with regard to empirical “climate reconstruction” and in the area of model/data comparison), including, in fact, detection studies along the lines of what Barrie Pittock asked about in a previous email (see. e.g. Tom Crowley’s Science article from 2000). Phil Jones and I are in the process of writing a review article for /Reviews of Geophysics/ which will, among other things, dispel the most severe of the myths that some of these folks are perpetuating regarding past climate change in past centuries. My understanding is that Ray Bradley, Malcolm Hughes, and Henry Diaz are working, independently, on a solicited piece for /Science/ on the “Medieval Warm Period”. Many have simply dismissed the Baliunas et al pieces because, from a scientific point of view, they are awful–that is certainly true. For example, Neville has pointed out in a previous email, that the standard they applied for finding “a Medieval Warm Period” was that a particular proxy record exhibit a 50 year interval during the period that was anomalously *warm*, *wet*, or *dry* relative to the “20th century” (many of the proxy records don’t really even resolve the late 20th century!) could be used to define an “MWP” anywhere one might like to find one. This was the basis for their press release arguing for a “MWP” that was “warmer than the 20th century” (a non-sequitur even from their awful paper!) (it is worth noting that …) and for their bashing of IPCC and scientists who contributed to IPCC (which, I understand, has been particularly viscious and ad hominem inside closed rooms in Washington DC where their words don’t make it into the public record). This might all seem laughable, it weren’t the case that they’ve gotten the (Bush) White House Office of Science & Technology taking it as a serious matter (fortunately, Dave Halpern is in charge of this project, and he is likely to handle this appropriately, but without some external pressure).
So while our careful efforts to debunk the myths perpetuated by these folks may be useful in the FAR, they will be of limited use in fighting the disinformation campaign that is already underway in Washington DC. Here, I tend to concur at least in sprit w/ Jim Salinger, that other approaches may be necessary. I would emphasize that there are indeed, as Tom notes, some unique aspects of this latest assault by the skeptics which are cause for special concern. This latest assault uses a compromised peer-review process as a vehicle for launching a scientific disinformation campaign (often viscious and ad hominem) under the guise of apparently legitimately reviewed science, allowing them to make use of the “Harvard” moniker in the process. Fortunately, the mainstream media never touched the story (mostly it has appeared in papers owned by Murdoch and his crowd (the demonising of Murdoch begins, which is still being pursued by Gillard) , and dubious fringe on-line outlets). Much like a server which has been compromised as a launching point for computer viruses, I fear that “Climate Research” has become a hopelessly compromised vehicle in the skeptics’ (can we find a better word?) (yes denier was what they chose). disinformation campaign, and some of the discussion that I’ve seen (e.g. a potential threat of mass resignation among the legitimate members of the CR editorial board) seems, in my opinion, to have some potential merit.
This should be justified not on the basis of the publication of science we may not like of course, but based on the evidence (e.g. as provided by Tom and Danny Harvey and I’m sure there is much more) that a legitimate peer-review process has not been followed by at least one particular editor. Incidentally, the problems alluded to at GRL are of a different nature–there are simply too many papers, and too few editors w/ appropriate disciplinary expertise, to get many of the papers submitted there properly reviewed. Its simply hit or miss with respect to whom the chosen editor is. While it was easy to make sure that the worst papers, perhaps including certain ones Tom refers to, didn’t see the light of the day at /J. Climate/, it was inevitable that such papers might slip through the cracks at e.g. GRL–there is probably little that can be done here, other than making sure that some qualified and responsible climate scientists step up to the plate and take on editorial positions at GRL.
At 11:53 PM 4/23/Tom Wigley wrote:
[Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email exchange — although they may be glad to have been missed]
I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea — although there are some unique things about this situation. Barrie says ….
(1) There are lots of bad papers out there
(2) The best response is probably to write a ‘rebuttal’
to which I add ….
(3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.
Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by Legates and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, ppREDACTED 1997) that was nothing more than a direct and pointed criticism of some work by Santer and me — yet neither of us was asked to review the paper. We complained, and GRL admitted it was poor judgment on the part of the editor. Eventually (> 2 years later) we wrote a response (GRLREDACTEDREDACTEDHowever, our response was more that just a rebuttal, it was an attempt to clarify some issues on detection. In doing things this way we tried to make it clear that the original Legates/Davis paper was an example of bad science (more bluntly, either sophomoric ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation).
Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added — as we did in the above example — then this is an advantage.
There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut. Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation of the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On the basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by persons with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley, Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend time on this?
There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be involved in writing a response.
The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16, 10.1029/2002GLREDACTED). I refereed a virtually identical paper for J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees recommended rejection too. The paper is truly appalling — but somehow it must have been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net. I have no
reason to believe that this was anything more than chance. Nevertheless, my judgment is that the science is so bad that a response is necessary.
The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate Research (vol. 23, ppREDACTED Danny Harvey and I refereed this and said it should be rejected. We questioned the editor (deFreitas again!) and he responded saying …
The MS was reviewed initially by five referees. … The other three referees, all reputable atmospheric scientists, agreed it should be published subject to minor revision. Even then I used a sixth person to help me decide. I took his advice and that of the three other referees and sent the MS back for revision. It was later accepted for publication. The refereeing process was more rigorous than usual.
On the surface this looks to be above board — although, as referees who advised rejection it is clear that Danny and I should have been kept in the loop and seen how our criticisms were responded to.
It is possible that Danny and I might write a response to this paper — deFreitas has offered us this possibility.
This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions. How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that ‘anti-greenhouse’ science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas,
Soon, and so on).
The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would be difficult.
The best response is, I strongly believe, to rebut the bad science that does get through.
Jim Salinger raises the more personal issue of deFreitas. He is clearly giving good science a bad name, but I do not think a barrage of ad hominem attacks or letters is the best way to counter this.
If Jim wishes to write a letter with multiple authors, I may be willing to sign it, but I would not write such a letter myself.
In this case, deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels’ PhD is at the same level).
Best wishes to all,
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
e-mail: Phone:770 FAX:137
C. Mark Eakin, Ph.D.
Chief of NOAA Paleoclimatology Program and
Director of the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
NOAA/National Climatic Data Center
325 Broadway E/CC23
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
It is worth noting on the science that far from being bad science
Who is who in the above emails – a cast of ….
Mark Eakin – Chief of NOAA Paleoclimatology Program and Director of the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
Phil Jones – UAE chief concedes “all our models are wrong“, refuses FOI requests, and has acknowledged there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995.
Ben Santer, Research scientist on climate models angry that climate skeptics arnt silenced, keeps moving the climate goalposts to suit his failed theories,
Kevin Trenberth, Senior Scientist NCAR. who said in October 2009 ” The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Robert Wilby, Professor of Hydroclimatic Modelling
Tom Karl ,
Steve Schneider, Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University
Tom Crowley, Simon Shackley, Tim Carter, P Marten, Peter Whetton, C Goodes, A Minn, Wolfgang Crame, Jim Salinger CRSNZ NIWA, Simon Toro, Scott Rutherfor, Neville Nicholl, Ray Bradle, Mike MacCracke, Barrie Pittoc, Ellen Mosley-Thompso, Greg Ayers
November 21, 2011 • 10:25 2
On the Australian Government website, under the title of a ‘message from the PM’, Gillard makes the astonishing claim that “Commitment to the United Nations is one of the three pillars of Australia’s foreign policy“. The Age reports;
“GREENS leader Bob Brown – whose party assumes sole balance of power in the Senate tomorrow – wants Australia to join an international push for a global parliament“.
Yet the constitution states that any Federal politician is illegible to stand for or remain in federal office if;
(i) Is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power:
Gillard, Brown, Rudd all acknowledge allegiance to the UN. Does the UN qualify as a foreign power?
“interpretation of ‘ foreign power (p7)’ in both limbs of s 44(i) appears to be any polity or state recognised under international law other than the Commonwealth of Australia“.
“Subsection 44(i) expresses the principle that members of parliament must have a clear and undivided loyalty to Australia and must not be subject to the influence of foreign governments“.
The UN is a polity though not a state it now calls countries states of its own power.
The Australia Act in 1986 transforming Australia into a sovereign independent nation even made the UK and the countries of the commonwealth a foreign power.
Gillard and her UN feigning associates have no qualms acknowledging publicly their allegiance, by their words and actions in implementing foreign UN policy without the consent of Australian people. This clearly shows obedience and adherence to the UN. Both Gillard and Rudd seek the rights and privileges of the UN both wanting a seat on global governance – like Clinton, Blair, Clarke and the other ex national leaders of other countries.
It has to be asked what mandate does Gillard and her UN cronies have to implement what they said they wouldn’t. Gillard has become an imperial Prime Minister who instead of representing Australian constituents increasingly acts independently of the Australian people & Australian democracy at home and abroad instead governing and ruling Australia for the UN..
The constitution clearly says allegiance to a foreign power makes a federal politician ineligible for office. When the rights of all Australians are subjugated to the direction and empowerment of the UN then the PM, Bob Brown and all the global governance elitists have breached the constitution and are no longer legally fit or eligible for office and should be removed from office immediately..
It has to be stated that when most do not believe in the green fairytale of global warming, that the globe hasn’t warmed for over a decade, that many have exposed the global warming lie as simply a cover for climate communism – using the climate as a cover to bring in a socialist global redistribution of wealth, and that the whole global warming fraud is a fabrication that has it’s origins in the UN, that the biggest financial beneficiary of the global warming scare will be the UN that how could Gillard, or the ALP or the Greens in any way support this destructive and fraudulent action against Australians.
Furthermore the Act of Settlement 1701 (Imp) which disqualified those born outside the Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland and the Dominions from holding office in the Privy Council or the Parliament, and from holding any office of trust under the Crown. Gillard was not born in Australia and has not been transparent or forthcoming to prove she legally renounced her citizenship from her country of birth (Wales) prior to becoming a federal politician.
Under article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 (the founding document of our Constitution) we have a right to enter into lawful rebellion if we feel we are being governed unjustly. Contrary to common belief our Sovereign and her government are only there to govern us and not to rule us and this must be done within the constraint of our Common Law and the freedoms asserted to us by such Law, nothing can become law in this country if it falls outside of this simple constraint.
Meanwhile the global warming fraud is exposed by nothing other than the climate; Judith Curry notes that so far we have had ; “a 12-year pause in rises in surface air and sea surface temperatures, and a nine-year pause in rises of ocean heat content“. But don’t let reality stop this treasonous minority government push ahead with the global warming fraud!
November 11, 2011 • 10:17 6
I was an Army private… a Naval commander… an Air Force bombardier. no man knows me… no name marks my tomb, for I am every Australian serviceman… I am the Unknown Soldier.
I died for a cause I held just in the service of my land… that you and yours may say in freedom… I am proud to be an Australian.
As we witness the daily destruction of our freedoms, our rights and our country by a socialist government that has lied to and betrayed the people we are reminded that like those before us “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance“.
We have let liars and crooks run and now ruin this great nation, and day by day they continue in their evil intent. Socialist and fabian Gillard and her ALP comrades refuse their sacred duty to govern by and for the people and instead have utter allegiance to the UN a foreign power – and that against our constitution. Today is a time where we must remember that if we are to have freedom we must fight for it, against the crooks and liars – currently those who think they know better than the rest of us and have used their representative positions to represent no one but themselves.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.- Benjamin Franklin
Lest we forget the liars in government, the refusal of the GG to protect Australians, the control of our great country now by a foreign power, green socialism and the destruction of our prosperity, the unelected, undemocratic UN’s 0.7% of gdp cash cow;
Lest we forget – unless we stand up and fight then our country will no longer be prosperous, no longer be free and no longer belong to all Auatralians.
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing! Edmund Burke
November 29, 2009 • 20:55 4
As the saying goes you can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.
Just think if the trillions being wasted on global warming alarmism was spent on worthwhile achievable environmental causes imagine what a better place this world would be. Rather than the trillions being squandered on green bureaucracies and profiteered by big green business if the little people in the small grass roots campaigns were financially empowered to help their immediate communities the impact could be enormous. As examples property could be purchased in city locations for community gardens, clean technologies could be advanced, reafforestation could happen in marginal areas etc
Science. We are over the politicisiation of science, all we simply want are the facts, not the lies, not the alarmism and not the agendas. In a progressive step UAE are saying they will make all of their data available. Calls are being made for NASA to do the same. The IPCC should likewise follow suit as should the BOM and the CSIRO.
BOM Contact David Jones head of BOM David Jones Ph: (03) 9669 4085, E-mail: email@example.com Call & Email demanding all the original unadjusted data files for Australia be released as a matter of public record
CSIRO contacts Call & Email demanding all the original unadjusted data files for Australia be released as a matter of public record
In the USA there is a grassroots movement to have publicly funded research made public and freely accessible online – what a great suggestion – we pay for it already! In Australia emails sent months ago to Universities have so far resulted in no response.
Media; Assoc. Prof. Chris Nash says “In short, the Australian constitutional framework for freedom of the press is weaker than in other liberal democracies” In looking at the behavior in the press these last few weeks this is really evident as vested interests attempt to sway public opinion. Will the cover up continue?
Politics; Likewise transparency in politics is needed. What is happening in Australia where the opposition party is being reformed based on principle rather than policy is a microcosm of what is needed all over the world. Where we have politicians who embrace small government, and government by the people and for the people. Why is Government policy NOT changing over these CLIMATEGATE revelations of data doctoring – should not all policy based on the fraudulent data immediately be put on hold – as should the ETS and Copenhagen. What we are getting with and under Labor is big government, big bureacracy and world government. Of note the Australian Government transferred FOI from the more independant Attorney Generals Department and moved the portfolio to the office of the Prime Minister & Cabinet 3rd Dec. 2007 immediately after being elected on Friday 24th November 2007. Labor net censorship is also still being pushed.
Climate; UNIPCC says glaciers shrinking, India’s Ministry of Environment says NOT TRUE.