Some more info

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbAe_g41Zl4&feature=fvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEqF8...eature=related

Some more again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDPq_...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svcuy...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7VUg...eature=related

Interesting 4 Corners program. I noted with interest how the Opposition attempted to call in a panel of 'scientists' to help 'educate'the non believers. Sound like they'd come straight from Holdens' marketing department, attempting to trump the wares of the 3.0 SIDIDI, knowing damn well the FG smacked it down during the Bathurst 1000km test.

Hey Mickyyy slow down man, you're going to go into meltdown soon :yelrotflm



What I found even more interesting is how when they asked if they could go in to the presentation they were told that "we would rather you didn't".

WTF??

I mean you're trying to convince people of something so why are you not allowing the cameras or crews in??

Is it because they actually talk about the untapped billions in scare mongering with regard to climate change.

Also how when that Melbourne Uni scientist told of how much the temps had risen, he was rather a little vague for my liking, first it was the last 50 years then it was quickly changed to the last 30 years, and I quote " Theavergare temperatures have gone up half a degree in the last 30 years, they've gone up almost ha;f a degree in the last 30 years".

Did anyone else notice how quickly he changed it form an absolute figure to an approximate one, I mean almost can be anything from 0.1 right up 0.4999999. The more some of these scientists speak the more holes you find in their "theories".

Then I think it was either the leader of the senate or Barnaby that said in the last decade that temps have dropped, anyone notice how this was never disputed by any of the "Climate Change Experts".

I cannot begin to describe how angry the whole man made climate change scam makes me.

And to top it off, our Prime Minister is absolutely hell bent on signing us up to a treaty that will cost us $7 billion dollars - not just once but every single year. See here for more details:

Will Rudd pay the UN $7 billion?

Here's a couple of extracts from Andrew Bolt's article (and I have to say that Bolt's column - http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/ - is an excellent source of info on just how crazy the whole climate change BS campaign is).


NEXT month Kevin Rudd flies to Copenhagen to help seal a United Nations deal to cut the world’s emissions - and to make Australia hand over part of its wealth

So keen is the Prime Minister to get this new global-warming treaty signed that he’s been appointed a “friend of the chairman” to tie up loose ends.

So here’s the question: is Rudd really going to approve a draft treaty that could force Australia to hand over an astonishing $7 billion a year to a new and unelected global authority?

Yes, that’s $7 billion, or about $330 from every man, woman and child. Every year. To be passed on to countries such as China and Bangladesh, and the sticky-fingered in-between.

And a second question, perhaps even more important: is Rudd really going to approve a draft treaty which also gives that unelected authority the power to fine us billions of dollars more if it doesn’t like our green policies?

It is incredible that these questions have not been debated by either the Rudd Government or the Opposition, whose hapless leader, Malcolm Turnbull, on Monday admitted he did not even have a copy of this treaty. Australia’s wealth and sovereign rights may soon be signed away, so why hasn’t the public at least been informed?

Let’s do the sums. Australia’s GDP is about $1000 billion a year. So this demand for 0.7 per cent of our annual wealth works out to $7 billion a year, to be handed over to a new global agency of the United Nations.

That’s your money, folks. Billions to be sent to Third World governments and authoritarian regimes to allegedly deal with a warming that actually halted in 2001. And all funnelled through the UN, which brought us such fast-money wheezes as the Oil-for-Food corruption scandal.

This draft treaty, on which Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has worked, also calls for the creation of a new “board” of global warming bureaucrats appointed by the countries signing the Copenhagen deal.

The powers this board will have over us are astonishing. For a start, it will check our emissions, and could “impose financial penalties, at a minimum of 10 times the market price of carbon, for any emissions in excess”.

Work it out: if we exceed our emissions target by, say, as much as Rudd warned two years ago we’d overshoot by 2012, we’d be up for a fine of $1.4 billion even with the very lowest carbon price under Rudd’s plan.

Even more outrageously, this new world body could impose “penalties and fines on non-compliance of developed country parties” such as Australia that failed to honour “commitments to ... provide support in the form of financial resources, technology transfer and capacity building”.

You’d think this draft treaty that Rudd has worked on would at least give us a say over how our billions are spent.

But no. UN bodies are already notoriously hard for any one nation to supervise or restrain. Even the United States, the biggest donor of all, could not stop the corruption at UNESCO two decades ago, and was forced to walk out in protest. Nor could it stop dictatorships such as Libya and Cuba from later holding key roles in the UN’s human rights bodies.

And with this new global warming body, the vote of the paying West will be overruled even more decisively by the spending rest.

Under this draft treaty, the new board’s biggest spending arm - the “adaptation fund” - will be managed by a “governing board comprising

three members from the five United Nations regional groups, two members from small island developing nations and two members from the least developed countries”.

That formula means the industrialised nations which pay most could hold just one of the nine seats on the body which will then spend their cash. Our cash.

That’s the treaty being prepared for the Copenhagen meeting. That’s the billions we risk having to hand over. That’s the power we risk losing over our own affairs.

Now ask: why hasn’t this been the subject of furious debate? Where’s the Government? Where’s the Opposition?


Apologies for the lengthy post, but this whole affair has the potential to completely destroy our economy, and for what gain? Absolutely none.

Now that fat useless crap bag gore has backed off away from carbon dioxide being the cause of global warming, he's instead blaming methane and soot (like that from diesels). Surely his fat-*** is responsible for more methane than most. This will have been done to give pres hussein bambi an out for not signing the treaty that the senate is expecting to reject.
Oh BTW, perennial leftard Gore and his humungous *** is now calling for everyone to go vegetarian; as if we needed any more proof that he is a complete nutjob.
I'm just waiting for him to finally come out and say; "Half man, half bear, half pig. I'm therial".

Ex vice president = current noob

Meanwhile here in Aus, whilst the public seem to be waking up to this madness both sides of politics are mysteriously quiet. Could it be that both leaders have set up companies specifically to deal in carbon credits and futures trading?

So many conspiracy theories in one thread:yelrotflm :yelrotflm

This stuff is gold fellas keep it coming.

Exactly, they are slowly moving down to the nitty gritty, the people that they see as making too much money, farmers and transport industry sector.

So how long before a farmer is slapped with a tax per head of stock, or even for the tree clearing that they might need to do in order to be able to compete with cheaper overseas pricing.

How long before those same products will cost so much to transport that we will have no alternative but to knock down shopping centres and set up communal farms so as to avoid transport costs, extreme I know but never say never.



Absolutely, just like everone that may have asked questions about a certain piggery being awarded overseas contracts during the reign of another Labor PM, and I'm sure their would be other instances during other pm reigns also.

Remember that none of the Keating involvement in the piggery was made public until after he left the top job and everyone asked why, too late then don't you think to be asking questions. Or perhaps you like to see the good in everyone princess in your fairytale castle, with your prince charming and white steed riding off into the sunset.

The X-Files coined it perfectly "The Truth Is Out There" it's just that most people expect it to be told to them just so their day goes quicker and they can sleep at night.

Ive posted this topic on another forum and i carnt believe how many morrons are on that forum,

http://www.ausrotary.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=181730

Proof that many live in denial or just don't care until it's too late.

im going to use another angle to get them onboard and sign up as manufactuering job will be taken from Australia and sent overseas.

Just remind Dirty Wizard that his theory holds water and that the labor market will demand higher wages, let him know he is absolutely correct.

However what he and most of the monkeys on there seem to overlook is that industry can only increase wages so many times in a short period before they become no longer viable and start to bleed money.

First they will have the increased tax on their operation, then costs passed on to them by transport companies and outside contractors or outsourced labor/products. Add to that then the increases in wages that will, in their own words "have to happen", and then ask how long do they think that these Australian based companies would be able to afford to operate in such a cost ineffective manner. They will be bleeding money quicker than what they could recoup it seeing as many companies operate on 30/60/90 day accounts but staff will always want to be payed either 7 or 14 day intervals.

I wouldn't worry too much about trying to show people like that anything other than why their rotisseries are good for more than a BBQ.

Having read through the posts I can see what Seinfeld said about a certain few that do as they please, why they can't just say their piece and piece off is beyond me considering they don't have a point to make other than they need to feel superior to anyone that disagrees with them.

I'm not sure if Chris is a pompous twit or the real deal. He does make for good reading though e.g. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/mo...oreerrors.html

I'm of the opinion the ETS is a way for the First World to control the emergence of China and India, by slowing their growth and effectively imposing a broadform tariiff on their goods; if they don't conform the consumer nations will carbon tax the imports. Nothing is going to stop China/India dominating worldwide manufacture, but the west can get the value add by slapping a carbon duty on top as it comes through customs.

It's a way of unravelling the mistake the US made with Clinton's free trade agreement.

I'm with you castellan. It might not be set in concrete in Copenhagen, but the NWO is only a matter of time. Trouble is brewing, as it must, but there is light at the end of the tunnel.

I guess it's only in times where our true liberty is taken from us do we really understand the value of it and are roused to fight for it.

There's lots of great reading in the NT and OT.

GK

I dont think you watched the program carefully at all, or are deliberately misrepresenting what was said to fulfill a personal agenda?
You can find the entire transcript at:http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/conte...9/s2737676.htm

Here is what was said in regards to the above:

SARAH FERGUSON: In partnership with a Labor MP, liberal Mal Washer has organised a bi-partisan briefing for his colleagues.

SARAH FERGUSON: So what's the purpose of bringing these scientists here today?

MAL WASHER, LIBERAL MP: Because these scientists are some of the most eminent scientist on climate in Australia and one of the arguments you always find is the sceptics always seem to get oxygen prevail...

SARAH FERGUSON: Can we can we come in and film the session?

MAL WASHER: I don't want you to do that, mainly because I have people who are sceptical who would feel a sense of entrapment.

and this



Here's what was said:

DAVID KAROLY, EARTH SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE: There is absolutely no dispute that the climate system has warmed since the 1950s or since the 1970s by half a degree. Every single data source, including the favourite data source used by the climate change sceptics of climate change today as the satellite data shows a clear warming of nearly half a degree over the last 30, 30 years.

There was only one climate expert on the show and he wasnt actually asked to comment on what Barnaby Joyce(I think it was abbott) had said or was going to say. It may have appeared to you that they were all together in the one room, but they were all interviewed separately.


TONY ABBOTT: It seems that the world has cooled slightly since the late 1990s. One of the things which I think has disconcerted a lot of people is the evangelical fervour of the climate change alarmists because they haven't pursued their case with the kind of careful moderation that you normally associate with the best scientists.

For the fact Abbott is wrong, this decade has been warmer than the last. Of course he was probably using 1998 as his measure and claims that since we havent had temperatures that high since then the earth is cooling. Im sure you can type "earth hasnt warmed since 1998" into google to get a more comprehensive explanation of why it is folly.

David Karoly can't make this mind up whether 1950 or 1970 should be the start point for his argument. "Absolutely no dispute"? Really? Has he checked out NASA's latest satellite data? Probably not, or he wouldn't make such rediculous claims.

thank LABOR in australia , obama democrats in the states and all other countrys with a left leaning GOV in power,idiots are going to stuff our and our kids quality of life up and tax the crap out of us :nothappy:

Well done and welcome to the forum, your very first post and you make about as much sense as the climate change "experts", nice, real nice.


So how different is that to what I noted, sure it's not an exact quote but the message is pretty much the same

"No, because we're not sure what questions will be asked or for that matter how well the sceptics in there might be prepared with their own data that may end up making us look foolish on national TV"

That's the translation of what he said.






So which one is it Dr Karoly, or for that matter AUWAG, which is it, you don't know do you, no really you don't.......do you.



Are you for real??

I mean even in your own answer it states that we haven't had any rise of any significance in the last 11 years, count them 11, so if Karoly is to be believed then we had less than 0.5 in the last 30 years (well technically then the first 20 of the last 30 years, or was middle of the last 50 years, oh well what difference do facts make to some good cross burning and scare mongering) but in the last 11 years nothing, nada, zip, zippo, the big O, nicht, hmmmm.

Mate I love it when you climate change supporters shoot yourselves in the foot, you just make it easier for sceptics to kick back and let you prove our theory by changing yours so often while we say the exact same thing day in day out, it's bull.




Stef O.c.D., A.d.h.D., Bp.D.


p.s. - so who is pushing an agenda now matey?? I'm just disputing the data, no agenda, I'm not a poli nor am I someone who would benefit from this financially one way or another. The scientists you and others listen to however do benefit financially, quite nicely too, the sceptics for the most art don't.

thanks for the link Vik just signed up: )

This was not a first post nor a first account, rather someone who used to be called torbirdie, new account and same rant, some never learn.

LOL was wondering what happened to that tool.

What other user names has he gone by just for interest sake??

He always does the same thing though, tries to argue but then shoots himself in the foot with his own evidence, surely he's not that stupid....is he??

Mate, torbirdie was a serial pest who would hijack any discussion and push for his own socialist agenda. Methinks he had something to gain from the ETS or he is a tree huggin' hippie.

Oh no I know who he was, I had a few run ins with him as ToolBird, I was wondering why my post had got him so fired up and why he didn't realise that even though I hadn't got the quote verbatim it was pretty much what was said.

I figured it was someone I'd ****ed off in another life of theirs LOL, I was just wondering other than torbirdie what other username/s he went by before that.

But it makes sense as our last stoush, in a similar thread I might add, was left unfinished and he obviously felt the need to continue his futile attempts at coming across edumacated. Hey what's an AXA?? :yelrotflm

Barnaby Joyce has one up and running also.

http://www.barnabyjoyce.com.au/Newsr...-PETITION.aspx

Regards

Added my name to that one also.

Thanks for the link.

GK

Good stuff...

vik...Just added my name too...

Ive added my name to both petitions

Guys also check out the link to the other forum i posted on, man some F%#KING ST^&ID D%$B C^NTS there.

me to mickyyyy : )

Should we start a petition on facebook???