Andrew Bolt of Herald Sun on Friday August 14, 2009

Michael Smith‘s editorial on 4BC yesterday seemed to go down very well:

Here’s a way to understand Mr Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere that we want to rid of human carbon pollution.  We’ll have a walk along it.  The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.  The next 210 metres are Oxygen.  That’s 980 metres of the 1 kilometre.  20 metres to go.  The next 10 metres are water vapour.  10 metres left.  9 metres are argon.  Just 1 more metre.  A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.  The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre – that’s carbon dioxide.  A bit over one foot.  97% of that is produced by Mother Nature.  It’s natural.   Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left.  About half an inch.  Just over a centimetre.  That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.  And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.  Less than the thickness of a hair.  Out of a kilometre.

As a hair is to a kilometre – so is Australia’s contribution to what Mr Rudd calls Carbon Pollution. 

Imagine Brisbane’s new Gateway Bridge, ready to be officially opened by Mr Rudd.  It’s been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean.  Except that Mr Rudd says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted – there’s a human hair on the roadway.  We’d laugh ourselves silly.

There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about.  It’s hard to imagine that Australia’s contribution to carbon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones.  And I can’t believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.

Perhaps we all need to just take a few deep breaths.

Link: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/rudds_hair/

 
Another viewpoint on ETS

Paul Sheehan Sydney Morning Herald 30 Nov ’09

…Here is the core point, the source of the heat. This civil war is about bad legislation, not bad science. It is not a choice between climate rationalists and climate deniers as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, in their surreal and self-serving mutual agreement, would have us believe…

Link to full article: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/malcolm-and-the-mincer-20091129-jyrg.html


7 Responses to “Rudd’s Hair”

  1. 1 Citizens Electoral Council of Australia

    *Queen flexes muscle to demand Copenhagen genocide treaty*

    Just as the climate change hoax is about to derail completely, Her Britannic Majesty herself, Queen Elizabeth II, whose family spawned the modern green genocide movement*, has pulled rank on the Commonwealth < http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=articles&id=2009_11_28_queenliz.html> group of nations—her repackaged “Empah”—to demand they deliver a treaty at Copenhagen. *(Royal Consort HRH the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip, founded the World Wide Fund for Nature [WWF] in 1961, as a charity vehicle for his fellow European aristocrats and their corporations to finance green movements around the world to stop economic development and reduce human population.)The Queen’s extraordinary intervention smacks of real desperation—she knows her family’s long-term survival as modern feudal monarchs depends on her carefully-cultivated image as a powerless, quaint figurehead, so the stakes must be high for her to feel the need to flex her considerable muscle, which is derived from her royal “Prerogative Powers”, which include the powers:

    * to declare war;
    * choose and appoint all commanders and officers by land, sea, and air;
    * convoke, adjourn, remove, and dissolve parliament;
    * dismiss the prime minister and choose whom she will as the
    replacement;
    * choose and appoint all judges, councillors, officers of state,
    magistrates;
    * bestow all public honours, including creating a peerage for
    membership of the House of Lords or bestowing an order of chivalry;
    * conclude treaties;
    * initiate criminal proceedings, and bestow pardons;
    * and many others, which she has shown in the past she is willing to
    use, notably when she sacked the Whitlam government in 1975, whose
    “buy back the farm” policies were a threat to her own control of
    Australia’s raw materials wealth exercised through her ownership
    of Rio Tinto.

    For the British imperialists, what is at stake if the global warming fraud fails, is the continuity of empire itself, in the form of globalisation. To survive in the face of the global economic collapse, nations are reasserting their national sovereignty, backing away from the free trade and deregulated finance policies that are the cornerstones of British imperialism. (In a world of total free trade, freed from government regulations and protections, it is money which dictates terms, not governments, and that money is directed from the City of London—that is the British Empire.

    When nations reassert their sovereign laws to exert national controls over money, the City of London—the Empire—is defeated.) “Climate change” promised to be the mechanism to both furtherglobalisation, in the form of binding international treaties, global government institutions, and a new financial architecture centred on carbon emissions trading, as well as to deliver on the Prince Philip-led goal of human population reduction, by denying nations the right to develop high-density energy sources and high-technology primary and secondary industries, thus condemning them to poverty, squalor and mass death.

    In the countdown to Copenhagen, that plan derailed: China and India refused to bow to the treaty’s demands to slash agriculture (China, India, South Africa and Brazil issued a joint declaration in Beijing on 27^th November, promising to walk out of Copenhagen to protect their national interests); hackers or whistleblowers exposed the actually deliberate scientific fraud by the world’s leading so-called climate scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit < http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=releases&id=2009_11_25_British_Genocidalists_Liars.html> (CRU); and in Australia, which under British agent Kevin Rudd was appointed to take the lead on global action on climate change, the parliament deadlocked, and was unable to pass the key climate change legislation, the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which Rudd was hoping to parade as “action” at Copenhagen.

    This is the context in which the Queen herself has intervened, but a revolution is underway: instead of the usual grovelling acquiescence she’d expect, aside from the biggest nation in her Commonwealth, India, lining up against her (see above), her ordinarily very loyal Opposition in Australia has shifted under intense public pressure, and dumped theclimate change believer Malcolm Turnbull as leader, for avowed sceptic Tony Abbott, to stymie the ETS bill altogether.

    To find out the real agenda of the architects of carbon reduction and emissions trading schemes, click here to receive a free copy of the /New Citizen/, “Carbon trading is Hitler-style Genocide.” < http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?id=free_new_citizen_cv6n12.html>

  2. 2 Pat Boone

    Sane, scientific facts about global warming

    In just days from now, our president will be in Copenhagen with a large group of influential people from around the world, discussing what immediate and long-term measures must be taken to prevent our globe from frying like an egg on a hot sidewalk.
    That last part is an exaggeration, of course, but the attitude among most of the attendees seems too similar to the fairy tale about Chicken Little, who ran around the barnyard screaming “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”

    Former Vice President Al Gore has spent some eight years roaming the world with a message just about as dire, and was handed a Nobel Prize for his efforts. Now Bloomberg reports that Mr. Gore has seen his net worth soar from $2 million when he left office to more than $100 million now. He stands to personally make billions if “cap and trade” passes, because of his stake in the newly created agency that will lay billions of penalties on entities that produce more carbon emissions than the agency deems allowable.

    If this happens, it will make America ‘s fabled “robber barons” from another era look like neighborhood kids with a lemonade stand.

    What makes this James Bond or Michael Crichton story so fascinating is that a growing majority of the world’s scientists are loudly proclaiming, “The sky is not falling!” The world is not frying in CO2! It’s actually cooling, and has been for some time!
    Is my friend Al Gore destined for a Bernie Madoff ending?

    I feel reasonably certain that our friend Al is truly persuaded that he’s telling the truth, or less likely, has persuaded himself of it. And of course, many of the pictures he shows and stats and figures he relates are factual. It’s just that he has drawn some wrong, and terribly damaging, conclusions from them. Just like Chicken Little, who saw dark and low hanging clouds over her, and felt the sky was falling. Facts right, conclusion wrong.

    Incontrovertible facts have now surfaced which completely contradict Gore’s conclusions. Hard evidence and common sense confirm that:

    Solar energy is the real source of global warming – and it has always been cyclical. The world’s average temperature waxes and wanes according to activities on the sun, and there is no evidence using observed data over any time period you might choose, that carbon dioxide (CO2) has any effect on temperature or climate. A “greenhouse effect” linked to industrial emissions of CO2 is simply a myth.

    As reported in the Tampa Tribune, oxygen isotope records from ice cores taken in Greenland show that planet Earth has had four major warm periods during the past 5,000 years. Three of those warm periods preceded industrial society, before man ever discharged CO2. Carbon dioxide had nothing to do with the warming. In fact, there have been periods when carbon dioxide has been present in the earth’s atmosphere at 20 times today’s concentrations, with no dire consequences.

    Carbon dioxide itself is not a pollutant; it’s a life-giving gas, tied intricately to the life of green plants. Plant life takes CO2 and uses it to produce oxygen. But even if it were a bad thing, it makes up just .0386 percent of the earth’s atmosphere – of which one one-thousandth of a percent is from human activity.

    As reported increasingly on factual news programs, and of great consternation to Gore and those who are still sounding alarms, the earth is getting cooler, not warmer. The period from January 2007 through September 2009 show the sharpest drop in temperature in recorded history. The Arctic icepack grew by 370,000 square miles (1.5 times the size of Tex as ) in the past two years. The most recent Antarctic snowmelt during austral summer of 2007-2008 is the lowest ever recorded. The Antarctic ice cover is now 30 percent greater than its average over the last 30 years. And the polar bear population in the northern arena has increased, to a projected 32,000.

    Even at the Kyoto convention, the Chicken Littles themselves projected that if the whole world jumped on board and managed to reduce carbon emissions to zero – in a hurried 20 years of all-out commitment and urgency– the net effect on the world temperature would be approximately one degree. Can you spell “insignificant?”

    So, of course, our Nobel winner and his troop of scientists and enlightened world leaders are scrambling and trying to explain all of this. They’re saying all these things are just “temporary aberrations” and not relevant to their projections – which is exactly the point. Earth’s temperature is related to changes and aberrations on the sun, as it has always been, and is affected little if at all by man’s machinery. I’ve heard one top solar physicist say “It’s the height of presumption and hubris for man to think that he can affect or warp the temperature of this whole vast planet by his puny activities. The sun rules our climate, and the sun alone.”

    What’s sinister about all this is that 67 senators are ready to vote for a “cap and trade” carbon tax that will cripple American industry and our own ability to produce essential oil and coal while we try to come up with alternatives – and make Mr. Gore the world’s first “carbon billionaire.” If drastically wrong decisions are made by our president in Copenhagen , we will likely lose our status as the world leader in productivity, and be drawn into a world governing body that will tell us what we can and cannot do.

    Please compare and seriously consider two statements:

    1. “Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.”
    – Barack Obama, November 19, 2008

    2. “With all due respect, Mr. President, that is not true. We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events. The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior. Mr. President, your characteri za tion of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.”

    – Signed by over 100 of the world’s top scientists and researchers in an open letter to
    the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the L.A. Times, March 30, 2009

    Pat Boone

  3. 3 Sean

    Beware!

    In the article below, Gillard is talking about bringing “…the legislation back on the first sitting day in February next year, including the amendments it negotiated with former Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull.” And Tony Abbott is saying that he is ‘not committed’ to the idea of an emissions trading scheme, but ‘will develop a climate change policy’ (my red ink). What does that mean? You smell a rat? Why is Tony Abbott so sure he’s going to develop ANY climate change policy given the information that has/is coming to light?
    Please keep praying and please keep lobbying to make sure this isn’t slipped back in on February’s first sitting, when we are all holidayed out and not paying much attention. Hmmm… Turnbull and his Missus looked FAR too cocky and happy after Abbott’s win… So did Joe Hockey for that matter… They didn’t look like they’d just been beaten at all. I smell a dirty rat of a deal being done to get this ETS legislation through in Feb. Is Tony Abbott also one of the globalist puppets? I hope not – but… yes, I definitely think a deal has been done. They’ve set-up a false win scenario. They’re playing dead, waiting until the pack gets bored and moves on, then they’ll spring to life and start shooting. Let’s pray that it backfires (or better, that I am wrong!).
    Keep kicking it dead until after February next year I suggest.

    Sean

    Australian Government to make third try for ETS

    Naomi Woodley and Louise Yaxley, Canberra – Wed, 2 Dec 2009

    The Australian Government says it will try for a third time to get its emissions trading scheme (ETS) through Parliament.

    Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard says the Government won’t call an early election, though it has the option following the Senate’s second rejection of the plan on Wednesday.

    She says instead it will bring the legislation back on the first sitting day in February next year, including the amendments it negotiated with former Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull.

    She says the reason behind the decision is to allow the Liberals to cool off after the “disarray” of its recent leadership contest.

    “The purpose of choosing to do that is to give the LIberal party, which during this Parliamentary fortnight has been such a rabble and in such disarray, and so focused on leadership questions – to give the Liberal party time over the Christmas period for calmer heads to prevail, and for them to make a decision in the national interest,” she said.

    But Tony Abbott, the new Federal Opposition leader, says the Government no longer has a mandate on climate change.

    On Tuesday, he narrowly won leadership of his party after the political row over the ETS culminated in leadership crisis of his predecessor, Malcolm Turnbull.

    Mr Abbott said earlier this year that the Government had won a mandate to act on climate change.

    But as the new Liberal leader, he says that is no longer the case.

    “Their mandate, I guess, eventually expires and is replaced by our desire to provide the people with a contest,” he said.

    He says he is not committed to the idea of an emissions trading scheme, but will develop a climate change policy.

    http://www.radioaustralianews.net.au/stories/200912/2759807.htm?desktop

  4. 4 Senator Barnaby Joyce of Nationals

    SENATOR BARNABY JOYCE

    Leader of the Nationals in the Senate

    4th December 2009
    Dear Petition Signers

    Well we did it! I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your support. What complete insanity the Labor Government was proposing for us. Now we have Dr James Hansen, the grandfather of global warming, saying an ETS is a failure and we have to look for other alternatives.

    We all played our part in this massive debate about this massive tax. Make no mistake about it. It is the pressure from you that changed the political complexion in Canberra. Now the Labor Party wants to bring the same bill back again. How is that for contempt for the Senate? Mr Rudd is so arrogant. He just does not understand the word ‘No’.

    Because of Mr Rudd, unfortunately I will have to ask you to get ready to fight again. This time we can concentrate on Labor members of Parliament and Labor Senators. So find their names, find their emails and find their telephone numbers and contact them! We are in a new form of participatory democracy and maybe that is the one good thing that has come out of this ETS debate.

    In the meantime, Merry Christmas. Thank you once more for your hard work and let’s get ready to go again.

    Kind Regards,

    Senator Barnaby Joyce

  5. 5 Lindsay

    Dear Jason ,

    G’day ! PTL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    The Rudd ‘s hair is brilliant .

    I saw it a month ago , and thought it could be well used !

    Let’s get it thoroughly checked out scientifically, then when all clear, it could go big

    It would go well in graphics or picture form

    I prayed hard on Oct 17 .. sorry I did not make

    The Lord continue to guide and strengthen you all

    Blessings

    Lindsay

  6. 6 Steve F

    Hi CTFM

    This information could be useful for your website – support his petition.

    God Bless
    Stephen

    As you would have heard by now the Australian Parliament voted against the Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) on
    Wednesday of last week.

    Whether you agree or disagree with global warming or a CPRS, the fact is most Australians still have many questions they want answered
    before any emissions trading scheme is passed by our Federal Parliament.

    1) Is the science right? (in other words, are we certain that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are the leading cause of climate
    change)

    2) What effect will the CPRS have on the Australian economy? (especially if we commit to targets before the rest of the world and
    major economies like China, Russia, India and the USA)

    3) What are the costs and the benefits of alternative emissions trading schemes? (is there a more effective way to achieve emission
    reductions than the government’s CPRS)

    I have proposed a Royal Commission to investigate the science behind climate change and whether or not man made carbon dioxide emissions
    are responsible, and the Productivity Commission to look into the economics of an emissions trading scheme or carbon pollution reduction
    scheme.

    This is the most important piece of legislation to come before Parliament given its direct impact on every single Australian. We
    should be taking the time to get it right. To find out more click here and sign my petition
    < http://www.stevefielding.com.au/ets_petition/>

    If you are interested in my position on this issue you can read my two speeches on the carbon pollution reduction scheme here

    < http://www.stevefielding.com.au/news/details/carbon_pollution_reduction_scheme_speech1/>
    and here

    < http://www.stevefielding.com.au/news/details/carbon_pollution_reduction_scheme_speech_-_3rd_reading/>

    Thanks,

    Steve F.

  7. 7 Bill

    Have a look at the Science noted in this article:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-claims-fail-science-test/story-e6frg6zo-1225808398627

    To quote the conclusion,

    “What this means is that the IPCC model for climate sensitivity is not supported by experimental observation on ancient ice ages and recent satellite data.”
    “…as Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman observed: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.””

    Continue to raise awareness among Australian intercessors of the most recent scientific results – I believe it has been significantly due to their prayers that this information is getting aired in some of the most reputable journals there are at this critical stage.

Leave a Reply





Youtube Highlights

Archives

3K2 theme by Hakan Aydin