See PDF for rebuttal of Sydney Morning Herald's
fabricated smear of The Galileo Movement
Anne Bressington, South Australian Upper House MP,
Exposes the UN Agenda 21
Brief summary of UN Agenda 21 by John Smeed,
Co-founder of The Galileo Movement
4. Restoring Morality & Justice
Taxing organic foods, tithing Aussies to UN bureaucrats, Greens fattening global bank profits
The corruption by the UN's climate body and academics has been exposed. The core of the UN's climate body is corrupt. It's corrupt to the core.
That corruption has misrepresented the science. It contradicts reality. Science shows no need for any taxing or 'trading' on carbon dioxide. They're costly attacks on you, humanity, the environment and our future.
The economic damage from taxing and 'trading' carbon dioxide has been exposed - for no environmental benefit.
For those still considering carbon dioxide taxing and 'trading', consider the morality because 'fighting global warming' has been encouraged as a moral issue. Through the corruption of science and economics it is a moral issue.
The greatest threats to the environment are poverty and ignorance. People inherently care about the environment. Yet when gripped by poverty people understandably focus, on scrounging their next meal. The environment is sacrificed. Look at any creek near a squalid third-world ghetto.
Yet people in developed nations have repeatedly shown they will punish companies wilfully damaging the environment. Humans inherently care.
When people are ignorant of facts though, care can be misguided.
When facts have been misrepresented, care can be derailed and action become damaging to the environment and to humanity.
When the media becomes involved and emotions energised, many political leaders lack the courage and integrity to stop the stampede. They pretend to climb onboard and weakly push the stampede. They become sheep, not shepherds.
Moral issues smorgasbord
Friday, 14th September, 2012
Dear Friends and Supporters,
The Galileo Movement is disappointed that the fabricated smear originating from the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) that The Galileo Movement is anti-Semitic is still being reported as fact. To prevent this ridiculous, vile claim being spread further, we'd like to highlight a few facts and expose the techniques and the dishonest tactics used by people too lazy to do real research, who wish to silence us by calling us anti-Semitic.
Firstly, the claims are preposterous. Both Directors of the Galileo Movement have a strong Jewish heritage, including John's wife who is a Holocaust survivor and Case's mother, most of whose family were murdered for being Jewish.
Secondly, the Galileo Movement has never spoken or published anything that is anti-Semitic. The non-profit group of unpaid volunteers have a single, publicly stated purpose - to remove the unnecessary and damaging "Carbon Dioxide Tax", its derivatives and the means by which such negative, economic and socially destructive legislation may be reintroduced.
The Galileo Movement promotes science and the scientific method. Yet in order to distract people from these inconvenient facts which they obviously have no answer to, some people attack the messenger, rather than discuss the science. The method of censor through denigration is further discussed here.
The process of trying to discredit us began with Sydney Morning Herald reporter Ben Cubby, who contacted us to ask our opinion of the Muller et al (alarmist) and Watts et al (sceptic) papers which were released the day before. The recording of the interview with our Project Leader Malcolm Roberts, presents a clear and precise scientific explanation of the problems with Muller's paper. Additionally, he spoke at length outlining the motives of those supporting AGW including academics feeding off taxpayer grants, politicians seeking political benefit and bankers harvesting carbon credits. Of the 48 minute interview, Cubby strangely chose to virtually ignore almost all of the science and facts (plus mention of the Watts et al paper) and instead chose to highlight the banking industries comment.
The smear was created when Mike Carlton, also from the SMH, with no proof and without contacting us, linked a discussion on banks making profits from Carbon Trading to "In Rightspeak understand, that's code for the Great Jewish Conspiracy". Afterwards, others began repeating this fabricated connection as if it were a proven, undoubtedly hoping to stop others listening to our science based critique.
Malcolm Roberts, our Project Leader, used the term 'banking families' during the interview to describe the major banking institutions that plan to profit from the trading and financing of CO2 abatement.
Neither Malcolm, nor ourselves, were aware that using the term 'family', when referring to banks, could in any context be anti-Semitic. We submit that any reasonable person would take the meaning at face value. Finding non-existent meanings and hidden codes are the tricks our opponents use. They revert to these tired and transparent techniques to desperately avoid discussing the science.
How could Mike Carlton's ill-informed opinion find its way into a mainstream Australian newspaper? Why did a reporter like Ben Cubby ignore basic science? Is it bias or groupthink?
We have a few ideas for the Sydney Morning Herald that they might to report on. Its readers will find these both interesting and also puzzling as to why they have not heard such facts previously. Let's start with:
The Galileo Movement will continue to hold to account those in science, economics and politics who continue to promote unscientific, dishonest and unfounded claims of man-made global warming. We will continue to stand by fellow sceptics who find themselves being falsely smeared by their opponents.
- Why not request your reporters to ask scientists to provide empirical evidence that an increase in human CO2 production caused the slight increase in atmospheric temperature, a warming trend that ended in 1998 and explain why global temperatures have not risen since despite increasing human CO2 production?
- Why not also ask scientists to explain why computer models supposedly simulating Earth's future temperature to warm with projected increased CO2 concentrations, can't explain why the atmospheric temperature has not warmed since 1998?
- Could you ask your reporters to explain how spending $257 billion on renewable energy to produce only 3% of the world electricity is economically sustainable when only $302 billion was spent on fossil fuels and nuclear energy to produce the remaining 97%?
- Is the SMH aware that the August, 2010 report by the world's peak scientific academic body, the Inter Academy Council revealed fundamentally that none of the UN IPCC's 800 statements of certainty could be trusted? Is the SMH aware that CSIRO lacks empirical scientific evidence for the claim that human CO2 caused global warming and climate change and that CSIRO's core climate claims contradict empirical scientific evidence. Why has the SMH failed to hold both these bodies accountable for their unfounded, unscientific and false claims about human CO2?
John Smeed & Case Smit
1. Ripe for an election issue, climate change was fabricated into "the greatest moral challenge of our time"
In late 1972, Canadian oil billionaire, Maurice Strong, was appointed the first Secretary-General of the United Nations Environmental Program. He led the Rio conference, the predecessor to Kyoto and Copenhagen. The UN IPCC's politicised reports followed and advanced the UNEP's early politicised reports that contradicted science and led to millions of deaths.
The UN IPCC and UNEP have been effective in falsely fabricating global climate alarm and falsely wrapping it as an emotive environmental issue. Some politicians and media have used it to manipulate voters. None perhaps more spectacularly than Kevin Rudd in his 2007 election campaign.
In the election that followed, Prime Minister Julia Gillard apparently told lies to survive an election. That is a moral issue.
Telling lies by labelling carbon dioxide a pollutant to introduce a tax is a moral issue.
Taxing and 'trading' Nature's essential trace gas - carbon dioxide - is a moral issue.
Capping, distorting and destroying the real market for energy are moral issues.
Marketing a Magic Pudding that the Government says will inflict pain to change people's behaviour yet compensate individuals and companies is insane. Advocating that it's possible is a moral issue.
When Greg Combet promises 100% compensation and later denies it when promising 50% reduction is a moral issue.
People in positions of responsibility for others while lacking the courage to stand up and speak out create a moral issue.
2. Carbon dioxide 'trading' schemes not market-based trading schemes - they're combinations of regulations AND taxes AND rationing
So called 'trading' schemes are regulation AND tax AND rationing.
Carbon dioxide 'trading' schemes are promoted as market-based. That's false because real markets are voluntary meetings of sellers and buyers freely choosing to exchange goods and services. In carbon dioxide 'trading' schemes there are no real needs being met. Cap-and-trade regulations cap human production of carbon dioxide to artificially force auctions of permissions to continue staying in business. They're not free meetings of buyers and sellers exchanging goods and services. They're artificially fabricated auctions. They're rigged and heavily controlled by regulation.
3. 'Trading' (rationing) make banks and governments fat, people poor - yet socialist Greens support the banks
When introducing the schemes governments promise compensation. Examples occur of governments then reneging on compensation. That's followed without consulting taxpayers by later further lowering the regulated carbon dioxide production cap. Each lowering of the cap increases the price of carbon dioxide. That's why the major global banks rub their hands with glee foreseeing brokerage commissions.
Companies pass on costs to end users - customers and taxpayers.
With each lowering of carbon dioxide caps, governments increase revenue and banks get fatter. With each lowering of the cap, end users - citizens - pay to swell Government and bank coffers.
4. Why does the Government lie about Australia's position?
The Government falsely claims the rest of the world is taxing and/or 'trading' carbon dioxide and Australia must catch up. That is false. All hope of an international agreement on cutting carbon dioxide production collapsed with the UN's Copenhagen and Cancun climate meetings ending in failure.
Both the world's largest producers of carbon dioxide, America and China, have stated they will not introduce carbon dioxide taxes or 'trading'.
The Chicago Climate Exchange collapsed. The European exchange is in chaos and riddled with deep corruption.
Some American states are already withdrawing from their anti-carbon dioxide schemes.
Playing 'follow the leader' is dangerous when the supposed 'leader' (European Union) has a collapsing economy with high unemployment. Its manufacturers are departing overseas to cheaper energy free from 'renewables' subsidies and artificial costs on carbon dioxide.
Wrecking people's economic security is a moral issue.
5. Depriving the poor of a richer, safer, easier and longer life and environmental protection
The injustice of being deprived of cheap, accessible, reliable and environmentally responsible energy is a more serious moral issue that endangers lives and security. Artificially raising energy prices hurts the poor, damages the economy, wastes valuable finite resources and destroys the environment. These are moral issues.
Who are we to raise energy prices and restrict use of coal, oil and natural gas? Who are we to deny Africans the right to easier, safer, longer, more secure and freer lives?
People of underdeveloped nations deserve the opportunity to raise their living standards. Denying them the cheapest and most reliable safe and environmentally responsible energy is unjust and unfair. It's inhumane. It's environmental vandalism.
6. 'Trading' schemes are opportunities for criminals and for exploiting the poor
Experience in Europe, Africa and the USA shows that 'cap-and-trade' schemes are opportunities for exploiting the poor and destroying the environment. Criminals are stealing, quote: "In December 2009 Europol, the European criminal intelligence agency, warned that ETS (carbon dioxide emissions trading scheme) fraud had resulted in around €5 billion in lost revenues and as much as 90 per cent of the entire market volume on emissions exchanges was caused by fraudulent activity".
7. Lying or misrepresenting to label carbon dioxide as a pollutant
It is telling lies or misrepresenting carbon dioxide to say it's a pollutant when 97% of its production is by Nature. Total human production of carbon dioxide is less even than the natural intra-annual variation of Nature's carbon dioxide production. CO2 remains a trace gas at less than 0.04% of the atmosphere; and CO2 is essential to all complex life on Earth. The telling of lies to introduce a tax is a moral issue.
8. Politicians continuing to spread UN misrepresentations after the falsities have been frequently exposed to Government and opposition politicians is a moral issue
9. Corrupting science is a moral issue
Corruption of science threatens people's lives
10. Paying taxpayers funds as grants to academics to push a political agenda contrary to real-world science is a moral issue
11. Misrepresenting humanity and spreading unfounded fear and guilt is a moral issue
Humans did not cause global warming. It's part of Nature's ongoing changing of climate. Climate alarm though, is caused by humans - academics spreading falsehoods and even lies and grabbing Government grants, politicians telling lies and using fear and guilt to push taxation and regulations. Unlike human production of carbon dioxide though which has many benefits, these moral issues are entirely destructive.
12. Jeopardising human health and creating humanitarian disasters are moral issues
13. Conjuring 'reparations' to justify stealing money from citizens and redistribute wealth
The continent of Africa contains approximately 31% of UN member nations, Asia 22%, Oceania/Pacific 7%, Caribbean 7% and South America 9%. Europe contains 22% and North America contains only 1.6% Australia represents 0.5% of member nations. Member nations are overwhelmingly in the undeveloped nations and many quite small. Yet each receives one vote, the same as larger, developed nations.
By promising 'reparations' for supposed global warming blamed on carbon dioxide from developed nations, the UN buys the votes of many nations in Africa, Asia and the Pacific. That is a tactic for buying votes in favour of the UN's own carbon dioxide controls under the guise of UN treaties administered by bureaucrats in New York and Geneva.
It props up corrupt African dictatorships.
In underdeveloped nations it erodes responsibility and creates dependency. That sustains and entrenches poverty and delays development.
The effect is to transfer Australian taxes to corrupt dictators and the rich in underdeveloped nations.
14. Consultants make money from the falsities
There are many examples such as the Maldives Government holding an underwater cabinet meeting publicised by paid publicist/journalist/consultant Mark Lynas. Yet science reveals no sea level crisis.
15. The media makes money publicising fear and sensationalism
In Australia, ABC journalists promote claims of global warming yet seem to rarely scrutinise facts or seek alternative views. The ABC tends to repeatedly refer to and broadcast unfounded claims of the same tight band of 'climate experts' even though these repeatedly fail to provide real-world evidence of their claims, contradict real-world evidence, all but one are not experts on climate and all receive Government funding.
On rare occasions when alternate views are sought, those expressing such views can sometimes be falsely derided or implied to be dishonest. Their views are often omitted from broadcast. Journalists have frequently ignored or dismissed conclusions and statements based on empirical scientific evidence that prove climate alarm to be unfounded and unscientific.
During her phone conversation with Malcolm Roberts on June 23rd, 2011, ABC reporter Wendy Carlisle was briefed on blatant corruption of climate science by the UN and others promoting unfounded climate alarm. Listen to the recording here.
Analysis of Wendy's behaviour on climate is on pages 21 and 22 here.
Detailed analysis is here and here.
Wendy was given the names and contact details of many reputable climate scientists and analysts. Their almost universal disgust of her methods are discussed on pages 27 and 28 here.
Why do Wendy Carlisle and the ABC ignore extensive documented corruption of climate science? Why do they instead falsely smear climate realists such as Viscount Monckton and The Galileo Movement? Why does Wendy falsely state or imply claims contradicting documented facts that she was freely given in answer to her questions?
Separately in another phone call, Wendy falsely asked Malcolm Roberts why The Galileo Movement was organising a tour of Australia by Viscount Monckton. She was told that The Galileo Movement was not organising the tour. The actual organisers of the tour later separately confirmed that to her. Yet in her subsequent ABC radio program she loosely and falsely implied The Galileo Movement as s mysterious force behind the Viscount. Why?
Her behaviour and its context understandably lead people to conclude that her choice to misrepresent science and effectively ignore and thereby endorse corruption was seemingly deliberate.
Detailed analysis of five prominent ABC programs and various ABC journalists is here:
It's Appendix 13 to a report available here:
Lazy, dishonest and or spiteful journalists are not driven by money alone. Graham Readfearn has a history of using distortions and misrepresentations. Is he, as it seems, covering his comprehensive and highly embarrassing defeat in his debate with Viscount Monckton in Brisbane on January 29th, 2010 while employed by Brisbane's Courier-Mail. So poor was his performance that soon after he was out of the Courier-Mail.
We empathise with his pain. The sadness is that his behaviour indicates a disappointingly low level of consciousness as his defeat was exacerbated by his own behaviour. The more he writes, the deeper he descends into embarrassment.
So deep and strong is Graham Readfearn's apparent feeling from his thrashing at the hands of Viscount Monckton that even in an article disparaging about Dennis Jensen, he seems preoccupied with Viscount Monckton.
The world is increasingly seeing such journalism reveal writers' preoccupations as insecurities. Hate does the hater most damage.
He fails to realise that spite and falsities reflect on the writer/speaker. Compassion and forgiveness coupled with facts are the means of dealing with this. Viscount Monckton responds to Graham Readfearn's latest outburst in this document.
Audio recording of a telephone conversation with Malcolm Roberts initiated by Graham Readfearn on June 1st, 2011. Malcolm's comments and conclusions from the conversation are in this summary.
An interview of Malcolm Roberts by Ben Cubby, Fairfax Media Environmental, reporter is available here.
A personal phone number and home address discussed during the interview have been redacted as noted in the interview transcript here.
Background, context and details are available on pages 30 to 40 here:
As is discussion of behaviour by Mike Carlton, Fairfax reporter.
It's Appendix 13 to a report available here:
Journalist Andrew Bolt analyses here the behaviour of other journalists contradicting empirical scientific evidence and fomenting unfounded alarm. Those journalists include David Marr and the ABC's Annabel Crabb.
Andrew Bolt asks about those journalists, quote: "When will they pay the price for the most shameful collective failure of journalism in decades?"
In September 2013 Wendy Carlisle supported Graham Readfearn on The Galileo Movement's FaceBook page and made a blatantly false statement. Given many misrepresentations by Wendy, Ben and Graham and their public support for each other would Australian taxpayers be entitled to ask whether the ABC's Wendy Carlisle was colluding with Graham Readfearn and Ben Cubby?
Why do these journalists neglect documented empirical scientific evidence? Why do they contradict science? Why do they ignore massive documentation of corruption of climate science?
Why are these journalists so loose with the facts? Why do they misrepresent climate science and Nature? Why do they need to smear those whose view differs from their own belief? Especially when those who differ are backed by empirical scientific evidence?
Given that many federal MPs are afraid of the power of the media, it's understandable many were herded into falsely accepting unfounded climate alarm. In doing so they forsake science and integrity while revealing their weakness of character.
So-called journalists stating lies, smears and/or misrepresentations have pushed climate fraud and corruption. They're not really journalists, they're advocates panicking citizens and bulldozing MPs. They're damaging their profession and industry and our country.
Australians need to hold them accountable.
16. Carbon dioxide 'trading' schemes are sold by dishonest governments as being necessary for providing business certainty yet inherently increase uncertainty
'Trading' schemes bring uncertainty. Europe's economic volatility has increased because the 'price of carbon dioxide' has been volatile. That's hardly surprising because there are no real needs being met and the scheme is known by police to be rife with corruption. Some nations ignore the scheme. 'Trading' schemes simply further increase uncertainty by introducing the risk of governments lowering caps in the future.
Europe's carbon dioxide 'trading market' has crashed three times. 'A 'trading' scheme is inherently volatile and adds extra uncertainty to business decisions.
The only uncertainty comes from governments stating they will introduce 'trading' schemes.
Uncertainty can be easily removed simply by adopting the real-world science and scrapping every push to 'price carbon dioxide'. That's easy. It's scientifically valid, morally sound.
17. In developed nations, kids and communities are continually bombarded with falsities and lies pushing fear and guilt
That is a moral issue - a debilitating moral issue causing mental and emotional anguish and mental disease.
UN IPCC supporter, the late Stephen Schneider said, quote: "we have to offer up scary scenarios". Sir John Houghton, the UN IPCC's first chairman of the science working group said, quote: "Unless we announce (forecast) disasters, no one will listen".
18. Taxing organic food
Substances containing carbon and hydrogen are defined as organic.
Viv Forbes asks:
"The bubbles from beer, champagne and soda water are carbon dioxide which contains 27% carbon. If carbon pollution is as bad as we are told, maybe there should be a law banning consumption of such polluting drinks in enclosed areas or public places?
"Cane sugar contains a dangerously high 40% carbon, barbeque steak contains 53% carbon and fats and oils contain over 70% carbon." Should these products display health warnings?
Ultimately, organic chemistry is the study of life. Taxing carbon is a tax on life.
That's a moral issue.
19. Prevent democracy from slipping away
Laws are enacted by parliament. Then enforced by courts. Then changed by regulation. The third step makes us vulnerable to undemocratic political control by bureaucrats and politicians. The first step appears to give it our blessing.
Is this really our constitution's intent - control of the people?
Nature's not on the payroll of the UN or Government
Since 1998 Nature has been exposing the UN's and Government's climate misrepresentations. Russian and Japanese scientists joined by scientists from around the world are forecasting Earth is entering a colder period.
Don't wait for Nature to complete her job of exposing the UN and Government. If a carbon dioxide tax and 'trading' scheme are introduced, they will be difficult to remove. Do the job yourself.
Unelected global governance
The United Nations Environmental Program's (UNEP) first Secretary General, Maurice Strong, is widely recognised as initiating and driving the unfounded campaign against carbon dioxide.
yourvote.net.au for context.
Download historian Amy McGrath's free book on UN Agenda 21
Maurice Strong said in 1992, quote: "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
Apparently, to save the planet from a modest beneficial warming that humans didn't cause and cannot affect, we must destroy western industrialisation.
More from Maurice Strong:
"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable."
Opening speech at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the first major public stage of his apparently strategically planned process of fabricating global warming as a threat.
"If we don't change, our species will not survive... Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse."
September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine
Here's Maurice Strong's apparent political mandate:
"What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group's conclusion is 'no'. The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
Interview 1992, concerning the plot of a book he would like to write (Gibson, Donald. Environmentalism: ideology and power. Pg. 95)
Maurice Strong's implied conclusion in the first line above contradicts science. Who appointed this small group to dictate to us that we cannot use electrical appliances? Why does he want to contradict science and send us back to the 1800's?
"It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation."
1992 essay entitled Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation.
In 1976, he told MacLean's magazine that he was, quote: "a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology." It's been suggested that maybe this was a way of his justifying his apparent duplicity in becoming a young multi-millionaire from his own oil company and investments.
It exposes his lack of understanding or distortion of true capitalism. It reveals his goal of socialism, control. His controls are not capitalist, they are socialist.
The leader of the UN's fraudulent global warming program has himself declared the objective is control. His agenda is not hidden, just not discussed.
Other quotes and actions confirm his dream of global governance - unelected global governance. Is unelected global governance fair? Wise? Needed? No.
Given the failure of central governments in the former communist/socialist bloc is it sensible? Given the failure of increased central control in America and Australia during the last 30 years, is it acceptable? We say not.
Increasing state control has been highly destructive to personal freedom, creativity, initiative and responsibility.
Socialism involves private ownership of production resources under Government allocation and control of resources. That undermines private property rights fundamental to free markets and personal freedom.
Unfounded climate alarm is about control of energy - modern civilisation's lifeblood. He who controls energy controls society.
It is about control of resources.
It is about control of people - by removing choices and restricting choices.
It is about control of finances as seen in the draft Copenhagen treaty that was, fortunately rejected. Those controls are now being gradually introduced through the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and G20.
Quoting clauses from the Copenhagen Draft Treaty
Some of the provisions of this 181 page treaty (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2 15.9.09) are:-
Section 38: (a) The government will be ruled by the Conference of Parties (COP) with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaption, and an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds.
(c) (e) An international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emissions reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries.
The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchanges.
(b) The convention's financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund.
Section 46: (c) Creating legal and regulatory conditions that facilitate adaption, including disaster resilience (e.g., building codes, land-use planning, risk-sharing tools, and strengthening policy coherence among sectors)
(k) Clarifying and securing land tenure and planning i.e. allocation, ownership and control over lands and resources.
(l) Strengthening environmental and natural resources management and enforcement.
Section 48 (b) an insurance component to address climate related weather events. to address financial risk and leverage public and private funding to enhance adaptive capacity.
(d) Innovative financial instruments, e.g., venture capital funds and climate insurance fund, integrated into the financial mechanism for addressing the risks associated with climate change.
Developed countries shall have deeper cuts in CO2 emissions that under developed countries can emit more CO2 to speed up their development (Page 58).
Section 77: The full costs of these actions will be met by the developed nations.
There are deeper erosions of freedom, as we see in section 5: the threat to freedom.
From a supporter, Vivienne, February 13, 2012:
UN Agenda 21
"I am no expert on Agenda 21 but I know quite a bit, I have downloaded the entire document over 900 pages.
"Agenda 21 is horrific, it is all about ultimate control. I belong to a web site called Just Grounds, I'm sure you know of it Malcolm. I have a discussion on there called 'The United Nations Agenda Sustainable Development Agenda 21'.
"At the start of the discussion I have given a brief outline of A21, but Rob Moore who owns the site has put a mass of documents on there.
"I am pretty sure you can go on there and look even if you are not a member, but if not. let me know and I will send the links to the documents for you.
"There are 2 people on the discussion who have an enormous amount of knowledge on the subject - Ian Davies and Jeff Hutcho. I could most likely put you in touch with them if you wish.
Removal of private property rights is already underway in Australia. Learn about and support Peter Spencer protecting everyone's rights.
Just Grounds encourages our readers to wade into the comments as the saga unfolds to the present state of play.
The human condition and some politicians' fundamental weakness of character is a reason to cut back Government control, not increase it
We've seen the madness - Greens aiding global bankers to fatten profits from 'trading' carbon dioxide; destruction of the environment in the name of biofuels exploiting the environment; taxing and 'trading' carbon dioxide, Nature's trace gas essential to all life; taxing carbon, the fundamental building block of all life on Earth and part of every cell of every living organism, …
That madness, hypocrisy, corruption, destruction of science and damage to the environment result from ignoring facts and basing decisions on fabricated fear.
It was made possible only from leaders lacking the courage to tell the truth and admit errors. It results from leader lying.
By choosing to support the UN's corrupt 39-year campaign, our Government has shown its true colours and priorities. The Government values dishonesty. Now it's time to reveal your colours - dump all politicians advocating action on climate and dump all politicians remaining silent on climate.
Holding government and opposition accountable
Letter to Greg Hunt, Opposition spokesperson for Climate Change, reconfirming corruption of climate science by UN IPCC, Australian government, government agencies and prominent academics funded by government. Reveals recent misrepresentations and public falsehoods stated by Professor Will Steffen, sole climate science 'Expert Adviser' to the government's Multi Party Climate Change Committee. The MPCCC recommended that parliament pass legislation to tax carbon dioxide. Will Steffen's own words reveal that the MPCCC was apparently misled and that it's recommendation was based on his advice alone. Further, MPCCC member Rob Oakeshott, MP implies that he did not rely on Will Steffen's advice.
Why is the Government lying to us and treating us like mugs?
There is something though even more serious - the loss of human freedom.
We need to forgive those who have corrupted science and politics. True forgiveness brings clarity of mind. Clarity is needed to prevent recurrence by insisting on the return of scientific integrity and the protection of democracy and freedom.
Challenge to a debate
The eight Australian academics prominent in promoting human causation of warming are challenged to debate publicly at a mutually acceptable venue with a mutually acceptable chairperson. The debate will include:
- The UN IPCC - the basis of the government climate policy
- Real-world science - the only sound basis of climate policy
- The economics - the impacts of climate policy
More details in section 2 - The Science & Futility.
We need to forgive those who have corrupted science. True forgiveness brings clarity of mind. Clarity is needed to prevent recurrence by insisting on the return of scientific integrity.
Please protect Australia's economy and future
Please help us access mainstream media to inform the public of the threat to their economy so they can take steps to protect Australia's economy. You can make a donation here.
Please ask your members of federal parliament to take action to end the corruption by demanding a royal commission or independent judicial investigation requiring evidence under oath to investigate the corruption of science. Offer them your vote and support if they vote against any carbon dioxide tax or 'trading scheme'.
Parliamentary contact details:
House of Representatives: list of Members
Senate: list of Senators