The Nationals LNP

Photo Gallery
Community Switch
This week's rainfall
Barnaby's Blog
 

Barnaby's Blog

15
The National Party have been very clear on the measures pertaining to carbon sink forests. In fact, we lost Senator Nash from her shadow position because of our position on this. It is extremely important that we remain consistent in our opposition to carbon sink forests. We are not going to be fighting every time a TLAB comes up. We have put our position on the record twice. I think everybody can work out from that exactly where we stand. We do not intend for it to be used as a wedge in the future. In this instance we were happy to approach Senator Milne when we saw the amendment on sheet 5906 tabled because it does reflect our sentiments.
The amendment relates to tax deductibility for carbon sinks. I say to the people who sent us here that we will not be supporting—and we will do everything in our power to make sure this does not happen—taking prime agricultural land out of food production and moving it to a carbon sink. That is wrong. It works against market principles. It is against ethical principles. It is an infliction on the local economies where this comes about, and I refer specifically to Tully and other cane-growing areas. A mill needs certain tonnage for it to operate. Policies such as these put that under threat. Last time this came up we tried as hard as we possibly could to get an exemption for prime agricultural land, but it went nowhere. Therefore, we had no other option but to oppose it.
Unless human kind is going to evolve into a higher form of termite, there is no point in carbon sink legislation taking prime agricultural land out of production. There is the potential for 20 million hectares to become carbon sink forests. In the regular parlance of regional areas, that is 50 million acres. That is larger than our wheat crop. This is an absurd predicament for our nation to be put in.
We looked at the legislation at the start—and there was discussion around it—and it did say that capital expenditure was tax-deductible upfront for a carbon sink forest. Expenditure is either capital or income—there is no other place for it to be. Capital expenditure includes the price of the land. It is a capital item. It goes on the books as capital. We asked for that to be better prescribed in the legislation, but it was not, so it remains there. This remains a problem.
It is terribly important when people like Senator Nash lose their position over this that our position remains consistent. The National Party has no problems with carbon sink forests. If people want carbon sink forests, they can have carbon sink forests, but why do they have to have an upfront tax deduction for them? If they believe they stand the test of market principles then put them on the market with other things, such as sugarcane, pineapples, beef, wheat and sheep.
When you create an imperfection in the marketplace you put other people who live in the same district and have to compete with them at a distinct disadvantage. It is peculiar that on one side of a fence a person will be growing food to feed a very hungry world and be involved in the tax system like everybody else while on the other side of the fence a person will plant a forest and produce nothing for the hungry world but get an upfront tax deduction. That is bizarre. We have to bell the cat on this one and say, ‘If you want a carbon sink forest, go right ahead, but stand in line with everybody else and make sure that it stands the principles for which it is put forward.’
If this legislation achieves its objective of 20 to 30 million hectares of carbon sink forests, it could bring about the decimation of so many regional towns. Sugar mills will reach their critical mass of tonnage and shut down. All the rest of the sugar farmers will suffer because of the sins of some who exploit a perverse section of the tax act. People will go out of business not because of the global recession or global warming but because of a peculiarity in the tax act. That is not right. That is not just. Obviously, once the sugar mill closes, the chemist will leave and the school will close. The National Party will always fight for the people who are left behind, even though they are small in numbers, in these enclaves of poverty and destitution that are brought about by the unnecessary hand of government coming into their lives.
Similarly, the wholesale or complete purchase of water licences in a certain area causes massive problems. You can purchase some of a water licence from an area, but if you go into an area and purchase the whole of the water licence, then it is all very well for the person whose water licence is sold but it is not very good for all the people who live in the fibro and iron or weatherboard and iron houses in the towns that surround it. They are left with no hope and with no future. It is not a fair or a just outcome.
In the case of this legislation, it is not about purchasing the water licence, it is about a mechanism for turning the construct and the application of the land into something which does not support the regional economy in any way, shape or form. If it is a carbon sink forest, I imagine we are not milling it, therefore there are no timber jobs. If it is a carbon sink forest, therefore we are not cultivating it; therefore we do not need an economist, we do not need a sugar mill, we do not need a chemist, we do not need a school, we do not need the infrastructure. In the National Party we believe in the support of regional towns and we are the party of regional Australia, so as a core position we could not support a movement in the tax act that would be completely and utterly to the detriment of people living in that regional area. And, to add insult to injury, the benefactor of the carbon sink forest will possibly be someone living in an urban metropolitan area, maybe even overseas. It would be taking the wealth associated with that area that benefited the people in that area and, by a movement in the tax act, moving the benefaction of that area to a person in an urban area or overseas and, in the same breath, removing the capacity to produce food to feed a hungry planet. It just does not stack up as a piece of legislation.
We implored the government to be part of the process of moving strategic amendments so that that would not be the case. We were willing to find a middle ground. We said: ‘If you want to have a carbon sink forest on lesser agricultural land, sure, let’s work out how we can do that. If mankind can put a man on the moon, I am sure we can devise an amendment that will fulfil that proposition.’ But we ran up against an almost die-in-the-ditch mentality, one of: ‘Thou shalt not discern or describe prime agricultural land. We can’t go forward with this amendment because it’s too difficult.’ Apparently it is not too difficult to give people an upfront tax deduction, but it is far too difficult to excise prime agricultural land so that we can go back to these regional towns and say, ‘You are not at threat; this is going to be used on lesser agricultural land.’ Everybody always used as a metaphor that it was only going to use lesser agricultural land, that it was going to be used in deserts and up ridges and in caves which no-one goes to, and they would say, ‘Don’t worry, it’ll never affect you.’ The reality is that it does. The reality is that the application of the legislation has been and is being seen as applying to prime agricultural land. That is where it is going. Why? Because people want to utilise what provides the greatest capacity to increase their potential for a carbon credit by bringing about the greatest increase in the weight of carbon per acre of land. Where are you going to do that? You are going to do that in areas which enable the growth of carbon, which is seen in trees, and that is land with the appropriate soil, the appropriate rainfall and the appropriate area—and, ladies and gentlemen, that is prime agricultural land.
It is similar to MISs. To be honest, MISs have been a big problem in many areas. I can understand that there are arguments, and I will not disagree with the Greens on this, of the worth of MISs maybe in Tasmania, but in other areas they have been a huge problem. They are an unnecessary influence once more of the hand of government coming in and prescribing winners and losers and creating differentiation and opportunity by reason of a fence line—and that is strange. If people want to go to undeveloped areas in undeveloped markets, then maybe you have an arguable case. But to go to an area which is developed and has a developed market, and the effect of your legislation is to swamp the market with a product, then that just works against all the other people who have made sacrifices to be in that market. That is a kind of badness, but at least they are generally producing something that has an employment outcome or a food outcome. So it is the lesser of two evils because at least you have a food outcome or an employment outcome or some form of production coming off that land. What carbon sink legislation does is just throw the whole lot out the window. What you are left with is towns in the form of Hansel and Gretel destitution: the house in the middle of the forest is apparently the desired outcome. That is entirely unfair for the people who live in the area.
So today we will once more stand to repeal section 40J of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. That is the capacity for upfront tax deduction and the tax deductibility status of carbon sink forests. There are other amendments proposed by the Greens; with due respect, we will not be supporting those. But we are making a clear statement that will spell out once more to the Australian public that this is an issue that we brought up at the start and that we have been consistent about. We have voted in a consistent way and we will vote in a consistent way today. I acknowledge also the sacrifice that Senator Nash has made because of her stand on this. For the future it is on the record once we have dealt with this today and the Australian people will know where we stand. Every time this issue comes up we are not going to vote in this way because it then becomes a wedge and it is used as a wedge mechanism. By doing this today we are clearly saying to the Australian people and to this chamber: we must once more readdress this carbon sink issue. We are pleading for a more pragmatic and practical approach to this: go into it, find a definition of prime agricultural land, excise prime agricultural land so it is not covered by this and then you will solve so many problems. Once we have that definition of prime agricultural land then, yes, there are other areas in agriculture that could be utilised.
In the history of land tenure in such places such as New South Wales, once an area had been cultivated mining was proscribed. Provisions such as these, over a period of time, have been whittled away and whittled away, but we have a responsibility, as one of the great food producing nations of this lonely planet, to produce food to feed people. We have a responsibility to make sure that those people who make the sacrifice to produce the food are looked after. We have a responsibility to promote that production of food as something that is morally good, just and right. The efforts of this chamber should be to engender a sense of support for the people who produce the food that feeds the planet.
But when we come up with legislation like this we might hear someone who is probably doing it extremely tough in a regional area saying: ‘I get up every morning and I work with my hands to fix the tractor—to put new pistons in it—and to feed the stock. I live on the barest minimum of a margin. My family’—it is the case in many instances—‘live at the lower end of the social spectrum because of the effort they put in.’ Instead of saying: ‘We know the sacrifice you make. What you are doing is incredibly just and good and should be promoted and we will stand by you because of that,’ we say to them: ‘We will give an upfront tax deduction to the person who does nothing but plants trees in the paddock next door so that that area can grow wild and be infested with pigs. We put more worth on that forest—that scrub or, in many cases, that mess—than we do on your getting out of bed in the morning and trying to achieve a just outcome by feeding Australia and the world.’ We make that statement when we put up pieces of legislation like this.
It is our job in the National Party to say, ‘No, that is not the metaphor that we will sell to the Australian people.’ We are saying that it is more just and proper to give a tax deduction to the person who feeds people—who puts food on the Australian table—than to have an arbitrary, uninspired tax deduction that has come out of the workshop of some inner-city accountants and found its way onto our nation’s books as legislation. That is not what this country is about. That is why the National Party today says ‘No, we will reinvest in this message. We will sell it back to the Australian people. We will say, “For goodness sake, this is ridiculous.”’ As I said at the start, unless you believe that the Australian people will develop into a higher form of termite then you have nothing in this legislation but a problem for them.
It is unusual that the National Party and the Greens are as one on an issue but today is the day that I concur with their remarks. It just goes to show, also, the dynamism of this chamber and that this chamber has the capacity, on issues, to reflect the intent of those people who sent us here. It shows that this chamber has the capacity to make sure that those people who sent us here are supported through the way we vote. At a later stage, in the Committee of the Whole, I will commend this amendment and I will call on the government to see sense, to promote justice and not to stand by a proposition that a tax deduction for an urban constituent who will never actually see the farm is more just and worthwhile than supporting a person who works on the barest minimum margin and puts their family and their life in an area where they at an inherent financial disadvantage. We would be adding insult to injury to say, ‘Not only do we believe that you can live almost in poverty and destitution because your margins are so tight—you are being squeezed out by the margins of the major retailers and other such people who stand over you—but we believe that the government should be standing over you and rubbing your nose in it.’ The government will be saying, ‘If you did nothing but planted trees and wandered away, that would be an inherently better outcome than your producing food and feeding people.’
Posted in: Blog
Actions: E-mail | Permalink

Post Comment

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Enter the code shown above:

Comments

# Bill
Friday, September 18, 2009 7:49 PM
this global warming religion becomes more bizare every day
# chris
Thursday, September 24, 2009 4:34 PM
A few ideas, split up Telstra. good. Let the private telcos build the broadband network on a commercial basis. Rudd woulld end up paying 50 plus billion for the goverment to do it. Most people will have access to fast wireless broadband in 8 years time for proberley 70% speed of fibre for 30% of the cost. Most people would make that commercial decission. Then the goverment could spend the billions instead on harvesting water from northern n.s.w & nothern territory to where it is needed (real infrastrucure for food production).. Caltex should be prohibited from bying Mobil retail outlets. Maybe the goverment should provide the seed capital for a mutual type fuel retail outlet with franchise type operators. you pay a yearly membership to belong. If it goes well the goverment could get their money back over tiime, like Medibank.. All goverment should do is facilitate & preserve competition in the market place, then you don't waste money trying to moniter competition that is non existent, as in fuel watch, grocery watch. (all spin).
Hey if we can buy as individuals shares in Chinalco & the like treat them like other Multinationals. If not, tell them to piss off. We as Australian need to stand up & look after our wealth & sovereign rights.
The illegal immigrant boat people & the like should be givin the message again pacific soloution style. If we are going to be part of the United Nations refugee program lets not undermine it by allowing this sort of rort! We can take our quota in a methodical & humane way taking people who are processed & in the camps. it turns my stomach to see boatloads of mainly young men comming illegally & dubiously while our & other countries young people are there dying to make ther countries a better place!. we could provide a home for 1,000 Australian familes on a week to week basis for what it is costing to house, ect the 34 boats that have arrived since labour changed the law.

regards Chris.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009 8:26 PM
The ETS will wipe out about 40% of the Australian economy, and all farmers.

There is only one position to be adopted... absolute opposition to ETS and absolute rejection of the absurd AGW theory. Taylor at least, grasps this, and realises that debate over pseudo-scientific detail plays into the enemy's hands. Worse, it is in fact de facto recognition of the legitimacy of their arguments.

Many Agmates have indeed adopted a position of opposition but the National Party has not; in spite of glib claims of heroic opposition.

I have challenged Boswell, but to no avail.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:22 PM
Sir,

It would appear from afar that the ALP, the media and your colleagues are making this climate issue hard for you, some say ‘being backed into a corner’. May I offer an opinion?

The polls say you will lose the next election. The opposition needs to take something dynamic to the next poll to win it. The ETS should be it. It is an inefficient piece of legislation that is too blunt.

The opposition should outright reject the ETS in its current form, explain clearly why and propose a system that in one step encourages investment and growth in renewables, amends building regulations to ensure all future buildings are efficient, invests in public transport, pushes vehicles into LPG and Ethanols, rewards farmers for ‘forestation’, (as opposed to deforestation), sets up and funds a research body into replacing coal as a power source and how to feed our cows so they don’t fart as much, and requires all households to have minimum solar hot water by 2015 and back to the grid solar power by 2020.

Let us propose to counter climate change by creating jobs, jobs in solar panels as demand rises, their manufacture, sales and installation, jobs in construction of train and bus lanes and subways, jobs in research, jobs in car yards and mechanics. Lets lower the demand on peak electricity by asking households to generate some as well, let’s constrain cost blowouts in power and fuels and therefore constrain costs in groceries et al, let’s get ahead of the curve on these and then let’s start exporting our technology.

Let us go to the election with a climate change proposal that we can all understand, that is encouraging not penal and that immediately starts to cut out carbon footprint.

Cheers

Brett
Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:13 PM
Why research an alternative to coal? The more CO2 the better. This is only plant food, after all. Ever hear of the Jurassic?

Why are people proposing expensive solutions for problems that have never been proved even to exist. On the contrary, the entire AGW theory/hoax has been exposed by 31,000 climate scientists; ridiculed by the world's most successful weather forecaster, Piers Corbyn; and is regarded as a sick joke by any person of normal intelligence and integrity.

I have only contempt for people who are too lazy to do their homework, and for political parties that participate in the destruction of the national economy that they swore to preserve and protect.

I have been developing a register of those who willlingly go along with the AGW hoax, and when the day comes that the majority of Aussies reject this absurdity, those who betrayed their nation can look forward their names pushed forward into the furnace of electoral fury. This will be especially just for national party politicians who have postured, but who have refused to discuss the evidence that justifies their position.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:25 PM



A thing or two to chew over: try refuting this.

New discoveries show the ETS is pointless

Sir / Madam,

Two recent discoveries now show the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is pointless and should be rejected by the Senate.

In 2004 NASA Scientist Ferenc Miskolczi demonstrated the Greenhouse effect was a constant (0.33 of the surface heat of the earth) and not impacted by "supposed Greenhouse gases" like CO2

Recently two other scientists Kiehl and Ramanathan published a book with the exact same figure. This discovery means it is now confirmed by science that CO2 cannot cause climate change.
The debate is over.

The other discovery is that Steve McIntyre has just fully exposed Michael Manns "hockey stick" graph used by the IPCC.
Up till now McIntyre could not get all the proxy data that Mann used to show the earths recent temperatures were now rising (and looked like a hockey stick).
Now McIntyre has put the full data together it shows recent temperatures are falling, not rising. Manns graph is a complete fraud.

So if the research used by the IPCC is fraudulent and the science showing CO2 cannot cause climate change is verified, why do we need an ETS?

Leon Ashby
President The Climate Sceptics
PO, Box 721, Mt Gambier SA 5290
Ph 0887259561 or 0887235550
info@climatesceptics.com.au
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/
Friday, October 02, 2009 10:47 AM
Thats right why.

I can only think of two reasons.

1. I own shares in the finance industry and brokerage houses that will cash in on this scheme.
2. I'm looking for a Job in the UN.

Do those positions match up with anyone you know ?


# Simon Larrescy
Friday, October 02, 2009 4:57 PM
Hey Barnaby love your work. Wish the liberals were as passionate about the country as much as you are. There should be more of you in parliament.

Just a question could this kevie grubb just trump everyone and just rise the GST rate if he dosen't get his ETS. Carbon is a consumer thing? Well that's the city/greenie's view isn't it?

If this grub is going to get his ETS what are the win falls? if any for Landholders who continuely absorbs carbon through their sustaining land pratices.

Ethanol is the true green energy. Rudd is a kidding himself. The recycling of wastes (swithgrass?/bagasse, manure e.g the mad max2 movie for the simpletons , etc, etc, can produce ethanol). Providing employment opportunities for rural/regional areas. Communities Is my concern.
# george benini
Saturday, October 03, 2009 11:20 AM
Enough is Enough mr Joyce! You are just another politician like the rest of these clowns .We want the truth, What is the E.T.S. really going to cost us in relation to our Utilities, Car expenses i.e rego, pink slip, insurance not to mention the cost of fuel and overall maintenance. Are we going to divide the major cities up into Carbon Areas as is London????

What about our food,prices availability and quality. Our Lifestlye Mr Joyce is at risk. You guys are like Nero always fiddling...... while the Australians suffer whilst placeing absolute trust in our politicians.......at our own expense!!!!

TELL US THE TRUTH MR JOYCE !! My last point, will politicians forego the generosity of the Australian People in supplying your over inflated benefits i.e.super et al, I think I know the answer to that.

No wonder that pretender P.M. is having a bunker built down in Canberra, for the select few to hide in like RATS, while his countrymen and women suffer the consequences of his psychopathic delusions.

Whoever reads this comment I suggest DO NOT BELIEVE A WORD THESE PEOPLE SAY THEY ARE INTERESTED IN ONE THING.... THEMSELVES!!!
Contact me Barnarby if you have the balls!
Saturday, October 03, 2009 9:53 PM
Cough up time Barnaby.
Spill the truth.

You now have two serious challengers to your credibility.. me and George Benini. Just watch this list grow. Not everyone is sucked in by your syrupy talk, talk, talk, then finally you vote with the enemy.

Like George, I am saying you are a wanker, and I will turn up at your meetings and yell that to the rafters.
# Bernadette Tudor
Monday, October 05, 2009 1:07 PM
So glad you are questioning the rhetoric linking CO2 to climate change. Very questionable science in my view, more a back door way of implementing a draining world wide tax that will help those with least need.
Monday, October 05, 2009 8:50 PM
Beautifully said, Bernadette. The most recent estimate I have seen is carbon taxes at $43 trillion, all to go into the pockets of the Rothschild/Rockefeller bankers.

See what I mean, Barnaby? Now it is three of us, and before long you will be encircled by patriotic Aussies who are not prepared to sit by and watch the Nationals sell us out once again.
# Paul
Tuesday, October 06, 2009 2:30 PM
The ETS is summed up brilliantly in Terry McCrann's recent article:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/six-letters-in-the-rudd-dictionary-spell-insanity/story-e6frfig6-1225783182193

i recommend distributing this story to all friends and family, so that Australian's will finally wake up to what is happening in their parliament!
# Tony Ryan
Tuesday, October 06, 2009 4:56 PM
The encirclement progresses Barnaby.

Now Paul has galloped in to join us. Ugh! Soon we will set fire to your wagons and the massacre of the treacherous nationals will begin.

Pity. Your scalp will be rather unimpressive, but we can all look forward to tying Boswell to the wagon wheel. ETS a lot of CO2 a burning politician gives off, but not as much as the history of hot air that should, by rights, have made him fly.
# Glen McBride
Saturday, October 10, 2009 12:20 PM



Someone put a large pile of paper from Leon Ashby, a climate sceptic, into my mailbox.. I glanced through it and chuckled at the inadequacy of your thinking, He is obsessed with the inadequacies one can find in the ETS, but failed to see any motes in his own eye.

I don't care a damn whether the "human responsible global warming model" is right or wrong. I'm not a climate expert and thus have always been open about the whole story.

BUT I am enthusiastically in favour of any plans to stop the production of co2 by the use of fossil fuels. Yes, you are right is saying that a change to renewable energy will lower our standard of living for a while. You pay lip service to our need to change but ignore the thousand reasons why it is necessary - you are obsessional about the ETS.

We have enough oil to last perhaps a hundred years and coal perhaps could last for about 400 years. Then there will be nothing cheap left to burn easily and we will be forced to adopt a sustainable lifestyle. Then there will then be no option.

The present movement towards living with sustainable energy resulting from the experts belief in “Human caused global warming” means that we can soon wean ourselves off burning oil and coal. They are chemical treasure-houses and should never be wasted by burning them. Perhaps our generation could leave some of these treasures for future generations.

I think we are just thoughtless - we couldn't care a damn about our descendants. Oil and coal are valuable. We waste most of their properties by burning them. Our descendants would love to have a share but we are so greedy that we want to take them all and waste them for making energy - which we can have endlessly from the sun, tides, wind and geothermally. Stupid and selfish.

We believe that oil and coal are cheap. They both took millions of years to create - how much should we be valuing a resource if it takes millions of years to produce and can never be replaced? We naively think that the cost of digging them out of the earth is a real cost. Do you believe the costs we pay for coal and oil are realistic? Of course this is nonsense. That trivial cost is what we pretend is their value. This pretending lets us waste them. It also lets us pretend that their use is cheaper than renewable sources of energy. Any child could work out that their use is really a thousand times dearer than renewable energy. You know it is a pretend game and that to conserve these resources is the only sensible course. But we are greedy and of recent years, we learned that greed is good!

I like to think that our species will last for thousands or millions of years. They will need everything we are ripping out of the earth, every mineral, every chemical. But we want them all and we want them now. We have no plans to ensure that we recapture everything we use once - for every chemical and mineral will last for millions of years and all need conserving and recycling. We are just beginning to think of recycling - a moment’s thought makes it obvious that everything must be conserved, regardless of cost. But our greed allows us to argue that it is mostly too expensive because it is often cheaper to dig more from the earth. Yet every gram will be required over and over again by our descendants.

We are not sensible livers - we are plunderers. Our economic system has only money as a value measure. It ignores the intrinsic value of these permanent minerals and chemicals. Our only interest is immediate plunder - how much can we rip up, waste and disperse as quickly as we can with as much immediate profit as possible.

The Club of Rome in the 70's wrote about "Limits to Growth". It tried to look ahead, something we should have learned from them - their logic was inescapable. We should have embraced it and made it a central activity for humankind long into the future. They attempted to show how long resources of the earth would last. Technology improved and quickly made their estimates incorrect. The plunderers then made sure that their imaginative attempt at logical thinking and planning ahead was trivialised, denounced and eliminated so completely that one never hears their name today. Yet these were real and imaginative people who tried to look logically at our failure to look ahead and predict sensible consequences. Bright people today could do much better - and those in fifty years hence will be able to do the same job even better still.

Logic suggests to me that we should be grateful for those finding a reason to stop burning and wasting real resources. It suggests to me that the “climate sceptics” are appealing only to our greed and selfishness rather than thinking about the future of our grandchildren. Sadly logic will never overwhelm greed. So please bless the global warmers and the co2 worriers. They have just a chance of moving us to a sustainable lifestyle a hundred years before we would inevitably be forced to. They could make us pay our own way realistically sooner rather than leaving it to our grandhcildren to pay for our greedy profligate living style. Ask again and again, what is the real value of a tonne of coal or oil? Do you really think it is cheaper than renewable energy?

You are right about costs. Changing from coal and oil wasting will be expensive. It will mean thousands of people forced to change jobs. It will take enormous resources to invest in these other forms of energy. Only a fool believes that it won’t be necessary - the only question is when. This moment is history offers us a chance to decide to do it soon. We know it will hurt. We do it now or leave it to our grandchildren. The selfish and greedy ones will leave it to our grandchildren. The proud and independent ones will delight in the challenge.

I suggest that climate sceptics start some real thinking - this time outside the box in which they are locked. Humankind has a real challenge before it and the time is right NOW.

Please feel free to pass this on - it may help others think beyond next the decade.

Cheerily

Glen McBride
Saturday, October 10, 2009 12:34 PM
Glen McBride's problem is he regards himself as as informed and intelligent, and critics of any opposing view as the opposite.

What more need be said.
# Paul
Sunday, October 11, 2009 6:08 PM
Glen you are a fool.

You appear to have missed the point completely. China, India and the rest of the world will continue to burn fossil fuels and create as much CO2 as they feel like REGARDLESS of whether tiny Australia strangles its own economy with an ETS. And no they wont 'follow our lead' because they are not STUPID like you.

There are 3.9 billion people in Asia, all of whom will be happy to take up your children's jobs when the ETS sends them offshore. All of whom will burn as many fossil fuels as they like, regardless of how seriously anyone takes your well-meaning but misguided logic.

Even assuming you are moronic enough to worship at Al Gore's church of fools, you should see the ETS for what it really is - an attempt by Government and International finance to take total control of all industries in this country, strangling them with debilitating taxes for the 'right' to emit harmless gases. This will quickly drive all industries including our crucial agriculture, mineral and manufacturing sectors offshore, pushing Australia into the third world (and yes it does happen - see Zimbabwe). After all, isnt this the ultimate aim of the Green Movement - to force us all back into the stone age?

"An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide". The gun is loaded and Krudd has his finger on the trigger.
# Paul Jacko
Tuesday, October 13, 2009 3:30 PM
I hope Mr. Joyce is not another bob-katter-in-waiting.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009 3:58 PM
As ignorant? Not a chance. As duplicitous? I'm afraid so.

Complicating the context, it seems a few of the Liberals are privately attacking Turnbull for prevaricating and not calling a spade a spade ie stating outright that AGW is arrant nonsense.

Many Liberals (100% at Ian Plimer's address) are absolute skeptics and are also roasting Turnbull for being gutless. It seems to me (albeit on the outside looking in) that while Turnbull and the nationals are talking compromise (ie defeat by any other name), it is the Liberals who are swinging over to our side.

Barnaby can't even be bothered keeping up to date with this issue, judging by how he monitors this site.

ASAP I am writing to the Liberal rebels to gauge the chance of a new Coalition. It would start small, absorbing independents, some farmers, many liberals and, if they add one more plank (tariff restoration), all the existing small parties and millions of workers. It would be a majority in no time and would quickly be the largest political entity in Australia.

Seems like Barnaby has not only missed the boat, he has precipitated a more focused swell directly opposed to AGW and ETS.
# Greg Harrison
Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:08 AM
Hi Barnaby,

I listened with interest to Alan Jone's interview this morning with Mr Turnbull and I am now convinced that we are doomed to the ETS.

Please have a look at the latest ice-measurement report just released by NASA...The Artic Ice Cap has just been measured again and found to be expanding for the third year straight...What fools we all are who accept the Rudd/Wong ETS Agenda...


Arctic Sea Ice Extent is Third Lowest on Record October 6, 2009

U.S. satellite measurements show Arctic sea ice extent in 2009 " the area of the Arctic Ocean covered by floating ice " was the third lowest since satellite measurements were first made in 1979. The ice area at minimum was an increase from the past two years, but still well below the average for the past 30 years.

Arctic sea ice reached its minimum extent around September 12, as shown in the image and video to the right. According to scientists affiliated with the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), sea ice coverage dropped to 5.10 million square kilometers (1.97 million square miles) at its minimum. The ice cover was 970,000 square kilometers (370,000 square miles) greater than the record low of 2007 and 580,000 square kilometers (220,000 square miles) greater than 2008.

NSIDC is sponsored by several U.S. government agencies, including NASA. Ice data are derived from measurements made by U.S. Department of Defense and NASA satellites, with key work in interpreting the data and developing the 30-year history done by scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

"The changes from year to year are interesting since there has been large variability," said Josefino Comiso, a sea ice expert at NASA Goddard. "But we need to look at several years of data to examine the long-term trends."

God help Australia if the ETS is passed....
Best wishes,
Greg Harrison.
# Tony Ryan
Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:10 AM
Adding to Greg's quotes and comments... eleven active volcanoes stretching out from the Siberian mainland have been erupting one kilometre below the surface of the Arctic Sea during the paste decade or so. Each of these was comparable with Vesuvius when it buried Pompeii.

Moreover, several great rivers flow into the Arctic, from land masses that were unusually warm over that same period. Considering that the Arctic Sea is largely an enclosed water it is just within the realms of possibility that the above events warmed its surface waters slightly; which are the waters that heat moves to.

But then, so what? Melting oceanic ice does not effect sea levels because it is occupying that mass anyway. Another thing, there have been at least nine recorded periods in the past century when the north west passage was navigated, proving big melts are a regular event. And in 1242 the Chinese Navy found no ice whatsoever. Nor did Eric the Red a century earlier.

Gosh. Were there secret coal-burning factories hidden all around the earth during those periods, and run by extra terrestrials who left carbon footprints and who each farted and burped ten tons of methane per day? Perhaps they were politicians too, hence the contemporary flow of hot air.

Perhaps Barbaby has another explanation.

What I hear people saying is that with this total abandonment of sanity and democracy it is time to toss all these useless self-serving politicians into jail and instead install a caretaker government made up of retired and serving senior public servants who are prepared to implement the will of the Australian people.

I hasten to add that I was shocked to hear this, and disassociate myself entirely from such precipitant thinking, although I can empathise with their frustration.
# Robert Lunnon
Wednesday, October 21, 2009 12:01 PM
The whole issue of sinks might actually solve the whole problem.

Notwithstanding that global warming isn't actually happening, and that global warming on the whole (if is was to occur) is likely to make the world wetter, more plant friendly and therefore more productive both in fuel crops and food if we have to have an ETS then it should properly address sinks. If you charge landowners for their Net CO2 emmission then you should also allow a standard sinking rate for pasture (Grass fixes about 15T CO2 per annum per hectare) then you get a result that probably will result in most farmers (And other landholders) being Net CO2 Sinks or at least close to neutral.

So, simply allow a CO2 consumption tax deduction for various sinks, for all landowners (and other sinks such as pyrolysis) with the rider that for "Domestic Sinks" the deduction can't exceed the consumption. Put another way, since I own 3 Ha of land I should get 45 T "personal" CO2 emission for free.

I am really, really annoyed that despite being a Net CO2 sink I am going to have to pay for consumption !.


Remember, however, that Global warming theory at this point "DOES NOT MATCH THE OBSERVATIONS THAT THE WORLD IS NOT IN FACT WARMING" and therefore is probably wrong. Wong is Wrong.
# tonyryan
Wednesday, October 21, 2009 1:14 PM
Your points regarding the personal injustice are appreciated, Robert, but strategically, every time someone throws such negotiating points on the table, the greater impression is the validation of the entire CO2 madness. It is best left unsaid. Both the Farmers Federation and Nats are playing this insideous game; and it doesn't help that that worker's traitor Sharon Burrows of ACTU sings the same song.

The is another infinitely more dangerous angle to the entire CO2 debacle and that is the real crisis has been thrust into the background. Recent research shows that oxygen levels are falling to dangerous levels in both the atmosphere and oceans. Only one action can rectify this and that is a dramatic increase in plant life on this planet; which can be enhanced by increased CO2 production.

One wonders if the highly resourced people who are promoting the 'CO2 crisis' are not very well aware of the oxygen issue, but wish to prolong resolution.

This would explain the steadfast continuation of thimersol and squalene use in vaccines, which are proved beyond all doubt to be dangerous to human health, and are linked to greatly increased prevalence of athsma and other respiratory diseases. A fall of 10% in global oxygen would kill all of those people who do not have access to tank oxygen.
Thursday, October 22, 2009 5:36 AM
Nice of you to condemn the Taxing approach to emission reduction - however what is needed is a proposal that is credible and give the public choice to exercise their discretion and have some control over the outcome with no tax - no commission agent - The proposal outlined at http://www.oontoo.com/index.php?task=profile&main=2025 gives an accurate indication to each power user the actual level of effect on the carbon thing with the publication of "carbon per kilowatt" for your power supplier on each power bill. I approached Ergon for their current "carbon per kilowatt" but they don't know or don't want to tell.
Read the proposal anyway - I contend that offering a proposal that is credible is a good way to go
As people don't understand the proposed by the Govt - giving them something that they understand could be acceptable
# Robert Lunnon
Thursday, October 22, 2009 1:52 PM
Tony,

Don't get me wrong AGW and the ETS is rubbish, buit if we must have one it should at least be fair. The current approach is the usual political drivel, that takes tax, without allowing all the deductions when one puts back. Deductability allows the little people to opt-out of the tax through relatively simple means.

Chris Mc Bride, you make some valid points, but if this is to address resource consumption then they should SAY SO and stop masquerading behind a lie. I support reductions in fossil fuel consumption but not for the purpose of adressing a mythical disaster which is clearly NOT HAPPENING

In the end the government has found a way to tax the air we breathe - the holy grail of tax takes. Im sure Malcolm is patently away that the Libs will inherit that tax at some point.

On another enrgey issue, Ziggy on Nuclear Tech said recently that he didn't think Thorium technology was viable. Given Australia has the largest known deposits of Thorium, wouldn't it be in Australias interest to invest in developing thorium technology to replace current fast-breeder (Uranium based) Nuclear reactors (and in the process make the world a safer place, and generate a new market for thorium and thorium reactors). Now THATS what I call a policy
# Anthony tribe
Thursday, October 22, 2009 9:59 PM
I have to say I am not so sure on the global warming situation. Having been a hipocritical greeny for awhile now, I understand but don't like when I see a 200 hundred year old tree cut down to make a road wider, forest on the edge of a city replaced with another Edward scissor hands development with big houses that fill the block for a family of 4, cotton farms that go as far as the eye can see without a living thing on it except for the cotton that is needed for the next fashion trend that ends up in the op shop or land fill, 'food' farm land being handed over to mining to make the toys that keep us 'happy' (but not really). I understand why these things are happening, people need to make money, live somewhere, have a job etc. But if we don't start thinking about how we grow, make, find things that a modern happy person requires in life, we will be in trouble. Australia is lucky at the moment, we have plenty of room and a population count per km which is amazing, you only have to travell to other countries in the owrld to see what overpopulation can do to an environment and the spirit of people in that environment. With the population expodentially growing in the world I am happy that 'greener' issues are being discussed. Whether you believe in global warming or not you can't disagree with the facts of, the earth is not bottomless pitt, we need to look after it, and a shift in thinking of the government, corporations and the main players 'us'. I'm not so sure on the ETS and if it will make a difference or not, I think a softly softly approach to this is needed. As other commentors on this story have mentioned,
I think our indiviual homes is where the government incentives should be placed, all that roof space in Australia could be collecting water and electricity, most of all those houses could be self sustaining in regards to those 2 important parts of or lives. Good luck to the polies, some very important decisions to be made, and I hope money is not the main decider in the end. My 2 cents worth.
# tonyryan
Friday, October 23, 2009 8:25 AM
There's no doubting that your concerns are genuine, and that better home designs would make less environmental impact;but you and I have no real control over that.

Big corporations bend government departments and councils towards regulations that enhance their profit; they own the factories and bulkloader ships that pollute the land, rivers and oceans. They are the giant chemical and pharmaceutical corporations that pollute our biosystems and even our food.

At no point have The People been consulted.

A couple of decades ago I did a small survey to gauge ordinary people's attitudes to biosystem-preservation and the overwhelming response favoured the environment; at whatever cost.

Our key problem is we have no control over what happens because in the past three decades politicians have ceased consulting their electorate for direction. Foolishly, we abandoned democracy in favour of electing politicians to do our thinking for us. They in turn, discovered that those same polluting corporations and their bankers would finance their election campaigns, in return, of course, for bending things a little their way.

My most recent survey shows that around 90% of government policy is opposed by 80% of the national electorate. There is your problem, Anthony. There is our problem.

However, hundreds of thousands of Aussies have had enough and are working together to correct this. You can find out more at http://www.oziz4oziz.com/

But if you expect these paid-for politicians to do anything constructive, you become complicit in their betrayal of truth, the people, and even, it seems, of life itself.
# nelson
Sunday, October 25, 2009 9:41 AM
Lord Monckton issues a serious warming Re Copenhagen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5kJ5bt5-wI
# Rotha Elizabeth Jago
Sunday, October 25, 2009 10:34 AM
Senator Joyce
Your call for a national debate on climate change is timely. Will you air all points of view presented to you? If you will you are the best person to lead it.
Please announce your intention to listen to all points of view.
At the moment only two streams of opinion are allowed to exist.
Those who are sure that carbon di oxide is a poison(?) or those who say that the whole argument is unnecessary and want to get on with business as usual.
Both of these are in my opinion deluded.
best wishes
REJ
Sunday, October 25, 2009 11:09 AM
I'll bet I am the only person in the country with this opinion... but I believe Lord Monckton is a dummy pass.

To put it another way, because the globalists know that doubt and apprehension about the ETS proposal is rising fast, they have sent a leader to fight for 'democracy and freedom'; and at the last moment he will capitulate, leaving us fighting for direction and struggling against emotional exhaustion.

Indeed, the Zionists played the same game a few months back; an ex-Knesset leader challenging the morality of expansionist Israel and leading academics off into an actionless wilderness. Neither them nor he have been sighted since. Cute tactics. However, mainstream objections to Israeli apartheid and genocide gave the phony leader barely a glance, and so the ploy has now been modified.

Unfortunately for the globalists... not modified enough.

Lord Monckton has a certain appeal to the class-conscious British who, in spite of claims of democracy continue to embrace a monarchy, and a ruling class that owns 80% of Brittain. This ensures the defeat of the Brits; now the most hopelessly globalised nation on earth.

But the rest of the world is still blinking at Monckton's detailed statements, wondering why a member of the British ruling class is betraying his peers. In all likelihood, he is not.

The crack in his facade is the reference to communists slipping through the Iron Curtain, and sweeping through to take over the world.

Give us a break!

None of the leaders of the climate change brigade are from Russia or eastern Europe. Almost all are Fabian Socialists, whose origins are the Oxford London School of Economics; (including here in Oz, past PMs Bob Hawke and Gough Whitlam). And this clique is well sprinkled with Rhodes Scholars, yet another branch of globalists.

Surveys will show that the majority of people in the world, if presented with the economic and social implication of ETS, will reject the proposal in vast numbers; hence the timely Monckton Intervention.

He is saying, hey guys, I am bigger and smarter than the rest of you, so pass me the ball and I will lead you to victory. And, of course, we will never see him or our ball again.

A much better strategy has just been announced by Barnaby Joyce, a nationwide debate about ETS. I am hoping I have severely misjudged Joyce, and that this will be an open debate, including the various parties and organisations that have erupted in opposition to ETS.

Neither the Libs nor Nats are over-burdened with imagination, yet it must surely occur to someone that a coalition of all new parties, independents and the Libs/Nats, all proclaiming the express will of the Australian Electorate, could hurl the Rudd Government out of power forever.

Sigh. Just call this visionless Australia.
Sunday, October 25, 2009 4:00 PM
I am far from alone in my sentiments...


http://carbon-sense.com/2009/10/22/compromise/
# ken
Thursday, October 29, 2009 8:47 PM
gday whots the go with the viking its still anchored off indonsia costing us tax payers AGAIN whot a waste if there not going to get them off why dont thay go to the detension centres in indonsia and get as many sri lankins as thay can fit on the viking and take them back to there home land thay cant be refused there thats where thay are from wile ever its anchored its costs us.kevin crud has to has to tuffin up our border protection who knows witch one of them could be a terrist if there is we dont want them here if there is an attack i hope its on kevins watch howard love him or loath him john had excelent border proection and took it serious.i hope australia wakes up to this circus called labour and vote labour out.i vote liberal national no labour.thank you
# Mario Moldoveanu
Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:25 PM
Latest from Europe:is this a mess, or what?
A vast supply of pollution credits from abroad is threatening to overwhelm systems for capping and trading greenhouse gases, a senior European Union official warned on Tuesday.
Critics have dubbed these pollution credits “hot air” because many were generated by favorable accounting rules, rather than by measures and activities representing new emissions reductions.
The problem is like a “gorilla sitting in the background and nobody dares to touch it,” said Peter Zapfel, the deputy director general of the environment department at the European Commission.
“But it’s there and it’s alive and it’s real,” he said during a seminar on carbon trading at the Center for European Policy Studies, a Brussels think tank.
The main concern surrounds large numbers of carbon credits from Russia and Ukraine, which were earned under the Kyoto Protocol. Those countries’ easily met Kyoto emissions reduction goals — and therefore found themselves with a windfall of credits to sell — when productivity collapsed with the disintegration of the Soviet Union 1990s.
But some newer members of the E.U. — principally Central and Eastern European countries — also hold significant numbers of “hot air” credits, complicating efforts by the Europeans to reach a common position that would restrict the use of the credits under a new climate accord to be discussed in Copenhagen in December.
The availability of so many “hot air” credits could dramatically depress the price that companies pay for emitting greenhouse gases, making it easy for them to meet their targets, and reducing their incentives to adopt more efficient practices and low carbon technology.
There are about 10 billion excess credits that could be cashed-in, or about five-times the amount of credits in the European market, said Mr. Zapfel. The release of such a large surplus could “fundamentally affect the environmental integrity of what we agree to at Copenhagen,” he said.

# ken
Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:56 PM
no ets lets close our coal mines and collumbia will power on rubbing there hands together thanks cruddy dont get it wrong wong !
# tonyryan
Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:02 PM
I think that distorted gong we can hear in the distance is the death knell of ETS.

Some politicians with their ears to the ground are already positioning themselves for 'heroic and valiant stands in the interests of Australian economic integrity'... meaning they can see the suddenly leaking ETS ship needs to be scuttled.

Today, in that political black hole known as the Sunshine Coast, Federal Liberal politician Peter Slipper has rejected ETS in its entirety, preceded by one day by Cory, a Lib from South Australia. A NSW polly did the same one week ago.

Kruddy has lost the initiative and we are now witnessing the first crack in the ALP foundation of power. We will know when Rudd can see the writing on the wall... he will lay it all on Penny Wong, and she will burn as the sacrificial calf. The ALP is nothing if not ruthless.

In one week the TRB commences its three yearly survey of the Australian electorate, and then we will know what the average Aussie is thinking. I am guessing at least 60% say ETS is bullshit.

Barnaby, by ignoring his own site, and by not considering freely proffered advice to reject ETS entirely, has well and truly missed the boat. Saturday, we become buddies with ETS rejecter Liberal Peter Slipper.
# JEANIE O'KANE-EDNEY
Sunday, November 01, 2009 10:00 PM
LUV UR WORK SENATOR BARNABY!!! YOU HAVE BECOME A HOUSEHOLD NAME EVEN HERE IN THE CITY....WE REALISE THE IMPORTANCE TO US OF OUR FRIENDS "ACROSS THE GREAT DIVIDE". THAT IS, OUR "PRIMARY PRODUCERS"..THANKS TO THEM FOR OUR DAILY PRODUCE...THE E.T.S. IS A CRUEL JOKE! OUR FARMERS ARE STRESSED ENOUGH WITHOUT THIS VOLLY FROM "RUDD AND CO."THE CITY FOLK WILL STAND ALONGSIDE OUR FARMERS TO PREVENT ANY FURTHER "FAUX TAXES" BEING FOISTED UPON THEM....AND OF COURSE THE FLOW-ON TO US.SUGGESTION....VOLLY BACK TO RUDDY, "IF YOU WANT THIS E.T.S.,ABOLISH THE G.S.T.!!!!! YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH!!!"RUDDY IS AKIN TO THE "SHERIFF OF NOTTINGHAM....CRUEL, CRUEL MAN...REGARDS, JEANIE O'KANE, GOLD COAST.
# Patrick Dowdle
Wednesday, November 04, 2009 1:11 PM
Mr Joyce
I am horrified that Kevin Rudd is planning to sign that bill in the UN, which in effect hands over at least $7 Billion a year of Australian tax payers money to this UN orginisation, without a proper and orginized debate in the senate
This is unacceptable because it not only means the handing over of cash to those corrupt beaurocrates, but also gives unlimited powers to an UNELECTED global authority, that can effectively strip us of our sovereignty
Mr Turnbull is clearly incapable of challenging the current government over this , and in mine and other voters minds he is just a yes man for Rudds made ETS scheme
If Rudd is allowed to sign this treaty is will be a dark chapter in this great countries history
Mr Joyce i , along with others, implore you and other like minded politicians to stand up, be counted , and demand Rudd allow proper debate over this issue
Other wise Paul Keatings statement that we are a Banana Republic will become oh so true
# tonyryan
Wednesday, November 04, 2009 6:49 PM
C'mon Joyce. Now it's Liberals with the guts to stand up and say NO ETS!

There can be no negotiation over lost sovereignty and mandatory taxes to an unelected global bureaucracy. The answer is No No No.

I can see that the rest of we Australians are going to have to shove our spineless politicians aside and throw Rudd into prison for treason. Already there are plans to distribute a nationwide Declaration of No Confidence in the Rudd Government; but we are not about to then hand power over to the equally gutless Coalition.

Enough's enough. In a proper democracy our representatives are meant to implement the will of the people. According to most respected constitutional analyst, Arthur A Chresby, (Your Will Be Done, 1979) this function cannot be circumvented. Yet both parties have ignored the people for some three decades.

It's time for the Australian people to reassert themselves, and I know some senior Federal public servants who will be willing to form an Australian Caretaker Government. A lot more will join them.

No more electing crooked politicians to do our thinking for us.
# tonyryan
Wednesday, November 04, 2009 9:05 PM
Too late, Barnaby.

Alan Jones has beaten you to it. He has absolutely condemned and rejected the ETS and made a historical stand and accused Rudd of betraying Australia's prosperity and future. Rudd is now guilty of treason in every loyal Australian's eyes. He is finished.

The only politicians who will come out of this unscalped will be the three Libs who also unconditionally condemned ETS. You stand on record as prevaricating and refusing to make this stand; so your career is over too.
# Gary Strang
Thursday, November 05, 2009 6:44 PM
Hi Barnaby

I have to congratulate you on the interview with Alan Jones on Thursday.

So far you are the only politician to explain in plain English the severe ramifications to the Australian economy should we sign up to an ETS and also, your comments that an election should be fought on this one issue.

In your words to Alan "Bring It On"

However, in my opinion, there are two issues that stand in the way of an election being won by taking Kevin Rudd head-on, on this one issue.

1. Malcolm Turnbull appears to be a "Me To" leader and at this stage doesn't have the will or backbone to take on Kevin Rudd.

2. Kevin Rudd has been very clever in appealing to the 18 to 28 demographic and at this stage I think that a large majority still believe that ETS is the way to go if we want to save the world from destruction.

I am a Liberal voter, but would not be prepared to vote for Malcolm Turnbull at the next Federal Election if he continues down the the current path he is taking.

I listened with interest to Malcolm being interviewed by Alan Jones last week and I have to say that I was very disappointed in his lack of real leadership.

I don't think he fully understands that a large percentage of Liberal voters, including myself believes that ETS is the biggest con of the 21st century and an expensive one at that.

However, being very cynical, the US, UK, Europe and Australia may be using the ETS issue as a way of taxing us to pay off the massive government debt caused by the various stimulas packages.

Yes !! fight a Federal Election on ETS, but be 100% sure that the Australian voters fully understand what's in store for them if we go down the Kevin Rudd path.

Gary Strang.
# Harry Curby
Friday, November 06, 2009 11:59 AM
Where is the rage from our politicians in the parliament over Kevin Rudd's silent and arcane handling of the draft Treaty for signing in the coming Copenhagen meeting next month?
As the PM,surely he has an obligation to us as the most powerful figure of the nation, to reveal what he considers are the pros and cons of that treaty.By not doing so,and after numerous discussions at international meetings of other world leaders who may potentially sign it,smacks of arrogance, self-righteousness and a superiority which starts to cause me more than a little concern.He seems to believe that he is the panacea for all the nations ills---a dangerous self-belief.
Of course,his usual tactics of changing the issues when he finds himself in difficulties has become a hallmark of his politics.
But where are the opposing views?--and where is the passion and rage from our elected representatives?Some of his own people question his ideas,but they are either stifled or too fearful to reveal themselves.

# Jan
Friday, November 06, 2009 1:43 PM
Keep up the good work Barnaby it is good to see someone with brains in Parliament. If the ETS is passed and Mr Rudd goes off to Copenhagen to boast and sign us up to the treaty all I can say is BANG goes our Sovereignity and we will be run by someone else maybe thats Kevin 47's aim to run the world he spends enough time flying around it.
He should be staying home and looking after the best interests of Australia.
# Patricia
Friday, November 06, 2009 7:29 PM
WELL DONE!! Someone needs to be representing Aussie farmers - what is completely beyond me is why people INSIST on planting TREES to offset carbon when it is a known and proven fact that GRASS does a much better job of this. And trees and grass can not grow together due to well i'm not getting into the biology of it. The big money players pulled themselves out of the great depression with a war against another country, and this lot are trying to get rich by bankrupting farmers.
It is beyond disgusting!

Its about time someone went to bat and started fighting FOR the same thing as farmers!!! WELL DONE KEEP IT UP!!!
# tonyryan
Friday, November 06, 2009 9:50 PM
Jan and Patricia

Perhaps you would be so good as to show me where Joyce rejected AGW and CO2 trading. I have not seen him do either. All he has said is he will demand concessions for farmers. What about the rest of Australia? He was not elected by farmers but by his electorate, whom he must represent.

The only federal politicians who have made a direct stand are Steve Fielding and Cory Bernadi. Thank them, not two-bob-each-way Barnaby.

In case you have been locked in the loo for several days, the world's top climate scientist, Richard Lindzen. has categorically rejected AGW and any significance of CO2 to climate change.

Alan Jones and Lord Monckton have declared war on the alarmists and AGW.

To my knowledge, and I have asked him repeatedly for three weeks, Joyce has equivicated on the whole issue.
# Ian
Sunday, November 08, 2009 6:02 AM
So Barnaby has been castigated by the Head Master, prissily, through pursed lips.
Badge of honour, Barnaby, keep it up!
# tonyryan
Sunday, November 08, 2009 9:09 AM
One of us is missing something, Ian.

Just tell me where and when Barnaby has categorically rejected AGW and ETS.

This site is beginning to look like a Joyce cheer squad:

"I shall look very strongly into ETS"...Yea Barnaby!

"The ALP shall quake at my stern look"... Yea Barnaby!

"My bum is itchy"... Yea Barnaby!
# greg
Sunday, November 08, 2009 9:55 AM
The fact that the proponents of this man made global warming theory now term it Climate Change instead of Global Warming is understandable due to the Earth's COOLING.
The following story is very enlightening regarding so called man made climate change. “http://www.worldclimatereport.com /index.php/2009/10/06/antarctic-ice-melt-at-lowest-levels-in-satellite-era/ “
Where are the headlines? Where are the press releases? Where is all the attention? The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the LOWEST ever recorded in the satellite history.
So much for global warming.
Seems like very selective reporting by the media in the global brain washing campaign.
Only ONE SIDE is ever presented and NO TRUE DEBATE has ever been entered into.
Any dissenting view is ridiculed - this attitude is insulting to people's intelligence to say the least.
Have a listen to this interview with a highly qualified scientist who prepared some of the IPCC papers.
“http://www.4bc.com.au/blogs/michael-smith-blog/deconstructing-global-warming/20091104-hxsw.html”
Read the facts presented in the "The-madness-of-ETS.pps" document available online and the list of over 30,000 highly qualified scientists worldwide on this ( http://www.petitionproject.org/) web site.
It is interesting that Al Gore is not a scientist and stands to earn BILLIONS OF DOLLARS from the companies he has established to trade in carbon!
Why won't Mr. Gore take up the challenge and debate the issue?
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.com/expert.cfm?expertId=349
“http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=78&Itemid=130#Benchmark_paper”
What is he afraid of?
Why is his word taken as gospel?
Why does he reside in an enormous mansion in the US which consumes HUGE amounts of electricity? If he is genuine I hope that it is all derived from alternative power sources.
What about the pollution he causes by jetting around the world on aeroplanes promoting his agenda? All that jet fuel.
How much do world governments stand to make from this additional tax on humans? What a great source of revenue to repay the debt from the global financial crisis.
Also Mr Garnaut is an economist not a scientist.
The government will decimate Australia's economy with the stuff that Mr Rudd & Ms Wong are pushing on the public and media.
It's about the money.
Over 7 BILLION DOLLARS of Taxpayers money per year will be given away per year if the COPENHAGEN TREATY is signed by Mr Rudd.
What about Australian Hospitals, Roads, Social Services etc.
Have a look at the draft COPENHAGEN treaty that I emailed you.
Did you read the draft I sent you?
The Earth's climate has always changed since creation and will continue to do so regardless of how much citizens are taxed back into the STONE AGE.
We are expected to be convinced of man made global warming from people who can't even accurately predict the weather for the next day.
Lord Christopher Monckton successfully prevented Gore's film from screening in Britain. The legal system was obviously not convinced by the global warming movie which contained over NINE GLARING ERRORS.
“http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416151-details/Judge+attacks+nine+errors+in+Al+Gore%27s+%27alarmist%27+climate+change+film/article.do”
Unless citizens are able to pressure their governments to not sign the agreement at the December 2009 summit, UNELECTED WORLD GOVERNMENT and large transfers of wealth from developed countries to undeveloped ones will result!
Effectively this carbon trading will result in a WORLD TAXATION SYSTEM, an essential element for a WORLD GOVERNMENT!
This seems to be the upshot of it all. First create a mythical problem, Second brain wash the public and engender a feeling of guilt about it, Third tell them that to ease their guilty conscience they need to pay more tax.
Why has this "WATER VAPOUR POSITIVE FEEDBACK" TRICK been used to MANIPULATE the climate models the IPCC use such that they show an increase in global temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide when NASA experimental evidence proves this is not true?
“http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/10/climate-modelling-nonsense”
What about the comments made here:-“http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/flannerys_hope_a_global_treaty_to_influence_your_every_move/ “
Which phrases from the quoted documents are untrue???
It seems to be about control also.
Why is the CSIRO attempting to gag one of its highly qualified scientists because he has alternative evidence from what the government wishes the public to believe?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/csiro-bid-to-gag-emissions-trading-scheme-policy-attack/story-e6frg8gf-1225793355139
Scientists who do not want to agree with this man made global warming theory have their government funding cut.
This to me is very suspicious. Science has a right to be UNBIASED and their conclusions should not be influenced by government policy. This is an influence of a vested interest!
It is about FACTS not BELIEF.
It is not a new religion that one believes or does not believe in.
Why hasn’t the Australian Government been transparent, honest and informative to the electorate about the cost to our society of both the proposed ETS and the implications for Australian Sovereignty in signing the COPENHAGEN TREATY in December? We should be concerned about what is NOT BEING TOLD TO US.

Many diggers fought and died over the years to preserve Australia’s Sovereignty, yet here we are poised to sign some of it away with the stroke of a pen!
# Kaye Hamersely
Sunday, November 08, 2009 11:14 AM
Z77CWDAt last a voice of reason. I don't believe in climate change as a phenomenon, climate is cyclical, always has been, always will be. I believe that any rise in temprature is due to sun spot activity and any rise in tempratue results in a rise in carbon in the atmophere, not the other way round. On further study of the subject, I discovered the main natural absorbent of carbon is water, and the last time I looked the earth was 70% water. I agree with you that this whole cabon emissions trading scheme is a ploy to make money for nothing by governments and has been foisted on the peoples of the world by a long and consisten campaign by those who will profit most. I wish you well with your political career and wish we had someone like you in the WA parliament system. Barnaby for Prime Minister please.
P.S. I am sure you are aware of the Bilderberg group, but if you are not, please google them.
# Kaye Hamersely
Sunday, November 08, 2009 11:14 AM
Z77CWDAt last a voice of reason. I don't believe in climate change as a phenomenon, climate is cyclical, always has been, always will be. I believe that any rise in temprature is due to sun spot activity and any rise in tempratue results in a rise in carbon in the atmophere, not the other way round. On further study of the subject, I discovered the main natural absorbent of carbon is water, and the last time I looked the earth was 70% water. I agree with you that this whole cabon emissions trading scheme is a ploy to make money for nothing by governments and has been foisted on the peoples of the world by a long and consisten campaign by those who will profit most. I wish you well with your political career and wish we had someone like you in the WA parliament system. Barnaby for Prime Minister please.
P.S. I am sure you are aware of the Bilderberg group, but if you are not, please google them.
# tonyryan
Sunday, November 08, 2009 11:57 AM
Kaye

Greg is the voice of reason (above); not Barnaby Joyce. Your statements are undoubtedly correct, but Joyce has never echoed them.

Joyce has not taken a position on AGW, so why do you want him to be PM?

As Joyce has never monitored this site I'm beginning to realise this is a propaganda technique... readers get e-mails and think Joyce has made the statements they read. Cute trick.
# Kaye
Monday, November 09, 2009 2:12 PM
thank you for your response Tony, while I stand corrected and concur absolutely with Greg, I did hear Barnaby Joyce on ABC TV on Saturday last, and I heard him speak. It was this interview that impressed me, while he was being "politically correct", he did say he was against any new taxes that arise from so called carbon trading - cap and trade.
If you heard or saw the interview, maybe you could comment on wheater or not I misunderstood his stance.
# danny donaldson
Monday, November 09, 2009 4:46 PM
Good grief, Glen Mcbride you are as verbose as you are stupid. That is all you deserve you frigtnened little goose. The climate will always change you fool Just pull up your panties and take a deep breath, girls blouse.
danny
# Mario Moldoveanu
Monday, November 09, 2009 5:10 PM
It is heartening to see that a people's elected representative does exacty that: represents the interests of those who have elected him/her. if anybody doubts that ETS is nothing more but another broadbase tax, here is proof that cannot be challenged, regardless how hard one might try:
At the “Informal Meeting of European Finance Ministers" that was held in Goteborg - Sweden on 1-2 October 2009, Swedish Finance Minister Anders Borg, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, urged other European nations to follow Sweden’s lead in linking new taxes to greenhouse gas emissions, as European governments seek additional sources of income in the wake of the financial crisis. He went on to say that the carbon tax "...has been a very good source of revenue since it was introduced at the start of the 1990s".
As well, more importantly, in-spite of European countries having had this form of ETS since the 1990s, ALL the scientists (regardless of wherther or not they believe in "global warming" will tell you that CO2 emission in the Northern Hemisphere has been much greater that in the Southern Hemisphere, where ETS has not been implemented. I NOW CHALLENGE ANYBODY TO PRODUCE A SUBSTANTIATED ARGUMENT TO THIS STATEMENT OF FACTS.
Therefore, Barnaby is totally right to oppose a measure that, apart from raising an additional tax on everything and ruining everything that has made australia "the lucky country" (agriculture, mining, and manufacture) would do absolutely nothing to reduce global warming.

# Rod Charlton
Monday, November 09, 2009 5:44 PM
Barnaby,
When the history is written you along with Cory Bernardi and Professor Ian Plimer will be given a proud place
If Rudd is allowed to get away with his ETS it will be equivalent to national hara kiri.
When you next debate in the Senate ask Senator Won why the polar ice caps on Mars ax and wain. Is it due to CO2 emissions by the Martians or could it be solar activity or geological factors ?
Good Luck
# Mario Moldoveanu
Monday, November 09, 2009 5:48 PM
In fact, Barnaby is so blatantly right about the ETS legislation, that the PM's impecably controlled propaganda machine has already started a relentless campaign aimed at discrediting him.
# Rob Arthur
Monday, November 09, 2009 8:42 PM
none of us or our grandchildren will be around to suffer the socalled consequences, but we are going to pay dearly in the next few years. None of these scientists can be 100% sure that they are right in any case. They are consumed by their own arrogance. Nothing will change in Australia until the people march peacefully in the streets.
# John
Monday, November 09, 2009 9:21 PM
If the public doesn't believe we should have it, isn't that good reason not to implement ETS. We may be actually smater than the 'penny wongs 'of this world think we are.
# tonyryan
Monday, November 09, 2009 11:51 PM
Yes, I listened too, Kaye.

And to Lindzen, Plimer, Monkton, Bernardi, Hassell, Archibald, Carter, Bellamy, Ashby, and Corben. All of these categorically denied CO2 as a toxic substance and relegated it as plant food, and much needed.

All condemned AGW as a hoax, and all condemned ETS as a globalist trick to ram a one world government down the world's throat, and to tax actual living.

I have not heard Barnaby Joyce or any other Nationals politician make any of these statements. They always imply this is their attitude.

I accuse Joyce of misleading millions of Australians, and pretending to make a stand when in fact he is not, and has not. In fact, this has been the way he has behaved over almost every issue. All talk and no action.

I will take this back unreservedly if Barnaby Joyce says the actual words.
# Valda
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:17 AM
Bigger government and wider social spending will only transfer Australia's wealth out of the private sector into the public sector, and won't help change the climate or reduce global warming. There has to be a better way of controlling pollution and protecting our environment than just introducing a new tax system that will penalize everything and every one who is, or are, productive in Australia.

The implications of an ETS (tax) is mind boggling to say the least. And, on top of that there is the intended transfer of billions to the United Nations from our country's public purse to further expand social spending on poorer nations by an unelected world body.

Our elected representatives who believe in this science have a duty of care to their voters. Government should not be fear mongering or hindering entrepeneurialism, but encouraging our citizens to think beyond the hysteria. Australia is a nation of thinkers, always has been and that is why we are so economically viable. We have to remain that way to solve any environmental problems, but bigger government, and bigger taxes won't do it imo.
# Kathleen Garth
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:38 AM
We can all 'waffle on' about this, but I think Simon Larrescy covered it all with his comment on 2nd October.
# Kathleen Garth
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:40 AM
We can all 'waffle on' about this, but I think Simon Larrescy covered it all with his comment on 2nd October.
# Douglas Carter
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 12:04 PM
Barnaby,
I have watched and listened to you over the years. If only you were in my electorate! You would have my vote every time.
I would think your seat is impregnable.
More power to you...strength, health and courage.
It seems to me from my conversations with friends etc that they all know of you and support you.
The Aussies are listening... Just that a lot of your fellow MPs are... deaf?
# Darryl Allen
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:47 PM
Oliver Cromwell's Speech on the Dissolution of the Long Parliament

Given to the House of Commons

20 April 1653

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone!

So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!



Message from humble citizen of the informed minority to Parliament. 10 Nov 2009

Our Parliament is a babble of many treacherous clowns eager to betray our nation and surrender allegiance to a New World Order – A governance of oppression and corruption.

Fools of moral depravity, many of you have no moral standards and preach the deception of moral ‘equality’ seeking to obliterate all standards of morality.

In your spiritual blindness most of you cannot distinguish between deceit and truth and are easily deceived by the corrupt and power lustful deceivers of this world.

Many embrace the treacherous deceit and folly of “Climate Change” that seeks to drag all nations into the quagmire of destruction.

Most of you embrace and protect those who seek to serve Satan by committing acts of terror and plot to destroy the righteous Kingdom of the God. A Kingdom that challenges us to hate evil and expose it. A kingdom that seeks the truth and asks us to reach out with faith, hope and love in sacrificial service to all humankind.

For the sake of our humanity and in the name of the TRUE GOD – repent and seek eternal wisdom and truth or be condemned to eternal damnation.

Thanks Barnaby for having the courage to stand up against those who have been deceived by our enemies.
# Dennis Stevenson
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:30 PM
Please let people know when they have successfully signed the Petition.

In trying to sign the Petition, I was given no automatic acknowledgment that my name had been added. So I put in the new security code and still got no ack. So, rather than press enter a third time, I must presume that my name has been added but the website designer has not set it up to let the person know that they have been successful. I could find no email contact on the site for Barnaby or the website designer, so am using this avenue.

Barnaby is right on this issue and the boat people. Keep up the good work. There is an almost free field to stand out on dozens of key issues if one hasn't sold their vote and voice to party controllers.
# Gerd
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:52 PM
Listen to Lord Monckton (www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40) speaking in the USA and being interviewed by Alan Jones (//2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=4998) to get an idea of the Copenhagen threat to national sovereignty. Opinion has become to polarised on global warming (now a religion). Even if Monckton is over the top, Kevin Rudd is either naive or conniving with the UN plot for Copenhagen. He may become a more dangerous PM to Australia's well-being than Whitlam was with his extreme inflation. Climate change is unavoidable (just ask any geologist), and emissions trading is the wrong scheme to handle it. Buy the way, scientific "proof" is waning with new research (eg. Prof. Richard Lind, MIT).
# danny donaldson
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:10 PM
The communists call this a rant, we call it horse sense.
MY letter to a socialist.


Dear Sir,
I read your column in the Newcastle herald on Monday morning though well written I do take exceptions to some assumptions you make, can I take a moment of your time to state my case.
As a coon I can assure you that climates do change.
Mother Nature the orchestrator of all does not make mistakes and in fact insists that climates do change for her greater good of renewal and rebirthing.

When you speak of unsustainable levels of carbon and linking that in part with Newcastle coal you assume that either climate should not change and always stay the same; or if they do change the only good change would be if the temperatures in fact dropped well that might happen.

Witness the great volcano that was the mother of Yellowstone Park. That volcano must have been a doozy, how much carbon did that kick out! That hole is 40 miles across.
I have been there and studied the geography there is major carbon emissions there. I was drilling thermals hot springs in NZ there is many holes over the entire island that cough out gas continually and have always done.
I can assure you that at different periods the atmosphere has contained much more carbon than is there at present. In natures eyes there is no correct amount of carbon she likes a little more here and sometimes a little less.

Newcastle does not vomit gas it provides electricity for us all, warming and products for the world and an awe inspiring electricity industry in China that is building many power stations every month.

I worked in the powerhouses for many years and I can assure you that much energy is required to turn a 500 megawatt turbine. So much energy that two 3’wide conveyors were needed to feed just four of those continuously.
I agree that we should clean the joint up so let’s consider what would be required to turn these monster turbines both here and in the Far East.

Well then I know that wind will not be able do it, we don’t have any high water for hydro electric (do not be fooled by our snowy that is a hoax, the water there is run down to the turbines during the day then good old coal fired power pumps it back up the hill in the night) therefore it is only half clean.

There is no other source that can do it. Now lets get real we do have a shitpot of uranium; well all the girls scream out “no bomb! This shows a lack of education.”
No sir it is cheap safe and non polluting in its usage and can power these great turbines with ease but uneducated folk panic and think we are as silly as the Russians and gunna blow them all up or poison them.

Well we are not! We run the powerhouses in the 70s 80s and 90s and we Australians can run these nuclear plants with increased safety for all and they will emit nothing.

So why is this opposed, well I can tell you it is cringing uneducated fear or it may be in fact the fearful of us who scream stop the world its going too fast.
You see there are many amongst us that go quietly about their work and pick up all the scraps of information and form very real opinions based on experience.

Witness the great howls when Mr. Howard called for nuclear power when he was stating the obvious. This is a much cleaner alternative and would not throw hundreds of thousands of Australians on the scrap heap.

I as an aboriginal kid who lived in the bush hunted and gathered food to supplement what we had at home, with a half blood cousin who could track animals as soon as he could walk I believe my credentials here far surpass any book learnt knowledge; my knowledge comes from being nature, living nature and marveling nature.

I learnt at a very early age that Mother Nature is never wrong she is all seeing all knowing and gentle to those who understand her and don’t fear her.
Changing climate is part of Mother Nature’s cycle and it can not be associated with man on this scale. Climate has always changed and at Mother Nature will to always provide us with fluctuating seasons within her climate. To argue that climates shouldn’t change is to slap the face of Mother Nature herself.
So I take exception to your assumption that climates should not fluctuate or temps rise or change if that’s what you were getting at.

Yes just as your wife’s mood your bank account your health your kids behavior your work the weather temperatures, seasons, fish populations yes everything under gods eyes fluctuates as they must.

With the climate you make the assumption that Mother Nature does not either want this to be or is being overruled by dirty mans emissions some from Newcastle.
In fact this so called life threatening climate change that you blokes talk about is false.
As a coon I can tell you Mother Nature is at the heart of it all. This is what her nature is; to change, growing, shrinking, adapting and loving us her friends in an ever changing environment and climate.

It can be quickly established by observation that climate change is not linked to mans emissions into atmosphere and many people are starting to wake up to the logic. Temperature changes in the last period of the earth where emissions have gone through the roof have actually fallen. The graph that Gore runs around the world is a hoax; this indicates in truth that when temperature rises carbon follows it behind on the graph. He does not consider this as he is locked in and is muddled.
There is no way that thinking people can continue to be fooled by this insanity forever.
Mother Nature herself can in one fell swoop (as she has done so many times before) flood the atmosphere with more carbon than man can imagine.

One earth burp, volcano or major bushfire and bingo 100 years of carbon in a few days, then at natures will and in her own time, grow trees critters and beasts till all this spillage is back to normal. This cycle will repeat itself again and again add nauseam; this is nature at its best we have nothing to fear!

The carbon that mans industries emit are insignificant against a large volcano bushfire or earth burp.

If every person on earth stood shoulder to shoulder they would cover an area roughly the size of Bali. Go to your world globe and have a look, see if you can see it.

You see sir logic beats all; when everything is put back into logic with no fear nor panic or emotion; clear cool thought sees thru it all.
When you speak of unsustainable levels of carbon; and link that in part with Newcastle coal you assume that either climate should not change and always be the same; or if they do change the only good change would be if the temperatures in fact dropped
I can assure you that at different periods the atmosphere has contained much more carbon than is there at present. In natures eyes there is no correct amount of carbon she likes a little more here and sometimes a little less. Does that sound Female?
Newcastle does not vomit gas it provides electricity for us all, warming and products for the world; and an awe inspiring electricity industry in China that is building many power stations every month.
I worked in the NSW powerhouses for many years and I can assure you that much energy is required to turn a 500 megawatt turbine. So much energy that two 3’wide conveyors were needed to feed just four of those continuously.
I agree that we should clean the joint up so lets consider what would be required to turn these monster turbines both here and in the far east.

Well then I know that wind will not be able do it, we don’t have any high water for hydro electric(do not be fooled by our snowy that is a ruse, the water there is run down the turbines during the day then good old coal fired power pumps it back up the hill during the night) so that’s only half clean.Our baby thermal electricity drilling Ive been in it and it is far from being there; it will take many years to work it out.
I can make a wind generator in my back yard for $400 that will power my joint but not an industry.

Is there a source that can do it?.
Let’s get real; we do have a shitpot of uranium well all the girls’ blouses scream out
“No not a bomb!”
No sir it is cheap safe and non polluting in its usage and can power these great turbines with ease but uneducated folk panic and think we are as silly as the Russians.

Well we are not! We run the powerhouses in the 70s 80s and 90s and we Australians can run these nuclear plants with increased safety for all and they will emit nothing.
So why is this opposed, well I can tell you it is either cringing uneducated fear or it may be in fact the fearful of us who scream stop the world its going too fast.
I am not aware of any powerful facts that can convince me otherwise. I am though open to any facts if they are indeed truth but I don’t hear any. In fact what I hear is blind panic similar to the y2k bug and the nuclear threat of my childhood.
-
Any evidence that sea levels have risen has not evidenced itself to me. I have fished the same bank on the same creek for over 50 years and my observations here reveals not one centimeter in change in water levels.
We poor bastards that used water levels on building sites in the 70s know that water levels can not in fact be higher in Pacific islands and not down here, excepting storm surge. So we are being lied to here again!
You see all us blokes think nature we are nature and can’t be fooled by one persons fear; we have no fear of nature she loves us and is never wrong.
.
Mans role here is all about house keeping and there would not be many people of this earth that would not like a cleaner environment; therefore would naturally be in favor of any attempt to clean up the joint.
So lets all agree to do that; this is a much higher goal than pay a tax that will cripple our country. This new ETS is nothing but a left wing re election tax to pay off the incredible waste of our money that is going on right now. We want nothing of it; we want to clean the joint up. Start with the waterways.

So that is why I take exception to your links between and Newcastle coal and climate change.
Fossil fuels and Mother Nature are close mates burn a little here grow a little there with the plant food emitted by burning fossil fuel. Returned to where she comes from. The earth the atmosphere time memorial. In fact carbon in the atmosphere is all natural and Mother Nature will drive that
Therefore Mother Nature welcomes all carbon; turns this into timber, grasses and feed for her animals that then excrete it out to grow more carbon.

Mother Nature controls all; the volcanoes the thermal springs the bushfires and does a magnificent job of all of it.
Mother Nature loves man as she has man do some of her work as she does the bees. One of my jobs as a kid was to burn the bush to bring it back to life and provide proper nourishment for plant and animals.

You could consider the Tasmanian tigers the koalas and some other species in the bush that are dying because of horrendous cancers on their faces. This is no mistake of nature this is caused be bumble headed greens and so forth who oppose any burning of the bush, who in actual fact have no natural knowledge of how the system works.
These animals require regular burning and housekeeping of their larder.
If as in natures way that same habitat was regularly burnt the diversity of food would then be present to prevent the spread of these strange diseases as was nature’s plans until we started to think we knew better than her (mother nature).

Mother nature also has a destructive side to balance her loving generous side, she wants lightning strikes wild fires and howling damaging storms to clear and remove the so called sick and injured the dead wood and restore diversification there fore balance. This needs to be understood to have a basic understanding of nature.
Witness when a big bushfire used to come through our valley we kids would go to the highest track in the valley for a killing spree of snakes for food. How natural is that and in the process the sick and injured animals would be too slow and die in the ensuing blaze, nothing wrong with this its only natural housekeeping complete and larder restocked.

This was well documented in the US at Yellowstone Park many years back, after a wild fire supposedly wrecked Yellowstone when in fact it actually re diversified the forests that had not been allowed to burn thereby reinvigorating the area henceforth to thrive.
I even saw bison and bears that had left the mono culture and had come rushing back when the fires cleaned up. It is not disastrous to burn the bush it is nature at its best.

You make the statement unsustainable levels of carbon I wonder on what information and from what source this came from. You foresee the end of the coal industry. You speak of the gentrification of Newcastle from its cringing past. Here again I take exception.

No one I know will go near the joint after 4pm in the day for fear of rape violence glassing and other gutter swill acts, it is in fact a mini Chicago. Completely out of control and a laughing stock to those of us who know better.
We feel ashamed that the same people vote the same mob in year in year out and don’t know any better. So you can get my idea.
I also knew the old Newcastle it may not have suited your type but for me and my friends it was a place of beauty industry interest and safety.
People were safe in the streets men had jobs they were not professional Govt layabouts. There was no violence no graffiti you could ride the trains.
xI wonder whether you have been there after 1am lately.
Would you let your 17yearold daughter walk the streets? If you answer in the affirmative on the last I would be most disappointed with a professor that should be a shining light to all of us so called uneducated.

Should you not go out into the bush spend a couple of years living in a rainforest and drinking creek water picking berries and mushrooms make your bed in the leaves at night staring at the beauty trying to work through it all then make analysis on all this when and only when you can be at one with nature.
We folk know that book read knowledge is not as strong as hard won life knowledge.

No sir I believe that the so called Eco challenge is ill directed based on failed logic and in extreme will murder our economy on the sacrificial altar of pomposity panic and muddled thought. This is a view that is approaching critical mass that knows it is a con.

I urge you sir forget what you learnt in Uni go out into the world and re examine your views in the light of nature.
No sir I am educated, in the school of the bush world when you become part of nature it makes your mind open to all and we can’t be conned nor bullied and the cat is getting outa the bag on this climate baloney.

Thanks
Yours sincerely.
Danny
# Walter E. Cohn
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:56 PM
Hello, Senator Joyce,

The proposed legislation is an affront to Australian voters who would be giving away their constitutional rights to an unelected body of strangers who cannot understand Australia and the importance of ourselves choosing our legislators, and not have them appouinted by an unseen bureaucracy. The pretence of mere people causing climate change is like Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty saying: "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean - nothing more or less." Believing because one wishes it to be true is not science, neither is consensus.

Cheers for you,
Walter.
# gael
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 10:37 AM
I believe the World Government is a Fascist Society run by greedy power hungry men and women who are bent on enslaving the world through poverty. Mr Rudd and Mr Turnbull want to be a part of the chosen few, and are willing to destroy Australia if it means they will earn Brownie points with the enlightened ones.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 10:40 AM
Thanks for your efforts. This ridiculous scheme is creating the very food shortage the WTO claims needs to be prevented.
# Damian
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 11:11 AM
You should be leader of this country Barnaby, you get out and meet the true Australian hard workers.
I am telling all that I know to sign this, this petition came to me, it is spreading like wild fire.... And to think that a tax is going to help, why does it offend people to stop this so much ? Because they get lots of money, it will be like a new gst, to fund the elite like Gore and all his supporters and scientists. They can hear the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ now.
NO MORE, WE NEED TO FIGHT. TAKE OUR FREEDOM BACK PEOPLE !!!
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 8:47 PM
Why is Rudd dividing the nation abour the ETT. He is doing the same with the boat people invasion. We need more politions like you Barnarby
# Peter Morris
Thursday, November 12, 2009 6:03 PM
What is wrong with producing and exporting wood, rather than wheat?

Perhaps that will be hard on countries that can't feed themselves, but shouldn't such countries control their populations, so they are able to live within their means?
# Peter Morris
Thursday, November 12, 2009 6:10 PM
Before abandoning science, lets look at some facts.

Arctic sea ice extent is still decreasing.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/index.html
(See the plot at right.)

Larger image here
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

Australian climate variability & change - Time series graphs show increasing temperatures
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=0

Australian evaluation of climate change claims
http://www.bom.gov.au/info/GreenhouseEffectAndClimateChange.pdf





# Rolly
Thursday, November 12, 2009 9:36 PM
You have my vote! This ETS is really unAustralian and smells to much like UN empire building.
I believe solid infratructure is the way to go, eg daming of the Diamond, Thompson, Barcoo even the Paroo and warrego rivers to provide all year round water for the Darling and onto the mighty Murray. Where there is water there's life. This is just a thought and unlike the Traveston Crossing debacle this could become Australia's food basket and grow more trees and eliminate the "carbon sink forest" for a tax break for the super rich. Thank you Barnaby its good be represented then governed.
# Bob Johnson of Stanthorpe
Thursday, November 12, 2009 9:46 PM
Spoken like a true Australian who understands the work ethic of our farmers. I agree wholeheartedly with all that you said in that speech. Trees should not replace crops and the urban benefactors of the tax "holiday" should not get any tax advantage. Those who think trees are better than crops or pasture should stop and consider the fact that crops take up carbon quicker than trees. i know they dont lock up carbon for as long as trees but trees release a lot more when they die or are burnt (eg, in bushfires). Keep soldiering on Barnaby. A lot of Australians are behind you pushing to stop this nonsense before it is too late.
# w burgermeister
Thursday, November 12, 2009 9:55 PM
carbon tradeing is evil must be stoped
# Gregory Rauchle
Friday, November 13, 2009 7:58 AM
CARBON COMMUNISM HAS TO BE STOPPED!!!!!
THANK GOD SOMEBODY IS STANDING UP TO RUDD/WONG ON THIS CRAP!
# Julie Hobson
Friday, November 13, 2009 9:27 AM
Would like some feedback on the Petition numbers re the ETS Treaty that Barnaby is running.
I know how many people in my circle of contacts that question the validity of so called global warming - 70%. So it would be interesting to gauge the wider communities view on this subject.

Regards Julie
# Julie Hobson
Friday, November 13, 2009 9:28 AM
Would like some feedback on the Petition numbers re the ETS Treaty that Barnaby is running.
I know how many people in my circle of contacts that question the validity of so called global warming - 70%. So it would be interesting to gauge the wider communities view on this subject.

Regards Julie
# kevin morrison
Friday, November 13, 2009 3:14 PM
G'Day Barnaby, A site for you to use for the alarmist people who think humans are causing global warming ( now climate change ) is The Malankovitch Theory Cheers Kevin.
Saturday, November 14, 2009 6:58 AM

THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE
Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc.
Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory,
Head of the Russian/Ukrainian joint project Astrometria
(translated from Russian by Lucy Hancock)
Experts of the United Nations in regular reports publish data said to show that the Earth is approaching a catastrophic global warming, caused by increasing emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. However, observations of the Sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is "not guilty" and as for what lies ahead in the upcoming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged, temperature drop.
Life on earth completely depends on solar radiation, the ultimate source of energy for natural processes. For a long time it was thought that the luminosity of the Sun never changes, and for this reason the quantity of solar energy received per second over one square meter above the atmosphere at the distance of the Earth from the Sun (149 597 892 km), was named the solar constant.
Until 1978, precise measurements of the value of the total solar irradiance (TSI) were not available. But according to indirect data, namely the established major climate variations of the Earth in recent millennia, one must doubt the invariance of its value.
In the middle of the nineteenth century, German and Swiss astronomers Heinrich Schwabe and Rudolf Wolf established that the number of spots on the surface of the Sun periodically changes, diminishing from a maximum to a minimum, and then growing again, over a time frame on the order of 11 years. Wolf introduced an index (“W”) of the relative number of sunspots, computed as the sum of 10 times number of sunspot groups plus the total number of spots in all groups. This number has been regularly measured since 1849. Drawing on the work of professional astronomers and the observations of amateurs (which are of uncertain reliability) Wolf worked out a reconstruction of monthly values from 1749 as well as annual values from 1700. Today, the reconstruction of this time series stretches back to 1611. It has an eleven-year cycle of recurrence as well as other cycles related to onset and development of individual sunspot groups: changes in the fraction of the solar surface occupied by faculae, the frequency of prominences, and other phenomena in the solar chromosphere and corona.
Analyzing the long record of sunspot numbers, the English astronomer Walter Maunder in 1893 came to the conclusion that from 1645 to 1715 sunspots had been generally absent. Over the thirty-year period of the Maunder Minimum, astronomers of the time counted only about 50 spots. Usually, over that length of time, about 50,000 sunspots would appear. Today, it has been established that such minima have repeatedly occurred in the past. It is also known that the Maunder Minimum accompanied the coldest phase of a global temperature dip, physically measured in Europe and other regions, the most severe such dip for several millennia, which stretched from the fourteenth to the nineteenth centuries (now known as the Little Ice Age).
The search for a relationship between large climate variations and phenomena observed in the Sun led to an interest in finding a connection between periods of change in the terrestrial climate and corresponding significant changes in the level of observed solar activity, because the sunspot number is the only index that has been measured over a long period of time.
Variations in solar activity and climate
Analyzing data on solar activity, the American astrophysicist John Eddy in 1976 noted a correlation between periods of significant change in the number of spots in the past millennium and large changes in the climate of the Earth, changes that have profoundly influenced the life of peoples and states, initiating economic and demographic crises. Later, St. Petersburg geophysicist Eugene Borisenkov showed (1988) that in each of 18 deep minima of solar activity of the Maunder Minimum type, minima which have occurred about every 200 years for the last 7500 years, there have been periods of deep temperature decline, while in the periods of high sunspot maxima, there have been periods of global warming. Such changes in the climate of the Earth could be caused only by lasting and significant changes in the Sun, because there was absolutely no industrial effect on nature in those times. This supports the idea that in the bicentennial periods of maximum levels of solar activity, the TSI has always substantially increased, and it has noticeably decreased in periods of minima.
Thus, not 11-year, but bicentennial cycles of solar variation are the dominant factor in climate variations that last for decades: temperatures in the ocean-atmosphere system, the physical parameters of the earth’s surface and its albedo, concentrations of greenhouse gases (primarily water vapor and carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere. Also, a quite important influence on climate is exerted by the world ocean, which possesses large thermal inertia and serves as the principal receiver and storage of solar energy.
Inconstancy of the TSI
At present there is a continuous sequence of observations of values of the TSI S􀁾
from 1978 (heavy line in Fig. 1), directly measured by space instruments. The largest value was observed in solar cycle 22 (of the "short" 11-year cycles), which fell in the maximum of the bicentennial cycle. This value was 1365.98 ± 0.02 W/m2. In solar cycle 23, the maximum was substantially less: 1365.79 W/m2. The values of the TSI measured in the minima of solar cycles 21, 22 and 23 were 1365.57, 1365.50 and 1365.17 W/m2 respectively. Finally, from 1 July through September 2008 the constant was 1365.10 W/m2. The amplitude of the 11-year oscillations of the TSI during the maximum of the bicentennial cycle was approximately 1.0 W/m2, or 0.07%; from the beginning of the 1990s it began to decline gradually. The level relative to which these oscillations occur is the bicentennial component of variation in the TSI, revealed by us in 2005 (dotted line in Fig. 1).
Comparison of trends in variation of the TSI with sunspot number shows that the Sun emits more energy per month at its minimum, namely when the number of sunspots is a maximum (Fig. 2). But, unfortunately, even in textbooks on the climatology the opposite is said about the TSI and there is no reference at all to its bicentennial component.
2
Fig. 1. Variation in the TSI during the period 1978 to 2008 (heavy line) and its bicentennial component (dash line), revealed by us. Distinct short-term upward excursions are caused by the passage of faculae on the solar disk, and downward excursions by the passage of sunspot groups. (Graph is taken from the site www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant)
Fig. 2. Variation of the TSI (a);
of the average monthly values of sunspot number W (b) since 1978.
3
Fig. 3. Variation in the TSI drawing on the data reconstruction of Lean, J.L (2000) and Wang Y. - M., Lean J.L., Sheeley N.R. (2005) up to 1978, sunspot activity of the Sun from 1611, and changes forecast by us after 2008 (dotted lines).
The bicentennial component of the variation in the TSI has decreased serially at a rate that has been accelerating from the 21st solar cycle to the 22nd and 23rd (dotted line in Fig. 1). A comparable drop within the same period, as expected, is observed in the fluctuations of the number of spots (heavy line in Fig. 3). It is tentatively appropriate to assume: if in the maximum of 11-year “short” cycle the relative number of spots is less than 80, then the Sun is cold (intensity of radiated energy is lower than average), while if the sunspot number is greater than 80, the Sun is hotter than average. The presently-observed simultaneous drop in the bicentennial components of both the value of TSI and the level of solar activity, a drop which is accelerating, indicates the beginning of the actively-decreasing phase of a “long” (200-year) solar cycle.
Variations in the TSI – the result of changing the radius
Oscillation in the intensity of solar radiation follows from changes in the radius of the Sun. When the radiating surface increases, luminosity grows. The TSI is determined by the relationship:
where is the Stephan-Boltzmann constant, A the average distance from Sun to earth (the astronomical unit); R􀁾= 695 900 ± 70 km the radius of the Sun; and Teff = 5776 K the Sun’s
effective temperature. A differential change in the TSI is expressed thus:
4
Such a change occurs as a result of the flow of complex processes in the interior of the Sun. Even a smooth change in the temperature of surface layer, no more than 10-3 °K in a 24-hour period, leads to disruption of hydrostatic equilibrium (the balance between internal pressure and gravity). Restoration of thermodynamic equilibrium can be achieved through a change in the size of the Sun to that value which restores balance; specifically, restores the temperature of the surface to the previous level, such that ΔTeff = 0, thus the relationship:
In that case, alternations in the TSI occur as a result of fluctuations in the radius of the Sun with an amplitude of up to 250 km in the 11-year cycle, and 700-800 km in the bicentennial cycle (Fig. 3). The precise value of these fluctuations serves as the most important indicator of both the TSI and the level of solar activity. Therefore, long-term, high-precision measurements of the solar radius would facilitate a more-reliable estimate of the value of the TSI and its fluctuations.
The bicentennial or “long” cycle of solar activity plays the predominant role in laws governing the development of the daughter or “short” 11-year cycles, since the latter’s duration sequentially increases during the increasing phase of the long cycle, until the maximum of the “long” cycle occurs and its decrease sets in (Fig. 4). The duration of the current solar cycle 23 (12 years) is not an exception to this rule and on the whole it supports the hypothesis of dependence. This cycle’s uniqueness consists in the fact that it has become the most prolonged among all the reliably observed cycles in more than 150 years of observations. This further confirms the initiation of the actively-decreasing phase of the bicentennial cycle.
The existence of cycles of solar activity in which solar activity, luminosity and diameter vary in synchrony is reliably established. Strictly speaking, the Sun is never found in a steady state of energetic and mechanical equilibrium. The Sun is a variable star, which changes its parameters under “short” and “long” cycles, and its behavior cannot be precisely predicted. Studies of cyclic variation in the behavior of the Sun and of the processes that occur in its interior have great value for astrophysics; the theory of stars was conceived and later substantiated through solar research. Unfortunately, direct observation of comparable fluctuations of the intensity of emission and radius of other stars cannot be undertaken in the near future.
Still, cyclic variations in the level of solar activity/sunspot number, though they occur in parallel with fluctuations of the solar radius and TSI, themselves have virtually no effect on the terrestrial climate.
5
Fig. 4. Dependence of the duration of the 11-year cycles of the sunspot activity (R) on the phase of bicentennial cycle (X - 23rd cycle). Plotted on the Y-axis is the duration “short” cycles; plotted on the X-axis - phase of bicentennial cycle.
Fig. 5. Observed variations in the 11-year sunspot activity (continuous thin line) and the bicentennial activity of the Sun (continuous heavy line) 1700-2008, and our forecast of variations in these values for the period of 2009-2042 (dotted lines).
6
Variation in the temperature in the interior of the Sun
Changes in the temperature of the Sun’s core result in corresponding changes of pressure; equilibrium is disrupted. Fluctuations of the energy of thermonuclear fusion in the solar core may be the cause of the transience of the thermodynamic state of the Sun. Long-period radial motions of plasma, cyclically reversing direction depending on changes in the temperature, must be taking place within the Sun. These radial motions of plasma in turn may catalyze change in the number of sunspots and the TSI. The additional energy released in solar core may be the source of energy for these motions.
The amplitude of fluctuations of the temperature of the solar core, and in turn of the radius of the Sun, would determine the power of the solar cycle. Small amplitudes may initiate weak cycles (i.e., where the increase in the level of activity and the value of TSI are small), and large amplitudes initiate powerful cycles. A missing change, or very small one, in the temperature of the solar core at its minimum could lead to deep “downfall” similar to the Maunder minimum.
Consequently, the precise value of the radius of the Sun and its relative changes serve as parameters of the first importance and are among basic indicators of the value of the TSI and the level of activity of sunspot formation.
Fig. 6. Increase of the ice cover in the Arctic in 2008.
7
Prediction of variations in solar cycles 24 to 27
The changing gradient of the bicentennial component of variation in the TSI observed over three consecutive “short” cycles (Fig. 1) delineates further dynamics in the value of the TSI and the level of solar activity, not only of these cycles but also subsequent cycles although with somewhat smaller accuracy. From this consideration, the most probable maximum in the next, the 24th, solar cycle, will be at sunspot number 65 ± 15. But in the subsequent cycles 25-26, falling in the present bicentennial cycle’s phase of active decrease, the trend toward reduction in the absolute value of the TSI will persist, together with decrease in the level of corresponding maxima in solar activity to 45 ± 20 and sunspot number to 30 ± 20 (Fig. 3, 5). Therefore we would expect the onset of the phase of deep minimum in the present 200-year cycle of cyclic activity of the Sun to occur at the beginning of solar cycle 27; i.e., tentatively in the year 2042 plus or minus 11 years, and potentially lasting 45-65 years.
Reduction in the TSI and the future temperature drop
The most significant solar event in the 20th century was the extraordinarily high level and the prolonged (virtually over the entire century) increase in the intensity of the energy radiated by the Sun (Fig. 3). A similar rise in solar radiation has not been observed in at least 700 years. However, its consequence - the global warming of climate - that followed, was not an anomalous event in the life of the Earth. Climate on the Earth has periodically changed, and our planet during the course of the well-studied, most recent millennia has repeatedly survived global warming, comparable to that of the current period, after each of which episodes the temperature has dropped deeply, in a bicentennial cycle. Neither temperature drop nor warming lasts longer than the 200-year fluctuations of size and luminosity of the Sun.
Fig. 7. Observed trend toward temperature decrease. Figure from the site http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
8
The observed prolonged high maximum of solar activity that occurred during the 11th to 12th centuries’ warming period (the Minor Climate Optimum), which was comparable to contemporary warming or even greater, caused serious climate changes. In Scotland vineyards were cultivated; Greenland completely justified its name of "green land" and was settled by Normans at the end of the tenth and beginning of the eleventh century. But a subsequent deep fall in the temperature (the Maunder minimum, the coldest phase of the Little Ice Age) froze all the channels in Holland, in London froze the Thames, in Paris froze the Seine, and in Greenland caused the glaciers to grow, forcing people to leave its centuries-old settlements.
The intense solar energy flow radiated since the beginning of the 1990's is slowly decreasing and, in spite of conventional opinion, there is now an unavoidable advance toward a global temperature decrease, a deep temperature drop comparable to the Maunder minimum (Fig. 5). By the middle of this century the shortage of solar energy received may be on the order of 0.2% of its maximum average level in the 1980’s; thus, about 3 W/m2. Although the change in the TSI would be at a level of about 0.07% in the “short” cycle, its influence on the climate would be smoothed out by the thermal inertia of the world ocean. However, if a similar shortage persists over two cycles, the climate will unavoidably change, with a time delay of 17 ± 5 years because of the thermal inertia just noted.
Fig. 8. Forecast of the scenario of a deep temperature drop of climate in the middle of the 21st Century.
At present, in the 23rd “short” solar cycle, which has extended to 12 years, the upper atmosphere receives in average 0.19 W/m2 less solar energy than it did in the 22nd solar cycle. Annually, the shortage is 6 x 106 joules/m2, while over an entire cycle, the hemisphere of the earth turned to the Sun – an area of 127.5 x 106 km2 – will receive 24 million megajoules less energy than before. The Sun no longer heats the Earth as before. Our planet experiences a shortage of energy comparable with the summed power of 21 million nuclear power plants; it is living under the conditions of a cooling
9
Sun. Consequently, we should expect not the catastrophic melting of ice, but, on the contrary, the gradual growth of ice caps at the poles. It has already begun: the area of ice cover in the Arctic in September 2008 (4.52 mln. km2), in spite of all forecasts, rose by 390 thousand km2 above that of a year ago (when it was 4.13 mln. km2) and in the subsequent four months it grew substantially further (Fig. 6).
British researchers assert that the current temperature drop is due to the La Niña phenomenon (this name is a translation from the Spanish “la niña” meaning “a girl”) in the Pacific Ocean, on the coasts of Ecuador, Peru and Columbia. This phenomenon is characterized by an anomalous decrease in the temperature of the surface of ocean averaging 0.5-1 degrees. This directly distinguishes the phenomenon from another widely known phenomenon – the El Niño (El Niño - “a boy”), which is characterized by an anomalous increase in the temperature of the surface of ocean. The two phenomena are equally complex to forecast and to understand. American geophysicists, who have studied them, assume that they can only be short-term fluctuations in a longer natural cycle, the “super-Niño”. We consider that all these phenomena (El Niño, La Niña, and “super-Niño”) are generated by the 11-year and bicentennial fluctuations of the intensity of solar energy radiation. The presence of correlation among them indicates this.
The tendency toward a decline in global temperature observed in 2006-2008 (Fig. 7) will stop temporarily in 2010-2012. Then an increase in the TSI is expected, as solar cycle 24 (a “short” cycle) will temporarily compensate for the declining bicentennial component. But if solar activity in the “short” cycle does not rise sufficiently, the cooling of planet will begin to the deep temperature drop in 2055-2060 ± 11 years, when temperature will be lower by 1.0 – 1.5 degrees. The following climate minimum will last 45-65 years, after which warming will necessarily begin, but only at the beginning of the 22nd century (Fig. 8).
Measurements on the board of the Russian segment of the International Space Station
More-precise determination of the date of the onset of the upcoming deep temperature drop and the depth of the decrease in the global temperature of the Earth may be achievable in eight years. For this it will be necessary to conduct precise (with an error no greater than ± 3-5 km) measurements of the form and diameter of the Sun, from the Russian segment of the International Space Station, and within the framework of the Russian - Ukrainian project Astrometria. In the Pulkovo Observatory within the project framework more than ten years of active work has been conducted on development of an unique instrument, the solar limbograph SL -200, whose delivery to the space station is planned for the beginning of 2011 (Fig. 9). The data on changing solar intensity that we will collect over about six years will enable an extrapolation to past and future periods and development of a more precise scenario of future climate change. It is precisely for this that the project is viewed as one of high applied significance.
10
Fig. 9. Integration of the components of instrumental complex of the solar limbograph SL-200 of the Astrometria project on the external surface of the Russian segment of the ISS: 1 – Service module; 2 – Block of optics and mechanics (BOM) of the SL-200; 3 and 9 – Dedicated fine tracking platform; 4 – Universal work site (UWS-D); 5 – Block of mirror light filter of the BOM; 6 – Photoguide; 7 – Tube of the SL-200; 8 – Block of the heliophotomicrometer of the BOM.
Distant past of the terrestrial climate
In experiments on ice from the boreholes of Greenland and Antarctica (near the station "Vostok") at a depth of more than three kilometers are found bubbles of air from the epochs when the snow was stored. In these bubbles, using modern methods of high accuracy, researchers establish the CO2 content, oxygen, and other components of the relict atmosphere, and also the temperature at which the snow fell. It has been seen that substantial increases in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and global climate warming have occurred cyclically, even when there was as yet no industrial action on nature. It has also been established that periodic, very substantial increases in the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere for a period of 420 thousand years never preceded warming, but, on the contrary, always followed an increase in the temperature with a delay of 200-800 years, i.e., they were its consequence (Fig. 10). But the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during the glacial periods of Earth history was always about half that of the present.
11
Fig. 10. Change in the temperature on the Earth and the concentration of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere for the last 420,000 years. Figure from the site http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
Increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases is not the reason for global warming, but on the contrary, the natural consequence of an increase in the temperature. The increase of greenhouse gases occurs with a delay, the period necessary for the warming of the world ocean and melting of icebergs (200-800 years). The ocean serves as the basic depository of CO2, and since the solubility of gas in the water decreases with an increase in the temperature, the warming of the ocean leads to the emission of this large volume into the atmosphere. A further source of CO2 entering the atmosphere was revealed several years ago by the Far-Eastern Department of the Russian Academy of Sciences: the huge amount of algae frozen into the icebergs that drift in the Arctic and near the Antarctic coasts. Falling into warm water after the melting of ice, they rot, giving out carbon dioxide. Consequently, the widespread point of view of the determining role of industrial human activity on the global warming of climate is the result of substituting cause for effect.
Thus, the observed global warming of the climate of the Earth is caused not by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, but primarily by extraordinarily high solar intensity that extended over virtually the entire past century. Future decrease in global temperature will occur even if anthropogenic ejection of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere rises to record levels.
Fig. 11. Observed stabilization of temperature for the last ten years and its tendency to drop in 2006-2008.
12
Warming on Mars and other planets
A global increase in temperature has also occurred on Mars. NASA researchers, after tracing changes on its surface from 1999 until 2005, discovered melting ice at Mars’ south pole and warming of the Martian climate, a natural event that occurred without any contribution by Martians or greenhouse effect driven by Martians. Analogous processes have also been observed on Jupiter, Neptune, Triton, Pluto and other planets of the solar system. These can only be the direct consequences of the action of one and the same factor - the prolonged and extraordinarily high level of the energy radiated by the Sun.
Warming on Mars did not occur as a result of change in the shape of its orbit and inclination of its axis of rotation, as is frequently asserted: these processes occur on time frames of tens of thousands of years, and therefore in this negligible time frame (six years!) in no way could they affect the climate. The recently-observed dust storms on Mars could arise as a result of uneven heating of various regions on the surface of planet by anomalously intensive solar radiation. Warming in turn led to change in the surfaces of planets so that they absorb more solar energy, and the physical properties of planetary atmospheres changed. These indirect results of the influence of the Sun caused increase in temperature additional to that directly caused by the bicentennial increase in the TSI.
According to the calculations carried out both in our laboratory and by foreign colleagues, the direct influence of a bicentennial variation in the TSI accounts for only about half of the amplitude of change in the global temperature of the Earth and only at first. The other half is an indirect impact: with a change in the temperature comes a change in the reflectivity of the earth's surface and change in the concentration of water vapor, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, each of which additionally and sharply accelerates further change in temperature.
There is no ocean on Mars; therefore its thermal inertia is much lower, and cooling begins much faster than the Earth. A drop in its temperature is a harbinger of temperature drop on Earth.
Influence of water vapor and carbon dioxide
Calculations carried out in our laboratory have showed that the energy absorbed by CO2 (in the absorption bands 2.2-3 μm; 3.6-4.7 μm; 12.8-17.3 μm) and water vapour H2O (4.4-8.8 μm; 5.5-7.5 μm; 15-30 μm and more than 20 μm), constitute approximately 63% of the entire thermal radiation of the Earth. About 51% is absorbed by water vapor and only about 12% by carbon dioxide. The Earth's atmosphere transmits about 10% of its own thermal emission into space, and the remaining 27% is absorbed by clouds and molecules of other greenhouse gases, primarily methane. Thus, water vapor absorbs more than half of all the radiated heat, and carbon dioxide takes only second place.
If it were possible to withdraw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, its absorption would decrease from 63 to 51%. However, an increase in the concentration of
13
carbon dioxide will cause virtually no increase in absorption. This is explained by the fact that in the wavelength range 4.7-12.8 μm (infrared radiation) carbon dioxide virtually does not absorb. The basic atmospheric window is located in the wavelength range 9-12 μm, while the maximum of the earth’s blackbody radiation is about 10 μm. Outside the transmission window radiation does not pass into space, even with the present level of the concentration of carbon dioxide.
A basic effect on the thermal condition of the Earth has precisely a variation in the TSI. With its decrease by 1.0 W/m2 the temperature of the Earth may decline up to 0.2 degrees, and the mean albedo of surface increase approximately to 0.003 (according to calculations, an increase in the albedo of 0.01 leads to a decrease in average annual temperature of approximately 0.7 degrees).
Determinative role of the Sun in variations in the climate of the Earth
The Earth, after receiving and storing over the twentieth century an anomalously large amount of heat energy, from the 1990's began to return it gradually. The upper layers of the world ocean, completely unexpectedly to climatologists, began to cool in 2003. The heat accumulated by them unfortunately now is running out.
Over the past decade, global temperature on the Earth has not increased; global warming has ceased, and already there are signs of the future deep temperature drop (Fig. 7, 11). Meantime the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over these years has grown by more than 4%, and in 2006 many meteorologists predicted that 2007 would be the hottest of the last decade. This did not occur, although the global temperature of the Earth would have increased at least 0.1 degree if it depended on the concentration of carbon dioxide. It follows that warming had a natural origin, the contribution of CO2 to it was insignificant, anthropogenic increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide does not serve as an explanation for it, and in the foreseeable future CO2 will not be able to cause catastrophic warming. The so-called greenhouse effect will not avert the onset of the next deep temperature drop, the 19th in the last 7500 years, which without fail follows after natural warming.
The earth is no longer threatened by the catastrophic global warming forecast by some scientists; warming passed its peak in 1998-2005, while the value of the TSI by July - September of last year had already declined by 0.47 W/m2 (Fig. 1).
For several years until the beginning in 2013 of a steady temperature drop, in a phase of instability, temperature will oscillate around the maximum that has been reached, without further substantial rise. Changes in climatic conditions will occur unevenly, depending on latitude. A temperature decrease in the smallest degree would affect the equatorial regions and strongly influence the temperate climate zones. The changes will have very serious consequences, and it is necessary to begin preparations even now, since there is practically no time in reserve. The global temperature of the Earth has begun its decrease without limitations on the volume of greenhouse gas emissions by industrially developed countries; therefore the implementation of the Kyoto protocol aimed to rescue the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off at least 150 years.
14
Consequently, we should fear a deep temperature drop, but not catastrophic global warming. Humanity must survive the serious economic, social, demographic and political consequences of a global temperature drop, which will directly affect the national interests of almost all countries and more than 80% of the population of the Earth. A deep temperature drop is a considerably greater threat to humanity than warming. However, a reliable forecast of the time of the onset and of the depth of the global temperature drop will make it possible to adjust in advance the economic activity of humanity, to considerably weaken the crisis.
REFERENCES
1. Borisenkov E.P. Climate variations during the last millennium. – Leningrad, 1988.
2. Abdussamatov H.I. On the decrease of the flow of solar radiation and a decrease in the global temperature of the Earth to the state of deep temperature drop in the middle of the 21st Century // Proceedings of KrAO, 2007, Vol. 103, № 4, p. 292 - 298.
3. Abdussamatov H.I. et al. Project Astrometria on the measurement of the time variations in form and diameter of the Sun on the service module of the Russian segment of the ISS // Proceedings of RAS, physical section, 2007, Vol. 71, № 4, p. 611 - 616.
4. Scafetta N. and West B. J. Is Climate Sensitive to Solar Variability? // Physics Today, 2008, #3, Vol. 61.
November, 2008
15

THE SUN HAS ALWAYS CONTROLLED GLOBAL WARMING AND COOLING

Look at the Sun—that raging nuclear furnace, that is what controls the earths temperature, not miniscule variations of CO2 in tens of Parts Per Million or :054% of the atmosphere; earth is driven by celestial variations.
Global warming is dressed-up as science but is not, it is propaganda to generate fear and new tax regimes—the brain washing has generated a religion of believers—but the climate is always changing, it always has, long before industry was developed.

When supernovas collapsed millions of years ago they discharged subatomic particles, these Cosmic-rays consistently strike earth, when they meet water-vapour rising from the oceans they cause the formation of water droplets—making clouds.

When Sun-spots form, which are massive nuclear reactions with intense magnetic fields causing solar winds which swirl around the earth, these solar-winds deflect the Cosmic-rays from striking earth which result in less cloud formation and more heat from the sun warms the earth.

When there are less Sun-spots, more Cosmic-rays reach earth, more clouds are formed and less sun gets through and the earth cools——it is the sun that drives climate change not miniscule variations of CO2. We cannot change the sun— this is what causes global warming—the intensity of the suns magnetic field has more than doubled in the 20th Century. If you add the current massive undersea volcanic activity to this you have ice melting and ocean temperatures rising.

If adverse greenhouse gasses were influencing temperature change it would be measurable in the troposphere 10kms above the equator, but it is not there—without the greenhouse gas effect trapping heat from the sun, earth would freeze. Water vapour comprises 96% of greenhouse gas. As there is no evidence of adverse greenhouse gasses in the troposphere being the cause of global warming—what is causing it? The answer to that question will give the world a reality wake-up.

Oceans hold vast amounts of CO2, as they warm and expand release CO2 and as they cool they absorb CO2, but there is a time lag of about 800 years behind world temperatures due to the massive volume of the oceans; CO2 has never driven climate change in the past when it was much higher than now.

Land masses rise and fall through natural earth movements and ocean levels rise and fall due to thermal effect over hundreds of years—these are natural cycles: NASA photos show ice recedes for decades and then increases.

In the Little-ice-age (1400 – 1600) the Thames River froze, if we look at European art of this time we see dark grey skies. In the Medieval warm period (1000 – 1400), Chaucer wrote ‘They grew grapes in northern England’, The street names are still there ‘The Vineyard (Richmond), Vine Street (Westminster), Vine Hill (Holbourne). Warming allows frozen areas to be habitable, warmer areas have greater biodiversity and food production; natural changes of a few tenths-of-a-degree and fools go into panic. Vegetable growers increase CO2 in hot houses by about 300% increasing production by 40%, food production world wide will increase if CO2 increases and starvation will decrease.

Greenland’s margins were indeed green and settled by the Vikings (1000 – 1423), until permafrost suddenly hit in about 1423; in 1421 the Chinese Navy recorded the artic ocean free of ice, earth temperature changes are natural cycles. 7 – 8000 years ago Russian permafrost melted far more than now: 8000 years ago the Holocene period of the Bronze and Stone Ages were far warmer than now for three millennia.

Life was abundant until forced to adapt to freezing conditions that caused mass extinctions—1000’s of frozen Mammoths in Siberia. North America and Europe have spent long periods frozen with ice a kilometre thick in places—that has been the norm for longer periods than the current interglacial warm period.

In the past 150 years temperature has increased just over half a degree C, most of it in the early part of the 20th Century before 1940—then cooled for 35 years during the industrial years to 1975 when CO2 was increasing dramatically. In post war years CO2 went up and temperature down with scientists saying an Ice-age was eminent—the facts do not fit the global warming theory. See the attached graph (Temp – 140 years) from the IPCC.

In 1893 Edward Maunder a British Astronomer showed the Little-Ice-Age was caused by lack of Sun-spots.
NASA and the US National Oceanic Institution have shown CO2 is irrelevant to global warming.

The aforementioned is the story of research evidence and accompanying graphs from those listed hereunder.
Professor Eigil Fris-Christensen. Director, Danish National Space Centre.
Professor Paul Reiter. Pasteur Institute.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor John Christy. Director, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabamain Hunstville.
Lead Author, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Dr Roy Spencer. Principle Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Professor Richard Lindzen. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Nir Shaviv. Instiute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Professor Ian Clark. Dept of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
Professor Patrick Michaels. Dept of Environmental Science, University of Virginia.
Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu. Director International Artic Research Center.
Professor Phillip Scott. Emeritus Professor of Biogeography, University of London.
Dr Tim Ball. Former Professor of Climatology, University of Winnipeg.
Piers Corbyn. Climate Forecast, Weather Action UK.
Nigel Calder. Former Editor, New Scientist.
Those above have shown by research that global warming and cooling is caused by the effects of Sun-spots, that the fundamental assumptions on global warming being caused by CO2 is wrong.

They advise the UN’s IPCC is a small group of scientists and academics whose opinion is not supported by the vast majority of world scientists—their bibliography show they are not the world’s top scientists—with politically driven conclusions.

(Professor Paul Reiter took legal action against the IPCC forcing them to remove his name as a supporter of their nonsense reports, they claimed as he had worked for them they had a right to list his name—others did not go to this length.)

Piers Corbyn: Climate Forecast, Weather Action UK, took the UK Meteorological Office to task over the consistently wrong weather forecasts and broadcast his forecasts based on Sun-spot activity—he was correct far more times than the Met-Office.

In 2005 the House of Lords set up an inquiry into scientific evidence of global warming: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Lawson of Blaby, was the first to commit government funds to study global warming; he stated ‘The conclusions were weak and uncertain’ and opposes the nonsense. There is a vested interest in climate change to keep the money flowing, it has become big-business—a growth industry within itself—tens-of-thousands are now employed—they cannot now admit it’s a fraud or they would suddenly be unemployed. Environmental journalists are even employed to perpetuate the propaganda.

31,072 US scientists including 9,021 with PhDs, disagree that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing global warming and have petitioned the US government?
See: http.//www.petitionproject.org/ At that address you can contact them individually.
Their combined scientific knowledge far exceeds that of politicians: Scientists have by fact and history proven their point—politicians have only proven how little they know of real science and causative factors of global warming.


The global warming Sayers are ignorant of history and facts, when Hannibal, the Carthagenian General, took his elephants across the alps to attack Rome there was no ice—today the pass is a wall of ice. They grew grapes in England and it was warm in Siberia, the warm temperate climate enabled increased food production, biodiversity and forests—then the little ice-age came and the Thames froze, food production areas decreased and the people had to retreat to warmer areas—another five degree warmer and starvation could be eliminated—cold is the greatest danger to civilisation, food production and forests. To claim CO2 is the cause of warming is ignorance, scientifically wrong and deliberately misleading the Parliament. We have droughts in Australian and cruel freezing winters in Europe and the US, climates are naturally erratic and many believe affected by volcanic dust particles and aluminium particle deliberately put into the upper atmosphere to enhance the US ‘Backscatter’ radar system plus additive particles from aircraft emissions above the storm-barrier.

Recent massive volcanoes in the ocean floor deep under the Arctic ice cap are spewing plumes of fragmented magma into the sea, scientists filmed the aftermath. The eruptions as big as the one that buried Pompei took place in 1999 along the Gakkel Ridge, an underwater mountain chain 1,800 kilometres long from Greenland to Siberia under the Arctic ice, were molten rock is forming a new crust. In the valley the two 12km wide coastal plates are coming apart causing serious volcanic activity. Their images and data show that red-hot magma has been rising from deep inside the Earth and has blown the tops off dozens of submarine volcanoes, four kilometres below the ice. “Explosive volatile discharge has clearly been widespread and an ongoing process”[1]. We need to understand that the Arctic Ocean is a fairly closed system residing in a large bowl shaped depression with limited outlets that rise to much shallower depths, it is a natural basin with little circulation; which volcanoes are heating.

These volcanoes are melting the ice and pouring out CO2, they are the major cause of Global Warming—why aren’t the press and politicians disclosing these facts?

1Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts

The volcanoes effect of global warming is so great it cannot be ignored—even by fools. The Smithsonian Volcanism Project list 1581 volcanoes on land: http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/allnames...
In a 30 day period between 23 June and 23 July2007, there were 318 earthquakes above 4.0 on the Richter scale. Eleven of the earthquakes during that period were above 6.0 magnitudes. The number and intensity of these events signify a major global upheaval.
The Arctic Ocean is a fairly closed system that resides in a large bowl shaped depression with only limited outlets that rise to much shallower depths, it’s a natural basin with little circulation. Recent massive volcanoes have risen from the ocean floor deep under the Arctic ice cap, spewing plumes of fragmented magma into the sea, scientists filmed the aftermath. The eruptions — as big as the one that buried Pompei — took place in 1999 along the Gakkel Ridge, an underwater mountain chain snaking 1,800 kilometres from the northern tip of Greenland to Siberia—under the Arctic ice. The two 12 kilometres wide coastal plates are coming apart producing serious volcanic activity. The red-hot magma from deep inside the Earth and has blown the tops off dozens of submarine volcanoes, four kilometres below the ice.
New Scientist 9 Jul 2007 - Researchers have counted 201,055 underwater cones, 10 times more than have been found before, and estimate there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 more than 1000 meters over the sea bed.

ScienceDaily (22 Jan 2008) Evidence of a volcanic eruption from beneath Antarctica's most rapidly changing ice sheet is caused by the Volcanoes under the West Antarctic Ice Sheet that erupted 2000 years ago (325BC) and remains active. The British Antarctic Survey discovered a layer of ash produced by a 'subglacial' volcano extending across an area larger than Wales.

Water vapour in the atmosphere provides 96 percent of the greenhouse effect, of the remaining 4 percent, man-made emissions account for just 0.001 percent, naturally occurring carbon dioxide 0.117 percent, methane 0.066 percent, nitrous oxide 0.047 percent and miscellaneous gases the rest. (Professor Ian Plimer. Sept 2008)

We challenge the government to publish their figures and hold an open public inquiry into ‘What Is The Real Cause Of Global Warming’.

It is time for all facts to be scientifically presented in open ‘Court’, no more opinions from either side – hard evidence only; the people have the right to be treated far more respectfully without to hype and political spin-doctors. This is appears nothing more than a backdoor sham to get a new tax regime established to cover incompetent excess political spending on perks, rorts and feather-nesting their positions and superannuation. Present the facts is open public inquiry and prove CO2 not water vapour is the cause

Is this just a tax fraud against the Australian people?

And much more.
# Marie
Saturday, November 14, 2009 7:00 AM
Hello Barnaby Joyce ,

Keep up the great work ! I only wish you were the Leader of the Coalition !

You truly have Leadership qualities ,and sincerely care about Australia and it's future .
It's just a pity that the Coalition has Malcolm Turnbull as leader , he is more an asset for the Labor Party and perhaps he should have joined the Labor Party ! Sadly , he is destroying the Coalition and I hope the Coalition will dispose of him as leader very soon .

Thank you for being strong and thanks to those Politicians who are with you also .

Kind regards






# brad
Saturday, November 14, 2009 7:23 AM
This whole thing is a fraud, it is an excuse for big brother UN to control the world via one world government. Barnaby get kevy to release the whole of this treaty to the public now, then have a referendum on it to decide if Australia wants to sign it.
Saturday, November 14, 2009 10:33 AM
onya barnaby - i think most of our 21million persons do not know the truth about the lack of a link between co2 and warming (or cooling). nor do they know what is happening in copenhagen. they just have a vague desire to get rid of the smog which is nothing to do with co2.
you had the right idea with a TV debate - national 2hrs with further 2hrs debate after a two week interval. then a vote which would be informed rather than the drivel and scaremongering like the 250,000 homes inundated in today's news (14th nov)
thanks and keep at it!
# Brendan Davies
Saturday, November 14, 2009 10:33 AM
Sir,
With the climate warming debate reaching ridiculous levels, why is it that we rarely if ever, see a televised debate on the topic? I truly believe all sides need to put their hands on their hearts and arrange a supervised forum with a couple of represenatives from government and opposition, CSIRO, respected scientists and a couple of industry leaders.

There needs to be "hard" evidence for both sides of the argument. If the evidence cannot be substantiated (as I expect), then the people become wiser and learn the "truth" rather than an "Incovenient Truth".

With the propoganda and alarmism taking place in our communities, we need to resolve this debate, if possible.

People need to get their heads around history and what this planet has been through on numerous occassions with no influence from mankind at all. There is so much evidence out there that is undisputed, why do the media take us down the track of gloom & doom. For example, if the artic icecap were to melt, water levels as a result of this would actually decrease. Water in the solid form (ice) displaces more volume than when in its liquid form - it's a simple experiment anyone can do at home with some salty water and ice cubes - measure it!!

Regards,
Brendan Davies
# Faye
Saturday, November 14, 2009 4:05 PM
Stop the ETs altogether, Barnaby. Enough of us Aussies know about the Copenhagen Treaty; enough of us to back you to the hilt. Rudd, and Turnbull should be prevented from attending the meeting and exposed for the traitors they are, to our nation.
# Susie Rae
Saturday, November 14, 2009 5:02 PM
Hi Barnaby,

On a different tangent all together I would like to see the government make a decision in regard to exceptional circumstances. Why do they have to leave it until the 11th hour to notify the farmers of their decision in the areas that already receive the e.c. So much is riding on this hand out after our failed crops and pathetic harvest - we need to know asap if we are to be extended or not so that we can make serious plans. It would make Christmas a hell of a lot happier if people new that their exceptional circumstances payments were going to be continued past March 2010 and for how long. If the drought does break it will still take a few years for farmers to recover and get back on track and if it doesn't assistance is going to be essential. This is a natural disaster and we need real help. 2009 harvest is probably one of the worst on record and going into summer we will have little feed and water for stock.
# Angela McCormick
Saturday, November 14, 2009 6:44 PM
Is climate change correct? I struggle to believe that what we are being told is correct, when today's "super computer's" cannot predicit 2 weeks in advance what will be happening weather-wise.

Barnaby, you are on the right track. Please contact us.

Michael McCormick
Landpower Austtalia Pty Ltd
0437 985 467

or

Angela McCormick
0488 956 0512

# Mark
Saturday, November 14, 2009 8:30 PM
This whole GW idea is a crock, the witless idiots that have bought this crap are actually running the country. Australians were always noted for our common sense and practical outlook on issues, but these days it has become 'Uncommon Sense'. Im sick and tired of the whole Rudd fantasy and im tired of his poodlefaking (real word, look it up in the Oxford) sycophants that he surrounds himself with. Already the words out that Australians are suckers and we couldnt run a raffle in a brothel. All aussies that know our country realise that we cant sustain the forcasted population growths, that the immigration policies are are out of control and that the Global Warming scam is totally perpetuated by scaremongering lefty elitists that are rubbing their hands together at the angst and undue bankruptsy they are causing. I for one am tired of it and have had enough. We need some bastard with the guts to speak out and take em on, that means waking up the sleeping majority of Australians, and especially destroying KRUDD and shaking up the weak gutted leader of the opposition. Thats my say.
# Ronald Vincent Rider
Saturday, November 14, 2009 9:21 PM
Dear Barnaby
Please, on behalf of the Australian population protect our economic future.
Without a national referendum on how we all really feel about the illegal imposition of a 7 billion dollar per annum carbon pollution tax, Kevin Rudd must never be allowed to sign away our democratic right to decide in Copenhagen.
Barnaby,STOP HIM. SAVE AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY.SOS.SOS.SOS.....
To be alive is to breathe out carbon dioxide.
Must we all be forced to take the carbon out of life.
Communists are very good at control, and fear, and death, to all who oppose.
For God sake,this is Australia 2009, not USSR 1929
WAKE UP AUSSIE'S. AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE NO RUDD NO
# Peter Schwerdtfeger
Sunday, November 15, 2009 11:41 AM
Dear Senator Joyce, Two days ago I sent the following letter to "The Australian" but I doubt whether it will be published. Here it is:

Consensus is an infectious disease.

Of the sycophantic hordes who are braying the IPCC gospel while assuming professional mantles, I doubt whether 10% have the foggiest understanding of the physics of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Greedy governments will gleefully tax us into our graves while coal and petroleum miners quietly gobble up fortunes.

Certainly burning carboniferous fuels has some undesirable effects, but CO2 is not the most serious.

The World’s most pressing problem is over-population by humans. Better to have a tax on uncontrolled fornication.

With fewer humans to feed, the problem of farting farm animals and the release of even more active methane will solve itself.



Peter Schwerdtfeger

Emeritus Professor of Meteorology

Flinders University

mops@flinders.edu.au

Ph.: (08) 8568 1935

# Brett Goldsworthy
Sunday, November 15, 2009 12:04 PM
Dear Senator Joyce

I am writing to you on the basis of this Blog post and an interview I just watched on Landline with you

I agree the ETS proposed by the Federal Government is nothing short of a tax. It is stupid. I just wish more politicians like yourself could speak out.

Farmers are the livelihood of this country and unlike European farmers who get massive subsidies our farmers struggle

In relation to carbon credits, my small Australian company is actively certifying rainforests in counties like the Philippines - known as Avoided Deforestation. Working with indigenous tribes and private landowners.

All I can say is for our wonderful country and farmers, they have a major ability to achieve carbon credits but we just need to get over the BS around carbon credits and allow our farmers benefit.

If third world countries can do it why not Australia?

As a guide my family has been involved in farming since the early 1800's so I hopeful we can just do things rather talk rubbish.

Kepp up the good work







# Gregory Rauchle
Monday, November 16, 2009 6:32 AM
Check out this outrageous nonsense from the Netherlands.
"Netherlands to levy 'green' road tax by the kilometre"

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.244057bd1b30448115575c2187e68681.141&show_article=1

Nothing short of Population Control!

Is this the sort of COMMUNIST RUBBISH we can expect in Australia from our government in the future if Rudd/Wong continue with their fanatical policies?

Maybe we will have to revert to riding HORSES in the future?
Wait, they'll probably be outlawed also - they produce METHANE.

Sounds like George Orwell's 1984!
I know what I would do if some idiot tried to install a device in my car to monitor the distance/locations travelled!
# Gregory Rauchle
Monday, November 16, 2009 6:34 AM
Labor's hidden agenda is more scary than we think. They appear to be following the 1928 manifesto of The Frankfurt School. A Marxist organisation based in Germany in the 20's and 30's. Mass manipulation and control of the populace....

To further the advance of their 'quiet' cultural revolution - but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future - the School recommended (among other things):

1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools' and teachers' authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family

Does any of this sound familiar?
# Gregory Rauchle
Monday, November 16, 2009 10:05 AM
Hi all,
Here are some email adresses of organisations which are promoting this man made global warming science fiction:-

info@environmentaustralia.com.au ;blair@350.org;daisy.barham@foe.org.au;eleanor.smith@foe.org.au;louise.morris@foe.org.au;ozgreen@ozgreen.org.au

Why not email them and tell them what you think of their crap!
I have!
# Gregory Rauchle
Monday, November 16, 2009 1:50 PM
Hi,
Here is another email address to pester these man made global warming isiots on:-
risingtide@risingtide.org.au
Tell them what you really think!
# JEANIE
Monday, November 16, 2009 5:08 PM
DEAR BARNABY, UR STILL A LEGEND HERE IN THE CITY.....AT THE RISK OF SOUNDING "FLIP", COULD U PLEASE , ON UR TRAVELS, "BOTTLE" SOME LUVLY CO2 4 ME? I NEED IT IN OPERATING THEATRES ......SERIOUSLY FOLKS.....WE USE IT EVERY DAY IN EVERY OPERATING THEATRES IN AUSTRALIA!!!! 4 ALL THE OPERATIONS THAT REQUIRE UR TUMMY OR UR KNEE TO BE LOOKED AT UNDER ANAESTHETIC AND A SCOPE[CAMERA] ATTACHED......JUST THINK: IF WE COULD GET OPERATION WAITING-LISTS SERIOUSLY GOING, COULD WE SOLVE THE "OVERSUPPLY OF CO2 ISSUE", MY GOD, THE MIND BOGGLES AT THIS FIASCO WITH FUDDY DUDDY RUDDY!!!!! BANISH HIM 2 THE BUSH BARNABY, THEN HE MAY SEE WHAT THE REAL ISSUES ARE...HOSPITALS, HEALTH, EDUCATION FACILITIES 4 THE COUNTRY-AREAS..DEPRESSION OF OUR FARMERS WITH SUICIDES DUE TO LACK OF RECOGNITION, "BEATING-DOWN' OUR FARMERS PRICES EACH AND EVERY DAY BY MULTI-MOGALS....I HEAR THE FARMERS TELLING ME WHEN THEY ARE IN HOSPITAL HERE ON THE COAST,[THEY HAVE TRAVELLED A LONG WAY MOST-TIMES], ALL THE STRESSES THEY ENDURE. IT BREAKS MY HEART. YES, I CRY WITH THEM SOMETIMES .WE BETTER "WAKE-UP" BEFORE ITS TOO LATE. .................JEANIE.
# Gregory Rauchle
Tuesday, November 17, 2009 8:38 AM
SUBJECT: Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and the result will be catastrophe.

Although the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.
Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".

When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.

Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.

One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".

When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria.

•For more information, see Dr Mörner on YouTube (Google Mörner, Maldives and YouTube); or read on the net his 2007 EIR interview "Claim that sea level is rising is a total fraud"; or email him – morner@pog.nu – to buy a copy of his booklet 'The Greatest Lie Ever Told'
# David Morris
Tuesday, December 08, 2009 8:56 PM
Question. What are the chances of a change in the legislation, Buckleys or Nunn. I heard on the radio this morning of a man, who to protest, has sat himself on a pole. What level of desperation has driven some one to this? Let the public know what is happening, how can we protest to government if we are unaware of the problem. Tjhese laws are formulated and promoted by self interest parties, and are traiterous and un Australian. Tell the public whats happening and what can they do to stop this nonsense.
Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:59 PM
David, the man you are referring to is Peter Spencer, a farmer who is on a hunger strike in protest against the Government who has taken his farm as
a carbon sink and refuses to pay him compensation, even though he is now unable to farm the land,
Rudd has declared 109million hectares of private property a carbon sink and taken their carbon credits to meet his Kyoto obligations- and paid no compensation to any of the owners,
the full story is here, fifth podcast down.
http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_podcasting&task=view&id=2&Itemid=41
# Patricia Aird
Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:55 PM
Keep up the good work, hope to see you Prime Minister one day.
Monday, February 22, 2010 5:58 PM
Good Day. We thought, because we had power, we had wisdom. Help me! Looking for sites on: Are soma and flexeril the same. I found only this - flexeril ingredients. Flexeril, hydrochlorothiazide infrequent alibi methods: muscle foot meeting upon standing; sun-sensitive skin; analysis of appetite; diarrhea; stomach cramps; sexual problems. Flexeril, it is early your therapy to tell any unknown drug, requirement or any controversial front late done by your pain. Thanks for the help :-(, Lara from Tajikistan.
Monday, February 22, 2010 8:15 PM
The specific listing of the trust fund will ensure
it can receive tax deductible donations for recovery
and reconstruction as to communities affected by the
2009 Victorian bushfires. Currently, the requirements
of the Australian disaster relief fund general DGR
category require that a state of emergency be declared
by a relevant state minister before the provision
can be enacted.

Home | Issues | Blog | Newsroom | Achievements | Policies | About Barnaby | Out and About | Links | Feedback
Accessibility | Privacy Policy & Disclaimer | Site by Datasearch | Login

© Senator Barnaby Joyce 2009 | Authorised by Barnaby Joyce - 90 The Terrace, St. George Qld 4487