This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new
Whilst the alarmist in this thread continue to provide plenty of compost, a much more important event is occurring this week. The Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation has an inquiry into Australia's clean energy future.....

The Committee invites interested persons and organisations to make submissions by Thursday 22 September 2011 . Please refer to our brochure called preparing a submission for more information.​

For those like me who are actually concerned about this scam can send in emails and documents into the committee by this Thursday. Committee membership is primarily made up of Labor and greens so realistically I doubt there will be any serious showstoppers since the "science is settled" and I doubt even a serious reading of any submissions will take place.

However, I will be using my legal evidence as a result of the several Notices previously sent as attachments under another lawful Notice as a submission to this so called inquiry. As public servants, I will be directing them to abandon the Bills. Of course I doubt it will do any good, but it will again establish under law a default and a disregard of legal evidence. All fine with me as I will have a legal paper trail that shows corruption, lies and misrepresentations with complete agreement from the respondents for further action down the track.
 
The thing is, there are going to be a lot more "bidders" and a lot more logging if this biofuels nonsense catches on. The last thing the planet needs is a boom in the wood price and the rampant growth in (often illegal) logging that will inevitably follow.

As for Japan, their emissions have shot up with the demise of the nuclear industry. If they're going to meet their Kyoto targets then they've simply got to get reactors up and running and to hell with the consequences (safety etc). That says it all really...

Fix one problem and cause another - I doubt that's what the average person was thinking of when considering the CO2 issue and yet that's exactly what's happening.

Personally, I certainly do acknowledge that we can't keep burning coal, oil and gas forever and I doubt that anyone would really disagree there. But I disagree absolutely that we ought to be clearfelling and nuking the lot in order to bring about the transition ASAP unless there really is compelling scientific evidence to warrant such destruction. A slower, less environmentally destructive, transition would be vastly preferable in my opinion. That doesn't suit the politics of it all however.
 
Hi OWG,

I received this template in an email - does this look OK to send off?



To the persons responsible for the carbon tax bills, after a cursory reading of said bills please receive my submission as follows.

As an Australian citizen by birth, I, [insert your name and address] am deeply concerned that the proposed laws are unsound, unjustified, incomprehensible, or just plain wrong, particularly as:

An overwhelming majority of Australian voters believed that there would be NO carbon tax (or anything similar) from either major political party at the last federal election.

They are NOT based on real scientific evidence about climate changes, particularly any that maybe caused by human beings. See Note (*) below.

The carbon-tax/ETS will have NO discernable impact on the climate, or the world’s temperature. See Note (#) below.

There is NO economic benefit to Australians in increasing their cost of energy, particularly as we have an abundant, and relatively cheap, source of coal.

There is NO definition of just what is ‘carbon pollution’, let alone what are the deleterious effects of it on anybody, or anything.

Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant but an essential ingredient for all plant life, upon which all animal life rely for survival, omnivorously.

The need for so-called ‘carbon polluters’ to buy emission-permits will see a massive transfer of Australia’s inherent wealth to other countries with NO benefit for Australians, nor the environment, nor humanity.

There are NO details on how emission permits will be vouched, guaranteed, or otherwise proved, to be what they really are.

NO future government will be able to change these laws easily to suit the prevailing conditions without a substantial expense to the Australian taxpayer. See Note (+) below.

If there is really a need to reduce the use of carbon-based fuels then the proposed laws are NOT rational, NOT logical, and do NOT cover all aspects and users of all of those fuels.

In summary, I submit that the propose laws covered by the carbon tax bills are against the express wishes of a majority of Australian citizens and they do not make any economic sense in any regard whatsoever, especially in today’s global financial uncertainty, and that they should be abandoned, immediately.





Yours sincerely



[your name]​



Then it has a whole lot of quotes - but is it OK to modify the submission so that the large amount of notes isn't necessary? It was way to much to put in this post...
 
It's a bit disingenous to be quoting this, or at least if you're just reporting what you have read, it's disingenuous on the part of the author of the article.


Conservative acting:
New Zealand John Keys National Party
Click to expand...
The National Party inherited a form of ETS at an extremely low price from the previous government and is in the process of scaling it back.

Britain David Cameron Conservative Party
Click to expand...
They have produced a statement of intent, i.e. a feelgood policy which has a very clear clause for review in, I think, 2014, which says (paraphrasing) if the rest of the world has not done likewise they will dump their scheme.


Germany Angela Merkal Christian Democratic Party
Click to expand...
There is a screed of text available to discredit that Germany is adopting anything like the carbon tax proposed for Australia.
Here is just one small extract which explains what they do have:

Canada Conservative Party Steve Harper
Click to expand...
Canada does not at all have a national carbon tax or ETS. A few provinces have made some attempt in this direction.

I can't be bothered going through the others. The above, except for Germany which I looked up, I knew about already. It would seem unlikely that the others quoted would be much different to those essentially discounted above.

So lots of spin in this article, it would seem.

And if anyone comes up with the EU ETS, let's remember that it's much better known for the incredible level of corruption and abuse it has spawned than any alteration in the climate.

I try to stay out of this debate, but just get irritated when people make blanket statements which are simply not true, or at best only partly true. It's just dishonest.
 
Germany's scheme as described would seem to be more about dealing with future shortages of gas and oil than dealing directly with CO2, hence the exemption for coal.

As for emissions cuts overall:

Coal use has never been higher than it is now.
Oil production is at an all time record.
Gas use has been rising strongly for years.

Quite simply, the world as a whole is not cutting emissions no matter what anyone may like to claim. Record production of coal and oil is all you need to know as far as emissions cuts are concerned - it's just not happening...
 

Hi Sails

Just in the process of finishing mine. Will post in the morning.

The template you've received implies you're an employee of the organisation, hence this will be legally interpreted as a request and not an order to a public servant (which is exactly what these folks are). You must provide directives to these pubilc servants as you are the shareholder of the company, not an employee - I tell them so in my notice. Also note that the Joint Select Committee can elect not to use your document, hence I instruct them to do so.

The body of your letter above has the right questions, you will need to instruct them to cease this legislative process until your questions are answered by someone in affidavit form (otherwise they can simply direct you to a meaningless blurb on a web site with a legal disclaimer).

Golden rule - You must treat them as an employee.....which they are.....

I'm not even going to call my submission a submission, since they are my employees and directors don't submit to their employees.

For example,

My opening line goes something like:

Notice Of Demand for dissolution of Clean Energy Bill 2011 and Demand for a Lawful Investigation into Individuals and Organisations advising on Climate Science and Policy​

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL AND NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT APPLIES​

To the Public Servants of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation, you are hereby instructed to read the following notice thoroughly and carefully. It is a lawful notice. It informs you. It means what it says.
..
..
my legal blurb of facts goes in here from my previous notices
...
....
These facts of law cannot remain unnoticed to the Joint Select Committee, therefore the Public Servants of the Joint Select Committee are hereby instructed to immediately remove the Clean Energy Bill 2011 from the legislative process and commence an immediate lawful investigation into the integrity of all individuals, departments and organisations that have provided the Australian Government with advice, information and research into man's CO2 emissions supposedly driving global temperatures.

Failure of the Joint Select Committee to take notice of this notice and to act on these facts of law and instructions herein creates an operation of law that also cannot go unnoticed as it is an injustice to the men and women of the land commonly known as Australia.

For the purposes of this matter, permission is granted to the Joint Select committee to reproduce copies of this document and references for distribution to each member of the committee. No private information such as mailing address and telephone numbers may be reproduced for the public record.

Please take notice that the land known as Australia is a Common Law jurisdiction and any transgression of this notice will be dealt with according to Common Law.

Please take notice for this matter, I am not a public servant, not an agent of the Government and not acting as a function of Government.

You are deemed to have been served this notice and ordered to comply with immediate effect​
 
OWG, thanks for the reply. My concern using your style of submission is the lack of legal backup. If there is any hope of getting Aussies to put in masses of submissions, it probably has to be something fairly easy - and time is running out with only three days before submissions close.

Surely there should be a longer period of time for submissions for such major policy? This seems indecent haste, imo. Or perhaps these submissions are not going to have any effect? A referrendum would be better.

I don't understand why this is not being more widely and predomininantly broadcast when the people could have their voice heard - not unless it is really a waste of time and any negative submissions will be ignored.
 

No problems Sails, let me post a template that excludes the prior legal notices this afternoon - there's plenty of material that can be used. Express post will get your document there overnight.
 
Here you go sails, feel free to use this.....

View attachment CC Joint template.doc

This treats the public servants as employees or trustees
It provides orders to the public servants
Definitions are included since the definition of certain terms are not what you think they are when talking to government (see the Interpretation Act)
 
IFocus said:
Classic
Click to expand...

lol IFocus...

Gillard would actually do better if she did take more notice of the polls. Even the Essential Media Report which is leftie leaning judging by their home page can't get the majority to accept carbon pricing.


http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/support-for-carbon-pricing-scheme-2/

John Howard made the same mistake at the end of his political career with work choices and stopped listening to the people. After all, policitians are our elected representatives who are paid by us to represent us in matters of government.

They are not elected or paid to do their own thing - at least not in a democracy. If Gillard put the Pacific Solution back together and took her carbon tax to the next election, I would expect to see some re-bounding in labor polls. But to carry on in defiance of the majority will of the people is political suicide. And the bigger mess she leaves, the longer labor will likely be in the wilderness.
 
I couldn't agree more, Sails. Julia Gillard clearly sees any change in policy as unacceptable weakness, whereas I think if she were to do as you suggest above, much of the electorate would say, well thank heaven for that, and begin to take her seriously again.

There's nothing wrong with a politician saying to the electorate: "we've listened to your concerns, and as a result ........."

However, fat chance!
 
I, yesterday flew from Horn Island along the Queensland coast to Townsville. It is a trip I have done many times before over many years.

Even after so much weather, the coast seems unchanged, no signs of any significant change in beach, land or sea.

I really feel these weather jokers have it wrong. Then I don't believe anything on the ABC, it's so propagandised.

It was a beautiful day.

gg
 

And here's a link to the submissions

Looking at 5 or 6 of them, surprise surprise, they support the bills. Funny how none from individuals who are opposed have yet to make the cut. Democracy at work.
 
OzWaveGuy said:
And here's a link to the submissions

Looking at 5 or 6 of them, surprise surprise, they support the bills. Funny how none from individuals who are opposed have yet to make the cut. Democracy at work.
Click to expand...


Only 326 submissions. I was a bit surprised that the coalition didn't help make the public more aware that this opportunity isted. But perhaps it was always going to be futile. Our only hope is a new election soon.
 
sails said:
Only 326 submissions. I was a bit surprised that the coalition didn't help make the public more aware that this opportunity isted. But perhaps it was always going to be futile. Our only hope is a new election soon.
Click to expand...
ASF is the only place I've even seen it mentioned. And that's for someone with an above average interest in the subject. Pretty clearly it has not been well promoted and there's always a reason when a government chooses to not promote something...
 
OzWaveGuy said:
Whilst the alarmist in this thread continue to provide plenty of compost, .
Click to expand...

Guess what, the denialists are lying in their adverts. Surprise surprise.

AUSTRALIA'S chief climate-change bureaucrat has disputed claims in an industry advertising campaign that Australia's carbon pricing scheme will be far bigger than the European Union's.

Climate Change Department secretary Blair Comley has told a parliamentary inquiry that an ''equivalent'' comparison between the two schemes would show the EU's to be five times larger than Australia's.

An industry group coalition - the Australian Trade and Industry Alliance - is running a $10 million ad campaign against the tax. One ad suggests the EU scheme over its first six ½ years raised $4.9 billion in revenue, while the Australian scheme would raise $71 billion over its first six years.

Story continues below But Mr Comley rejected the figures, saying they sought to compare the Australian scheme with the early ''pilot'' phase of the EU scheme, which will be beefed up from 2013.

He also said it was ''curious'' that the alliance excluded the value of free permits given to industry in EU revenue numbers but included similar permits in Australian estimates.

Mr Comley said a comparison of ''equivalent market size'' between 2013-15 showed the EU emissions trading scheme would be about $145 billion, compared to about $27 billion for the Australian carbon price.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/anticarbon-tax-adverts-disputed-20110921-1kl8j.html#ixzz1Yd6J0wFP
 
Do you think the following was rather misleading in the YES TV ad?:

1. Co2 is a colourless gas - why does the ad show it in grey?

2. The ad calls it "carbon pollution" when it is actually called "carbon dioxide emissions". Why don't they call it by the correct name - are they afraid that people might realise it is the harmless co2?

3. Wind and solar power are not yet sufficiently developed to be a viable alternative. How can the masses switch to an alternative that doesn't yet sufficiently exist?

4. Mining and steel plants are two industries that the carbon tax could wipe out (or at least seriously hurt). How are we to manufacture steel wind turbines?

5. When Blanchett pulls the screen down and displays a clear blue sky, isn't that misleading due to Co2 being invisible and doesn't darken the sky in the first place?

6. Why get Cate to feature in this ad when she flies in private jet? What about her own Co2 emissions. And what about her purchase of a getaway in Vanuatu which is surrounded by sea - rising seas not a problem? And co2 emissions from flying in and out not a problem? Cate Blanchett's island buy in Vanuatu ignores rising seas

7. And why are we being asked to say "yes"??? I didn't think Gillard was going to give the electorate a choice by referendum or election? Or does Cate and Caton know something we don't?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
19K
ducati916
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
1K
divs4ever
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
11K
basilio
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
R
When you invest, remember to commune with the dead
Replies
2
Views
3K
Wysiwyg
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...