from-man-made-global-warmist-to-skeptic

In conclusion, if anyone still believes that CO2 does what scientists claim it does, I suggest you think about that the next time you are at a campfire, or near a candle, or any other fairly stable heat source. Move toward it, then move back. Also, find a nice masonry wall that has ample sunshine on it. Just after dusk, when the sun is no longer shining on the wall, place your hand on the wall and feel its warmth. Then, move slowly away from the wall and see how long you can continue to feel the warmth. Think about that little CO2 molecule, having to also feel that warmth, get all excited, absorb the heat, and then re-radiate the heat back out again. Remember that scientists insist that the Earth warmed from 1910 to 1940 - yet CO2 was very, very low.

Also, have a look at Anthony's blog and E.M. Smith's blog. Think about this: if the science is settled and we must act now or lose the Earth's future to a hell of warming, rising oceans, monster hurricanes and all the rest, why did the CERN experiment show that clouds are far more important than CO2? Why do the satellite temperature measurements show the models' predictions are all wrong? Why has nothing ever panned out for the climate warmists? The only thing they can point to is the declining ice in the Arctic, but as I discussed above, they have that completely wrong.

Finally, have a look at the temperature graphs of the USA's cities on SLB. See for yourself how many, many cities have zero warming or a slight cooling. Then, ask yourself how can that be? How did CO2 get so smart that it can selectively ignore some cities?

CO2 is innocent. It always has been, and always will be.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.






Print Page

The Carbon Tax is so bad, people are asking if this is treason?

The Carbon Tax is so bad, people are asking if this is treason

Emails are flying, submissions are flooding in. It’s a nation in uproar. The implications of what Henry Ergas wrote are setting off a wave of fear and anger. People are using words like “sickening”, “shocking” and describing Gillard’s actions as “vindictive” and a “treacherous spoiler”, and using the word treason. There’s a plea: “God help us!”
Here’s a few samples of what has been CC’d to me.

UPDATE: I should have added that I put the first email up to show just how deep the sense of betrayal runs.  I don’t think Gillards actions represent a grand well thought out plot. This is scrabbling desperation to notch up a “success” (the country be damned). Even she advised Rudd to give up the ETS. A weak government is the most dangerous kind.

——————————————————————————————-

Dear John,

Please drop everything and listen to this:

Professor Henry Ergas reveals the hidden deadly dangers in the Carbon Tax legislation to Alan Jones.

The vindictive implications for Australia are worse than horrendous.

Listen here and be shocked to the core.

The shameful and treacherous group (loosely described as the “government” of this country) should be thoroughly exposed as SPOILERS [snip cliche].

PLEASE BRING THIS TO EVERYONE’S ATTENTION!

SECOND:

The second response registers the telling impact this dynamite interview is having on ordinary Australians as they come to grips with the explosive revelations made in this interview. The reaction of people hearing this for the first time is bad enough, however once its insidious message filters through, it becomes overpowering in the utter sense of hopelessness it engenders. The Australian people are just now beginning to feel like the proverbial rabbit caught in the full headlight glare of what is being proposed in the parliament of our beloved country right now, and it is sickening: -

———————————————————

Date: 20 September 2011 6:55:18 AM AEST

To: Ben

Subject: God help us all

Ben,

This morning I listened again to the exchange between Professor Ergas and Alan Jones.

There can be no mistaking that what is being planned by Julia Gillard is both vengeful and completely treasonous.

Never before has a government legislated the deliberate and permanent destruction of its country’s economic future viability. There is NO other word than “treason” in the English to appropriately describe the intent of the Carbon Dioxide Tax legislation.

This woman, unable to accept that she is now the subject of ridicule and scorn from the majority of Australians appears to have become completely unhinged. So determined is she to punish this country and its people for daring to doubt and mock her, she is planning to the equivalent of a massive “Suicide Bomber” strike.

The Japanese used the word “Kamikaze” to describe its suicide bomber pilots during World War II.

Today, that word applies equally to Australia’s Prime Minister .. although her motives are infinitely more warped and seemingly of a revengeful, personal nature.

The legislative weapon of mass destruction that this red-haired mad woman intends to detonate in the heart of Australia’s parliament has been maliciously designed to destroy immediately, yet it has been constructed to deliver fallout with a deliberate and deadly radio-active half-life of forever!

God help us all as this evil and godless creature of communism seeks the worst for us all.

H/t Jeff Greenwood

——————————————-

Is this legislation unconstitutional?

The blogger BarnabyisRight is calling the legislation “unconstitutional” and canvassing legal routes to seek a High Court injunction. It’s an interesting theme, with great potential to stop the whole Circus dead in it’s tracks.

UPDATE: Barnabyisright has popped in at #4 (and #5):

“Please consider adding your name (and relevant details) to the JSC submission at my blog. Given the debacle and resultant political embarrassment the Government has endured arising from having their Malaysia “Solution” smacked down in the High Court, I believe it is worth our giving them food for thought as to the possibility of having the Constitutionality of their so-called “Clean Energy” legislation likewise challenged in the High Court.

Explanation here, submission here.”

People are trying every angle under the sun

There is also a Petition to The Queen. We can only hope. (No I don’t like the chances but it’s a fair thing to ask).
——————————————

Other examples of submissions

From Anton Lang about the “clean energy” details
The Joint Select Committee for The Clean Energy Bills,
Stuart Robert MHR,
Sirs,
With the ensuing passage of these Bills through the House and then The Senate, I was wondering if members in favour of these Bills might perhaps be able to bring Australians along with them by explaining how these Bills might facilitate the move to the current Clean Energy options of choice, Wind Power and the two versions of Solar Power, Solar Photovoltaic, and Concentrating Solar.
Perhaps they might be able to point out just one plant in existence on the whole of Planet Earth, or even a plant that is in planning that can produce the same electrical power for consumption that is currently being generated by one large scale coal fired power plant, of which there are many in existence here in Australia.

1. Perhaps they might mention how much power will actually be generated for consumption by this one example of any Renewable Plant.
2. Perhaps they might mention on what time frame a renewable plant of this nature might be delivering its power.
3. Perhaps they might mention the cost of this equivalent Plant.
4. Perhaps they might mention how long it will take to construct this plant from the planning stage to the power delivery stage.
5. Perhaps they might mention how long a plant of this nature might last.
6. Perhaps they might mention how much Government (taxpayers) money will be given to (a) the construction of this plant, and (b) the subsidising of the generated electricity to the grid in an effort to make it somehow competitive with current power generation from coal fired power.
7. Perhaps they might mention how much the cost of retail electricity to all consumers will increase with the introduction of a renewable plant of this nature.

There’s really no point in addressing any of the 7 responses mentioned here, because there is no equivalent plant of this nature in existence anywhere in the World, and there is none planned or even contemplated in the near future.
Yours Sincerely.
Anton Lang.
———————————-
The bills are against our wishes, and don’t make economic or scientific sense

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:

1. 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.
2. They are NOT based on real scientific evidence about climate changes, particularly any that maybe caused by human beings. See Note (*) below.
3. The carbon-tax/ETS will have NO discernable impact on the climate, or the world’s temperature. See Note (#) below.
4. 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.
5. There is NO definition of just what is ‘carbon pollution’, let alone what are the deleterious effects of it on anybody, or anything.
6. Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant but an essential ingredient for all plant life, upon which all animal life rely for survival, omnivorously.
7. 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.
8. There are NO details on how emission permits will be vouched, guaranteed, or otherwise proved, to be what they really are.
9. 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.
10. 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 and address]
h/t Allan Cox and Peggy






Print Page

Listen here for Professor Henry Ergas on the Carbon Tax.

Print Page

How Smart Did That Look?

Print Page

Convoy of No Confidence a Revolt of Working People

Print Page

CO2 Tax Australia - Labor Government Not Serious

Please keep yourselves informed of the real story here. Click on the Link and send to your friends and politicians.

A GOVERNMENT THAT IS NOT SERIOUS.

We are told that by placing a cost on those CO2 emissions, a number of things will happen, foremost among them the lowering of those CO2 emissions from this CO2 emitting power generating sector. As I have shown, this is something that will not really be happening. It is also intended to facilitate a move away from coal fired power towards more renewables. Again, this may happen, mainly because of the price signal now that coal fired power will be more expensive, but again, that coal fired power has had its price artificially spiked up, while the renewable power sector has had its price artificially spiked down, and even then, coal fired power is still infinitely cheaper.

So, by placing that price on those emissions, this Government has shown it is not averse to using cynical means to raise money by saying it will only affect those big emitters, when it affects all of us as electricity consumers.

One important thing also not being told to you is that all of these large scale coal fired power plants have contracts to supply electrical power to the grids, and that most of those contracts are still valid until the mid 2020′s, and for even longer in some cases. So, there is no intent on the Government’s part to close those plants down, as they all have cast iron legal contracts to supply that power.

Those coal fired plants will still do what they always have done, produce huge amounts of electrical power, and do that cheaply. They will burn almost the same amount of coal. They will emit almost the same amount of CO2.

The only difference now is that the Government will be making huge amounts of money from it, money being paid not by the plant itself, but by every consumer of electrical power.

As I have said all along, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the environment.

It’s just about the money.

Print Page

Ms Gillard's Lie that Carbon Dioxide CO2 is a Poluntant?

Since setting up Stop Gillard's Carbon Tax, I have received one request from you more than any other - to create a resource fact-sheet providing all the information you need to know about the Gillard-Brown tax on Carbon Dioxide.

Well, it's taken us some time, but I am very happy to announce that, due to the hard work and dedication of Andy Semple, our Menzies House Assistant Managing Editor, we have done just that!

Andy has created a 10 page booklet for us that addresses the science, the economic impact, the politics.. .everything you need to know about this tax, and why it will do nothing to help the environment - while destroying our economy in the process. It is full of easy-to-understand scientific data, and links to academic papers, YouTube clips by experts, news articles - it has it all!

This is a great resource, and one you should not only read in full, but forward to all your friends.

Here's what Andy has to say about it:
"Dear readers,

After being told blatant lies by this government for why they are putting a price on carbon and calling it carbon pollution I felt it was time to get some real facts on the table.

We’re being sold a pup by this government who have politicised the “science of man-made climate change” in order to bring in a new era of radical social change. So I decided to write "Carbon Dioxide and the politics of the Carbon Tax."

It’s crammed full of links to other informative articles and videos, as it addresses the propaganda and misinformation being spread by the Government, the Greens, and the Independents.

Never before has it been so important to be accurately informed about Carbon Dioxide, and why the politics of the Carbon Tax are designed to make it harder for you and your family to make ends meet, effectively making a majority of the population dependent on Government handouts.

Please download a copy and read the material enclosed. Change is worth doing if the change means people everywhere will come out ahead with a better of standard of living. This isn’t the case with this new tax. It is regressive and what’s worse, it won’t make any difference to the Earth’s temperature. You and your family are going to be put through hell for zero environmental gain. This tax policy makes us all weaker, not stronger and it is important you are informed about the true state of play.

Please forward to all your friends, family members and work colleagues. Spread the word and educate yourself about the true nature of life giving Carbon Dioxide and how this broken promise of a tax will only hurt you and do nothing for the environment which we all love and cherish.

You can download a copy from here.

We hope you find this useful, and, we welcome your thoughts! If you have any comments, criticisms, suggestions - or just encouragements - please do not hesitate to email Andy at asemple@menzieshouse.com.au - we appreciate your thoughts and will try to incorporate them into any updated version!

So please, download a copy, and send this to all your family and friends! Remember - we already have facts and truth on our side, but the better armed we are with this knowledge, the better we can fight the left's lies, and ensure that truth shall prevail!

Thank you, as always, for your support.

Timothy Andrews
Managing Editor
Menzies House

PS: We're planning to print copies of this to distribute, so, if you havn't already made a donation, now might be a good time to do so! :)





Print Page

Lights, action, lies

Doomed Planet

“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”

Vaclav Klaus
Blue Planet in Green Shackles
Lights, action, lies

by Peter Smith

July 17, 2011

The government climate infomercial they didn't use.

Parliament House in background, fade theme music, closeup of a couple talking:

Julia (a redhead): But Wayne I made a solemn promise and you sort of did too. You said that it was hysterical to talk about a carbon tax.

Wayne (a hunk): Big-time economist Ross Garnaut thinks it’s a cunning tax.

Julia: Hold on Wayne, wasn’t it another economist mate of yours who gave you a cunning tax? The great big mining tax, so that dreadful Mister Negative called it. Bashed us over the head with it good and proper using the most unfair and outrageous hyper-bowl. Poor Kevin lost his way and suffered terribly. (The PM reaches for a tissue.)

Wayne: This is different; and it is so clever that once you see all of its implications it will blow your socks off. Anyway we don’t really have a choice Bob Brown and his green gang, who remember don’t share our delight in the everyday values of Australians, threaten to knock our blocks off if we don’t do it.

Julia: (The PM shivers.) Ok Wayne that’s a fairly persuasive point. Let’s hear about it; why is it so good?

Wayne: I can hardly speak I am so excited. It is really an invisible tax. It taxes a colourless gas; we’ll call it pollution, which nobody can see. That’s the real beauty of it. Because it can’t be seen we’ll need lots of agencies, authorities, programs, initiatives, schemes and funds to deal with it. Look we’ll need a Climate Change Authority, a Clean Energy Regulator, a Clean Energy Finance Corporation, an Australian Renewable Energy Agency, a roped in Productivity Commission, an Energy Security Council, a Remote Indigenous Energy Program, a Jobs and Competitiveness Program, a Low Carbon Communities program, a Low Income Energy Efficiency Program, a Household Energy and Financial Sustainability Scheme, a Carbon Farming Initiative, a Carbon Farming Futures program, an Energy Security Fund and a Biodiversity Fund, the list goes on and on. It’s so long I am sure I have missed some.

(Wayne takes a deep breath.)

Literally tens of thousands of new Labor-voting public servants will be needed to administer the new qangos and boondoggles and calculate how much of the invisible gas different businesses produce or alternatively don’t produce and how much different businesses will get for not producing it or producing less of it or for reducing it or to make up for being taxed for producing it and how much particular categories of people should get for paying higher prices because some businesses of our choosing are producing it being taxed and increasing their prices. I don’t know how much legislation and regulation will be needed. It will run into many thousands of pages.

Julia: That is truly amazing Wayne! It is a Labor government’s dream come true - billions of dollars coming in billions of dollar being doled out as we choose. If only communist Eastern Europe had of thought of it, the commissars might still be in charge. (The PM sighs.)

Are there any downsides? I mean how about breaking my solemn promise?

Wayne: Don’t worry, say something vague about the composition of the new parliament and pretend that everyone knew you were going to price carbon. Never ever mention the Citizens’ Assembly.

Julia: (The PM looks genuinely baffled.) What do you mean Citizens’ Assembly?

Wayne: That’s it PM, you’ve got it. Above all keep smiling vacuously, keep talking about pollution, keep talking off the point and skirting around the truth in that inimitably deceptive way you have, and talking down to people and asking and answering your own questions. “Do I think it will be tough? Yes I do”, sort of thing.

Julia: Will I get away with it Wayne? People don’t seem to like me out there in real Aussie land.

Wayne: We love you PM. Bob also said he’s very fond of you unless, as he said, you don’t do exactly what he wants. Then apparently he can turn very nasty, I don’t like to think of it. And the independents think you’re the bee’s knees standing as you are between their sudden and unexpected exalted state and feather-duster oblivion. Kevin doesn’t like you too much but we can’t please everybody. And the mainstream media will go along and find ways to like the tax and rationalise its pointlessness because they are mostly dyed-in-the-wool lefties and greenies and hate Tony Abbott and the Liberals. And we’ll put Abbott between a rock and hard place with all the goodies we’ll be handing out to make up for all the upheaval and damage we are causing.

Julia: Wayne, you might not be the brightest kid on the block but I think you’ve hit on something this time. It’s not important but did you say that it’s pointless?

Wayne: That’s the beauty of it too. Treasury predict that the tax will not reduce emissions of this invisible gas, called pollution remember, just its growth. We have lots of wriggle room. And we produce so little of it compared with China that nobody will notice anyway. Imagine, we are also going to spend billions of taxpayers’ dollars to buy permissions from overseas to emit the gas so that we can report better results.

Julia: You’ve even lost me now Wayne. Why on earth would we ever do that?

Wayne: Exactly! You’re so clever PM; you’ve nailed it in one. It’s so senseless that no-one will be able to get their head around it.

Julia: Wayne, I worry about the next election. It seems just too good to be true; voters might see through it all?

Wayne: Don’t worry, our hand-picked focus groups, from trendy inner-city suburbs and universities and government schools and theatrical and arty types and journalists and the ABC and university-educated union bosses, and including some very intelligent liberals like John Hewson and Malcolm Fraser or was it Turnbull – I get mixed up between the Malcolms – all said that you’re their gal, no matter how incompetent you are or what bizarre schemes you try to foist on Australia.

Julia: That’s a relief Wayne; I was worried there for a minute.

Cut, theme music with background shot of Parliament House as the couple embrace chastely in foreground under flapping Aboriginal flag as a kangaroo skips past. End.



Print Page

The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Carbon Dioxide Tax

Print Page

Carbon Dioxide is NOT Pollution. Those who think so are deceivers

AMERICAN ELEC. POWER CO. v. CONNECTICUT

AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS

v.

CONNECTICUT ET AL.

No. 10-174.

Supreme Court of United States.

Argued April 19, 2011.

Decided June 20, 2011.

GINSBURG, delivered the opinion of the Court.

We address in this opinion the question whether the plaintiffs (several States, the city of New York, and three private land trusts) can maintain federal common law public nuisance claims against carbon-dioxide emitters (four private power companies and the federal Tennessee Valley Authority). As relief, the plaintiffs ask for a decree setting carbon-dioxide emissions for each defendant at an initial cap, to be further reduced annually. The Clean Air Act and the Environmental Protection Agency action the Act authorizes, we hold, displace the claims the plaintiffs seek to pursue.

GREENHOUSE EFFECT DISCREDITED

Professor Nasif Nahle found something deeply troubling about the man-made global warming theory (AGW). He explains, “I started out wanting to debunk those deniers of science.”

Nahle had originally believed that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) were warming the atmosphere until he found an incorrect assumption within the greenhouse effect hypothesis.
Invited to attend a televised debate on the Indonesian Tsunami that addressed whether global warming was a factor in that catastrophe, Nahle checked the validity of calculations relating to the combined reactions of certain atmospheric gases to solar radiation in the so-called greenhouse effect. “That was when I saw it was junk science.”

Unintended consequences. No longer gives sporting chance.

Open Letter to Prime Minister Ms Julia Gillard on Carbon Dioxide Taxringfield Tower
SPRINGFIELD CENTRAL QLD 4300

30 March 2011

Dear Ms Gillard,

I write as a concerned constituent and sporting club member of ‘unintended consequences’ about to hit families who support sporting clubs right across Australia because of ill-considered government policy on taxing carbon dioxide, an odourless, tasteless and invisible trace gas essential to life that makes up 0.38% of the atmosphere.

I have three boys playing Soccer at two different clubs, Brisbane Force and Oxley United Football Clubs. As a father and past player I am personally very concerned about the costs becoming more and more difficult for the average family to achieve each year.

Global Warming: 10 little facts. by Bob Carter

Ten dishonest slogans about global warming, and ten little facts.

Each of the following ten numbered statements reproduces verbatim, or almost verbatim, statements made recently by Australian government leaders, and repeated by their media and other supporters. The persons making these arguments might be termed (kindly) climate-concerned citizens or (less kindly, but accurately) as global warming alarmists.

Despairing of ever hearing sense from such people, some of whom have already attributed the cause of the devastating Japanese earthquake to global warming, a writer from the well regarded American Thinker has badged them as “idiot global warming fanatics”.

Be that as it may, most of the statements below, self-evidently, were crafted as slogans, and all conform with the obnoxious and dishonest practice of political spin – in which, of course, the citizens of Australia have been awash for many years. The statements also depend heavily upon corrupt wordsmithing with propaganda intent, a technique that international Green lobbyists are both brilliant at and relentless in practising.

The ten statements below comprise the main arguments that are made in public in justification for the government’s intended new tax on carbon dioxide. Individually and severally these arguments are without merit. That they are intellectually pathetic too is apparent from my brief commentary on each.

It is a blight on Australian society that an incumbent government, and the great majority of media reporters and commentators, continue to propagate these scientific and social inanities.

Flannery Admits No Gain from this Carbon Tax Pain

I am so relieved and sure the left is too including you BT, And Janey has moved, AS etc, when confronted with the facts.

I am no scientist or mathematician I'll admit. But if my grade one maths is still reliable I did the following sums based on the conclusions I have drawn from the answers of Tim Flannery and John Daley as given to Bolta.

I put the following sum into my Google search and found these answers. The answers are very interesting. Yes try it yourself. type into Google Search Bar, 194*0=

This is the mathematical sum of the total effect of 0 difference of reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions x194 countries of the world (include one more country if you include Taiwan, making 195) still equals, wait for it: Zero.

Let's try multiplying the costs of the $300 Billion of [b]our[/b] money by 0 difference by 1, our nation Australia = push enter.
Opps, is that right? Still Zero?

Let's include the Billions and Trillions of the world's money, oh let's say $10 Trillion that MAY BE THROWN IN FUTILITY into further 'Green Energy Waste' on this absurd belief that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant when it is obviously not, and then multiply by the difference it will make which is 0 by the number of countries 194. 10 000 000 000 000*0*194. Surprise Surprise. What do we find? ZERO. ZILTCH. NOTHING.

Listen people. This is answer of the combined effect of each nation killing it's economy at the expensive loss of income and jobs, increasing inefficiency, and decreasing food and manufacturing productivity with 'unintended' consequences of 95% increase in poverty by reducing said carbon dioxide emissions in the name of reducing Catastrophic Man Made Global warming.

The Carbon Tax on Carbon Dioxide is obviously not about saving the world. It's difficult to see it has anything to do about the science, that's just the red herring in all this debate.

Now I'm no conspiracy theorist but after the reaction of the Main Stream Media, Left politicians, and government advisors this week to the persecution of the everyday Australian raising their voice in opposition to this money grab, one has to consider this whole shebang must be about something MUCH MORE DANGEROUS.

Perhaps reducing national sovereignty and population growth is the real UN Agenda 21? Why so you may ask? Well to enable world governance by stealth of course, and to have each one of us pay for it as well. Just saying?



Print Page

The Real People Labor Bully and Abuse who they Don't Like

Print Page

Brisbane Anti-Carbon Tax Rally 23 March 2011

Brad Clarke protesting at the

Brisbane Anti-Carbon Tax Rally

King George Square 23 March 2011

Approximately 300 protesters met in King George Square to voice their opposition to a Carbon Dioxide Tax that will significantly impact a dramatic rise in cost of living pressures for the average family.

NO Carbon Dioxide Tax. Unless you wish political oblivion.

Note to Australian Prime Minister Ms Gillard, and Chief Climate Change Advisors, Mr Ross Garnaut and Mr Tim Flannery. This is important information not to overlook in the haste to convince a voting public waking up to the evidence of the fraud known as CAGW supported by the discredited IPCC, and CSRIO.

What's Wrong With Regulating Carbon Dioxide Emissions?

Some very telling Cost/Benefit Analysis of taxing CO2 by Associate Professor of Economics Mr Ross McKitrick.

A briefing to United States Congress on October 11, 2001. Sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition.

In Sum: Sound reasoning rejects all forms of regulations on CO2 emissions...

How Well Has The Media And Government Informed The Public About CO2 Levels In The Air?

Carbon Dioxide Tax

Gregg D Thompson      Climate Researcher

1. How Well Has The Media And Government Informed The Public About CO2 Levels In The Air?

Ask yourself, your friends, family and work associates if they know the answers to the following questions about Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Be sure to write your answers before looking at the following pages.

Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2?
Question 2. Have you ever seen the percentage given in any media?
Question 3. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made?
Question 4. What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce?
Question 5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?
Question 6. Have you ever seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?

I have asked over 100 people these questions. Virtually everyone says they don’t know the answers so ask them to tell you what their perception is by what they have learnt from the media, the government and Green groups. Let them know there is no right or wrong answer as you are just doing a survey as to what people have perceived the answers to be from these sources.
The answers to these questions are fundamental to evaluating the global warming scare YET almost no one knows the facts. However, without this knowledge we can’t make an informed decision about whether Climate Change is natural or not.

The Strategy of the Gillard Labor Government on Carbon Dioxide Tax

Organized and Professional Disinformation Operations
Well-funded and highly-organized disinformation operations are in full-swing throughout the internet. From forums to comment boards and even professional websites that have only one purpose: Defame, distract, and destroy the truth.

What the Hell is this Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Tax all about?

RE: The Wrong Climate for a Carbon Dioxide Tax Australia
Here's a practical way to understand the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.