Peter Spencer, Lord Monckton, Kevin Rudd and the Brigalow Corporation

Following is a copy of a letter sent to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd by Lord Monckton, regarding Anthropogenic Climate Change.


With the current events high-lighted concerning property rights Australia-wide (I also recommend an exploration of the Brigalow Corporation at http://www.abpac-australia.com/assets/brigalowcorp.pdf) via people like Peter Spencer, the multitude of individuals (farmers and private property owners) being dispossessed of their lands and basic citizen's rights, it is imperative that the different sectors of the Australian Community now pull together, and see the common cause of these issues - the Agenda of Globalisation.


As always, this party focusses its efforts on putting Australia First! One must firstly set one's own house in order. I urge you to take the time to read all of the below letter:


1 January 2010


His Excellency Mr. Kevin Rudd,


Prime Minister, Commonwealth of Australia.


Prime Minister,


Climate change: proposed personal briefing


Your speech on 6 November 2009 to the Lowy Institute, in which you publicly expressed some concern at my approach to the climate question, has prompted several leading Australian citizens to invite me come on tour to explain myself in a series of lectures in Australia later this month. I am writing to offer personal briefings on why “global warming” is a non-problem to you and other party leaders during my visit. For convenience, I am copying this letter to them, and to the Press.


Your speech mentioned my remarks about the proposal for world “government” in the early drafts of what had been intended as a binding Copenhagen Treaty. These proposals were not, as you suggested, a “conspiracy theory” from the “far right” with “zero basis in evidence”. Your staff will find them in paragraphs 36-38 of the main text of Annex 1 to the 15 September draft of the Treaty. The word “government” appears twice at paragraph 38. After much adverse publicity in democratic countries, including Australia, the proposals were reluctantly dropped before Copenhagen.


You say I am one of “those who argue that any multilateral action is by definition evil”. On the contrary: my first question is whether any action at all is required, to which – as I shall demonstrate – the objective economic and scientific answer is No. Even if multilateral action were required, which it is not, national governments in the West are by tradition democratically elected. Therefore, a fortiori, transnational or global governments should also be made and unmade by voters at the ballot-box. The climate ought not to be used as a shoddy pretext for international bureaucratic-centralist dictatorship. We committed Europeans have had more than enough of that already with the unelected but all-powerful Kommissars of the hated EU, who make nine-tenths of our laws by decree (revealingly, they call them “Directives” or “Commission Regulations”). The Kommissars (that is the official German word for them) inflict their dictates upon us regardless of what the elected European or any other democratic Parliament says or wishes. Do we want a worldwide EU? No.


You say I am one of “those who argue that climate change does not represent a global market failure”. Yet it is only recently that opinion sufficient to constitute a market signal became apparent in the documents of the IPCC, which is, however, a political rather than a scientific entity. There has scarcely been time for a “market failure”. Besides, corporations are falling over themselves to cash in on the giant financial fraud against the little guy that carbon taxation and trading have already become in the goody-two-shoes EU – and will become in Australia if you get your way.


You say I was one of “those who argue that somehow the market will magically solve the problem”. In fact I have never argued that, though in general the market is better at solving problems than the habitual but repeatedly-failed dirigisme of the etatistes predominant in the classe politique today.


The questions I address are a) whether there is a climate problem at all; and b) even if there is one, and even if per impossibile it is of the hilariously-overblown magnitude imagined by the IPCC, whether waiting and adapting as and if necessary is more cost-effective than attempting to mitigate the supposed problem by trying to reduce the carbon dioxide our industries and enterprises emit.


Let us pretend, solum ad argumentum, that a given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration causes the maximum warming imagined by the IPCC. The IPCC’s bureaucrats are careful not to derive a function that will convert changes in CO2 concentration directly to equilibrium changes in temperature. I shall do it for them.


We derive the necessary implicit function from the IPCC’s statement to the effect that equilibrium surface warming ΔT at CO2 doubling will be (3.26 ± ln 2) C°. Since the IPCC, in compliance with Beer’s Law, defines the radiative forcing effect of CO2 as logarithmic rather than linear, our implicit function can be derived at once. The coefficient is the predicted warming at CO2 doubling divided by the logarithm of 2, and the term (C/C0) is the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Thus,


ΔT = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0) | Celsius degrees


We are looking at the IPCC’s maximum imagined warming rate, so we simply write –


ΔT = 5.7 ln(C/C0) | Celsius degrees


Armed with this function telling us the maximum equilibrium warming that the IPCC predicts from any given change in CO2 concentration, we can now determine, robustly, the maximum equilibrium warming that is likely to be forestalled by any proposed cut in the current upward path of CO2 emissions. Let me demonstrate.


By the end of this month, according to the Copenhagen Accord, all parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change are due to report what cuts in emissions they will make by 2020. Broadly speaking, the Annex 1 parties, who will account for about half of global emissions over the period, will commit to reducing current emissions by 30% by 2020, or 15% on average in the decade between now and 2020.


Thus, if and only if every Annex 1 party to the Copenhagen Accord complies with its obligations to the full, today’s emissions will be reduced by around half of that 15%, namely 7.5%, compared with business as usual. If the trend of the past decade continues, with business as usual we shall add 2 ppmv/year, or 20 ppmv over the decade, to atmospheric CO2 concentration. Now, 7.5% of 20 ppmv is 1.5 ppmv.


We determine the warming forestalled over the coming decade by comparing the business-as-usual warming that would occur between now and 2020 if we made no cuts in CO2 emissions with the lesser warming that would follow full compliance with the Copenhagen Accord. Where today’s CO2 concentration is 388 ppmv –


Business as usual: ΔT = 5.7 ln(408.0/388) = 0.29 C°


– Copenhagen Accord: ΔT = 5.7 ln(406.5/388) = 0.27 C°


= “Global warming” forestalled, 2010-2020: 0.02 C°


One-fiftieth of a Celsius degree of warming forestalled is all that complete, global compliance with the Copenhagen Accord for an entire decade would achieve. Yet the cost of achieving this result – an outcome so small that our instruments would not be able to measure it – would run into trillions of dollars. Do your Treasury models demonstrate that this calculation is in any way erroneous? If they do, junk them.


You say “formal global and national economic modelling” shows “that the costs of inaction are greater than the costs of acting”. You ask for my “equivalent evidence basis to Treasury modelling published by the Government of the industry and employment impacts of climate change”. I respond that the rigorous calculation that I have described, which your officials may verify for themselves, shows that whatever costs may be imagined to flow from anthropogenic “global warming” will scarcely be mitigated at all, even by trillions of dollars of expenditure over the coming decade.


Every economic analysis except that of the now-discredited Lord Stern, with its near-zero discount rate and its absurdly inflated warming rates, comes to the same ineluctable conclusion: adaptation to climate change, in whatever direction, as and if necessary, is orders of magnitude more cost-effective than attempts at mitigation. In a long career in policy analysis in and out of government, I have never seen so cost-ineffective a proposed waste of taxpayers’ money as the trillions which today’s scientifically-illiterate governments propose to spend on attempting – with all the plausibility of King Canute – to stop the tide from coming in.


Remember that I have done this calculation on the basis that everyone who should comply with the Copenhagen Accord actually does comply. Precedent does not look promising. The Kyoto Protocol, the Copenhagen Accord’s predecessor, has been in operation for more than a decade, and it was supposed to reduce global CO2 emissions by 2012. So far, after billions spent on global implementation of Kyoto, global CO2 emissions have risen compared with when Kyoto was first signed.


Remember too that we have assumed the maximum warming that the CO2 imagines might occur in response to a given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Yet even the IPCC’s central estimate of CO2’s warming effect, according to an increasing number of serious papers in the peer-reviewed literature, is a five-fold exaggeration. If those papers are right, after a further decade of incomplete compliance and billions squandered, warming forestalled may prove to be just a thousandth of a degree.


Now ask yourself this. Are you, personally, and your advisers, personally, and your administration’s officials, personally, willing to make the heroically pointless sacrifices that you so insouciantly demand of others in the name of Saving The Planet For Future Generations? I beg leave to think not. At Flag 1 I have attached what I have reason to believe is a generally accurate list of the names and titles of the delegation that you led to Copenhagen to bring back the non-result whose paltriness, pointlessness and futility we have now rigorously demonstrated. There are 114 names on the list. One hundred and fourteen. Enough to fill a mid-sized passenger jet. Half a dozen were all that was really necessary – and perhaps one from each State in Australia. If you and your officials are not willing to tighten your belts when a tempting foreign junket at taxpayers’ expense is in prospect, why, pray, should the taxpayers tighten theirs?


You say that climate-change “deniers” – nasty word, that, and you should really have known better than to use it – are “small in number but too dangerous to be ignored”, and “well resourced”. In fact, governments, taxpayer-funded organizations, taxpayer-funded teachers, and taxpayer-funded environmental groups have spent something like 50,000 times as much on “global warming” propaganda as their opponents have spent on debunking this new and cruel superstition. And that is before we take account of the relentless prejudice of the majority of the mainstream news media.


How, then, it is that we, the supposed minority who will not admit that the emperor of “global warming” is adequately clad, are somehow prevailing? How is it that we are convincing more and more of the population not to place any more trust in the “global warming” theory? The answer is that the “global warming” theory is not true, and no amount of bluster or braggadocio, ranting or rodomontade will make it true.


You say that our aim, in daring to oppose the transient fashion for apocalypticism, is “to erode just enough of the political will that action becomes impossible”. No. Our aim is simply to ensure that the truth is widely enough understood to prevent the squandering of precious resources on addressing the non-problem of anthropogenic “global warming”. The correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. No interventionist likes to do nothing. Nevertheless, the do-nothing option, scientifically and economically speaking, is the right option.


You say that I and others like me base our thinking on the notion that “the cost of not acting is nothing”. Well, after a decade and a half with no statistically-significant “global warming”, and after three decades in which the mean warming rate has been well below the ever-falling predictions of the UN’s climate panel, that notion has certainly not been disproven in reality.


However, the question I address is not that but this. Is the cost of taking action many times greater than the cost of not acting? The answer to this question is Yes.


Millions are already dying of starvation in the world’s poorest nations because world food prices have doubled in two years. That abrupt, vicious doubling was caused by a sharp drop in world food production, caused in turn by suddenly taking millions of acres of land out of growing food for people who need it, so as to grow biofuels for clunkers that don’t. The scientifically-illiterate, economically-innumerate policies that you advocate – however fashionable you may conceive them to be – are killing people by the million.


You say my logic “belongs in a casino, not a science lab”. Yet it is you who are gambling with poor people’s lives, and it is you – or, rather, they – who are losing: and losing not merely their substance but their very existence. The biofuel scam is born of the idiotic notion – a notion you uncritically espouse – that increasing by less than 1/2000 this century the proportion of the Earth’s atmosphere occupied by CO2 may prove catastrophic. At a time when so many of the world’s people are already short of food, the UN’s right-to-food rapporteur, Herr Ziegler, has roundly and rightly condemned the biofuel scam as nothing less than “a crime against humanity”.


The scale of the slaughter is monstrous, with food riots (largely unreported in the Western news media, and certainly not mentioned by you in your recent speech) in a dozen regions of the Third World over the past two years. Yet this cruel, unheeded slaughter is founded upon a lie: the claim by the IPCC that it is 90% certain that most of the “global warming” since 1950 is manmade. This claim – based not on science but on a show of hands among political representatives, with China wanting a lower figure and other nations wanting a higher figure – is demonstrably, self-servingly false. Peer-reviewed analyses of changes in cloud cover over recent decades – changes almost entirely unconnected with changes in CO2 concentration – show that it was this largely-natural reduction in cloud cover from 1983-2001 and a consequent increase in the amount of short-wave and UV solar radiation reaching the Earth that accounted for five times as much warming as CO2 could have caused.


Nor is the IPCC’s great lie the only lie. If you will allow me to brief you and your advisers, I will show you lie after lie after lie after lie in the official documents of the IPCC and in the speeches of its current chairman, who has made himself a multi-millionaire as a “global warming” profiteer.


However, if you will not make the time to hear me for half an hour before you commit your working people to the futile indignity of excessive taxation and pointless over-regulation without the slightest scientific or economic justification, and to outright confiscation of their farmland without compensation on the fatuous pretext that the land is a “carbon sink”, then I hope that you will at least nominate one of the scientists on your staff to address the two central issues that I have raised in this letter: namely, the egregious cost-ineffectiveness of attempting to mitigate “global warming” by emissions reduction, and the measured fact, well demonstrated in the scientific literature, that a largely-natural change in cloud cover in recent decades caused five times as much “global warming” as CO2. It is also a measured fact that, while those of the UN’s computer models that can be forced with an increase in sea-surface temperatures all predict a consequent fall in the flux of outgoing radiation at top of atmosphere, in observed reality there is an increase. In short, the radiation that is supposed to be trapped here in the troposphere to cause “global warming” is measured as escaping to space much as usual, so that it cannot be causing more than around one-fifth of the warming the IPCC predicts.


My list of the Copenhagen junketers from Australia’s governing class is attached. All those taxpayer dollars squandered, just to forestall 0.02 C° of “global warming” in ten years. Yet, in the past decade and a half, there has been no “global warming” at all. Can you not see that it would be kinder to your working people to wait another decade and see whether global temperatures even begin to respond as the IPCC has predicted? What is the worst that can happen if you wait? Just 0.02 C° of global warming that would not otherwise have occurred. It’s a no-brainer.


Yours faithfully,


VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY

TIE A SPRIG OF GUM-TREE

In an effort to draw attention to the plight of Peter Spencer people are tying a sprig of gum-tree to their cars, shopping trolleys, lapels, letterboxes and letting everyone they know, and anyone they meet, about this situation.

Peter has lost 40kg now and his health is seriously suffering.


The hunger strikers on the Oceanic Viking, who were individuals labelled as terrorists by their own government (which is a government ours apparently acknowledges) had their demands met by Kevin Rudd. Kevin Rudd refuses to even acknowledge Peter Spencer's plight however and claims his reasons to be that he will not 'bend to the will of someone who is committing self-harm'.


What else has been going on here....


RTA Inspectors were ordered to try to prevent the buses carrying demonstrators to Parliament House from being allowed to drive last Monday with one official stating the order 'came from above'.


There is talk of using the Mental Health Act to forcibly remove Mr Spencer from the wind-tower. Mr Spencer is fighting for the right of all farmers (some who have committed suicide and many others who've suffered severe depression since Howard prevented them from using their land back in 1995). This is all part of the Labor and Liberal globalisation agenda. Those two parties are sides of the same coin!


We MUST fight for protection of our sovereign rights under our constitution and stand united to fight against the power of the multi-nationals who our government serves above our interests. It is time that the citizens of Australia banded together and reminded our governments that they exist to SERVE the people of THIS nation first and foremost!

Tie a Sprig of Gum-Tree!

Peter Spencer fights for rights as an Australian.

Australia First Party expresses its unwavering support for Cooma farmer Peter Spencer – yet another victim of the Globalist Agenda of our governments. Peter has been on a hunger strike for over 40 days now, situated on a wind-tower platform, in protest over the Australian Government’s use of farming lands to satisfy the terms of the Kyoto Protocol. Peter has exhausted all other avenues of approach and has now managed to generate a real movement for change. We applaud his tenacity!

Under the Kyoto Protocol there were a variety of ways a signatory nation could achieve the outcomes required – one of these was preventing land-clearing so the Howard Government claimed a 22% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions entirely via preventing land clearing by our farmers rather than reducing Carbon Emissions at all!

Peter Spencer has been unable to use 90% of his land for the last 15 years due to this and the bank is now threatening to foreclose on him. The government has managed to get around the lack of Constitutional Validity for doing this by using state-based native vegetation laws. Under our Constitution, which successive governments now seem hell-bent on defying in the name of honouring International Agreements which benefit only globalists, the government is prevented from acquiring property from persons other than on just terms.

Section 51 of the Australian Constitution: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

(xxxi) the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws;

The farmers affected have not been compensated in any form and under the Rudd Government farmers expect their lands will soon become a ‘carbon sink’ in order to abide by another global treaty – the Copenhage. Where are the ‘just terms’?

Whether one agrees with the idea of Anthropogenic Climate Change or not is actually irrelevant to this. It is blatantly obvious to anyone with a reasonable mind that humans need to reduce our materialism and reliance on fossil fuels and the environmentally degrading manufacturing of plastics etc. Why has our Government chosen to cobble our primary producers rather than reduce consumption of fossil fuels?

119 Million Hectares have been prevented from being partially cleared by farmers while developers continue to carve up bushland areas for ridiculous housing developments in which to house the ever-increasing number of immigrants pouring into our already, over-stretched cities.

The Australian Government has saved itself tens of billions of dollars in penalties which would have applied under Kyoto and the UN Association estimates it has cost farmers around 11 billion dollars. Our beloved farmers are suffering depression and suicide rates which border on an epidemic and yet cheap food imports are trundled into the country from third world nations with no tariff protection to our primary producers. One wonders how shipping produce from the other side of the world is at all conducive to reducing the use of fossil fuels as well.

All Peter Spencer wants is a Royal Commission and compensation for farmers. Kevin Rudd has refused to talk with him, but Pete Spencer no longer WANTS to talk to Kevin Rudd. His local member ignored his letter and his requests for ‘just terms’have been denied repeatedly.

Australia First Party also applauds and notes, with interest, Senator Barnaby Joyce’s support for Peter Spencer and join with him and all other supporters in crying out for a Royal Commission and ‘just compensation’to our farmers! It is time to end the madness Australia – we must stand up and fight – all of these issues are inter-related and the onus is upon you and us, with your support, to fight for what is right and decent for Australians whose ancestors built this proud nation and gave their lives defending it!

Tony Abbott Belongs In Prison: Not In Parliament!

"Tony Abbott" Belongs In Prison: Not In Parliament!

Jim Saleam / Brendan Gidley

The elevation of Tony Abbott to lead the Liberal Party represents the workings of our political system at its most intricate and at its most dirty.

Most Australians consider that Australia has a ‘two party democracy’, two main parties, surrounded by other ‘minor’ parties which favour in one way or another one or the other of the central two machines, but which offer variations on each and ensure political honesty. The two main parties ‘argue’ - and these arguments are taken as real.

In truth, Australia has a one single regime party with two faces. Occasionally, as amongst any leadership, a division of opinion may result and a brawl ensues. We see that over so-called climate change, but we do not see anything other than ‘bipartisanship’ over all else that really counts. We may see the minor parties bicker too, but all roads lead back to keeping the main parties in the saddle.

The class which owns the Australian state (we can call it the ‘regime’ if we like) wants the opening of borders to the free movement of capital and labour, wishes to facilitate the rise of China to superpower status, supports multiculturalism, follows the US superpower into Middle Eastern wars for oil and Israel, agrees with increases in Third World immigration and refugees, and supports internal repressive laws and structures to impose these policies.

The two main parties follow these policies absolutely because they are owned and managed by the same class of people, a veritable traitor class that serves the foreign interest and in which many politicians themselves can also find membership. The rewards are great.

As circumstances change, the colouring of one or the other of these parties is more suited to carry out the governance of Australia to ensure the traitor class line is implemented.

At present the Labor face is in the ascendant. This means the soft face says there is inclusion for all and welfare for hard times, reliance on the chattering classes to explain policy and the liberal media - and increasing immigration for growth because it is our future to become a larger country of diversity and wonder.

However, like with a fine tune dial on a TV set, we can tune in the Liberal face which is the secondary one at this time. It is there to ensure the continued system loyalty of its voters and followers and the minor parties and groups which ‘lean conservative.’ Out of government it may be, but that part of the Liberal game goes on. If people get annoyed with the Labor face, this one promises a ‘change’ back to conservative principles and family values and some flag waving.

Nothing systemic will change here. However, we are to be told increasingly that some struggle exists between the faces of the regime. Why tell us this? Unless the traitor class that owns the state itself is fearful of a new challenge. Challenge from whom? From the nationalists like Australia First and other patriotic forces. So, enter Tony Abbott to fight that challenge.

Dirty and dirtier……

We have to consider the dirty side of politics. Traitor class politics is spiritual dirt paraded about as mainstream cleanliness. Mainstream? Sewer stream!

So Abbott has conspired in the past to serve his fellows. The ‘mad monk’, the Catholic conservative who almost baulked at sex before marriage and preaches for the family, has a real-life side, a dirty side, which is there to serve the traitor class.

Some years ago, through the "Australians For Honest Government", he laboured to bring down popular figure, Pauline Hanson. This shadowy body run by Peter Coleman, father in law of Tim Costello and one-time NSW Opposition Leader, raised funds to sponsor a legal case against Mrs. Hanson. It offered to pay off a low dog called Terry Sharples who filed a civil suit against Hanson over electoral entitlements. The evidence produced became the basis of a flawed prosecution which saw Hanson falsely imprisoned. Yet, her release from prison served as the cover-up for a full investigation into Abbott’s role in the operations of these ‘Honest’ men. The successful appeal case meant no commission of inquiry would ever investigate the ‘Honest’ ones; and we can be certain that the regime of KRudds and Abbotts will make sure that never happens. The ‘Honest’ men stay in the shadows.

The ‘Honest’ men infiltrate parties, undermine political rivals, spy for the Liberal Party (mainly) and spread rumour and falsehood against their targets. Their staff and their agents privatise the aims of Australia’s even ‘more secret’ political police agencies – which do admit to working against Australian patriots and nationalists. We could, if we wished, name innumerable persons formerly of One Nation and other parties who have served as disruptors for the ‘Honest’ men (and for the political police).

Tony Abbott knows much and says nought. He knows how politics really works and it’s not the fairy-land of free elections where bits of pencilled paper in ballot boxes determine who governs. That determines only which face of the traitor class is presented to us; it does not determine whether we, the people, govern.

Essentially, Abbott is just another grub in a long line of grubs. He is part of a machine. When he faced off the One Nation challenge, he did so with more than pimps and court cases. He even reconstructed the Liberal Party, dredging up some old leaders from an old 1980’s faction and he relaunched them (mainly in New South Wales) to keep the conservative faithful in the ranks long enough for him to disintegrate Hansonism. It was masterly muck, done at Howard’s request. It has a certain gutter style and is to be respected for its diabolically anti democratic quality! Bravo, grub!

Yet, Abbott shows a propensity to undertake destabilizing pursuits on a much larger scale, when in 2003, in his position as a Howard Liberal Party Cabinet Minister he supported the war against Iraq. The Liberal inner circle employed a litany of deceit to inflict war against the people of Iraq – for oil and for Israel – all the while telling us outright lies about “weapons of mass destruction” and Saddam’s “links with Al Qaeda”. The resultant carnage, suffering and environmental devastation - is the first great war crime of the twenty first century.

So we stand in the presence of a determined traitor class fighter from whom we should expect little mercy or regard now that we are organizing ourselves as a party. Nor should we give the slightest concession to the pseudo-patriotism the Liberal Party will surely invoke. Not the slightest wink at ‘border control’ chatter, ‘tough’ lines on asylum seeker invaders, flag waving. We have seen it all before. And to use Abbott’s favourite word: it’s bullshit.

Prison not parliament ……

For his role in the Hanson affair and for the Iraq war, Tony Abbott belongs in prison and not in parliament. He takes risks to do his job. So must we – to rid ourselves of creatures like this..

The Australian people demand from their party determined advocacy of their rights – to employment without contracts, to a tertiary education without overseas students, to run a business without bureaucracy, to preserve their heritage and their identity as a people. So the Liberal Party under its new boss will receive from us what it deserves – contempt and trenchant opposition. Forward Australia First!

Darling Downs Protest.

Members and friends of Australia First. A public protest is being organized for the Toowoomba Region in the coming weeks. In response to requests from Australian workers who are fed up with seeing local jobs going to foreign workers, Australia First QLD will demonstrate on their behalf.

If you are interested in joining fellow patriots on this protest please contact AF Queensland via afpqld@hotmail.com

Has the Right returned to Australian Politics?

Under the new Liberal leadership of Tony Abbott, should we expect a change in political thinking in Australia?

As we write this the media and the Left are gearing up for a campaign against the Climate Deniers within the Federal Coalition. The accusations of Right Wing Extremists and conspiracy theorists have started to seep out on to Australia Talk-Back radio.

It is fair to say that many voters would be relieved that the Lib/Nat's are showing signs many in their ranks have had enough of being the Right Wing Arm of the ALP. But 'Right Wing' they are not. Many here will remember the role Tony Abbott and his Chinese friends played in the Down Fall of One Nation.

Action against One Nation Party

In 1998, Abbott established a trust fund called "Australians for Honest Politics Trust" to help bankroll civil court cases against the One Nation Party and its leader Pauline Hanson.^[32] Prime Minister John Howard denied any knowledge of existence of such a fund.^[33] Abbott was also accused of offering funds to One Nation dissident Terry Sharples to support his court battle against the party. However, Prime Minister Howard defended the honesty of Abbott in this matter.^[34]

It was Sharples' legal action that laid the basis for the prosecution of the One Nation founders, Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge, which ultimately resulted in Hanson being imprisoned.^[35]

Opposition MP Craig Emerson demanded to know where the money for the trust, reportedly $100,000, had come from, saying that taxpayers had a right to know.^[36] Treasurer Peter Costello said of Abbott's actions, "I don't think that the way to resolve political disputes is through the courts. I think the way to resolve it is at the ballot box."^[37]

The conviction against Hanson was ultimately overturned, leading to criticism of a range of politicians for political interference by the adjudicating justice. Abbott conceded that the political threat One Nation posed to the Howard Government was "a very big factor" in his decision to pursue the legal attack, but he also claimed to be acting "in Australia's national interest". Mr Howard also defended Abbott's actions saying "It's the job of the Liberal Party to politically attack other parties - there's nothing wrong with that."^[35]

Australia should applaud the move by the coalition in blocking the ETS. But be warned they are no friends of ours. We welcome the Lib/Nats to the Deniers, Conspiracy and Extremists club. Interesting times ahead.

Hoax of the Century?

Climate change data dumped

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

Source