This is, I think the third contact I have had with you.

The last was about Climate Change and my belief that CO2 was not a villain.

A charming lady from your office rang, we had a good conversation. I acceded that if the proposed tax targeted actual pollutants and not CO2 AND pensioners and other not so priveleged citizens were, in fact, properly compensated, I would be not too distressed. Not believing for a moment that such a suggestion would be complied with we ‘parted’ on good terms.

 

Now, however, the situation has seriously deteriorated. You are still planning to tax on the basis of CO2 emisssion, I don’t believe compensations are likely to be just, AND I am now ‘armed’ with a lot more information.

 

I would respectfully ask you to have a look at my own website, perhaps by accessing it with this address:

 

Here, especially by following the links and other posts, you will see that my understanding of the climate change situation has now been proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, to be correct.

The argument has gone way beyond whether global temperatures are rising or not, or, if so why?

The cat is now out of the bag.

I cannot guess how deeply you personally are involved with those I would call ‘ungodly’, those who in fact themselves are playing God.

But I would like to hear from you, personally if possible, your response to this revelation regarding the obviously fraudulent activities of all those involved in conning the public.

This information, and a lot more technical evidence that on its own, is sufficient to prove the farce of CO2 levels being a significant influence on the average global temperature, that it is not even likely that the average temperature is increasing in any man-influenced manner, is in the public domain as an ever increasing influence on the public. No doubt the mainstream media will hang in there with the “official” story for a while longer but eventually, the true situation will become sufficiently public for you to need to start worrying about the next election.

Julia is either a silly person, or maybe just prone to make silly statements like

“unemployment is not all bad, it means there are more people looking for jobs”

“people saying that Jewish persons were involved in 9/11 are stupid”

likewise “people who don’t accept global warming are stupid”.

Well I take offence, because there are many thousands of people who do not agree with her, of course including me.

I am prepared to wait until it becomes obvious which of us is stupid. Either way she is not behaving sensibly. Even if there are stupid people, some of them elected her and she should have more respect.

 

I guess the reason I started waffling on about Julia, is that she too needs to look to the future. If this carbon tax is implemented, the future of the Labour government is almost certainly history. (My opinion, of course).  Your only basis for hope is that ‘they’ don’t have much going for them either. It is likely that, if the truth comes out, the Greens may not be so popular. One of the major parties needs to take possession of the ball and kick a few goals, so to speak.

 

It is to be hoped that the Australian government will hold itself proud and independent from overseas influence.

 

We could be a self-sufficient country, with energy, food and all normal needs. We have gas, coal (which will not destroy the planet), we can export wheat, wool, uranium, iron ore, but no more gas or coal, and we will live forever. Of course, Indonesia or China might invade but its ok to dream.

 

To be practical though, there is absolutely no need to go along with this grand international plan.  WE are not overpopulated.

If there is going to be a world wide ‘transformation’ we do not want to be part of it. We are in a position to negotiate.

 

With due respect, your position is a difficult one. As Malcolm once said, “life wasn’t meant to be easy”.

I hope you feel that the time has come to do the right thing by the Australian people.

 

I thank you in the anticipation that you will seriously look at my views, beliefs and information.

I think the time for rhetoric is over, and some sensible decision making is required.

 

Very Sincerely,

Ken McMurtrie

38 Hastings Ave  Blackburn South Vic 3130

03 9833 4210

0413 591 019

 

 

REPLY:

Hi Jasmin,
Thanks for your reply on behalf of Greg regarding several issues,  to which only one has been addressed, and then not meaningfully.
CO2 is one of several so-called GHG’s which you have listed:·         Carbon dioxide (CO2)
·         Methane (CH4)
·         Nitrous oxide (N2O)
·         Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
·         Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
·         Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)

 The following is directed to Greg, I would really appreciate comments directly related to these questions.

 Question 1:  Would you please advise, or point me to the answer, as to how a carbon tax will reduce the pollution levels of the ‘OTHER’ contaminants?  (this remains unanswered).

 Now, back to CO2. There are no scientifically acceptable proofs of the connection between atmospheric CO2 levels and average global temperature. There are proofs that negate the claim!

 There are no scientifically acceptable proofs that the current global temperature is rising, long term, at all!  There are meaningful indications that the global temperature may be declining, long term!

 Question 3:  Why did you consider that your answer given in your email would suffice when it did not comment on my questions of dubious (to say the least), motivations for the world-wide introductions of carbon controls, referred to in my website link?  ( https://tgrule.wordpress.com )

 I now include the text of the relevant post: 

“From Their Own Mouths: Global Warming is a Fraud”

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports”Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” – Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” – emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

“We require a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change – these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.” – Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” – Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” – Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” – Professor Maurice King

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.” – Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.” – Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” – Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.” – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” –Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” – Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.” – Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” – Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.” – John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.” – Christopher Manes, Earth First!

“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” – David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

 I cannot believe that the government can just go ahead and ignore these issues. The logical assumption is that you actually know all this and that you assume the public do not, or will not become aware of the deception. This would be a career- and reputation-risking assumption. (The TV ad “say Yes…”, is an insult to our intelligence, and a political fraud paid for by the tax-payer).

 I do appreciate receiving replies, showing good faith, but we are not in parliament. Here, the facts, the truth and the welfare of the citizens are what count.

 I do not wish to be disrespectful, nor appear to be. I hope that you will respect me, my information and questions.

 Sincerely,