6 Days To Email Parliamentary Submission On Carbon Tax

[Adamy]

Got this in my email box - Not judging it - just passing it on in case it matters to some people:

Just One Week To Submit The Truth On Gillard's Carbon Dioxide Tax

Dear Allan Choveaux,

The Gillard-Brown Government has just sunk to a new low in trying to suppress the views of the Australian people. And I need your help to make sure she does not get away with it. .

Every Australian has the right to make a formal submission on proposed legislation, which MUST be taken account of.

Now, we both know that the carbon tax committee will be inundated with the truth about the damaging affects of this unnecessary tax on carbon dioxide, and how it is just WRONG for Australia. So Julia Gillard has just attempted to shut us down and deny us out chance to put our views on the record.

In an underhand move, Julia Gillard and Bob Brown have secretly annoucned that all public submissions on this 1,100 page bill must be made in just one week - submissions closing on the 22nd of September. That's right, they're is giving us just one week to read and comment on over 1000 pages of legislation. And the icing on the cake? She decided to cancel public hearings around Australia (something that is always done with major legislation). She said there "isn't enough time".

Julia Gillard and Bob Brown are clearly running scared.

They hope that no Australian will find out about this or will have the time to write a submission. But let's prove them wrong.

Allan Choveaux, can you please find the time to email the Select Joint Committee and tell them what we both know about this great new tax?

Written submissions must be received by next Thursday, 22 September and can be emailed to jscacefl@aph.gov.au. You can find more information as to how to prepare a submission here, but really, just a short paragraph explaining how damaging and how unnecessary it is will do. Put it on the record and make sure that they are FORCED to notice.

It is VITAL that Julia Gillard fails in her attempt to suppress us, and that the committee is flooded with submissiosn from thousands of Australians opposed to this unnecessary and destructive great new tax.
‪Labor is already denying Australians a vote on whether or not to have a carbon tax, so let's make sure that these underhand tactics won't silence us, and that the voice of truth shall be entered into the parliamentary record.

Please, send a short submission to the Joint Select Committee at jscacefl@aph.gov.au and make sure that Julia Gillard's tactics do not succeed in silencing the truth!

Thank you for your support,

Timothy Andrews
Managing Editor
Menzies House

PS: Please help us make sure that Julia Gillard's doesn't succeed in silencing the truth, and take the time to email a a short submission to the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee by emailing jscacefl@aph.gov.au before September 22, and put on the record just how damaging this tax on carbon dioxide will be.

[samsy]

if this is true this is a joke.

not only is this tax a joke but it will be extremely difficult for futures governemnts, which is HIGELY likely to happen in 2 years time, to revoke this legislation as the carbon credits genergated become private property. therefore the government will have to buy the carbon credit s back from a individual. so once the governemnt has squashed the legislation its going to cost the governemnt a fortune to pay out the carbon credits the majority of australia where promised we wouldnt have.

[Louis]

What I find interesting is that anybody who understands environmental science, even at a rather rudimentary level, should also understand that man made global warming is a load of BS.

So the question arises, why is it being pushed so hard both here and around the world. Either those involved have been totally hoodwinked into this rubbish and have not done even the slightest amount of research necessary to realise that it is BS, or, they have their own hidden agenda to push, or, they seem to be suffering from a very bad case of cognitive dissonance over the issue.

Sadly, either way, I believe that we are currently borrowing $150, 000 000 a day at 4.2 percent compounding interest off the Chinese government to prop up the Australian Economy at the moment. Once this legislation is passed, how much more will Australia have to borrow to keep Australia afloat? And more to the point, how much longer is it before we go like Greece etc.

Sadly, the world is full of countries whose governments have collapsed their economies and where their people now live in poverty.


Louis

[Louis]

I received the following the other day. Makes for interesting reading. Especially the link to the

The Galileo Movement

http://www.galileomovement.com.au/

Axe theTaxwith FACTS

Followingis a sample of some of the scientists and other experts who actually worked forthe IPCC as contributors / editors / reviewers and have publicly expressedtheir scepticism about the IPCC "process."



DrRobert Balling: "The IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration inthe rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected."(This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).



Dr.Lucka Bogataj: "Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don't causeglobal temperatures to rise.... temperature changed first and some 700 yearslater a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed."



DrJohn Christy: "Little known to the public is the fact that most of thescientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming isoccurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/orpoliticized with each succeeding report."



DrRosa Compagnucci: "Humans have only contributed a few tenths of adegree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate."



DrRichard Courtney: "The empirical evidence strongly indicates that theanthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong."



DrJudith Curry: "I'm not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCCbecause I don't have confidence in the process."



DrRobert Davis: "Global temperatures have not been changing as state of theart climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellitetemperature observations appears in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers."



DrWillem de Lange: "In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of approximately3,000 "scientists" who agreed that there was a discernable humaninfluence on climate. I didn't. There is no evidence to support the hypothesisthat runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities."



DrChris de Freitas: "Government decision-makers should have heard by nowthat the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driverof global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed needfor costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have notheard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on thelogical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance' and predictions of computermodels."



DrOliver Frauenfeld: "Much more progress is necessary regarding ourcurrent understanding of climate and our abilities to model it."



DrPeter Dietze: "Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grosslyunderestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake."



DrJohn Everett: "It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastalzones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the presentscenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recentscientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increasedacidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCCscenarios."



DrEigil Friis-Christensen: "The IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect onthe Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived itstask only as investigating potential human causes of climate change."



DrLee Gerhard: "I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic globalwarming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA's James] Hansen'swild claims in the late 1980's. I went to the [scientific] literature to studythe basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me tobelieve that the claims were false."



DrIndur Goklany: "Climate change is unlikely to be the world's mostimportant environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signalin the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies orseverities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the populationat risk."



DrVincent Gray: "The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestratedlitany of lies."



DrKenneth Green: "We can expect the climate crisis industry to growincreasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions theirauthority."



DrMike Hulme: "Claims such as '2,500 of the world's leading scientists havereached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence onthe climate' are disingenuous ... The actual number of scientists who backedthat claim was "only a few dozen."



DrKiminori Itoh: "There are many factors which cause climate change.Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When people knowwhat the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists."



DrYuri Izrael: "There is no proven link between human activity and globalwarming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There isno serious threat to the climate."



DrSteven Japar: "Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predictedmid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient toinvalidate global climate models and projections made with them."



DrGeorg Kaser: "This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) isnot just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude ... It is sowrong that it is not even worth discussing,"



DrAynsley Kellow: "I'm not holding my breath for criticism to be taken onboard, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC:there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected forpublication, no matter how flawed it might be."



DrMadhav Khandekar: "I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climatechange as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggeratedand lacking any supporting evidence."



DrHans Labohm: "The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakershave been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process ofspin-doctoring."



Dr.Andrew Lacis: "There is no scientific merit to be found in the ExecutiveSummary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeaceactivists and their legal department."



DrChris Landsea: "I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a processthat I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and beingscientifically unsound."



DrRichard Lindzen: "The IPCC process is driven by politics rather thanscience. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploitspublic ignorance."



DrHarry Lins: "Surface temperature changes over the past century have beenepisodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decadenow. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."



DrPhilip Lloyd: "I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reportsand the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summarieshave distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying preciselythe opposite of what the scientists said."



DrMartin Manning: "Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summaryfor Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors."



DrStephen McIntyre: "The many references in the popular media to a"consensus of thousands of scientists" are both a great exaggerationand also misleading."



DrPatrick Michaels: "The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have nowinvalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is notsettled."



DrNils-Axel Morner: "If you go around the globe, you find no sea level riseanywhere."



DrJohannes Oerlemans: "The IPCC has become too political. Manyscientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, researchfunding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromisescientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warmingdoctrine."



DrRoger Pielke: "All of my comments were ignored without even arebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actuallyintended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policyactions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding of theclimate system."



DrJan Pretel: "It's nonsense to drastically reduce emissions ... predictingabout the distant future-100 years can't be predicted due touncertainties."



DrPaul Reiter: "As far as the science being 'settled,' I think that is anobscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are notscientists."



DrMurray Salby: "I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someonesays the "science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science issettled on this topic is in fantasia."



DrTom Segalstad: "The IPCC global warming model is not supported by thescientific data."



DrFred Singer: "Isn't it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of theIPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even theexistence of satellites--probably because the data show a (slight) cooling overthe last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climatemodels?"



DrHajo Smit: "There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strongnatural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently Ihardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between humanCO2 emissions and climate change."



DrRoy Spencer: "The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed toregulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause global warming areonly a means to that goal."



DrRichard Tol: "The IPCC attracted more people with political ratherthan academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCCand they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices."



DrTom Tripp: "There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makesit difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warmingis man made."



DrRobert Watson: "The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in thedirection of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstatingthe impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in theerrors and ask why it happened."

DrGerd-Rainer Weber: "Most of the extremist views about climate change havelittle or no scientific basis."



DrDavid Wojick: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat ofalarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."



DrMiklos Zagoni: "I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic globalwarming theory is wrong."



Dr.Eduardo Zorita: "Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies,analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal,have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing these lines... a few of myfuture studies will not see the light of publication."

Thank you!

The GalileoMovement

http://www.galileomovement.com.au/

At stake is humanfreedom, your freedom, our freedom

The triumph ofevil requires only that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke