Copenhagen summit dec '09, scam.

Hillbilly F Truck · 05-11-2009, 06:17 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40

Hillbilly F Truck · 05-11-2009, 07:05 PM

The not so hidden agenda for global governance.

ltd · 05-11-2009, 07:08 PM

Frightening. Just frightening.

Keepleft · 05-11-2009, 07:48 PM

Dr Dennis Jensen LIB WA at WHIRLPOOL discussing all this.

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum....cfm?t=1313200

Walt Kowalski · 05-11-2009, 08:26 PM

This should be the issue of the century.

Our freedom lost on the con of Climate Change and dodgy "science"

We get an Extra Tax System - er sorry I mean Emissions Trading Scheme - so that companies in Australia shut down under the burden of the extra taxes, people lose their jobs and their products then get made in India and China anyway and they have zero pollution controls so that even if their "science" was correct the scheme would fail.

Its Global Governance that Left wing politicians want and they will get it with this agreement if KRudd & Barrack Hussein Obama sign it.

Tell your local parliamentarian that you do not want the ETS or the Copenhagen agreement.

You owe it to yourself and your family.

And if you think he's on the payroll of some polluter save your time. I don't believe it

Work Horse · 05-11-2009, 11:04 PM

Lord Christopher Monckton will be first against the wall come the revolution.

Then raise the scarlet standard high
Beneath its folds we'll live and die
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer
We'll keep the red flag flying here

Our time is near comrades :evil3:

**Polyal** · 05-11-2009, 11:35 PM

Recently went to a ETS presentation and my god what a load of BS, the system will never work and it gets more complicated by the day.

There are so many loop holes and "ways out" for the bigger companies its ridiculous. Its the small and middle sizes that are going to get hit the hardest, the ones that cant afford it.

Franco Cozzo · 05-11-2009, 11:51 PM

Makes the "2012" conspiracy sound true about how they reckon the "world will end as we know it", not neccesarily we'll all die, but world government perhaps?

Who knows? Then again, Y2K and all that crap.

XRQTR · 06-11-2009, 12:01 AM

Anyone with half a brain can see that the ETS is just a quick fix for the GFC.

Governments worldwide need to prop up empty or emptying coffers so what better way than to introduce a new tax and what better way to get the "stupid" public majority to agree than to say it's to help the environment and that everyone else is doing it so we're just doing our bit.

A recent survey actually put the climate change issue in third place of peoples concerns for the immediate future.

rodderz · 06-11-2009, 12:17 AM

Perhaps a way of governments to make the extra money should electric motors/cars be more popular and petrol/oil use be scarce in years to come?

XRQTR · 06-11-2009, 12:25 AM

Don't worry they'll soon figure out how to tax that as well

:

Keepleft · 06-11-2009, 10:29 AM

With reference to Swingcat73 @ Whirlpool's Dr Dennis Jensen's climate change topic, held at its "In The News" section.

Quote:

The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three
basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization
of which will include the following:

(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on
adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds
and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will
operate as such, as appropriate.

(b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund
including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to
address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance,
rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation
window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest
incentives relating to REDD actions.

© The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for
adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology
action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on
adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting
and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and
verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of
technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The
secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for
information exchange.

From; the UN document dated 15 September 2009, "Framework Convention on Climate Change", in Pdf:-
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/doc...hagen-2009.pdf

Above Pdf's source UN distribution website,> this Convention in assorted languages:-
http://unfccc.int/documentation/docu...iref=600005444

Dr Jensen's website, contains additional study links:-
http://www.dennisjensen.com.au/

Hillbilly F Truck · 06-11-2009, 02:12 PM

Their use of fear to help push this agenda is criminal,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w62gsctP2gc

Another good source of information,
http://jimball.com.au/Warming.htm

It's very telling that the very nature of this new massive money spinner of an industry (carbon trading), is reliant on the very thing it claims to be trying to reduce. Co2 is not a pollutant and nor can we as humans change climate, which has been happening for billions of years.

XRQTR · 06-11-2009, 05:13 PM

The one thing that is yet to be explained, or have I missed it somewhere, is just how this whole scam I mean scheme will actually aide in reducing carbon, other than the fact that it will close many small to medium businesses which may or may not be currently adding to pollution.

**Falcon Coupe** · 06-11-2009, 07:55 PM

One would think an issue this big would require a referendum.

XRQTR · 07-11-2009, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

One would think an issue this big would require a referendum.

HAHAHAHA

Too funny, could you imagine a referendum on whether or not the government should implement a new tax?? Regardless of what the excuse is to have it.

What was so worrying about what was said on the Alan Jones program??

Yellow_Festiva · 07-11-2009, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XRQTR

What was so worrying about what was said on the Alan Jones program??

Hear it for yourself:

http://www.2gb.com.au/index.php?opti...205&Itemid=134

Scroll down below the main picture to where the text is and click on the pod cast link titled.

"Is the Copenhagen treaty about creating a world government?"

**Falcon Coupe** · 07-11-2009, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XRQTR

HAHAHAHA

Too funny, could you imagine a referendum on whether or not the government should implement a new tax?? Regardless of what the excuse is to have it.

What was so worrying about what was said on the Alan Jones program??

Austrailans voted for the Rudd Government, not a World Government, hence they have no right to sign on our behalf.

ltd · 07-11-2009, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Austrailans voted for the Rudd Government, not a World Government, hence they have no right to sign on our behalf.

And that ladies and gentlemen is the whole crux of the issue.
Brilliant post Falcon Coupe.

GK · 07-11-2009, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Austrailans voted for the Rudd Government, not a World Government, hence they have no right to sign on our behalf.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ltd

Brilliant post Falcon Coupe.

Beat me to it. Awesome post Falcon Coupe!

I would also add that Australians had had enough of the Liberals and wanted someone else to have a go at running the country. Rudd seems to be among those desperate to rule the world.

GK

TS50 · 07-11-2009, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Austrailans voted for the Rudd Government, not a World Government, hence they have no right to sign on our behalf.

But K Rudd wants to be king of the world, not Prime mister of Australia

This scheme, is actually more scarey that climate change itself
If it is implimented, that will be the beginning of the end
Its all about politicans "feeling good" that they have done something good during their term, plus the extra tax of course

I do not believe the average person realises how much impact it will have on them finacially
For a start power bills up by 25%
comapnies (such as cement manuafactures) going out of buisness because their process causes so much Carbon (however it wont affect the chinesse companies producing these product, so there is more australian jobs gone, more chinesse jobs made

Scariest thing to happen to us in a lot of years, yet not many people are paying attention

Romulus · 07-11-2009, 10:44 PM

I think one of the main problems we have in Australia is our lack of interest in politics. Not enough people care to do something or speak up about it. Whinging after the horse has bolted is too late. The video from Lord Monckton is very interesting indeed.

XRQTR · 08-11-2009, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Austrailans voted for the Rudd Government, not a World Government, hence they have no right to sign on our behalf.

And there lies the problem dude, when you elect someone as your chosen representative you effectively allow them the right to speak on your behalf. When no one lobbies their local Federal MP to raise questions then the MP can only assume people are all for it, that's why they have offices within their constituencies, for people to raise issues and have them brought up in parliament.

Sometimes I think that coups aren't such a bad thing, when a politician is clearly going against the mainstream population then why shouldn't they be ousted in a military style coup.

However in Australia the mainstream population is a bunch of sheep, do gooder sheep who think they are doing their bit to save the planet when Australia makes up for less than 1% of total pollution. We have a huge land mass and alot of that actually acts as a carbon trap/sink for our local industry, it's the heavily populated countries that have very little carbon trap/sink spots that contribute to the world carbon problem because it can't be soaked up into the vegetation.

Most scientists forget to disclose this and if no onje aslks then they're not really lieing are they and because I don't have PhD after my name how can I possibly know what I'm talking about.

: must be a conspricy theorist

Cosnpracy is not a theory, it's a simple fact, Governments conspire on a daily babsis on how to get more money from the tax payers of the country they are in charge of. That's no conspiracy, that goes on every day and this is just the best way in a very, very, very long time that not only one but every country in the world has found to get the people to pay more than their fare share. This is one of very few times that they have all been able to get money by fear mongering, the only other times was during WW1 and WW2 with "War Bonds" which essentially gave the governments the funds they needed to keep fighting those wars.

Stef OcD., BpD., AdhD.

trippytaka · 11-01-2010, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

One would think an issue this big would require a referendum.

Not sure if this is about the ETS or climate change action. Firstly, most of you know I am against an ETS, but a believer in human made climate change.

The problem with throwing open a vote about climate change is that the voting public don't have ALL the evidence in front of them and they will be swayed one way or another by the loudest and most opinionated of their friends. Increasing the problem is that the whole issue is one big Chinese whisper. The opinion leaders more often than not make up their minds after watching one program, hear one interview on the radio, or read one article in the paper that presents one point of view. This happens on both sides of the political fence.

I'd love a referendum, but to have one we'd need a solid 6 months of televised (totally unbiased) debates covering every single issue on both sides. And make viewing compulsory somehow... it's too big an issue to let it go to a vote without everyone having all the facts.

XRQTR · 11-01-2010, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trippytaka

The problem with throwing open a vote about climate change is that the voting public don't have ALL the evidence in front of them and they will be swayed one way or another by the loudest and most opinionated of their friends.

Elementary my dear Watson.

This is what has been the biggest problem to date, one side HAS been louder than the other for far too long and the evidence which has been put to the people has made the majority fear the worst.

How then, by your own definition can you honestly believe that Climate Change is as it has been preached to us for all these years??

How can any of the evidence that has been put before us for so long, which in more recent times has been shown, time and time again, to be falsified/doctored/altered to suit the agenda of the CC experts?? When even by their own admission in the same texts they flaunt the fact that they have done this.

It's time people got the "other side" of the story, I get it you're family have many friends in the field, raddah raddah, but isn't a conspiracy best spread by the innocent and not by the learned?? Later followed up with the "evidence" to prove what people have "known" for quite some time.

Like you said, Chinese whispers.

:

trippytaka · 11-01-2010, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XRQTR

Elementary my dear Watson.

This is what has been the biggest problem to date, one side HAS been louder than the other for far too long and the evidence which has been put to the people has made the majority fear the worst.

How then, by your own definition can you honestly believe that Climate Change is as it has been preached to us for all these years??

How can any of the evidence that has been put before us for so long, which in more recent times has been shown, time and time again, to be falsified/doctored/altered to suit the agenda of the CC experts?? When even by their own admission in the same texts they flaunt the fact that they have done this.

It's time people got the "other side" of the story, I get it you're family have many friends in the field, raddah raddah, but isn't a conspiracy best spread by the innocent and not by the learned?? Later followed up with the "evidence" to prove what people have "known" for quite some time.

Like you said, Chinese whispers.

:

I'm 100% happy to open it up to proper debate and wish it would be... it's the only way to bury debate once and for all.

durtyharry · 11-01-2010, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trippytaka

Not sure if this is about the ETS or climate change action. Firstly, most of you know I am against an ETS, but a believer in human made climate change.

The problem with throwing open a vote about climate change is that the voting public don't have ALL the evidence in front of them and they will be swayed one way or another by the loudest and most opinionated of their friends. Increasing the problem is that the whole issue is one big Chinese whisper. The opinion leaders more often than not make up their minds after watching one program, hear one interview on the radio, or read one article in the paper that presents one point of view. This happens on both sides of the political fence.

I'd love a referendum, but to have one we'd need a solid 6 months of televised (totally unbiased) debates covering every single issue on both sides. And make viewing compulsory somehow... it's too big an issue to let it go to a vote without everyone having all the facts.

Well put, referendums are for things like republic or commonwealth, lyrics for the national song; things that are opinion based. Opinions on climate change are worth zilch, only facts count.

**Falcon Coupe** · 11-01-2010, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

One would think an issue this big would require a referendum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trippytaka

Not sure if this is about the ETS or climate change action.

Neither, my comment was directed towards the OP's link showing a possible World Government.

trippytaka · 11-01-2010, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Neither, my comment was directed towards the OP's link showing a possible World Government.

Fair enough... World Government. I wonder if that would be as toothless a tiger as the UN. Imagine the corruption!

MO · 11-01-2010, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trippytaka

Fair enough... World Government. I wonder if that would be as toothless a tiger as the UN. Imagine the corruption!

Probably not because Australia just like America and the UK would no longer be sovereign states .
How it would all work I'm not sure but I'm looking at it.
As it is most of Britains law now comes out of Belguim under the guise of Trade in the E.U.