Lord Monckton is 'Back' updating the Latest on the Global Warming 'SCAM'..!

[jackovesk]

Thursday, April 5, 2012

The climate change professor at the center of the scandal over her assertion that global warming skeptics were akin to racists and should be "treated" for having a psychiatric disorder wrote a letter in which she praised Barack Obama for hiring eugenicist John P. Holdren as his chief science advisor, while also urging Obama to ignore public opinion and disregard democracy in favor of enforcing draconian climate change mandates.

Following University of Oregon Professor Kari Norgaard's presentation of a discussion document at the recent Planet Under Pressure conference, in which she called for global warming skeptics to be viewed as racists who need to be "treated" for mental disorders, every academic establishment associated with her has attempted to memory hole information concerning Norgaard's biography and her previous work.

http://www.whitman.edu/whitman/images/24CE1199-0D5E-303D-0BB0BFD99A1D2774_def.jpg
University of Oregon Professor Kari Norgaard

As the Watts Up With That blog documents, the University of Oregon has attempted to re-write history Soviet-style by amending the controversial terms used in Norgaard's paper without so much as an editor's note.

However, a damning letter written by Norgaard which appears on the Whitman College Magazine website has not yet been erased. In the letter, Norgaard praises Barack Obama for making an "excellent choice" in hiring John P. Holdren, whom she inaccurately describes as a "Nobel Peace Prize winner".

As we have exhaustively documented, Holdren is an avowed eugenicist who in his 1977 book Ecoscience called for a "planetary regime" to carry out forced abortions and mandatory sterilization procedures, as well as drugging the water supply, in an effort to cull the human surplus.

"Please listen to Holdren and Hansen," writes Norgaard, referring to prominent NASA global warming alarmist and Al Gore ally Dr. James Hansen, the man who endorsed a book by fellow alarmist Keith Farnish which advocated acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism in blowing up dams and demolishing cities in order to return the planet to the agrarian age.

Norgaard then openly urges Obama to virtually suspend democracy, ignore public sentiment, and enforce climate change mandates by executive fiat.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9OJHNvfR9o&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg&index=7&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9OJHNvfR9o&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg&index=7&feature=plcp

http://www.infowars.com/professor-norgaard-urged-obama-to-ignore-democracy-public-opinion/

PS - Too Funny Prof. Kari Norgaard...:pound: and you expect to be taken seriously..? :faint:




she called for global warming skeptics to be viewed as racists who need to be "treated" for mental disorders

Norgaard praises Barack Obama for making an "excellent choice" in hiring John P. Holdren

Norgaard then openly urges Obama to virtually suspend democracy

The Left/Elite's (In-Bred) breeding program is in real trouble, isn't it...:yes4:

[sygh]

I appreciate your video informing us of Norgaard. I do see a problem though. Can't say its global warming, can say its a matter of finite resources. I think we should plant as many trees as we can possibly plant right now and going forward because it takes time to recoup from such devistating deforestation.

[araucaria]

We need to plant trees, yes, but to escape the finite paradigm, we need free energy, and before we get it, we need to demonstrate how we can handle that. As Brian O'Leary used to say, we don't want Dick Cheney looking after free energy!

[jackovesk]

I appreciate your video informing us of Norgaard. I do see a problem though. Can't say its global warming, can say its a matter of finite resources. I think we should plant as many trees as we can possibly plant right now and going forward because it takes time to recoup from such devistating deforestation.

Take a stand..!

Either that or start 'Educating Yourself'...:faint:

[panopticon]

G'day Jacko,

I educated myself and as a Permaculturist reckon part of the solution is definitely planting more trees...

As for ol' Chris Monckton, Gina Rinehart's (the coal and iron ore billionaire) good friend (http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/05/27/pr-outfit-behind-monckton-backers-a-company-beyond-ideology/) :

aX2kMAfJggU

and keep the news straight and fair and balanced, as they do on Fox. (@ ~1:40)
Enough said...

Monckton is, amongst other things, a right wing ultra-conservative journalist, politician and was a propagandist for Thatcher. He would make ol' Ed Bernays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays) proud!
I've read much of his and Plimer's arguments and don't find them at all convincing.
Doesn't mean I'm right, but doesn't mean I'm wrong either.

As for my position...

I'd say that the increased "climate weirding" around the globe over the last decade really doesn't leave much room for doubt as to there being an "event" happening (though I'm sure there are many who would argue that it's all just a coincidence). Whether it is "man made" is really academic now. It is too late to do anything, if it is "man made", because everyone has been too busy fighting over their spot in the sand box.

http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/extras/image/name/san1/740/120740/large/the_sandbox_planet_-_splashscreen.jpg

Limited food security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_security), potable water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_water), arable land (http://technorati.com/business/finance/article/arable-land-shortage-and-the-case/) and phosphate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus)...
Does not bode well for the future.

As Harold Pinter said (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?36586-It-Is-Essential-That-People-Remain-Ignorant-Harold-Pinter):

politicians... are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

[Oouthere]

I've lived near the Gulf of Mexico most of my life, at less than 15' above sea level and a lot of land in the marshes are less than 3' above sea level. We'd be the first to know if global warming is raising the ocean's level....it isn't.

Rich

[panopticon]

I've lived near the Gulf of Mexico most of my life, at less than 15' above sea level and a lot of land in the marshes are less than 3' above sea level. We'd be the first to know if global warming is raising the ocean's level....it isn't.


G'day Oouthere,

From what I understand the recorded sea level rise is somewhere between 1.5 and 2 mm per year.
That would mean that over the last 40 years it would be 60 to 80 mm (~2 to 3 inches).

The CSIRO (http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/) has lots of information on this, for those interested, and while I am not intending to defend the science (as I am not a scientist) there are heaps of scientists who have dealt with all the "denial" claims. I choose to agree with them, others don't.

As I said, I reckon it's too late, to make a difference now, so it doesn't really matter one way or another if anyone believes in it or not. I hope I'm wrong, but don't think I am.

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg

From the University of Colorado (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/):

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2012_rel1/sl_ns_global.png

It's also interesting to note that the variation in ENSO has been noticed to have an effect on sea level (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-262). Anyway here (http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/) and here (http://ossfoundation.us/the-leading-edge/projects/environment/global-warming/myths) are more information
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

[jackovesk]

G'day Jacko,

I educated myself and as a Permaculturist reckon part of the solution is definitely planting more trees...

As for ol' Chris Monckton, Gina Rinehart's (the coal and iron ore billionaire) good friend (http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/05/27/pr-outfit-behind-monckton-backers-a-company-beyond-ideology/) :

aX2kMAfJggU

and keep the news straight and fair and balanced, as they do on Fox. (@ ~1:40)
Enough said...

Monckton is, amongst other things, a right wing ultra-conservative journalist, politician and was a propagandist for Thatcher. He would make ol' Ed Bernays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays) proud!
I've read much of his and Plimer's arguments and don't find them at all convincing.
Doesn't mean I'm right, but doesn't mean I'm wrong either.

As for my position...

I'd say that the increased "climate weirding" around the globe over the last decade really doesn't leave much room for doubt as to there being an "event" happening (though I'm sure there are many who would argue that it's all just a coincidence). Whether it is "man made" is really academic now. It is too late to do anything, if it is "man made", because everyone has been too busy fighting over their spot in the sand box.

http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/extras/image/name/san1/740/120740/large/the_sandbox_planet_-_splashscreen.jpg

Limited food security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_security), potable water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_water), arable land (http://technorati.com/business/finance/article/arable-land-shortage-and-the-case/) and phosphate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus)...
Does not bode well for the future.

As Harold Pinter said (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?36586-It-Is-Essential-That-People-Remain-Ignorant-Harold-Pinter):

politicians... are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

G'Day panopticon,

If I was in that room, I'd be putting my hand up too in favor of a more 'Conservative' representational view of the 'Global Warming/Climate Change' debate...:yes4:

Interestingly enough, the video was upload by this mob of 'Crooks'..!

GetUp..!

Feel free to start to educate yourself on 'Who' actually is 'GetUp', how they started & 'Who' Funds them..?

Let me educate you...




Please listen to me & ALL AUSTRALIANS for that matter when I say this 'Get Up' is one of the most Sneeky & Dangerous Organisations in our Country and are totally backed by the Left Wing Progressive NWO Globalsists, Masquerading as Environmentalists!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/67/GetUp_Action_for_Australia_logo.png/200px-GetUp_Action_for_Australia_logo.png


BACKGROUND

GetUp! is an Australian political organisation that campaigns on issues important to its members. It was launched in August 2005, the week that the Coalition took control of the Australian Senate.

GetUp campaigns are community based, and are primarily coordinated through the Internet. They involve email, its website, and traditional media. GetUp is a non-profit organisation, and states that it relies on donations from individuals, organisations, unions and community groups for funding.[2]

GetUp describes itself as "a new independent political movement to build a progressive Australia".[3] They identify campaigns based on the interests of its members, which are usually issues such as "social justice, economic fairness and environmental sustainability".[4]

HISTORY

Founded by Jeremy Heimans and David Madden, the GetUp.org.au website was launched on 1 August 2005 along with a television advertising campaign. Inspired by the American website MoveOn.org.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/GetUp!

WHO ARE Jeremy Heimans and David Madden?

David Madden is an Australian entrepreneur associated with progressive causes. He is a co-founder of GetUp! a web-based political movement, and Avaaz.org, a global advocacy movement.

Madden grew up in Canberra and served as an Army officer before studying Arts and Law at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. Madden served as president of the University of New South Wales Student Guild after defeating the Labor Left candidate in a landslide.

After winning the University Medal in History, Madden was awarded Fulbright and Frank Knox scholarships to study at Harvard University, where he earned a bachelor's degree in law and completed his master's degree in public policies.

Madden has worked for the World Bank in Timor Leste, and for the United Nations in Indonesia. He is the co-author of Imagining Australia: Ideas for Our Future (Allen & Unwin, 2004).

In 2004, Madden was one of the founders of Win Back Respect, a web-based campaign against the foreign policy of United States President George W. Bush. The following year, together with Jeremy Heimans, he co-founded GetUp!, a similar campaign against the recently re-elected Howard government in Australia. Madden and Heimans subsequently co-founded Avaaz.org.

In 2006 Madden and Heimans were named one of the "Top 10 People who are Changing the World of Politics and the Internet" by Politics Online and the World E-Government Forum.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/David_Madden_(Australia)

WHAT IS Avaaz.org?

Avaaz.org is an international left-wing civic organization established in January 2007[1] that promotes activism on issues such as climate change, human rights, and religious conflicts.[2] Its stated mission is to "ensure that the views and values of the world's people inform global decision-making." The organization operates in thirteen languages, and claims to have more than eight million members in 193 countries.

The name Avaaz (Persian: آواز)(Devanagari:आवाज ) was derived from the Persian/Hindi/Urdu/Punjabi/Marathi word for 'voice'. Avaaz.org was co-founded by ResPublica, an American community of public sector professionals dedicated to promoting good governance, civic virtue and deliberative democracy, and MoveOn.org, an American non-profit progressive public policy advocacy group and political action committee. The organization was also supported by Service Employees International Union, a founding partner, and GetUp.org.au. Avaaz's individual co-founders include Executive Director Ricken Patel (a Canadian citizen living in New York),[4] Virginia congressman Tom Perriello, Australian progressive entrepreneur David Madden, Jeremy Heimans (co-founders of Purpose.com), Andrea Woodhouse, Tom Pravda, and MoveOn Executive Director Eli Pariser.[5]

ACTIVITIES

Avaaz is managed by a team of campaigners working from Switzerland, Brazil, the United States, Argentina, and the United Kingdom. They communicate with members via email, and employ campaigning tactics including online public petitions, videos, and email-your-leader tools.

Purpose, a for-profit company, states on its web site that "Purpose creates 21st century movements. (Agenda 21) We look for ways that movements can help solve major global problems. To do this, we work with some of the most exciting players in the new green and social economy to help them get to scale faster and some of the world's biggest brands to mobilize their consumers for significant social impact," and goes on to say that its principals co-founded Avaaz.[11]

At the 2007 G8 conference, Avaaz.org protested against the "U.S. administration [for its] 'wrecking tactics' and failure to agree to specific, binding global goals" when it came to the mitigation of global warming.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Avaaz.org

WHAT & WHO are MoveOn.org?

MoveOn.org is an American non-profit, progressive[1] or liberal[2][3] public policy advocacy group and political action committee, which has raised millions of dollars for candidates it identifies as "moderates" or "progressives" in the United States.

MoveOn.org Financial contributors

According to an article in the Washington Post dated March 10, 2004:

"The Democratic 527 organizations have drawn support from some wealthy liberals determined to defeat Bush. They include financier George Soros who gave $1.46 million to MoveOn.org Voter Fund (in the form of matching funds to recruit additional small donors); Peter B. Lewis, chief executive of the Progressive Corp., who gave $500,000 to MoveOn.org Voter Fund; and Linda Pritzker, of the Hyatt hotel family, and her Sustainable World Corp., who gave $4 million to the joint fundraising committee."

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/MoveOn

Starting to Connect-The-Dots Yet?

In Summary...

GetUp are NOT TO BE TRUSTED in Any Way Shape or Form, this Devious Bunch of Minions are a 'Festering Sore' on Australia's Way of Life, with an Alternative Agenda!

...and this Man (Clown) GetUp Director

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4796370869682884&id=cc2b5c110926cc4703900537bb1a8a94&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.nswreconciliation.org.au%2fNSWRC%2520Images%2520for%2520website%2fSimon%2520sma ll.jpg is just as Conniving as this bloke http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/11/Johnwaynegacypogo.jpg

...and his so called good intentioned "DOUBLESPEAK & SPIN" is extremely Conniving & Dangerous!

Enough said...:)

Rgs,

Jack :yo:

[jackovesk]

I've lived near the Gulf of Mexico most of my life, at less than 15' above sea level and a lot of land in the marshes are less than 3' above sea level. We'd be the first to know if global warming is raising the ocean's level....it isn't.


G'day Oouthere,

From what I understand the recorded sea level rise is somewhere between 1.5 and 2 mm per year.
That would mean that over the last 40 years it would be 60 to 80 mm (~2 to 3 inches).

The CSIRO (http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/) has lots of information on this, for those interested, and while I am not intending to defend the science (as I am not a scientist) there are heaps of scientists who have dealt with all the "denial" claims. I choose to agree with them, others don't.

As I said, I reckon it's too late, to make a difference now, so it doesn't really matter one way or another if anyone believes in it or not. I hope I'm wrong, but don't think I am.

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg

From the University of Colorado (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/):

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2012_rel1/sl_ns_global.png

It's also interesting to note that the variation in ENSO has been noticed to have an effect on sea level (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-262). Anyway here (http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/) and here (http://ossfoundation.us/the-leading-edge/projects/environment/global-warming/myths) are more information
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

The CSIRO hey..? :pound:

Again, let me educate you Panopticon...


Map: The Climate Change Scare Machine — the perpetual self-feeding cycle of alarm


Two professors of sociology think they can explain why “Climate Deniers” are winning. But Riley E. Dunlap and Aaron M. McCright start from the wrong assumption and miss the bleeding obvious: the theory was wrong, the evidence has changed, and thousands of volunteers have exposed it.

The (Real Question) sociologists will be studying for years to come is:

"How was an exaggerated scare, based on so little evidence, poor reasoning and petty namecalling, kept alive for two whole decades?"


Duped: The Well Meaning Public (Pay For It ALL)..!

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/artwork/mudslinger-map/climate-scare-machine-800.gif
See your tax dollars converted into their scare. Reference: Climate Money, Science and Public Policy Institute.

The Key Points

1. The money and vested interests on the pro-scare side is vastly larger, more influential, and more powerful than that on the skeptical side. Fossil fuel and conservative-think-tanks are competing against most of the world financial houses, the nuclear and renewable energy industry, large well financed green activists (WWF revenue was $700m last year), not to mention whole government departments, major political parties, universities dependent on government funding, the BBC (there is no debate), the EU, and the entire UN.

2. Despite this highly asymmetrical arrangement, the skeptics are winning simply because they’re more convincing — they have the evidence. The other team avoid debate, try to shut down discussion (only their experts count), they imply the audience is too stupid to judge for themselves, and then call everyone who disagrees rude names. The dumb punters are figuring them out. Vale free speech.

The evidence changed, but who wanted to know?

When the evidence began rolling in showing how the assumptions were wrong, the graphs were flawed, the thermometers were biased, and the “expert” scientists were behaving badly — who exactly would benefit from risking their career, cutting off the cash cow, being exiled from friends and colleagues, and being called a “Denier” for speaking the truth?

The perpetual self-feeding cycle of alarmism has it’s own momentum — Create a scare and siphon up the taxes, fees, fines, charges and donations. As a bonus, activists feel like heroes, some collect awards and tributes while they trash the tenets of reason and logic, and hail false Gods of Science (as if any authority is above question). Others gratify base desires by pouring scorn on giants of science, dismissing 40 years of top service with one tenuous association (there’s a certain kind of appeal to a certain kind of person.)

How could such poor reasoning triumph for so long in the “modern” era?

The key is that so many benefit from the status-quo once the alarm is raised. There is no need for a global conspiracy, and most of the organizations and groups named here are doing honest work with respectable intentions. The problem is not conspiratorial, its systemic. Monopoly-science is not the way to seek the truth. Monopolies don’t deliver: not in markets, religion, or government either (think “EU”). We need competition.

Once an alarmist cycle is set up, with international bureaucracies, industries, taxes, associations, and activists in place, with careers riding on the perpetual alarm, what stops it? Volunteers?

Which university or government department do skeptical scientists apply to? What grant do they apply for?

The money, power, and influence is vastly larger on the side that benefits from the alarm
On the skeptical side, Exxon chipped in all of $23 million over ten years, but it’s chump-change. The fossil fuel industry doesn’t like carbon legislation, but it’s not life or death, unlike the situation for wind and solar, which would be virtually wiped out without the subsidies provided by the scare.

The US government has poured in $79 billion and then some. But the pro-scare funding is pervasive: for example — the Australian government spent $14 million on a single Ad campaign, and another $90 million every year on a Department of Climate Change. The UK government paid for lobbyists to lobby it, and the BBC “partners” with the lobby groups. The EU doesn’t just subsidize renewables, it also pays them to push for more subsidies. Even the dastardly Exxon paid more than 20 times as much for a single renewables research project than it did to skeptics.

Last year in carbon markets $142 billion dollars turned over, and $243 billion was invested in renewables. If the carbon market idea went global it was projected to reach $2 trillion a year. Every banker and his dog has a bone in this game. Why wouldn’t they?

Curiously, some just can’t see the vested interest of global financial houses and government bureaucrats in these policies. Andy Revkin suggests that the opposition to the alarmist juggernaut is “well coordinated” and “not contentious”. But how well coordinated are the IPCC? Which think-tank has two week long junkets for tens of thousands of people including media reps from all over the world? Not skeptics.

The money side of the equation is so lop-sided, and eggregiously dominated by pro-scare funding at every level, that skeptics can thank Dunlap-McCright for bringing it up. We’ll take your minor millions and vague allusions to “influence” and up the ante a magnitude, so to speak. Yes, let’s talk about the vested interests?

As I wrote in early 2010:

Somehow the tables have turned. For all the smears of big money funding the “deniers”, the numbers reveal that the sceptics are actually the true grassroots campaigners, while Greenpeace defends Wall St. How times have changed. Sceptics are fighting a billion dollar industry aligned with a trillion dollar trading scheme. Big Oil’s supposed evil influence has been vastly outdone by Big Government, and even those taxpayer billions are trumped by Big-Banking.

The namecalling has to stop

It’s absurd self-satire when mere sociologists and journalists casually call Nobel Physics Prize winners: Deniers? These “deniers” are guys who figured out things like tunneling electrons in superconductors. Just because they won a Nobel doesn’t make them right, but wouldn’t a true investigative reporter’s curiosity pique a little as skepticism rose and rose? Isn’t there a moment when it occurs to any open mind that it might be a good idea to actually phone up a NASA astronaut who walked on the moon and has spoken out as a skeptic and ask: Why?

*No a “consensus” is not evidence of how the climate works, and nor is a map of funding, they’re “evidence” of how human society works. They make good case studies of group-think-in-action. Sociologists and journalists who make the mistake of confusing one type of evidence for the other merely help to perpetuate the alarm. The answer to planetary climate sensitivity won’t be found by following dollars.
———————————————————————————-

Text within the The Climate Change Scare Machine
Industrials

Renewable energy, nuclear power, electric cars, batteries, hydroelectric, geothermal, desalination plants:
e.g. General Electric, Seimens, Mitsubishi, Sharp, Samsung, Panasonic, Phillips, Toshiba, Westinghouse, Toyota. “Solyndra”

Renewables: $243b invested in 2010.
Nuclear: valued at $217b in 2010
Solar PV market: $80b in 2010

Financial houses

GoldMan Sachs, JP Morgan, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Citigroup, Barclays Investment Bank, Société Générale (SCGLY), Morgan Stanley, Fortis Bank Nederland, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Westpac, and many others… [more info] (http://joannenova.com.au/2009/08/climate-money-bigger-money-moves-in/)
Carbon Trading: $144b in 2010
Plus: Climate change exchanges, auditors, insurers, reinsurers… …Lloyds, American International Group (AIG)
Generation Investment Management

Green Foundations

Soros funded groups: Open Society Institute ($5b in assets), Energy Action Coalition, Green for all, Natural Resources Defence Council, Alliance for Green Protection, Friends of the Earth, Earth Island Institute, Tides Foundation.
Turner Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Joyce Foundation, Blue Moon Fund, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation…

Government Funded Activists

IPCC & other UN groups (WMO, UNEP, UNFCCC), Government Departments (NOAA, EPA, BOM, NASA, Hadley Met Centre, -Dept Climate Change, CSIRO, Dept of Conservation …)

Universities & Scientists – $79 Billion to the scare, $0 to skeptics

Public Broadcasters — (e.g. BBC & ABC)

Green Groups

Greenpeace (US$300m), WWF ($710m), Sierra Club ($56m), Pew Charit. Trst. ($360m), Earth First, UCS, Conservation Foundation, Center for American Progress, Environmental Defenders Fund, MoveOn, GetUP…
NB: Most donors are anonymous.

Smear Sites

DeSmog, Exxon Secrets, Sourcewatch, 10:10, Climate Progress, etc

Media (aka rubber stamp) …turns official press releases into “News items”

Thus a Government funded scientist’s opinion (or best guess) becomes an undebatable “fact” backed by a University or govt department. Independent scientists criticisms are ignored or called “fringe”, “extremist” and “in denial”.

Duped: the well intentioned public pay for it all.

This is one “natural” cycle where positive feedback dominates.

—————

Chart footer:

Produced by a self-taught, unfunded scientist (with help from a friend) determined not to let them get away with it. WARNING: This sociological chart has no information about the planetary climate. Use only empirical evidence to try to predict the weather.

UPDATE:

ClimateMadness did a fast “ parody of the same “Denier” chart and another cartoon parody today.

The Science and Public Policy Institute reports that the New American responded to the Time Magazine article that sprang from the under-researched, name-calling “Denier Chart”.

Paul A.T. Higgins of the American Meteorological Society, who is incidentally a proponent of the AGW hypothesis, wrote in his analysis of the proposed U.S. fiscal year 2011 budget that federal dollars spent on climate change research and development totaled $15.6 billion in 2009 and $17 billion in 2010. The 2011 budget proposed a 10 percent increase over the previous year. The total annual operating revenue of groups such as Cato ($20.4 million) and AEI ($28.8 million) are paltry in comparison. Yet these are the greedy muckrakers Walsh finds so offensive, though they receive no government funding whatsoever.

Perhaps the question Walsh should ask is, “Who’s bankrolling the Climate Change Fanatics?”

UPDATE: James Hansen does quite well out of it all.

ATI obtained Dr. Hansen’s Form SF 278, which is required to be filed annually, also under the Freedom of Information Act. The disclosure revealed that Dr. Hansen received between $236,000 and $1,232,500 in outside income in 2010 relating to his taxpayer-funded employment.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/map-the-climate-change-scare-machine-the-perpetual-self-feeding-cycle-of-alarm/

PS - What more "Proof" do you need..!

Any way you look at it A 'SCAM', IS A 'SCAM', IS A 'SCAM'...No matter which way TPTW and their GOVT. CRONIES & MINIONS try to 'Spin It'..!!!

Again, Enough said...:yes4:

Rgs,

Jack :yo:

[panopticon]

G'day Jacko,

Thanks for your opinion.

Maybe you'd rather I'd used another youtube link to Monckton's claim at fox news reporting being fair and balanced:

DGmZ4wjaVzE

Doesn't matter to me who uploaded it really.
Anyone who believes Fox News is 'straight and fair and balanced' really just makes me laugh at either their naivety or blatant attempt at control.

Again Monckton said:


and keep the news straight and fair and balanced, as they do on Fox.

Enough said.
I am not going to debate the issues on this as I really don't have the time or inclination just get a bit sick of the love fest for a right wing conservative politician and well known propagandist.
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

[jackovesk]

G'day Jacko,

Thanks for your opinion.

Maybe you'd rather I'd used another youtube link to Monckton's claim at fox news reporting being fair and balanced:

DGmZ4wjaVzE

Doesn't matter to me who uploaded it really.
Anyone who believes Fox News is 'straight and fair and balanced' really just makes me laugh at either their naivety or blatant attempt at control.

Again Monckton said:


and keep the news straight and fair and balanced, as they do on Fox.

Enough said.
I am not going to debate the issues on this as I really don't have the time or inclination just get a bit sick of the love fest for a right wing conservative politician and well known propagandist.
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

I don't think Fox is Fair &/or Balanced either...:nono:

I think Monckton was using the Fox analogy as some kind of euphemism...

For at that time Fox was indeed allowing the likes of Glenn Beck (not a fan) free reign to 'Expose' the 'Global Warming/Climate Change' LIE...:yes4:

Funnily enough Glenn Beck was sacked by Fox, because he was getting a little too close to the 'Truth' on the LIE & George Soros key part in it...:yes4:

....after the 'Whitehouses' Propaganda Machine (George Soros - Media Matters) started getting worried and subsequently put the pressure on..:yes4:

Remember it is within the US Govts. Power to Issue or Revoke 'Nationtional Media - Broadcasting Liscence's...

Glenn Beck GLOBAL WARMING SCAM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWdUIwO15mU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWdUIwO15mU

George Soros, Puppet Master part 1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCThLQeeMWA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCThLQeeMWA&feature=related

However I am a (Fan) of Judge Andrew Napolitano

Judge Napolitano & Steve Milloy discuss ClimateGate


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5u94DeUQ10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5u94DeUQ10

He got 'Sacked' too...:yes4:

So your argument really has no relevence to the ongoing SCAM...

In Summary, I am only interested in the 'Truth', apparently though Panopticon I can't say the same for you...

Rgs,

Jack :yo:

[panopticon]

G'day Jacko,

Again, thanks for your opinion.

Firstly, I am aware of the issues regards Beck/Sorros/Fox though I hadn't come across Judge Napolitano before as I don't have an overly active interest in Fox News reporters/advisors or US domestic politics.

In regards to your statement:

I think Monckton was using the Fox analogy as some kind of euphemism

How do you view his statement as a euphemism? As I understand it Monckton gets a lot of coverage on Fox so his viewing it in this manner isn't that outlandish... I felt he was being clear and concise in his statement and I view he believes that Fox presents the News in a 'straight and fair and balanced' manner. This has been the view of Fox supporters for many years (I am not calling you a Fox supporter by the way). After 15 years (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/07/fox-news-15-years) of "fair and balanced reporting" the Rupert Murdoch created, conservative right wing propaganda machine that is the Fox Network, just keeps pumping it out and the great disengaged masses just believe it all as truth.

Anyway, I was commenting regards Monckton being a right wing conservative politician and propaganda expert who believes that Fox is fair and balanced in its reporting...
I was also commenting that Monckton was financed in part by one of Australia's richest mining heiresses, billionaire Gina Reinhart. Please don't tell me you actually believe that Reinhart and her buddies were trying to help the economy with the Billionaire Picket Line manned by the Rolls-Royce revolutionaries (http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-11-22.99.1) last year? ...


In Summary, I am only interested in the 'Truth', apparently though Panopticon I can't say the same for you...
Thanks for that.
I was mostly commenting on the right wing love fest surrounding Monckton.
I personally believe that Climate Change is occurring and that in a couple of decades the world will have changed drastically.
I also view that much of the recent political and military "actions" world wide are in part due to this.

Anyway, I have read alot of information and have come to a carefully considered position based on that information that is different to yours.
I respect your right to have a different opinion to mine.
Enough said...
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

Sources Further Reading:
http://www.ukip.org/page/spokesmen-specialists
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/07/fox-news-15-years
http://www.monbiot.com/2012/01/06/why-libertarians-must-deny-climate-change/
http://mattbruenig.com/2011/12/21/environmentalism-poses-a-problem-for-libertarian-ideology/
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/margaret-thatcher-1989
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817
http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/05/27/pr-outfit-behind-monckton-backers-a-company-beyond-ideology/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannkal_Economic_Education_Foundation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Manners
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Economic_Research_Foundation

[John Candido]

I think that we should all listen to the scientists on the issue of global warming. The science is in, and the debate is over. Society must do something to slow and eventually eliminate greenhouse gasses from entering our atmosphere. A useful combination of pricing carbon and funding research in our Universities to find alternative technologies for transportation, manufacturing, and in the primary generation of energy. To do nothing is akin to being a passenger on the Titanic.

[Oouthere]

Since Mars also has global warming I think it is caused by the electric rovers we sent there. You think a nuclear power plant puts out heat....nothing compared to a couple of nicad batteries being charged with solar panels. After all, those two little rovers heated a whole planet....lol

Rich

[jackovesk]

G'day Jacko,

Again, thanks for your opinion.

Firstly, I am aware of the issues regards Beck/Sorros/Fox though I hadn't come across Judge Napolitano before as I don't have an overly active interest in Fox News reporters/advisors or US domestic politics.

In regards to your statement:

I think Monckton was using the Fox analogy as some kind of euphemism

How do you view his statement as a euphemism? As I understand it Monckton gets a lot of coverage on Fox so his viewing it in this manner isn't that outlandish... I felt he was being clear and concise in his statement and I view he believes that Fox presents the News in a 'straight and fair and balanced' manner. This has been the view of Fox supporters for many years (I am not calling you a Fox supporter by the way). After 15 years (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/07/fox-news-15-years) of "fair and balanced reporting" the Rupert Murdoch created, conservative right wing propaganda machine that is the Fox Network, just keeps pumping it out and the great disengaged masses just believe it all as truth.

Anyway, I was commenting regards Monckton being a right wing conservative politician and propaganda expert who believes that Fox is fair and balanced in its reporting...
I was also commenting that Monckton was financed in part by one of Australia's richest mining heiresses, billionaire Gina Reinhart. Please don't tell me you actually believe that Reinhart and her buddies were trying to help the economy with the Billionaire Picket Line manned by the Rolls-Royce revolutionaries (http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-11-22.99.1) last year? ...


In Summary, I am only interested in the 'Truth', apparently though Panopticon I can't say the same for you...
Thanks for that.
I was mostly commenting on the right wing love fest surrounding Monckton.
I personally believe that Climate Change is occurring and that in a couple of decades the world will have changed drastically.
I also view that much of the recent political and military "actions" world wide are in part due to this.

Anyway, I have read alot of information and have come to a carefully considered position based on that information that is different to yours.
I respect your right to have a different opinion to mine.
Enough said...
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

Sources Further Reading:
http://www.ukip.org/page/spokesmen-specialists
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/07/fox-news-15-years
http://www.monbiot.com/2012/01/06/why-libertarians-must-deny-climate-change/
http://mattbruenig.com/2011/12/21/environmentalism-poses-a-problem-for-libertarian-ideology/
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/margaret-thatcher-1989
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817
http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/05/27/pr-outfit-behind-monckton-backers-a-company-beyond-ideology/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannkal_Economic_Education_Foundation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Manners
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Economic_Research_Foundation

Ok Pancoption, I will break this down in little bite-size pieces for you...


In regards to your statement:

I think Monckton was using the Fox analogy as some kind of euphemism

How do you view his statement as a euphemism? As I understand it Monckton gets a lot of coverage on Fox so his viewing it in this manner isn't that outlandish... I felt he was being clear and concise in his statement and I view he believes that Fox presents the News in a 'straight and fair and balanced' manner. This has been the view of Fox supporters for many years (I am not calling you a Fox supporter by the way).

1. First, I should'nt have used the word 'euphemism'. My point I was trying to get across was that Monckton (an Englishman) was in a room full of Australian Business people at a time when there was no 'balance' within in the Media when reporting on 'Global Warming' issues (Most of the Propaganda was coming from the Green Left, hence he was obviously mentioning 'Fox' because at least they were giving coverage to the 'Other Side' of the argument and it would have been an American organisation those in the room would have been familiar with...


After 15 years (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/07/fox-news-15-years) of "fair and balanced reporting" the Rupert Murdoch created, conservative right wing propaganda machine that is the Fox Network, just keeps pumping it out and the great disengaged masses just believe it all as truth.

2. Let's just forget about the Left/Right Paradigm here for a moment and try and bring this discussion back towards the 'Truth'...

Now are you 'Listening' Pancoption..?

Rupert Murdoch is a NWO Globalist, he has been playing the Left off the Right for years...

He has 'Actually' been supporting 'Global Warming' behind the scenes for a very long time...

Watch this for the numerous 'Examples' of how he has been doing this via his 'Programming CONTENT' throughout Fox Media...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LAXcecXEao
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LAXcecXEao

Go figure, Hey...:noidea:


Anyway, I was commenting regards Monckton being a right wing conservative politician and propaganda expert who believes that Fox is fair and balanced in its reporting...

This argument of yours has absolutely 'No' relevence on the 'Truth' whatsoever...:nono: In fact its bordering on shallow ridiculousness...


I was also commenting that Monckton was financed in part by one of Australia's richest mining heiresses, billionaire Gina Reinhart. Please don't tell me you actually believe that Reinhart and her buddies were trying to help the economy with the Billionaire Picket Line manned by the Rolls-Royce revolutionaries (http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-11-22.99.1) last year? ...

Again, this has 'No' relevence on the 'Truth' whatsoever... Its nothing but 'Innuendo' and 'Jealousy' of those with lots of $$$...

...and further more! To actually start listening to an ex-Union (Hack) and present Labor Minister http://www.openaustralia.org/images/mps/10706.jpg Doug Cameron...I'm still shaking my head in dis-belief...:faint:

On the likes of Billionairres such as Gina Reinhart, Clive Palmer & Twiggy Forrest (The Largest Employers in the Country), regardless of their wealth and their protest against the Carbon & Mining Tax. Have you ever just stood back and thought they are 'Actually' worried about the future 'Our Country' and where it is heading under a Criminal Labor Govt..?

Monckton has been 'Down Under' on 2 such speaking engagements I know of...The 1st was self-funded with the help of local Businesses/Business People around the Country helping promote it...(by the way all venues were 'Sold Out' with 'Huge' National support...from everyday local Mums & Dad's who were interested in finding out the 'Truth' on the 'Global Warming' SCAM...

How do I know because I actually went to the event that was held in Noosa where I rolled up 2 Hrs early only to find out it was 'Sold Out'...

Like me, there were many dissapointed average Aussies who travelled great distances to hear Monckton Speak...

...and yet this 'Man' you say is just a 'Right-Wing' Propagandist who only gives a 'Sh#t' about the people with the big $$$, of his own accord he came out to the parking lot of the Noosa Town Hall and spoke for approx. 45mins in 35 Degree Celcius heat to those that could'nt get into the hall..!

Here is the 'Actual' Photo I took...(click photo to enlarge)

15341

.............................


I was mostly commenting on the right wing love fest surrounding Monckton.
I personally believe that Climate Change is occurring and that in a couple of decades the world will have changed drastically.
I also view that much of the recent political and military "actions" world wide are in part due to this.

Your comment 'above' cracked me up...:pound:

Its really (ALL) about a 1 World Govt. & Currency...:yes4:


Anyway, I have read alot of information and have come to a carefully considered position based on that information that is different to yours.

"come to a carefully considered position based on that information"

Please tell me your kidding right..???


I respect your right to have a different opinion to mine.

I respect You Pancoption, but 'Not' on how you came to your opinion...

No wonder our Country and the World is so 'F'd-Up'...:faint:

Thanks for the debate...

Rgs,

Jack :yo:

[panopticon]

G'day Jacko,

Thanks for the response and taking the time to simplify what you were saying for me. Much appreciated.



Monckton has been 'Down Under' on 2 such speaking engagements I know of...The 1st was self-funded with the help of local Businesses/Business People around the Country helping promote it...

Monckton's 2010 visit was financed by Gina Rinehart, the NSW Farmers Federation, private donations and the Galileo Movement (who were instrumental in organising his visit). That was when I initially took an interest in the connection between Gina Rinehart and Chris Monckton. I've been researching into the Western Australian mining industry and its political influence since the 80's. Lang Hancock, Gina's Dad, was a really interesting character in it and his wife Rose was definately a distraction.

The complex way in which money, control and power is exerted in the the world makes it difficult to trace sometimes.

For example the video excerpt I posted earlier, where Monckton makes his claims and gives his advice, is from a meeting he had with the Mannkal group. Mannkal is a group that promotes right wing conservatism and they partly paid for Monckton's visit to Australia in 2011. Mannkal was founded by Ron Manners, who is a well known conservative "free economics" libertarian in Australia, and through it he promotes his and the groups largely Randian philosophies. Ron Manners took over the family business, Mannwest, in 1955 and has been successfully expanding his company every since. Manners is on the Board of Overseers of the 'Atlas Economic Research Foundation' (Whose mission 'is to litter the world with free-market think-tanks') as well as being on the Co-ordinating Committee for the 'Commonwealth Study Conference' (founded by HRH Prince Phillip in 1956). There's lots more but these give an overview and are all directly connected to Ron Manners who paid in part for Monckton's 2011 Australian tour.

Australia's richest person, Gina Rinehart (worth a cool $18 Billion), has paid in part for both Monckton's 2010 and 2011 visit. She is on the Forbes female Wealth (#4) and Power (#19) lists as well as high on the overall wealth list (#29). It is thought that within 5 years there is a good chance she will be the wealthiest person on the planet. When someone, who is so obviously self motivated, finances something I ask the "why" questions. Gina is very hard to get information about, unlike her father, as she fiercely defends anything said about her (usually via law suits and suppression orders). Gina is anticipated to become further involved in media ownership and recently flew some conservative politicians to India for the wedding of an Indian Financier. There are some who forecast her being invited into the Bilderberg Group but my personal view is that her inability to keep her own family in order (check out about the fight between her and her 4 children) and the recent declining of various suppression order applications do not indicate this to be likely in the near future.

There are also heaps of interconnections between "right" and "left".
I don't see them as different at the level of "discourse contol and manipulation" (propaganda control and disemmination).
I view it all through the lense of money, control and power (MCP).
From that view there are no partisan politicians, there is only control and power.

I also think that Monckton believes what he says. I didn't mean to imply (I didn't think I had) that he was being misleading and representing a position he doesn't believe in because he is being paid too. I am not surprised that he came outside and spoke to you all in the car park. That is what a believer does, they talk to their audience and spread their truth.
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

[joedjemal]

All this misses the point. Araucaria said in an earlier post that free energy would invalidate "the finite paradigm" that is a mistaken belief.

Any growth means that there will be a doubling period. The doubling period for humanity at the moment is about 30 years so let's assume that free energy just keeps us at our current rate of growth rather than increasing it even faster. Here's what happens:

2012 7,000,000,000
2042 14,000,000,000
2072 28,000,000,000
2102 56,000,000,000
2132 112,000,000,000
2162 224,000,000,000
2192 448,000,000,000
2222 896,000,000,000
2252 1792,000,000,000
2282 3,584,000,000,000
2312 7,168,000,000,000

Now that's a thousand times the current population of the planet in 300 years (not very long in the scheme of things). Let's say that we have free energy and instantaneous space travel and a few thousand vacant worlds to colonise. Even moving a million people a day we couldn't keep up with it. It simply isn't physically possible.

If people don't cut down the rate at which they're producing children simple things like famine, disease and war will do the job.

So what if the elite are plotting to reduce the population? It's going to happen ANYWAY. Global warming is simply a symptom of the main problem peak oil, economic collapse and ecosystem collapse are other symptoms.

It's too late to stop it in any case. The dieoff is already in progress. Malnourished children are becoming common even in the richest countries like the UK and the USA.

Simply denying the existence of the problem or coming up with physically impossible fantasies will do nothing to mitigate the central predicament which is that you will live in balance with your ecosystem or you will experience a dieoff. It's simple reality. Nothing to do with plots, NWO or conspiracies. And nothing anyone might wish will make any difference.

The shift we experience this year will be that we will finally suffer enough to treat mother Earth with respect. The alternative is extinction.

[jackovesk]

I think that we should all listen to the scientists on the issue of global warming. The science is in, and the debate is over. Society must do something to slow and eventually eliminate greenhouse gasses from entering our atmosphere. A useful combination of pricing carbon and funding research in our Universities to find alternative technologies for transportation, manufacturing, and in the primary generation of energy. To do nothing is akin to being a passenger on the Titanic.

http://images.brisbanetimes.com.au/2012/04/03/3187161/th-11-20spy-192x128.jpg....................

[jackovesk]

All this misses the point. Araucaria said in an earlier post that free energy would invalidate "the finite paradigm" that is a mistaken belief.

Any growth means that there will be a doubling period. The doubling period for humanity at the moment is about 30 years so let's assume that free energy just keeps us at our current rate of growth rather than increasing it even faster. Here's what happens:

2012 7,000,000,000
2042 14,000,000,000
2072 28,000,000,000
2102 56,000,000,000
2132 112,000,000,000
2162 224,000,000,000
2192 448,000,000,000
2222 896,000,000,000
2252 1792,000,000,000
2282 3,584,000,000,000
2312 7,168,000,000,000

Now that's a thousand times the current population of the planet in 300 years (not very long in the scheme of things). Let's say that we have free energy and instantaneous space travel and a few thousand vacant worlds to colonise. Even moving a million people a day we couldn't keep up with it. It simply isn't physically possible.

If people don't cut down the rate at which they're producing children simple things like famine, disease and war will do the job.

So what if the elite are plotting to reduce the population? It's going to happen ANYWAY. Global warming is simply a symptom of the main problem peak oil, economic collapse and ecosystem collapse are other symptoms.

It's too late to stop it in any case. The dieoff is already in progress. Malnourished children are becoming common even in the richest countries like the UK and the USA.

Simply denying the existence of the problem or coming up with physically impossible fantasies will do nothing to mitigate the central predicament which is that you will live in balance with your ecosystem or you will experience a dieoff. It's simple reality. Nothing to do with plots, NWO or conspiracies. And nothing anyone might wish will make any difference.

The shift we experience this year will be that we will finally suffer enough to treat mother Earth with respect. The alternative is extinction.

I won't discount your 'Intelligence' joedjemal, but I will question your 'Common-Sense' on how in your own mind you rationalised your argument...:pound:

Rgs,

Jack :)

[jackovesk]

G'day Jacko,

Thanks for the response and taking the time to simplify what you were saying for me. Much appreciated.



Monckton has been 'Down Under' on 2 such speaking engagements I know of...The 1st was self-funded with the help of local Businesses/Business People around the Country helping promote it...

Monckton's 2010 visit was financed by Gina Rinehart, the NSW Farmers Federation, private donations and the Galileo Movement (who were instrumental in organising his visit). That was when I initially took an interest in the connection between Gina Rinehart and Chris Monckton. I've been researching into the Western Australian mining industry and its political influence since the 80's. Lang Hancock, Gina's Dad, was a really interesting character in it and his wife Rose was definately a distraction.

The complex way in which money, control and power is exerted in the the world makes it difficult to trace sometimes.

For example the video excerpt I posted earlier, where Monckton makes his claims and gives his advice, is from a meeting he had with the Mannkal group. Mannkal is a group that promotes right wing conservatism and they partly paid for Monckton's visit to Australia in 2011. Mannkal was founded by Ron Manners, who is a well known conservative "free economics" libertarian in Australia, and through it he promotes his and the groups largely Randian philosophies. Ron Manners took over the family business, Mannwest, in 1955 and has been successfully expanding his company every since. Manners is on the Board of Overseers of the 'Atlas Economic Research Foundation' (Whose mission 'is to litter the world with free-market think-tanks') as well as being on the Co-ordinating Committee for the 'Commonwealth Study Conference' (founded by HRH Prince Phillip in 1956). There's lots more but these give an overview and are all directly connected to Ron Manners who paid in part for Monckton's 2011 Australian tour.

Australia's richest person, Gina Rinehart (worth a cool $18 Billion), has paid in part for both Monckton's 2010 and 2011 visit. She is on the Forbes female Wealth (#4) and Power (#19) lists as well as high on the overall wealth list (#29). It is thought that within 5 years there is a good chance she will be the wealthiest person on the planet. When someone, who is so obviously self motivated, finances something I ask the "why" questions. Gina is very hard to get information about, unlike her father, as she fiercely defends anything said about her (usually via law suits and suppression orders). Gina is anticipated to become further involved in media ownership and recently flew some conservative politicians to India for the wedding of an Indian Financier. There are some who forecast her being invited into the Bilderberg Group but my personal view is that her inability to keep her own family in order (check out about the fight between her and her 4 children) and the recent declining of various suppression order applications do not indicate this to be likely in the near future.

There are also heaps of interconnections between "right" and "left".
I don't see them as different at the level of "discourse contol and manipulation" (propaganda control and disemmination).
I view it all through the lense of money, control and power (MCP).
From that view there are no partisan politicians, there is only control and power.

I also think that Monckton believes what he says. I didn't mean to imply (I didn't think I had) that he was being misleading and representing a position he doesn't believe in because he is being paid too. I am not surprised that he came outside and spoke to you all in the car park. That is what a believer does, they talk to their audience and spread their truth.
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

Gina Rinehart is 'Not' an enemy of Australia or its people nor is Christopher Monckton for that matter...:nono:

Rgs,

Jack

[joedjemal]

All this misses the point. Araucaria said in an earlier post that free energy would invalidate "the finite paradigm" that is a mistaken belief.

Any growth means that there will be a doubling period. The doubling period for humanity at the moment is about 30 years so let's assume that free energy just keeps us at our current rate of growth rather than increasing it even faster. Here's what happens:

2012 7,000,000,000
2042 14,000,000,000
2072 28,000,000,000
2102 56,000,000,000
2132 112,000,000,000
2162 224,000,000,000
2192 448,000,000,000
2222 896,000,000,000
2252 1792,000,000,000
2282 3,584,000,000,000
2312 7,168,000,000,000

Now that's a thousand times the current population of the planet in 300 years (not very long in the scheme of things). Let's say that we have free energy and instantaneous space travel and a few thousand vacant worlds to colonise. Even moving a million people a day we couldn't keep up with it. It simply isn't physically possible.

If people don't cut down the rate at which they're producing children simple things like famine, disease and war will do the job.

So what if the elite are plotting to reduce the population? It's going to happen ANYWAY. Global warming is simply a symptom of the main problem peak oil, economic collapse and ecosystem collapse are other symptoms.

It's too late to stop it in any case. The dieoff is already in progress. Malnourished children are becoming common even in the richest countries like the UK and the USA.

Simply denying the existence of the problem or coming up with physically impossible fantasies will do nothing to mitigate the central predicament which is that you will live in balance with your ecosystem or you will experience a dieoff. It's simple reality. Nothing to do with plots, NWO or conspiracies. And nothing anyone might wish will make any difference.

The shift we experience this year will be that we will finally suffer enough to treat mother Earth with respect. The alternative is extinction.

I won't discount your 'Intelligence' joedjemal, but I will question your 'Common-Sense' on how in your own mind you rationalised your argument...:pound:

Rgs,

Jack :)

Do you honestly believe that we can keep on expanding our population as we have been indefinitely? That doesn't sound at all like common sense to me. Where is the flaw in my argument? If, as you say, I lack common sense.

[jackovesk]

All this misses the point. Araucaria said in an earlier post that free energy would invalidate "the finite paradigm" that is a mistaken belief.

Any growth means that there will be a doubling period. The doubling period for humanity at the moment is about 30 years so let's assume that free energy just keeps us at our current rate of growth rather than increasing it even faster. Here's what happens:

2012 7,000,000,000
2042 14,000,000,000
2072 28,000,000,000
2102 56,000,000,000
2132 112,000,000,000
2162 224,000,000,000
2192 448,000,000,000
2222 896,000,000,000
2252 1792,000,000,000
2282 3,584,000,000,000
2312 7,168,000,000,000

Now that's a thousand times the current population of the planet in 300 years (not very long in the scheme of things). Let's say that we have free energy and instantaneous space travel and a few thousand vacant worlds to colonise. Even moving a million people a day we couldn't keep up with it. It simply isn't physically possible.

If people don't cut down the rate at which they're producing children simple things like famine, disease and war will do the job.

So what if the elite are plotting to reduce the population? It's going to happen ANYWAY. Global warming is simply a symptom of the main problem peak oil, economic collapse and ecosystem collapse are other symptoms.

It's too late to stop it in any case. The dieoff is already in progress. Malnourished children are becoming common even in the richest countries like the UK and the USA.

Simply denying the existence of the problem or coming up with physically impossible fantasies will do nothing to mitigate the central predicament which is that you will live in balance with your ecosystem or you will experience a dieoff. It's simple reality. Nothing to do with plots, NWO or conspiracies. And nothing anyone might wish will make any difference.

The shift we experience this year will be that we will finally suffer enough to treat mother Earth with respect. The alternative is extinction.

I won't discount your 'Intelligence' joedjemal, but I will question your 'Common-Sense' on how in your own mind you rationalised your argument...:pound:

Rgs,

Jack :)

Do you honestly believe that we can keep on expanding our population as we have been indefinitely? That doesn't sound at all like common sense to me. Where is the flaw in my argument? If, as you say, I lack common sense.

Let me start off by saying, Population Control is something best left to Universal Law &/or our maker...:yes4:

The 'Flaw' in your argument as I see it, has alot to do with how the PTW/NWO Globalists having raped and pillaged the 3rd World Countries by stealing their wealth i.e. Resources, ect and literally robbing them of self-sufficieny (This is 'Fact' not a 'Theory'). If they hadn't, the population expansion would be a non-issue..!

...and I am not at all concerned with your population explosion/culling theories, IMHO that's in the 'Universes/God/Mother Gaia Hands'...:yes4:

As for 'Peak Oil &/or Fossil Fuels', please tell me you don't honestly believe in that theory anymore do you..? :noidea:

Ever heard of 'Abiotic Oil'..?

http://www.viewzone2.com/abiotic-oil.gif

Rgs,

Jack

[joedjemal]

All this misses the point. Araucaria said in an earlier post that free energy would invalidate "the finite paradigm" that is a mistaken belief.

Any growth means that there will be a doubling period. The doubling period for humanity at the moment is about 30 years so let's assume that free energy just keeps us at our current rate of growth rather than increasing it even faster. Here's what happens:

2012 7,000,000,000
2042 14,000,000,000
2072 28,000,000,000
2102 56,000,000,000
2132 112,000,000,000
2162 224,000,000,000
2192 448,000,000,000
2222 896,000,000,000
2252 1792,000,000,000
2282 3,584,000,000,000
2312 7,168,000,000,000

Now that's a thousand times the current population of the planet in 300 years (not very long in the scheme of things). Let's say that we have free energy and instantaneous space travel and a few thousand vacant worlds to colonise. Even moving a million people a day we couldn't keep up with it. It simply isn't physically possible.

If people don't cut down the rate at which they're producing children simple things like famine, disease and war will do the job.

So what if the elite are plotting to reduce the population? It's going to happen ANYWAY. Global warming is simply a symptom of the main problem peak oil, economic collapse and ecosystem collapse are other symptoms.

It's too late to stop it in any case. The dieoff is already in progress. Malnourished children are becoming common even in the richest countries like the UK and the USA.

Simply denying the existence of the problem or coming up with physically impossible fantasies will do nothing to mitigate the central predicament which is that you will live in balance with your ecosystem or you will experience a dieoff. It's simple reality. Nothing to do with plots, NWO or conspiracies. And nothing anyone might wish will make any difference.

The shift we experience this year will be that we will finally suffer enough to treat mother Earth with respect. The alternative is extinction.

I won't discount your 'Intelligence' joedjemal, but I will question your 'Common-Sense' on how in your own mind you rationalised your argument...:pound:

Rgs,

Jack :)

Do you honestly believe that we can keep on expanding our population as we have been indefinitely? That doesn't sound at all like common sense to me. Where is the flaw in my argument? If, as you say, I lack common sense.

Let me start off by saying, Population Control is something best left to Universal Law &/or our maker...:yes4:

The 'Flaw' in your argument as I see it, has alot to do with how the PTW/NWO Globalists having raped and pillaged the 3rd World Countries by stealing their wealth i.e. Resources, ect and literally robbing them of self-sufficieny (This is 'Fact' not a 'Theory'). If they hadn't, the population expansion would be a non-issue..!

...and I am not at all concerned with your population explosion/culling theories, IMHO that's in the 'Universes/God/Mother Gaia Hands'...:yes4:

As for 'Peak Oil &/or Fossil Fuels', please tell me you don't honestly believe in that theory anymore do you..? :noidea:

Ever heard of 'Abiotic Oil'..?

http://www.viewzone2.com/abiotic-oil.gif

Rgs,

Jack

What I said in my first post is that population control will indeed be done by nature. Famine is entirely natural when you overshoot the carrying capacity of your ecosystem. Self sufficiency permitted a roughly stable global population of about a billion people. Any excess was curbed by disease, famine and warfare, all at a local level. Any society that tried exceeding that carrying capacity collapsed or became so weakened that they were destroyed by other societies usually escaping their own resource constraints. History is littered with collapsed empires.

Fossil fuels changed things. It permitted a vast increase in food production. The global population responded with exponential growth, doubling nearly four times in the 120 years or so since oil became widely available.

Even if abiotic oil were truly how oil is produced then I seriously doubt that the replacement rate would be anywhere near the 83 or so million barrels a day that are currently being consumed with a requirement to continuously grow in volume just to keep up with the growing economy, which by its' nature, will collapse when it can no longer grow. Oil has already peaked. Why do you imagine we're drilling 10 miles beneath the sea bed all the easy stuff has gone. Screaming peak oil is a scam without evidence is meaningless. The evidence for the opposing view runs to millions and millions of words and graphs and stark numbers, easily understood if you can bother to read some of them.

Just because I observe something happening does not mean that I wish that thing to happen. Accusing me of wishing a cull is a dishonourable ad hominem attack.

Your argument is specious and poorly researched. Mine is the result of in excess of 20,000 hours of intensive reading whilst searching for ANYTHING that could mitigate this predicament. I failed to find any such mitigation.

Finding and using oil was exactly like the reindeer of St. Matthew island finding a bonanza of lichen with no predators. This happened: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/2024

Just because you wish for a cornucopian impossible world to exist does not make it real. To my utter dismay you will see what I expect unfold in the world over the next few years and there is nothing any of us can do about it. Any possible window for mitigation closed when Reagan ripped the solar panels off the White House and the Americans started chanting "drill baby drill"

[TargeT]

What I said in my first post is that population control will indeed be done by nature. Famine is entirely natural when you overshoot the carrying capacity of your ecosystem. Self sufficiency permitted a roughly stable global population of about a billion people. Any excess was curbed by disease, famine and warfare, all at a local level. Any society that tried exceeding that carrying capacity collapsed or became so weakened that they were destroyed by other societies usually escaping their own resource constraints. History is littered with collapsed empires.

USA:

rate: 13.83 births/1000 population (2011 est.)
Europe is at negative birth rates as well, global population WILL control itself but it WILL NOT be due to famine or disease, it will be by the leveling of the playing field (removal of class based systems).



Fossil fuels changed things. It permitted a vast increase in food production. The global population responded with exponential growth, doubling nearly four times in the 120 years or so since oil became widely available.

Actually Agriculture changed most of it, your so called "fossil" fuels (which tells me a LOT about how you think) helped a bit, but agriculture (only 10,000 or so years old) is the main "culpret"



Even if abiotic oil were truly how oil is produced then I seriously doubt that the replacement rate would be anywhere near the 83 or so million barrels a day that are currently being consumed with a requirement to continuously grow in volume just to keep up with the growing economy, which by its' nature, will collapse when it can no longer grow. Oil has already peaked. Why do you imagine we're drilling 10 miles beneath the sea bed all the easy stuff has gone. Screaming peak oil is a scam without evidence is meaningless. The evidence for the opposing view runs to millions and millions of words and graphs and stark numbers, easily understood if you can bother to read some of them.

Oil consumption is not even close to problematic..... YET, eventually it will be, but for now the price is controlled by cutting production, not by any real scarcity, oil wells REFILL themselves, our planet is most likely expanding (and always has been) this means that matter is generated somewhere at its core (which is possibly a blackhole, not a spinning ball of magma).



Just because I observe something happening does not mean that I wish that thing to happen. Accusing me of wishing a cull is a dishonourable ad hominem attack.
what have YOU exactly observed?

want to know what I have observed? record ice formation in the oceans off the coast of alaska... RECORD snow falls (highest ever) and strange weather paterns all over north america (I traveled a bit this winter) all of this coinciding with an 11 year solar maximum, "climate change" has nothing to do with humans and everything to do with the macrocosm.




Your argument is specious and poorly researched. Mine is the result of in excess of 20,000 hours of intensive reading whilst searching for ANYTHING that could mitigate this predicament. I failed to find any such mitigation.

Finding and using oil was exactly like the reindeer of St. Matthew island finding a bonanza of lichen with no predators. This happened: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/2024

Just because you wish for a cornucopian impossible world to exist does not make it real. To my utter dismay you will see what I expect unfold in the world over the next few years and there is nothing any of us can do about it. Any possible window for mitigation closed when Reagan ripped the solar panels off the White House and the Americans started chanting "drill baby drill"

I guarantee you won't see what you "want" (and you do (disturbingly) seem to want it) happen, and in fact your heavy leftwing propagandized "facts" are disturbing to me.

Lets drop the left vr right stuff eh? how many conservative information sources have you read lately (trends tell me the answer will be ZERO) how can you consider yourself even close to informed when you only listen to one side of an issue (and one side with a clear agenda that will sacrifice almost anything to further it); this is an issue that should have NO SIDES! left, right or OTHER!

Bring more balance into your life & you will have less anxiety, we are exactly where we are supose to be, where you go from here is entirely up to you.

[joedjemal]

This has nothing to do with left versus right, it's a very simple observable situation.

Whether western birthrates are declining or not, the global population continues rising. The population in the vast majority of the west for that matter continues rising. Industrial agriculture wouldn't be possible without oil to run the machines for farming itself and the machines that extract the metals for those machines from the ground, to manufacture the tyres, to manufacture the packaging that permits it's transportation that also requires oil. The fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides come from natural gas.

The banking system is dependant on interest. That in itself forces growth which means more doubling, in fact it's one of the main drivers behind the population explosion.

I have Aspergers syndrome. I'm savant in systems. That means I can literally model in my head how systems work and what theit outcome will be. If I say I see it, I mean it literally.

Let's simplify peak oil for example. Let's assume for one moment that the amount of available oil that can be extracted in such a way that it costs less than a barrel of oil's worth of energy to extract a barrel (otherwise there's no point extracting it for energy) is one million units. The replenishment rate of the resource by whatever means, biological or not, is 100 units a day. Then you start extracting 10 barrels. A day and then increase the amount you extract every day. Soon you will be extracting it faster than it's being replenished. But this oil isn't in just one big pool, it's in a lot of little ones. Some are really easy to get at. You get a hundred units out for every unit of energy you spend so you pump that dry first. But that particular field is only being replenished at a unit a day. So it runs dry and now you go to 2 smaller fields that cost 1 unit of energy for ten extracted. You've lost a big chunk of the available energy right there and the sources get costlier and costlier and more and more technically difficult till you're getting a trickle of oil baking shale at a cost of one barrel in for 2 out and you're using up all your fresh water in the process. It doesn't matter if you have a billion units of resource if you can only extract a unit a day. Production declines but demand is still rising.

Then growth stops.

But banking is based on interest. And interest requires growth to pay off the risk on the investment. No interest means no wish to risk, confidence fails and the system collapses.

Without banking the just in time delivery fails, the cash machines fail, the supermarkets are empty all of a sudden and the thousands of miles of delivery systems fail with nothing in place to replace them.

What do you imagine is going to happen in the cities? How many people do you know who can double dig a raised bed or know how to incubate a chicken let alone have a solar powered incubator? Because fuel doesn't get to power stations, the grid goes down, and so does the water.

Are you beginning to get a glimpse of what I see?

And yes. The elite are responsible and so is everyone else because they let themselves be ruled by delusional psychopaths and can't think clearly.

There is NOTHING being done by the vast majority of people because most of them don't get the exponential function (simple doubling) and think technology or wishful thinking or aliens are going to sort everything out.

And as I pointed out earlier, even if we had free energy it would resolve nothing unless people get this growth thing out of their heads. Growth is lethal if carried on indefinitely. In the body it's called cancer.

Climate change is real enough. Usually in the past periods of greenhouse gas release has led to ice ages ironically enough because of unbalanced currents and winds. Climate change won't hurt life on Earth in the long run but it'll not do much good for the human survivors of this ongoing and inevitable collapse.

[panopticon]

Gina Rinehart is 'Not' an enemy of Australia or its people nor is Christopher Monckton for that matter...:nono:

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Let's look a little at Gina's Daddy, Lang Hancock, who she idolises and endeavours to emulate, because it is impossible to understand Gina and what is going on without understanding him as well.

Lang Hancock, Gina Rinehart's Father, was an Australian hero.
Opened up iron ore mining in the Pilbara (North Western Australia) and founded blue asbestos mining at Wittenoom.
Nice bloke on all accounts, as long as everything went his way...

Despite his conservative politics Lang didn't support the conservative WA Premier, Charlie Court, because he thought he was a socialist (please read that as "wouldn't do as he was told", cause ol' Charlie wouldn't let more than 3 people gather together in case it was a Union Meeting -- in 1976 he actually had that put into legislation with Section 54B of the Police Act [repealed 1984]) but instead he developed close ties with "WA Inc's" corrupt Labor Party Leader Brian Burke (ol' Burkie was even appointed replacement trustee in Lang's will).

Lang Hancock was a caring sharing humanitarian who said in relation to miners suffering from mesothelioma (which at the time he knew was caused by the asbestos they were mining in his mines):

Some people have to suffer so that the majority can benefit from asbestos.

Here is Kate Fagan performing Alistair Hulett's song, 'He Fades Away', that talks to the heart of so many families who had this experience:

qu4SGIcNqIw
Here's an excerpt from a 1994 article:

Thirty years ago, the city of Wittenoom was second only to Perth in size and importance. Now it is a ghost town. Many of its former residents have died from mesothelioma, caused by the blue asbestos they were mining. On the day I visited, the West Australian carried a story saying that 12 of the victims diagnosed over the past year had contracted mesothelioma while merely visiting Wittenoom.

Lang was a big Milton Friedman fan (the libertarian economist and founder of the flawed "Chicago School") and Lang flew to Chicago to meet with him. Oh, and finally, Lang Hancock advocated eugenics:

XZ9LFX6NDuk
As for Gina, she was accused of bribing witnesses during Langs coronial inquest (long story that one)...
No charges were laid against her that I'm aware of (there again with all the suppression orders she puts out who can tell) but the "revised" witness list was much shorter following the police investigation.

Her attempt in 2002 to get a statue of her father erected in Kings Park after having been initially approved by local Perth City Council met with ridicule from members of the public who remembered Wittenoom and Nunyerry. Most notably amongst those who spoke out against this proposed monument was Robert Vojakovic, President of the Asbestos Diseases Society. Gina hastily removed her submission as the Perth City Council indicated it was going to decline her application after re-assessment.

John Hancock reckons that his mother, Gina Rinehart, has been stripping the Hope Margaret Hancock Trust of assets for years and using it to pay for unrelated things. Gina doesn't want to release the details of the accounts assets, or abide by Lang Hancock's wishes (as expressed in his will) that on Ginia's 25th Birthday the 82% held in the children's name of the 'Hope Margaret Hancock Trust' is to be divested to the four children (which includes 23% of Hancock Prospecting valued at $4 Billion). Plus there's the issue of ownership of the Hope Downs mine (iron ore) which is the most lucrative of Rinehart's investments. That's partly why they are all in court.

Truthfully I had lost interest in the Hancock/Rinehart family (until the Monckton connection) as Gina played everything very close to her chest and probably suppressed everything she didn't want coming out. I just assumed she was a point of manipulation within the broader social discursive process, a centraliser of money, control and power. The change in 2010/2011, with Gina being more in the "public spotlight", in conjunction with her sudden doubling in wealth, attracted my interest again and I've been accessing the political and social implications of Gina's move into politics and media interests. The control of information is one of the most important aspects of MCP and as a result I am watching intently her manouveurings. Hence the interest in the Mannkal/Monckton video.

I only introduced the Monckton/Mannkal/Rinehart connection as it is not well known. I didn't anticipate being spat at. Oh, and I never said Gina (or Monckton) were "enemies" of Australia or anywhere else for that matter.

The artificially constructed concept of the "Nation State" is not something that I sit and worry about nor do I think in dualisms. I look at the way in which Money, Control and Power are used as a means of centralisation (the greatest danger in my view) and the "Nation State" is one aspect of the ongoing centralisation processes that have been occurring since at least the 18th Century.
I said Monckton believes what he says and that Gina is impossible to guage, as she suppresses everything, but appears to only do things that are immediately to her advantage (I would classify her as having psychopathic tendencies just from the little information she allows into the public sphere and the control she endeavours to exert on others).

I have researched this on and off since the 1980's and know a lot about the ins and outs of the WA mining sector.
So come back with a smart arse remark again, tell me I don't know what I'm talking about and don't forget to use heaps of emoticons just in case you don't feel you've been condescending enough. I have known people who died due to Hancock's arrogance and greed. I have family members who still have to have periodic checkups "just in case". Mesothelioma is a truly horrific death and Gina's father refused to assist anyone (unless told to by the courts). Gina is no better and while I don't think in dualities such as good and evil, I feel that the self centred way in which she behaves is no different to ol' Langs.

I did not ridicule you in this thread or anywhere else for that matter. For me to do that would belittle the memory of loving, working-class people who died long, protracted, drawn out deaths because of others greed and arrogance.

I'm not going to bother discussing it with you further. Truthfully, I don't have time to spend going through what I've learnt, from years of research, when all you can do is regurgitate right wing propaganda and be condescending.
Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

[jackovesk]

Gina Rinehart is 'Not' an enemy of Australia or its people nor is Christopher Monckton for that matter...:nono:

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Let's look a little at Gina's Daddy, Lang Hancock, who she idolises and endeavours to emulate, because it is impossible to understand Gina and what is going on without understanding him as well.

Lang Hancock, Gina Rinehart's Father, was an Australian hero.
Opened up iron ore mining in the Pilbara (North Western Australia) and founded blue asbestos mining at Wittenoom.
Nice bloke on all accounts, as long as everything went his way...

Despite his conservative politics Lang didn't support the conservative WA Premier, Charlie Court, because he thought he was a socialist (please read that as "wouldn't do as he was told", cause ol' Charlie wouldn't let more than 3 people gather together in case it was a Union Meeting -- in 1976 he actually had that put into legislation with Section 54B of the Police Act [repealed 1984]) but instead he developed close ties with "WA Inc's" corrupt Labor Party Leader Brian Burke (ol' Burkie was even appointed replacement trustee in Lang's will).

Lang Hancock was a caring sharing humanitarian who said in relation to miners suffering from mesothelioma (which at the time he knew was caused by the asbestos they were mining in his mines):

Some people have to suffer so that the majority can benefit from asbestos.

Here is Kate Fagan performing Alistair Hulett's song, 'He Fades Away', that talks to the heart of so many families who had this experience:

qu4SGIcNqIw
Here's an excerpt from a 1994 article:

Thirty years ago, the city of Wittenoom was second only to Perth in size and importance. Now it is a ghost town. Many of its former residents have died from mesothelioma, caused by the blue asbestos they were mining. On the day I visited, the West Australian carried a story saying that 12 of the victims diagnosed over the past year had contracted mesothelioma while merely visiting Wittenoom.

Lang was a big Milton Friedman fan (the libertarian economist and founder of the flawed "Chicago School") and Lang flew to Chicago to meet with him. Oh, and finally, Lang Hancock advocated eugenics:

XZ9LFX6NDuk
As for Gina, she was accused of bribing witnesses during Langs coronial inquest (long story that one)...
No charges were laid against her that I'm aware of (there again with all the suppression orders she puts out who can tell) but the "revised" witness list was much shorter following the police investigation.

Her attempt in 2002 to get a statue of her father erected in Kings Park after having been initially approved by local Perth City Council met with ridicule from members of the public who remembered Wittenoom and Nunyerry. Most notably amongst those who spoke out against this proposed monument was Robert Vojakovic, President of the Asbestos Diseases Society. Gina hastily removed her submission as the Perth City Council indicated it was going to decline her application after re-assessment.

John Hancock reckons that his mother, Gina Rinehart, has been stripping the Hope Margaret Hancock Trust of assets for years and using it to pay for unrelated things. Gina doesn't want to release the details of the accounts assets, or abide by Lang Hancock's wishes (as expressed in his will) that on Ginia's 25th Birthday the 82% held in the children's name of the 'Hope Margaret Hancock Trust' is to be divested to the four children (which includes 23% of Hancock Prospecting valued at $4 Billion). Plus there's the issue of ownership of the Hope Downs mine (iron ore) which is the most lucrative of Rinehart's investments. That's partly why they are all in court.

Truthfully I had lost interest in the Hancock/Rinehart family (until the Monckton connection) as Gina played everything very close to her chest and probably suppressed everything she didn't want coming out. I just assumed she was a point of manipulation within the broader social discursive process, a centraliser of money, control and power. The change in 2010/2011, with Gina being more in the "public spotlight", in conjunction with her sudden doubling in wealth, attracted my interest again and I've been accessing the political and social implications of Gina's move into politics and media interests. The control of information is one of the most important aspects of MCP and as a result I am watching intently her manouveurings. Hence the interest in the Mannkal/Monckton video.

I only introduced the Monckton/Mannkal/Rinehart connection as it is not well known. I didn't anticipate being spat at. Oh, and I never said Gina (or Monckton) were "enemies" of Australia or anywhere else for that matter.

The artificially constructed concept of the "Nation State" is not something that I sit and worry about nor do I think in dualisms. I look at the way in which Money, Control and Power are used as a means of centralisation (the greatest danger in my view) and the "Nation State" is one aspect of the ongoing centralisation processes that have been occurring since at least the 18th Century.
I said Monckton believes what he says and that Gina is impossible to guage, as she suppresses everything, but appears to only do things that are immediately to her advantage (I would classify her as having psychopathic tendencies just from the little information she allows into the public sphere and the control she endeavours to exert on others).

I have researched this on and off since the 1980's and know a lot about the ins and outs of the WA mining sector.
So come back with a smart arse remark again, tell me I don't know what I'm talking about and don't forget to use heaps of emoticons just in case you don't feel you've been condescending enough. I have known people who died due to Hancock's arrogance and greed. I have family members who still have to have periodic checkups "just in case". Mesothelioma is a truly horrific death and Gina's father refused to assist anyone (unless told to by the courts). Gina is no better and while I don't think in dualities such as good and evil, I feel that the self centred way in which she behaves is no different to ol' Langs.

I did not ridicule you in this thread or anywhere else for that matter. For me to do that would belittle the memory of loving, working-class people who died long, protracted, drawn out deaths because of others greed and arrogance.

I'm not going to bother discussing it with you further. Truthfully, I don't have time to spend going through what I've learnt, from years of research, when all you can do is regurgitate right wing propaganda and be condescending.
Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

News for you 'FOOL' Lang Hancock is 'DEAD'...:yes4:

Rgs,

Jack :yo:

:focus:

[panopticon]

Gina Rinehart is 'Not' an enemy of Australia or its people nor is Christopher Monckton for that matter... :nono:

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Let's look a little at Gina's Daddy, Lang Hancock, who she idolises and endeavours to emulate, because it is impossible to understand Gina and what is going on without understanding him as well.

Lang Hancock, Gina Rinehart's Father, was an Australian hero.
Opened up iron ore mining in the Pilbara (North Western Australia) and founded blue asbestos mining at Wittenoom.
Nice bloke on all accounts, as long as everything went his way...

Despite his conservative politics Lang didn't support the conservative WA Premier, Charlie Court, because he thought he was a socialist (please read that as "wouldn't do as he was told", cause ol' Charlie wouldn't let more than 3 people gather together in case it was a Union Meeting -- in 1976 he actually had that put into legislation with Section 54B of the Police Act [repealed 1984]) but instead he developed close ties with "WA Inc's" corrupt Labor Party Leader Brian Burke (ol' Burkie was even appointed replacement trustee in Lang's will).

Lang Hancock was a caring sharing humanitarian who said in relation to miners suffering from mesothelioma (which at the time he knew was caused by the asbestos they were mining in his mines):

Some people have to suffer so that the majority can benefit from asbestos.

Here is Kate Fagan performing Alistair Hulett's song, 'He Fades Away', that talks to the heart of so many families who had this experience:

qu4SGIcNqIw
Here's an excerpt from a 1994 article:

Thirty years ago, the city of Wittenoom was second only to Perth in size and importance. Now it is a ghost town. Many of its former residents have died from mesothelioma, caused by the blue asbestos they were mining. On the day I visited, the West Australian carried a story saying that 12 of the victims diagnosed over the past year had contracted mesothelioma while merely visiting Wittenoom.

Lang was a big Milton Friedman fan (the libertarian economist and founder of the flawed "Chicago School") and Lang flew to Chicago to meet with him. Oh, and finally, Lang Hancock advocated eugenics:

XZ9LFX6NDuk

SECTION ON GINA STARTS
As for Gina, she was accused of bribing witnesses during Langs coronial inquest (long story that one)...
No charges were laid against her that I'm aware of (there again with all the suppression orders she puts out who can tell) but the "revised" witness list was much shorter following the police investigation.

Her attempt in 2002 to get a statue of her father erected in Kings Park after having been initially approved by local Perth City Council met with ridicule from members of the public who remembered Wittenoom and Nunyerry. Most notably amongst those who spoke out against this proposed monument was Robert Vojakovic, President of the Asbestos Diseases Society. Gina hastily removed her submission as the Perth City Council indicated it was going to decline her application after re-assessment.

John Hancock reckons that his mother, Gina Rinehart, has been stripping the Hope Margaret Hancock Trust of assets for years and using it to pay for unrelated things. Gina doesn't want to release the details of the accounts assets, or abide by Lang Hancock's wishes (as expressed in his will) that on Ginia's 25th Birthday the 82% held in the children's name of the 'Hope Margaret Hancock Trust' is to be divested to the four children (which includes 23% of Hancock Prospecting valued at $4 Billion). Plus there's the issue of ownership of the Hope Downs mine (iron ore) which is the most lucrative of Rinehart's investments. That's partly why they are all in court.

Truthfully I had lost interest in the Hancock/Rinehart family (until the Monckton connection) as Gina played everything very close to her chest and probably suppressed everything she didn't want coming out. I just assumed she was a point of manipulation within the broader social discursive process, a centraliser of money, control and power. The change in 2010/2011, with Gina being more in the "public spotlight", in conjunction with her sudden doubling in wealth, attracted my interest again and I've been accessing the political and social implications of Gina's move into politics and media interests. The control of information is one of the most important aspects of MCP and as a result I am watching intently her manouveurings. Hence the interest in the Mannkal/Monckton video.

I only introduced the Monckton/Mannkal/Rinehart connection as it is not well known. I didn't anticipate being spat at. Oh, and I never said Gina (or Monckton) were "enemies" of Australia or anywhere else for that matter.

The artificially constructed concept of the "Nation State" is not something that I sit and worry about nor do I think in dualisms. I look at the way in which Money, Control and Power are used as a means of centralisation (the greatest danger in my view) and the "Nation State" is one aspect of the ongoing centralisation processes that have been occurring since at least the 18th Century.
I said Monckton believes what he says and that Gina is impossible to guage, as she suppresses everything, but appears to only do things that are immediately to her advantage (I would classify her as having psychopathic tendencies just from the little information she allows into the public sphere and the control she endeavours to exert on others).

I have researched this on and off since the 1980's and know a lot about the ins and outs of the WA mining sector.
So come back with a smart arse remark again, tell me I don't know what I'm talking about and don't forget to use heaps of emoticons just in case you don't feel you've been condescending enough. I have known people who died due to Hancock's arrogance and greed. I have family members who still have to have periodic checkups "just in case". Mesothelioma is a truly horrific death and Gina's father refused to assist anyone (unless told to by the courts). Gina is no better and while I don't think in dualities such as good and evil, I feel that the self centred way in which she behaves is no different to ol' Langs.

I did not ridicule you in this thread or anywhere else for that matter. For me to do that would belittle the memory of loving, working-class people who died long, protracted, drawn out deaths because of others greed and arrogance.

I'm not going to bother discussing it with you further. Truthfully, I don't have time to spend going through what I've learnt, from years of research, when all you can do is regurgitate right wing propaganda and be condescending.
Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

News for you 'FOOL' Lang Hancock is 'DEAD'...:yes4:

Rgs,

Jack :yo:

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! :bounce:

You're all :lalala:

You talk a big game but when solid research and facts get in the way you go all one line on my arse...

Talk it down all you want, the Rinehart/Monckton connection exists (she's even put Plimer on some of the Hancock Boards and you can't tell me that's not manipulation right there) and Monckton was filmed telling a right wing coin-servative think-tank to get financing from a wealthy backer and take over media interests to put forward a right wing coin-servative perspective (for those who don't know, Gina is in the process of trying to do just that).

There again...
Why let the truth get in the way of a good story eh? :loco:
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

[jackovesk]

Gina Rinehart is 'Not' an enemy of Australia or its people nor is Christopher Monckton for that matter... :nono:

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

I'm not going to bother discussing it with you further. Truthfully, I don't have time to spend going through what I've learnt, from years of research, when all you can do is regurgitate right wing propaganda and be condescending.
Regards,
Panopticon

News for you 'FOOL' Lang Hancock is 'DEAD'...:yes4:

Rgs,

Jack :yo:

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! :bounce:

You're all
You talk a big game but when solid research and facts get in the way you go all one line on my arse...

Talk it down all you want, the Rinehart/Monckton connection exists (she's even put Plimer on some of the Hancock Boards and you can't tell me that's not manipulation right there) and Monckton was filmed telling a right wing coin-servative think-tank to get financing from a wealthy backer and take over media interests to put forward a right wing coin-servative perspective (for those who don't know, Gina is in the process of trying to do just that).

There again...
Why let the truth get in the way of a good story eh?
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

To be honest Panopticon, I didn't bother reading your story the 1st time let alone a 2nd time...:nono:

But what is (Does Prove) is that your entire argument is based on Diddly-Squat/Nada/Zip...:bs:

The 'GREEN CON is GONE', haven't you read the news today Watermellon...:pound:

Australian 'GREENS' Leader (World Govt. Advocator) QUITS..! Hooray..!

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?43701-Australian-GREENS-Leader--World-Govt.-Advocator--QUITS..--Hooray..-

Your (ILK) can Run, but you can't Hide - Sooner or Later the GREEN LIES just start catching up with you...:yes4:

Rgs,

Jack :yo:

[panopticon]

WTF? I'm wrong because you didn't read what I wrote? Come on, THAT'S JUST PLAIN WEIRD BLOKE. :pound:

I'm sorry to hear that YOU COULDN'T BE BOTHERED TO READ ANY OF MY POSTS,

thanks for your honesty at least,

most people would not have been able to admit that they couldn't be bothered reading a few posts
BEFORE RUNNING DOWN MY HORRIFIC LIFE EXPERIENCES and 20+ years of extensive research. :faint:

To be honest Panopticon, I didn't bother reading your story the 1st time let alone a 2nd time...
But what is (Does Prove) is that your entire argument is based on Diddly-Squat/Nada/Zip...

Your above statement doesn't even make sense... :frusty:
Guess that explains why you haven't responded to any of the facts I've mentioned. :lalala:


The 'GREEN CON is GONE', haven't you read the news today Watermellon...
Australian 'GREENS' Leader (World Govt. Advocator) QUITS..! Hooray..!
Your (ILK) can Run, but you can't Hide - Sooner or Later the GREEN LIES just start catching up with you...

I'm NOT a greens supporter

so your lil' rant about Bob Brown and all the rest
MEANT NOTHING TO ME. :bounce:

Really bloke, just TRY TO GET A GRIP. :wacko:

If you managed to get this far here's a quote from the 19th Century peer (Monckton would be impressed), Politician and Historian Lord Acton that describe my feelings towards those who exercise money, control and power:

'Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it.'

In relation to the above I could insert the name of any politician and it would apply at some level or another. Most wealthy people exercise their influence to get their own way -- that is the essence of Money, Control and Power, it knows no national borders and works against laws it does not recognise as useful to its own purposes. Oh, did I mention GINA RINEHART is secretive, manipulative and worth $18 BILLION DOLLARS!!! Did I mention that Monckton is a wannabe conservative politician, journalist and propoganda expert. READ HIS CV (http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1675-christopher-a-man-of-many-talents)!!!
I can't wait to see what INSIGHTFUL OBSERVATIONS you will make next... :pop2:
I'm wondering if you can get much more BIZARRE, CONCEITED or ARROGANT... :hail:
Waiting in breathless anticipation for you to tell me how I should think, :jester:
Actually I'm not. You don't even read my posts so...
As rms said (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?43700-Richard-Stallman-Facebook-and-Google-Mistreat-Their-Users&p=466851&viewfull=1#post466851): 'It's not an efficient use of my time. If somebody's not inclined to listen too me, it's better if I speak to somebody else.'
Panopticon