Recently one of our Federal Senators from New South Wales (Concetta Flerra Vanti-Wells) sent out a pdf booklet detailing various subjects ranging from China, Free Speech and Climate Change to name a few. She is unique in that she seems to be a realist and not one that follows the herd just to be accepted. The following is from Page 63.
‘Over the past decade there has been much said and written about man’s contribution to the warming of our planet, much of it characterised by emotive and alarmist language by those pushing their respective agendas. When asked whether you believe in climate change the answer is ‘yes’, because there has always been climate change on planet earth.
In August 2019, the media build-up of an impending hot, dry summer appears to have set the scene for the unhinged, including those with criminal intent, to act. It defies logic that the number of bushfires in different parts of Australia took hold so quickly and apparently all at once, thereby destroying property, livelihoods and wildlife and, in worst-case scenarios, causing the deaths of 33 people.
The history of our sunburnt country suggests that bushfires can start from lightning strikes, downwind spot fires from cinders in high winds, fallen powerlines, carelessness by citizens and, unfortunately, arson attack.
An article by Dr Paul Read, an ecological criminologist and sustainability scientist at Monash University published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 18 November 2019 that was titled ‘Arson, mischief and recklessness: 87 per cent of fires are man-made’. His article provides an excellent synopsis of the facts with respect to bushfires in Australia. It states that there are, on average, 62,000 fires in Australia every year and satellite studies have shown that lightning strikes are responsible for only 13% of all fires. He also cites 2015 satellite analysis of 113,000 fires from 1997-2009 which indicates that 40% of fires are deliberately lit and another 47% accidental.
Following is the full op-ed piece by Dr Paul Read of 18 November 2019: Carbon dioxide (CO2) has been much maligned by those who fail to acknowledge its importance to the health of our planet.
Plants and trees absorb CO2 and release oxygen. Also, phytoplankton in our oceans absorb CO2 and produce up to half of earth’s oxygen supply. We need the process and CO2 for our very existence on earth. To make informed scientific judgement with respect to climate, it is vital to have academic freedom; and, peer review remains integral to academic freedom. The politicisation of climate science has not only stifled debate but credible scientists have been ridiculed and marginalised for daring to pursue scientific methods and the conduct of peer review. The treatment of Dr Peter Ridd from James Cook University is only one case of how universities are trying to stymie or stop academic debate on climate change. They prefer outcomes that accord with the herd mentality against CO2. For the record, CO2 is not a pollutant.’ Page 63 from a PDF sent via email.
Australian Federal Government
Australia’s THE CONVERSATION is Leftist to say the least! I receive their emails and rarely go to their web site as I already know it will be full of climate scam heresy and other left leaning lies. Putting that aside ‘A new study finds that virtue-signalling signals virtue. Specifically, in this case, that Australians consistently tell pollsters they care about climate change – over 80% as a rule, including a majority of conservative voters. But like the alarmists who buy seaside mansions, fly jets to climate conferences and otherwise exhibit glittering hypocrisy, they don’t vote the way they talk. It’s not exactly that they’re kidding; it’s that they’ve learned their lesson too well, that climate awareness is all about striking the right pose. Irony can indeed be ironic sometimes.
The authors of the study exhibit considerable irritation in The Conversation, asking “If 80% of Australians care about climate action, why don’t they vote like it?” But a better question would be “Why do 80% of Australians claim to care about climate action?” which is all that polls actually reveal or can reveal. And part of the answer is that they’re ashamed not to, especially in front of strangers, which is why polls too often underestimate unpopular opinions. And another part is that Australians, like others, have been assured far too often that climate action is all gain and no pain.
The authors reach a different conclusion: “Our research suggests the question about social support for climate action in Australia is no longer: ‘does climate change matter to enough Australians?’. Instead, the critical question may well be: ‘does climate change matter enough to Australians to shift climate politics?’.” And they admit to at least one eye-opening experience.
“We conducted our survey in July 2019, two months after the Coalition won the federal election. Its victory came as a surprise to many, as the election was sometimes billed the ‘climate election’, implying climate change was a bellwether issue. The climate policies of the two major parties were night and day, with the Labor Party campaigning on ambitious mitigation targets and the incumbent Coalition maintaining the status quo of very limited climate policy.”
It opened one eye. But to prise the lid up on the other, ask yourself who billed it as the “climate election”? Activists and advocates, political and private. Not voters. They all went yeah yeah sure and signalled their virtue, then voted their convictions. The authors do note that “We found about half of Australian voters (52%) said climate change was important when deciding their vote in the 2019 Australian federal election. However, climate was the most important issue for only 14% of voters.” But again, the real measure of how people vote isn’t how they say they vote. As with buying and selling, the acid test is what they actually do with a scarce resource, in this case their ballot.
It’s not just Australia. German climate worrywarts gave themselves something new to worry about with a major survey by the European Investment Bank, now part of the green machine along with far too many woke-like financial institutions, that found that youth aren’t behind Greta the way the old folks are. As Pierre Gosselin put it about a news story on the study, “Shockingly, ‘Only 26 percent of young people believe that we should use less fossil energy, primarily for climate protection reasons,’ the two Die Welt journalists reveal.” Young people also don’t want to limit speeds on the famous Autobahns, or subsidize electric cars. “Geht es um CO2-Verbote,” Die Welt admits, “ist die Bereitschaft zum Klimakampf unter den Generationen anders verteilt als gedacht.” You can say that again. (And if they did it would be “When it comes to CO2 bans, the readiness to fight climate change is distributed differently among the generations than expected.”)
In this sense the global warming alarmists have won a massive Pyrrhic victory. They’ve got everyone claiming they care about climate and a fairly large number believing they do care. But it’s happened at the expense of driving people’s real beliefs underground where they have become inaccessible and unrealistic. Many don’t really think it’s an issue, or at least not one worth sacrificing for, many are sick of being nagged, and many believe it’s an issue on which no significant sacrifice is required.
As the Conversation authors note about Australia, “Across the political spectrum, the proportion of voters willing to accept a small personal cost is relatively similar: 60% of progressive voters, 55% of conservative voters.” Yes. A small one. So when asked to make a significant sacrifice, they balk. It’s not what they were told was needed.’https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2021/03/31/talk-green-vote-brown-mate/
‘Internationally renowned physicist absolutely proves 2020 election was biggest cyber-crime in world history.’
https://rumble.com/vf8met-mike-lindell-releases-scientific-proof.html
The elected officials and their minders in the West have gone stir raving mad!
‘Martyn dives deep into the WM4J movement protesting sexual abuse of women. Martyn also looks into the recent news about a father being jailed for resisting his child’s gender transition, tackles gender quotas and highlights the top 3 threats that the west is faced with.’https://www.acl.org.au/thetruthofit/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=enews%20210330&utm_content=enews%20210330+CID_1e930473075029ae16149e3e85140dee&utm_source=CreateSend&utm_term=Watch%20the%20full%20episode
This video is from way back in 2005 but very pertinent for today. Gates is talking to members of the CIA about vaccines for use against the ‘religious’ extremism gene. This man is anti-God and is listened to by the leaders in the free world.
Australia used to have some of the cheapest electricity until the climate religion and renewables! The state of New South Wales has a make believe conservative government that has sold itself out to the climate scam and ‘Everything to do with ‘net-zero’ hands a competitive advantage to the Communist Party of China and results in a wealth transfer from Australia to Beijing. The Communist Chinese are laughing at the stupidity of the NSW Liberals. https://www.theepochtimes.com/nsws-net-zero-plan-may…The plan also promises to support the state economic growth promising to create over 2400 jobs and save households $40 a year on electricity bills. However, Federal MP Craig Kelly expressed concern over the plan. Kelly is concerned the Program could inadvertently support Chinese-backed companies selling solar panels, wind-turbine components, and batteries placing Australia at a direct economic disadvantage with China. “It’s a forced mandate that forces us to buy more solar panels, and of course, more than 90 percent of imported solar panels come from China,” Kelly told The Epoch Times in a phone interview. “It forces us to rely upon large batteries which come from China, more wind turbine parts, all of which come from China.” “The net result will be a wealth transfer out of Australia to the Communist Party of China,” Kelly added. Additionally, Kelly criticised the large $750 million expenditure, of which $195 million will go to research developing technology for sectors that are deemed hard-to-abate—essentially those that have no low-emission alternatives due to specific industrial processes (such as high-temperature heating) that rely on fossil fuels. “What happens if it doesn’t work?” Kelly said.’https://www.facebook.com/CraigKellyMP
‘If you believe that solar & wind are ‘cheaper’, then you’ve been tricked by liars and spivs that want to pocket commissions on selling the country out to China. https://www.bloomberg.com/…/coal-india-approves-32…Coal India Ltd. approved an investment of about 473 billion rupees ($6.4 billion) on mining projects as the company seeks to boost output to replace imports of the fuel, the Kolkata-based miner said in an emailed statement.The approvals include eight new projects as well as expansion plans for 24 existing mines, Coal India said. The 32 sites will have a combined peak output of 193 million tons a year, the highest capacity approved during a fiscal year, it said. The projects will produce 81 million tons annually from the financial year starting April 2023, by when the miner targets reaching 1 billion tons of annual production.The world’s biggest miner is counting on a revival in demand for the fuel as the Indian economy emerges from a pandemic-induced slump. Besides industrial consumption, the approaching summer is expected to boost demand for electricity and spur power generators to replenish their declining coal inventories, Coal India’s Chairman Pramod Agrawal said last month.India’s coal users imported a record 248.5 million tons of the fuel in the fiscal year ended 2020. Increasing domestic production will be key to weaning them away from overseas purchases, Coal India said.’ https://www.facebook.com/CraigKellyMP
I have personally sought to speak to several Australian Federal Parliamentarians about the abortion issue with no success. However, a Queensland senator says “I am asking my parliamentary colleagues, and in fact, our entire community to consider the painful question: ‘what happens to a child born alive during a late term abortion?’ The uncomfortable truth is that the child is left to die.” – George Christensen
Most Australians are unaware that hundreds of documented cases exist of babies being born alive after botched abortions and then left to die.
Federal and state guidelines say no treatment is required. Just let them die.
Courageous and compassionate state parliamentarians Nick Goiran of Western Australia and Dr Mark Robinson of Queensland, both Liberals, have been shining light on this practice for years.
Sadly, their parliamentary colleagues and the media avert their eyes.
Regardless of which side of the abortion debate one is on, only those with the hardest of hearts don’t find the practice heart-wrenching and tragic.
I believe that if most Australians knew the truth about abortion and the harm it inflicts on mothers, they would demand reform.
It is a practice fiercely protected by our cultural and media elites; and by men, whose convenience is the primary beneficiary. Alternative views on abortion are mostly suppressed in the public discourse.
I documented Goiran and Robinson’s work in my recent book, I Kid You Not – Notes from 20 Years in the Trenches of the Culture Wars.
Liberal National Party member for Dawson, George Christensen, read of this while preparing to speak at the Brisbane launch of the book last July.
He promised that night he would push for law reform and this week he delivered, releasing the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2021. You can read the bill here.
He also released research from the Parliamentary Library which independently validates the figures Gioran and Robinson have been quoting for years as well as providing new statistics from Victoria.
In WA, 27 babies had been born alive and left to die between 1999 and 2016.
In the 10 years to 2015, 204 Queensland babies died this way while 33 in Victorian perished after botched abortions between 2012 and 2016.
Christensen’s bill requires medical practitioners to treat a baby surviving abortion the same way they would any other patient. Who would oppose this?
Currently the federal government’s advice to a doctor or nurse encountering a baby born alive after abortion is to “not offer treatment”.
I wonder if Scott Morrison is aware of this.
Christensen appeals to provisions in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Both support the right to life. Both have been signed by Australia. But when it comes to the human rights of our most vulnerable citizens, we have chosen to look away.
In a media release issued yesterday and ignored by the mainstream media, Christensen says:
“I am asking my parliamentary colleagues, and in fact, our entire community to consider the painful question: ‘what happens to a child born alive during a late term abortion?’
“The uncomfortable truth is that the child is left to die.
“As one state agency (South Australia) so brutally puts it: ‘the baby … is wrapped in a blanket and the mother is given the opportunity to hold the baby as it dies’.
“This issue has been on my heart and mind for a long time.
“Now that I have more information on the number of children we are talking about, though those figures understate the problem, I must act.”
Christensen’s bill points out that Australia is in breach of both the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
“I have provided the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Act 2021 bill to the Prime Minister and other key ministers, seeking their support on adopting this bill, or allowing a conscience vote on it,” Christensen said.
“The bill makes it an offence not to provide life-saving treatment punishable with penalties of higher than $400,000 for health practitioners and higher for corporations.
“It also could see health practitioners who breach the law deregistered in Australia.
“I encourage others to lend their support for this action via my website www.georgechristensen.com.au/bornalive.”
Please support this initiative.
The tide is turning.’https://www.lyleshelton.com.au/proposed_law_to_save_babies_born_alive_after_botched_abortions
If you perchance do not believe the UN and the World Economic Forum (WEF) are not committed communist, socialist Leftist’s working to destroy freedom loving capitalist’s this video should prove it to you! This video is the WEF’s favorite man, the CCP’s Xi Jinping speaking at the WEF’s most recent Davos love fest!
If you cannot stomach watching the whole thing I understand.
‘I have a question. When did politicians and federal employees start calling themselves “public servants”? Even more importantly, why are we letting them? It’s almost as if they’re trying to claim the mantle of nobility for making a sacrifice in the public interest. But I don’t understand what that sacrifice is. They’re paid better and have better benefits than most private-sector employees. They’re rarely held accountable for their performance. Why do we treat them as if they’re serving a higher calling than any other profession in the country?
Take Joe Biden, for example. He claims to have been in public service for over 50 years. But what has he done in that time? He was the first senator to initiate a personal attack on a Supreme Court nominee. His attack on Robert Bork was shameful, and helped create the current environment of Supreme Court politicization. He also used the power of his office to enrich his family members. Exactly how did lunch-bucket Joe become a multimillionaire on the salary of a politician? I fail to see how that has been a service to the country.
Joe certainly isn’t alone. Was Nancy Pelosi serving the public interests when she withheld COVID-19 relief for months — just to deny President Trump a win? Was she also serving her constituents when she bought stock in Tesla just days before President Asterisk signed an order directing all agencies to switch to electric cars? There’s a term for that — “insider trading.” Being the civic-minded public servant she is, I’m sure she’ll be sharing her windfall with her constituents.
It’s not all about money. Some politicians have a completely different idea of providing service. Eric Swalwell placed himself in servitude to a Chinese spy. Exactly what “service” did Eric provide? Was it anything that would allow him to claim nobility? I mean in the U.S. — not in China.
Let’s not forget the bureaucrats that “serve” our nation. Look at the EPA. They’re good at two things — choking the life out of commerce, and polluting rivers.
In the name of serving the public interest, the IRS targeted the Tea Party, thus silencing their voice in the midst of a presidential campaign. They also leaked confidential tax records to the press, and provided tax records to the FBI without a warrant. Isn’t it noble of them to poke us in the eye while taking our money? Perhaps the next time you’re at the grocery store checkout, the clerk should send your shopping list to child protective services rather than thank you. It would be the “public servant” thing to do.
Don’t forget the FBI. It’s in a class all by itself. Our sworn law enforcement agents initiated a coup attempt against a duly elected president. They set a perjury trap for his national security advisor. They even falsified evidence to a FISA court.
I’ve heard the arguments that the FBI rank and file are honest and professional. We shouldn’t blame the whole FBI for a “few bad apples.” What complete balderdash! If most of them were honest, where were the whistleblowers during the investigation of President Trump? As far as being professional, how did they fail to prevent the Boston Marathon bombing — even after they’d received a tip that the Tsarnaevs were up to something? I have the same question about the Pulse Nightclub massacre. Was it also just a “few bad apples” that tried to frame Richard Jewell for the Atlanta Olympics bombing? The FBI even had warnings about the 9/11 attack, yet failed to act.
Of course, our highly professional FBI agents were able to determine that a noose was really a garage-door pull. It only required 15 agents and five days to make that determination. That is some cunning police work! It appears that the FBI is either using their badges to target political enemies, or they’re just a modern-day version of the Keystone Cops in tailored suits. But sacrificing for the public interest — I’m not seeing it.
These are just a few examples. The other alphabet soup agencies aren’t any better. Employees across all federal agencies formed the “resistance” to fight all things Trump. They gave us four years of leaks and unconfirmed anonymous sources undermining anything Donald Trump tried to accomplish. They did it all because they decided we needed something other than what we voted for. How would you rate a waiter that brings you want they want to serve you, not what you ordered?
Spare me the claims of nobility. Who’s really laboring to benefit the country? Is it politicians and bureaucrats whose only focus seems to be amassing power and choking commerce? Or is it the nameless workers who get up at dawn every day to keep this country running. The real nobility belongs to the farmers who put meals on our tables, the truckers who ensure supplies arrive on time, and the linemen that keep the lights on. As for our self-proclaimed federal “public servants,” — they’re overpaid employees with lifetime job security, at best. At worst, they’re parasites on society with aspirations to become our rulers.
The next time a politician or bureaucrat says they’re “serving” me — I have one thing to say: I want my tip back.’https://genzconservative.com/public-servants-or-parasites/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=gen-z-conservative-daily-newsletter_1
whatyareckon 