Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA
Subscribe to TNRA

Welcome to a “Hung” Democracy

09 November 2011 | Source | Permalink | comments: 0
By Joanne Nova

And so it came to pass that a small band of the selfish or deluded came to steal the blood, sweat and toil of the many.

They lied, broke solemn promises, failed to provide evidence, and displayed a singular lack of good-manners. They viciously insulted anyone who disagreed, they hid the models the public were forced to pay for, they gave patrons highly paid jobs to advertize their scheme.

They speak arrant nonsense as if it is the bleeding obvious: telling us that we will grow rich if we use energy that costs more; that coal miners are to blame for heavy rain; that more taxes will bring investors; that we’ll lose jobs if we don’t pay more than we need to for energy; or that 6.98 billion people will follow the 0.02 billion who lead us on the path to the Land of Stupid. They made prophesies that failed time after time, yet speak on, as if  only they have the vision to guide us.

The polls show the public would not have elected people who wanted to bring in a Carbon Tax. Yet it is law.

The narcissistic self-anointed activists have overreached, and it will be their undoing.

“We’re copying the EU” except the EU took $1.50 per capita over 5 years, and we’re taking 250 times as much.

The selfish include the parasitic members of the species homo-sapiens — they who produce little of value, but demand the rest provide them with food, housing and rewards. These demands are enacted through the government, under the guise of “helping” to prevent a non-existent threat.

The deluded include many people of good will, who are too busy (working to support the parasitic class) to  check that their news sources, schools, and government officials are giving them both sides of the story, or that their search engines are behaving fairly (who would know?).

People can simultaneously belong to both groups. Some of the parasitic class, deceive themselves that they are helping. They take no responsibility for the children who drowned in floods they said would never come. They will never know, nor apologize to those who die prematurely of diseases that could have been cured. They think not of all the invisible jobs that were gone before they were offered, or the factories that moved overseas.

Australians, Bob Brown just knocked on your door and demanded your house pay somewhere from $390  up to $1,000 per person each year (depending on your model)  from July 1, 2012, for ever. For this money, you will receive in return a change in the climate too small to measure. If you don’t pay, you will be incarcerated.

You no longer have the opportunity to spend that $1,600 – $4,000 per household each year on things that are more important to you. Money that could have been used to teach our children, or cure diseases, or give clean water to the poor will now be used to employ people to audit, market, and manage schemes that enrich bankers and traders and feed the mafiosi.

If that makes you angry, there is plenty you can do. We don’t have to accept this, but it will take work. All around the world the vacuity and self serving nature of this false alarm is spreading by word of mouth. Photos of thermometers in car-parks, and cartoons or charts of rivers of money, are spreading from intray to intray. The flow of believers becoming skeptics is one way and cumulative, and the tipping point is near when it will be open knowledge that the great CO2 scare amounts to nothing.

You too, can send a letter to the editor of every major newspaper.

Bob Brown wants you too: “Feel like your Government is not listening to your concerns?” he asks… “Then use our letter writing facility “. The Greens helpfully provide us with a page to write to the editors of all the national newspapers. I recommend you use it. Politely.

The financial day of reckoning (think Greece, think the Eurozone) will hasten the process of putting the climate scare in its place.

Labor will live to rue the day it fell for the most blatant of scams.

It will be marked for a generation as the gullible patsies of global financial houses.

Thank the Greens and Julia Gillard for waking up the citizens, for they could have kept growing their power through stealth and calculation, but instead they’ve bet double or nothing on one card which turned out to be The Joker. They are one cutting documentary, or one scathing feature film away from going down in history as the sock-puppets of banksters who thought they could change the weather.

Who is cheering today as the legislation goes through? Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Barclays,….  The Greens are unwittingly acting as agents for large financial institutions who want monster profits from a trading scheme of paper credits in an atmospheric nullity.

(Yes, I too, was once a Green who believed in man-made global warming .)

Last year, $142 billion turned over in global carbon trading markets, and …the climate kept changing.

 

The Nation can never be compensated.

Send a  letter to National Editors and vote in the SMH poll.

But yes, there is hope. Abbott has vowed to repeal it, and most of the rest of the world is abandoning it.

The IPA and Ian Plimer are calling for donations. http://donate.ipa.org.au/

Comments

Enter comments below, then click Submit:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Listen Live

Recent Comments

I think free speech implies that you have something to say, calling someone names isn’t free speech. Free speech is being free to question the dominant narrative. And we are certainly not free to do that. Anyone who questions the religion of climate change, or the six million Jews died in concentration camps argument are called a “deniers” and anyone who raises important concerns about Islam is called “Islamophobic, although their phobia (fear) may be justified. There are many other examples which are too obvious to mention. But you get the picture.

By Eugene Donnini on 2015 01 26 - 19:30:22
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

the lies are OBVIOUS!
http://www.sandyhookjustice.com/
fenton is a moron.

By yuhguy on 2015 01 26 - 10:25:22
From the entry 'Count me out of the Sandy Hook truther movement!'.

fenton lies about the obvious, and thinks he is being clever??
nothing wrong with sandy hook, nothing wrong with the pentagon, and nothing wrong with chemtrails.

you need to retitle your pathetic blog you pathetic liar.

By jklm on 2015 01 26 - 10:22:57
From the entry 'Count me out of the Sandy Hook truther movement!'.

Link to freeze point table is broken by comment formatting. Paste the whole next line to browser:

dimitrxe.pp.fi/pub/pol/chem/pages/Persistent Contrail.html

By Josh on 2015 01 23 - 06:11:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett wrote:

“You have never refuted any claims you have simply disagreed with them.”

Are you saying you have not checked the references I provided?


“Saturation of a parcel of air is 100% moisture when the temperature is at dew point”

Again you are ignoring saturation with respect to ice which is not the same as saturation with respect to water. You want to look at the frost point, not the dew point.

Supersaturation with respect to ice can be reached at RH levels of 70 percent and less. Have a look at this table - are you saying it’s wrong?


“The burning of carbon based fuels does not create water, the water is there all the time”

You are leaving the ground of school-grade chemistry. I have already provided you twice with the chemical equation for kerosene combustion in a jet engine.

For the third time:

2 * C12H26 + 37 * O2—-> 24 * CO2 + 26 * H2O

By the way, here is the benzene combustion in your car - every time the engine runs it creates water:

2 * C6H6 + 15 * O2—-> 12 * CO2 + 6 * H2O

In case you did not notice, the H2O molecules are water. Which is newly created by the combustion.
Again, not my invention, it’s basic chemistry. If you’re saying these equations are wrong, then where are your’s?


“If you cannot tell the difference in altitude between an aircraft flying at 30,000 feet and one at 15,000 feet you should really see an optometrist”

That’s not what you have claimed. You described a contrail at around 10 degrees above the horizon and said you determined the altitude to be 10000 feet - with your bare eyes. You did not mention any plane.

Here is what you wrote:

“[...] I took 4 [photographs] today at midday showing two distinct chemtrails at about 10,000 feet near our home at Enoggera near Brisbane, which were about 2,000 feet above some scattered fair weather cumulus cloud”

I had provided a reference to a scientific study that determined the maximum distance for stereo viewing at 160 meters. I won’t quote it again, it’s all on the previous page.

Bottom line is that you have not shown how you could determine the altitude of these contrails as 10000 ft with your bare eyes. Do you know of any other pilot who would believe you?

By Josh on 2015 01 23 - 05:32:31
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

God I’m sick of these dismissive hit pieces with nothing more to offer than an attempt at a boot in the ‘gonads’ at a wholly ambiguous collective. “Sandy Hook trutherism is unforgivable” is it ? Whatever else Sandy Hook was it was a media extravaganza with an agenda and people are entitled to respond to it as such without being turned into parahias.
——————————-
Kathy C | Seller Support Team Manager at Westpac

By Kathy C on 2015 01 23 - 04:50:26
From the entry 'Count me out of the Sandy Hook truther movement!'.

She is shallow, unintelligent, scheming, passive aggressive. I wouldnt be suprised if Wills wanted to get shot of her, but in a round about way was just forced into marriage with her because he had never been given the opportunity to play the scene. Here was safe. Hand picked for safe. Boring, smug, shallow kate.
——————————-
Sophie Hackett | Manager at <a >Bank of Melbourne</a>

By Sophie Hackett on 2015 01 23 - 04:44:58
From the entry 'Count me out of the Sandy Hook truther movement!'.

These are great tips! Thanks so much for putting the spotlight on "no plane" and "video fakery" theories!
---------------------
Matilda Barratt | Seller Support Team Manager at St George Bank

By Nancy Barratt on 2015 01 23 - 04:35:03
From the entry 'For those who are on the fence about "No Planes" & "Video Fakery" Theories'.

Leonard Clampett wrote about me:
As an amateur he claims to be more informed than I, as a professional
As I have said several times before - credentials are irrelevant if you don’t get your facts straight. You still have not issued any comments regarding your earlier claims after I have refuted them.
Did you change your stance on supersaturation with respect to ice?
Does it exist and is it a commonly occurring phenomenon as atmospheric science says?
Does one tonne of jet fuel generate roughly 1.3 tonnes of water when combusted?
Isn’t it basic chemistry that burning of any hydrocarbon fuel creates water?
Have you accepted that you can’t determine the altitude of a contrail just by using your stereoscopic view?
By Josh on 2014 12 30 - 08:22:05

Credentials from scientists therefore cannot be relevant if you don’t believe their facts are correct. Is that correct Joshnonymous? Who is the arbiter?
You have never refuted any claims you have simply disagreed with them. You are not right simply because you think you are.
Saturation of a parcel of air is when cloud forms. You can see this occurring in the sky above you on most days. Saturation of a parcel of air is 100% moisture when the temperature is at dew point. Supersaturation in clear air can occur when the water in exhaust emissions from an aircraft at altitude, in the right ambient conditions, condense after being turned to gas in the high temperatures in the can (combustion chamber). When this condensate is left to its own devices it takes up the temperature of the surrounding air and evaporates as the water content fuses into the surrounding drier air. This can take a few minutes but certainly not linger and become cloud as you claim. Otherwise we need just fly a few aircraft around to make cloud and dispense with droughts. That has been tried and does not work for obvious scientific reasons. If the surrounding air was saturated their would be cloud already. The difference between contrails that disappear within a kilometre or two behind an aircraft and those that remain for many minutes is caused by the variance in the humidity. You never see the contrails emitted in cloud do you? Meteorology 101. You get to understand all this in the senior examination studies but not in the hobby pilot exams.
The burning of carbon based fuels does not create water, the water is there all the time, and the aircraft does not carry 1.3 times its fuel load into the upper atmosphere. Weight and balance tables will tell you that. Load data sheets tell you that. The operations crew who load and fuel the aircraft will tell you that. The pilots know that because they do not take off overweight, otherwise their TOLD cards would be wrong every time. The extra water comes from the air masses that are compressed by the engines as they fly through the air masses.
If you cannot tell the difference in altitude between an aircraft flying at 30,000 feet and one at 15,000 feet you should really see an optometrist, or better still an ophthalmologist, the ones I see every year to have my eyes thoroughly checked in accordance with the legislation so provided.
Have a good day.

By Leonard Clampett on 2015 01 22 - 20:55:52
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

まずは|素晴らしいと言う私がしたいと私がしたいブログ!私は簡単な質問を持っていた心|私はあなたがいないをすればそうでない場合は、聞きしたいのですが、その。 自分の考えあなた自身とクリアを中央にどのように  見つけるために知っている前書き込み私がいた。 私がしたいた困難な時期|アイデアを得ることに私のクリア思考の心を出。 失われた無駄な 私は本当にない|書き込みしかし、それはでの喜びを取る楽しむちょうど最初の10〜15分のように思える単純に開始する方法を把握しよう。どれアイデアまたはヒント? おかげ!

By ugg ブーツ 店舗 大阪 on 2015 01 22 - 20:30:46
From the entry 'War monger Tony Abbott recklessy accuses the Russian President over downed passenger plane'.

Categories