Ever since the end of World War II, Western governments have been looking for new ways to keep their increasingly affluent and well-educated populations docile and obedient. The Cold War worked for a while; then the terrorism threat; now global warming is the new stick to wave over our heads. Unfortunately each of these has less and less effect as more and more bright people stand up to show how idiotic it is. The Internet in particular has made it far more difficult to fool large numbers of people for any length of time: no wonder Senator Conroy wants to put a stop to it!

Hopefully one day we will reach the point where governments no longer feel they have to maintain power through fear and can get elected on the basis of rational decision-making. But we have a long, long way to go.

'Scientific method, like good journalism, is founded on scepticism, repeated independent measurement and analysis, and open communication. '

Science and journalism have failed then. Of late science has been founded on idiotic dogma being used to line the pockets of the High Priests. Journalism (especially among our national broadcasters) are so politically slanted that the word truth is very foreign indeed. Not surprising since we have adopted moral relativism on an ever increasing basis.

IS THIS TRUE about the CPRS 2009 Exposure Bill?

< Little wonder then that Australia’s Climate Change and Water Minister, Penny Wong, included in her CPRS 2009 Exposure Bill the following clauses that cut into the heart of many centuries of law and jurisprudence: for anyone suspected of emitting too much carbon their right to silence is abolished (clause 311-3), their right not to incriminate themselves is abolished (clause 300-1) and the onus of proof is reversed so that a citizen suspected of this crime will also need to prove they are innocent instead of the government proving they are guilty (clause 336-3). These sections of the CPRS bill follow a precedent set by the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority Bill, which removes the right to privacy and that the government may pass on private information about Australian citizens to practically anyone it wants, including foreign governments (clause 48-1(r)), and the United Nations (clause 48-1(s)) . . Ian Read >

There are so many untruths told around this topic, and so many vested interests, the ordinary person does not know what is true and what is not.
We look around us and see so much of what we are doing, that we cannot help but think we are changing the world. But who do we believe about anything else?

So, are Ian Read's statements about this Bill true?

ozideas - this seems to be true, here's a link to a document from the Lavoisier group, saying the same thing and there are many examples on the web of similar to this, I just found this most convenient.

"Further very serious inroads into the rule of law occur in clause 300-1 where the right to silence is abolished, and the right not to incriminate oneself is not allowed. The onus of proof is reversed in clause 336-3 and privacy laws are set aside since The Authority has the right to pass on private information to practically anyone, including the UN and foreign governments (clause 48-1)."

With more detail on other exciting features our future under this new regulatory scheme has for us. http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/science-and-policy/backtothe19C.pdf

I sure hope all the AGW believers are happy with the way the ALP government is reducing our rights, the same ones people I'm sure who thought under PM Howard's government we had lost our rights.

If they get this through, why not just abolish these "rights" in all Australian law, clearly they have a "mandate", don't they?

Didn't you all want Kyoto, and further, this would show the rest of the world how Australia will lead in taking away their citizen's rights for a tax system.

We're number one, yay!

This is similar to the stuff the UN tried to get past everyone at Copenhagen, fortunately Lord Monckton blew the whistle on that - say what you like about him, at least he was paying attention.

The simple fact is that there is no scientific basis for asserting that human emissions have any significance in global warming.

The presentation of global warming has been disingenuous and corrupt, from the start, when the false “consensus” was proclaimed and viciously pursued.

Just one example was the ridiculous article by Naiomi Oreskes, purporting to be a study of climate change studies, and declaring that the majority of scientists supported anthropogenic global warming.

This was untrue, and Benny Pieser demonstrated it to be untrue. His article was removed from Wikipedia, where Oreskes study appeared. A false statement was posted that Pieser had withdrawn and apologised. Wikipedia management did this, not independent authors. This was an early indication to me of the corrupt approach of those advocating AGW.

I always take the proffering of Wikipedia as an authority to be an indication of support for fraud. The purpose of pushing these lies is to set up carbon markets, to trade in carbon credits, which will do nothing, except enrich those who produce the fraudulent credits.

The proposal is a non solution to a problem which does not exist.

The preponderance of reputable science shows that human emissions are of no significance to global warming. The nonsense emanates from the Hadley miscreants, whose emails demonstrate their fraudulent behaviour quite clearly.

If someone disputes this, then put up the scientific study which shows otherwise. The IPCC cannot, or they would not rely on an unscientific, “very likely”, to support the edifice of lies.

I think the author is just peddling more climate science denial. Doubt, denial and delay are what this article is about. The denialists have failed to show the science is wrong but they keep on saying it is. We can't afford the real costs of failing to act on the best knowledge we have. Sure Australian Labor is about as sincere as Abbott - ie not really at all when there's coal and gas to sell. You can always find some stupidity and inconsistency in the policies of Party's that don't really want to be the ones to actually come up with effective action but it's going to hurt us all badly if they and we fail to deal with this with the seriousness it deserves.