cont....

I also reject categorically that me being one of the top 10 shareholders in the Chicago Climate Exchange and the European Climate Exchange has any bearing on my founding of a body (Alliance for Climate Protection)which is dedicated to persuading people of the need for cap and trade laws etc..or that such laws would HUGELY benefit my company (Generation Investements llc) which owns 2.8% shares in the European "Climate Exchange" carbon trading company.

I also reject the innuendo that my other friend MAURICE STRONG who generously and selflessly gave us the KYOTO Protocols has any private beneficial interest in Cap and Trade laws, even though he is a DIRECTOR of the Chicago Climate Exchange.(CCX)

The scurrilous charge that nations signing up for the KYOTO protocols will benefit me personally is groundless, in spite of my shareholdings in carbon trading companies which are estimated to make TRILLIONS in carbon trading..this is just vicious partisan political scuttlebutt.

My friend and colleague Maurice Strong is now focusing his attention in China... where the Tianjin Climate Exchange, a joint venture of the CCX (of which he is a director) and Petroleum China, of which my other friend Franco Bernabe is a director, (he is also the vice chairman of Rothschilds Europe); are all energetically saving the planet.

NO NO NO....there is NO connection or conflict of interest..I deny it.. deny deny deny.

That GREEN groups are part of this, is another unfounded allegation :)

WHY ARE THE GREENS RECEIVING SUPPORT ? Well.. I would hazard a guess that when $300,000,000 is pumped into "persuading" people of the reality of 'Climate Change'...that gullible people, pee'd off with major parties would look for a fresh new face?

Fact finding memo #1 to Boazy: The Australian Greens have no connection with the US-based Alliance for Climate Protection.

This is just another one of your dishonest 'bait and switch' routines, isn't it?

AGIR, how about telling us where you **COPIED** your last 2 posts from.

AlGore- honestly, there are going to be corporate lobbyists on either side of any debate- so long as the party playing 'towards its hands' so to speak actually goes in a direction of public benefit and not just straight into them instead.

An issue left WELL out of most debates as of late- climate change above all.
As far as Labor and Liberals have gone, it's been a tug-o-war between which lobbyists they'd rather work with against their longevity in Parliament.

As for Greens- seeming that they have been generally trashing most of the climate change arrangements, and have been quite consistent at separating themselves from select-businesses > public, they WILL have my support in the election (as they are staunchly opposed to my greatest gripe- extensive private control over former public property, services and infrastructure (all of which have turned to dirt).

Personally, if the Greens won, and were nagged into giving us Binding Citizen Initiated Referenda rights, there would be little to worry about. Generally most Greens policies and stances are quite sound (and I HAVE drilled Greens members about various issues), in comparison to the ratio of sound-vs-rubbish ideas I'd still pick them.

BENQ..I didn't cut/paste any of that.. unless it was clearly a quote.
I described things in a 'defense' of my name slant.

Hazza... interesting, but there is more to it than you seem to think.

The network of Capitalists posing as Socialists/Greens is mind boggling.
The Greens are only unhappy about proposed policies because they don't go far enough. The Greens approach is not to fix the enironment but to destroy "capitalist economy" and replace it with their neo marxist Socialism. Make no mistake about that.

I fear you might be supporting them only for their 'posture' rather than their deeper substance and eventual destination. Greenies will deny this unless waterboarded into honest admissions..because they know that if the truth is put out there..their support will plummet.

The whole 'Green' agenda of Climate change/Global warming is brought horribly into question by the economic opportunism and (in my view) criminality of those at the head of all things Green (Maurice Strong)

If you cannot trust the man from whom all this was coordinated.. how can you trust the science/outcome/agenda?

Would you like a detailed list of his doings ?

If a man is proven to be a scoundrel... and an insider trader,...an opportunist and a current capitalist exploiter of things 'green'...then the chances are pretty high that his 'information' is also dodgy.

Hazza.. look up AGENDA 21 and see what it is.. where it came from.. and what it would mean for society. You need to read between the soft language a bit.

Would you like YOUR property taken by a Green governed State ?

ALTERNATIVE TO GREENS.

Hazza.. if you had the choice between a socialist 132 page 'sustainable climate' bill (Greens) and a simple one page solution which guarantees true greenhouse gas reduction in OUR backyard.. and also reduced (rather than the Greens INcreased) electricity costs for YOU....which would you prefer..honestly? Specially when you cannot verify in the slighest way how your 'carbon credits' are actually used in 3rd world countries ?

-Family First
-Independant (me? :)
-Coalition (worst of the above, but better than Labor/Greens)

Depends on your own model Al ;)

Between coalition/major models and Greens models, I personally favor Greens models, as the Greens models focus more on the targets and less on the trading element.

Having said that, I would prefer NO emissions trading scheme at all and believe the entire system it proposes is just another dodgy field of investment in fabricated assets. So asking me for my support is what kind of illness I'd most rather come down with.

But tell me your own version anyway (and on that note, if you indeed are running for independent, which electorate are you out of curiosity?)

As for the Greens left-ish leaning- so far, I don't see any direct socialist-style personal property interventions on an individual basis, although I do see deep intervention of conduct, and regarding ownership and running of infrastructure (of which removing from private ownership gets my full support).
If so, feel free to point it out (in the meantime I'll read the article and put my take on it)