lies (again? - no, still; Turnbull vs. troglodytes)

.. IF someone lies ...

  .. THEN no credibility ...

    .. it's the old cry "Wolf!" story


IF JWHoward was in his grave (not actually wishing), THEN he'd most likely be rotating like a (bent!) Sunbeam Mixmaster beater. As it is, Howard's got little hair left to tear out - but he *must* be watching (suffer, you dog!) Ghost of Latham: "Disunity is death!" Latham was 'aping' Howard - as, we suppose, Rudd is now.

It looks to me, as if Lab(Rudd/Gillard) has wedged Lib(Turnbull/Bishop) in such an extreme way, that the Libs can't even cry "Wedge!" - because they're so red-misted, just so utterly consumed, that they're attacking each other mercilessly (may we say "Thoughtlessly?")

On the surface, it's a fight about Lab's ETS (emissions trading scheme - or whatever it's called this week. Rhyming 'week' with 'weak,' whatever it is or might do, it's *guaranteed* not to be effective - because both Lib AND Lab are BOTH totally in the carbon-extractor/burners' pockets; no CO2-remedial scheme (Lib OR Lab) could ever come into existence WITHOUT 'big-end-of-town' permission. (A guffaw may be triggered by the thought that Rudd's ETS may have been conceived some little while ago, in part if not wholly under Howard's direction.) Slightly under the surface (as in 'down a mine,' say, or perhaps better, 'stuck deep in a cave' (Plato's?)) - are the massed Lib-voting troglodytes, agitating their so-called 'representatives' to such an extent that the Libs appear to have been 'perfectly' panicked.

A highly significant bit here (some would say extremely unique), is this; Q: IF the sheople in general were to be sooo pissed off (vis-à-vis Rudd's ETS), THEN they'd likely attack Rudd&Co, and seek to sink Labor; and such a trend would clearly be indicated by polling - say. BUT: That's not even hinted at; Oh, no! From this, we can conclude: that the overwhelming majority of so-called 'climate-change sceptics' are - ta-ra! - troglodyte *Lib* voters. Not just rusted on, but irrevocably welded-on; a simmering, stinking pile of (climate-change) discontent. It means that Labor knows that it can't lose a single vote from this cohort; *these* troglodytes are already irrevocably lost - to any and all rational thinking, say; the ice is *known to be, seen to be, melting.* And (Milligan), troglodytes (or any other such idée fixe idiots) just can't argue with facts like that. (Evidence tending to overwhelming; scientists saying 'change quicker than expected,' Arctic ice going, latest is Russian permafrost melting - could be a 'killer' if methane 'goes ballistic...') My point? IF (this group) can't see the greed-house - err, greenhouse coming, THEN they're not open for *any* argument at all.

Prediction: Turnbull's a 'goner.' Grounds: The troglodytes are simply 'unturnable.' (Haw!)

Caveat: That Labor has calculated correctly (currently looks like it.)

End of on-the-surface bit.



An acquaintance used to maintain that Aus politics (vis-à-vis the sheople) had great similarities with religion, aka thoughtless beliefs, irrationally held. Then we got the detested Ameri-speak (spit!): in addition, the sheople are now considered to have been 'dumbed-down.' Voter-corruption is indicated as well; anyone recall Fraser/Howard's $5 election? One is still and often likely to hear "What's in it for me?"

In the political arena, we have the putative 'prime' actors, the politicians - who may be more or less puppets; controlled, cashed-up and/or coerced by forces largely invisible. Examples are 'big money,' who must try to be invisible since bribery is criminal, and some sort of mafia(s) similarly seeking invisibility, since coercion is also criminal. (Q: Who are far-and-away the worst coercers? Tip: Think "Z.") Note that any/all invisibility is both anti- and non-democratic. After 'prime' comes 2ndary; those who unduly influence. Then tertiary; an 'active' media can neither be independent nor fair. The 4th estate as 5th column reared its ugly head when Murdoch's theAus attacked possibly the last independent Aus PM (i.e. one who attempted to operate independent of the US, that is), namely EGWhitlam.

"All politicians lie!" gained wide currency during Howard's reign, although he can hardly claim precedence. The 4th estate is clearly not merely the messenger; they actively mix-in and so the MSM-messengers have made themselves 'legitimate' targets - although there's nothing 'legitimate' about lying to the sheople/voters. All such lying is both anti- and non-democratic; by all means now, shoot the eff'n messengers (ready, aim, FIRE!) Lying via and by the AusBC (Barker, say) has been well-documented in these pages.

So far, not so good. Obviously, the sheople/voters are key (of, by, for etc.); although some smart-arses might say "There's a fool born every minute," it's neither nice nor fair to mis-educate, mis-inform, let alone outright lie to voters. Bad as all the above is, it is mainly in the public domain; all one needs to do is look (closely enough) and think (more than enough - for some). Q: Is there anything else? Anything even slightly new, say? A: Yes.

Covert psyops[1]:

Almost nothing 'just happens;' agents are always at work, some that we can see (sadly, most of these turn out to be malignant), and some that we *cannot* see (almost all guaranteed to be *totally* malignant).

Before we even start on this, let's consider 'covert' (—adj. secret or disguised [POD]). There *could* be things that have to be secret - but I can't imagine much, if any at all. After all, good deeds bring acclaim, bad deeds bring prison (if/when the system works); anything good hardly needs to be hidden. Further, secrets, by their nature, can't be known by voters, let alone be voted upon - so secrets must be, by definition, both anti- and non-democratic. Examples abound in the negative, like the current UK enquiry into Iraq, only just starting but already yielding alarming evidence of filthy, lying perfidy.


Sigmund Freud's nephew Bernays wrote a book, "Propaganda." Before that, Bernays was employed by Wilson, in reference to WW1. Bernays saw that propaganda worked in the war-frame, and set out to employ propaganda in peace-time, as a 'tool' of industry. He morphed the name/concept into PR (public relations), since 'propaganda' had and still has very negative connotations (and not only 'connotations.') And so a disguised concept has endured to this moment - and beyond (unless we stamp on it; stamp it out!)

One of Freud's concepts was (still is - I assume), that "evil lurks in the hearts of men" (quoting the intro to a long-ago radio show.) This 'unconscious evil' was - it was asserted - at 'the heart' of war, and had to be controlled, suppressed or otherwise negated. These concepts among other similar assaults are described in a 4-hr series of videos by Adam Curtis/BBC, 1st brought to my notice by ICH/The Century of the Self, and lately by Aetius Romulous/Freud's Bastards. So far, I have no better source. (Sorry; me sorrier than you.)


*Because* we (me, 'n a few of my mates) are seekers of justice via truth, AND because "All politicians (and the MSM+AusBC) lie!" - we need to develop systems for sorting the few shining nuggets of truth out of the ocean of BS-dross that we are being inundated with. Sooo, we put info to the 'reality' test: we *look* (i.e. don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see - say.) We self-query: "Can this be true?" Most of the content in Curtis' videos "The Century of the Self" has the 'flavour' of truth. (You don't have to take me 'on faith' (Haw!); go see for yourself.)

Short summary here: we, the voting sheople, are being propagandised; with at least these *three* objectives:

1) the most obvious, the manufacture of *demand*; to sell us things we most likely would not otherwise buy. This powers the economy (so they say); it turns us into consumers, who in turn buy the gee-gaws (worst: gi-normous SUVs(spit!) - aka 4WDs) that keep the economy hummer - err, humming along.

2) pretty bloody sinister, the manufacture of *consent*; the sheople essentially being tricked into acquiescing to our so-called 'leaders' (better 'rulers,' best (actually, of course, worst): 'tyrants') - but whatever you call them; their malignant plans (i.e. illegal invasion of Iraq; Iran next?)

3) the double-edged sword, the suppression of the sheople's (supposed!) subconscious destructive drives.


OK; Q1: Why "double-edged," and Q2: Why "supposed?"

A2 (deliberate reverse-order:) "Supposed," because by definition, the sub-conscious is - err, well: sub-conscious. Who could possibly know what is - or is not - in the sub-conscious? Yes, this is circular; yes, it's going nowhere - *except* ... the BS (violent impulses) supposedly in the mass-sub-consciousness have been blamed for wars(?) - and then covert actions based on the same BS have led to us, we the sheople, being psychologically manipulated.

According to the videos, some manipulations work; *something* is being fiddled with; some results are provable (the sheople buy largely as directed, say). But (there's almost always an applicable but:) the most obvious manipulations we see are the inculcation of fears; fear of 'the other' (refugees, Islamofascists), fear of terrorism (often instigated by 3rd parties, see Pape's "Dying to Win.") Q: Are *you* (sub-consciously) violent? Q: Do *you* wish to be (covertly) manipulated?

A1: "Double-edged" means that it cuts two ways; (1) It gives the tyrants their excuse to *suppress* us, we the sheople-voters, and (2) It gives the tyrants their justification for doing so.

In case the penny has not yet dropped, there is an *extreme* contradiction here ...

  .. we, the sheople do not start wars ...

    .. actually, quite the contrary.


PS Nevertheless, I saw this coming. No, not the wedging, but the irrationality of the (lying) pushed propaganda paradigm. Easy, really; the more lies, a) the farther from reality, and b) the harder to keep all the lies agreeing, i.e. avoiding logical conflicts. Nature doesn't have this problem; it's perfectly self-consistent. Turnbull's troglodytes (of course, they're not all his), but who ever they 'belong' to, they've been carefully 'cultivated' - another ta ra! - the mushroom club! *Not* odd in this case, is that they seem to be exclusively *Liberal* mushroom-troglodytes. Haw again! And these 'climate-change sceptic' troglodytes are not the only ones...

Far more seriously, one simply *cannot* have a proper democracy, while the voters are not fully and fairly informed. We the sheople try hard to be good; to be (blatantly!) lied to or (covertly!) manipulated, in our sad reality both, means that our so-called 'democracy' is abso-bloody-lutely null and void. Lying, deceiving is not 'just' immoral, not 'merely' criminal, it's total cowardice; the 'people in control' - causing such mayhem - can't even admit up-front as to what they're doing.

Contempt. Sheer and utter contempt.



[1] Psychological Operations (PSYOP, PSYOPS) ...

  «The word is commonly used by governments who do not wish to use the term propaganda or brainwashing to refer to their own work. The word propaganda has very negative connotations, and by calling it psychological operations instead, more sophisticated methods of psychological manipulation are accurately incorporated by the terminology. This euphemism for mind control is ironically an example of psychological operations -- i.e. using psychological techniques to persuade [manipulate] a large number of people to support something that they wouldn't normally support.» 

Q1: Would it be fair or unfair, for the Aus govt. or 'our' AusBC or both, to propagandise us? Knowing that propaganda is a form of psyop; a mind-control technique even?

Q2: Exactly how unfair? How utterly criminal?


  1. Notice how hard it is to find a listing of Lib/Lab climate change deniers/sceptics?

    So let's start listing. From reports we know that all National Party MPs and Senators are on the list:

    Chester, Darren - Gippsland
    Cobb, John - Calare
    Coulton, Mark - Parkes
    Forrest, John - Mallee
    Hartsuyker, Luke - Cowper
    Hull, Kay - Riverina
    Neville, Paul - Hinkler
    Scott, Bruce - Maranoa
    Truss, Warren - Wide Bay

    Boswell, Ronald - Senator for Queensland
    Joyce, Barnaby - Senator for Queensland
    Nash, Fiona - Senator for New South Wales
    Williams, John - Senator for New South Wales

    We also know, due to the Coalition party room vote last week, that there are at least 36 Liberal Party MPs and Senators to be listed:

    Abbott, Tony - Warringah
    Andrews, Kevin - Menzies
    Billson, Bruce - Dunkley
    Bishop, Bronwyn - Mackellar
    Hawke, Alex - Mitchell
    Hawker, David - Wannon
    Jensen, Dennis - Tangney
    Johnson, Michael - Ryan
    Marino, Nola - Forrest
    Mirabella, Sophie - Indi
    Robb, Andrew - Goldstein
    Schultz, Alby - Hume
    Secker, Patrick - Barker
    Simpkins, Luke - Cowan
    Slipper, Peter - Fisher
    Smith, Tony - Casey
    Tuckey, Wilson - O'Connor
    Vale, Danna - Hughes

    Abetz, Eric - Senator for Tasmania
    Adams, Judith - Senator for Western Australia
    Back, Chris - Senator for Western Australia
    Barnett, Guy - Senator for Tasmania
    Bernardi, Cory - Senator for South Australia
    Bushby, David - Senator for Tasmania
    Cash, Michaelia - Senator for Western Australia
    Cormann, Mathias - Senator for Western Australia
    Eggleston, Alan - Senator for Western Australia
    Ferguson, Alan - Senator for South Australia
    Fierravanti-Wells, Concetta - Senator for New South Wales
    Fifield, Mitch - Senator for Victoria
    Macdonald, Ian - Senator for Queensland
    McGauran, Julian - Senator for Victoria
    Mason, Brett - Senator for Queensland
    Minchin, Nick - Senator for South Australia
    Ronaldson, Michael - Senator for Victoria
    Ryan, Scott - Senator for Victoria

  2. From Curtis' documentary "The Century of the Self":

    "We must shape a new mentality in America, man's desires must overshadow his needs." Paul Meizer, Banker for Lehman Brothers

    A better, more ancient, and wise way to shape mentality:

    "There is no greater sin than desire, no greater curse than discontent, no greater misfortune than wanting something for oneself. Therefore he who knows that enough is enough will always have enough." Laozi, Keeper of the Archives for the royal court of Zhou

  3. nature vs. nurture (Liberals, troglodytes)

    .. are they born ...

      .. or metamorphosed ...

        .. and where does morality fit in?


    G'day orana gelar,

      .. let's have a brief squiz at Curtis' "The Century of the Self:"

    Thursday 2 May 2002
    Four: Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering
      «The politicians believed they were creating a new and better form of democracy, one that truly responded to the inner feelings of individual. But what they didn't realise was that the aim of those who had originally created these techniques had not been to liberate the people but to develop a new way of controlling them.» 

    (One may download the videos from us.archive.org. Note that there is a .avi, a .gif, a .ogv and a .mp4 per episode, and the videos are *large.* Choose what you can use (.avi or .mp4), <r-click> and choose 'save target as.' Bon viewing.)

    A quick summary: in order to sell more 'product,' to ensure that "man's desires must overshadow his needs," say, consulted PR organizations developed means ('market research') to see what people wanted, so they could tailor their clients' products. At the same time, they developed methods to stimulate (aka 'manufacture') demand in targeted groups - so the targets would buy (ever) more. Then politicians came along and employed the same methods, to tailor the politicians' appeal, and to 'coach' the voters in their voting choices.

    So far, perhaps, so good. But the techniques were based on Freud's theories on the *sub-conscious*, and referring back to my opening quote, note: «... to develop a new way of controlling them», my emphasis added.

    Obviously, all of this has to be done a) openly, but at the same time b) covertly, so that the targets don't realise that they're being manipulated.

    [coninued in part 2]

  4. nature vs. nurture (Liberals, troglodytes), part 2

    Back now, to Turnbull and the troglodytes.

    There are two aspects, 1) the Liberals and their market research - which is itself returning two distinct and conflicting results a) a group of Liberal voters who wish to see Turnbull 'allow' the Lab's ETS to pass, and b) another group who wish for the exact opposite, with the intensity of both groups' wishes set to 'max.' That's the wedge, and going by the Libs' obvious panic, it's a bewdy.

    The other aspect, 2) is the voters. This is where my Q: 'nature vs. nurture' comes in; a) did the troglodytes evolve their opinions independently, or b) did they receive (coded) instructions?

    There are two 'streams' of info on climate-change, one being mostly evidence-based (represented by the IPCC scientists), and the other being largely ideology based, the 'climate sceptics.' Or so it seems to me - but I don't 'do' TV, so I don't see either stream as tailored for 'the masses;' I select my sources via the internet.

    I nominate (erring!) ideology as the culprit. It has always bothered me as to why far too many troglodytes vote Liberal - when it's clearly *not* in their interests to do so. (Liberals can be defined as openly pro-business and disguisedly anti-worker.) One proof I offer for this is the Liberals' implacable opposition to the original Medibank, now morphed into Medicare. A 'single-payer' medical system is the clear winner - for the sheople. Returning Liberal governments is the surest way of crippling Medicare, if not eventually killing it outright - yet the sheople returned Howard&Co for years. Another example, the GST is a regressive tax, i.e. it discriminates against the low-income sector, yet the Libs got away with it. Curtis has provided us with a possible mechanism, whereby voters may be 'captured' by ideology-propaganda, via manipulations of voters' subconscious.

    IF(WHEN) the climate-catastrophe arrives, THEN the sheople will bear the brunt. At the very least, the precautionary principle should prevail - yet a goodly swag of welded-on liberal-voting troglodytes have indicated they're prepared to massively punish the Libs if Turnbull 'allows' Lab's ETS. Consider that this is post-GFC (not yet over); a drastic failure of the Lib's favourite espoused ideology; it is extraordinary.

    Following Curtis, we have to assume that the troglodytes are being 'programmed;' which is to say that the manipulators actually created the wedge preconditions. Here recall 'hoist on their own petard.'


    PS This is another illustration that a two-party democracy is highly defective at best; two violently conflicting wish-groups exist in one Lib-voting tent; whereby only one group's wishes may be 'satisfied.'

    PPS As to the covert manipulation of the sheople's sub-conscious desires, the reader may wish to answer my Q: Where does morality fit in?

  5. An insight into what tory troglodytes have done in the past week can be gained here.

  6. snakes alive!

    .. JWHoward ...

      .. not dead (yet) ...

        .. but still deadly poisonous


    Intro: When we were kids, only the very bravest didn't flat-out flee at the very first sign of a snake (there were mostly browns around; some red-bellied blacks.) But if a snake was killed, then the gathered mob was advised: "Do not go near it - at least not until well after sunset." The theory was, that however stone-dead the crumpled snake-body looked, it was still capable of striking at someone coming too curiously close.

    Howard is gone from government, suffering the ultimate ignominy of having been well & truly booted out of his looong-held seat. It was a North-shore type redoubt; Q: Who would have ever guessed? A: Well, Labor polling didn't guess; they did their 'market research' and popped Maxine in, to rout Howard out - which she duly did.

    Howard's government - we can legitimately call it "Howard's" because he tried to make it a one-man band; *nothing* happened - or didn't happen, without Howard's (or one of his specifically appointed henchmen's) knowledge and approval. Near the start of Howard's long march (into infamy), he took over from treasurer Lynch at Fraser's $5 election, and even as far back as then, argued unsuccessfully for a broad indirect tax, a tax that became the 'never, ever' tax - until Howard & Costello implemented it - without direct electoral mandate. (As for Costello, his own personal ticket to infamy was his halving of the CGT. "Number of young home owners declining.") All along, Howard&Costello 'sold' themselves as 'good financial managers;' we can see this for the BS that it always was, a) by the (Serf-Choices?) fall-out, and b) by the fact that the corrupt & venal MSM (including big bits of the AusBC) cheered Howard/Costello&Co on. OK; this is all ancient history - but there is a point to come.

    Musing: Some of us wondered; as Mark Latham said: "How does Howard get away with it?" (G'day Ern.) It has been suggested, that it might be like bunnies hypnotised by - err; a snake.

    G'day also to orana gelar, your citation confirms the Lib 'electorate-push' part of the wedge. Q1: Do we suppose Labor is being similarly 'lobbied?' Q2: If 'no,' why not; Q3: If 'yes,' how are they coping? A3: Not with highly destructive internal disharmony. Or perhaps Labor has it correct, see "Climate sceptics 'out of step' with voters."

    End of intro.

    [coninued in part 2]

  7. snakes alive! [part 2]

    Try this:

    Turnbull unleashes tirade on Liberal rebels
    Posted November 29, 2009 14:04:00
      «Tony Abbott is challenging Mr Turnbull for the leadership and it's believed Joe Hockey will do the same. (AAP)
    This morning on Channel Nine he
    [Turnbull] launched an attack on his critics, singling out Nick Minchin and Tony Abbott, calling their strategies "catastrophic" for the party.
    "They will not give up until they have bullied and intimidated the majority into agreeing with their position," he said.
    "These men are leading us into an electoral catastrophe."
    Mr Hockey previously said he would not challenge Mr Turnbull and has backed his leader's stance on climate change.
    He has even sought advice from former prime minister John Howard over what direction he should take.»

    Comment #1: Well, so much for Hockey letting sleeping dogs lie. (Lie??! - Haw!)

    Comment #2: Oh! What a lovely stoush!

    I bet that Howard did not need to be kicked into interfering; he would have been in it all along, right up to his quivering bottom-lip - say. One could imagine a single quiet 'yap!' - or perhaps a not so quiet 'bark!' from the past machiavellian 'master' would have all the curs instantly cooling it; it means that Howard is actively condoning the chaos swirling around Turnbull.

    Prediction: Turnbull's even more of a 'goner.'


    PS This is all 'playing out' in public, but also within the (lying!) pushed propaganda paradigm. This paradigm handicaps 'debate,' because one of the premises being pushed is that of the 'climate sceptics,' which is ever so slightly 'evidence-poor.' Recall here that in general, IF someone lies, THEN they lose all credibility.

    Q: What do we know?

    A: That "All politicians lie!" - and perhaps none so glibly, none so slyly, as the arch-liar ... (fill in the blank, i.e. join the dots.)

    Recall a) the 'X' who's just been included, and b) the 'ring-leaders' in orana gelar's Lib-list. (I'm thinking of the shadow-resignees, and especially of the Senator-kingpin who was right up to his quivering bottom-lip in the OzCar scam.)

    I leave this to you, dear readers; Q: IF so many known liars are supporting the 'climate sceptic' side, THEN what may we conclude about the climate sceptic's case itself?

  8. snakes alive! [part 3]

    A bit of analysis: orana gelar's citation ends (triumphantly!) with:

    «This is true ‘people power’.»

    Me: Oh, really?

    Recall that the Libs lost last time around, and not just by a little bit; their 'fearless leader' involuntarily exited (stage 'left.')

    Now an undisciplined rabble (enraged Lib voters), having recently lost the 'main game,' are attempting to rev-up another undisciplined rabble (spoil-sport Lib parliamentarians), some of the latter now shadow-resignees, and others 'merely' out-of-power malcontents; their prominent 'poster-child' being one Wilson Tuckey.

    A public opinion poll (cited above) has as many as 70% favouring Lab's ETS, and, one assumes, both Libs and Labs are a) continuously conducting their own 'internal' polling (really, daaarlings, it's just sooo SOP (Standard Operating Procedure)); and b) woe betide any who try ignoring those, or any polls!

    Note that it's not polls per se, but the interpretation/use.

    Labs are standing sphinx-like cool (trying hard not to grin.)

    One assumes that senior Libs have their own figures;

      «[Turnbull] shocked some Liberals with the strength of his attack on his opponents, when he accused them of destroying the party and bringing on an electoral catastrophe.
    He says Mr Hockey supports the amended emissions trading scheme so he cannot agree to the demands from Nick Minchin to delay it.
    "The climate change war that Nick Minchin and his wreckers have started will continue to destroy the Liberal Party," he said.»

    One assumes that Turnbull does not wish to be seen as being in error (i.e. he's paying attention to Lib polling), however much some of his parliamentary 'mates' wish him woe; be gone.

    There are a few problems:

    1. 'True' leadership *leads*, it/they do not follow - polls; recall that the sheople a) are generally misinformed, if not b) (viciously!) lied to and c) are in any cases (improperly!) dumbed-down - so this would make being poll-driven a possible double-jeopardy. The aim here, after all, is to save our once jewel-like planet!

    2. The next problem follows. The thoroughly rattled Libs seem desperate to 'appease' some vocal 'climate-change denier' subset of an already electoral-minority subset (Lib voters on the 2004 losing side), i.e. some minority of a minority - and that, possibly in the face of Turnbull's polling.

    Q: Can anyone see this 'process' ever leading to so-called 'good governance?'

    «True ‘people power?’» - I very much doubt it.

  9. snakes alive! [part 4, last (for now)]

    It just occurred to me, that this putative «true ‘people power’» ploy is precisely the 'prime' tactic and modus operandi of the Israel Lobby.

    Well I never!

  10. The line in so many of this afternoon's media reports:

    "Abbott’s core support of 35 first round votes came from the climate change sceptics."

    Better if it was:

    "Abbott’s core support of 35 first round votes came from the climate change abettors."

  11. DIY climate science

    .. sceptics vs. abettors ...

      .. intel vs. policy ...

        .. g'day orana gelar

    Subtitle: IPCC facts vs. tabloid hysteria


    Yeah; orana gelar's Q: sceptics vs. abettors is a bewdy, just as the stoush was a real ripper.


    First, a climate intro, part 1: Sunlight streams down upon the earth. Some light is immediately reflected back towards space, and some is absorbed by the surface, heating it. The warmed earth, in turn, radiates this heat, also towards space. CO2 in the atmosphere reflects some of the radiated heat back down - ta ra! The greenhouse effect. This effect is generally accepted to be *the* key to our once jewel-like planet's life-friendly climate.

    Thesis: More CO2 will retain more heat; the ecosphere could be cooked.

    Evidence: The IPCC is madly gathering facts, sceptics a) dispute there is warming; b) they are climate-change deniers.

    Q: Who are these sceptics and/or deniers?

    A1: There are the sheople/voters who just brought a little hell to Lib politicians, pressuring them to resist passing the Lab's ETS.

    A2: There are these pressured politicians (by no means all).

    A3: There are the 'string-pullers:'

    November 27, 2009
    A Wentworth By-election?
      «It is interesting to be in Sydney and listen to Radio 2GB, which for days has been running a relentless campaign against the CPRS legislation, and in particular against the Liberal Party for not opposing it.» 
    [AusBC blogs/Antony Green]

    Comment: It doesn't say *who* they are, just *what* they've been up to; prompting sheople to pester Libs.


    At any crime-scene, we ask who has the means, motive, and opportunity.

    Q: IF we wish to reduce CO2, THEN what must be done?

    A: Stop burning so much fossil-carbon.

    Q: Who in Aus extracts such fossil-carbon?

    A: Overwhelmingly, the coal-mining industry. Motive, right there.

    Some sheople/voters work in the coal-mining industry, but since their neoliberal productivity is high (they work a lot, basically for low wages - as low as they can be forced to accept) - so it's unlikely that they'd be paying 2GB.

    That leaves the management & major shareholders in the coal-mining industry, fat-cats almost to a wo/man; plenty of means.

    That's the data and logic behind orana gelar's Q: sceptics vs. abettors.

    Q: What do you think, dear reader?


    Climate intro, part 2: Most heat 'lands' towards the equator; the poles are quite cool - icy, even. There is a heat-transfer system (called 'weather'), which moves heat from the tropics to the poles, where the heat can much more easily radiate away into space. Or, the heat could melt some ice.

    If more heat is moving faster towards the poles, the excess-CO2 caused greenhouse boost need not cause measurable temperature rise (*exactly* what the deniers dispute.)

    Q: Do we have excess-CO2 building up? A: In spades - by shovelfuls of coal, actually.

    Q: What's the weather up to? More and more violent storms?

    Q: What's the polar ice up to? More and more melting?

    As most Esky-users in Aus know, the beer stays cool until the ice is all gone...


    One more thing (intel vs. policy); as the Iraq imbroglio (illegal invasion now morphed into brutal occupation) showed, some politicians - and these Libs specifically - don't care a fig for facts anyway. Many of these same Libs have form: «For a decade, Abbott has fashioned himself as [Howard's] one-man Praetorian Guard.»

    One remaining Q: Is Abbott now headed for martyrdom or transcendence?