BEWARE: Bill Of Rights Coming To A Town Near You!

[Ext User(Bonzo)]

Andrew Bolt
Tuesday, November 20, 2007 at 03:01pm


Professor James Allan detects the real danger from a Rudd Government:


The real threat to Australia comes not from the unionists but from the
other main wing of the Labor Party, what I would describe as the
chardonnay-sipping, ultra-PC, anti-traditionalist wing of the Labor
Party. These are the people who worry me.

Start with the legal revolutionaries among them. This Labor-voting
crowd, well represented among lawyers, judges, teachers and academics,
wants power taken away from elected MPs and given to unelected judges.
They badly want a bill of rights.

They know perfectly well that all bills of rights - be they
British-style statutory ones or Canadian-style entrenched models - have
precisely this increase-the-power-of-judges effect. Indeed, if they had
no effect at all on the power balance, why would anyone push so hard to
have one?

And he notes:

Nor do you hear these same legal revolutionaries admit that in a
recent poll in Britain 61 per cent of people said they wanted to scrap
that country's barely seven-year-old bill of rights.
--


Get The TRUE Facts At
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html

Excellent Links At
http://www.warwickhughes.com/

Regards
Bonzo

"If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
CO2
contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
floor"
D'Aleo


"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
National Academy of Sciences


"What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
Dr. Richard Lindzen


[most of the current alarm over climate change is based on]
"inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot
accurately forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen

[Ext User(Vote out Malcolm Turnbull)]

Bonzo wrote:
> Andrew Bolt
> Tuesday, November 20, 2007 at 03:01pm
>
>
> Professor James Allan detects the real danger from a Rudd Government:
>
>
> The real threat to Australia comes not from the unionists but from the
> other main wing of the Labor Party, what I would describe as the
> chardonnay-sipping, ultra-PC, anti-traditionalist wing of the Labor
> Party. These are the people who worry me.
>
> Start with the legal revolutionaries among them. This Labor-voting
> crowd, well represented among lawyers, judges, teachers and academics,
> wants power taken away from elected MPs and given to unelected judges.
> They badly want a bill of rights.
>
> They know perfectly well that all bills of rights - be they
> British-style statutory ones or Canadian-style entrenched models - have
> precisely this increase-the-power-of-judges effect. Indeed, if they had
> no effect at all on the power balance, why would anyone push so hard to
> have one?
>
> And he notes:
>
> Nor do you hear these same legal revolutionaries admit that in a recent
> poll in Britain 61 per cent of people said they wanted to scrap that
> country's barely seven-year-old bill of rights.
> --
>
> Get The TRUE Facts At
> http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
>
> Excellent Links At
> http://www.warwickhughes.com/
>
> Regards
> Bonzo
>
> "If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic CO2
> contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor"
> D'Aleo
>
>
> "...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
> anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
> panic us"
> Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
> National Academy of Sciences
>
>
> "What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
> only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
> Dr. Richard Lindzen
>
>
> [most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
> untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
> forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen
>
you fucken fascist you would strip away all civil liberties. The Bill of
Right is the only way to protect the Australian public from the Liberal
National coalition who Australia's version of fascists

[Ext User(Sylvia Else)]

Vote out Malcolm Turnbull wrote:

> you fucken fascist you would strip away all civil liberties. The Bill of
> Right is the only way to protect the Australian public from the Liberal
> National coalition who Australia's version of fascists

You meant Liberal National Labor coalition, I think.

The Australian Labor state governments haven't been noted for their
opposition to laws that deprive us of our liberties, and indeed they
have enacted some. All governments prefer to limit the freedoms of their
citizens to the maximum extent politically possible.

Sylvia.

[Ext User(Tunderbar)]

On Nov 20, 12:29 am, "Bonzo" <boo...@optusnt.com.au> wrote:
> Andrew Bolt
> Tuesday, November 20, 2007 at 03:01pm
>
> Professor James Allan detects the real danger from a Rudd Government:
>
> The real threat to Australia comes not from the unionists but from the
> other main wing of the Labor Party, what I would describe as the
> chardonnay-sipping, ultra-PC, anti-traditionalist wing of the Labor
> Party. These are the people who worry me.
>
> Start with the legal revolutionaries among them. This Labor-voting
> crowd, well represented among lawyers, judges, teachers and academics,
> wants power taken away from elected MPs and given to unelected judges.
> They badly want a bill of rights.
>
> They know perfectly well that all bills of rights - be they
> British-style statutory ones or Canadian-style entrenched models - have
> precisely this increase-the-power-of-judges effect. Indeed, if they had
> no effect at all on the power balance, why would anyone push so hard to
> have one?
>
> And he notes:
>
> Nor do you hear these same legal revolutionaries admit that in a
> recent poll in Britain 61 per cent of people said they wanted to scrap
> that country's barely seven-year-old bill of rights.
> --
>
> Get The TRUE Facts At
> http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
>
> Excellent Links At
> http://www.warwickhughes.com/
>
> Regards
> Bonzo
>
> "If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
> CO2
> contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
> floor"
> D'Aleo
>
> "...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
> anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
> panic us"
> Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
> National Academy of Sciences
>
> "What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
> only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
> Dr. Richard Lindzen
>
> [most of the current alarm over climate change is based on]
> "inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot
> accurately forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen

You would rather leave your rights and freedoms at the whim of elected
people? Think Bush. And you know, Hitler was elected to office.

[Ext User(Ouroboros_Rex)]

"Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7f5dd84f-cc9f-4d58-89d0-2d9103e410f0@l22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 20, 12:29 am, "Bonzo" <boo...@optusnt.com.au> wrote:
>> Andrew Bolt
>> Tuesday, November 20, 2007 at 03:01pm
>>
>> Professor James Allan detects the real danger from a Rudd Government:
>>
>> The real threat to Australia comes not from the unionists but from the
>> other main wing of the Labor Party, what I would describe as the
>> chardonnay-sipping, ultra-PC, anti-traditionalist wing of the Labor
>> Party. These are the people who worry me.
>>
>> Start with the legal revolutionaries among them. This Labor-voting
>> crowd, well represented among lawyers, judges, teachers and academics,
>> wants power taken away from elected MPs and given to unelected judges.
>> They badly want a bill of rights.
>>
>> They know perfectly well that all bills of rights - be they
>> British-style statutory ones or Canadian-style entrenched models - have
>> precisely this increase-the-power-of-judges effect. Indeed, if they had
>> no effect at all on the power balance, why would anyone push so hard to
>> have one?
>>
>> And he notes:
>>
>> Nor do you hear these same legal revolutionaries admit that in a
>> recent poll in Britain 61 per cent of people said they wanted to scrap
>> that country's barely seven-year-old bill of rights.
>> --
>>
>> Get The TRUE Facts At
>> http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
>>
>> Excellent Links At
>> http://www.warwickhughes.com/
>>
>> Regards
>> Bonzo
>>
>> "If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
>> CO2
>> contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
>> floor"
>> D'Aleo
>>
>> "...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
>> anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
>> panic us"
>> Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
>> National Academy of Sciences
>>
>> "What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
>> only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
>> Dr. Richard Lindzen
>>
>> [most of the current alarm over climate change is based on]
>> "inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot
>> accurately forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen
>
> You would rather leave your rights and freedoms at the whim of elected
> people? Think Bush. And you know, Hitler was elected to office.

How is a suspended bill of rights worse than no bill of rights?

[Ext User(Bonzo)]

"Vote out Malcolm Turnbull" <martbd@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:474292a8$0$4133$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> Bonzo wrote:
>> Andrew Bolt
>> Tuesday, November 20, 2007 at 03:01pm
>>
>>
>> Professor James Allan detects the real danger from a Rudd Government:
>>
>>
>> The real threat to Australia comes not from the unionists but from
>> the other main wing of the Labor Party, what I would describe as the
>> chardonnay-sipping, ultra-PC, anti-traditionalist wing of the Labor
>> Party. These are the people who worry me.
>>
>> Start with the legal revolutionaries among them. This Labor-voting
>> crowd, well represented among lawyers, judges, teachers and
>> academics, wants power taken away from elected MPs and given to
>> unelected judges. They badly want a bill of rights.
>>
>> They know perfectly well that all bills of rights - be they
>> British-style statutory ones or Canadian-style entrenched models -
>> have precisely this increase-the-power-of-judges effect. Indeed, if
>> they had no effect at all on the power balance, why would anyone push
>> so hard to have one?
>>
>> And he notes:
>>
>> Nor do you hear these same legal revolutionaries admit that in a
>> recent poll in Britain 61 per cent of people said they wanted to
>> scrap that country's barely seven-year-old bill of rights.
>> --
>>
>> Get The TRUE Facts At
>> http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
>>
>> Excellent Links At
>> http://www.warwickhughes.com/
>>
>> Regards
>> Bonzo
>>
>> "If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual
>> anthropogenic CO2
>> contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
>> floor"
>> D'Aleo
>>
>>
>> "...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
>> anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
>> panic us"
>> Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
>> National Academy of Sciences
>>
>>
>> "What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
>> only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it
>> changes" Dr. Richard Lindzen
>>
>>
>> [most of the current alarm over climate change is based on]
>> "inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that
>> cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard
>> Lindzen
>>
> you fucken fascist you would strip away all civil liberties. The Bill
> of Right is the only way to protect the Australian public from the
> Liberal National coalition who Australia's version of fascists

You idiot, a Bill of Rights would mean UNELECTED judges, instead of
elected representatives, making legal decisions for us.
Do you really want that?
Read the post.
Luckily, Australia doesn't have one!
--


Get The TRUE Facts At
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html

Excellent Links At
http://www.warwickhughes.com/

Regards
Bonzo

"If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
CO2
contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
floor"
D'Aleo


"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
National Academy of Sciences


"What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
Dr. Richard Lindzen


[most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen

[Ext User(HangEveryRepubliKKKan)]

"Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote
> You would rather leave your rights and freedoms at the whim of elected
> people?

That is how Democracy works.


"Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote
> Think Bush. And you know, Hitler was elected to office.

And the Fascist Bush presidency shares many dozens of interesting
similarities with Hitler's Fascist regime.

[Ext User(HangEveryRepubliKKKan)]

"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> Lies:
> Sorry to expose your lies Popcock (not really!), but temperatures have
> plateaued since 1998 DESPITE soaring CO2 levels.
> Actually the globe has cooled a little since then and is now starting a
> cooling tend proper.

You are a Habitual Liar Bonzo. Here is the temperature data and a plot
showing the
increase in temperaure since 1998.


"HangEveryRepubliKKKan" <Justice@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote
>> 1998 14.57 *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48 ************************o
>> 2002 14.56 *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55 **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49 *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.62 *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o
>>
>> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below. In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics. Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data. It's called a least squares curve fit.

You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

"Voodoo statistics" Ahahahahahahahah... You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721 14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148 14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399 14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672 14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032 14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487 14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA 14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA 14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA 14.54

No? Lets plot the data and find out shall we? Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57 *********************o*****
1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48 ************************o
2002 14.56 *************************o**
2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************>>o
2005 14.62 *****************************o**
2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

In fact the equation is...

o = 14.42 + (0.0195 *(YEAR-1998))

This shows a trend of 2'C (3.5'F) per century.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?

[Ext User(HangEveryRepubliKKKan)]

"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> Lies:
> Sorry to expose your lies Popcock (not really!), but temperatures have
> plateaued since 1998 DESPITE soaring CO2 levels.
> Actually the globe has cooled a little since then and is now starting a
> cooling tend proper.

You are a Habitual Liar Bonzo. Here is the temperature data and a plot
showing the
increase in temperaure since 1998.


"HangEveryRepubliKKKan" <Justice@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote
>> 1998 14.57 *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48 ************************o
>> 2002 14.56 *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55 **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49 *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.62 *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o
>>
>> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below. In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics. Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data. It's called a least squares curve fit.

You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

"Voodoo statistics" Ahahahahahahahah... You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721 14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148 14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399 14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672 14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032 14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487 14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA 14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA 14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA 14.54

No? Lets plot the data and find out shall we? Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57 *********************o*****
1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48 ************************o
2002 14.56 *************************o**
2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************>>o
2005 14.62 *****************************o**
2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

In fact the equation is...

o = 14.42 + (0.0195 *(YEAR-1998))

This shows a trend of 2'C (3.5'F) per century.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?