• Chief Executive Allan Moss receiving $33.5 million
• Investment banking chief Nicholas Moore $32.9 million
• Corporate finance Michael Carapiet with almost $23 million
• Chairman David Clarke earned almost $19 million
• Deputy managing director Richard Sheppard $10.2 million.

As mentioned in the Wednesday issue of SOS-NEWS, there was a panel debate arranged and co-ordinated to discuss the movie, "THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE." Produced by Martin Durkin of the United Kingdom

Tony Jones, the ABC host of the show, at the very beginning prior to running the only version of the movie they purported to have, clearly stated that the views of this movie, were "NOT" the views of the ABC. What is defined here by this statement, is that the ABC are Al Gore, CO2 induced climate change advocates, rather than unbiased journalists presenting another side, or view for public consumption of a most serious issue. For if they weren't, Tony Jones would have said, that the views of this movie are not "NECESSARILY" the views of the ABC.

So right from the very start, the ABC flagged their apparent intention of instigating a campaign in an effort to indoctrinate the viewers towards only one view of this global warming issue, the warm side.

Immediately after the film viewing, Tony Jones mentioned that the film-maker, Martin Durkin, although hoped, was not able to be in Australia to participate in what we now know was, an ABC attack on Durkin and the film, so he went to the UK and conducted an interview there with him, whilst no doubt, enjoying a junket trip to the UK on ABC, hence tax payer's, funds.

Right from the beginning of the interview, the displayed demeanor of Tony Jones was one of aggressiveness and arrogance, certainly not the demeanor of an investigative journalist approaching an issue with no preconceived ideas, or bias. In fact, Tony Jones had the temerity to tell Martin Durkin on more than one occasion that he was wrong, in a manner of assertiveness that could only have come from a state of mind that was cocksure, driven by design and definitely biased. A bias that could only stem from having himself succumbed to indoctrination via information implanted by expert scientific manipulators of the other persuasion.

Tony Jones made the statement that the British Antarctic Survey rejected the film out of hand. I'm sure they did, their funding was almost assuredly at risk should they say otherwise, but only a day after the movie was shown on the ABC, Alan Jones had one of our own home grown Antarctic Scientists on his morning 2GB Radio talk-back show. This expert Australian scientist quite clearly refuted CO2 as the predominant, if at all, cause of global warming , indicating it was pretty much pure bunkum and further added, that he could make any model, deliver any result he wished if he so desired. Perhaps Tony should have looked closer to home for answers, regardless, this ability for models to reflect that which was being sought was an integral part of the Durkin film.

Tony Jones by way of his questioning inferred that Professor Carl Wunsch - one of the experts interviewed in the film - had threatened Durkin & Co with legal action if he was not removed, as he had been misrepresented and would never have participated had he known that the movie would argue that global warming was not a serious threat.

Of course the Australian ABC viewers were not able to see these Wunsch interviews because in the latest version of the film, Carl Wunsch's interviews were deleted. Further, Durkin quite eloquently refuted the allegations as put by Tony Jones and added that Durkin and Channel 4 had comprehensively gone over file material and at no time had Wunsch been deceived. Additionally, Martin Durkin advised that as soon as the movie went to air, he received a telephone call from Prof Wunsch allegedly stating words to the effect of, "My god I've just had several scientists on the phone berating me, absolutely attacking me for being on the program. Can you take, can you take me out?"

Now this is peer pressure of the first order and a person lacking the intestinal fortitude to stand for the truth of his utterances - in this case in an interview recorded for film - against such withering peer condemnation, is just perhaps a small, but clear window into the power of peer-persuasion wallowing about in the scientific world. Such pressure should ring alarm bells for us all when we are expected as a populous, nationally and/or globally, to believe blindly such expert scientific assertion on many subjects, just because someone utters it with letters after their name.

Durkin had numerous people he put up as experts and Tony Jones went in for the kill in an effort to attack the reputation of only two of these people, obviously hoping that any mud that could be made to stick, would in fact wash off on to the other numerous experts in the film that held huge international credibility and held scathing contempt for the IPCC methodologies and actions. The numerous experts actually totalled 19.

Tony Jones made quite some importance of the fact that in the film version that the ABC showed the Australian public, Frederick Singer was portrayed as First Director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, when in fact Singer only held this position for two years from 1962 - 1964 and why weren't the people allowed to know this fact.

Well if Tony Jones and the ABC had researched - which personally we believe he/they may well of - the original film, he would have seen Mr Frederick Singer depicted as a, "Former Director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Services." Further, as this man had held that position, he was obviously placed there for good reason, but don't go there for it would actually give this expert, which he was, credibility.

Tony Jones took great delight in using some non-descript journalist from the UK, ( George Monbiot) a journalist that few if any here in the Australian general public have ever heard of, let alone consider scientifically an expert, as some stepping stone to credibility on such a nebulous, important scientific topic of global concern.

Tony Jones also shows the lengths he believed he could go to in his attempt to discredit Martin Durkin, by aggressively getting Durkin to agree that he believes that CO2, although miniscule in atmospheric percentages, has in fact almost no ability to be a climate changing green house gas by virtue of this tiny percentage.

Durkin happily agreed that it was only a tiny percentage, but in fact had no qualms in admitting that it was quite possible that CO2 may well play some part in global warming, but not on its own. He qualified this though by clearly identifying that CO2 required an amplifying effect from another source to be accepted as such and at no time has such an amplifying source been in the public scientific arena, as even a consideration.

To add some sort of credence to Tony Jones's rigorously rude examination of Martin Durkin, Tony Jones proceeded to play an interview with another of Jones's scientific mentors/indoctrinators, Professor Andrew Pittman.

Prof Andrew Pittman had the audacity to come on as a scientist, then in what a fair minded person could only find incredulous, attempt in some quassi scientific manner to prove the fact, that the amount of something is not proportional to its impact. Now no sane intelligent person would disagree with this, but guess what? The example this Professor used was, "If a person is injected with a tiny amount of Ebola disease, does the small amount have little effect."

You've got to be bloody joking. I can understand Tony Jones and the ABC trotting out this tripe of an example - that has no co-relation to global warming whatsoever, other than to emotionally disturb people by the thought of such an horrendous disease - by virtue of their sheer arrogance of believing the general public are simple and gullible, but for a Professor to publicly humiliate himself for the Tony Jones/ABC anti-Durkin Agenda in this manner, was just beyond belief.

Tony Jones's real attack came out on the fact that Durkin's film had used the word "now" to depict the latter end of a graph that had been used to display activity trends over a 900 plus year period. Going to great lengths to drive into the viewer's minds that this graph was some 17 years old and "now" did not in fact represent today, 2007, but rather the early 1990's.

Martin Durkin defended his use of this graph in a number of ways, with the most prominent being that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) had consistently over the succeeding period from the 1990's to "now", re hashed the graphs they used some 4 times at least. Not only did they revise the graphs, but they reworked them on a different platform called the, "Hockey Stick" that appeared to ensure those graphs no longer were representative of the true picture. Hence Durkin used the original accurate graphs for the time depicted, as close enough and given it was a depiction of the results over some 900 years, for the general public's consumption, it was close enough for the sake of the film and the thought provoking message this film was intended to convey.

Tony Jones also made quite an ado about a newspaper report depicted in the film about a statement made by a professor Seitz taking the IPCC to task for lack of scientific credibility and the fact that this media article was actually printed in 1996, yet this date was not identified and made known in the film to the viewers. So what! The very fact that the statement was made and reported upon in the media at all, is enough to consider that not even the IPCC is above scrutiny and when such scrutiny is conducted, it comes up with the IPCC lacking. I was always taught, "Lie in the little things and you'll lie in the big things," and people, this is a very, very big thing indeed, internationally.

Now this interview of Tony Jones of the Australian ABC with Martin Durkin the UK film-maker, is less than what we would expect from a well paid professional investigative journalist employed by the people of Australia. The Australian public's expectations of a fair and professional inquiry into an issue that is far from decided as a fait accompli", regardless of the barrow Tony Jones is pushing, should not be too much to ask of our servants, that is unless the servants consider themselves no longer servants, but rather superiors paid to lead instead of just report all sides of the fence. Sorry! It's the ABC. I forgot.

Martin Durkin is just the film-maker here, yet Tony Jones has gone out in a desperate attempt to head off the resultant re-action that this film will cause in the public forum, that is unless you either have your snout in the trough, are a radical greenie that lives in a Yurt, or are the ABC and see the benefits of supporting big business and their rush to bring in carbon credit trading and the immense wealth this will generate for a very small minority whilst screwing over most of us, the plebes.

Keep in mind readers, that Martin Durkin in his movie and throughout this aggressive interview, neither denied global warming was an issue, nor denied that CO2 may play a part. He just essentially identified how much of a global scam was being perpetrated upon the entire globe's masses, that CO2 induced global warming was the sole reason for such warming and that to pursue this avenue was a travesty of science. A scientific abomination of myth-information that was being used as a tool to drive the carbon credit trading explosion, so as to allow the wealthy elite to profit at the expense of the massive majority of normal folk across this world. A trading scheme that will devastate further the impoverished lives of the third world, both health wise and economical betterment wise.

SOS-NEWS will continue the dissemination of Tony Jones and the ABC's attack on Martin Durkin and his film next week and in that issue we will get right to the quick of the panel debate. Until then, go to our "Shit Creek Paddle Shop" free copy of the "GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE" THE ORIGINAL VERSION.

Brumbby (with2 Y's)
brumbyy@sosnews.org

On behalf of the Cobboboonee Community Forest Group in Victoria as people who are concerned about the Cobboboonee being made into a National Park.

As you may be aware the DSE submission process is now underway. We know that, like us, you are concerned about the forest outcome.

I have a download of copies of proforma submissions - Click Here - that you can feel free to use or make up your own. If you wish to use one, just print the corresponding page number.

We have also lodged a number of other submissions on our website www.cobboboonee.com.au which may assist you.

This is a numbers game now and we urge everyone to make a submission and to get as many people as possible to make a submission saying no National Park. If you have any queries regarding this matter please give any of our members a ring:

• Kelly Gannon 03 5529 2001
  
• Rod Barrett 03 5526 5251
  
• Paul Bennett 03 5526 5240
  
• Rod Bartlett 03 5526 5372
  
• Kym Stock 03 5529 2489
  

As the rains fall and the H2o spews out into the sea by the billions of litres, the Iemma Government continues on its quixotic quest to waste your tax dollars on a $1.8 billion dollar desalination plant. A plant guaranteed, with his government's commercial history, to both blow out to $3 billion dollars by the time it is commissioned, along with some spurious legal challenge, and that is not even considering the ongoing massive maintenance and operation costs.

We again return to the initiative put forward by SOS-NEWS that has been totally discounted, for the fourth time. We re-visit this plan for a number of self-evident reasons and one important new one. Minister Koperberg has touted another increase in the water tank rebate scheme.

This rebate scheme would be a fine idea if it wasn't for the fact that there is a much more fiscally, socially and environmentally sound methodology available and this is what SOS-NEWS has been advocating for almost two years. Also the rebate scheme glues the rate-payers to the corporate world of privatised water systems and spiraling fees due to profit margins, thus ensuring public fiscal slavery is ensured for the masses.

There is a very obvious and clear reason why no consideration is being given publicly to our initiative apart from the fact it is SOS-NEWS generated, if they did bring it into test mode, not only would it, but it does work like nothing else put forward. How do we know it works? We have been running our own tank test case in inner Sydney for many months and the results will astound you, but that will be another story.

SOS-NEWS Rainwater Tank Initiative

Provide 100% government funding to any citizen or business that wishes to install a rainwater tank.

This funding is not a present, but rather preferably, a NO interest State loan, a loan that is repaid via the current water rate collection system.

The loan is amortised over whatever period that the rate-payer can afford and wishes to sign to.

Those financial enough to pay up front, pay the same price, but receive some yet to be determined short-term dispensation via their water bill for a period, to be decided on a scale that is controlled by the effect such tank purchased would aid the water dilemma of our society.

The tank MUST be Australian manufactured.

The stand and the tank can be installed by either the purchaser, or a qualified installer, but either way it must be inspected for erection and connection compliance in a manner that satisfies sensible regulations and once, and only once, such tank installations are given the mark of approval, will the government pay the invoice.

The government will handle all monetary aspects of the deal.

Should opportunists receive a tank and not comply with the requirements, the government will then retain the right to charge against the property, a full retail price and costs for said debt recovery, with recourse to all law that pertains to such recovery.

Once installation is completed to the satisfaction of the authorised inspector, that household, or business property will have its water rates assessed on every metered litre of water used only, and there will be no infrastructure, nor cap charges thereafter applied. By this method of billing, there will be every financial incentive to use the tank water prior to the reticulated supply, that is in the vast majority of instances.

Preferably, once the scheme is underway, water charges for everyone will be invoiced from the 1st litre drawn and note, there is no reason for any change to the value of water, just divide the water allocation for a premises into their base rate prior to excess charges applying, and there is the price per litre, or kilolitre etc.

Property owners will be required to maintain their tanks and filters in sound condition, especially in regards to mosquito infestation and will be subject at anytime to an inspection by an authorised officer for this community health reason.

For personal health purposes, tank recipients would require to filter their drinking water and here again is a situation where the government can apply the same methodology in financial assistance, albeit with a few differences of course.

The benefits of the above system are many, but the immediate, obvious to a lateral thinker, are as follows:

Rainwater, in coastal eastern Australia especially, will cease to spew unnecessarily down the drain into the ocean just to satisfy Iemma's need to keep polluted H2o up to his white elephant of a desalination plant.

Australian water tank industries will receive a huge boost and open up more opportunities and employment.

Installation businesses will flourish and it is here that government must allow small business to have preference over major AUSTRALIAN corporate monopoly. Yes! We are saying, government sanctioned, and commercial discrimination for the good of the people and the environment, and to hell with the UN and other global treaties.

Hard-pressed plumbers do not need the work, but it would be presumed they would, by virtue of their skill base, automatically qualify as inspectors of installations prior to commissioning, for a fee of course. We do not need another BLOODY BUREAUCRAT.

A real government with such buying power would be able to command a buy price in bulk that would be unbeatable, with the local manufacturers assured of their market, hence commerce security.

Tank owners would only pay for water they receive from the metered reticulated supply and hence would soon learn about the monetary savings of using their tank water first. They would also be educated in just how much water their premises were consuming and learn to become water wise.

Most importantly, as the loan money is repaid into the people's State and Federal coffers, the Governments of the day would have a revolving fund to keep bank rolling expansion of the initiative and other type infrastructure spending, without taxing the clouds. Not send us into bankruptcy as this current inept NSW lot intends to do under Minister Koperberg's Ministry, with Iemma's blessing.

The list just goes on. That is unless you are a conniving, cheating, back peddling, corporate toe sucking, irreprehensible bunch of Politicians that have no intention of alleviating the plight of their Australian masters, the public, who incidentally have had their democratic rights across the board, stolen and passed to the corporate world.

The Against

The only down side to this system, is that water corporations, national and international, hungry to hold entire populations to ransom for a free God given nectar of life, would have their wings trimmed substantially. Thereby denying enforceable corporate profiteering out of the little bloke's suffering, due to our present day government's ideology of selling our water-farm into private corporate hands, whilst saying, up the lot of you.

Why won't they do it?

Too easy, too simplistic, too populist, too cheap, too effective, too pro the people and worst of all, no opportunity for hands in the till, or profiteering by the big end of town. No consultants required and no new administration needed. Simply, no real significant changes required to any government depart, OTHER THAN THE WILL TO SERVE THEIR COMMUNITY BETTER. OOPS! Sorry that's not allowed.

Brumbby (with2 Y's)
brumbyy@sosnews.org

To have our weekly radio show - news publications - interviews, all the latest info detailed Pocast to you direct, just click the RSS button. If you do not have a reader we suggest Feed-Reader that is a free download and will keep you up to date with SOS-NEWS Podcasting. Visit our podcast page on the website and listen to SOS-NEWS Broadcasts with some great interviews all "off the cuff" no scripting or as the pollies require - "what questions will be asked" - it we the people speaking - - Click Here ....