Letter to the Editor

Tomorrow’s Grim, Green, Global Masters

quill pen

7th March 2018


Greens hate individual freedom and private property. They dream of a centralised, unelected global government, financed by taxes on developed nations and controlled by all the tentacles of the UN. No longer is real pollution of our environment the main Green concern. The key slogan of the Green religion is “sustainable development,” with them defining what is sustainable.

Greens hate miners. They use nationalised parks, heritage areas, flora/fauna reserves, green bans, locked gates and land rights to close as much land as possible to explorers and miners — apparently resources should be locked away for some lucky generation of the distant future. If some persistent explorer manages to prove a mineral deposit, greens will then strangle it in the approvals process using “death by delay.”

Greens hate farmers with their ploughs, fertilisers, crops and grazing animals. They want Aussie grazing land turned back to kangaroos and woody weeds. They plan to expel farmers and graziers from most land areas, with food produced in concentrated feedlots, factory farms, communal gardens and hydroponics.

Greens hate professional fishermen with their nets, lines and harpoons. Using the Great Barrier Reef as their poster-child, they plan to control the Coral Sea using marine parks, fishing quotas, bans and licences, leaving us to get seafood from factory fish farms.

Greens hate foresters and grass-farmers. They want every tree protected, even woody weeds taking over ancient treeless grasslands. Red meat and forest timber are “unsustainable.” Apparently they want us to live in houses made of recycled cardboard and plastic and eating fake steak and protein powder made from methane generated from decomposing rubbish dumps.

Greens despise the suburbs with their SUVs, lawns, pools, manicured parks, ponies and golf courses. They prefer concentrated accommodation with people stacked-and-packed in high-rise cubic apartments, with state-controlled kindies in the basement, and with ring-roads of electric trams and driverless cars connecting apartments, schools, offices and shops.

Greens hate reliable grid power from coal, nuclear, oil, gas or hydro generators. Their “sustainable” option is part-time power from wind and solar with the inevitable blackouts and shortages needing more rules and rationing.

Greens lead the war on fracking and pipelines. The victims are energy consumers. The beneficiaries are Russian gas and Middle-east oil.

Greens think it is “sustainable” to uglify scenic hills with whining turbine blades, power poles, transmission lines and access roads, and to clutter pleasant estuaries and shallow seas with more bird-slicing turbines. They think it is “sustainable” to keep smothering sunny flatlands under solar panels and filling the suburbs with extra power lines and batteries of toxic metals.

Greens think it is “sustainable” to clear forests to feed large bio-mass power stations, or for establishing biofuel plantations. They think it is “sustainable” to keep converting croplands from producing food for humans to producing ethanol for cars.

Greens hate free markets where prices are used to signal changing supply and demand. There is no room for fun, frills or luxuries in their “sustainable” world. They want to limit demand by imposing rationing on us wastrels — carbon ration cards, electricity rationing meters, water rationing, meat-free days, diet cops and bans on fast foods and fizzy drinks.

They also favour compulsory recycling of everything, no matter what that process costs in energy or resources. Surveillance cameras will keep watch on our “wasteful” habits.

None of this vast green religious agenda is compatible with individual freedom, constitutional rights or private property — and none of it makes any economic or climate sense.

The Despotic Green New World is coming. Climate alarm is the stalking horse, “sustainable development” the war cry and global government the goal.


Viv Forbes
Washpool Qld Australia
vforbes [at] bigpond [dot] com


Further Reading:


“Sustainable Development” is the UN code for total reorganisation of human society:

Climate policies governed by groupthink:

The UN Plan Itself:

Keep it in the Ground:

Russia’s secret energy campaigns against western energy:





Views: 1128

20 Thoughts on “Letter to the Editor

  1. Simon on 07/03/2018 at 1:04 pm said:

    Green comes in many hues and Viv seems to ranting against an extreme militant and socialist version not represented in Australian politics. Maybe Viv could instead comment on the donations given my coal companies to Queensland politicians…..

  2. Richard Treadgold on 08/03/2018 at 9:37 am said:

    Simon, that’s just snarky. Though I suppose it avoids having to defend the greens, who are guilty of every one of the anti-human hatreds and campaigns Viv lists. You attempt to divert Viv’s criticism by characterising his targets as unrepresentative, but Greens really are extremely socialist and militant.

    To balance what you claim are political bribes, would you care to discuss the millions of dollars handed out in grants to green NGOs like Greenpeace and WWF, not only in Australia, but around the world? Add them up, tell us who gives more. It’s public knowledge where the bulk of Greenpeace International’s vast wealth comes from: it comes from taxes. The amount granted by governments to climate sceptics? Zero.

  3. Simon on 09/03/2018 at 12:31 pm said:

    Greenpeace does not accept money from governments, intergovernmental organizations, political parties or corporations. WWF receives about 20% of its funding from aid agencies and the World Bank.

  4. Richard Treadgold on 09/03/2018 at 1:29 pm said:

    Yes, that’s true, according to Greenpeace; my apologies. Instead, you might like to talk about grants to WWF (which you somehow overlooked), FOE, Worldwatch Institute, Earthwatch or any of these others from Wikipedia. Grants to sceptics are still zero; wanna change that?

  5. Mike Jowsey on 10/03/2018 at 2:40 am said:

    Send the blighters to Cuba or Venezuela or some other bankrupt socialist regime. The are no affluent socialist regimes.

    As for free elections and democracy, Winston Churchill said “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

  6. Richard Treadgold on 10/03/2018 at 1:01 pm said:

    “no affluent socialist regimes”: true.
    What Churchill said: true.
    Two true.

  7. Mike Jowsey on 10/03/2018 at 5:48 pm said:

    OK, RT, you seem to imply a definitive question by your “Two True” response. I guess I may have seemed a little obscure. Let me explain. No, that will take too long. Let me sum up. (A joke from The Princess Bride – one of the great movies).

    Everything Viv cited, with copious reference by the way, is too true. Simon won’t even respond to these, but instead posits that there are many hues of “Green”, which is exactly what Viv warns us against. Simon may be a little disturbed by Viv’s revelations and I hope he is. But then he deflects to an outlier argument whereby the copious examples Viv describes are not that to which he adheres. This is an example of an echo-chamber bubble argument. Viv has taken painstaking due diligence to back his arguments and yet Simon can only whine about Viv “ranting”, yet provides no substantive argument to refute Viv’s assertions other than he, Simon, has not experience in his bubble-chamber of such machinations.

    Wake Up Mister. Be careful for what you wish. Viv’s warnings are too true. Just read “Agenda 21” , one of Viv’s links, as a good example among many. Socialism is an impending doom and CAGW is one of its tools. CAGW is an entirely unfalsifiable hypothesis and therefore an unscientific one. It is entirely politically driven, not scientifically instigated. Unfortunately It will linger on for ages despite rapid cooling heralding the onset of a new Maunder Minimum and the resultant devastation of food production and loss of vulnerable life.

    Agenda 21 is a text book for the Socialist agenda. It should be studied by every aspiring political scientist and historian as a “Where the world went wrong” moment. Whether free property rights and all the responsibility that entails trumps a moribund Kibbutz mentality remains to be seen. But I think Winston had it pretty much right.

  8. Richard Treadgold on 10/03/2018 at 7:59 pm said:

    Thanks, Mike. There was no implied question, yet you explain, no, summarise brilliantly.

  9. Kleinefeldmaus on 10/03/2018 at 8:40 pm said:

    Well maybe this sums up where the greens want us all to go …..
    so it’s back to the future then…

  10. Mike Jowsey on 11/03/2018 at 6:01 pm said:

    You are quite right, RT, “There was no implied question”. I was projecting my own implied question. Anyhoo, I hope I provided some fodder for Simon to chew upon and come back with something of interest. I do like his perseverance in spite of his bubble. Evolution is a time-consuming process.

  11. Interesting. I was never enamoured of the global warming hype and its train of political machinations. I soon deduced it was a scam. I used to call myself an environmentalist, a Greenie even, at some stage. I now stick to ecologist for a description is one is called for. Viv Forbes’ letter is a reaction to the faux Green political machinations. It barely addresses the problems which gave the political Greens so much support all these years. What that letter indicates, if somewhat obliquely, is the fact that certain kinds of citizens of the western democracies, certain sections of these countries’ electorates, have been asleep politically for, well, four decades, at least. The genuine socialists and social democrats, the genuine middle-of-the-road reasonably honest citizen, the conservative Right, the real unionists(not the ones who supported the sell-out of the unionist cause, their citizenship, the rights of mankind, the sovereignty of the individual [upon which the sovereignty of the nation-state is based, not the other way around] the nation-state itself, democracy and European civilisation’s values{yes, I’m still on about what has been sold down the drain by careerist unionists, almost the entire top of the unionist hierarchy in Australia} and, well, what did they not sell, their grandmothers, parhaps. Anyway, the good citizens of the western democracies have either got onto the monopolistic and oligopolistic gravy train, paid for in any which way by those not on it, or else they have been asleep since the welfare state and consumerist society in the West really took off, during the Seventies, when, inter alia, the globalising corporates finally got a good hold on governments, bureaucracy, the unions, the universities and most academics and most of the professionals in the wider body politics. A small proportion of people have been awake yet not partying along with the rest of them, and yes, there have been insiders as well, dishing the dirt, explaning what has been happening. After all these years fomenting against the EU, blow me down, a few years ago I happened to read about a book published in 1995, to wit: The Rotten Heart of Europe. I had no need to read it, as the title was all I needed to know.
    Yesterday I took in my hand a book by one Rupert Darwall. Never heard of the bloke. The book is a good reference, but, again, I have hardly any need to read it. It confirms my position on the facts of life, if not on the wisdom of GM. Darwall saw fit to slip in a plug for GM, which happens to be another of these scams.
    The problem is not capitalism, or democracy as such. The problem is also not communism, which is merely a stage in the sociopolitical life of nation-states. The problem is not even socialism. The problem centres on the way people are genetically programmed. Cooperation and social feeling is the lifeblood of a well-functioning society, amongst other things. It is genetically programmed, like competition and the kind of behaviour which could be described as Supercompetitive. We have moved, in the Old West and Australasia, from a relatively benign, with the emphasis on relative, rather than benign, paternalism to a malignant form of paternalism morphing fast into a form of aggressive vulturism. That means the vultures do not wait until the corpses are dead, or move in merely when the people are less able socially and politically, but these vultures set about in networks, while they spruik individualism, to conspire, collude and in any way whatever grab as much as they can to be consumed by these clever conspirors as they go or be salted away in, or routed through, tax havens and hydra-headed corporate legal non-human persons, or both. These people do not care how much value they destroy to get a piece of the action. I suspect, have suspected for years, that, for instance, the huge waste occasioned by Forestry Tasmania was somehow connected to political deals not unconnected with so-called environmental politicies.
    However, the Greens and their scams are only the tip of the iceberg. If the conservatives, perhaps even the rednecks who wallow in there own bygone socio-cultural dreaming, could get up to scratch with what is happening in the world, something of our European way of life and democracy, freedom of speech, etc., might conceivably be saved to a degree-though I am not overly optimistic.

    • Richard Treadgold on 29/03/2018 at 5:18 pm said:


      I was loathe to approve your rambling, discursive comment but decided on balance that you may have the ability to think, which is always welcome. But please speak to the topic. Future ramblings like this will be declined. Welcome aboard.

  12. Dear Richard, my topic was in response to Viv’s letter. I have no need to go daggers drawn at your response to my response to Viv’s letter to the Editor. I re-read both Viv’s letter and my rambling response. You’re in my court, Richard. Maybe you’ll wake up some day. All is connected. Thanks, however, for being so gracious to allow me on board, in the first instance, at least.

  13. Richard Treadgold on 29/03/2018 at 6:17 pm said:


    After approving your comment, I glanced through Viv’s letter again and the thought occurred to me: “that’s a wide-ranging letter, isn’t it?” I was hasty, apologies. I’m pressed for time again. Cheers.

  14. Mike Jowsey on 30/03/2018 at 3:59 pm said:

    RT – don’t be so hard on yourself mate. Jacob was on a rant-roll and deserved to be brought to account. Maybe we will all “wake up some day” but not by rambling rants which put us all in a comatose bewilderment.

    Jacob – pithy and accurate, one point at a time, is better for us who have short fuses (and yet take the time and patience to read such). Please be brief!

  15. Mike Jowsey on 30/03/2018 at 4:33 pm said:

    Jacob, your comment has merit but it will take most readers too long to drill down and comprehend in detail. Your broad points are noted: Whereas you were a Greenie, you now prefer “ecologist” as a label; you think government is a necessary evil; unionists suck; we have genetic predisposition to social feeling; malignant vulturist paternalism is a thing; corporate conspiracies are rampant; and all of that is only the tip of the iceberg.

    Welcome to the discussion.

  16. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks on 30/03/2018 at 5:05 pm said:

    In reply to Mike Jowsey’s most insightful analysis… one small point.

    CAGW is a falsifiable hypothesis, by several avenues. It cannot be called a theory… it has no empirical substantiation. We should be hammering on these points incessantly… the warmists cannot argue the science (they’ve tacitly admitted their logical flaws… see below), they can only engage in alarmism to sway people to their side… which collapses if it’s proven their side is at odds with the science.
    For one example, one of the underlying premises of CAGW is that CO2 is absorbing radiation and causing increased heat retention.

    The work of Niels Henrik David Bohr (1922 Nobel prize winner) proved that when a gas absorbs electromagnetic radiation it does not heat the gas, it causes the electron(s) in the molecule to gain energy and move to a higher orbital radius (higher potential energy, which is released (when the electron(s) subsequently drop(s) to a lower orbital radius) in the form of photon(s) of the same wavelength as that which was absorbed to excite the electron(s)). And since the photon emitted is the same wavelength as the photon absorbed, there is no extra energy with which to increase molecular kinetic energy (heat). E=hf is a well-established relation, known as the Planck-Einstein relation.

    Gasses increase or decrease their heat (kinetic energy) by conduction (via collision)… that is the heat we can measure with a thermometer. We cannot easily measure changes in potential energy, nor is potential energy classified as heat.

    In other words, for CAGW to be true, we’d have to tear down much of what we know about quantum mechanics.
    For another example, look at the probability distribution of the direction of emission of radiation from CO2… you’ll note that it’s roughly a 50% chance the radiation will be emitted in a downward direction (at a random angle) , and roughly a 50% chance the radiation will be emitted in an upward direction (at a random angle). As altitude decreases, atmospheric density increases, increasing the likelihood that downwelling radiation emitted by a CO2 molecule will be absorbed by another CO2 molecule, with yet another 50/50 chance of being emitted upward or downward. Thus, radiation finds it increasingly more difficult to move downward… it’s a ‘one step down, two steps up’ probability due to the mean free path length of radiation increasing with increasing altitude. CO2 acts to auger heat upward, not downward. Thus CO2 does not (can not) cause global warming.
    Study this chart carefully… note that it’s for the Spectral Cooling Rate, so the positive numbers in the scale represent cooling, whereas the negative numbers represent warming. Note that CO2 only causes a very slight amount of warming at the tropopause, and cooling everywhere else.
    Another reason that CO2 causes global cooling is that as CO2 is generated, oxygen content is reduced, thus reducing O2 and O3 content of the atmosphere, which has a much higher cross-section of absorption at or near the upwelling radiation wavelengths (and a much greater atmospheric concentration than CO2… ~20.95% oxygen vs. 0.041% CO2), as you can see from this graphic:

    And wouldn’t you know it, in the lower and middle mesosphere, temperature has fallen by between 5 and 10 degrees C during the past three decades. And the outermost part of the atmosphere, around 350 km high – the so-called thermosphere – has, as would be expected by cooling, contracted. This is why they’re now predicting space junk will remain in orbit for as long as 25% longer than previously predicted… less atmospheric drag. They correctly attribute the thermospheric contraction to cooling caused by increased CO2 atmospheric concentration, but fail to acknowledge the ramifications of that admission for the rest of the atmosphere.
    Additionally, as the effective partial pressure of atmospheric carbon dioxide (which depends on its density in the atmosphere, and thus depends upon altitude and CO2 atmospheric concentration) increases, its total emissivity decreases; this makes carbon dioxide act as a coolant to the atmosphere and thus the planet:
    And finally,

    “The parties will not be able to dismiss our result lightly. To refute it, they would have to show that our pre-industrial feedback fraction f = 0.08, obtained by theoretical means rooted in mainstream control theory, is incorrect; that our industrial-era value f = 0.05, obtained empirically from IPCC’s estimate of the net anthropogenic forcing to date and from the HadCRUT4 temperature record, is also incorrect; that our campaign of ten empirical calculations giving a mean feedback fraction f = 0.12, is incorrect; that the rate of observed warming over the past 68 years is either incorrect or irrelevant; that the rate of observed warming this century to date is also either incorrect or irrelevant; that the results from our test rig are inapplicable; that the results from a government laboratory are likewise inapplicable; and, above all, that it is justifiable to assume that control theory is wrong and that, per impossibile, 255.4 K of emission temperature generates no feedback at all, while the next 8 K of warming suddenly causes 24 K of feedback, as if by magic.

    We do not believe in magic.”

    You’ll note the feedback forcing fraction for the pre-industrial era is higher than the feedback forcing fraction for the industrial era… that alone nullifies the CAGW hypothesis.
    CO2 can only emit what it absorbs.. and its absorptivity is exceedingly low:
    “The total absorptivity of carbon dioxide at its current concentration in the atmosphere is 0.0017.”

    Laboratory test results show that CO2 acts (in a freely-convecting atmospheric environment) as a coolant… in a convection-restricted atmospheric environment, it acts to heat (during daytime) and cool (during nighttime) the atmosphere more rapidly. Our planet’s atmosphere is free to convect.

  17. LOL at klimate k kooks. If it’s falsifiable, it’s scientific, but it’s political science. People get sucked trying to disprove the pseudoscientific hype. In the meantime the political game of robbing the taxpayers and hapless consumers continues. Government in the democratic West has been hijacked. Anyway, I’ll keep it short.

  18. Mike Jowsey on 31/03/2018 at 12:02 am said:

    My limited understanding of an hypothesis is that it should state why it may be true and what observation would make it untrue. The CAGW hypothesis does not have any test or observation within it’s scope which defines what would disprove the hypothesis, ergo it is non-scientific.

    But thank you, LOL, for careful and important explanation of what things disprove it regardless of the inherently fallacious hypothesis itself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation