|
|
||||
|
By Jo Nova Nobody believes the ExpertsFour thousand climate scientists have cried about climate change on TV. Weather maps are red-hot. And every fire, flood and dry weekend is caused by climate change, yet somehow, half the country doesn’t want to pay a cent to stop these catastrophes and most of the other half just want to pay one or two dollars a week, which is practically nothing — not even a coffee. It’s so low it might be “go-away” money — as in, they hope the pollster will go away and stop asking more questions about climate change. None of these people take carbon emissions seriously and this is 90% of the country. The IPA asked 1,027 Australians how much they would personally be willing to pay for the nation to reach Net zero by 2050, and half of them said, nothing. Another quarter said “$50 a year” which is one pitiful dollar a week. Most of the rest said “$2” a week, which leaves barely 7% of people ticking the boxes $500 or more per year, which everyone is already paying and has been paying for years. They just don’t know it, because the cost was hidden in their electricity bills. Could there be any more skeptical position than “zero dollars”?I guess the surveyors could start asking how much money people would need to be paid to believe in “Net Zero”, but that wasn’t an option. So we are left to interpret the “zero money” for Net Zero as people who don’t think the world is warming, and people who like warming, and people who think the UN is a basket of nematodes. Whichever way we look at it, it’s clear, none of the 48% who said “nothing” believe what the CSIRO, NOAA, NASA and the Bureau of Meteorology are selling. These are the die-hard skeptics. Since we live in a democracy I have to ask — which side of politics speaks for them? (Looking at you Liberals and Nationals). And which journalists at the ABC ask the questions this half of the country are thinking? Obviously, not a single one. The few small sane political parties that do speak for half the population (or more) are treated like anti-matter, so most voters have no idea who they are. And lets not forget the 45% who said they’d spend a tiny one or two dollars a week. Clearly, they have no idea the government is helping themselves to so much more. If conservatives could suck up the courage to explain what the costs are, and how pointless they are, 93% of the votes are there for the taking. Most of the country are skeptics, men and women, young and old. After 30 years of climate agitprop (or perhaps because of it) it’s a rather devastating testament to the loss of whatever prestige university professors used to have. And worse, it’s a bit of a cluster bomb on the idea of democracy. The Blob has been siphoning off this money for years, and 93% don’t want to spend it, and yet the money keeps flowing. IPA Poll: Attitudes towards Net Zero, Daniel Wild, May 15th, 2025
Image by taiga_valley_media from Pixabay
May 17th, 2025 | Tags: Polls, Survey | Category: Australia, Global Warming, Lies-by-Omission, polls |  Print This Post | | Comments (77)
 Image by Maria Godfrida from Pixabay By Jo Nova Nice grid you have there, shame if someone suddenly… switched it offTwo insiders at the US Dept of Energy say they have found covert devices inside solar panel inverters and batteries that would allow them to communicate with China. Even though firewalls have been put in place, these backdoor devices could operate around them. Last August a Dutch white hat hacker got into 4 million panels in 150 countries in an effort to warn the West that major infrastructure was vulnerable. A month later an Australian cyber expert warned that a foreign hacker could turn our home batteries into “pager-bombs” too. If a hostile power turned off the overcharge protection on a sunny day, millions of solar panels would be pumping excess electricity into batteries that have no safety cut off. A few houses start to go off like popcorn, and an hour later we’re all living at the Western Front. How exactly would our firemen cope if 1 in 100 homes caught fire at the same time, and then we had a blackout? Anyone? Individual solar panel inverters are generally too small to trigger national security assessments, but right now at lunchtime solar power is the largest single source of electricity in Australia — making 13 gigawatts out of 27. That’s half our national supply. In summer it’s worse. We’ve turned our duck curve into a sitting duck…
It’s a win every which way for China if we install more solar panels. Not only are we paying them for the panels, and sanctifying their slavery, but we set fire to our electricity prices, driving our factories to China where they burn our coal. Now to ice this Gridkill Gateau we hand them a backdoor for sabotage or extortion should they ever get the urge to use it. No wonder China is funding climate activists in the US and UK. They’d be crazy if they weren’t doing it here too. This is Fall of Rome type stuff, and we’ve got Chris ‘Blackout’ Bowen to save us… The only good thing about this is that while we were destroying our industrial base with solar panels anyway, the hidden transmitters are so overtly hostile, so in-your-face nasty, that sleeping Westerners might even wake up. Holy smoke. Does anyone think those secret radios were put there to help us? Reuters: Rogue communication devices found in Chinese solar power invertersLONDON, May 14 (Reuters) – U.S. energy officials are reassessing the risk posed by Chinese-made devices that play a critical role in renewable energy infrastructure after unexplained communication equipment was found inside some of them, two people familiar with the matter said. However, rogue communication devices not listed in product documents have been found in some Chinese solar power inverters by U.S experts who strip down equipment hooked up to grids to check for security issues, the two people said. Over the past nine months, undocumented communication devices, including cellular radios, have also been found in some batteries from multiple Chinese suppliers, one of them said. The rogue components provide additional, undocumented communication channels that could allow firewalls to be circumvented remotely, with potentially catastrophic consequences, the two people said. “We know that China believes there is value in placing at least some elements of our core infrastructure at risk of destruction or disruption,” said Mike Rogers, a former director of the U.S. National Security Agency. “I think that the Chinese are, in part, hoping that the widespread use of inverters limits the options that the West has to deal with the security issue.” In November, solar power inverters in the U.S. and elsewhere were disabled from China, highlighting the risk of foreign influence over local electricity supplies and causing concern among government officials, three people familiar with the matter said. The Communist Party could have said that they would never sanction such a hostile act, and it must be a company acting alone, but they didn’t: A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in Washington said: “We oppose the generalisation of the concept of national security, distorting and smearing China’s infrastructure achievements.” Infrastructure achievements indeed. A Freudian slip? There is plenty of risk to share around: The European Solar Manufacturing Council estimates over 200 GW of European solar power capacity is linked to inverters made in China – equivalent to more than 200 nuclear power plants. At the end of last year, there was 338 GW of installed solar power in Europe, according to industry association SolarPower Europe. Though Europe is saved, somewhat, by having lots of interconnectors and not much sun. That is, apart from Portugal, Spain and Greece, and we still don’t know what caused that blackout that started in the solar farms? In Australian Senator James Paterson was warning this was possible in August 2023, saying 58% of solar panel inverters in Australia were made by companies headquartered in China. And what have we done? We installed another half a million solar PV units on homes in Australia. Gangbusters on the gang-plank.
h/t Charles May, Jakk*, Reader.
May 16th, 2025 | Tags: Battery, China, Cybersecurity, Solar Energy (PV) | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | | Comments (48)
By Jo Nova They really do want to turn men into womenThe men are the climate vandals who carelessly wreck the Earth. If they would just eat the tofu and drive less, the world would be a better place, eh, especially for bourgeois academic femmebots in London. This is the kind of junk research that Big Government funding feeds. Someone spent a lot of money, and nobody learnt a thing. Naturally, The Guardian lapped it right up:  Ondine Berland, LSE Associate Cars and meat are major factors driving a gender gap in greenhouse gas emissions, new research suggests. Men emit 26% more planet-heating pollution than women from transport and food, according to a preprint study of 15,000 people in France. The gap shrinks to 18% after controlling for socioeconomic factors such as income and education. But really the 26%-more-planet-polluting-men shrinks to a third once you account for men being, you know, bigger and more likely to travel further. Eating red meat and driving cars explain almost all of the 6.5-9.5% difference in pollution that remains after also accounting for men eating more calories and travelling longer distances, the researchers said. They found no gender gap from flying. The enemy of course, is “traditional gender norms”. Real men cause storms and floods. Toxic masculinity is raising Earth’s temperature: Our results suggest that traditional gender norms, particularly those linking masculinity with red meat consumption and car use, play a significant role in shaping individual carbon footprints,” said Ondine Berland, an economist at the London School of Economics and Political Science and a co-author of the study. From the paper, these genius economists think red meat consumption is just a male identity thing: “Red meat and car — high-emission goods often associated with male identity — account for most of the residual, highlighting the role of gender differences in preferences in shaping disparities in carbon footprints.” Where are words like body-fat, muscle percentage, basal metabolic rate, and bone mass?Those words are not in this paper. The average man has 50% more muscle mass than the average woman (around 36kg compared to 23kg). He has 13 or 14 kilograms of bone, and she only has nine. All up, he has 15 to 20 kilograms of extra structural mass that needs constant repair and rebuilding. Is he supposed to turn into a girl to save the planet? Women have a higher percentage of body fat which is metabolically comatose most of the day and also insulates them more from heat loss. Even at rest, skeletal muscle burns about three times as much energy as our fat does. A body with more muscle has a higher metabolic rate and needs more energy and more protein. So the researchers big concession to men was to study carbon footprints and sometimes, occasionally even control for “calories”. Seriously? The hottest statistic in the abstract (and repeated in the press release) was that women emit 26% (!) less carbon than men in food and transport, but they admit this does not include “biological differences”. They think there was something meaningful about a food statistic which treats men and women like they are supposed to be the same? Food? Any five year old at the family dinner table knows this is stupid. It turns out the London School of Economics is also the London Preschool of biology. All around the world men eat more meat than women — it’s not a cultural thing, it’s a human thing.One study of 20,000 people from 23 nations found that men ate more meat than women nearly everywhere. And when men and women had more freedom and wealth to choose whatever they wanted, the gender gaps grew even larger. In poor countries, presumably, the men would like to eat more meat but can’t afford to. Does anyone care about those men? Men are also more likely to be injured in sport and at work, and they take more risks. More to the point, they evolved to deal with risks and injuries, so it’s hardwired — the meat-eating men conquered the vegans and recovered faster after the battle. The Guardian continues the cultural warfare, just so you know, the horrible types who use “soy boy” include JD Vance and a misogynist… (it’s not an accident those words appear in the same sentence). The term “soy boy” has been used by far-right figures including the US vice-president, JD Vance, and the self-described misogynist influencer Andrew Tate to present progressive men as weak. And just to twist the manipulative knife — the researchers say women find it easier to be climate goodie-goodies, while men are the selfish climate deniers, because they don’t want to give up their red meat to save the planet. The French researchers suggested the gender differences in emissions could explain why women tend to be more concerned about the climate crisis, arguing the greater personal cost of reducing their emissions could cause men to avoid grappling with the reality of the climate emergency. That’s how they wave away the fact that men are more skeptical. I say teenage girls are easily fooled and grown men are braver at standing up to ostracism and petty names. That’s why more men are skeptical… The transport statistics are almost as silly as the food ones. The biggest gender gap in male and female driving habits was not when men and women were single, but when they lived together and had children. When couples had kids, he drove more than his wife did. She was pushing a pram around while he went to work. That’s your big “gender gap”. A women with little kids is not driving less because she cares about climate change. The Globalists use women to get to menThe truth is this whole work of cognitive vandalism was probably aimed at manipulating naive young women, not men. (Think of the saccharine flattery of how clever the girls are). The Blob likes to wind up those pretentious 20-something girls who’ll then rank the climate soy-boy above the strong man in the all important dating game. This leverages the pressure on men to play by the globalist rules. It twists the pecking order. Real men probably don’t read the Guardian, but if they have to, some will ride a bike and eat fish to get laid. It’s a death by a thousand cuts for free men. Alarmists tell men they should eat, — Ruairi REFERENCE Ondine Berland, and Marion LeRoutier (2025) The gender gap in carbon footprints: determinants and implications, London School of Economics, Working paper 424, May 14, 2025 Image by Ivana Tomášková from Pixabay
May 15th, 2025 | Tags: Academics, Cult science, Gender Studies, Junk Science | Category: Academia, Global Warming, Psy-Ops, UK | Print This Post | | Comments (84)
Sorry. I’m having trouble publishing a post tonight on the site. Hopefully people can still comment OK? UPDATE: Seems to be working?
 Chris Bowen, Crawford Forum, 2016 By Jo Nova Deception and lies — the only way the government can get more renewablesThe Labor Party was supposed to tell the whole world their 2035 renewables target in February, but they knew the voters would hate it, so they hid it until after the election. If Chris Bowen thought the voters wanted more renewables spending, obviously, he would have said so to win more votes. As a part of the sacred Paris Agreement Australia was supposed to announce new Nationally Determined Commitment every five years. That deadline was late February. The world is bursting into flames around us, but the UN didn’t mind if the Labor Party were late, and hid their intentions, and nor did the Greens, or the “Climate Change Authority”. They all sat silent because they all know the voters don’t want it. Ipso Fabricato, all of them serve “The Blob”, not the voters. Climate Change was virtually invisible during the election, yet the dishonorable Chris ‘Blackout’ Bowen now suddenly says the ‘silent majority’ support him. Chris Bowen feels ‘silent’ wind at his back on green agendaby Geoff Chambers. The Australian Emboldened Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen has doubled down on Labor’s rollout of offshore wind farms, renewables and the phase-out of coal-fired power plants in a post-election attack on critics of his green power agenda, who he declares were rejected by Australia’s “silent majority”. He wasn’t turbocharging anything two weeks ago: After being sworn in on Tuesday for a second term, Mr Bowen will turbocharge Labor’s clean-energy revolution to achieve the government’s ambitious goal of 82 per cent of renewables in the electricity grid by 2030. It’s such bad luck: The Climate Change Authority (CCA) just happened to need a few extra weeks of work after the election, before it could reveal the horror show to the hapless Australians who pay their salaries: The Australian understands the Climate Change Authority is weeks from finalizing its advice on an upgraded 2035 emissions-reduction target, which will be more aggressive than Labor’s current 2030 pledge to slash emissions by 43 per cent. Close down these fake agencies of industrial lobbyists like the CCA who serve themselves and not the people. Be gone, o’ parasites of the people, and slime-moulds of bureaucracy! If Bowen cared about what the people think, he could just, you know, poll them…As it happens Essential polling out yesterday shows one issue dominated the election, and it was “cost of living”. More than half of Australian voters ranked it their number one issue, and 87% put it in their top three concerns. And if cost-of-living matters, “renewables” are the opposite. Every time the people are asked “how much do you want to spend on climate change” the answer is next to nothing. An IPA poll in 2022 showed 70% of Australians don’t even want to spend $1 a week to reach Net Zero. (If they knew the real cost they already pay, they would riot in the streets). Essential poll May 13, 2025. Most important Election issue:
The voters are crystal clear, and 100% consistent — when asked what they want the government to do, they said they want the government to reduce the cost of living, solve the housing crisis, fix medicare, crime and immigration more than they want Labor to fix “the climate”. 80% of Australians didn’t even put climate in their top three issues. Essential poll
Nearly 6 out ten voters think Labour shouldn’t do anything it didn’t already spell out in the election:
How’s that for a mandate for you Chris? If you didn’t talk about turbocharging the targets before the election, you are either stupid, or a liar? Or both. The voters do not approve. May 14th, 2025 | Tags: Polls, RET (Renewable Energy Target), Survey | Category: Global Warming, Politics | Print This Post | | Comments (118)By Jo Nova Nigel Farage’s Reform UK is transforming British politicsThe Tories have already dropped Net Zero policies, but now the effects are spreading to Labour and the Greens. Australian spineless political parties should note that voters reward parties who lead the way in dumping Net Zero and immigration. Just the fear of what might happen at the Council Elections meant Tony Blair, the former Labour PM, dropped the bombshell that Net Zero was unworkable, and that people were being silenced because they were terrified of being called Climate Deniers. A wave of skepticism was sweeping across Europe and Blair wanted to jump in ahead to steer the rebellion somewhat and promote his own plans. Reform stormed the English council elections in a seismic way — winning 677 seats, twice as many as the Conservatives, and more than sixfold than Labour. Now even the Guardian are writing headlines asking if the Labour party will abandon Net Zero? In the end the article is another advert for Net Zero (aren’t they all) but it’s obvious the Guardian editors are worried that Labour might be tossing the idea around. Two weeks ago this would have been unthinkable.
The win for Farage has rattled the cages so much that even some Greens are saying that Net Zero is hurting the poor (only thirty years too late). The Deputy Leader of the Green Party in England and Wales (which is not the same as The UK Greens) is running for the Party leadership on a whole new thing called “Eco-populism”. The eco-populist against net-zeroMegan Kenyon, New Statesman Zack Polanski is looking to lead the Green Party, and to challenge Labour’s climate policy from the left. One of Reform’s primary battlegrounds with the government is over climate policy, as Farage wields net zero as a culture war sledgehammer. Polanski similarly hopes to put the pressure on Labour over this issue – but from the left. “I’m really angry about net zero,” he told me, “I’m angry that the government are expecting some of the poorest in this country to step up to net zero, expecting people to install heat pumps or expecting people to get a train rather than a plane, even though a plane is a much cheaper option”. Taken at face value, these words could well have been spoken by a Reform candidate or councillor – almost as though it is out of Farage’s own playbook. “While I may even agree with Nigel Farage’s diagnosis of the problems, it’s very clear that he doesn’t really intend to do anything about those things,” Polanski said. His solution (of course) is to tax “businesses” — (because they never sell to the poor, and wouldn’t pass on those taxes…. right?) Polanski believes the government should target UK businesses and the wealthy to shoulder the cost of the green transition via a wealth tax. Voters flock to parties who stand up for them against the namecallers. (And it’s a shame the Nationals didn’t choose Matt Canavan to lead them!)
 Number of people born in 2020 who will face “unprecedented lifetime exposure” to heatwaves, crop failures, river floods, tropical cyclones, wildfires and droughts under 1.5C 2.7C and 3.5C warming. Source: Save the Children | CarbonBrief By Jo Nova It’s like expert scientists in Nature have never heard of an air-conditioner?The Blob launched its latest permutation of Fire and Brimstone. By using broken climate models, and ignoring ten thousand years of bones, rocks, sediments, ice-cores, caves and corals, they were able to pretend that babies today will suffer “unprecedented” storms, floods and fires of every kind and it’s all your fault. The paper by Grant et al ticks the full Marxist Bingo Card whipping up class warfare driven by “intergenerational inequality”. It was funded by the EU and is being used to shake down citizens to get more money and power for the EU, so they will be happy. “Mission accomplished”. (That’s what ‘The ScienceTM’ is for right?) But it is embarrassing. We have to talk about that formerly esteemed “Nature” journal. For starters, the researchers behave like the universe only formed in 1960. Their whole shtick is that babies today will live through more ghastly heatwaves than their grandparents born in 1960 did. And it’s all “unprecedented” (they use the term 25 times in the paper). It’s as if the Holocene did not exist. Sea levels were at least a metre higher 8,000 years ago. How could the world not have been hotter? And how did those cats, dogs, geese and frogs live in the high arctic north of Norway 9,000 years ago. There were thousands of bones in those caves. Do they or do they not exist? Spare a thought for the babies of 6,000 BC who lived through far more heatwaves in their lifetime than any will today, and they didn’t have an air conditioner, a baby monitor, or a Fire Department to call when a bushfire broke out. Somehow they didn’t become extinct. The solution to all the potential, imagined cataclysm of one more degree (if it even happens) is cheap electricity. If we try to save babies with slave-made-solar panels from Xingjiang we’ll be committing a crime (and more than one). We’ll save more babies by burning fossil fuels and making electricity cheap again, so people can afford to turn the air-con on. Airconditioners are the miracle that save 20,000 lives in USA each year. As it got hotter in Spain from 1980 to 2015 fewer people died — and it was because more of them were able to get air conditioning. The Science says fossil fuels save lives. Global deaths and disasters are down in the last 100 years. But shameless UN lies are up. To solve the increase in global disasters, just axe the UN. 
Deaths are down per capita from fire, landslide, storm, flood, extreme temperatures and drought.(Our World in Data). Keep reading → May 10th, 2025 | Tags: Disasters, Hyperbole | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | | Comments (77)
By Jo Nova What were they thinking?Despite 30 years of wall-to-wall propaganda most adults seem to feel that Climate Change is not an emergency. For some reason, they’d rather cut their electricity bill now, than cool the world by a thousandth of a degree in a hundred years time. It’s taken billions of dollars worth of prime time news, school doom projects, clean-green advertising, and hot-weather-girl hyperbole to keep the fantasy levitating. Not to mention the weeping lectures from 97% of experts — yet somehow, improbably, most people are not buying it. Imagine if we had a free press, and the Nobel Prize winners who disagreed were interviewed by the 7:30 Report or 60 minutes? Imagine if they talked to electrical engineers and geologists on the news? It wouldn’t be 60% of voters who were skeptical, it would be 100%. He who controls the media, can confuse 40% of the people. Thanks to Will Jones at the Daily Sceptic. Nigel Farage speaks for voters on net zero. Here’s how we knowMichael Deacon, Telegraph, UKThis week, a new polling firm called Merlin Strategy asked voters for their views on tackling climate change. But here’s the crucial thing, it didn’t merely ask them: “Do you support net zero?” Instead, it asked them which was more important: action to achieve net zero, or cutting the cost of living. And guess what they said? Almost 60 per cent chose cutting the cost of living, while a mere 13 per cent chose net zero. So 13% were wealthy enough, or obsessed enough, that they were willing to say they wanted to pay more to “put environmental aims first”. (Or maybe they worked in the industry). Cutting cost of living MUST come before expensive Net Zero driveJack Elsom, The Sun A Merlin Strategy poll of 3,000 people found 59 per cent of Brits agreed that “action to reduce the cost of living has to come first over sustainability and being eco-friendly”. Just 13 per cent of people thought ministers should put environmental aims first. The verdict was returned by supporters of all parties. For Labour voters, 61 per cent agreed and 12 per cent disagreed, for Tories it was 70 per cent and eight per cent, and for Reform it was 65 per cent and 15 per cent. Clearly most polls ask loaded silly questions so they get loaded silly answers. They ask open apple-pie questions “Would you like the government to spend other people’s money making storms nicer?” But it isn’t exactly hard to write surveys that ask people to rank choices, or to quiz them about what they would be willing to pay, yet pollsters rarely do that. The point of most polls is not to tell the Blob what the people want, it’s to tell the people what The Blob wants. Think about what polls like this say about our democracies. In theory, after surveys like this come out (and they have many times) if political parties were trying to serve the people, they would quietly drop the Net Zero plans so they could win over more voters. Instead, the two major parties push on year after year, almost as if they serve something else. This result is nearly identical to one two years ago in the UK that found 62% said reducing electricity bills was more important than climate targets. Yet the Tories self-immolated, and Labour got elected but dug themselves a hole they didn’t need to dig. Why? ________________________ PS: The New Pope has been picked –– a man of the times, American cardinal Robert Prevost, originally of Chicago – who is a described as a fierce opponent of same-sex marriage and gender studies. He opposed a plan in Peru to add gender studies instruction in classrooms, saying “The promotion of gender ideology is confusing, because it seeks to create genders that don’t exist.” I don’t think the Left will be happy with Pope Leo XIV. The ABC were clearly hoping for the more progressive candidates from Asia and Africa.
May 9th, 2025 | Tags: Polls, Survey, UK | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | | Comments (85)By Jo Nova A candidate for this years Cult Science Oscar:
The Coal Plant God is at it again — causing the oceans to swallow South Africa on the one hand and lifting up the land by 2mm a year with the other. (A lucky coincidence that disguises the horrors of rising seas, eh?). Apparently we used to think the land was rising due to hot plumes of magma far below, but now researchers say its because a drought has made the crustal plate lighter. Even though no model can predict rainfall, everyone reading the tea-leaves, and editing newspapers, can see that climate change caused the drought. Satellite data reveals climate change is lifting South Africa out of the oceanJoshua Shavit, BrighterSide Instead of heat from below, the Earth’s crust in parts of South Africa appears to be lifting due to water loss above. When surface and underground water vanish, the weight on the land decreases. That loss of pressure lets the land subtly spring upward, like a sponge expanding after being squeezed. The precambrian crust under South Africa is some of the oldest in the world, and the research team proudly tells us they “analyzed satellite and climate data spanning nearly a decade.” That much? This groundbreaking conclusion comes from researchers at the University of Bonn… The researchers used GPS measurements, satellite data, and hydrological models to study the correlation between areas experiencing severe droughts and significant land uplift. Not to knock the detailed and creative work of said researchers but this is typical of Big Government strangled science. It must have cost a lot of money, involved many salaries and much high-tech equipment, but in the end all conclusions are tortured to blame “climate change”. The paper itself only mentions anthropogenic climate change once, but the press release and news stories turn it into a horror show, and none of the experts at universities around the world will be able to say a damn thing about how absurd that is. And none of the government funded science journalists at the ABC-BBC-CBC science units will think to ask if solar cycles affect rainfall in South Africa instead. Even though we know solar activity affects Central European floods, Australian-Asian monsoons, and groundwater levels in China. All science serves The Blob, and The Science can never be wrong. If the ocean does or doesn’t swallow Cape Town, it’s because of climate change. REFERENCEMielke et al (2025) GNSS Observations of the Land Uplift in South Africa: Implications for Water Mass Loss, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 09 April 2025 https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JB030350
May 8th, 2025 | Tags: Hyperbole, Sea Level, South Africa | Category: Big-Government, Global Warming | Print This Post | | Comments (51)
Jo NovaProgramming and “pre-bunking” our children to vote Green — Boosting profits for years to come!And you thought school textbooks were non-political… Imagine the uproar if a coal company spent thousands of dollars to put lesson plans in schools to teach our children how to run activist lobby groups to get better subsidies and tax breaks for coal miners? Imagine these lessons even include instruction on how to fundraise, and ways to counter the anti-coal “misinformation and disinformation” ? Indeed the ACCC banned the Commonwealth Bank’s Dollarmites program from Queensland schools because it contained “sophisticated marketing tactics”. But it wasn’t teaching children to write activist campaigns to lobby for tax breaks and subsidies for bankers. Instead Mike Cannon Brookes, Mr $30 billion, has set up the Boundless Earth charity with a $15 to $30 million budget which generously sponsors a group called Cool org. They write “scripts for teachers” and tell the kiddies to walk to school or ride their bike while (as Tony Thomas reminds us) Mr Cannon-Brookes travels in his Bombardier Twin-jet. It’s no tinker-toy project, already reaching 2.5 million Australian kids each year and 200,000 teachers. It’s a full on indoctrination unit. This is the reason conservatives get wiped out in elections. One side have a multilevel war machine propaganda unit, staffed and funded with millions of dollars and the other side send their kids to those schools (and then pay for the schools with their taxes). Part I –A Jet Jockey’s Little Green SchoolkidsBy Tony Thomas, Quadrant The Cool.org charity, drafts the scripts for teachers. Cool CEO Thea Stinear claims that Cool “helps young people cut through the BS. It helps them spot what’s real. What could be more important in this day and age?” Jason Kimberley of the multi-millionaire Just Jeans family set up Cool in 2008, catering to pre-school, primary, secondary, private and public schools with endorsement by departmental and school authorities.[3] Cool, in fact, runs a parallel universe within the school system. Well over 17 million kids to date have imbibed at least one Cool lesson, delivered by the nearly 200,000 teachers who have signed on to Cool. Believe it or not, 92% of Australian schools have delivered Cool materials to kids. I’ve been recording this Cool educational empire for years, here, here, here and here. Their skill building includes seven units of learning on misinformation or disinformation. In Science Over Skepticism they investigate things that “influence the adoption of scientific knowledge” — like presumably learning that “The ScienceTM” is done by consensus… Tony Thomas writes: Cool douses kids from pre-school upwards in a waterfall of green-left woke-ism and renewables advocacy, purportedly “building a sustainable and just world for all.” As a Cool member, I see exactly what Cool offers teachers and kids, but much of the Cool materials are paywalled to outsiders. Education was captured by the left decades ago, and school and department authorities have no qualms about kids imbibing green activism from third-party providers.[5] But frankly, I’m near-traumatised at how completely and ruthlessly such third parties are drafting schoolkids to the green crusade… Australian teachers are overwhelmed with bureaucratic paperwork, and administrative tasks, so they’re relieved when a professional team offers to do up the lesson plan for them, and fits it all to the bureaucratized spaghetti mess that is the curriculum. It even shows how it meets UN Paris convention goals. Cannon Brookes uses the kids to get to the parents too. Part II — A Green Kid is a Programmed KidCool doesn’t just feed kids its climate factoids, it wants kids to preach the green gospel to schoolmates, parents and the community. One lesson for 10- to 11-year-old’s is headed, Designing a Media Campaign to Promote Clean Energy Facts. Teachers’ job: “Share some of the following examples of accurate clean energy campaigns with your class. Where possible, encourage students to assess how their campaign could counter misinformation in the clean energy sector.” Other kids are activated to do a “myth-busting” campaign against “deniers”. Another program teaches children how to fundraise — though Tony Thomas wonders if they should be teaching stranger danger, cash receipts and accounting as well. This is “cash raising” he says. Kids are instructed to hassle I mean, talk to shop owners, and car owners, or people on the local council…. By Year 9 and 10 the kids have graduated to designing advocacy campaigns to improve “clean energy policy” and presumably Mike’s profit margins. Tony Thomas has been in under the membership hood and says the authors seem terrified that the kids might hear skeptical viewpoints, and so they “steered them away from the best sceptic websites like joannenova.com.au and WUWT, which Cool labels as not credible” (I think Thomas means they issue a generic warning against “blogs” rather than name us, but I shall have to clarify). It’s full “Climate Denialist” reprogrammingThe Cool Org education system teaches children to call people petty names, use ad hom reasoning, and run political campaigns! “Climate Change Denial is on the Rise among teenagers”Hence Cool gives kids entire lessons excoriating “Climate Denial” – Cool is either oblivious or supportive of the echo to Holocaust Denial.[2] It defines “Denial” as rejecting the notions that climate change exists (a straw man, given sceptics’ affection for geology) and that “Humans are causing the climate to change” despite alleged overwhelming scientific evidence (sceptics dispute only the severity, as in purported “catastrophic” warming, and emphasise the benefits such as CO2 having greened the plant). The Cool lesson for Year 10 continues, In some cases, climate deniers actively spread disinformation about climate change to suit a personal or political agenda. This can have profound effects on how we address the challenges posed by climate change. In the “Climate Literacy: Climate Change Denial And Disinformation” lesson, Students explore climate denialism and the myths often presented about climate change. They explore the facts that bust these myths, look at the implications of climate denialism on meeting the challenges of climate change, and create a communication piece to address climate disinformation. The program does specifically mention John Clauser, the Nobel prize winning skeptics who they say “spreads misinformation”. What Tony Thomas hasn’t found yet, is any mention that Chinese and Indian emissions are at record highs and are still growing. Boy are those kids going to feel used and abused when they find out the truth. Now I’m a free speech girl, I would not mind kids being exposed to all their arguments, as long as skeptics get equal access. The truth always wins (and it’s funnier… ) our job would be easy. Tony Thomas has done a long investigation and two articles already on Quadrant with a third to come. Read it all there. Tony’s latest book from Connor Court is Anthem of the Unwoke – Yep! The other lot’s gone bonkers. $34.95
May 7th, 2025 | Tags: Education, Propaganda | Category: Australia, Big-Government, Global Warming | Print This Post | | Comments (89) |
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets
   
 
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2025 JoNova - All Rights Reserved |
||||
Recent Comments