…
|
|
||||
|
By Jo Nova Oracle Films has a new documentary out to help fill the gaping hole that is the legacy media. While every news outlet could afford to send a full camera crew to hospitals to show the pain of Covid patients, there’s a five mile exclusion zone around the home of anyone who claim to be victims of vaccine side effects. The media won’t talk to widows and family of loved ones; won’t tell the stories of people who died within days of their second shot. They won’t show montages of athletes collapsing on the field or children who lost a parent. Indeed the BBC’s big contribution was to dob in a Facebook group with 250,000 members who were reduced to talking about their injections with carrot emoji’s in a secret code. Facebook axed them, and the BBC bragged about it. Just another great moment in Public Broadcasting. Dr Aseem Malhotra pointed out last week that in Norway, which has good official figures, about 1 in 1000 people are getting side effects that “put them in hospital” or are described as “life changing”. While 99.9% didn’t suffer like that, it still means tens of thousands of people across the West are suffering something awful and they are invisible. Based on Norwegian estimates there may be 20,000 people in Australia, 50,000 in the UK, and perhaps 200,000 in the US. Perhaps they just visited hospital for a few days, and they’ve since recovered, or maybe it’s an ongoing hell a few describe (see from 24 minutes on in the documentary). Whatever they are going through, it’s invisible. It’s like someone is very afraid to even let one story through. What if thousands of other victims recognize a pattern and stand up to be counted? “The figures surely demand a full investigation…” If Youtube decides it’s too dangerous to show this documentary below, go to Oracle Films. In the meantime, spread the word, not just about the invisible victims but about the culpable media. When will we get to see those contracts our governments signed on our behalf? “Regulators cannot be trusted…” People who have suffered life changing event, feel ignored, and like there is no help at all. How many suicides were related? The mortality spikes continue on for weeks after vaccination rates peak in the UK data (see one of the Neil and Fenton graphs below). There will be many people out there who don’t even make the connection. And remember, in these graphs, the “unvaccinated” die in waves that follow peak vaccination for their age cohort.  … REFERENCESAseem Malhotra, (2022) Curing the pandemic of misinformation on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines through real evidence-based medicine – Part 1, Journal of Insulin Resistance, ISSN: (Online) 2519-7533, (Print) 2412-2785 Neil, and Fenton et al (2021) Latest statistics on England mortality data suggest systematic mis-categorisation of vaccine status and uncertain effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccination Norwegian Medicines Agency. (2022) Reported suspected adverse reactions to COVID19 vaccines as of 04.01.2022 [cited 2022 May]. PDF
October 4th, 2022 | Tags: Excess Deaths, Media bias, Vaccine | Category: Health, Media-matters |  Print This Post | | …
Once upon a time Google had the best search engine in the world but solo unfunded skeptics had all the fun and were outscoring the UN, academia, and official government sites. So the UN stopped competing and just colluded with Google to rig the game: Melissa Fleming: (Under-Secretary for Global Communications at the UN) “We partnered with Google. For example, if you Google ‘climate change,’ you will, at the top of your search, you will get all kinds of UN resources. We started this partnership when we were shocked to see that when we Googled ‘climate change,’ we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top. So we’re becoming much more proactive. We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do. But again, it’s a huge, huge challenge that I think all sectors of society need to be very active in.” (Full transcript here) Naturally this bragging was at the World Economic Forum — the hippest conference-cum-holiday club that can be called a tax deduction for the uber-ultra-rich and their minion political puppets. Where else could people say smug totalitarian lines with a straight face: “We Own The Science and we think the world should know it”. If ever the Government got something wholly absurdly wrong, and thousands of free thinkers were mocking it and winning over the masses, we can rely on Google to protect the Government and crush the people. As Marc Morano points out, Eisenhower warned us: …public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. Though it would be better to call it the banker-technological elite. It hasn’t got anything to do with science. As Daniel Greenfield described: Big Gov protects the Big Tech monster from market competition — and in return Big Tech protects Big Government from political competition. Democrats have outsourced political repression of their enemies to cabals of private companies. And Big Bankers get protection from public criticism, political pressure, and market competition. What’s not to love?
Related posts:
*Goolag logo from Jens Protest against Google’s CCP-compliant-censorship in 2006 h/t Climate Depot, David Maddison, Adellad, Richard C. October 3rd, 2022 | Tags: Google, WEF (World Economic Forum) | Category: Big-Government, Free Speech, Global Warming | Print This Post | | … Jacinda Ardern gave a speech to the UN last Friday which has suddenly gone viral in an Ebola kind of way. The new weapon in war she tells us, is misinformation. Since she is the single source of truth (she told us that in July) that means the disinformers are anyone who disagrees with Jacinda. See how easy this is? It’s just another Ministry of Truth plan to save the world from climate change and Covid. Who needs Free Speech?Following in the foot-stomps of dictators everywhere Jacinda Ardern lays out the threat of speeches from people more inspiring than her: The face of war has changed. And with that, the weapons used. Traditional combat, espionage and the threat of nuclear weapons are now accompanied by cyber-attacks, prolific disinformation and manipulation of whole communities and societies. After all, a bullet takes a life. A bomb takes out a whole village. A lie online or from a podium does not. But what if that lie, told repeatedly, and across many platforms, prompts, inspires, or motivates others to take up arms? To threaten the security of others. To turn a blind eye to atrocities, or worse, to become complicit in them. What then? This is no longer a hypothetical. And surely we can start with violent extremism and terrorist content online. So that’s alright then, it’s only the violent extremists, right? But look who’s on her list, war-mongers and climate skeptics: …how do you successfully end a war if people are led to believe the reason for its existence is not only legal but noble? How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists? How do you ensure the human rights of others are upheld, when they are subjected to hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology? And they are evil people for sure those climate skeptics… she can see into their minds: The weapons may be different but the goals of those who perpetuate them are often the same. To cause chaos and reduce the ability of others to defend themselves. To disband communities. To collapse the collective strength of countries who work together. What do you do if people don’t believe Climate Change exists Jacinda — how about “persuade them”?In a free society, our leaders were supposed to explain the benefits. If the science is overwhelming it ought to be easy, right? Jacinda Ardern’s problem is that she can’t explain how Black is White, Up is Down, and Fertilizer is Pollution, so her only option is to demonize and silence the people who are more convincing than her. In the same speech where she’s wondering what to do with climate skeptics she also happens to talk about mass murderers. …we have an opportunity here to ensure that these particular [speaking] weapons of war do not become an established part of warfare. She effectively says internet freedom is a weapon of war and we need more rules.
Like a Travel Agent on the Bus to One World Government Jacinda Ardern’s entire speech was devoted to buffing up The Collective over the Individual. It was not about New Zealand’s needs, it was her job application for the UN. She mentions the collective six times. But if we look up Bureaucratic Collectivism, for example, we find a theory of class society used to describe the Soviet Union under Stalin. And she certainly wants a collective of bureaucracies. She raves about a new Global Health Instrument, run by the WHO which is also the best friend of the CCP. What could possibly go wrong? She gushes about the WTO as well, as if it were their job and not hers to secure New Zealand’s supply chains. In RightThink all roads lead to the collective: Apparently the virus taught New Zealand “how interconnected they are” she claims. This is the nation that successfully kept out the virus by rather “un-collectively” shutting its borders, and against the wishes of the same WHO she so admires. She’s a one-woman advertising campaign for unelectable global rulersPerhaps she’s eyeing off a job in case she loses the New Zealand election next year, which looks likely given the polls. She certainly seems to be serving global bureaucrats more than the hapless New Zealand voters. Funnily enough, the Australian ABC sees her falling to 33% and wonders if “the PM’s international star power save her?” As if selling out New Zealanders to Geneva will win the election. Only the ABC could ask that. But it’s all about The Group now: The next pandemic will not be prevented by one country’s efforts but by all of ours. Climate action will only ever be as successful as the least committed country, as they pull down the ambition of the collective. See the whole 16 minutes of her speech or read the Transcript of her call to Censorship:Which automated processes are these I wonder, this is a very carefully crafted sentence? What is she covering up? This week we launched an initiative alongside companies and non-profits to help improve research and understanding of how a person’s online experiences are curated by automated processes. This will also be important in understanding more about mis and disinformation online. A challenge that we must as leaders address. Can we get someone to clarify that the NZ government are not shadow-banning, search engine rigging, or using automated robot-commenters?
Lucky she is the single source of truth: h/t John Connor II, David Maddison, Richard C (NZ) October 1st, 2022 | Tags: New Zealand | Category: Big-Government, Global Warming | Print This Post | | By Jo NovaWarn the bankers, our climate models are not something to invest in say the modelersA group of top climate modelers have come together to warn bankers that climate models are wonderful but basically useless for predicting things that financial models need — like the trends in the hottest, wettest or windiest weather in any city on Earth. Often the expert models can’t even agree on the sign. Will it get bigger or smaller? It’s that bad. The raw truth of just how unskilled these models are is laid bare in the graphs. The modeling team chose London, Mumbai, New York and Beijing and picked the nearest 100km x 100km “square” on the map. They ran about 37 models on 3 scenarios and achieved something that looks like a painting done with a jet engine. The modelers can’t say if the hottest maximums in Beijing will get hotter. Even if the world warms 2 degrees (by random happenstance), Beijing’s hottest-days might actually get cooler. The rainiest days of the year could be more extreme unless they’re less extreme. And the windiest days will definitely be stronger, weaker, or about the same. Get it? The quote of the century is from Professor Andy Pitman to Graham Lloyd:Lead author Andy Pitman, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, told The Weekend Australian: “Climate models are very valuable tools for many applications but they are not something I want used to decide investment strategies for my superannuation.” — The Australian, Climate models ‘a global bank risk’ So climate models are not good enough for his superannuation but it’s fine to bet the national economy on? Should we transform our entire energy network, change our vehicles, our crops, and eat crickets for breakfast? Why not. More to the point, all around the world people are blaming individual floods and storms on “Climate Change” but modelers know that isn’t true, and they are staying very quiet. While people are selling homes, farmers are planting different orchards, and councils are thinking about sea-walls, the truth is that we don’t even know if heavy rain will increase or decrease in any one location. Wind farm owners (and the hostage public) are building wind farms in places that may not get windier. The list of potential economic damage is vast. Why do only the bankers matter? (Because they can afford lawyers..?) And why is every two-bit attention seeking celebrity mayor or high school drop-out promoted on TV to say things that are patently scientific voodoo while our billion dollar national institutions sit mute? “We show that GMT [Global Mean Temperature] provides little insight on how acute risks likely material to the financial sector (‘material extremes’) will change at a city-scale.”
Modeled change in temperature of the hottest day of the year in Beijing (the index TXx )We get an idea of the uncertainty involved. Note the zero line runs through the middle. That’s a range of plus or minus 6 degrees Celsius for every scenario up to 3 degrees warmer.
And this below is the change in the amount of rainfall occurring on New York’s wettest day of the year ( R1X)The wettest day might be 25mm less, or 35mm more, or about the same. And it’s even true in a world three degrees warmer. (Well, true in the models).
Like there will always be one guy who is brilliant at tossing coins, but no one knows who he was til after the game. And the models are skill-less with wind as wellThis is 37 models, 3 scenarios and millions of lines of code. Imagine starting with this kind of scattergun uncertainty and then multiplying it by the unknowns in economic model forecasts for the next fifty years. We’d get the perfect cloud. Call it a fog. Click to enlarge, not that it matters whether you look up close or far away…  Click to enlarge It’s presented as an eclectic modeling issue of importance to financiers, but the raw truth is that it rather blows away the idea that the hottest, wettest or windiest days now or in the next fifty years can be blamed on “climate change”. Are there two kinds of science?Professor Pitman said attempts to use dynamical downscaling to get far higher resolution data was “excellent science but not science designed for the financial sector”. The laws of science used to be universal, now we need a new science to help people make money. Excellent science must be good for propaganda campaigns, but people who want to make money need the other kind of science — the one that works. We lost that somewhere. No wonder the climate modelers are nervous about the financial riskAdmire the detail. Here are the trends in hottest and wettest days in four hand-picked cities with a combined population of about 70 million people. Remember these graphs every time you hear about the hottest ever day or the worst flood, or that a “rain bomb” was caused by climate change.
The paper drily notes no link, and no statistical significance (These eight graphs above are all “Figure 1”) …Figure 1 demonstrates no strong link between GMT [Global Mean Temperature] and the amount of rainfall on the wettest day of the year (RX1). For London, the largest increases occur under the lowest emission scenario, and none of the regression lines are statistically significant (the highest R2 value is only 0.08). Results are very similar for the other cities. Note, for each city, increases in GMT can be associated with decreases in RX1 for many of the models, and the sign of the change does not become clear for any emission scenario until GMT exceeds 2 ◦C. Gone is the guarantee that a higher Global Mean Temperature means a hotter, wetter and winder city. Curiously one of the new risks to worry about is called a compound event. It involves odd combinations of weather which are not extreme just extremely-expensive: However, material extremes could also include events that are not ‘extreme’ in a statistical sense, especially if they occur concurrently as compound events (Zscheischler et al 2018, Ranger et al 2021). One example is the possible shift in climate towards long periods of low wind and cloudy conditions—a material extreme to a renewable energy provider and a potential risk to a national economy via disrupted energy supply, a problem that has already occurred in Europe (Bloomfield 2021) Wouldn’t it be good if modelers could have warned us about how climate change causes low wind and cloudy conditions before people built energy systems based on wind and solar power? Wouldn’t it be good if modelers could predict the climate. Most of the hottest and wettest days have something to do with large oceanic cycles that we can’t predict more than a few months in advance. Even the modelers say the models are for telling stories, not for making predictions: They just don’t say it so simply: Using climate models to inform scenarios, storylines (Shepherd 2019, Jack et al 2020) and stress testing, or using climate models to modify the statistics represented in current-day catastrophe modelling can all help break the false assumption that the numerical precision in climate models equates to accuracy at a granular level. In many ways, this echoes guidance from Schinko et al (2017) to consider models as tools to explore a system as distinct from predicting a system, or Saravanan (2022) who explores the need to take climate models seriously, but not literally. What’s the difference between serious and literal? Should we salute the modelers but not spend billions of dollars on their storylines? REFERENCEPitman, A et al (2022) Acute climate risks in the financial system: examining the utility of climate model projections, Environ. Res.: Climate 1 025002 Keep reading → September 30th, 2022 | Tags: Climate Models, Pitman (Andy) | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | | The UK is pretty much one wayward submarine away from losing a third of its gas supply. Even if the pipe stays intact, it’s already a national security crisis. It’s a vulnerability that will affect the UK’s ability to bargain with confidence or battle right now. German authorities are saying that the pipelines will be rendered unusable if salt-water has entered the pipes. Corrosion will make them unrepairable.
The UK imports 11% of its power from Europe, half from France, and two years ago President Macron was threatening to block an interconnector in a battle over post-Brexit fisheries. In a unsettled world, countries which don’t have energy security don’t have any security at all… The EU may unravel when push comes to shove and nations with energy don’t want to share. NetZeroWatch: It’s an energy emergencyAs war on gas pipelines escalates, Britain faces national security crisisIn a letter to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, Net Zero Watch director Dr Benny Peiser has warned that the sabotage of three Nord Stream gas pipelines in the last 24 hours has brutally revealed how Britain’s energy system and its entire economic and societal stability is exposed to grave external threats. Dr Peiser writes:
Keep reading → September 29th, 2022 | Tags: Energy Security, Subsea Cables, UK | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | | “It’s difficult to imagine it could be accidental” The leaks are massiveIndeed “leak” does not seem like the right word.  The explosions are marked with stars. The sites are 75 kilometers apart just outside official Danish territory. Euronews –– Swedish national broadcaster SVT reported that national seismologists had registered “two clear explosions” around the area, first at 2:03 AM and then at 7:04 PM (CET) on Monday. Hours after the explosions, coincidentally, Gazprom also warned that one of the two remaining major pipelines to Europe was at risk due to a legal dispute over fees. Gazprom was refusing to pay a transit fee that the Ukrainian energy firm said it was supposed to pay. At this stage everyone is saying the leaks are sabotage, but no one is claiming to know anything for sure. The US government has said it is ‘ready to provide support’ to Europe. So, below, this is quite an awkward flashback, to say the least. It’s from February when Joe Biden was trying to talk Russia out of invading Ukraine: Biden: “If Russia invades…then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.” Reporter:— “But how will you do that, exactly, since… The project is in Germany’s control?” Biden: — “I promise you, we will be able to do that.” “ Russia meanwhile announced a week ago that it is building a gas pipe to China instead to deliver 50 billion m3. Energy security = national security. Notably, no one is sabotaging any wind farms. September 28th, 2022 | Tags: Europe, Gas, Nordstream, Russia, War | Category: Energy, Europe, Global Warming, Russia, USA | Print This Post | | A moment of hope in Civilization. Some elections appear to produce a result the unelected EU powerbase is not happy with. The speech trending on Twitter today after the historic win by the ultra far right fascist extremist who is practically Mussolini’s granddaughter (so they want you think, in echo’s). As an insight into the new PM of Italy, and also into the “free media” that portrays her as a danger to democracy, listen to her words. Giorgia Meloni’s speech at the World Congress of Families 2018I believe the state should incentivize the natural family based on marriage… every choice has consequences and you accept responsibility for them… I reject a society where every desire becomes a right. On parents being the ones who know whats best for their child but only when it comes time to turn off the life support: Why is the winner always the one who wants to disconnect the plug? Why is the winner always death? Why do we spend all our time fighting all types of discrimination but we pretend not to see the greatest ongoing persecution, the genocide of the world’s Christians. Why? UPDATE: Youtube have censored this “dangerous” video, so below I have found the bitchute version. I will leave the Youtube censored version for all to see. See for yourself how it violated Youtubes Progaganda Terms. The Bitchute link for sharing. The last 2 minutes of the speech is multiplying across Twitter today: Why is the enemy the family?Why is the family so frightening? There is a single answer to all these questions. Because it defines us. Because it is our identity. Because everything that defines us is now an enemy for those who would like us to no longer have an identity, and to simply be the perfect consumer slaves. And so they attack national identity, they attack religious identity, they attack gender identity, they attack family identity. I can’t define myself as Italian, Christian, women, mother, No. I must be citizen x, parent 1, parent 2. I must be a number. Because when I am only a number, when I no longer have an identity or roots, then I will be the perfect slave at the mercy of financial speculators. The perfect consumer. Through evolution we know the incentive for parents to look after offspring is woven right through our genes. No other individuals have a greater natural vested interest in the welfare of children. Scientifically then, it follows that civilizations based on families will be most likely to succeed. Yet to say the banal and obvious is a threat to the power of the Big-State. Meloni is of course a
|
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets
   
 
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2026 JoNova - All Rights Reserved |
||||
Recent Comments