After a 628 day ban for no medical reason, the Australian TGA has decided that our doctors will be allowed to prescribe ivermectin “off label” again, like they did for decades without a problem. Apparently, they don’t have to worry now that crazy people will use it to avoid getting injected with a barely studied, radical new form of drug which had no published data.
From 1 June 2023, prescribing of oral ivermectin for ‘off-label’ uses will no longer be limited…
…there is sufficient evidence that the safety risks to individuals and public health is low when prescribed by a general practitioner in the current health climate.
This considers the evidence and awareness of medical practitioners about the risks and benefits of ivermectin, and the low potential for any shortages of ivermectin for its approved uses. Also, given the high rates of vaccination and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 in Australia, use of ivermectin by some individuals is unlikely to now compromise public health.
Ten years before this decision they knew it was no threat to public health. Ivermectin was known to be so safe researchers fed it to children in a trial to kill head lice in a Canberra primary school in 2010. Back in those medieval days, people were giving horse dewormer to kids, and nobody cared.
When it was banned, the TGA gave three reasons, none of which made sense. In September 2021 the TGA even pretended Australia might run out of ivermectin due to the new demand driven by consenting taxpayers with their doctor’s recommendation. This is a drug that is so mass produced, it costs six cents a tablet and that same month, Indian suppliers sold nearly $3 million USD worth. Yet no one in the Australian government thought to phone Indiamart and put in an order? The shortage was never the problem was it?
How many people died because ivermectin was banned?
One study of 8,300 people in Brazil showed that taking ivermectin regularly before catching Covid halved the odds of catching it, and reduced mortality by 92%. Prophylactic use reduced hospitalization by 98%, and in a dose dependent manner.
If unvaccinated people were threatening our hospital system, it was only ever because they were denied ivermectin by unaccountable, unelected government committees.
Over 20 countries adopted ivermectin for COVID-19. The evidence base is much larger than typically used to approve drugs.
In the end, about 20,000 people died of Covid in Australia, many of who might have been saved, but there have also been some 15,000 Australians who died unexpectedly in 2022, who theoretically might not have died, if their doctors had had the freedom to treat them the way they felt was best. And then there are the businesses destroyed, the billions of dollars wasted, and those who live on, but suffer long term spike related injuries via either long covid or the TGA approved “carrots”.
Craig Kelly: this may have something to do with the former TGA head being sued for misfeasance:
Someone asked “why now”? Craig Kelly replied:
“… the TGA couldn’t hold out forever, as their senior management were risking being personally sued for Malfeasance given the tsunami of evidence rolling in, showing that Ivermectin is highly effective against Covid. Although this is a time for celebration, we should stop and spare a thought for the thousands of Australians that lost their lives in this war, that died unnecessarily from Covid because the TGA denied them access to this life saving Ivermectin. It’s now time for the war crime trials and reparations. –@CKellyUAP
“I think the fact that the recently retired head of TGA was being sued personally for his conduct. It put the new head of the TGA on notice, that they were potentially personally liable – plus the weight of recent studies showing Ivermectin was highly effective. If they maintained the ban, there was a real personal risk, and they’d have no chance defending the ban on merit. — @CKellyUAP
The former TGA head is named in the Class Action. Professor Skerritt (head of the TGA) retired on April 18.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondents’ actions to advance the acceptance and use of the various approved Covid-19 vaccines constitutes negligence and/or misfeasance.
In desperation, some Americans are going to court to get rulings to order doctors to use Ivermectin on their loved ones. One family hired a helicopter to take their mother away from intensive care in a hospital that refused to give Ivermectin and saved her.
There are 20 known mechanisms of action: IVM binds to ACE2, the spike, and TMPSSR2, it is a zinc ionophore, it binds to a protease the virus needs, prevents key viral proteins getting into the cell nucleus which would normally allow the virus to shut down interferon signalling to warn neighboring cells. It’s anti-inflammatory, it blocks the NF-κB pathway, which will reduce Akt/mTOR signalling, which inhibits PAK1 which reduces STAT3 and IL-6. STAT3 induces C-reactive protein (or CRP). It’s impossible for Covid to mutate around all these mechanisms at once. No leaky vaccine should be given without an anti-viral because it risks the mutation of a nastier virus that escapes our immunity. Read the horror of Marek’s disease in chickens. 50 years of leaky vaccines created a disease worse than Ebola. It’s 100% fatal in ten days for unvaccinated chickens.
The FDA and others will say that Ivermectin was no help in the TOGETHER trial, but that trial was designed to fail. People were given low doses on an empty stomach when it wouldn’t be absorbed. And why are other drugs like Remdesivir approved with only one trial and iffy results? Ivermectin is so safe some 3.7 billion doses have already been used around the world. The inventors won a Nobel Prize for its discovery in 2015. By July 2021 there were already signs Ivermectin could save as many as 50%. Why were large trials not started then? The UK “Principle” trial was also designed to fail from the start — signing up people up to 15 days after they tested positive.
— It was a lot of fun. Bear in mind that it was 3pm for Mark and 3am for me. We really are on opposite sides of the world.
What if a volcano blows up underwater, and nobody hears it…?
Doing research for this I wondered if we would know if a volcano erupted under a kilometer of water. The answer, it turns out, is often “Not”. If they don’t trigger a big seismic wave, the best we can do is look for floating rafts of pumice, and discoloured water containing bits of silicon, iron and aluminium oxides. Yes, it’s that bad. Volcano’s might be going off on Earth and we wouldn’t know.
Indeed, after Hunga Tonga surprised everyone — people started to wonder if there might be other volcanic surprises lying in wait on the sea floor. How would we know? We haven’t a clue. A lot of the time we don’t even know after they have erupted — let alone before. People might think there would be a heat signature on the surface of the ocean, but that only works for shallow volcanoes that are already putting out hot lava. With the average ocean four kilometers deep and sometimes up to 11 kilometers deep, a 3 or 4 kilometer mountain can appear on Earth and we likely won’t even notice.
It’s rarely acknowledged, however, that most volcanic activity on Earth occurs beneath the sea. Submarine volcanoes are pretty much ubiquitous in all of the world’s major oceans and it’s estimated that 75% of the Earth’s magma output comes from mid-ocean ridges.
To make things trickier, many known submarine volcanoes are found far from land, and being underwater prevents scientists from observing any changes by conventional means. So how do we monitor them?
Can you imagine what it would cost to install seismic detectors all around the Pacific Rim or along the Atlantic Ridge?
Scientists have managed to install equipment that detects tell-tale tremors on the sea bed before. This research has helped reveal the seismic precursors of a submarine eruption – the signs that one is imminent – similar to what scientists had already documented in volcanoes on land. Installing this equipment does not come cheap though, and it’s not possible to do it everywhere.
An impending eruption can be detected in subtle temperature increases on the volcanic surface. For submarine volcanoes, these are harder to spot. The heat signatures of submarine volcanoes will only ever be visible at the sea surface if a volcano is in shallow water and already erupting hot lava. At that point, it’s too late to warn anybody.
Think of the BOM as an advertising agency for big-government programs, and it all makes sense…
…
Apparently, after the stinging criticism about them, the Bureau of Meteorology is telling journalists and academics that “they publish all the data”. Jennifer Marohasy has been fielding calls and correcting journalists on air who are fooled by this claim. Clearly this isn’t true, or she wouldn’t have needed to spend three years on FOI applications just to get a tiny part of it, (and in the least helpful form possible , like 1,000 sheets of paper). The Bureau not only don’t publish this data, they actively work to hide it and fight FOI’s.
The BOM are not only hiding national temperature data, now they are trying to hide that they are hiding it too. There is some dynamite secret here. Why is it so important — perhaps because it shows that the BOM installed new thermometers that register artificially higher temperatures than the old glass thermometers do? Thousands of “hottest ever records” have been set by new electronic thermometers that might not have been set if we still used traditional thermometers.
If the Bureau can’t be bothered giving us the data, the country shouldn’t be bothered with the “transition” to unreliable expensive energy either (or with paying for the BOM a million dollars a day to study our climate).
Do the Bureau even care about Australia’s climate?
Climate is the biggest threat the world faces they say, but the Bureau of Meteorology aren’t so worried about it that they care whether their new electronic thermometers are correct. After the old glass thermometers were replaced with electronic ones, you’d think the bureau would want to check that the new style was recording the same temperatures as the old style would have. I mean, how could anyone compare temperatures in 1896 with 2016 if the equipment changed and the two instruments were not the same?
It’s easy to show whether the thermometers are equivalent, just put them both in the same box at the same time in parallel, and publish that data, then we’ll all know. The BoM set up the experiment, but the data from it is a national secret. The only conclusion anyone can draw from this behaviour is that the new electronic thermometers are reporting artificially higher temperatures than the old glass ones, and the BoM knows it.
As Jen Marohasy says, Australia is the only place in the world where it only takes one hot second to set a new maximum temperature record:
More than anything the Parasite Rulers fear the coming together of the sensible Left and Right — which is exactly what happened when Naomi Wolf spoke to Tucker Carlson.
In Naomi Wolf’s left-leaning circles, Tucker Carlson was an evil, bad man racist misogynist. But when she tried to talk about vaccine injuries, all her usual media friends ignored her. The last men standing in the US media who would interview her were Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon. Worse, after the interviews the tribal hate started to flow from her soon-to-be-former-friends — somehow the topic didn’t matter: maternal deaths, miscarriages, and erratic periods were all irrelevant — the only thing that mattered was that she had talked to Carlson or Bannon. “How could you” proclaimed the indignant?! All her years of scoring goals for the Left were suddenly worthless.
Naomi Wolf: So I had to face the alarming evidence that the Left now saw anyone “talking to” the opposition, as being magically, publicly, permanently contaminated and contaminating, in some weird anthropological way, and as now being utterly invalidated, and that they believed all of this in some pre-rational, Stone Age sort of belief matrix.
The reaction, though, of horror, from everyone I knew, at my crime of “talking to Tucker Carlson”, horrified me…
If you are a part of Cult of Unreason, by definition, the rulers have to use banishment and fear to keep the followers following. They can’t reason, after all. The apostates must be punished.
Soon, she and her husband found themselves watching Tucker Carlson for the first time and discovering to her distress, that his monologues often made sense…
Mr Carlson and I spent most of our careers not in alignment on anything; for decades, our places were adversarial on the public chess board. He had assumed that I was the caricature of a shrieking, irrational left-wing feminist —a view for which he has had the good grace publicly to apologize — and I, for my part, was ready to accept that he must be the boorish, sexist, racist, homophobic frat boy that the progressive news outlets I read, relentlessly insisted that he was. I almost never watched his show, so my preconceptions could flourish uncorrected.
That said, I did find it odd that everyone around me in the “liberal elite” media hated him so violently — the way they hated President Trump; but that when I pressed for concrete reasons why, they could not provide them.
And the hate begins, and from people who were “even a friend”:
I appeared a few times on his show, to air my concerns.
Right away the left-wing “watchdog” Media Matters — run by someone who had been a former acquaintance, even a friend, of ours in DC, the former conservative who had turned Democrat, David Brock — went after me aggressively, with a systematic character assassination on Twitter and on the Media Matters website, engineered by CNN reporter Matt Gertz — a “journalist” who was actually funded to track and attack guests on Fox News: “Fox Keeps Hosting Pandemic Conspiracy Theorist Naomi Wolf”.
(It also consigned millions of women to damaged menses and infertility, by helping to silence this emerging discussion. Maternal deaths are up 40 per cent now, due to compromises of women’s fertility post-MRNA injection. A million babies are missing in Europe. Great work, Mr Gertz, Mr Brock. You will take those harms, that you inflicted upon women and babies, to your graves.)
From now on, nothing she did would be worthy:
But having appeared on Mr Carlson’s show, to raise these and other real concerns, I also was peppered ceaselessly with nasty comments from my own “side.” Why? Because I had talked to Tucker Carlson. That was literally how they phrased my “crime.”
This was the first real confrontation I had with the unreason and the cultlike thinking that were engulfing my “team”. I kept receiving messages, emails, DMs and direct confrontations by phone, with friends and loved ones and even family members.
How can you talk to Tucker Carlson??
I noted with concern that they did not say that I was wrong, or that my assertions were baseless, or even that his assertions were baseless.
This applied with her interview with Steve Bannon, Trump’s former advisor, and even perhaps more so.
Then she and her husband started watching Tucker Carlson:
Well, by this time my husband was watching Mr Carlson’s show. I observed myself experiencing waves of prejudice and of squirming anxiety as I also began to watch his show. To my distress, I found that many of his monologues made sense to me.
They were not unreasonable, by and large, and they were not hate-filled; to the contrary.
I had been told that he was racist. And indeed I recoiled at his signature giggle as he mocked the epithet: “Racist!” But as I actually forced myself to listen, sitting in my discomfort and programmed aversion, observing the reactions in myself (as the Buddhists urge one to do), I realized — he was not in fact a racist.
I realized as I listened that his stories about immigration were not anti-immigrant…
I learned that he was not actually transphobic, as I had been told…
No one would talk to Naomi:
Silence from the US TV networks. Silence from The Washington Post. From The Guardian. Silence from NPR. Silence from the BBC, the Sunday Times of London, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, my reliable former outlets. Even silence from other overseas news outlets. All of these had, until 2020, been happy to respond to what I sent…
So I was in the head-spinning position of realizing that these two men, Carlson and Bannon, both unwavering conservatives, both of whom I had been told represented Evil Incarnate, were the possessors of the only major platforms interested in the hard and fast evidence of the greatest crime in history and of the direct threat to our Republic, of which I was warning; and that every other news outlet, all on the liberal side, indeed around the world, was rushing headlong into the sea of lies…
There shalt be no conversation between the Left and the Right, because it is the antidote.
One of her appearances on Tucker Carlson tonight in April 2022.
The experiment is to close the Liddell power station in NSW and see what happens. Liddell’s operator, AGL, has applied to the NSW Government to blow up the power station rather than leave it in a form that can be restarted. This is the military equivalent of burning your bridges behind you — the expedition succeeds or you die.
Liddell’s big value to AGL was not to generate electricity but to buy and sabotage “the competition”
Like so many parts of the Western economy, the predators buy up the cheaper end of the market in order to destroy them. AGL are the largest single generator in Australia. They own a portfolio of gas, hydro, wind and solar power, all of which will likely make higher profits with Liddell out of the way.
It shows how screwed our electricity market truly is when billion-dollar assets producing cheap electricity are better off destroyed. Hello, AEMO our energy market operator — are you listening? And ultimately, Hello Anthony Albanese (the current PM). He commands this ship of crazy rules. The market is just doing “what makes sense” — and generators are not rewarded for making cheaper electricity as much as they are rewarded for destroying it.
As I wrote in 2018, the analysts at JP Morgan were frank about AGL’s strategy — let’s translate their investor-speak: if AGL sold it to Alinta and Liddell kept operating, it might “unfortunately” keep electricity prices lower which would hurt all of AGL’s other generators. We can’t have that…
Selling the power station to Alinta would hurt the wholesale prices that AGL can charge for energy from its other assets, the analysts said, while also helping a rival that is determined to eat into AGL’s market share. Operationally, Liddell and AGL’s nearby Bayswater power station are supplied with coal from a single coal loader and are subject to a number of contracts that would need to be unwound.
“Extending (Liddell) would likely have a negative impact on wholesale prices,and therefore the value of the rest of AGL’s generation assets; it would support the growth of a competitor in electricity retailing; and a separation from Bayswater would be complicated with the two assets intrinsically linked,” JPMorgan said. — Paul Garvey, The Australian.
Lower wholesale prices means “good news for customers” but “bad news for expensive retailers” — like owners of renewable generators.
How wiping out cheap generators makes all other generators richer
This, below, was the bid-stack of our national grid ten years ago. The AEMO (market operator) accepts every bid from the cheapest on the left up to the last bid needed to meet the current demand. All successful bidders are paid whatever the top successful bid was. By taking out the cheaper providers on the left, the whole stack shifts “left” and higher bids must be accepted to meet demand.
Liddell is the third “brown” supplier from the left. *( Not graphed: most diesel plants costing more than $350/MWh because they blow the scale away.)
The cross ownership of assets makes predatory capitalism possible
Once upon a time governments were meant to protect consumers from this sort of thing. If 20 separate companies colluded together to rig the market so they’d all be better off but at the consumers expense, we’d call that a cartel. But if one company buys 20 smaller companies then doing the same thing is just “managing the portfolio”. See how this works?
On the Australian national grid there are three large conglomerate players who make most of our electricity (and who also do retail sales of electricity). AGL is marked in blue, and the market dominance is obvious — singlehandedly generating around 40% of the electricity required in our two most populated states.
We wouldn’t be in this mess if each separate power plant was competing in the free market to make a profit for itself and there weren’t holy subsidies for intermittent green electrons too.
Some are blaming the privatisation of an electricity generator — if you can call it that, when it was given away for free like a toxic frog. But the bigger crime was nationalizing our electricity market and issuing pagan commandments that we use our generators as giant weather changing machinery.
But thank your central banker for keeping interest rates artificially low for years so the rich could do the takeover and merger dance to remove the competition.
Last word to John McRobert:
With the closing of Liddell power station and other closures pending, we might as well cut back on our defence budget. Soon there will be nothing left to defend.
Despite the courageous words of our Energy Minister Chris Bowen that there will be no power shortages – he who believes that climate can be controlled by legislation – the words of an old, sad song resonate: “Hello darkness my old friend.”
Vale Liddell, and may those you have served so well never forget you.
Tucker Carlson released a small statement on Twitter seventeen hours ago, and so far 17.7 million people have watched it.
With 77,000 comments under one two minute video it is the World’s Public Town Square.
And it’s a great speech:
“One thing you realize when you step outside the noise for a few days is how genuinely nice most people are…”
“The other thing you notice is how unbelievably stupid most of the debates you see on television are… they are completely irrelevant… and yet at the same time the undeniably big topics, the ones that will define our future… get virtually no discussion at all: war, civil liberties, emerging science, demographic change, natural resources… when was the last time we heard a legitimate debate about any those topics?
Debates like that are not permitted. Both political parties and their donors have reached consensus on what benefits them, and they actively collude to shut down conversation.
Suddenly the United States looks very much like a one party state.”
“That’s a depressing realization… but it won’t last. This moment is too inherently ridiculous to last, so it won’t. The people in charge know this — that’s is why they are hysterical.”
“When honest people say what’s true, calmly and without embarrassment, they become powerful”.
(Which views? Twitter lists views of the video inside the video, and views of the Tweet underneath. There have been 55 million views of the Tweet and 16 million views of the video.)
Did I mention Tucker’s firing would be great for Twitter? Naturally Elon Musk promptly welcomed Tucker Carlson. But the bigger question in this era of Establishment lawfare is who will pay the legal bills if Tucker launches a new show and the Witch-hunters come hunting, as they surely will?
The legal threat from the British Watchdog Ofcom took Mark Steyn off the air when the management at GB News announced he personally would have to be liable for any Ofcom fines, as if any commentator could afford that. When defamation cases cost $787 million, and the punishments apply only to those who question the narrative, there is no free speech unless you are a Central Banker.
People are waking up to the dark side of the Absolute Zero plan
The totalitarian wet dreams of a UK government consortium of academics are lighting up the internet. As Benny Peiser and Andrew Montford from NetZeroWatch say — people are starting to pay attention in a big way:
The realities of Net Zero are also hitting home for the general public. The threat that the project represents to livelihoods and liberties is becoming more evident by the day. Recently, the mathematician Norman Fenton tweeted an excerpt from a Government-funded report that set out what Net Zero U.K. might look like: no airports, no shipping, no beef and lamb to eat, and most food imports eliminated. Sounds grim, doesn’t it? Lots of people thought so, and the tweet went viral, garnering over three million views.
The Prof Norman Fenton thread that got 3.4 million views on Twitter is, would you believe, about a 2019 UK Government funded research report. Who knew the masses could get that excited about a 31 page prehistoric report on energy policy, but holy-cajoley: it’s a wake up call of just how savage the Absolute Zero plan aims to be. And this matters more than you might think. Without magical new technologies the current Net Zero targets can only be achieved with Absolute Zero emissions.
With no new magical inventions this is “the Gap”
How much will the totalitarians end up getting — as much as we we let them
That report from the UK FIRES research programme is rather tamely calledAbsolute Zero: Delivering the UK’s climate change commitment with incremental changes to today’s technologies, as if we just need baby steps to get there.
But instead, as Fenton highlights, the key points are all mapped out in gruesome detail — just as if a well funded group of academic ideologues unleashed their fantasies with no constraints. The acceleration is breathtaking: all airports except Heathrow, Belfast & Glasgow need to close by 2030. There will be no flying at all by 2050. As far as cars go, there needs to be no new petrol/diesel cars by 2030; by 2050 road use is restricted to 60% of today’s level.
All the things you love like food, heating and energy will be restricted to 60% of today’s level by 2050. So life will be a lot colder and hungrier unless there’s a lot fewer people to share it with. And naturally the ’15 minute prisons‘, I mean ‘cities’ are key to all of this.
It is The Great Reset in glossy grand bureaucratic art:
Click to see the chart. Seriously…
Click to Enlarge “The Absolute Zero Plan”. Source: UK FIRES
It’s much closer to real policy than you might think
It’s only a research report, not an act of Parliament (yet), but as Norman Fenton points out, Net Zero is morphing into Absolute Zero, because Absolute Zero is what has to happen if the UK current Net Zero policy is going to achieve targets that are already set in legislation:
Fenton: And for those who still think the absolute zero agenda is not baked in to Govt thinking, note that it only differs from the official net zero agenda in its 2030 objectives (i.e. the speed at which it must happen). The 2050 objectives are the same.
… In other words, the inhumane FIRES project strategy is simply a realistic statement of what is required to meet the UK Govt’s insane net zero 2050 target as enshrined in the 2019 Climate Change Act amendment (which every political party supported but nobody voted for).
Net Zero has to morph to Absolute Zero
Julian Allwood is one of the authors and a Cambridge University Engineering Professor and he’s scathing about the reality of the current “Net Zero” plans which rely on future discoveries. He said all this in 2021:
The government’s roadmap is based on a “fantastically religious belief”, Allwood said, that fledgling, future technologies can deliver the 68 per cent cut in emissions that needs to be made in the next nine years to keep the country’s COP26 pledge.
“Net-zero doesn’t mean anything”
As a result, he argued that we should be aiming for “absolute zero” rather than net-zero by 2050.
This sentiment was echoed by prominent philosopher Timothy Morton… The tub represents the atmosphere and the water atmospheric carbon … You’ve still got the bath full of water,” he said. “That’s the problem. We have to actually get the bath down lower.” “Net-zero doesn’t mean anything,” Morton continued. “One of the translations of net-zero by 2050 is: I support mass extinction.”
Absolute zero requires giving up cement and air travel
“…there’s huge potential for innovation. But it’s not the innovation of magic beans fertilised by unicorn’s blood, which is all that’s in the political climate today. It’s new businesses that are truly compatible with zero emissions.”
The same guys that complain about the religious faith of Net Zero fantasies are the ones who have a religious faith that CO2 is a problem in the first place, O’ Believers of Holy Climate Models!
Fenton was interviewed by Laura Ingraham a few weeks ago:
This is the same Professor Norman Fenton readers here might remember from the Dec 2021 vaccine study in the UK which had those incendiary graphs of excess deaths in the UK following the peak of vaccination in every age group. His graphs of mortality in the UK are still my first choice to show that the link between excess deaths and vaccination in a cause and effect sense.
Let it be known that the skeptics are, and always have been, the environment’s best friend. The Greens, sadly are the wilderness wrecking, naive minions of the Establishment Powers who will sacrifice whales in a quest to impress their industrial banker overlords. They tell themselves they are saving whales 100 years from now with the same windmills that kill the whales today.
Our good friends at Heartland and CFACT are working to stop the insanity in a guerilla campaign.
“It’s gone from ‘Save the Whales’ to ‘Kill the Whales.’ And the green groups that have promoted Earth Day for 53 years are totally okay with this agenda.”
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow president Craig Rucker said the push to build the wind farms comes “despite growing evidence that whales are being impacted by the preliminary sonar blasting being conducted to site windmills, as well as scores of the marine mammals washing up dead on beaches.”
Steve Milloy, a senior fellow at the Energy and Environment Legal Institute who sits on Heartland’s board of directors, told The Post that the ad campaign reveals how “Orwellian” government action on the environment has become.
“As the Biden administration is literally permitting the offshore wind industry to kill endangered whales under the guise of ‘saving the planet,’ Earth Day has gone 180 degrees from where it started and has become truly Orwellian,” Milloy said.
Fossil fuels can save whales in more ways than one…
David Wojick has added up the full tally of requests for permission of industrial windmills to harm or kill Right Whales “accidentally” and it adds up to twice the total known population:…
NOAA proposes hammering 208% of vanishing Right Whales
David Wojick
David Wojick, CFACT
Okay it is a trick headline because they can only hammer 100% of the severely endangered North Atlantic Right Whale population. The point is that NOAA is proposing, for offshore wind development, to authorize a horrific 706 cases of physical harassment of Right Whales, whose dwindling population is down to just 340 magnificent critters.
The average whale will get hammered roughly twice. The Right Whales migrate along the coast twice a year. Migration requires repeatedly running a gauntlet of dangerous offshore wind projects. Most likely some whales will be hit many times.
At this rate there won’t be many Right Whales left for the Greens to save in 2123AD.
Just like that: Fox News and Tucker Carlson have “Parted Ways”. His last show was last Friday, and he did not know at the time. There’s no farewell for the top rating show in America and no replacement host, just a “rotating” generic vague fill-in show. It doesn’t look like this was planned for months in advance? Fox News stocks immediately fell 4%.
Tucker Carlson Tonight was the most watched cable news show in the US. His audience was over 3 million people in the audience every day (not to mention the rest on social media). It’s not clear why this happened but there is speculation that it’s related to the Dominion case settlement.
There is no one more influential in US media. Tucker interviews anyone he wants for as long as he wants in the most powerful nation on Earth — in the last two weeks, for example, Trump for 40 minutes, and Elon Musk for an hour (on Artificial Intelligence).
He shapes the news. If they can silence Tucker, they can silence anyone. It may define a pivot point in US history — the end of something like free speech on TV or Cable apart from a few tiny outlets. He is the bravest commentator on TV.
This makes Twitter and Elon Musk more important than ever as the last major media outlet that allows views of half the voters to be expressed.
@TuckerCarlson is by far the most important person in U.S. media.
Nobody in journalism in my lifetime has been equivalent to @TuckerCarlson. Lots of lefty journos who “set the agenda” really were just regime narrative enforcers/amplifiers. Tucker was the only person who could make national stories out of narratives the regime wanted buried.
“Tea Leaves: @TuckerCarlson & Elonmusk start a nightly show exclusively on Twitter. Tucker becomes the richest man in the media.
Carlson produces from a studio at his home, so already many are saying where will he go next? But this is a dangerous moment in history. With Fox settling the Dominion legal case, has it become too risky for free speech anywhere?
Related? Tucker Carlson speech on Friday night:
“How many people break under the strain of the downward pressure of whatever this is that we are going through. We look with disdain and sadness as we see people you know become quislings, you see them revealed as cowards, you see them going along with the new new thing, it is clearly a poisonous thing, a silly thing, saying things you know they don’t believe because they want to keep their job.”
Tucker was the cable host who most: * Opposed US proxy war in Ukraine; * Denounced CIA, FBI and DHS for its systemic lies and corruption; * Devoted himself to a pardon for Julian Assange; * Objected to regime change efforts in Cuba; * Criticized Trump Admin’s militarism.
I would also add:
Tucker: *Asked the hard questions about vaccines. *Pointed out the Pharmaceutical companies bought advertising on the media to buy friendly “reporting”. *Pushed back against the Climate religion, and Energy Madness. *Pointed out Twitter used to be a subsidiary of the CIA. *Spoke about the threat from China. *Asked why the DOJ didn’t investigate Hunter Biden.
Only 3% of Australians know the true state of the Reef!
Ten years ago, coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef hit record lows. The news has been full of dire reports of bleaching ever since, but quietly, a phenomenal recovery was blossoming across the full 2,000 kilometer span of the reef. Last year coral cover hit a record high — better than any year since records began in 1986. Corals are thriving but Australians are spending half a billion dollars to save them?
I’m a Director of the Australian Environment Foundation, and after this new record, I worked with fellow Director Peter Ridd to arrange surveys to find out whether Australians had heard the news. What we found was a nation mis-informed.
I am honored to issue the report below. Please forward it on, send letters to the Editors and tell the world. Consider joining the AEF to help us get more science into environmental debates.
— Jo
_________________________________________
Great Barrier Reef in record coral cover but 97% of Australians don’t know it
Australian Environment Foundation (AEF)
23 April 2023
Left in the dark, Australians are wasting money on the wrong environmental issues
“Almost nobody realises that the reef has near record high coral cover according to the last survey carried out by the Australian Institute of Marine science” (AIMS) said Tom Bostock, the Australian Environment Foundation’s (AEF) president.
In the last 36 years the Great Barrier Reef has never had more coral. AIMS have been conducting detailed underwater surveys since 1986, and the most recent study showed the reef is in excellent health. Despite that, when 1,004 Australians were surveyed last year by the Australian Environment Foundation, remarkably, less than 3% of them knew the coral cover was “at a record high”. All up, only 10% of Australians realized that coral cover is even above average, leaving 80% of the country falsely thinking the situation was average or worse, and another ten percent having no idea at all.
Click to enlarge
So ten years after coral cover hit a record low, half the country still doesn’t realize the reef has recovered. It’s almost as if Australians have been subject to years of misinformation. The poor score reflects badly on the media coverage that reports on every local bleaching event, but rarely on the rapid recovery.
There has been two years of great news on the reef. In 2021 AIMS recorded the equal highest ever coral cover and amazingly, in 2022, it broke all previous records. While both these events received a perfunctory story, they are rarely mentioned after that to add perspective on the prophesies of doom. The phenomenal health of the Great Barrier Reef is virtually unknown to Australians, yet they are paying over half a billion dollars in taxes to “save” it, and are misled into thinking that expensive low carbon policies and Net Zero targets will help protect the reef when there is no correlation between CO2 levels and coral cover.
Half of all man-made emissions of CO2 ever emitted have been produced since these coral surveys were started, yet there is no measurable effect on coral cover.
The record coral cover is all the more remarkable given that there have been three mass coral bleaching crises in the last five years. It shows corals have a dynamic vitality to cope with stresses that must have occurred thousands of times . This leaves voters unable to judge where environmental funds should be directed and leaves many people feeling needlessly anxious.
If the Great Barrier Reef had been at an all-time record low, as it was in 2012, we know the university and media outlets would ensure most people were aware of it. We would consider them failing in their duty if they did not. But now, when the corals are healthy, the silence is deafening, and ultimately that’s bad for the environment.
There are only so many funds available, and if Australians have little idea how quickly the Great Barrier Reef recovers, we miss the most urgent issues while trying to save things that are largely managing themselves.
Click to enlarge. Figure 4: Coral cover for the Great Barrier Reef as measured by the AIMS Long Term Monitoring Program. Supposedly “devastating” bleaching events were recorded in 2016, 2017, 2020, and 2022, (red dots). The GBR has record high coral cover in 2022, and at least twice as much coral as in 2011/2012. Coral is a slow growing organism, so this graph is proof that institutions claiming major coral loss due to bleaching grossly exaggerated. Uncertainty margin is approximately ±0.04
Who is to blame if Australians are misinformed?
Australian taxpayers pay institutions to give them accurate information. It’s supposedly the reason the ABC and SBS exist. This also reflects badly on agencies like AIMS, GBRMPA, the CSIRO, the BOM and the universities with specialist teams of marine biologists (like James Cook Uni). They are all letting the nation down.
Four years ago the CSIRO and BoM’s “State of the Climate” report told us 30 per cent of all coral cover across the entire Great Barrier Reef was lost. This year, they told us “more frequent and severe coral bleaching events are likely” but did not even mention the excellent health of the reef. How is that reasonable?
Where are the professors? If the media misinform Australians it’s the expert’s job to pick up the phone and correct the record. Is the real problem that unfounded fears serve those who apply for taxpayer grants, and who have no incentive to lower the sense of panic on the reef?
Where is the media? Journalists are supposed to grill professors to make sure they are providing value for taxpayers, not sensationalist self-serving hyperbole.
The voters who were the most concerned were also the worst informed
An astonishing 44% of Green voters thought the coral cover was at a record low — the most incorrect answer possible. All up, more than 75% of Greens thought the reef was doing worse than usual. They were the most misinformed.
58% of Labor voters and 50% of Independents also thought the Great Barrier Reef corals were below average or at an all time record low. Whereas 39% of Liberal voters were also largely wrong, which was better, but still only 15% thought the reef was above average or at a record high.
The voters with the most accurate idea were the One Nation voters with a quarter largely correctly aware the reef was at least above average or at a record high.
Greens and Labor voters were the most ill informed and pessimistic. Click to enlarge.
The survey showed that ignorance about these reassuring results was spread across Australia with similar patterns in every state and every income group. Men were slightly better informed than women (13% of men realized that coral cover is higher than average, whereas only 8% of women did).
These results were also largely confirmed in an earlier similar survey of 1,007 people in February 2022. In that survey only 7% of voters correctly said the coral cover on the Barrier Reef was “well above average”.
_________________________________________
Compass Polling surveyed 1,004 Australians online on September 13-14, 2022 six weeks after the news of the “record high”.
Question: Compared to the last thirty years, what do you think the state of the coral coverage on the Great Barrier Reef is today? Answers: Record High, Above Average, Average, Below Average, Record Low, Don’t know.
Join the The Australian Environment Foundation (AEF) The Australian Environmental Foundation (AEF) is a charity dedicated to protecting the environment, while preserving the rule of law, property rights, and the freedom of the individual.
One study of 8,300 people in Brazil showed that taking ivermectin regularly before catching Covid halved the odds of catching it, and reduced mortality by 92%. Prophylactic use reduced hospitalization by 98%, and in a dose dependent manner.
Recent Comments