Ultimately the Australian Government is responsible for the deaths of Australians, and the deaths of their businesses and jobs, due to the banning of a safe, cheap early treatment for Covid.
Scott Morrison
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Health, could change this. But Scott Morrison and Greg Hunt hide behind The TGA as if an unelected, unaudited committee really rules Australia.
Ivermectin has not just saved lives, but virtually eliminated Covid-19 from Uttar Pradesh, and Indonesia. Some 3.8 billion doses of what’s been called a “wonder drug” have been used around the world. This is a drug is so safe we have fed it to school children in Canberra.
In the last three months Indonesian doctors used ivermectin to cut Covid cases by 98% but at the same time Australia banned ivermectin and relied on vaccination and oppressive lockdowns yet grew cases 500%. If countries larger, poorer and more densely populated can use Ivermectin why can’t Australian doctors prescribe it? Do we give Australian doctors the best education in the world so that they are nothing but robots controlled by an unaccountable committee, or will we allow Doctors to provide the best treatment they believe their patients need?
In 30 Random Controlled Trials, ivermectin prevented 84% of infections. In early treatment it helped 63% of people. Instead of 160,000 cases in Australia, with widespread ivermectin use we could have reduced that just 25,000 and stopped the lockdowns after weeks instead of months.
Australia has no early treatment, we are abandoning people to a virus that almost certainly leaked from a Chinese laboratory. The TGA did not even ban Ivermectin because Australians with prescriptions might be hurt by it, they banned a safe drug because “people might not get vaxed”. Are Australian lives the first concern of Morrison and Hunt, or are the profits of Big Pharmaceutical companies more important? Judge them by their actions.
Indonesia banned ivermectin then relented when a few key politicians championed the cause. Australia can do that too.
On 11th September 2021 the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) took the unprecedented step of effectively banning the prescribing of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 infection in Australia. Contrary to ill-informed media reporting, ivermectin is an important drug which has been used clinically worldwide for several decades, it is on the WHO list of Essential Drugs and has a wide margin of safety compared to most other drugs (including over the counter medications). This petition objects in the strongest possible terms to the banning of ivermectin prescribing for COVID-19 for the following reasons: (1) The banning of ivermectin prescribing ignores the wealth of published clinical trial safety and efficacy evidence in the medical literature supporting the use of ivermectin for the management of COVID-19; (2) The banning of ivermectin prescribing removes a potentially valuable early treatment option for symptomatic COVID-19-infected individuals, in contrast to current health policy of observing such individuals without active treatment until they either get better or worse (and are possibly hospitalized); (3) The banning of ivermectin prescribing for COVID-19 with the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship and the freedom of Australians to choose their own health solutions based on their doctor’s advice.
We therefore ask the House to ensure the immediate repeal of the TGA statement on Ivermectin, and to provide a firm assurance to the Australian people that overreach of this kind by a Federal Government agency will never again limit access to safe treatments in a non-consultative and unilateral manner.
What’s the definition of The Greatest Global Pushover in the world? How about the nation that is often the worlds top exporter of coal and fifth biggest for gas, with the biggest distances, the lowest population density, fastest population growth, in a land where electricity prices have doubled, but which has already cut emissions by a staggering 46% each while adding more renewable energy per capita than any nation on Earth. Yet we worry about being “left behind” or called a pariah?
The hard numbers: Australian emissions have been cut 46% per capita, while the population grew 50% larger and the GDP grew 135%.
Scott Morrison might be the worst negotiator on Earth. He failed to explain our achievements, to defend Australian workers, farmers and households and the voters who voted for him, to reach a deal that’s remotely fair. Teenage girls are gaslighting him. Bullies who serve bankers, greens and China pretend that Australians past carbon dioxide reductions don’t count because we achieved them by Land Use and Forestry. Lordy — Australians grew trees. The travesty! It only shows that the carbon game has nothing to do with the environment and nothing to do with carbon dioxide either. Do megatons of CO2 matter or don’t they?
Emissions per capita (grey line) are exceptional, but emissions per GDP dollar (orange line) are even better. Blakers, A., Stocks, M., and Lu, B. (2019) Australia: the renewable energy superstar, APO Analysis and Policy Observatory, ANU, [PDF]
Per capita, Australia (all shades of red) blitzed the field for installing renewables
Australia is more dependent on mining and resources than most other developed nations:
Fully fifty percent of Australian exports are from mining. These are the most energy intensive exports on Earth, and the world needs these resources. Someone has to dig them up somewhere around the world, yet Australians’ get lumbered with all the emissions accrued in getting these minerals out of the ground? We’ve shifted some of our Aluminium smelters overseas, and to what end? Their smelters are less efficient, carbon emissions have increased, Australian jobs and profits have gone. Who benefits from the rigged carbon shell game? Our competitors.
Australia is not falling behind even by the normal EU-biased way of accounting
The idea that Australia lags behind is a nonsense-stick to beat good people with. The usual way of comparing emissions reductions is per country, not per capita. This suits the EU. Even so Australia has set a similar target compared to everywhere else, which only goes to show how bad our negotiators were. A long time ago, in the first Kyoto agreement John Howard’s team negotiated an 8% increase in emissions for Australia which made some allowance for our rapidly growing population, distances, and energy dependent export industries. Since then, Australian politicians have only managed to weekly, meekly, “join the pack” at our great disadvantage, and at the same time get harangued for not doing even more.
Australians have cut emissions by 46% each, added more renewables per capita than anywhere on Earth, all without Net Zero.
The net cost of Net Zero includes all the glorious subsidies, the extra transmission lines, the rising FCAS bill, the blackouts, the emergency demand management, the damage from surging voltages, the wasted capital expenditure, the squads of flying diesels, synchronous condensors, and the burden that unreliable energy dumps on the whole grid. In the US windpower makes gas power $30/MWh more expensive, — the intermittent generators are vandals on the system, destroying productivity and profits of the good generators.
China is holding a busted flush in the Global Green Poker game. In late summer, local bureaucrats in two-thirds of China’s provinces started enforcing power-saving measures on companies, but after four weeks of rolling blackouts the middle kingdom is so desperate for coal it can’t keep pretending to be Green. The Rust Belt factories were grinding down, homes were even losing power, winter is knocking at the door and the only thing with fuel in China were the prices. It’s the worst energy crisis in a decade, and there’s no holding out for another three weeks to fool the rest of the world into thinking it cares about “carbon”.
Instead a national communist committee called the China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) has apparently ordered mines to go all out — and they are. The word is that China is now digging up nearly 12 million tons of coal each and every day. If they keep this up it will be a “One Billion Ton” quarter, and potentially nearly a 4-billion-ton year. That’s about 8 times Australias entire annual production and about six times the US’s.
“China could see its worst winter power shortage since 2010,” said Citigroup analyst Tracy Liao. “This would increase stagflation risks and growth pressure on the Chinese and the global economy over the coming winter, push energy prices higher and propel large-scale curtailments in commodity downstream sectors.”
It’s hard to overstate the squeeze on supply. Senior managers from State Power Investment Corp., one of the country’s largest power firms, and representatives from southern Guizhou province met late last month with key coal supplier China Shenhua Energy Co. A request for 3 million tons of the fuel ended with an agreement for only an additional 30,000 tons. The miner simply couldn’t guarantee production would rise enough to offer more.
The lurch to burn more coal comes despite President Xi Jinping’s commitment to reduce China’s consumption of the most-polluting fossil fuel from 2026. The nation was the only major polluter to record higher emissions in 2020 than a year earlier, and that annual volume is expected to rise again. It’s an awkward reality with global climate talks scheduled to open in the coming days.
… Indonesia is now China’s biggest overseas coal supplier and last months’ shipments hit a record of 21 million tonnes. Indonesia’s coal is lower-grade and worse for the environment to boot.
China turned to Indonesia after coal from Australia was banned last year during Beijing’s ugly coronavirus feud with Canberra. China planned to make up for the shortfall by extracting more coal from Mongolia, but the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic hammered the Mongolian coal industry, leaving frustrated delivery drivers stranded in refugee camps without pay.
One enterprising Australian supplier, Coronado Global Resources Inc, got around the ban by selling coal from its mines in the United States to China. The Chinese are hungry enough for coal to play along.
When we last looked at Indonesia their massive wave in Covid cases had just peaked after ivermectin was approved again on July 15th. Since then the cases have dropped from 50,000 a day to about 900. On a per capita basis today Indonesia is managing Covid about ten times better than Australia. Think about that.
Remember the reason for the Indonesian surge. In June, they had a controlled rolling caseload of 5,000 a day. It was not rising thanks to a philanthropist called Haryoseno who had been arranging for ivermectin supplies at low cost to help people. But in a fit of modern-medicine, in line with the deadly WHO recommendations, the Indonesian government banned ivermectin on June 12th. Cases took off. Mayhem ensued. And about 90,000 people died in the following surge.
“Indonesians have ignored health warnings to stock up on a “miracle cure” for COVID-19 backed by leading politicians and social media influencers, as an out-of-control virus surge sweeps the country.”
By July 15th the Indonesian government relented, and BPOM approved Ivermectin as Covid-19 Therapeutic Drug. By July 18th new daily cases peaked across Indonesia and now they are lower than they were before. During the surge, at least two million Indonesians were infected.
All bell curves look the same, but some are bigger than others. Timing is everything. OWID
…
Google Trends show Indonesians were searching for ivermectin in early July. The average Indonesian apparently knows more about treating Covid than our Minister of Health. More even than our Chief Medical Officer.
There was one popular search in Indonesia as cases rocketed.
Greg Hunt could have managed the Covid debacle so much better if he’d just phoned up a pharmacist in Bali.
Compare the Rich-mans Vax plan
Australia, on the other hand, decided to vaccinate 15 million people or 70% of the entire population and still has twice as many cases as Indonesia does — even though Indonesia has ten times as many people and only on third of the government revenue.
The Australian TGA committee banned ivermectin on Sept 11th, by the way, possibly to make sure we didn’t accidentally eliminate Covid, or Pfizer’s third quarter profits. Who can tell?
That lockdown-and-vax plan and the roadmap to freedom doesn’t seem to be working too well. In Australia billions of dollars were burnt at the stake, not to mention the health risks of using experimental prophylactics, while Indonesia reduced Covid cases by 98% for about point-one percent of the cost and the main side effects were the deaths of worms, lice and bed bugs.
If Gladys had just dished out the Ivermectin — Uttar Pradesh style — on July 5th, the outbreak would have been over in a few weeks.
Australia vaccinated 70% of the population and locked down its two largest states to control Covid and still hasn’t succeeded. Source: OWID
Since July 18th when Indonesia cases peaked, Australian cases have grown from 31,000 to 150,000.
The only thing more scary than the Ministry of Health’s incompetence is that politicians and philanthropists in the third world have more freedom than Australian ones do. The Indonesian media is more worth watching than the Australian ABC.
At this point people are still dying who could be saved.
As David Archibald says “It means that Australia could end its covid problem anytime it wanted to at hardly any expense at all. Our government would be aware of what the Indonesians have achieved. It also means that any covid deaths from here on are state-sanctioned murder. “
Coercion is not consent. 60% of the state is double vaccinated, and the deadline to comply with these new appalling rules announced yesterday will be Jan 31, 2022. People who don’t obey will be fined an extraordinary $20,000 and their employers $100,000. This effectively gives people a “choice” (not) of Jab or Job and thus, I assume, legally they won’t be able to sue for wrongful dismissal. They will have to quit or get injected. New rules will prohibit the unvaccinated from travelling interstate, even though there are antivirals, and monoclonal antibodies that would make travel safer and be much more effective against transmission of SARS-2 than the current first generation leaky-vaccinations which will probably bring in the virus on the first week flights are allowed with no quarantine. (UPDATE: McGowan said it was an error that this was put on the website, but implies “it’s coming”).
There is Zero Covid in WA, the freedom has been extraordinary and fantastic. There are no chicomm bioweapons, no masks, no distancing, pubs are packed, we can dance and sing and visit our old folks, and there has only been a tiny 12 days of lockdowns in the last 15 months, for which we feel incredibly lucky and very grateful. We wish all our friends could live like this too — like Covid doesn’t exist. The lack of the virus, though, probably means vaccination rates have slowed and hence these new draconian rules are seen as the only way to raise the rates further. The ABC has a story with a headline saying “Around Five Percent” won’t get vaxxed, but the URL and text tells us the real number is 15%. More lies from the ABC.
Apparently that success has to end, not because the voters want that, because they don’t, but because Gladys infected the nation and other corporates, like Qantas, and other state and Federal governments are clamouring to open WA, and presumably NT, SA, QLD and Tasmanian borders too.
Vaccination will become mandatory across a range of new industries covering about 75 per cent of WA’s workforce, with employers and employees facing fines if they do not comply.
The new Climate Consensus is just a junk keyword survey.
Climate change is a branch of science that’s immature, complex, and has error bars a hundred miles wide. If 99% of scientists say the same thing, it’s a cult, not a science. The climate is not man-made but the irrelevant consensus surely is.
By studying words in industry publications, Mark Lynas thinks he’s discovered a scientific truth. Instead he has just shown that skeptics get purged from peer review. It’s official now, 99% of peer reviewed articles have to say they believe in order to get published.
He thought he was doing climate science but instead he studied sociology. If Mark Lynas proved anything it’s that he doesn’t know what science is, and only unskeptical papers pass peer review. It’s a sad sad statement about the state of the scientific-industry.
Hypothetically, if we cared at all about unscientific opinion-polling of climate scientists, we’d just opinion-poll them. He could run up a survey and email it out. It’d still be a fallacy, but at least it would tell us what scientists thought. Instead, Mark Lynas and co have taken a long roundabout route to poll them by proxy. It’s the oddly hard-work-way to get an answer to a profoundly unscientific question that shouldn’t be asked in the first place. Science is not a democracy. No one votes for the Laws of Physics. They just are, and always were, whether or not the government funded the grant, the scientist wrote that up in an abstract, and some editor approved.
Fifty shades of nonsense
So Lynas et al, took 88,125 papers and randomly picked 3,000 of them, because they didn’t know enough climate science to pick out the 100 papers that matter instead. Having picked out 3,000 random papers they hunted for keywords in the abstracts to “find” skeptical papers. But there are human hands all over this gonzo chain of cause and effect. In the glorious age of Climate Witchcraft good scientists want to hide their opinions because they don’t want to be excommunicated, hounded, ignored, and never given a government grant again. Who wants a RICO? And if a scientist hid their skepticism in subclauses, tables, graphs or the 90% of the paper that isn’t the abstract, the dumb-word finder isn’t going to find them. Indeed the authors could hide their opinions just with novel keywords and the computer would miss that too.
So if Governments only gave grants to find a crisis, they’d create a market for crisis science and crisis journals. And if counter opinions were sacked, exiled, mocked and ignored, and their papers were delayed, rejected, or just edited to bury awkward results, how exactly would a keyword survey of their abstracts prove anything about upper tropospheric moist adiabatic lapse rates? At best, it’s only telling us about moist bureaucratic grant rates.
Most of these papers were not even about “attribution” or cause and effect, they were about the impacts of climate change which means the scientists who wonder if future spotted froglets will sit on smaller lilypads, or eat more striped dragonflys in 2060. These are Pollenologists who study whether flowers will bloom earlier, or petals will fall off faster in a warmer world. These are biologists and psychologists who never got past first year physics and who never looked under the bonnet of a climate model.
The researchers know that but insist that the opinion of Frog psychologists tells us something about radiative physics on the third rock from the sun because, yeah, it “Seems unlikely” that biologists given golden gravy would still publish on spotted frogs if they were skeptical of models they never looked at.
For example, a majority of the papers we categorized as being about ‘impacts’ of climate change did not state a position on whether the phenomenon they were studying— the changing climate—was human-caused. It seems highly unlikely that if researchers felt sceptical about the reality of ACC they would publish numerous studies of its impacts without ever raising the question of attribution. In other words, given that most 4a (‘no position’) ratings do not either explicitly or implicitly differ from the consensus view of GHG emissions as the principal driver of climate change it does not follow in our view that these analyses should be a priori excluded from the consensus.
What seems highly unlikely is the idea that skeptical scientists would still want to work at most universities where they will get treated like dirt.
And what skeptical scientist would want to publish in IOP Science when it publishes junk like this?
Lynas is just adopting the role of the media in the Circle of Science (below). His role is to use a mountain of papers that teach us nothing-much about the real world. Through a magical process of crystal word hunting he can find the secret signal showing that CO2 controls the climate.
The Circle of Science. The Government pays money to produce the papers it wants and the media uses the paper to scare more money out of the public.
If climate scientists knew how the climate worked they wouldn’t need junk keyword surveys, they’d just predict the climate instead. We’d all know they knew what they were talking about because they wouldn’t keep making mistakes like telling us the Antarctic would warm twice as fast as the equator, that the hot spot existed, that storms would get worse, that the pause wasn’t real, the snow wouldn’t fall, and the droughts wouldn’t end.
And they wouldn’t keep cooling the past, deleting their emails, their data and their prophecies of doom.
h/t Raven, Simon.
GRRREFERENCE
Lynas et al (2021) Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, Environ. Res. Lett. 16 114005. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966/pdf
But it’s a developing country and while all its largest competitors are giving up their cheapest electricity source, China isn’t even turning up in Glasgow and hardly anyone really cares.
China tested a nuclear-capable hypersonic weapon two months ago, making strides with the technology that surprised and alarmed U.S. officials, according to a media report.
In August, China launched a Long March rocket topped with a hypersonic glide vehicle, which ended up missing its target by just 24 miles (39 kilometers) or so, The Financial Times reported on Sunday (Oct. 17).
The newspaper cited five unnamed people familiar with the launch, two of whom “said the test showed that China had made astounding progress on hypersonic weapons and was far more advanced than U.S. officials realized.”
If someone had tried to set up a global scheme to cripple The West while helping China — it would have looked like the UNFCCC. China may not have started this off, and the West may be capable of suicidal self sabotage, but the CCP would be crazy if they weren’t funding green groups.
The Australian Greens have pledged to push for sweeping changes to the Australian Defence Force if they hold the balance of power at the next election, including cuts to defence spending and cancellation of the AUKUS alliance.
What more could President Xi want? Adversaries with a weaker industrial base and a weaker military.
As I suspected, the whole Net Zero witchcraft push is being driven by our defense partners, and has nothing much to do with Australian voters. That explains why the government that won The Climate Election with a skeptical stance are now pushing blindly for “Net Zero targets”. It also explains why the public debate has shifted since the AUKUS deal just in time for Glasgow and has no content, apart from the insistence that we don’t want to be “left behind” in some global fashion race to wreck our electricity infrastructure faster than everyone else. Kudos to The Nationals who are still trying to respond to both The Voters, and the Science. Send them your support.
With this admission from inside Cabinet, we see that the AUKUS sub deal was probably quietly loaded with a climate deal too. If you want our subs, and our protection, you need to obey the carbon cult. Translated — “the Western Alliance” means nuclear subs from the US and UK. The veil is pulled back on the illusion of Democracy.
So now it’s “Build solar farms, and windmills, sign up for carbon credits or the US and UK won’t defend you?”
Scott Morrison told Liberal MPs that climate change action had become a key pillar of the western alliance as he declared his intention to adopt both a plan and a formal target to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
So the reason we may get “Net Zero Targets” and more expensive and unreliable electricity is because China is belligerently threatening us, and because the US Election was done with mass mail in votes, no security, no ID, and electronic voting machines that were hooked up to the internet.
Mr Morrison told MPs the plan included a “nationally determined commitment” net zero by 2050, declaring there were economic and security imperatives in transitioning to a carbon neutral future.
He said Australia needed to rely on the western alliance “now more than ever” and a net zero commitment was important for Australia’s standing in the international community.
Sources said Mr Morrison told Liberal MPs they needed to be aware Australia would be “drawing down on a lot of historical capital” if the government did not make the commitment to net-zero.
Who benefits? Follow the money — ultimately this serves China and Big Bankers:
Our weakened industrial might serves China, but the fake currencies serve Big Bankers, and big unaccountable government bodies (like the UN) serve both:
Liberal MPs were left with the impression the government would expand the trading of international carbon credits, with Mr Morrison and Mr Taylor saying the system would be used by Pacific nations.
“They said if we don’t buy (carbon credits from Pacific nations), if we don’t draw them into our ecosystem so to speak, then other nations will buy them and they will get dragged into their sphere of influence,” a Liberal MP said, who believed the “other nations” referred to China.
We can speculate — the real powerbrokers here may be the CCP and the Big Bankers.
We’ve known for years now that the biggest lobbyists for “carbon markets” were the giant financial houses, as I have reported since 2008, the most committed fans of international carbon markets are caring green groups like Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, HSBC, JP Morgan, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs . They’re the ones that benefit from a new fiat currency based on government rules and created from thin air — the brokers of an international currency profit from every deal, no matter who buys or who sells, and no matter what the price is, as long as “We the People” are forced to buy these credits.
The Carbon Market is forecast to be the largest single commodity market in the world — bigger than oil, gas and gold. And it’s a market that has no connection to reality, no natural limits, and it can be used to favour compliant industries and companies with the right “tailored” loop-holes. If you annoy your rulers, they will arrange for your carbon punishment.
And the people of those little Pacific Nations would rather we just gave them foreign aid direct. But if the money is funnelled through the UN, it makes the UN stronger, and if the CCP are allowed to keep using the UN as their lap dog (as they did with the WHO ensuring the spread of Covid) presumably that’s a good thing for the CCP too. We buy useless windmills for the islands which quickly fail, while the CCP funds coal fired plants and infrastructure that is worth something and will last for years.
We are sacrificing our electricity grids and President Xi is here to help us.
…
So we, as skeptics, have two choices — one is to support every last democratically elected representative and to protest, protest, protest! If there were giant marches in the streets it gives Scott Morrison more ammunition to take to Boris and Biden and point out how hard it is for Australia to comply. We stopped the trainwreck in 2009 with a mass email campaign in the weeks after ClimateGate and before Copenhagen.
Some people wondered why I viewed the US election as more important than our Australian one, but this admission from Scott Morrison shows exactly why. The US election controls Australian policy too.
This is a harsh lesson that we should always have been able to defend ourselves. Without a good defense force, Scott Morrison had to sell our soul to the team with bigger guns, more boats and bombs.
This post marks the coming together of so many threads that I’ve been writing on for thirteen years. Here are some of those posts:
All those caring Bankers want you trade Carbon. They just want to save the world right?
U.K. ministers will put nuclear power at the heart of Britain’s strategy to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 in government documents expected as early as next week, the Financial Times reported.
Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng is to unveil an overarching “Net Zero Strategy” paper as soon as Monday, along with a “Heat and Building Strategy” and a Treasury assessment of the cost of reaching the 2050 goal, the report said.
The main strategy will have a heavy focus on Britain’s nuclear power program. Prime Minister Boris Johnson was expected to give the go-ahead to the documents on Friday, according to the report.
The catch, consumers will have to pay a levy years before they get the electricity:
The creation of a “regulated asset base” model will be key to delivering future large atomic-power stations. Under the plan, households will be charged for the cost of a plant via an energy levy long before it begins generating electricity, the report said.
The nuclear levy is still a “Green Fee” or a “carbon tax”. But at least it won’t leave the country facing an energy crisis every time the wind slows. The UK still has plenty of shale gas to be fracked if only they’d let themselves use it.
Half of Australians already support nuclear power
A recent Essential poll shows that without any public debate at all, 50% of voters already support nuclear power. When the undecideds (18%) hear that there are 450 nuclear plants around the world, the number of supporters can only grow.
Australia will “go Nuclear” too if the Green Blob pushes us to adopt the witchcraft Net Zero goal that uses power plants as “weather changing” machines.
The thing slowing nuclear power in Australia was that coal power was so much cheaper. There is an opening here for one of the big parties to pull a nuclear rabbit out of their hats. The Coalition may lose the coal territory seats of Queensland and the coming election, especially given how unpopular they are in WA too. The Australian Workers Union now backs nukes. Imagine if the Labor Party planned for nuclear power which would allow them to offset the emissions from an extension of coal stations. The Labor Party would suddenly look pragmatic, differentiate itself from The Greens, and the Liberals would be left holding the “Green Hydrogen” and Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro fantasy bag that no one believes in.
One third of the Greens might even vote Labor because they support nukes.
It’s an interesting moment in US history. Most Australians may not know what “Let’s Go Brandon” means. Our major news outlets haven’t yet mentioned this cultural phenomenon. It’s being censored.
In the US, The People are not happy, and they’re finding new ways to protest. Traditional protests by the Unmentionables are being banned, or sabotaged by violent infiltrators and ignored by the media. It’s become dangerous to walk the streets and carry placards. A few fake protestors wearing horns can capture all the media glory — and the media is happy to use them to falsely define a largely Christian middle and working class phenomenon as “domestic terrorists”. So a movement has sprung up spontaneously at stadiums of thousands of people. How many Australians are even aware that mass chants of “F*** Joe Biden” are happening at football games in Utah, Oklahoma, Mississippi and New Jersey? These are crude mass declarations of rebellion. It’s being called “a movement” and it’s spreading. Individuals can’t be punished or silenced, and while it’s a desperately pitiful national conversation, it makes a point. It’s gross disrespect for the Office of the President.
So in front of that incendiary mass rebellion, an NBC TV Interviewer was interviewing a NASCAR Driver called Brandon. Anyone with eyes and ears knew exactly what was happening in the background, but she tried to pass off the “F*** Joe Biden” chant as “Let’s Go Brandon”. It was a form of brazen but desperate media gaslighting, and the non-left have picked it up as a slogan against both Biden and the media. “Let’s go Brandon” is the epitome of fake news.
And as mysterious mentions of “Brandon” appear in social media, onlookers are being Red Pilled. Did 80 million Americans really vote for this most popular President ever, and is the media really telling us what’s going on?
Tucker explains the phenomenon:
…
Australians might also find it eye opening to know how many people in the US are walking away from their job over vaccine mandates.
Is that a nurse shortage you see? Are those storms over SouthWest Airlines?
[The “F*** Joe Biden chants] seems to be happening all over. It’s amusing to see Democrats respond by demanding respect for the office, and the separation of politics and sport. Too late guys. Enjoy the new rules you made.
When a democracy surrounds the elected representatives with barbed wire, and the media denies the people a voice, they find another way.
Edible crab like the one used in the study. Jean-Pol Grandmont Wiki
It’s a Nightmare on Crab Street
Crabs are being drawn to high electromagnetic (EMF) fields around undersea cables and getting trapped there for hours, “mesmerized”.
They are not just immobilized, in lab tests it screws up their blood chemistry and circadian rhythm too.
Nature-lovers might wonder what other marine life is also being impacted? What if the magnetic fields are playing havoc with migrating fish and turtles too? It might be handy to find that out before we build bigger taller towers offshore with bigger stronger cables.
Where is the Green outcry, or the Save-the-crabs campaign? Perhaps some kinds of pollution are OK “for the greater good”?
These are not some esoteric rare crustaceans, by the way, but common dinner crabs — the ones food chains and fisheries depend on.
If these crabs were victims of coal plants the headlines would be a catastrophe.
Underwater power cables are ‘mesmerizing’ crabs around Scotland
In a new study, researchers found brown crabs ‘freeze’ when they come too close to the electromagnetic fields generated by these cables. This disturbing behavior may negatively affect the marine creature’s migration habits, among other things.
For their new study, researchers at Heriot-Watt University studied nearly 60 crabs at the St Abbs Marine Station in Scotland and found that the high level of electromagnetism coming from the subsea cables is affecting the blood cells of the crabs, which could make them more susceptible to bacterial infections. And that’s not all.
“This doesn’t sound like a problem”? The journalist feels they have to explain why this might not be so good to have mass unemployed crabs sitting around soaking in the milliGauss?
Alastair Lyndon, a researcher from Heriot-Watt University and one of the study’s authors, said that crabs are attracted to the electromagnetic field and just sit still when exposed to it. While this doesn’t sound like a problem, if crabs aren’t moving they aren’t looking for foraging for food or a mate. The researchers also found the magnetic fields are causing changes in the animals’ sugar metabolism.
Isn’t renewable energy supposed to “protect the environment”?
Everyone knows what they are supposed to say, but one in four Americans won’t even say it.
The CEI has done a new poll of 1,200 regular US voters. Supposedly 71% of Americans claim they are very or somewhat concerned, but it’s just a fashion statement for half of them.
Click to enlarge.
When it comes to spending their own money to change the global climate, they don’t want to.
Americans can’t be too worried about “climate change” if they don’t want to fork out more cash on gasoline and electricity to save the world. Fossil fuels might be destroying life on Earth, but 4 out of 10 Americans don’t want to spend an extra red cent on gas and electricity. That’s annually — a whole year of power and fuel bills.
And remember, it’s only a theoretical question. Anyone can say they’ll spend a lot.
Click to enlarge.
When will politicians realize that they are being gamed by all the inadequate meaningless surveys that only ask “do you believe”? Those surveys are apparently not designed to find out what the punters think about climate change. For all the world, their main purpose looks like being a tool to frighten and fool politicians. And if that’s the case, their vagueness is a feature, not a flaw.
Americans say “give me my gas guzzler”
Only a quarter of people in the US want to spend more swapping the old car for an EV.
Americans don’t want to be told what kind of car they should buy. Except for the baffling 1 in 7 people who want the government to choose their car for them.
Perhaps they’re the ones who already own an EV, and what they really want are the government to force EV’s on everyone else.
….
Click to enlarge.
Sensibly, while people don’t want to pay to change the climate, more are willing to spend money to reduce the impacts of climate change. Presumably they are thinking of sea walls, trees and flood levees.
But even then, half of the population don’t want to spend more than $10 a month. It’s tiny.
Click to enlarge.
A more telling question would be “what doyou spend to reduce the impacts of climate change”. That would reveal how much people are donating to green groups and weather changing charities. But the CEI didn’t ask.
James Cook University won a Pyrrhic victory at the High Court today. By spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars (how many exactly?), all they have proven is that we can’t trust any research done by that university.
Even if the professors there are being sincere and honest, we will never know whether they are only telling us what their Vice Chancellor, Supreme Ruler Sandra Harding, wants them to say. The government should not be funding this sort of institution. It serves its administration, not the Australian taxpayer.
Peter Ridd was JCU’s best asset until they sacked him. He helped expose manipulated photos of reef fish by a JCU researcher, Oona Lönnstedt, who had already been caught fabricating data in Sweden. Yet JCU “investigated” and sacked Ridd faster than it investigated her suspicious lionfish shots.
Every JCU employee’s work is tainted by this. We will never know what any JCU researcher really thinks, or which results were dropped in the bin, no matter what they say, because we know employees of JCU will be afraid to report bad behaviour, fraud, or sloppy work from other staff. Staff admitted they were too afraid to use their uni emails. Their quality assurance is terminally flawed. This makes the entire institution useless as a research body. JCU protects reputations, not the reef. The government could fix this entire embarrassing debacle in five minutes. They just need to withhold JCU funding ’til the uni gets new management and demonstrate unequivocally that they support free speech.
Peter Ridd’s book. Click to order.
VC Sandra Harding’s judgement is so poor that JCU’s reputation will not recover until she is replaced. She who earnt was paid $975,000 in 2018 has done far more damage to the university’s reputation than anything Peter Ridd ever did or said. He was the one trying to maintain scientific standards and trying to protect the reef. Weak science, fraud, and false news hurt the environment because real problems get ignored while fashionable-but-fake-ones vacuum up the funds.
The Big Win was free speech laws a year ago
Despite the loss in the High Court today, let’s not forget that the judgement was about Peter Ridd’s original contract. The biggest win from his battle is that the government finally, belatedly, did something a year ago to define academic freedom. This decision doesn’t affect that, though academics, especially at JCU won’t feel inclined to test it. So JCU’s case and the High Court decision will help the cheats, frauds, and fashionable academics to relax.
October 2020: As Education Minister Dan Tehan told Sky News:
“[James Cook University] wouldn’t have been able to prosecute Peter Ridd if these laws had of been in place.”
“By defining academic freedom in legislation, Education Minister Dan Tehan is ensuring the dismissal of an academic like Peter Ridd can never happen again,” said Mr Rozner.
Academic freedom means the following:
(a) the freedom of academic staff to teach, discuss, and research and to disseminate and publish the results of their research;
(b) the freedom of academic staff and students to engage in intellectual inquiry, to express their opinions and beliefs, and to contribute to public debate, in relation to their subjects of study and research;
(c) the freedom of academic staff and students to express their opinions in relation to the higher education provider in which they work or are enrolled;
(d) the freedom of academic staff to participate in professional or representative academic bodies;
(e) the freedom of students to participate in student societies and associations;
(f) the autonomy of the higher education provider in relation to the choice of academic courses and offerings, the ways in which they are taught and the choices of research activities and the ways in which they are conducted.
Though was free speech enshrined in law, or did the Government just make it a “moral code”?
The global energy crisis is squeezing the green religion to its logical endpoint. As long as we pretend “carbon” is pollution, the only way out of the maze for badgered politicians is nuclear power. The renewables industry may have thought that beating us over the head with climate propaganda was going to make renewables dominant and profitable, but it may just push everyone into nukes instead.
With the gas price crisis, wind drought, and coal shortage, suddenly everyone is talking about nuclear power:
National leaders around the world are announcing big plans to return to nuclear energy now that the cost of natural gas, coal, and petroleum are spiking, and weather-dependent renewables are failing to deliver.
France was reducing nukes from 70% to 50% of its total power generation fleet, but not any more:
“The number one objective is to have innovative small-scale nuclear reactors in France by 2030 along with better waste management,” said French President Emmanuel Macron.
“But the mood has now changed,” the paper writes today. “Macron said on Tuesday he would begin investing in new nuclear projects ‘very quickly.’” — Financial Times.
Public support for nuclear energy rose 17 percentage points in France. “I do not want our country to lose its energy sovereignty under the pretext of an absurd energy transition copied from Germany,” said a conservative French presidential candidate seeking to defeat Macron.
Finland has joined France, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic in lobbying the European Union to categorize nuclear power as sustainable.
Yesterday, Japan’s new prime minister, Fumio Kishida, defended his pro-nuclear policies in Parliament. Kishida came to power on a pro-nuclear platform.
Half of Australia wants nuclear power
The AUKUS “nuclear subs” announcement was a bolt from the blue after decades of Nuclear-free energy debates. But a recent poll shows Australians are rapidly growing to like the idea. Of course, electricity prices have rocketed since 2015 too, adding to the shift.
Just like that, and with no discussion, suddenly nuclear power has potential. Imagine what the numbers would be if people actually discussed it?
The bottom line is that the West had better hurry.
China is the Fastest growing Nuclear Power in the world
As Jo Nova said in May:
China is poised to be the largest global nuclear power by 2030, overtaking the USA in the next nine years. In the last twenty years, China has increased its fleet of nuclear power reactors from three to 49, with 17 more plants under construction. That means it will soon surpass France which has 57 reactors. At the rate the USA is closing plants, China may hit the No 1 spot faster than expected.
China has a nuclear Belt and Road project too, Argentina, Iran, Pakistan:
Future projects are also being developed in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and South America
Brown coal is still the cheapest kind of electricity there is, and we are mad not to use it, especially because it’s only $30 a MWh and feeds plants and we have a 300 year supply sitting there in the ground.
Coercion is not consent. 60% of the state is double vaccinated, and the deadline to comply with these new appalling rules announced yesterday will be Jan 31, 2022. People who don’t obey will be fined an extraordinary $20,000 and their employers $100,000. This effectively gives people a “choice” (not) of Jab or Job and thus, I assume, legally they won’t be able to sue for wrongful dismissal. They will have to quit or get injected. New rules will prohibit the unvaccinated from travelling interstate, even though there are antivirals, and monoclonal antibodies that would make travel safer and be much more effective against transmission of SARS-2 than the current first generation leaky-vaccinations which will probably bring in the virus on the first week flights are allowed with no quarantine. (UPDATE: McGowan 
.JPG)
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG appelé tourteau par les gastronomes. Jean-Pol GRANDMONT){kind=link}
Recent Comments