The real Western civilisation emergency?

The real Western civilisation emergency? 

The inexcusable, great global warming scam — and what it is going to cost us — is brilliantly illustrated by Melanie Phillips below.* It’s too important to miss!

And why are we finding that we now have to use wood burners even earlier each year in New Zealand? Ours and neighbours’ are now being used already in March — as they were, nearing the end of last year – when we’re supposed to be having global warming!

Remember Greenpeace? Another theory about why we have all been conned — this includes our governments and local bodies —has now been advanced by none other than the founder of Greenpeace *“Dr Patrick Moore, who subsequently saw the light. He suggested that after the failure of Soviet communism, neo-Marxists used green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalisation than with the science of ecology.” 

And how much of the sheer ignorance of this anti-capitalist agenda has been shown by other mayors and local bodies around the country? Incredibly enough, in Nelson, Mayor Rachel Reese actually enthusiastically hugged members of Extinction Rebellion, the anarchist group gluing themselves to tunnels, roads, etc in Britain.

In a display of extraordinary gullibility Reese has seen to the Nelson City Council establishing an inexcusably  expensive undertaking to tackle Nelson’s non-existent climate change emergency, employing new staff, with all the salaries and equipment involved — and reportedly inappropriately diverting the funding from other council accounts to do so.  But we don’t have any climate change emergency in Nelson!  There’s absolutely no proof of this at all – so what excuse is there for  the Nelson City Council’s sheer gullibility  – and the rise of rates inflicted on an already overtaxed community? 

Don’t miss Melanie Philips below!  

©  Amy Brooke. Check out my book,  ” The 100 Days  – Claiming back New Zealand…What has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians“. Available from my website – http://www.amybrooke.co.nz – or from Amazon’s Kindle

CIVILISATION EMERGENCY

FEBRUARY 21, 2020 , by MELANIE Philips.  

*A few commentators have begun to stumble towards the fact that the policy of becoming “carbon neutral” by 2050, as adopted by the UK and the EU, would undo modernity itself.

On Unherd, Peter Franklin observes that, if carried through, the policy will have a far greater effect than Brexit or anything else; it will transform society altogether.

“It will continue to transform the power industry, and much else besides: every mode of transport; how we build, warm and cool our homes; food, agriculture and land use; trade, industry, every part of the economy”.

Franklin is correct. Even so, he seems not to grasp the full implications of the disaster he intuits – because he thinks there’s some kind of middle way through which the imminent eco-apocalypse can be prevented without returning Britain to the Middle Ages.

In similar vein he quotes Rachel Wolf, a co-author of the 2019 Conservative manifesto, who is prone to the same kind of magical thinking. She wrote:

“Government has committed to ‘net zero’ greenhouse gas emissions because it does not want the side effects of the energy sources we have used for centuries to destroy the planet. At the same time, we do not want to return to an era where children (and their mothers) regularly died, and where the majority of people lived in what would now in the UK be considered wholly unacceptable poverty. This is a staggering challenge”.

This is what we might call an understatement. What is truly staggering is, first, that any sentient person thinks this can be done and, second, that it should be done.

For it’s not just that the carbon-neutral target will destroy the livelihoods and wreck the living standards of millions of people. It’s not even that it would take Britain and the west backwards to a pre-industrial way of life.

More fundamentally, it shows that policymakers and politicians – even those who may not fawn idiotically over Greta Thunberg and who rightly view Extinction Rebellion as a bunch of anarchist vandals – have not the slightest scintilla of a clue that the whole idea of a “climate emergency” is bogus from start to finish.

Those who point this out are vilified by the chillingly offensive term “climate-change deniers” and written off as a small bunch of cranks. This merely shows the terrifying effects of groupthink. The claim that “97 per cent” of scientists support the prediction of planetary disaster through anthropogenic global warming – a figure that is itself said to have misrepresented the evidence – denies the key scientific principle that science is never settled.

It also ignores the hundreds of scientists in related fields, many with stellar reputations and some of whom themselves served as expert reviewers for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change until they decided the IPCC was hijacking science for ideological ends, who have shown repeatedly that the evidence for a “climate emergency” doesn’t hold up for a moment.

What these scientists are telling us is that policy-makers are intending to destroy the west’s economic and social ecology even though:

  • There’s no evidence that current changes in the climate are different from the fluctuations in climate over the centuries;
  • The idea that the non-linear, chaotic and infinitely complex climate can be significantly affected by anything human beings may do is intrinsically absurd;
  • All climate forecasts are based on computer modelling which is unable to process this level of complexity and unpredictability, and which is also susceptible to false assumptions fed into the programmes which produce false results;
  • Much evidence of current environmental trends is ambiguous and contested;
  • Much climate-related research is scientifically illiterate or the product of outright intellectual fraud;
  • Scientists in climate-related fields can often only obtain grant funding if their research corresponds to apocalyptic AGW theory. This innate distorting mechanism will be hugely exacerbated by the $10 billion which Amazon founder Jeff Bezos has announced he is investing to “save Earth” from climate change, “the biggest threat to our planet”.

Nevertheless, scientists with intellectual and moral integrity are continuing to challenge this bogus science with actual facts. I reported several of these in my 2010 book, The World Turned Upside Down. Here are a few more recent examples.

  • Professor Ole Humlum, Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography, University of Oslo, has saidthat the World Meteorological Organisation is misleading the public by suggesting that global warming and its impacts are accelerating. He wrote:

Reading the WMO report, you would think that global warming was getting worse. But in fact it is carefully worded to give a false impression. The data are far more suggestive of an improvement than a deterioration. After the warm year of 2016, temperatures last year continued to fall back to levels of the so-called warming “pause” of 2000-2015. There is no sign of any acceleration in global temperature, hurricanes or sea-level rise. These empirical observations show no sign of acceleration whatsoever.”

“…The temperature variations recorded in the lower troposphere are generally reflected at higher altitudes also, and the overall temperature ‘pause’ since about 2002 is recorded at all altitudes, including the tropopause and into the stratosphere above. In the stratosphere, however, the temperature ‘pause’ had already commenced by around 1995; that is, 5–7 years before a similar temperature ‘pause’ began in the lower troposphere near the planet’s surface.The stratospheric temperature ‘pause’ has now lasted without interruption for about 24 years”.

  • Paul Homewood wrote herethat the Met Office’s Central England Temperature Record shows that temperatures have barely changed in 20 years and that there has been no increase in extremely hot days either:

“The summer of 2018 had just one day over 30 degrees, while 1976 had six. The Met Office’s data show that hot days are just not becoming more common.” And there seems to be little to worry about on bad weather front either. There has been a gentle decline in storminess, and in most of the UK, there has been no change in either average rainfall or rainfall extremes”.

  • A leading climatologist, Professor John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has saidthat the computer simulations used to predict global warming are failing on a key measure of the climate today and cannot be trusted.

“They all have rapid warming above 30,000 feet in the tropics – it’s effectively a diagnostic signal of greenhouse warming. But in reality it’s just not happening. It’s warming up there, but at only about one third of the rate predicted by the models.”

  • Professor Ray Bates of University College Dublin saysthe IPCC’s Special Report on a Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5), which makes a “costly and highly disruptive recommendation” that carbon emissions be reduced to zero by mid-century, lacks the scientific rigour to support such a proposal.

“There is much recent observational and scientific evidence that the IPCC report has failed to include and which supports a more considered mitigation strategy than the extreme and unrealistic measures called for in the SR1.5 report”.

  • reviewof Met Office weather data found the UK climate was more stable than was being suggested.

The review, which examines official temperature, rainfall, drought and other weather data shows that although temperatures increased slightly in the 1990s and 2000s, there is no evidence that weather has become more extreme. And intriguingly, extreme heat is, if anything, slightly less common than in previous decades.In particular, heatwaves have not become more severe and nor have droughts. Data also suggest that recent warming has had little effect on the severity of flooding in the UK”.

  • Richard Lindzen, formerly Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is the author of over 200 papers on meteorology and climatology and is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences. He has consistently drawn attention to the fact that AGW theory is a sham and a scam.

In a lecture in 2018, he ridiculed the core premises of AGW theory that the climate, a complex multifactor system, could be summarised in just one variable – the globally averaged temperature change – and that it was primarily controlled by the 1-2 per cent perturbation in the single variable of carbon dioxide. This, he said, is “an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking.”

“Turning to the issue of temperature extremes, is there any data to even support concern? As to these extremes, the data shows no trend and the IPCC agrees… At the heart of this nonsense is the failure to distinguish weather from climate. Thus, global warming refers to the welcome increase in temperature of about 1◦C since the end of the Little Ice Age about 200 years ago. On the other hand, weather extremes involve temperature changes of the order of 20◦C. Such large changes have a profoundly different origin from global warming.

“This has also been the case with sea-level rise. Sea level has been increasing by about 8 inches per century for hundreds of years, and we have clearly been able to deal with it. In order to promote fear, however, those models that predict much larger increases are invoked. As a practical matter, it has long been known that at most coastal locations, changes in sea level, as measured by tide gauges, are primarily due to changes in land level associated with both tectonics and land use. Moreover, the small change in global mean temperature (actually the change in temperature increase) is much smaller than what the computer models used by the IPCC have predicted. Even if all this change were due to man, it would be most consistent with low sensitivity to added carbon dioxide, and the IPCC only claims that most (not all) of the warming over the past 60 years is due to man’s activities. Thus, the issue of man-made climate change does not appear to be a serious problem”.

So what’s really going on here? How come so many scientists subscribe to this falsification of science itself?

One clue lay in an article published in the Guardian in 2007 by Mike Hulme, the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and a guru of AGW orthodoxy. In seeking to rebut the argument that global warming theory was bunk, he openly acknowledged that the theory could not be supported by the “normal” rules of scientific inquiry. He wrote:

“The danger of a ‘normal’ reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow… Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science.But to proffer such insights, scientists – and politicians – must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity”.

As I wrote in The World Turned Upside Down: “It was a brazen admission that, in the name of science, scientific reason had been junked altogether to promote mere ideological conviction. In other words, science— the hard-wiring that underpins our age of reason — has short-circuited itself. It has mutated into a denial of rationality in order to change the very way in which people think. This is not about submitting theories or hypotheses or evidence for public debate. This is about using ‘science’ to stifle public debate and change the way people think and behave”.

Another theory was advanced by none other than the founder of Greenpeace, Dr Patrick Moore, who subsequently saw the light. He suggested that after the failure of Soviet communism, neo-Marxists used green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalisation than with the science of ecology.

That certainly corresponds with the real agenda of Extinction Rebellion, a leak from whose computer database revealed that its aims include “to build structure, community and test prototypes in preparation for the coming structural collapse of the regimes of western ‘democracies’ — now seen as inevitable due to stored-up crisis. Thus preparing a foundation to transform society and resist fascism/other extremes. This includes creating Rising from the Wreckage – a citizens’ assembly based on sortition [random selection]”.

Another scientist has heard other echoes. Professor Paul Reiter, professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris and a former expert reviewer for the IPCC, was appalled by the IPCC’s false claims about the increased risk from global warming of malaria, a disease on which Reiter is a world expert. And he noted the parallels between the global warming scam and “Lysenkoism” in the Soviet Union.

Trofim Lysenko was an agricultural scientist who claimed falsely that he could eradicate starvation by modifying seeds before cultivation and thus multiply grain production. He argued that conventional genetics was ‘fascist genetics’. Opposition to him was not tolerated. As a result, between 1934 and 1940 numerous geneticists were shot or exiled to Siberia and starved to death, including the Director of the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences in 1943.

Lysenko took his place and in 1948 genetics was labelled ‘bourgeois pseudoscience’. The ban on genetics was lifted in 1965 after tens of millions had starved to death because Lysenko’s agricultural polices had not produced enough food.

Reiter commented: “One of the few geneticists who survived the Stalin era wrote: ‘Lysenko showed how a forcibly instilled illusion, repeated over and over at meetings and in the media, takes on an existence of its own in people’s minds, despite all realities’. To me, we have fallen into this trap”.

The “climate emergency”, which we are told threatens the imminent collapse of civilisation and the extinction of humanity, is a dogma being enforced by a culturally totalitarian tyranny. Threatening the living standards of millions, permitting no challenge and wrecking the livelihoods and reputations of any who dares dissent, it has been created by a repudiation of science, humanity and reason: the very markers of modernity and the west. This is the real emergency. ”

 

 

Ardern can talk the leg off an iron pot, but…

Jacinda Ardern is now well-known for ignoring emails – as these women point out,  in spite of the fact that her website simply indicates a delay in answering.

https://www.familyfirst.org.nz/2020/02/open-letter-dear-jacinda-when-does-human-life-begin/

Many of us have been waiting for answers on important topics ever since the last election.

No surprises there.

Our Prime Minister can  talk the leg off an iron pot – but her performance is decidedly lacklustre  – and evasive.

Childhood’s End –  propagandising and frightening vulnerable children?

Childhood’s End propagandising and frightening vulnerable children?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2020/02/cultural-notes-3/

This disgraceful state of affairs can legitimately be argued to be a form of emotional and mental abuse… An excusable invasion of the world of childhood.

 

© Amy Brooke, Convenor, The 100 Days.  See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through my  BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazon’s Kindle.

Greta Thunberg and David Attenborough…?

Greta Thunberg and David Attenborough…? What is the link?

https://www.thegwpf.com/david-attenborough-blamed-for-epidemic-of-eco-anxiety-among-young-people/

Since when is fear-mongering acceptable? And what about the vulnerabilty of children?

 

© Amy Brooke, Convenor, The 100 Days.  See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through my  BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazon’s Kindle.

Our disastrous political hierarchies – the shocking takeover of education

Our disastrous political hierarchies – the shocking takeover of education

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2020/01/disasters-long-march-through-the-institutions/

For the moment, let’s pass over the fact that increasingly New Zealanders are  fed up with the fact that English, the language of the majority of the country, our most important language nationally and internationally, is now being relegated to a supposedly inferior position. A newly fabricated language, te reo, made up of thousands of  newly-minted words, a demonstrably  reinvented and inauthentic “Maori language”, is being promoted as more important – as with this sign over “ Pike River Mine Recovery Agency” .

None of these words are genuine Maori, and although any language gradually takes up and assimilates new words, for academics to contrive to blatantly make up words which are supposedly genuine Maori, and to then prioritise them over English,  is simply not acceptable. Without consultation with New Zealanders, even our National Anthem is now sung first in Maori – over the objections of many. No prizes for guessing where all these ongoing attempts to advance the agenda of a minor, but highly vocal, ego-driven, basically obsessive group come from…

The Australians were much smarter. Their activists’ attempts to replace their own National Anthem with an Aboriginal version received the response our government should have given to those who foisted off on this country the inauthentic Maori vision of Thomas Bracken’s 1876 poem known as  “ God defend New Zealand.”

The move to replace Australia’s National Anthem, “Advance Australia Fair”  by an invented aboriginal version met the official response which should have also been adopted  here. “It would not be appropriate for alternative versions of “Advance Australia Fair” to be presented as the Australian national anthem, which should be performed as proclaimed. However, there may be occasions when your version of “Advance Australia Fair” could be performed as a patriotic song.

“The Government would need to be convinced of a sufficient groundswell of support in the wider community to warrant changing the anthem.”

Our own government managed to dispense with any ground-swelling of support from the wider community, and simply acted without consulting New Zealanders – as it does with most of the legislation it affects upon the country. And with the wonderfully convenient excuse of “cultural sensitivity”,  those very few, perennially dissatisfied part-Maori activists  – ignored by the majority of New Zealanders,  including most of Maori descent – our  political parties folded up, as usual, to oblige those making the most noise. However, cultural sensitivity works two ways, and New Zealanders have become increasingly sceptical of the now hundreds of millions of dollars continually handed over to the causes of these same activists. In fact, while accumulatively billions of dollars over recent decades have been transferred to those of even a highly attenuated Maori genetic inheritance,  we should remember that these handouts  – including for the demands to keep the Maori language alive  (which it now isn’t …not the authentic  language recorded by the early missionaries )  should far more appropriately be directed to other areas of much greater priority. For example,  the health budgets…the desperately cash-strapped hospitals… the grossly under-funded Pharmac – whose markedly low annual grant  and inability to carry the cost of procedures now commonplace even Australia, and saving lines overseas,  has become almost scandalous.

Such decisions of course, are always made by our politicised hierarchies… similar to those who handled the tragedies of White Island, Cave Creek, and the Pike River mine, But here, as worldwide, we can view the lessons of Brexit, the central message of which is that so-called ordinary, that is normal people…the man whose day revolves around a job in trade or in the professions …the woman homemaker…or the one struggling to hold down a job and at the same time do justice to her children… have had enough of overbearing governments.

The examples of what happened on White Island, at Cave Creek, at Pike River show the extent to which our hierarchies are no longer capable of acting in the interests of all New Zealanders – any more than a shockingly dumbed-down education system churning out so many young New Zealanders who are basically sub-literate , and remarkably ignorant in areas important for an educated population… and deprived of any knowledge of the important lessons of history… world history…let alone our own forefathers’ history and the sacrifices they made  to safeguard our futures – our actual democracy.

Importantly, a new release by the Taxpayer’s Union illustrates, as this organisation rightly claims the newest example of the complete capture of education bureaucracy by the far Left, showing how a climate change addition to the curriculum amounts to taxpayer-funded propaganda. As its spokesman Louis Houlbrooke says, “ The new taxpayer funded curriculum promotes the campaigns of Greta Thunberg, School Strike for Climate and even Greenpeace. Students are encouraged to reduce their feelings of climate guilt by participating in this kind of political activism.”

How very scandalous  – and it’s about time  parents need to vigorously object to such blatant brainwashing. A parents’ strike  – removing their children from schools prepared to implement such propaganda would be a good start.  Time to use activists’ own tactics against them?

The has nothing whatever to do with genuine debate, the presentation and analysis of both sides of the current issue. It has nothing whatever to do with the truth of this issue. On the contrary, it has everything to do with sheer indoctrination.

Moreover, the more obvious it becomes that all the “climate change emergency” theories warning of more global warming to come have not only been greatly exaggerated, but are now acknowledged to be quite wrong – the more frantic and noisy the efforts of climate change cultists to have their erroneous conclusions adopted worldwide…in spite of all the scientific-backed evidence to the contrary.

However, the well-validated scepticism of the general public is also increasing. And down here on the South Island, log fires are being lit, not only in Invercargill but up as far as Nelson, to cope with the cooling nights of what should be Summer… So much for global warming.

 

© Amy Brooke, Convenor, The 100 Days.  See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through my  BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazon’s Kindle.

 

 

“All glaciers were supposed to have melted before January 1 of this year.”

Don’t miss! “False information on melting glaciers will be removed ‘as budgets permit’. “ 

Climate change fanatics should have (but predictably won’t)  learned  a hard lesson by now. As one correspondent puts it: Hmmm… Such commendably urgent truth-seeking in Glacier National Park…

Glacier National Park Set to Remove All ‘Glaciers Will Be Gone By 2020’ Signage

All glaciers were supposed to have melted before January 1 of this year.

by Tom Pappert

January 8, 2020

https://nationalfile.com/glacier-national-park-set-to-remove-all-glaciers-will-be-gone-by-2020-signage/

 

As we are already 8 days into 2020 with no sign of the glaciers disappearing, Montana’s Glacier National Park is set to remove the signage stating that “glaciers will be gone by 2020.”

In the early 2000s, scientists warned that all glaciers will have melted by the year 2020, causing a dramatic rise in sea level that would have devastating results for coastal cities and islands.

However, as we enter the third decade of the 21st century, the glaciers are still present, and some have grown in size during recent years, according to NASA.

According to local media, the incorrect prediction from scientists are resulting in the removal of all signs stating that the glaciers will be gone by this year.

KPAX reports that Glacier National Parks spokeswoman Gina Kurzmen explained that “the latest research shows shrinking, but in ways much more complex than what was predicted.”

As a result, “the park must update all signs around the park stating all glaciers will be melted by 2020.”

Some of the signage was already removed in 2019, as the lack of melting became apparent.

“The sign at St. Mary’s Visitor Center was removed in May of 2019 and other signs will be removed around the park as budgets permit,” according to KPAX.

“Kurzmen says Glacier National Park will work with the US Geological Survey to monitor the glaciers and update the remainder of the signs as necessary.”

In 2017, a YouTube video was posted by a visitor of Glacier National Park, expressing incredulity that the glaciers would be melted only three years from the time the video was posted.

This is not the first prediction made by climate scientists about the year 2020 to be proven incorrect.

National File recently reported that the President George W. Bush’s Pentagon claimed that Europe would be either submerged in water or experiencing a Siberian climate by the year 2020.

National File reported:

Nearly 16 years ago, The Guardian released an article [below] that warned of intelligence given to then-President George W. Bush concerning the fate of the planet by 2020 due to the climate change crisis:

“A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.”

Not only was climate changed billed as impending, but even went so far to suggest that this threat would destabilize beyond the degree of a planned terrorist attack.

“The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.”

National File will continue to track previous climate change predictions as we move further into 2020.

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

  • Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
    · Britain will be ‘Siberian’ in less than 20 years
    · Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York



Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

‘Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,’ concludes the Pentagon analysis. ‘Once again, warfare would define human life.’

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change ‘should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern’, say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is ‘plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately’, they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.

Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.

A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America’s public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.

One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair’s chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President’s position on the issue as indefensible.

Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK’s leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon’s internal fears should prove the ‘tipping point’ in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.

Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office – and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism – said: ‘If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.’

Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon’s dire warnings could no longer be ignored.

‘Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It’s going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush’s single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,’ added Watson.

‘You’ve got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you’ve got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It’s pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,’ said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.

Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 ‘catastrophic’ shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.

Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. ‘This is depressing stuff,’ he said. ‘It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.’

Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. ‘We don’t know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,’ he said.

‘The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.’

So dramatic are the report’s scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush’s stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.

The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry’s cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed ‘Yoda’ by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defence’s push on ballistic-missile defence.

Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. ‘It is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.’

Symons said the Bush administration’s close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. ‘This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,’ he added.”

 

 

The obsessive Greta Thunberg couldn’t be more wrong

The obsessive Greta Thunberg couldn’t be more wrong.  She may be revelling in her doomsday predictions, but she also seems to have considerable ego problems.

Never a good sign.However, there is no excuse whatever for Jacinda Ardern’s own ignorance in blindly endorsing what has become a  well-financed, global warming cult.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/12/lighting-bushfires/

 Nor is there any excuse for all the other MPs, mayors and councils throughout the country raiding taxpayers’ pockets in every possible area to endorse this nonsensical scenario.

Our national and local government politicians are costing us massively. When are enough individuals going to start challenging them?

There is no climate emergency. 500 scientists have had enough and protested at this on-going con.

https://www.newsmax.com/larrybell/climate-change-global-warming-ipcc/2019/10/14/id/937026/

The general public in fact are largely far better informed, and quite rightly cynical about the agenda behind all this.

When I was recently in Sydney, talking with one of Australia’s most well-informed climate change scientists, I brought up this fact of 500 scientists challenging the IPCC propaganda – something reputable scientists have been continually doing  – but what the media – oddly enough, one might think – never bother to let us know.

Ian Plimer told me that he himself was one of the 500. And in New Zealand we have had internationally respected scientists, expert in this field, similarly challenging the IPCC over a long period. The media never mention or interview them. Why not?

Shockingly, the Fairfax subsidiary with the silly name – Stuff – has outlawed any debate on this issue. How very curious,  given that the media were once in the forefront of those challenging censorship. But they’re now inexplicably embracing it.

Moreover,  this much-bruited claim that 93% of scientists endorse global warming is completely untrue. You might well query where this propaganda came from – given that the totality of the world scientists have never been approached on this question!  What is never pointed out is that this is a made-up figure.  No need to guess why…and whose purposes it well serves.

It’s more than time to start challenging our government…local governments and our far too compliant media.

In Nelson we have the quite shocking situation where a culpably under-informed Mayor apparently thinks Nelson has a  climate change emergency  – (for heaven’s sake!)  – and, having publicly embraced members of the unruly, disruptive and disreputable  Marxist,  Extinction Rebellion group   – a record of her hugging one of its members is available –  has had the council raiding  a port company to the tune of half $1 million to finance this nonsense.

Incidentally, what has been noted is that even in Nelson, log fires or other forms of heating now have to be used for two thirds of the year.  The colder weather has gradually extended over a longer period…

It has been so cold over this last week that neighbours are again lighting log fires … in January! It was extraordinary that this was being done this year as late as December – but January!!

So much for global warming.


© Amy Brooke, Convenor, The 100 Days.  See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through my  BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazon’s Kindle.