Is your wool sweater killing the planet AND sheep AND koalas AND kangaroos? 🔥
Australia’s massive wool farming industry is directly contributing to climate change, causing massive fires on the continent. One sheep can produce up to 30L of methane in one day. #WearVeganpic.twitter.com/zcUePM30xP
SICK and twisted, to say the least, when you consider that the bushfire body count is still rising after police, Thursday, found an unidentified body in Moruya, the day after three American firefighters were killed in a water-bombing plane crash.
AUSTRALIA’s 2019/20 bushfire death-toll now stands at 33.
AS an opportunistic activist org, PETA unashamedly uses disaster-porn to promote themselves in the aim of attracting clickbait, followers, members and ultimately … money, aka power.
PETA activists stage nearly-nude protest at rib fest – NY Daily News
THE CLIMATE BANDWAGON
PASTING blame on Australia’s hard-working farming families who ‘work’ to produce some of the finest Marino wool and produce in the world, including new proteins that are being used to create new wound dressings, bone graft implants and medical sutures, is not only lazy (as we avoid reasoned and logical discussion into the real causes of Australia’s seasonal and often catastrophic bushfires) but has far more sinister undertones that threaten the very existence of Western civilisation.
OF course, PETAisn’t using ClimateChange™️ in an effort destroy hard-working farming families in order to corral them into “Sustainable” cities and lock up their land. That would be a “Right Wing Nut Job (RWNJ) conspiracy theory”, right?
SARCASM aside, this is precisely the plan for farmers and private land owners in accordance with draconian U.N. dictates, of which seasoned ClimateChange™️ catastrophists and maniacal Malthusians dutifully abide by.
DON’T take it from here, take it directly from the U.N’s own documented history advancing their “Sustainable development” aka “Agenda 21“, globalist goals.
IN the U.N’s very own words …
“LAND … cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.”
– U.N. Habitat I Conference 1976
ACCORDING to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction. Social Equity (Social Justice) Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.” Redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care is a social justice. All part of Agenda 21 policy.
“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both
governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.“
– UN Agenda 21
“In a nutshell, the plan calls for governments to take control of all land use and not leave any of the decision making in the hands of private property owners. It is assumed that people are not good stewards of their land and the government will do a better job if they are in control. Individual rights in general are to give way to the needs of communities as determined by the governing body. Moreover, people should be rounded up off the land and packed into human settlements, or islands of human habitation, close to employment centres and transportation.
NO meat, no AC and no white picket fence. This is the new-world-order, designed by unelected, U.N. eco-bureaucrats, destined for you and I – the great unwashed.
STRONG added :
“ISN’T the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, founder of UNEP
TWENTY EIGHT years later, the exact same message is being peddled by a 17 year-old child soldier prophet :
“The climate crisis is not just about the environment.It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will.Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it.We need to dismantle them all.”
– Greta Thunberg
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) promotes socially and environmentally sustainable towns and cities. It is the focal point for all urbanization and human settlement matters within the UN system. UN-Habitat envisions well-planned, well-governed, and efficient cities and other human settlements, with adequate housing, infrastructure, and universal access to employment and basic services such as water, energy, and sanitation.
UN-Habitat mainstreams human rights into all aspects of its operational and normative work. This includes cooperating with the High Commissioner for Human Rights to promote implementation of international conventions at national, regional and municipal levels
UN-Habitat’s concept of sustainable urban development includes the rule of law and the protection of vulnerable groups as central elements. The Programme’s legislative work focuses on the quality of law, in particular its effectiveness in delivering policy and its accountability and includes:
Exploring the current status of urban law in cities and towns globally,
Understanding the role urban law plays in facilitating good urban development,
Identifying and promote urban law methodologies and mechanisms that promote the sustainable development of human settlements.
FROM a quick glance of the feel-good phrases and statements within the “Human Settlements” programme, one would be excused for speculating that the implied utopia was more akin to residing in a caged, quasi-police state. With your every move, gesture and thought monitored twenty-four-seven-three-six-five. And, as Winston found out in Orwell’s 1984, there is no escape from Big Brother.
HIDE AGENDA 21’s U.N. ROOTS FROM THE PEOPLE!
“Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.”
EVERYTHING associated with Agenda 21 aka Sustainable Development is deceptive. The language they use, the names they give the projects, the means by which they lure local governments (under the ICLEI program) into the trap and then slam the door – absolutely everything is deceptive from beginning to end. The reason is obvious once you understand what they have in mind …
AGENDA 21 THE GOAL, CLIMATE THE COVER
THE evidence is all around us if we choose to see it. Most people know it on some level but they choose not to see it because it would turn their worlds inside out to acknowledge that everything we thought was true about Global Warming Climate Change – is a lie.
“Men occasionally stumble on the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.” – Winston Churchill
CLIMATISM posts often begin with poignant quotes from past philosophers, scholars, academics, poets. Not only as a link to the subject matter, but as a guide to past thinking that can engender clues to our current existence and provide insight for future pathways.
THIS author is staunch in the belief that global warming climate change has absolutely nothing to do with the ‘environment’ or “saving the planet”.
IF it did, every climate change activist, such as Extinction Rebellion, would be castigating China for unlimited emissions until 2030, as per their Paris Accord commitment.
TO suggest that China signed the Paris agreement (with their opulent concession) in a deliberate effort to further weaken Western economies, with a keen awareness as to their gullibility and virtue-signalling penchant to appease the loud minority with UNreliables (wind/solar) to “power a clean, green, sustainable future”, would be an understatement.
Menghua Railway, China’s LONGEST coal transporting railway line, is expected to be put in operation in Oct. The 1,837-km railway will carry 200 million tonnes of coal annually from N China's Inner Mongolia to E China's Jiangxi. pic.twitter.com/sFXpCjplaN
“Without having a basic understanding that every single wind turbine and solar panel is intermittent and has to be continually backed-up by fossil fuels, the west is committing environmental degradation, and putting itself at risk against China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Based on self-interest rightly understood, India will then choose aligning with countries hostile to western interests over environmental concerns.”
SO, where are Extinction Rebellion or “Thunberg-the-great” or the UN, on China’s massive coal expansion? Could it be that they are only interested in breaking down Western civilisation? The system that employs democracy and ‘evil’ capitalism, rather than communism/socialism?
COULD it be that all around the globe, Global Warming Climate Change is being exposed as simply a moral issue for the wealthy urban elite?
Extinction Rebellion ‘member’ – Carlton Gardens – Melbourne, Australia
COULD it be that campaigning on climate guarantees political death?
RECENT Western ‘democratic’ elections, the world over, are surely proving that blue-collar workers, and the silent majority are simply not buying into the relentless fear-mongering and warming hysteria driven by climate theory-obsessed politicians, propped up by a compliant, (97% Leftist) mainstream media…
The far left journalist, Paul Mason, reveals the real agenda behind the climate wars:
When John McDonnell announced plans to de-list the companies wilfully destroying the planet through unchecked carbon emissions, the response from the City was predictably hyperbolic. “Financial totalitarianism,” said one banker. “Kamikaze communism,” said the right-wing propaganda website Guido Fawkes.
Labour’s thinking on industrial, fiscal and central bank policy has taken a sharp green turn under the impact of the Extinction Rebellion protests, and last October’s IPCC report, which dramatically shortened the deadline for halving global carbon emissions. But it is not yet radical enough.
Climate change is a problem where — given the scale and the deadlines — nothing short of dramatic structural change in the way capitalism works can deliver the 2030 target of a 45 per cent cut in carbon emissions. To deliver the net-zero carbon emissions demanded by 2050 will…
ENERGY rationing and the control of carbon dioxide, the direct byproduct of cheap, reliable hydrocarbon energy, has always been key to the Left’s Malthusian and misanthropic agenda of depopulation and deindustrialisation. A totalitarian ideology enforced through punitive emissions controls under the guise of “Saving The Planet”.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.” – Christiana Figueres, fmr executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change (Feb 2015, Brussels)
THEIR weapon of choice for rapid deindustrialisation? Renewable unreliable energy – wind and solar. Token gestures to the folly of green madness designed to force us backwards down the energy ladder to the days of human, animal and solar power.
RATHER than correcting Adam Bandt’s alarmist cherry-picking attempts to justify jailing coal users, like citing the tragic wildfires in California, which were not exacerbated by “climate change”, rather poor land management, lets take a look at the enormous improvements to humanity and the environment that fossil fuels, namely coal-fired power, have brought to our planet since industrialisation …
TWO centuries ago, 90 per cent of the global population lived in extreme poverty and now, even though the population has grown from less than one billion people to about 7.5 billion, those proportions have completely reversed so that only 10 per cent of the world’s population lives in extreme poverty.
ON both these indicators it is extraordinary to consider how much of the progress has happened in recent times. As recently as 1950, 72 per cent of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty and 64 per cent of us were illiterate. Postwar industrialisation, development, trade and globalisation have improved living standards dramatically for the overwhelming majority of people.
CO2 EMISSIONS & WEALTH
THE result of unleashing half a billion years of fossilised sunlight – wealth and prosperity!
THE result of unleashing half a billion years of fossilized sunlight – wealth and prosperity!
Cheer up. If we keep our heads we are likely to deal with climate challenges the same way we got to where we are; innovation, markets, democracy and optimism. | The Australian
“Articles, tweets and interviews that deliberately lob personal tears into the public domain sound the alarm bells of sanctimony..” ― Chris Kenny
FIRSTLY, apologies for the use of “suicide” in the heading to all those who have been directly or indirectly affected by such a horrible and tragic event. I can personally sympathise.
THAT said, the use of the threat of “suicide” by those pushing the global warming climate change agenda is indicative of the desperate, dishonest and disrespectful lengths that climate activists will go to in order to drive their latest fashionable eco-scare.
AUSTRALIAN columnist Chris Kenny with some much needed perspective, clarity and reason to parlay the constant rhetoric of climate change doom and gloom that the Climate Crisis Industry relies on in an attempt to remain relevant…
WHEN people go public with private tears I am immediately suspicious. Not that I am against tears; as a physical reaction to emotion they are a fact of life best controlled in some circumstances but uncontrollable in others.
But articles, tweets and interviews that deliberately lob personal tears into the public domain sound the alarm bells of sanctimony. Telling the world about your saltwater reaction to this or that is perhaps the epitome of virtue-signalling.
“I cried two times when my daughter was born,” was the opening line in a New York Times piece this week. Those sanctimony warning bells rang loud. It was by Iraq veteran, English professor and climate alarmist Roy Scranton, promoting a new book of essays on war and climate change titled We’re Doomed. Now What? And yes, he claims to have shed tears for the planet.
“First for joy, when after 27 hours of labour the little feral being we’d made came yowling into the world, and the second for sorrow, holding the earth’s newest human and looking out the window with her at the rows of cars in the hospital parking lot, the strip mall across the street, the box stores and drive-throughs and drainage ditches and asphalt and waste fields that had once been oak groves. A world of extinction and catastrophe, a world in which harmony with nature had long been foreclosed. My partner and I had, in our selfishness, doomed our daughter to life on a dystopian planet, and I could see no way to shield her from the future.”
Where to start with such inanity? Perhaps with the good news. Max Roser’s work for Oxford University’s Our World in Data project shows that two centuries ago, 90 per cent of the global population lived in extreme poverty and now, even though the population has grown from less than one billion people to about 7.5 billion, those proportions have completely reversed so that only 10 per cent of the world’s population lives in extreme poverty.
Institutionalised data bias is a handy default for radical-left eco-catastrophists who have a tendency to extract worst-case scenarios from every weather event. | THE AUSTRALIAN
GLOBAL warming alarmists want to change us, they want to change our behaviour, our way of life, our values and preferences. They want to restrict our freedom because they themselves believe they know what is good for us. They are not interested in climate or the environment. They misuse the climate in their goal to restrict our freedom. Therefore, what is in danger is freedom, not the climate.
FORMER head of Deutsche Bank, the ABC and ASX, Maurice Newman, writes another insightful piece in todays Australian maintaining that “it’s not carbon dioxide that threatens us with extinction but blind ideology dressed up as science.”
The inconvenient truth is that catastrophists are wrong
It should come as a great relief to know the freezing temperatures recently experienced in the northern hemisphere do not signal an end to global warming.
Imagine if mankind’s increasingly costly attempts to arrest CO2 emissions were unnecessary. That the misallocation of productive resources, prolonging the misery of the world’s most vulnerable people, was nothing more than a cynical ideological exercise?
Hopefully, those global warming doubters in Florida watching frozen iguanas falling stiff from the trees now know that while they were freezing, according to Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, little old Penrith in Sydney, Australia, was the warmest spot on the planet, recording its highest temperature ever, having “broken the all-time maximum temperature record for … the Sydney metropolitan area”.
Well, perhaps in all that excitement the bureau can be forgiven for overlooking the fact Penrith Lakes started recording temperatures only in 1995 and for missing a much higher temperature recorded in nearby Richmond in 1939. But they were right. It was hot.
In a hurried piece in Fairfax publications, the Climate Council of Australia’s Will Steffen throws hot water on any misconceptions that may have been drawn from abnormal snowfalls in Britain, Switzerland and Japan, the record-breaking cold snap in Canada and the US, and the expansion of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.
He says: “Terms like ‘global warming’ and the mental images they trigger can be misleading when people attempt to understand what is happening to the climate. A far better term is ‘climate disruption’, which captures the real nature of the vast array of changes, many of them abrupt and unexpected, that are occurring.” So fire and ice, it’s to be expected.
Of course you won’t be surprised to learn Steffen claims “the climate disruption we are increasingly experiencing is not natural. It is caused by the heat-trapping gases we humans are pouring into the atmosphere primarily by the burning of coal, oil and gas.”
On the day Steffen’s opinion piece appeared, this newspaper republished Matt Ridley’s article in The Times claiming “the Earth is very slowly slipping back into a proper ice age”. This confirms research by Henrik Svensmark, Australia’s David Evans and others, who correlated low solar activity (fewer sunspots) and increased cloud cover (as modulated by cosmic rays), with a cooling climate.
Indeed, last year scientists submitted 120 papers linking historical and modern climate change to variations in solar activity.
Steffen wasn’t among them. He says: “Whole ecosystems are succumbing to (human-induced) climate disruption. In 2016 unusually dry and hot conditions triggered massive fires in Tasmania’s World Heritage forests, while ocean circulation patterns have moved unprecedented underwater heatwaves around the world, driving the tragic coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef.’’
Yet the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Russell Reichelt, dismisses many of the claims that he says “misrepresent the extent and impact of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef.”
Peter Ridd from James Cook University goes further, saying: “We can no longer trust the scientific organisations like the ARC (Australian Research Council) Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. The science is coming out not properly checked, tested or replicated, and this is a great shame.”
Steffen’s work could fit this description. He spends much time pushing eco-catastrophism. “Climate disruption” he says “brings growing risks of large-scale migration and conflict as people, particularly the most vulnerable, are forced to deal with increasingly difficult conditions where they live. Some security analysts warn that climate disruption will dwarf terrorism and other conventional threats if present trends continue or worsen.
“Had enough of climate disruption? Then let’s leave our 20th-century thinking behind and get on with the job of rapidly building innovative, clever, carbon-neutral 21st-century societies.”
But Ridley questions the influence of carbon dioxide. He reminds us that: “In 1895 the Swede, Svante Arrhenius, one of the scientists who first championed the greenhouse theory, suggested that the ice retreated because carbon dioxide levels rose, and advanced because they fell. If this was true, then industrial emissions could head off the next ice age. There is indeed a correlation in the ice cores between temperature and carbon dioxide, but inconveniently it is the wrong way round: carbon dioxide follows rather than leads temperature downward when the ice returns.”
But where would manmade global warming “science” be if it relied on just facts? For decades, climate science has been plagued by scandals, deceit and the confessions of whistleblowers.
Penrith’s hyped recording is not new. Scientist and long-time BOM critic Jennifer Marohasy has been calling for an audit and urging Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg “to inform the World Meteorological Organisation that the temperatures recorded by our bureau are not consistent with calibration, nor any international standard”, and, to “direct the bureau to desist from announcing new record hot days”.
Still, institutionalised data bias is a handy default for radical-left eco-catastrophists who have a tendency to extract worst-case scenarios from every weather event.
But despite their best efforts, in the public’s eyes their story is wearing thin. There have been too many false predictions and unwarranted alarmism. People are wising up to the reality that climate science has become an unfalsifiable ideology and resent having their moral conscience questioned should they disagree.
If Ridley is right and the earth is slowly slipping back into a proper ice age, it will be literally cold comfort, not to mention lethal, to keep passing it off as climate disruption.
To survive such an event, our successors will need a plentiful supply of cheap, reliable energy, impossible given today’s intelligentsia’s religious objection to low-cost fossil and nuclear fuels.
It’s not carbon dioxide that threatens us with extinction but blind ideology dressed up as science.
ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, knows the politics and ideology behind the CO2-centricity that beleaguers the man-made climate change agenda. His summary goes to the very heart of why Carbon Dioxide has become the centre-piece of the ‘global’ climate debate:
“FOR A LOT of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…”
••• “CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”
And, BEWARE those sweet-sounding words designed by the UN’s deep-green, Agenda 21 program :
“It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace
“Climate Change will result in a catastrophic global sea level
rise of seven meters. That’s bye-bye most of Bangladesh,
Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis.”
– Greenpeace International
Patrick Moore (born 1947) is a Canadian activist, and former president of Greenpeace Canada. Since leaving Greenpeace, Moore has criticized the environmental movement for what he sees as scare tactics and disinformation, saying that the environmental movement “abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism.” (Wikipedia)
A MUST SEE 5 mins by Patrick Moore PhD, on the “man-made climate change” scam…
Yes, they’re 100% renewable: how many would you like?
The ACT government did something that every bunch of green-left ideologically driven lunatics are programmed to do: it set a 90% Renewable Energy Target.
The ACT government is in a joint venture power retailing business with Australia’s ‘Enron’ aka AGL, ActewAGL; and, in an effort to satisfy its costly vanity project, went far and wide to sign up new wind power projects in NSW, South Australia and Victoria.
Back in April 2014, Liberal Member for Hume, Angus Taylor called the plan, ‘corporate welfare on steroids’ and predicted rocketing power prices for the ACT (see our post here).
Residents of the nation’s capital, Canberra have just been hit by ActewAGL with a 20%, year-on-year increase in their retail power bills (so much for AGL’s guff about its push to carpet Australia in subsidised wind turbines having “no compromises to you
“Household electricity prices in Australia have risen by more than 40 percent between 2007 and 2012, the same period when the government offered lucrative wind subsidies. Power prices in Australian states with a lot of wind power are almost double the rates in other states.”
North Korea would be proud of Australia’s ‘green central planning’ model, leading to energy poverty and statewide blackouts.
We are living in the “dark” age of collective eco-insanity.
When a mass blackout thrusts your State onto the international stage, as an outrageous possibility, there just could be a little something wrong with your energy policy. Here’s the view from the USA.
Australia Has Serious Problems With Green Energy Triggering Blackouts
The Daily Caller
23 November 2016
South Australia is still struggling to figure out how to keep green energy from triggering blackouts and crashing the electric grid, according to an article published by Inverse Tuesday.
The Australian state invested heavily in solar and wind power, but those power sources’ inherent reliability issues place a massive strain on the state’s power grid, according to the article.
Australia’s Energy Council noted in early September that increasing use of solar and wind power in the state “has not only led to a series of technical challenges” but “also increased wholesale price volatility as the state rebalances its supply from dispatchable plant to…