German farmers have taken over the streets of Munich and Berlin, demanding their country’s WEF-infiltrated government grow a spine and stop catering to Klaus Schwab’s every demand.
Tens of thousands of German farmers are now bringing the fight directly to the socialist government, railing against the new policies designed to drive farmers out of business in favor of meeting the WEF’s Net Zero goals.
According to the farmers, if the government doesn’t drop its war against farmers, they are going to take their protests all the way to Davos where they will personally hold Schwab and his cronies to account.
This is no ordinary protest. More and more people from outside the farming industry are joining the protests. That’s right, ordinary people, fed up with the globalist agenda, are rising up against the global elite. And second, the mainstream media has been ordered to downplay what is happening out of fear of a contagion effect.
At this point we have to ask, why are they so scared? And what is really happening in Germany? We’ve got the inside scoop coming right up.
Nicole Schwab in 2020: “So I see it as a tremendous opportunity to really have this Great Reset and to use this huge flows of money — to use the increased levers that policymakers have today — in a way that was not possible before to create a change that is not incremental but that we can look back and we can say this is the moment where we really started to position nature at the core of the economy.”
Nicole Schwab, daughter of WEF founder, Klaus Schwab: "Covid" has demonstrated that rapid and extreme changes to the fabric of society can be implemented when people perceive an immediate sense of emergency—a mechanism that can be applied to the "climate crisis" in order to… pic.twitter.com/eFLlOLakgK
COVID-19 can be seen as an opportunity to accelerate the Green Transition we desperately need. Nicole Schwab, Co-director, Platform to Accelerate Nature-Based Solutions & 1t.org, World Economic Forum, Switzerland.
Nicole Schwab, Co-director, Platform to Accelerate Nature-Based Solutions & 1t.org, World Economic Forum, Switzerland.
Filmed by InTent in Yvorne, June 2020.
“This [COVID] crisis has shown us that first of all, things can shift very rapidly when we put our minds to it and when we feel the immediate emergency to our livelihoods. And second, that clearly the system, I mean, you mentioned it earlier, that we had before is not sustainable.
So I see it as a tremendous opportunity to really have this Great Reset and to use this huge flows of money — to use the increased levers that policymakers have today — in a way that was not possible before to create a change that is not incremental but that we can look back and we can say this is the moment where we really started to position nature at the core of the economy.
Taking the point of view of business and economy and looking at where are there opportunities to create jobs and regenerate nature? And there are plenty of opportunities and this is again a mindset of actually innovation technology and a business growth can happen with a positive impact of nature and kind of laying out some of these examples.
Regenerative agriculture is of course, a huge part of that as well. And one of the key reflection points here is also around engaging youth, and for me, it’s again, I come back to this shift in mindset of the restoration generation can we conceive of ourselves as humans? I mean, you talked about a new humanity, I think you mentioned it right? Can we conceive of ourselves as a restoration generation? I think that’s where we need to go. I’m also hopeful that it’s possible, but I think it will take a lot of will, both political will but also in terms of the business actors, to break with business as usual but in a very serious way and to say we need to make very difficult choices. There are trade-offs but this is our chance and other, and this is about risk, and it’s about resilience because the shocks are coming are going to be even worse if we don’t do it now.”
These days we are hosed every day with verbage, both written and spoken, claiming that absurdities are facts, and that common sense is illusion. Examples include labeling the essential trace gas CO2 as a “pollutant”. A man can decide he’s a woman and cannot be refused access to women’s sports, bathrooms or prisons. Pronouns are unhinged from any objective reality. Racial identities are claimed and paraded without any genetic basis. People are appointed to positions of power and responsibility without any required knowledge or competence, but solely upon their skin color and/or sexual preferences. Conversely, persons with demonstrated performance are barred from working because they come from a “privileged” background.
As well, there is rampant verbicide, where words are detached from realities, turned upside down, or rendered nonsensical. This is the result of postmodern newspeak. Encyclopedia Britannica explains:
Many postmodernists hold one or more of the following views:
(1) there is no objective reality; (2) there is no scientific or historical truth (objective truth); (3) science and technology (and even reason and logic) are not vehicles of human progress but suspect instruments of established power; (4) reason and logic are not universally valid; (5) there is no such thing as human nature (human behavior and psychology are socially determined or constructed); (6) language does not refer to a reality outside itself; (7) there is no certain knowledge; and (8) no general theory of the natural or social world can be valid or true (all are illegitimate “metanarratives”).
We now live in a world where legacy and social media have taken on the mission to impose on the population a Postmodern framework or matrix. And thus, words no longer mean what once they did. [Note that (6) is the basis for Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatBot. They can manipulate words to appear meaningful, but actual understanding of the world is impossible without linking to it] [For a discussion of the Glossary of Leftist Doublespeak, see Great Reset = Great Resentment.]
Here, I will focus on the depiction by George Orwell of how anti-realist attitudes can manifest themselves in culture and politics—with dire consequences upon the individual. In promoting the denial of objective reality and truth, these philosophies actually suppress a person’s ability to see and think freely about their world. It is therefore suggested here that any similar denial of our common-sense understanding of objective reality in scientific research on perception and illusions should be resisted.
Orwell then continues to lay out the psychological consequences of being subjected to such continuous and intense coercive pressure:
“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then?”
Note especially the sentence ‘Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy’, as it reminds us of the most relevant point about Orwell’s thesis.
But as Orwell also makes clear, it is not simply that loss of belief in objectivity opens the way to the tyranny of those with the loudest voices (or the most authority, charisma, guns, or money—or the catchiest slogans). The true problem is far deeper and more subtle. Instead of clarity and consistency, the powerful deliberately say contradictory things. This leads to the complete discrediting of everything that everybody says, however powerful or well qualified as ‘experts’ they may be. As soon as you have concluded you have no certain, true, and reliable facts upon which to base decisions, then you cease even any attempt to make them—you give up trying to think for yourself.
Your resulting state of lassitude and passivity clears the way for those in power to act as they please, without even minimal scrutiny or criticism from anyone else.
In a striking echo of the processes Orwell so described, some recent commentators on perception (e.g. Maniatis, 2015; Rose & Brown, 2015; Gomez-Marin, 2020; see also Hickok, 2015) have suggested that inconsistent, confusing, or contradictory statements about reality also appear in the perception research literature. For example, they point out, various researchers have denied the mind-independent existence of material objects,4and of the sun before human minds existed,5or have claimed that only phenomenal experiences are real,6while nevertheless maintaining that we evolved by natural selection—thus implicitly (and often explicitly) accepting that our ancestors were actual organisms, with actual sense organs,7in an objective world replete with sunshine, rocks, and rival organisms. Similarly inconsistently, some have denied that we perceive external reality correctly, as it ‘really’ is, without explaining how they know that such a reality exists at all, or how they know it is not as we perceive it, given that they also claim perception is the only source of knowledge that we have.8
But might the effects on readers, however unintentional, be the same as they are when politicians make contradictory statements? That is, uncertainty and apathy about what is real or true, or even antipathy towards the issue altogether. . . . Now, if such antipathy becomes widespread, decision-making might then be surrendered to whatever famous, charismatic or immediate source of influence is the most dominant, with passive and uncritical acceptance of whatever that authority has most recently declaimed or pontificated to be the truth. There would be no more independent thinking and critical appraisal of ideas in the field.
Objective Reality is a Many Splendored Thing
While there is no space here to give a full review and justification of this newer non-reductive metaphysics, I will briefly present three relevant ideas, which I hope will be sufficient to give the gist. First is the idea that Nature consists of multiple levels of dynamic interacting systems, nested more or less hierarchically within one another.Systems emerge by spontaneous self-organisation of components interacting with each other. The behaviours of those components are now constrained within the new higher-level system they have formed. Moreover, these lower-level components are themselves systems, similarly emerged from the level below them. This process applies recursively so that ultimately there are many levels of reality, not just that of the most fundamental physical building blocks, if any. It is all these multiple levels that comprise the material of reality and should be described by any comprehensive theory—and that hold the explanatory resources for our accounts of perception.
Second, it is natural to ask what these systems and their components are actually made of, or how they are ‘realized’. Any name is arbitrary here (since under monism there is nothing to contrast it with), 13 but some say ‘energy’ (e.g. Tyler, 2015; Pepperell, 2018) while others prefer ‘information’ or ‘pattern’; I will go with the latter.
Third, real existence is intimately linked with causal power. For example, nation states, not just their individual leaders, make war or peace with each other, which affects the futures of those entire nations as wholes. Companies engage in legally binding contracts with other companies. Government fiscal policy affects market behaviour and macroeconomic performance. The social ethos, Zeitgeist, social norms, and mores guide and direct the course and successfulness of whole societies and their philosophies. Thus, just as objects such as coronaviruses, umbrellas, and professors are real, so too are other higher-level emerged entities such as concepts, memes, reputations, invisible colleges, data sets, theories, and the laws of copyright. These are all the effects of causes and have causal effects on the world.
In sum, within this metaphysical picture, perception is causal information transfer.
Implications
So it is necessary to believe there are objective facts and truths about agreements and agriculture, elections and emotions, morals and murders, preferences and prejudice—otherwise we would have no standards against which to judge whether our words are truly meaningful, our actions genuinely effective or ethical, and our decisions and beliefs actually correct. Similarly, we need to believe there are objective facts and truths about portraits and parallel lines, stairs and spears, tigers and tables, ziggurats and zigzags, which we can use as a basis for our decisions on how and when to act—and against which we can judge whether our percepts are illusory or veridical.
In other words, if you believe that people are born and people die, that millions of people were killed in what is commonly known as the Holocaust, that theft is illegal in your country, that most people have two hands, that diamonds are denser than air, that the capital of France is called Paris, that vaccines protect us against viruses, … then you (at least implicitly) believe in objective reality. [Note: regarding vaccines, we now can exclude as illusions mRNA shots against SARS2, since they did not protect.]
So, as such a realist, you should believe there can be perceptual illusions (as they are commonly defined, i.e. deviations from veridical perception). Although there are multiple levels of reality, and hence many ways reality can be described (Todorović, 2020, pp. 1174–1178), one can stipulate or specify which are the relevant ones for measuring the ground truth that perception should match, and that give the criteria for distinguishing the veridical from the illusory. . . Illusions, like perception itself, must be defined with respect to a specified level of reality.
According to researchers from the American Academy of Neurology, global warming is fueling a rise in neurological diseases ranging from migraines to Alzheimer’s. People with Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis (MS) may also experience worsening symptoms. …
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, rising global average temperature continue to impact widespread changes in weather patterns, and extreme weather events—such as heat waves and hurricanes—are likely to become more frequent or more intense. Experts suggest that the stress of these events can trigger headaches.
Why Climate Change Might Be Affecting Your Headaches
by Kelsey Geesler
Recurring headaches are one of the most common nervous system disorders, with an estimated 45 million, or one in six, Americans complaining of headaches each year. People who experience headaches or migraines regularly are probably familiar with different triggers for their headaches—such as consuming alcohol, increased stress, or changes in sleep quality. But what people suffering from headaches might not realize is that climate change can have effects on headaches.
How Can Climate Change Cause Headaches?
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, rising global average temperature continue to impact widespread changes in weather patterns, and extreme weather events—such as heat waves and hurricanes—are likely to become more frequent or more intense. Experts suggest that the stress of these events can trigger headaches.
“Not only can experiencing an extreme storm itself be stressful, but the aftermath, where we have to deal with injuries, destruction to our homes or other property, and the loss of our possessions can add to that stress said Marilyn Howarth, MD, an adjunct associate professor of Pharmacology at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine and director of the Community Outreach and Engagement Core with the Center of Excellence in Environmental Toxicology (CEET). “This stress can cause people who are already susceptible to headaches to experience them more frequently or more acutely.”
With the increase of weather events that cause flooding, like hurricanes and other intense downpours, there is also an increased likelihood that storage facilities for chemicals and other hazardous materials may be disturbed, which could cause spills and leaks that can contaminate the soil, water, and air.
“A number of common chemicals, like solvents, are known to cause irritation in the nose and throat, and headaches, and if a high enough concentration of these chemicals makes it into the soil around our homes, or into our drinking water, exposure can cause headaches in some individuals,” Howarth noted. “Individuals may also come into contact with contaminated water while attempting to access their homes or evacuate the affected area, which could trigger headaches.”
Research also suggests that rising temperatures associated with climate change have an impact on changing foliage and pollen in some areas.
“These changes can lead to an increase in pollen that already exists in an area, or the introduction of a new kind of pollen in an area that has never seen it before,” Howarth elaborated. “People with existing allergies may see them get worse, and people who never experienced allergies in the past might develop them.”
A recent study from Holly Elser, MD, PhD, a Neurology resident at Penn Medicine, illustrates an increase in emergency department visits for patients diagnosed with headaches following wildfires in California. “Wildfires are most common in the Western U.S., with climate change driving the intensification and length of wildfire seasons. But even Mid-Atlantic states like Pennsylvania and New Jersey are subject to the effects of wildfires,” Elser said, noting a “red flag” warning in the Philadelphia region, just last month, resulting from warm temperatures, combined with very low humidity and strong winds, caused an increased risk of fire danger.
…
Children may be particularly susceptible to climate change impacts such as increased air pollution exacerbating asthma and flooding redistributing chemicals and causing mold growth which can also exacerbate asthma.
Headaches are not lethal every time, but their recurring episodes can cause huge discomfort and hinder our daily activities and productivity. Other than common factors like alcohol, stress, and poor sleep, now global warming has also become a major factor that can trigger headaches, found the University of Pennsylvania.
In its latest research, scientists found that the aftermath of storms, mainly led by climate change, can lead to stress and headaches. The aftermath of such storms includes the destruction of homes, property, loss of possessions, health issues, etc. Contamination of soil, water, and air, can also lead to an increase in cases of nose and throat irritation resulting in headaches.
Experts suggest that a spike in average temperature due to climate change can impact the changing foliage and pollen in some areas. Which can increase allergy symptoms among individuals.
Headaches are getting worse, and a new study says climate change may be to blame.
According to researchers from the American Academy of Neurology, global warming is fueling a rise in neurological diseases ranging from migraines to Alzheimer’s. People with Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis (MS) may also experience worsening symptoms.
Strokes may also become more prevalent as the planet heats up. The team notes that global warming causes air pollution, which previous studies have linked to worsening brain health. Smog from traffic and industry contains tiny toxic particles called particulate matter. They enter the bloodstream after people breathe them into their lungs. eventually, they can travel to the brain.
“Although the international community seeks to reduce global temperature rise to under 2.7 ºF before 2100, irreversible environmental changes have already occurred, and as the planet warms these changes will continue to occur,” says the Cleveland Clinic’s Andrew Dhawan, MD, DPhil, in a media release. “As we witness the effects of a warming planet on human health, it is imperative that neurologists anticipate how neurologic disease may change.”
Review of hundreds of studies sees increased neurological risk in climate change
Climate change and pollution are making troublesome neurological disease symptoms worse, according to new research in Neurology, the journal of the American Academy of Neurology.
The authors reviewed 364 studies from 1990 to 2022 on climate change, neurological disorders, temperature and pollutants to reach their conclusion. As Forbes summarized findings, “extreme weather events accelerated by climate change are associated with an increase in strokes, migraines and seizures, an increase in hospital visits among patients with dementia and worsening severity of multiple sclerosis symptoms.”
The studies all involved adult subjects, not children.
Kerry: “We can’t get to net-zero, we don’t get this job done unless agriculture is front and center as part of the solution. So all of us understand here the depths of this mission.” … Kerry added that “lives depend” on world leaders and scientists developing the tools necessary to lower agriculture emissions. … I refuse to call it climate change anymore. It’s not change. It’s a crisis.”
#
“Mitigating methane is the fastest way to reduce warming in the short term. Food and agriculture can contribute to a low-methane future by improving farmer productivity and resilience. We welcome agriculture ministers participating in the implementation of the Global Methane Pledge,” said John Kerry, U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate.
Thrilled to join Chile, Brazil, Australia, and nine other countries in committing to reduce methane emissions from the agricultural sector. Agriculture is the largest contributor to global methane emissions today, and reducing methane emissions is essential to keep 1.5C within… pic.twitter.com/88xyvleuxi
Kerry lamented that agriculture production alone creates 33% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that reducing those emissions must be “front and center” in the quest to defeat global warming, during remarks Wednesday morning at the Department of Agriculture’s AIM for Climate Summit. The former secretary of state also touted so-called climate smart agriculture as a potential solution.
“A lot of people have no clue that agriculture contributes about 33% of all the emissions of the world,” he said during his keynote address. “We can’t get to net-zero, we don’t get this job done unless agriculture is front and center as part of the solution. So all of us understand here the depths of this mission.”
“Food systems themselves contribute a significant amount of emissions just in the way in which we do the things we’ve been doing,” he continued. “With a growing population on the planet – we just crossed the threshold of 8 billion fellow citizens around the world – emissions from the food system alone are projected to cause another half a degree of warming by mid-century.”
Overall, the global food system – which includes land-use change, actual agricultural production, packaging and waste management – generates about 18 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, the equivalent of 34% of total worldwide emissions, according to a March 2021 study published in the Nature Food journal.
In the U.S., though, agriculture alone generates about 10% of total greenhouse gas emissions, federal data showed.
…
“This sector needs innovation now more than ever,” Kerry continued Wednesday. “We’re facing record malnutrition at a time when agriculture, more than any other sector, is suffering from the impacts of the climate crisis. And I refuse to call it climate change anymore. It’s not change. It’s a crisis.”
“We need economic, social and policy innovation in order to scale adaptation of these technical solutions and get them into the hands of folks in the fields of small farmers on a worldwide basis. This is the promise of AIM for Climate Summit.”
WASHINGTON, May 10 (Reuters) – Cutting greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural production is essential to the global fight against climate change, U.S. climate envoy John Kerry said on Wednesday.
Agriculture generates 10% to 12% of greenhouse gas emissions globally, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The food system as a whole – including packaging, transportation, and waste management – generates a third of global emissions, according to a 2021 study published in the academic journal Nature Food.
“We can’t get to net zero, we don’t get this job done, unless agriculture is front and center as part of the solution,” Kerry, the special presidential envoy for climate, said at the AIM for Climate summit in Washington.
He said that without cutting agricultural emissions, the world may not reach its goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius – which scientists say must be achieved to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
President Joe Biden has pledged the U.S. will reach net zero emissions by 2050.
Rising global temperatures have severe implications for malnutrition and food security worldwide, Kerry said.
“A 2-degree future could result in another 600 million people not getting enough to eat,” said the former U.S. secretary of state. “You can’t continue to warm the planet while also expecting to feed it.”
AIM for Climate is a global initiative, co-led by the U.S. and the United Arab Emirates, to drive investment in farming practices that cut the sector’s emissions.
Santiago, Chile – Today, the Global Methane Hub announced that agriculture and environment ministers and ambassadors from 13 countries, including the United States, have issued a commitment to reduce methane emissions in agriculture. Last month, the Global Methane Hub collaborated with the Ministries of Agriculture of Chile and Spain to convene the first-ever global ministerial on agricultural practices to reduce methane emissions.
…
“Mitigating methane is the fastest way to reduce warming in the short term. Food and agriculture can contribute to a low-methane future by improving farmer productivity and resilience. We welcome agriculture ministers participating in the implementation of the Global Methane Pledge,” said John Kerry, U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate.
#
Related:
Daily Mail: ‘Leave us alone to do what we do best’: Fury at UK plan to hand millions to farmers to turn 741,000 acres of land into nature reserves pushed by ‘rewilding cult’
George Eustice launches £2.4billion-a-year plan replacing EU’s £2.4bn common agricultural policy
Farmers and landowners will be paid for planting trees and restoring wetlands in 15 new nature reserves
The ‘landscape recovery scheme’ will eventually cost the taxpayer £800million a year from 2028
But there are concerns about risk to food security and policy will benefit Britain’s richest landowners
Farmers say Boris Johnson’s ‘mad’ obsession with rewilding will drive smaller farmers out of business
Ministers claim plans will turn 741,000 acres into wildlife habitats in 20 years and will not risk food supply
Two days ago I posted what I thought would be quite an innocuous twitter thread about the implications of the U.K. Government’s target of ‘Net Zero’ by 2050.
1. Reminder of what ‘net zero’ really means. This graphic from UK Govt FIRES project. Key points: all airports except Heathrow, Belfast & Glasgow to close by 2030. NO FLYING at all by 2050. No new petrol/diesel cars by 2030; by 2050 road use restricted to 60% of today’s level. pic.twitter.com/0s0dI9kAHK
Specifically, I showed this graphic from the U.K. Government-funded FIRES project that summarised its recommended necessary strategy to achieve Net Zero by 2050 based only on evolutionary technological developments (the report it’s from has been around since 2021 and I’ve even posted about it before).
Now, for clarification ‘Net Zero’ means total greenhouse gas emissions (including methane) must be less than their removals (such as from planting trees). The FIRES report instead focused on an absolute zero target because they recognise the absence of novel revolutionary scalable technologies for 1) capture and removal of these gases and 2) non-fossil fuel mass transportation and energy production. In other words, if you realistically want to achieve the Net Zero target by 2050 you essentially have to go for absolute zero.
My twitter thread highlighed the eye-watering points that the strategy required:
All airports in the U.K. except Heathrow, Belfast and Glasgow to close by 2030.
No flying at all by 2050.
No new petrol or diesel cars by 2030.
By 2050 road use restricted to 60% of today’s level.
Food, heating and energy restricted to 60% of today’s level by 2050.
Beef and lamb to be phased out by 2050.
I said that, apart from the extreme limitations on personal freedom and travel, this means either a colder, hungrier population or massive depopulation.
Within less than 24 hours the tweet had amassed well over three million impressions (by far the highest I’ve ever achieved).
And, whereas three years solid work undertaking Covid data analysis and exposing the manipulation and flaws of the entire ‘official’ narrative had never led to a single mainstream media article or interview, I was invited on to Laura Ingraham’s popular Fox News show last night to speak about this.
(The interview was actually pre-recorded an hour before it was aired and quite a lot of what I said for context, such as the Covid lockdown trial run and new technology challenges, didn’t make the cut.)
So, although the FIRES report is not new it seems that finally people are waking up to the lunacy of the Government’s Net Zero target and why it is doomed to fail (as explained by Professor Michael Kelly).
But it’s still a surprise that it is a surprise to so many. All of this is consistent with UN/WEF Agenda 21, the UN ‘World at 2050′ agenda, and the WEF Great Reset with its ‘Build Back Better’ in which you’ll “own nothing and be happy”, and eat bugs instead of meat. Of course ’15 minute cities’ now being pushed everywhere are key to all of this (everything that’s happening now in that respect and how it fits into Agenda 21 was explained in Rosa Koire’s 2011 book). As I said in 2021, the Covid lockdowns were always going to be the precursor for climate lockdowns.
Until he retired in January, Norman Fenton was Professor in Risk Information Management at Queen Mary University of London.
This BBC interview with Elon Musk has already been covered elsewhere, but Jesse Watters cleverly picks up on the BBC guy using the “Strategic Dialogue Institute” as an example of an organisation who says that hate speech is on the rise on Twitter.
As Jesse notes, the ISD (Institute for Strategic Dialogue), which laughingly calls itself independent, is funded by Bill Gates, George Soros, the UN and a host of western governments. According to their website:
The Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) is an independent, non-profit organisation dedicated to safeguarding human rights and reversing the rising tide of polarisation, extremism and disinformation worldwide.
And its Annual Accounts even list its principal object is “to educate the public”:
This is the second in a set of essays about the issue generally known as “climate change” or “global warming.” In the first, [[1]], I looked for evidence to support the claims of catastrophic climate change, caused by emissions of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) from human civilization, which have been and are being made so frequently and so stridently by green activists and alarmists. I found no such evidence.
When I embarked on the writing of this second essay, my target was to pull together, all in one place, the full back-story to these accusations. I started to document, in some detail, how the United Nations, governments, mainstream media and others have joined together in a project, whose objective appears to be no less than the destruction of our human industrial civilization. But the tale grew in the telling. After several weeks of work, I realized I had far too much material to be able to tell the story all in one go. I therefore determined to split the back-story into more digestible chunks. That in itself was quite a task!
I am presenting this back-story with a particular focus on climate policies in the UK. In my researches, I have made some amazing, and unsettling, discoveries about how dishonestly the UK government has treated us. But I’m sure that those in other countries will be able to find parallels from their own experiences.
I ended up with a revised plan, which required splitting the back-story into four parts. So, there will now be five essays in the set, not two as I originally planned. In this, the second, I’ll give you a feel for how badly the UK government has been treating us on this issue over the last few years. In the third, I will trace the back-story up to the Rio “Earth Summit” of 1992. The fourth will cover the back-story from 1992 onwards, with the exception of the thorny issue of cost-benefit analysis, which I will discuss in the fifth and final essay.
2019: a year of madness
To summarize the UK government’s handling of the “climate change” issue in recent years, I chose to pick a relevant date in the recent past, and to begin my account from that date.
The date I chose was April 30th, 2019. That day marked the start of a huge wave of UK government activity, all directed towards killing the mobility, freedoms and prosperity of ordinary people in the name of some claimed (but, in reality, non-existent) climate crisis.
Extinction Rebellion
On that day, April 30th, 2019, minister Michael Gove met with Extinction Rebellion (XR). There is a video of the meeting, here: [[2]]. I only watched a small part of it. But, particularly in the light of subsequent destructive actions by XR, the chumminess of this meeting is very concerning. And they got to see Labour politicians, and the mayor of London, on the same visit! The Guardian commented on the meeting here: [[3]].
Later in the year, south-east England’s anti-terrorist police included Extinction Rebellion in a list of “extremist” organizations. Though they were eventually forced to withdraw this.
“Climate emergency”
On May 1st, the day following that meeting, the parliament declared a “climate emergency.” Without any hard evidence that any such emergency existed, and without even taking a vote.
This is typical of how today’s political classes operate. They bring up some problem, which may or may not be real. They blow it up until they have made it look like a really big issue, that needs to be “fixed.” They then “fix” it by making bad laws, which seriously infringe on basic human rights. Climate is not the only case in point; just recently, the UK political class has done exactly the same thing on the issue of asylum seekers arriving by boat across the English Channel.
In any case, as I showed in the first essay of this set, there is no “climate crisis” or “climate emergency” in the real world. The “emergency” or “crisis” of May 1st, 2019 only existed in the minds of those seeking to use climate as an excuse to make bad laws and hurt people.
Interestingly, on May 2nd, Sky News published the results of a poll [[4]] of a random sample of their subscribers. 56% said they would be unwilling to drive significantly less to protect the environment. And 53% said they would be unwilling even in principle to significantly reduce the amount they fly. Clearly, the politicians had lost the plot, and were completely out of touch with the people they were supposed to be serving.
“Net zero”
In June 2019, the government put forward, and the parliament passed, a bill to set “a target for at least a 100% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (compared to 1990 levels) in the UK by 2050.” (At least 100%? Maybe more? Crazy).
This target, called “net zero,” replaced an earlier target of an 80% cut from 1990 levels. An official government web page describes this, indeed, all but crows about it: [[5]]. This was at least the fourth time since 1992 that the UK government had moved the emissions goalposts. Always in the direction of greater reductions, of course.
The CCC Net Zero report
The report which supposedly “justified” this, called “Net Zero: The UK’s contribution to stopping global warming,” came from the Committee on Climate Change (CCC). This committee was chaired by John Selwyn Gummer, also known as Lord Deben. The CCC is supposed to be an independent and impartial advisory body. But in my view, it’s about as impartial as Extinction Rebellion.
You can find the report at [[6]]. But I don’t advise you to read it, unless you’re a masochist. I tried to read several different bits, and on each occasion had to give up in less than a page. It reads like nothing more than a gigantic exercise in virtue signalling, and I can’t understand why any sane person could believe anything in it.
All I gleaned from it is that they reckoned the cost of “net zero” measures might be 1-2% of UK GDP in 2050. But, as we know, government projects always cost more and take longer. So, I think one to two pinches of salt are in order.
UK Climate Assembly
Parliamentary select committees also initiated a scheme of “citizens’ climate assemblies,” one of the demands put forward by Extinction Rebellion. It’s amazing, and very concerning, that in a so-called “democracy,” those who are supposed to serve the people kow-towed to disruptive extremists, but never even bothered to ask us the people what we thought.
The result was a “UK Climate Assembly,” which eventually produced a report in 2020. I’ll discuss that report in the next section.
Absolute Zero
In November 2019, a joint report called “Absolute Zero” was published by five UK universities, using the collective moniker “UK FIRES.” For a summary, see [[7]]. The purpose of this report seems to have been to soften people up for the de-carbonization of Western economies, which national and international political élites want to force on us all.
After just a single pass through the diagram summarizing the proposals, I could see that the whole idea was a dystopian nightmare. The proposals read like the edicts of a crazed, ultra-conservative dictator. And they made Soviet five-year plans look like a cake-walk.
The general election of 2019
In a sense, the UK general election of December 2019 didn’t change anything, because it kept the Tories in power. One issue completely dominated that election: Brexit.
Myself, I was well aware that an awful lot was wrong with what the Tories had been doing to us. But I regarded Brexit, and in particular getting away from the European Court of Justice (ECJ), as a sine qua non for any kind of improvement. I had gone so far as to become a member of the Brexit party. I had been agitating as hard as I could for the party to commit to getting “net zero” and the rest of the green agenda reviewed by outside, independent auditors; but they weren’t yet ready to do that. Despite this, and despite having been a conscientious non-voter in UK elections for 32 years, I was ready to vote for my local Brexit candidate. But when Nigel Farage withdrew all the candidates in Tory held seats, he was one of them.
The Tory manifesto proposed “the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on earth.” “We will lead the global fight against climate change.” And a lot more crap like that. Even if their candidate had not been Jeremy Hunt, I could never have voted for the party. So, I returned to my conscientious non-voting. But many people, who just wanted Brexit done and didn’t care a damn about the green agenda, were fooled into voting for that agenda by the Tories’ promise to “get Brexit done.” The Tories had offered people a carrot with a huge turd on it. And far too many people took the bait.
2020-21: no let-up in the madness
You might have thought that, with COVID-19 exploding on to the world scene, and people being all but confined to their homes for weeks or months at a time, there might have been some let-up in the mad rush towards the green cliff. But not so.
Extinction Rebellion dig up a lawn
If anyone still needed to be reminded that Extinction Rebellion are destructive and extremist, an event in February 2020 provided such a reminder. XR dug up a famous lawn at Trinity College, Cambridge: [[8]]. The lawn is famous, because it backs on to the staircase where Isaac Newton used to live, and has an apple tree (but not the one that prompted him to think about gravity). Oh, and Trinity was my college.
The UK Climate Assembly report
The UK Climate Assembly produced a report in September 2020. A summary is here: [[9]].
The assembly “asked citizens to listen to advice from climate experts,” before setting them to make “a list of recommendations for how the country should reach net-zero emissions by 2050.” The first “expert lead” was Chris Stark, chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change, which has been driving the “climate change” agenda in the UK since 2008. A second was Professor Jim Watson, the chair of the “UK Net Zero Advisory Group.” And a third was the director of the “Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations”: [[10]]. Not exactly independent or unbiased experts, then.
The assembly’s final report “recommends changes across a broad range of sectors, from meat-and-dairy consumption and air travel through to zero-carbon heating and electricity generation. Measures receiving high levels of support from the assembly include: a levy for frequent fliers; a ban on the sale of petrol, diesel and hybrid cars by 2030-35; and a switch to a more biodiversity-focused farming system.”
What a travesty of “democracy” and “consulting the people!” Obviously, with such biased “experts,” there was no possibility of the assembly members ever being told the truth, or allowed to express their reservations. And anyone who thought “net zero” was unnecessary or counter-productive must surely have been purged from the assembly even before it began.
The Ten Point Plan
In November 2020, the government published their Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution [[11]]. The phrase “green industrial revolution” was lifted by the Tories straight out of Labour’s 2019 manifesto! I set out my own views on these matters here: [[12]].
I suppose this plan was a little less extreme than “Absolute Zero.” But of the ten points, only one (expansion of nuclear power) seems to me to be clearly a sensible path to take. Some parts of another (better flood defences, and planting more trees) would likely produce some benefits.
The rest, I find highly dubious. (Much) more off-shore wind power? It didn’t succeed last time it was tried, and the costs look to be far greater than has ever been admitted. Low carbon hydrogen? A costly and dangerous pipe-dream. Electric vehicles replacing fossil-fuelled ones? Impractical for many; unaffordable for most; and the scale of the electricity grid expansion needed was grossly under-estimated.
Public transport, cycling and walking? Impractical for very many journeys. In particular, you can’t use public transport that isn’t there at all, or doesn’t run when you need it. You can’t cycle easily in hilly areas. And you can’t walk on a journey if you have a big load to carry.
“Jet zero” and green ships? Another pipe-dream. Greener buildings? Very expensive, and extremely disruptive (though they have since walked back the proposal to ban new gas boilers in pre-existing homes). Carbon capture? Unproven, and horribly expensive. Green finance? The only beneficiaries will be politicians, financiers and big-company bosses.
In summary, these “net zero” proposals were and are, in no particular order: Not properly costed. Not properly thought through. The benefits are unsure. Pie in the sky. Very expensive. Seriously reducing, or even destroying, freedom and mobility for many ordinary people. Disruptive and potentially dangerous. Likely to raise the costs of travel and of trade. Requiring huge investments of money that people don’t have, in order to bring about a lower standard of living than we have now. Already been tried and failed in one country or another. Requiring huge tax rises. All but certain to tank.
And the costs will fall on, guess who? Ordinary people. What will we get in return? We will suffer unnecessary disruptions. We will lose freedom and convenience. We’ll be poorer. Our lives will be worse, not better. And we will get little, if anything, of any positive utility to us.
Besides which, where are the feasibility studies for each of these proposals? And where are the objective cost versus benefit analyses? I’m willing to bet they haven’t been done at all.
COP 26
Then there was the UN “Conference of the Parties” meeting in Glasgow in November 2021. Its stated purpose was: “to accelerate action towards the goals of the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.” And its theme statement was: “uniting the world to tackle climate change.”
As I wrote at the time: “Like bidders at an auction at which they are spending other people’s money, politicians fall over each other to make commitment after commitment on behalf of the people they are supposed to (but fail to) represent. These commitments, they must know, if carried out will cause severe pain and inconvenience to very many ordinary people. And those people have never even been consulted on the matter. But drunk with their sense of power, they plan to go on regardless; for it’s our money they are spending, not their own. And we are the ones who are and will be suffering the pain and inconvenience, not them.”
As an example of some of the crap spouted by the UK government in Glasgow, consider a commitment made by then education secretary Nadhim Zahawi. “Young people will be empowered to take action on the environment as part of new measures designed to put climate change at the heart of education.” This is on an official government web page: [[13]]. If that isn’t indoctrinating young children with propaganda, I don’t know what is.
But the results from Glasgow were not entirely catastrophic for those of us who are implacably opposed to the green agenda in all its forms. There were some high-profile non-appearances. Putin stayed at home in Russia. Xi, likewise, stayed home in China. Modi went home to India, having announced plans that will surely disappoint the extremist agitators. And remember, China and India between them account for 36% of the world’s population. There did seem to be a sense that the green leviathan had, at last, encountered a certain degree of resistance from a few countries that had worked out that it isn’t in their interests to stay on that bandwagon much longer. That’s encouraging, but not nearly enough yet.
The war on our cars
But the great bulk of the actions that UK governments, both national and local, have been taking on the green agenda in recent years, have been those directed towards their long-planned objective of forcing ordinary people out of our cars.
Sham “consultation”
In July 2021, the UK government held a “consultation” on “bringing forward the end to the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans from 2040 to 2035, or earlier if a faster transition appears feasible.” I myself submitted a 58-page, detailed response. My response, and the responses of others like me, to that “consultation” were totally ignored. And the ban was moved forward to 2030. The whole “consultation” was a sham.
Recently, this subject has been in the news again, as the EU, pressured by the Germans, have started to back away from their own similar commitment, which was only due to come into force in 2035 anyway. I expect the pig-headed UK government to bury their snouts in the sand on this one, and stay on their course to civilizational suicide. Indeed, prime minister Rishi Sunak announced, just recently, that car makers will have to ensure that 22 per cent of the vehicles they sell in the UK are all-electric by 2024: [[14]]. That’s next year!
C40
One of the organizations which has been driving the green agenda, particularly in London, is C40: [[15]]. C40 is an international organization, which describes itself as “A global network of mayors taking urgent action to confront the climate crisis and create a future where everyone can thrive.” C40’s mission, so they say, “is to halve the emissions of its member cities within a decade, while improving equity, building resilience, and creating the conditions for everyone, everywhere to thrive.” Moreover: “C40 member cities earn their membership through action. C40’s most distinguishing feature is that it operates on performance-based requirements, not membership fees.”
And every year, they hold a world mayors’ summit, at which they gather and gab about forcing us to reduce our emissions, for example by making us walk or cycle instead of driving our cars. But not many of them actually walk or cycle from their homes to and from the mayors’ summit, do they? What a bunch of hypocrites.
C40 has, so its website says, been in existence since 2005. I retched when I found out the name of its founder: “Red Ken” Livingstone, former mayor of London. But in retrospect, I found it hardly surprising, since I already knew the identity of its chair, the current mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. Put Boris Johnson in between them, and you have three extremist green stooges in a row as mayors of London.
The London ULEZ expansion
Which brings me to the London Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ). This was originally planned by Boris Johnson, but introduced by Sadiq Khan in April 2019. More proof that the two main UK political parties are both hives of green zealotry.
I can’t resist a bit of a plug for my own work, even in a different field (air pollution). In 2017, I published some social cost calculations on air pollution from cars in the UK, together with a lot of background and back-story on the issue. You can find that paper here: [[16]]. My conclusion was: “There is no case, on social cost grounds, for such charges on Euro 5 diesels (2010 to 2014) or on any petrol cars. For all these cars, the excess of the social cost of the pollution they emit, compared to a new (Euro 6) car of the same type, is £25 a year or less. Two entry fees to the London ULEZ would cover the social cost of this pollution for a whole year. To levy such outrageous charges on drivers of these cars is unreasonable.”
The ULEZ was, from the start, a money-grubber for Sadiq Khan and Transport for London. As well as being a way to impose what are in effect fines on car drivers. An independent 2021 study showed that any improvement it might have made in air quality was only marginal: [[17]]. More recently, even the “science” that, allegedly, shows that significant damage is caused to Londoners’ health by air pollution from cars, is being increasingly questioned. Yet, Sadiq Khan has planned to extend the ULEZ throughout all the London boroughs from August 2023. We hear he has already bought cameras to enforce it: [[18]]. And it looks as if the police will have access to those cameras, too: [[19]].
But this time, Khan isn’t having things all his own way. Four outer London local councils, together with Surrey County Council, are challenging the ULEZ expansion in court: [[20]]. We shall see what the High Court will have to say. Khan himself has started to get more than a little rattled and emotional, as this video shows: [[21]]. And Gareth Bacon, MP for Orpington in outer London, has highlighted that the ULEZ extension isn’t about improving air quality, but about raking in money. If Khan is not stopped, we will be seeing gilets jaunes, or worse, on the streets of outer London. In fact, the movement is already starting: [[22]].
“Smart Road User Charging”
But harassed London drivers – and, in time, the rest of us – will soon be under further attack from a slightly different angle. There’s been a recent “consultation” on “smart road user charging” in London: [[23]]. According to the consultation document, this is meant to “address the triple challenges of toxic air pollution, the climate emergency and traffic congestion.” The consultation period in this case was remarkably short, only just over a month. Suspicious? This does appear to be still in the relatively early stages of discussion, and I won’t say more until I see the detailed proposals. But given how fast our enemies like to move, it could be with us sooner rather than later.
UK national road charging
Then there is the matter of a national road charging system. A report from 2022 is here: [[24]]. One proposed option, which seems to be favoured by many of those involved, is “a road pricing mechanism that uses telematic technology to charge drivers according to distance driven, factoring in vehicle type and congestion.” Does this mean, as the word “telematic” would seem to imply, tracking in detail every single car journey made anywhere in the UK? And does it mean charging so much for journeys made by petrol and diesel cars, that those who can’t afford to buy electric cars won’t be able to afford private mobility at all?
The latest I have been able to find on this is at [[25]]. It includes a copy of a letter from Jeremy Hunt, chancellor of the exchequer – “Chief Thief,” in my parlance. Hunt states “the government does not currently have plans to consider road pricing.” But I know Hunt. He is, after all, “my” MP, and far worse than useless as a “representative,” because he is hostile to virtually everything I stand for, including honesty. So, I read that statement as “we aren’t considering it, because we decided long ago to make it happen, and we’ve already started implementing it.” Expect this issue to rear its head again, sooner rather than later.
Oxford traffic filters and “15-minute cities”
But right now, “ground zero” in the fight for our rights and freedoms against draconian green policies is the city of Oxford. In November 2022, Oxfordshire County Council decided on a plan to install traffic filters in six key locations around Oxford. There is a description of the proposals here: [[26]]. The filters “are intended to reduce traffic levels in Oxford by targeting unnecessary journeys by cars.” Who are these arrogant sods, that they claim a right to decide that someone else’s journey is “unnecessary?” Or a right to “target” anyone?
Residents in Oxford will be able to get a permit to go through the filters on 100 days a year, and residents in Oxfordshire but outside Oxford city on 25 days a year. The web page says nothing at all about how much these permits will cost, or how the rules might be changed in the future. Those snapped going through the filters without a permit will be fined £70. Like Sadiq Khan, I think, those favouring the filters have their eyes on the money, as well as on hurting people they don’t approve of.
There was a “consultation” period in September and October 2022. Local people have told me that the vote was over 90 per cent against the introduction of the filters. But Oxfordshire County Council and Oxford City Council dispute this figure: [[27]]. What the councils say there suggests that there was no question in the questionnaire, to enable respondents to say how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the scheme! If so, that’s bad questionnaire design. Or, perhaps, the questionnaire was designed to avoid a result the councils didn’t want.
In any case, the data they give implies that, of the 6,190 comments they counted from 4,814 respondents, 4,213 (68%) were against the scheme, 656 (11%) were for it, and 1,321 (21%) were against it unless and until public transport was significantly improved. That looks like between 68% and 89% against the scheme. Still a very significant majority against.
Yet Oxford residents were told, just after the consultation ended, that the scheme will be going ahead anyway: [[28]]. So much for any pretence of “democracy!” Moreover, when a public debate was held on the issue in early March, the councillors responsible for the scheme were invited to attend and speak, but did not bother to do so. Only one Oxfordshire councillor turned up. And he was from Witney, 12 miles away from Oxford.
Closely related to the traffic filters is the “15-minute city” project, which seems to be a project of Oxford City Council rather than the county council. It’s hard to find an unbiased view of what this is all about – google “Oxford 15-minute city” and virtually all the links you get will be views from extreme greens, accusing those opposing the idea of being “right-wing conspiracy theorists,” “flat earthers” or spreaders of “fake news.”
The question this raises in my mind, though, is why the hell councils are making “local plans” for us, without us having ever had the chance to scrutinize them or object to them? I don’t want my life planned by some bunch of bureaucrats. The only person entitled to plan my life is me.
UK 100
“UK 100” is an organization, about which I only found out a few months ago. It describes itself as “a network of local leaders who have pledged to lead a rapid transition to Net Zero with Clean Air in their communities ahead of the government’s legal target.” This looks like the UK equivalent of the C40 global network of city mayors.
Their membership page [[29]] begins: “As local leaders across the UK, we recognize our responsibility to tackle the climate emergency and take bold action toward Net Zero.” The About page says: “UK100’s primary purpose is to support a local-led rapid transition to Net Zero and Clean Air. We do this through collaboration. To accelerate action, we believe in bringing together the most influential leaders across the country to learn together and agree on priorities for legislative and regulatory change while empowering them to engage with national decision-makers. We provide our network with the knowledge, tools and connections to make this happen.”
From the list of members (I counted 108), it seems that this is not an organization of mayors, or of individual politicians, but of councils. It includes councils at both the county and district levels, sometimes overlapping. Many of the expected suspects, that have been taken over by green extremists, are there: Bath and North East Somerset, Birmingham, Brighton, Cambridge (and Cambridgeshire, too), Edinburgh, Exeter, Glasgow, 11 London boroughs plus Westminster, Oxford (and Oxfordshire).
That Oxford and Oxfordshire are both in the list, suggests that UK 100 may well be the force behind the goings-on over the proposed Oxford “15-minute city” and traffic filters.
There are 13 county councils in the list, including the county in which I live (Surrey). That there are this many, suggests that the extremists do not intend to stop when they have reduced all the UK’s cities to the status of unfit for human beings to live in. It looks as if they plan to carry on extending their mad, bad schemes to towns, to suburbs, to villages, and eventually out into the countryside.
Cebr report
Now, a small piece of good news. In October 2022, a report by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (Cebr) analysed the costs and benefits of the 2030 ban on sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles on the UK. You can down-load this report via [[30]]. As far as I am aware, it was the first attempt by professional economists in the UK to do an unbiased, objective cost-benefit analysis on any part of the green agenda.
The take-home message of the Cebr report is that “the benefits to UK households of implementing the fossil fuel vehicle sale bans are far outweighed by the costs.” The costs of the bans to ordinary people in the UK, as calculated using the government’s own cost-benefit methodology, will be more than five times the “benefits” from the savings in carbon dioxide emissions and pollution.
Beyond this, they revealed that the number the UK government uses to calculate the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions by a tonne (£255.40) is more than five times the sterling equivalent of the US government’s published value of the “social cost of carbon” per tonne (£48.54). I repeated Cebr’s calculation of the costs versus benefits, using the US government number rather than the UK. My conclusion was that the costs exceeded the “benefits” by a factor of more than 15.
To their credit, the Sun did report this at the time: [[31]]. But it made no difference whatsoever to the government’s position. The final report of their “review of net zero” [[32]] merely says: “It is not a cost-benefit analysis but a first step in understanding trade-offs over a 30-year economic transition.” In other words, they’re going to do the “net zero” crap to us anyway, and stuff how much it costs or hurts the plebs. How much more dishonest can you get?
Rampant hypocrisy
Throughout this saga, on top of their thinly veiled arrogance and pervasive dishonesty, you can see the astonishing hypocrisy of many “net zero” promoters. They want to force draconian and damaging restrictions on how ordinary people live, while themselves enjoying their jet-setting, limo-riding lifestyles, many of them at taxpayer expense!
In 2020, for example, the then Prince Charles, a major promoter of the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset,” travelled to Cambridge to give a speech about cutting aircraft emissions. He made the journey by helicopter! [[33]]. He could be the king of bloody England for all I care. But this incident shows him up for what he is: a prat and a hypocrite, unable or unwilling to practise what he preaches. Charlie Chump, as I call him, should have walked or cycled on that journey, as he wants to force us to.
And the politicians are just as bad. In the middle of the CoP 26 gabfest in 2021, prime minister Boris Johnson flew from Glasgow to London by private plane, for no better reason than a dinner engagement: [[34]]. Alok Sharma, minister responsible for hosting the CoP 26 conference, at the time ran two diesel SUVs: [[35]]. And more recently, prime minister Rishi Sunak has made a habit of using Royal Air Force planes to get to his engagements: [[36]].
If you really want people to believe any of your “nett zero” nonsense, you wallies, you must live nett zero, and be seen to do so. Hypocrisy in government, or indeed any dishonesty towards the people government is supposed to be serving, ought to be a dismissal offence.
To sum up
In the last four years alone, the UK government has been, again and again, tyrannical and dishonest on the “climate change” issue towards the people it is supposed to serve.
It has fraternized with extremists like Extinction Rebellion. It has declared a “climate emergency,” without any hard evidence of such an emergency, and without the parliament even taking a vote. It has mandated emissions reductions that, if informed in advance of their likely consequences, we would have rebelled against. It has moved the emissions goalposts, always in the direction of greater reductions. It has erected a supposedly democratic “assembly,” and made it nothing more than a rubber stamp for a pre-determined agenda. It is seeking to make it all but impossible for those, who cannot afford to buy electric cars, to retain their personal mobility.
It has laid down, and is implementing, policies which go very seriously against the interests of the people it is supposed to be serving. The effects will be disruptive, and will severely and negatively impact our freedoms and our prosperity. And it is doing these things to us without proper feasibility study, or proper analysis of the costs and benefits or of the risks.
On the occasions where it has allowed us an apparent say in the matter, it has ignored our views. It has conspired – yes, I do mean that word – with international parties to develop and promote an agenda hostile to us, the human beings it is supposed to serve; something that no democracy should ever do. It has encouraged extremists to force that agenda on to us at the local level as well as the national. It is indoctrinating young children with lies and scares. And in all these things, it has behaved with arrogance, dishonesty and hypocrisy.
We, the people, want all this climate crap stopped. Now. And we want our money back!
America’s food security is being threatened by the forces of the Great Reset led by the World Economic Forum in Davos and under the thumb of the United Nations “sustainable development” Agenda 2030.
“Biden Says to Expect ‘Real’ Food Shortages Due to Ukraine War,” blared a headline from Bloomberg News in 2022. “It’s going to be real,” Biden asserted. The U.N. estimated that 2.3 billion people are severely or moderately hungry globally.
A food crisis is just the ticket for even more chaos that the WEF can exploit for their Reset agenda. “Over the last decade” China has been “snapping up farmland and purchasing major agribusinesses,” according to a 2021 report by Politico. “By the start of 2020, Chinese owners controlled about 192,000 agricultural acres in the U.S., worth $1.9 billion, including land used for farming, ranching, and forestry, according to the Agriculture Department.”
During a House Appropriations Committee hearing, Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA) noted that “the current trend in the U.S. is leading us toward the creation of a Chinese-owned agricultural land monopoly.”
But don’t worry, China has competition for gobbling up U.S. farmland. The quest for a Chinese land monopoly is being challenged by Bill Gates! Gates’s fake-meat agenda could transform American farming. “All rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef,” Gates has urged.
“Farmers [are being] turned into renters” as Gates becomes the “nation’s largest farmland owner” by using “a web of at least 22 limited liability shell companies,” reported NBC News in 2021. “Young farmers” are “going up against these billionaire investors…. Who can compete with the likes of Bill Gates, right? More and more we are seeing farmers turn into renters,” tech reporter April Glaser explained, noting that more farmland could be “gobbled up by an investor class.” “Bill Gates isn’t the one in overalls,” Glaser pointed out. “He is not the one on the tractor doing the farming. He is the landlord here.”
The question looms: China or Bill Gates, who is more of a threat to America?
The World Economic Forum is so eager to promote synthetic “meat” that they are touting numerous ways to print up to 6 kilograms of the fake meat an hour. As part of this new coerced Great Diet Reset, the WEF has been advocating eating bugs to save the planet. The Davos-based group has explained, “Why we might be eating insects soon.” World Economic Forum senior writer Sean Fleming explained, “The global market for edible insects could grow to $1.18 billion by 2023. That’s almost triple its current level.”
According to Fleming, “Per kilo of live weight, bugs emit less harmful gas than more mainstream farm animals. A cow, for example, produces 2.8 kg of greenhouse gas per kilo of live body weight. Insects, on the other hand, produce just 2 grams,” WEF claimed.
Our future is being planned by our overlords, load up on eating bugs to save the planet! It is a future that will happen, only if we allow it.
The New York Times is all on a Great Food Reset. The paper praised inflation as a way “to drive welcome change for the planet” by “adjust[ing] what we eat to save both our pocketbooks and our planet.” Culture & lifestyle journalist Annaliese Griffin writing in the New York Times on June 2, 2022, wrote: “Inflation has the potential to drive welcome change for the planet if Americans think differently about the way they eat.”
“Climate change has motivated some to eat less resource-intensive meat and more vegetables, grains and legumes, but this movement has not reached the scale necessary to bring needed change — yet,” Griffin wrote.
Griffin gushed: “Inflation resulting from the cost of fuel and feed, coupled with supply chain slowdowns, may make meat substitutes more affordable relative to traditional, factory-farmed meats.” She added, “Historically, cost has been a powerful force that has changed Americans’ diets.”
The New York Times seems bent on updating Gordon Gekko’s phrase from the 1987 film Wall Street: Chaos, for lack of a better word, is GOOD. Climate activists in academia, the Biden administration and the media seem to think the more humans suffer, the more the planet will benefit.
This is more evidence that economic calamity, debt, inflation, supply chain issues, and skyrocketing meat and energy costs are not the unintended consequences of the climate agenda, but the INTENDED consequences. Chaos conditions the public to accept more centralized control of their lives.
Vladimir Lenin reportedly once said, ‘worse is better’ or ‘the worse, the better’ to cheer on chaos and the destruction of the existing order to impose his ideology.
Actor and now anti-Great Reset activist Russell Brand eloquently denounced the forces trying to reset our lives and food by declaring they are trying to destroy ordinary people. “You have to recognize that organic farming is not the desired endpoint,” Brand explained. “The displacement of the people is the desired end point. The disempowerment of the farmers — the bankruptcy of the farmers, is the desired endpoint,” Brand added.
Make no mistake about it, what we are witnessing globally and in the U.S is a war against modern civilization. The World Economic Forum, the UN, and the World Health Organization seek nothing short of controlling humans.
Sri Lanka’s engaged in a disastrous organic farming experiment that left the nation in revolt and collapse. The farmer revolt in the Netherlands against climate-inspired shut down of family-owned generational farming is spreading globally, including in Canada.
The global institutions pushing this reset on the world believe that we, the unwashed masses, will create inequity, racism, environmental destruction, and a climate crisis — if we are left to our own devices. These global forces literally want to regulate not just our farming but every aspect of our lives.
You are the pollution they want to eliminate!
A 2022 study touted by Scientific American claimed “Eating Too Much Protein Makes (Human) Pee a Problem Pollutant in the U.S.” and thus “can contribute to warming.” Scientific American explained: “In the U.S., people eat more protein than they need to.” The “urea can break down to form gases of oxidized nitrogen. These gases reach the atmosphere, where nitrous oxide (N2O) can contribute to warming via the greenhouse effect and nitrogen oxides (NOx) can cause acid rain,” the magazine explained.
Human urine as the new environmental and climate boogeyman is just the latest scare to get you to stop eating meat. Now when you pee, you are allegedly a human pollution machine that is heating up the planet. The voiding of your bladder must be curtailed for the sake of the planet! So says ‘The Science’!
The last several years have seen endless emergency declarations, wars, massive government spending, debt, runaway inflation, supply chain issues, increases in crime, food shortages, no privacy from Big Brother-style government and corporate snooping, skyrocketing energy prices that chip away at car and home ownership, threats of climate lockdowns, oppressive censorship, crushing of dissent, and limits on freedom of travel and physical autonomy.
All of this chaos is music to the ears of those who don’t like the messiness of human freedom. The WEF’s vision is to crowd us all into urban areas. They want us to own nothing.
Bedlam is a useful way to collapse the current system and install a Great Reset. It is all part of the plan: destroy the old order and make the population so desperate that you can impose policies that make them weaker and more dependent on the government.
As Bill Gates and BlackRock buy up farmland and single-family homes, driving up food prices and turning more and more citizens into renters, who will realize the root causes of the higher cost of living? Will the public just accept the goal of the Great Reset: “You will own nothing and you will be happy”?
It’s time for the Great Reject. Rise up and defy the Great Reset.
Marc Morano manages CFACT’s award-winning ClimateDepot.com news and information service.
He is the award-winning producer, writer and host of CFACT’s Climate Hustle feature films. Marc served as a reporter for “Rush Limbaugh the Television Show” and as a senior advisor to Senator James Inhofe.
He is author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change,” “Green Fraud: Why the Green New Deal Is Even Worse than You Think,” and “The Great Reset: Global Elites and the Permanent Lockdown.”
Share this:
Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. View more
Cookies settings
Accept
Privacy & Cookie policy
Privacy & Cookies policy
Cookies list
Cookie name
Active
Wer wir sind
Textvorschlag: Die Adresse unserer Website ist: https://climate-science.press.
Kommentare
Textvorschlag: Wenn Besucher Kommentare auf der Website schreiben, sammeln wir die Daten, die im Kommentar-Formular angezeigt werden, außerdem die IP-Adresse des Besuchers und den User-Agent-String (damit wird der Browser identifiziert), um die Erkennung von Spam zu unterstützen.
Aus deiner E-Mail-Adresse kann eine anonymisierte Zeichenfolge erstellt (auch Hash genannt) und dem Gravatar-Dienst übergeben werden, um zu prüfen, ob du diesen benutzt. Die Datenschutzerklärung des Gravatar-Dienstes findest du hier: https://automattic.com/privacy/. Nachdem dein Kommentar freigegeben wurde, ist dein Profilbild öffentlich im Kontext deines Kommentars sichtbar.
Medien
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein registrierter Benutzer bist und Fotos auf diese Website lädst, solltest du vermeiden, Fotos mit einem EXIF-GPS-Standort hochzuladen. Besucher dieser Website könnten Fotos, die auf dieser Website gespeichert sind, herunterladen und deren Standort-Informationen extrahieren.
Cookies
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar auf unserer Website schreibst, kann das eine Einwilligung sein, deinen Namen, E-Mail-Adresse und Website in Cookies zu speichern. Dies ist eine Komfortfunktion, damit du nicht, wenn du einen weiteren Kommentar schreibst, all diese Daten erneut eingeben musst. Diese Cookies werden ein Jahr lang gespeichert.
Falls du ein Konto hast und dich auf dieser Website anmeldest, werden wir ein temporäres Cookie setzen, um festzustellen, ob dein Browser Cookies akzeptiert. Dieses Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und wird verworfen, wenn du deinen Browser schließt.
Wenn du dich anmeldest, werden wir einige Cookies einrichten, um deine Anmeldeinformationen und Anzeigeoptionen zu speichern. Anmelde-Cookies verfallen nach zwei Tagen und Cookies für die Anzeigeoptionen nach einem Jahr. Falls du bei der Anmeldung „Angemeldet bleiben“ auswählst, wird deine Anmeldung zwei Wochen lang aufrechterhalten. Mit der Abmeldung aus deinem Konto werden die Anmelde-Cookies gelöscht.
Wenn du einen Artikel bearbeitest oder veröffentlichst, wird ein zusätzlicher Cookie in deinem Browser gespeichert. Dieser Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und verweist nur auf die Beitrags-ID des Artikels, den du gerade bearbeitet hast. Der Cookie verfällt nach einem Tag.
Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites
Textvorschlag: Beiträge auf dieser Website können eingebettete Inhalte beinhalten (z. B. Videos, Bilder, Beiträge etc.). Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites verhalten sich exakt so, als ob der Besucher die andere Website besucht hätte.
Diese Websites können Daten über dich sammeln, Cookies benutzen, zusätzliche Tracking-Dienste von Dritten einbetten und deine Interaktion mit diesem eingebetteten Inhalt aufzeichnen, inklusive deiner Interaktion mit dem eingebetteten Inhalt, falls du ein Konto hast und auf dieser Website angemeldet bist.
Mit wem wir deine Daten teilen
Textvorschlag: Wenn du eine Zurücksetzung des Passworts beantragst, wird deine IP-Adresse in der E-Mail zur Zurücksetzung enthalten sein.
Wie lange wir deine Daten speichern
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar schreibst, wird dieser inklusive Metadaten zeitlich unbegrenzt gespeichert. Auf diese Art können wir Folgekommentare automatisch erkennen und freigeben, anstatt sie in einer Moderations-Warteschlange festzuhalten.
Für Benutzer, die sich auf unserer Website registrieren, speichern wir zusätzlich die persönlichen Informationen, die sie in ihren Benutzerprofilen angeben. Alle Benutzer können jederzeit ihre persönlichen Informationen einsehen, verändern oder löschen (der Benutzername kann nicht verändert werden). Administratoren der Website können diese Informationen ebenfalls einsehen und verändern.
Welche Rechte du an deinen Daten hast
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein Konto auf dieser Website besitzt oder Kommentare geschrieben hast, kannst du einen Export deiner personenbezogenen Daten bei uns anfordern, inklusive aller Daten, die du uns mitgeteilt hast. Darüber hinaus kannst du die Löschung aller personenbezogenen Daten, die wir von dir gespeichert haben, anfordern. Dies umfasst nicht die Daten, die wir aufgrund administrativer, rechtlicher oder sicherheitsrelevanter Notwendigkeiten aufbewahren müssen.
Wohin deine Daten gesendet werden
Textvorschlag: Besucher-Kommentare könnten von einem automatisierten Dienst zur Spam-Erkennung untersucht werden.
