Dane Wiginton never tires of exhorting “the masses”, without discrimination, to “wake up”. He has for years been sounding the alarm on climate engineering. He came to the subject through his experiences with his own solar power generation equipment, whose efficiency was being downgraded by the effects of climate engineering (i.e. the chemtrails, or contrails, to use the non-“conspiracy-theorist” word, were diminishing the performance of his solar panels). Where he differs from e.g. Max Igan is the relentlessly hectic tone of his rhetoric and his insistence on “waking the masses” and absence of any differentiated political strategy. (e.g. oriented to conservative people on the one hand, who in Australia might be prepared to petition the monarchy, and on the other to people who would be prepared to stage a general strike).
Look at this video, screened by Enouranois at a seminar on the margins of the COP21 climate summit in Paris. http://enouranois.eu/?p=1124 The video would seem to support the concerns of the anti-coal lobby. But is the support being utilized, or even perceived? No. Why not? When one starts a mass campaign, as promoted e.g. by Extinction Rebellion is it too dangerous to provide it with information rather than disinformation? Must Greta Thunberg be given preference to e.g. Marvin Herndon? Adolescent tantrums rather than adult comprehension of all the factors involved?
As record fires rage, the country’s leaders seem intent on sending it to its doom.
By Richard Flanagan. – Mr. Flanagan is a novelist.
BRUNY ISLAND, Australia — Australia today is ground zero for the climate catastrophe. Its glorious Great Barrier Reef is dying, its world-heritage rain forests are burning, its giant kelp forests have largely vanished, numerous towns have run out of water or are about to, and now the vast continent is burning on a scale never before seen.
The images of the fires are a cross between “Mad Max” and “On the Beach”: thousands driven onto beaches in a dull orange haze, crowded tableaux of people and animals almost medieval in their strange muteness — half-Bruegel, half-Bosch, ringed by fire, survivors’ faces hidden behind masks and swimming goggles. Day turns to night as smoke extinguishes all light in the horrifying minutes before the red glow announces the imminence of the inferno. Flames leaping 200 feet into the air. Fire tornadoes. Terrified children at the helm of dinghies, piloting away from the flames, refugees in their own country.
The fires have already burned about 14.5 million acres — an area almost as large as West Virginia, more than triple the area destroyed by the 2018 fires in California and six times the size of the 2019 fires in Amazonia. Canberra’s air on New Year’s Day was the most polluted in the world partly because of a plume of fire smoke as wide as Europe.
Scientists estimate that close to half a billion native animals have been killed and fear that some species of animals and plants may have been wiped out completely. Surviving animals are abandoning their young in what is described as mass “starvation events.” At least 18 people are dead and grave fears are held about many more.
All this, and peak fire season is only just beginning.
As I write, a state of emergency has been declared in New South Wales and a state of disaster in Victoria, mass evacuations are taking place, a humanitarian catastrophe is feared, and towns up and down the east coast are surrounded by fires, all transport and most communication links cut, their fate unknown.
An email that the retired engineer Ian Mitchell sent to friends on New Year’s Day from the small northern Victoria community of Gipsy Point speaks for countless Australians at this moment of catastrophe:
“All we and most of Gipsy Point houses still here as of now. We have 16 people in Gipsy pt.
No power, no phone no chance of anyone arriving for 4 days as all roads blocked. Only satellite email is working We have 2 bigger boats and might be able to get supplies ‘esp fuel at Coota.
We need more able people to defend the town as we are in for bad heat from Friday again. Tucks area will be a problem from today, but trees down on all tracks, and no one to fight it.
We are tired, but ok.
But we are here in 2020!
Love
Us”
The bookstore in the fire-ravaged village of Cobargo, New South Wales, has a new sign outside: “Post-Apocalyptic Fiction has been moved to Current Affairs.”
And yet, incredibly, the response of Australia’s leaders to this unprecedented national crisis has been not to defend their country but to defend the fossil fuel industry, a big donor to both major parties — as if they were willing the country to its doom. While the fires were exploding in mid-December, the leader of the opposition Labor Party went on a tour of coal mining communities expressing his unequivocal support for coal exports. The prime minister, the conservative Scott Morrison, went on vacation to Hawaii.
In no small part Mr. Morrison owes his narrow election victory last year to the coal-mining oligarch Clive Palmer, who formed a puppet party to keep the Labor Party — which had been committed to limited but real climate-change action — out of government. Mr. Palmer’s advertising budget for the campaign was more than double that of the two major parties combined. Mr. Palmer subsequently announced plans to build the biggest coal mine in Australia.
Since Mr. Morrison, an ex-marketing man, was forced to return from his vacation and publicly apologize, he has chosen to spend his time creating feel-good images of himself, posing with cricketers or his family. He is seen far less often at the fires’ front lines, visiting ravaged communities or with survivors. Mr. Morrison has tried to present the fires as catastrophe-as-usual, nothing out of the ordinary.
This posture seems to be a chilling political calculation: With no effective opposition from a Labor Party reeling from its election loss and with media dominated by Rupert Murdoch — 58 percent of daily newspaper circulation — firmly behind his climate denialism, Mr. Morrison appears to hope that he will prevail as long as he doesn’t acknowledge the magnitude of the disaster engulfing Australia.
Mr. Morrison made his name as immigration minister, perfecting the cruelty of a policy that interns refugees in hellish Pacific-island camps, and seems indifferent to human suffering. Now his government has taken a disturbing authoritarian turn, cracking down on unions, civic organizations and journalists. Under legislation pending in Tasmania, and expected to be copied across Australia, environmental protesters now face up to 21 years in jail for demonstrating.
“Australia is a burning nation led by cowards,” wrote the leading broadcaster Hugh Riminton, speaking for many. To which he might have added “idiots,” after Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack blamed the fires on exploding horse manure.
Such are those who would open the gates of hell and lead a nation to commit climate suicide.
More than one-third of Australians are estimated to be affected by the fires. By a significant and increasing majority, Australians want action on climate change, and they are now asking questions about the growing gap between the Morrison government’s ideological fantasies and the reality of a dried-out, rapidly heating, burning Australia.
The situation is eerily reminiscent of the Soviet Union in the 1980s, when the ruling apparatchiks were all-powerful but losing the fundamental, moral legitimacy to govern. In Australia today, a political establishment, grown sclerotic and demented on its own fantasies, is facing a monstrous reality which it has neither the ability nor the will to confront.
Mr. Morrison may have a massive propaganda machine in the Murdoch press and no opposition, but his moral authority is bleeding away by the hour. On Thursday, after walking away from a pregnant woman asking for help, he was forced to flee the angry, heckling residents of a burned-out town. A local conservative politician described his own leader’s humiliation as “the welcome he probably deserved.”
As Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, once observed, the collapse of the Soviet Union began with the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl in 1986. In the wake of that catastrophe, “the system as we knew it became untenable,” he wrote in 2006. Could it be that the immense, still-unfolding tragedy of the Australian fires may yet prove to be the Chernobyl of climate crisis?
Richard Flanagan won the Man Booker Prize for “The Narrow Road to the Deep North” and is the author, most recently, of the novel “First Person.”
Correction: Jan. 3, 2020
An earlier version of this article misstated the year of Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s narrow election victory. It was in 2019, not this year.
2. Drought by Design: The Genociding of Australia (extract)
Max Igan
Well folks I just wanted to come on and give you a bit of an update on the situation here in Australia. And try to give you some kind of perspective on what the overall plan is here.
Where they’re going with this whole climate change thing, and the fires, and the situation that we’re facing here. It’s a very very serious situation folks, a lot more serious than a lot of people are realizing. I mean a few people are probably getting it, but not enough, and not enough are getting it quick enough.
As I showed you, last report that I brought you, which was called “Australia, wake up or die”, if you didn’t get to see that there’s a link below. As I showed you in that report, you know, the monsoon troughs we get up here fill the Great Artesian Basin and fill the aquifers and these river systems and all the East coast, everything runs off the aquifer system that we have in this country
You know there was some speculation on that show, that report that I put out. People were arguing whether the Great Artesian Basin actually fills the coastal aquifers or whatever. These are details, folks. The fact of the matter is that the country is drying up, and it’s being done deliberately. And it’s being done through water mismanagement and there’s a real overall plan going on here and not enough are getting it quick enough. And we are really facing a serious situation here, folks.
You know the fires are just out of control. You’ve got fire trucks being engulfed in flame. They’re really kind of selling it to the people. Heading for another major heatwave. This is today’s news. You know, it’s just a drastic situation that we’re facing here. We’ve got towns running out of water, you know emergency water rations. We’ve got our Prime Minister of course taking a holiday in the middle of it all if anyone thought that he did care. Of course he is back now and he is apologizing for running out on everybody and he’s admitting that it’s a little bit smoky in Sydney.
(snip)
When you look at the Australian Government, the Australian Government is being presented to the world as a government which is ignoring the realities of climate change. It is being presented as a government of climate deniers. And you’ll find that a lot of people around the world are actually climate deniers if you want to label them as that. I mean even the word “denial” is a loaded term. But a lot of people don’t buy into the whole climate change thing. Even with Greta Thunberg, with what she’s done.
She’s actually done us a bit of a service because they’ve got to push things in the wrong way. You can see that she’s very controlled. She’s pushing a controlled narrative. She’s pushing an agenda, and it’s actually woken a lot of people up to start looking into climate change and a lot of them are realizing that this has been manufactured.
So they need an event. They need an event to push it to the world, to show what happens when you ignore climate change. So they’ve deliberately taken the water out of this country. They’ve deliberately withheld the water from the people. They’ve deliberately dried the country out.
There’s been an enormous amount of effort to prevent people from collecting old firewood and collecting dead trees from forests to make sure that they are tinder-dry and make sure that there’s plenty of fuel for the fires. All the burnoffs have been stopped as well for the last four years so we haven’t burnt off much of the scrub at all in the last four to five years so this has caused a huge problem.
They’re going through after the fires and they’re cutting down trees as well, saying that these trees are a fire hazard. They left all the fuel there to begin with to have the fire. And anything that has survived they are cutting down as being a fire hazard.
You know they want to devastate this country. They want to show the world what happens when you ignore climate change. Look what just happened to Australia. And they intend to genocide the people of this country to push their point. They don’t care about the people of this country.
You know, they’ve taken the water from the people of this country and as I said, all these wells are illegal. All these dams are illegal. All of this restriction of water is illegal. Selling water is illegal. Even paying your water rates is illegal because it says in the Constitution that “there shall be no trade or commerce on water”. That’s just the way it is.
But they need to set Australia up as an example to the rest of the world so they intend to genocide this country and the people of the country just don’t get it. They really don’t get it, but that’s what’s happening, folks. You know, they’ve dried the country out. They’ve manipulated the weather to push all the clouds away.
And you can talk to people in Tasmania as well. They will tell you that on the West coast of Tasmania it’s been hammering rain for the last few months. It just won’t stop. And that’s all the weather that they’re pushing down from Western Australia.
It doesn’t usually rain at this time of the year in Tasmania. It’s usually raining on the mainland. But now it’s not. It’s not raining on the mainland and it’s raining in Tasmania. Pushing all the weather away, everywhere else. Dried the country out. They’ve sprayed it with sparkler dust. And they’ve presented this government to the world as being a government of climate change deniers.
You know, so much in denial of it that the Prime Minister would even take a holiday to Hawaii in the middle of a firestorm. (snip)
They’re genociding this country in order to make a point to the rest of the world. You can’t tell it to the people. They won’t listen. Some do. Some understand it, but many won’t listen. You know they don’t understand that it’s our right to have the water that’s held up in these places, these dams.
(snip)
You know, all of this agrofarming and restriction of water is all illegal. The whole thing. And the people of this country need to wake up. They really need to wake up to what’s going on here. This is a very very serious situation and the rest of the world needs to pay attention because they’ve been spraying your countries with sparkler dust as well and they will use this to push the concept of climate change in your countries.
And another interesting thing I’ve been noticing here where I live, and I live quite close to the coast. I live only eight-ten kilometres from the ocean. It’s rain forest, and it’s a beautiful valley setting. The creek out the front, which is dry at the moment, and it’s never been dry
But you know I live not very far from the coast and something that I’m noticing is that so many of the birds aren’t there in the morning, that used to be there. I used to go out and I used to sit there and listen to the bird calls every morning.
There’s probably about a third or a quarter of the bird calls now, just in the last couple of months. They’ve all gone elsewhere obviously, looking for water. And something else that I’m noticing is that here it is – what – the 20th December, something like that, it’s fairly into December. It’s the middle of summer here in Australia, the days are extremely hot.
We’ve got a massive heatwave happening. But at night I’m still sleeping with a doona (a quilt). It’s still quite cold. Very cool nights here at the moment. Unseasonally cool. And this is because the ground is drying out, because as many people know, when you are in the desert it doesn’t matter how hot it gets in the daytime. The temperatures always plummet at night. And the fact that the temperatures are dropping so much at night here in the middle of summer when I’m this close to the coast – it’s been happening, it’s been ongoing, there hasn’t been any time this year that I’ve actually taken the doona off my bed yet.
And this indicates that the ground is drying out. Even though there is still grass here and there are still trees here. It’s turning into a desert, and it’s being done deliberately, folks. We could still turn this around if we released the water back into the river system and if we pay attention to the fact that…you know this government is a criminal entity. It’s a criminal entity, it’s a corporation and they’re running a mining operation here. You can look at the cities, and Sydney, and the Gold Coast, and all the places here. They’re recreational areas for the mining operations that are happening in this country.
If you think that Australia isn’t a corporation, folks, it is. You can go and look it up yourself. It’s a corporation. There’s the number there. It’s a corporation, and it’s running mining operations. And as I said, folks, the people in the country need to wake up. That’s what I attempted to do with the last video that I put out, just to let people know that we’ve got a very urgent situation here.
I got a couple of things wrong in that video. I mentioned that Australia has been a corporation, it has been invalid and all this sort of stuff. I said the government of Australia has been invalid since Bob Hawke signed the Australia Act in 1973. That’s what I said in the last report that I did but I was actually mistaken. I got mixed up.
I’ve got a lot of stuff rattling round in my head, folks. It was Gough Whitlam actually announced the Queen of Australia in 1973, and Bob Hawke introduced the Australia Act in 1988. Against the referendum that we had as a population. We ran a referendum, held a referendum to ask whether we would give government power to local councils and we all voted no, so Bob Hawke wrote the Australia Act and he said we’re going to give power to local councils anyway, through that Act.
But it’s an invalid Act. It actually says within the Act that the Constitution will not be affected. So, that’s the way it goes, folks. And it also says within the Constitution for any people who claim that these water restrictions are, you know there is State legislation and, you know they want to take it to a magistrate’s court or any of this sort of stuff over these issues, it doesn’t matter, folks, because it also says in Section 2 Clause 5 of the Preamble of the Constitution that “This Act applies to all courts, all judges, all states and all people within the Commonwealth, so any judge or lawyer that tells you the Constitution does not apply here in any situation is wrong.
The Constitution applies in every situation, and if they’re telling you it doesn’t then I guess they just became a Constitutional matter for the Supreme Court as well. But that’s the situation we are in, folks. We’ve got to pay attention to what’s going on here. And I think the reality to what’s being sprayed on our countries is actually sparkler dust, and that is what is causing the ferocity of these fires, is a very significant piece of information that people need to take on board for their own countries.
But you watch how this plays out, folks. If the people of Australia don’t wake up they will genocide this country through starvation and thirst and fire and then they will use it as an example to the rest of the world of what happens if you don’t pay attention to climate change. The government of Australia chose to ignore climate change and oh, look what happened to the people of Australia.
Now half of them are dead and the rest of them are refugees. So that’s why we need to pay attention to climate change. Part of the agenda, folks, and it’s being done deliberately.
But as I said, we could release this water. We could reclaim control of this situation. If the people just stood up and said “Enough is enough!” And we don’t even need any violent revolution.
We just have to stop complying with this system and stop going along with it. Down tools. Stop going to work and paying your taxes and doing all this. Stop supporting the criminal racketeering that is the Australian government system.
And folks, it’s time to snap out of the slumber and wake up, because we have a real situation here. Thanks for listening.
(snip)
You know, there is a lot of stuff I want to bring you but there’s just too much important stuff that needs to be dealt with, these fires and this extreme loss of water.
There was even a report on the mainstream that I meant to have there in the news reports but I somehow misplaced it. But it says that Sydney will very likely be out of water within two to two and a half years as well.
So, again folks they’re doing this while they’re withholding the water themselves. Through trade and commerce, and it’s a racket.
(snip)
We could turn things around. We could go and release the water. It’s our constitutional duty to release the water. And you know we need to form some sort of a valid government.
I reckon we should put the aboriginal people in charge of managing the water in this country because they know how this country works and they know where the aquifers are and they know how the river systems work and know how to manage them.
That’s who should be in control of the environment of this country, not the people in Canberra. Have a nice day folks.
This is a useful contribution from Dane Wigington but his focus on “awakening the masses” overlooks the fact that any attempt to address “the masses” is immediately overtaken by trolls who, with their ridicule, their distortions and their censorship have for years proven their ability to derail mass campaigning on truth-oriented climate issues (and many other issues).
Rather than serving the full story and addressing the criminality at the top, my view is that it is preferable to focus on petty criminality because the neutralization of petty criminals is something compatible with the “mass” habit of petitioning existing authorities to rectify grievances. Therefore, rather than Dane Wigington’s message one should start with subjects like the flamethrower drone and call for it to be banned or subject to strict, and effectively policed, licensing.
Focusing discussion on the flamethrower drone at least has the advantage of changing the subject away from the catch-all “explanation” of “climate change” which is offered by the media, just like that, dogmatically, to give a simple and politically convenient (for the other side) explanation for every latest climate atrocity and every “natural disaster”.
A functioning network starting in this way could then consider what the next steps should be.
Comment by Enouranois: We publish this text by Claudia von Werlhof as an indication of general support for her critique, despite the fact that we see no purpose into addressing public appeals to Greta Thunberg.
Claudia von Werlhof and discussion group of the “Planetary Movement for Mother Earth” – Alexandra Danzl, Wolfgang Fischer, Maria Heibel, Thomas A. Mann, Gudrun Sahlender-Wulf, Dietmar Salamon, Thomas Schramm et al.We
Dear Greta Thunberg,
You have not answered a 1st open letter at the beginning of your steep “career”, which has just culminated in the recognition of the Right Livelihood Award. I nevertheless write a 2nd one. I approached you with sympathy for your awakening and activism, looking at you like a kind of grandmother who would like to give you some advice – to a kind of granddaughter. It was to give you better information about the real state of Mother Earth, because I noticed that you did not have this knowledge. This time I would rather address you in my quality as a scientist, which I am as well, as I hear that you seek the advice of science, for you seem to trust in your mind. This is good and it is really necessary. However, there are always two kinds of science: one that is responsible for nothing less than the endangered state of Mother Earth herself, and one that is opposing it. I belong to the latter kind. That’s why I used to be an enthusiastic demonstrator and demonstration speaker and at first I was just happy how the youth everywhere reacted to your protest in masses. Finally, a movement emerged and even for Mother Earth! Something more beautiful could not happen to me, especially because I was the founder of the “Planetary Movement for Mother Earth”.
But in the meantime, as a scientist, I see how many aberrations and confusions you and the “Fridays for Future” still have, and I cannot see that they are being recognized by you or the people in the protest movement you inspired. Yes, the real dangers for us and Mother Earth are being suppressed and covered up, namely the ones that really threaten us. But one needs the knowledge about them if one acts the way you do, and in addition shares a certain responsibility for an increasing number of followers. So, you and the “Fridays for Future” movement care about the state of the earth and its causes, but you don’t seem to know very much about it!
On the contrary, you have joined the assertion of international organizations, certain scientists of the first kind at the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as well as corporations, financial institutions, and people of the financial sector. They say that CO2 is the main, indeed the only problem of the planet, and its very low share of O.04% in the atmosphere (of which only a small part is manmade) is even the reason for a planetary “climate change” as a result. This would ruin the living conditions on earth and would soon take on life-threatening proportions in the form of global warming. Therefore, as decided at the UN Conference in Paris in 2015, action must be taken against it by massively reducing CO2 emissions. In the name of an allegedly “green” New Deal, a “system change” against this “climate change” and its capitalist causes is now to be initiated. This system change would consist of introducing a “sustainable lifestyle” in society, in which the consumption and use of particularly CO2-intensive products would be sharply reduced, or higher taxes would have to be paid. This should allegedly end “climate change” and “save” the earth.
So much for the “logic” of the arguments from above, which you have adopted seamlessly and in a surprisingly well-behaved manner without any contradiction.
What is wrong with that? Quite a lot:
1. Paradoxically, the planned system change by reducing energy consumption is undermined today by the plans for a massive development of the most energy-intensive high-tech dimensions in everyday life, which should lead to the digitization of all areas of life, the project of the corresponding “Smart Cities” and the installation of the necessary electromagnetic radiation at 5G level. This way of dismantling, but at the same time also reconstructing and rebuilding industrial society, has already become a huge business in which trillions of dollars are at stake (1) and certainly not something “green” which is saving the earth! Indeed, the 5G frequency requires the felling many trees in the cities. So far the 5G-frequency has only been used in the military sector as it is a weapon that will even destroy life on Earth to an unknown extent, starting with insects, birds and babies in the womb and then going on with the elderly, where those in the middle will have to expect severe damages to their health (2).
So, the plans for what the “system change” that you want means, have been developed for some time already. They have nothing to do with the abolition of capitalism and are already being pushed through with full force from above. Consequently, there are several simple questions that have to be answered: What is “sustainable” about this change? Where should the energy for it come from? For whom should it be reserved? Because this energy level cannot be achieved without fossil fuels and with renewable energies only, whereas the fossil fuels are coming to an end anyway, and the renewable ones can only be increased through the additional conversion of agriculture into an energy sector and of forests into palm oil plantations – in other words through massive destruction and hunger production worldwide – not to mention the damage caused by wind turbines, for example, or even by dams for an “alternative” water supply. Is it then a question of expanding nuclear energy in which the military is particularly interested? So, what kind of system change is this, what does it change about the “climate” which is a huge large-scale planetary system, and who gets pushed out?: The 5G victims, large regions of the South, the victims of radioactive contamination and…and and?
Why don’t you say anything about this “system change”, Greta?
But it’s much worse. Because even the CO2 thesis which everything is based on is not correct at all!
2. It is just NOT true that CO2 threatens the earth. Yes, the earth would need at present even more CO2 for its plants and the life in general, because CO2 is an invisible plant gas and not dirt, which comes from chimneys, as is constantly suggested (3), about which however one does not talk at all. CO2 is also not a greenhouse gas insofar as the earth is open to the sky and therefore not a greenhouse. The greenhouse effect cannot occur on a planet. Yes, CO2 ensures that we have oxygen to breathe, because plants convert it into oxygen. So, if CO2 disappears as much as possible from the atmosphere, as you advocate, then we would end up going down by suffocating along with all life on the planet! Thus, there is something fundamentally wrong with the whole argumentation. It stands on feet of clay!
If you believe in science, as you always say, then you should not believe in the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, because it is not a scientific, but a political organization. Thousands of scientists in the world have meanwhile spoken out against it (4), precisely because the IPCC claims that CO2 is to blame for this “climate change”. The scientists who are not committed to the IPCC and its policies defend CO2, as I have just done. Others say that climate change can only result from a change in solar activity. But they cannot determine this for the times in question. The warming of the global average temperature claimed by the IPCC has not even occurred in the last 20 years, says the US space agency NASA. Apart from that, an average temperature for the entire planet is of course an unsuitable, even nonsensical measure, because it depends on the respective measuring stations, which have also been changed, and because it merely levels out huge differences, so that in the end it has no significance at all.
3. What most scientists, however, don’t say is how to interpret the noticeable weather changes that we are all observing. These changes are beyond question but should not be confused with the global climate system, which is long term and comprehensive. The deliberate manipulation of the global climate would be a highly complex undertaking, is probably not possible at all, and certainly not through the use or reduction of a single plant gas like CO2. The global climate is simply of another dimension, incomparable to the local weather. So the question is, where do these weather changes come from, be they in the form of droughts, floods, regional heat or cold waves, storms and severe weather systems that remain in place for a long time, the warming of the Arctic that is significantly above all other temperature changes (at least until 2012), the alleged “forest” fires in California, Australia and Portugal, which destroyed houses to their foundations and melted cars, but left the trees around them mostly intact (5), not to mention the catastrophic jungle fires in the Amazon, Africa and South Asia that are clearly caused by human intervention. Also the massive extinction of animals and plants, e.g. insects, birds, corals and trees as well as the otherwise rapidly increasing loss of species can in no way be explained by CO2! That is completely impossible and simply nonsense. The same applies to the pollution of the air, the soil and the water with not only fine dust, but a nano fine dust of aluminum, strontium, barium, lithium, polymers, coal ash, genetically modified substances, bacteria and many other substances penetrating all organs up to the brain, which have been proven for two and more decades now, among other things by the application of aerosols in the atmosphere, above all in the northern hemisphere. The method of spraying aerosols has a scientific name, it is called SRM, Solar Radiation Management, and is recommended for allegedly blocking solar radiation in favor of lower temperatures on Earth – but in reality it has long been used for quite different purposes, in any case for those that harm all life on Earth up to its extinction and cause many diseases of epidemic proportions (6). And finally, contrary to forecasts, in recent years the ozone layer in the atmosphere has been increasingly destroyed, which has led to harmful UV radiation now reaching the earth unfiltered everywhere in the northern hemisphere and threatening microorganisms in particular. The food chain on land and in the oceans has already been attacked and corals are “starving” (7). So if something doesn’t happen soon to strengthen the ozone layer permanently, i.e. over the next decades, which includes knowing and admitting what it really suffers from – and this is certainly not only the civilian CFC that is supposedly responsible for it, and CO2 has nothing to do with it at all – then we could soon be threatened ourselves, because agriculture can suddenly break down by being permanently exposed to toxic UV-B- and C- radiation. However, the ozone layer cannot be strengthened by artificially introducing ozone into the stratosphere, but only by ceasing to affect this thin, but absolutely vital layer – as it is, in reality, affected by radioactivity, the heating of the ionosphere, microwaves, air traffic, rocket fuels and supersonic flights, for instance. The many wars in the world and the irreversible consequences of the widespread use of depleted uranium, a waste material from nuclear plants, for example, are not even mentioned here (8).
You see, you have been denied crucial information about the real situation of the planet, its dangers and their causes, explaining everything with CO2, no matter what it was, and you have simply believed it. To this day, however, you are on your way claiming to have understood the core of the matter and having to present what seems to follow from it. I also understand that at 16 you can’t know everything. But what you and the others need to know if you really want to be a movement conscious of your responsibility for Mother Earth and not against her, that knowledge exists! So get it if you are serious about your movement. Otherwise your credibility will soon be inevitably gone (9). Thus, one will also find out relatively soon whether CO2 reductions have any effects on the “climate” and/or the weather, which of course will not be the case at all, since it is not the cause of the problems.
4. The knowledge unknown to you came about above all because Dr. Rosalie Bertell, whom I recommended to you in my first letter already and who also received the RLA, the Right Livelihood Award, 33 years ago. She worked as a biometrician and environmental scientist for the UN on the history of military technologies in the East and the West since the Second World War. These technologies are the key to answering the question of what is happening or can be done today to make it happen. She mentions especially the damage caused by nuclear interventions, for example the explosion of more than two thousand atomic and hydrogen bombs (!) in the atmosphere and on Earth, which occurred during half a century. She goes on with explaining postnuclear technologies. These are those used for “weather wars, plasma weapons and military geoengineering”, invented during the last 70 years based on the discovery of how to use electromagnetic waves. This technology was developed by the physicist Nikola Tesla and is now increasingly practiced everywhere on the planet, for example by a growing number of installations of the so-called “ionosphere heaters”. However, all this is not publicly admitted! But it is happening, as can be read in the so-called ENMOD Convention of the UN, 1977, the Environmental Modification Convention, or in the report “Weather as a Force Multiplier – Owning the Weather in 2025” of the US Air Force, published in 1996. These technologies have already been discussed twice in the European Parliament, in 1999 and 2013, until the EU Commission banned the EP from dealing with them further in 2016, because they are military questions (!). The military activities that were and are concealed from the public, explain everything we observe in reality and what is generally referred to as “climate change”. This is the result of decades of war against the earth and its transformation into a literal “weapon of war” of the military in the East and the West.
Rosalie Bertell, who came to Germany from the USA in 2010, not long before her death, assisting the 30th anniversary of the Right Livelihood Award, therefore called for a discussion on the topic among her colleagues, who were also award-winners, shouting:
“It is not CO2! It is the military!”
And she hung out a petition, which was signed by all those present. It reads:
“It is morally reprehensible and a declaration of war on mankind and the earth to intervene in the normal functioning of the planetary order by causing or intensifying storms, hurricanes, tsunamis, monsoons, landslides, droughts, floods, earthquakes or volcanic eruptions!”
So, if you and your movement want to get out of your confusion about the real problems of our planet and the unreflected adoption of the slogans from above, and if you want to approach the truth and do what Mother Earth needs now, namely our solidarity because of what is done to her all the time, then take care that you know what it is all about and fight against it. For that is what determines our future, and not CO2, which belongs to nature and which you instead portray as its enemy!
Why all this is so twisted, why you are denied the true knowledge and what the CO2 propaganda is about, all this you will have to find out for and by yourself. Because there are those interests behind, against which you supposedly compete with your movement. These interests are the ones that finance and organize everything worldwide on a large scale: Your weekly Fridays for Future-Demos, the “doomsday parties” as I call them, together with the “Die-ins”, an anticipated dying practice – don’t you realize what a perversion this is? They are the ones who produce and provide your regional offices worldwide, who organize the big spectacles, for example with famous pianists, the movies, videos, media work, propaganda material and all that – do they do it, because they like you so much?
5. These interests need you and need you to draw the youth and especially the women to their side! For women have always addressed the subject of nature and ecology more than men, simply because they are historically and physically more connected to them. This is now being exploited by you being the ones to represent the new plans and interests of big Capital, to promote them and to ensure the implementation of their goals. It is you who are supposed to propagate a kind of “cultural revolution” so that the current growth- and energy-crisis of capitalism can be overcome, an additional business model can be built up, and the new start of the system can take place profitably and on a technologically more modern, more efficient, but also narrower (!) basis – of course leaving behind a pile of shattered remains in the form of the “old” society, which must first be smashed and destroyed! How else could that work, namely without you, and thus without provoking the uprising – and this time one for a truly anti-capitalist society for all? So, your role is to spare them such a true upheaval!
Why are you helping them?
It is wonderful that the young people are enthusiastic about Mother Earth. I have waited a long time for this to occur. But strangely enough, what you are doing now is not a blessing for Mother Earth, but her mockery! What you have done so far is the reverse of what is needed. It is indeed its reversal.
Don’t you notice at all, Greta and the people inspired by her, what you have gotten yourself into?
You will be very disappointed to see which interests you are really serving, namely those who are responsible for the state of the earth you are complaining about while believing to be a power for the good. Don’t let yourself be incited against the generation that raised you and against the generation that you yourself could raise, because they allegedly leave a “carbon footprint” that should be avoided at all costs. This would mean to accuse life itself instead of accusing those who destroy it!
But now you can perhaps also explain to yourselves the discomfort which you may already feel because of these confusions. Your face, Greta, shows it anyway.
So, don´t let yourself be abused any longer for the opposite of what you want to stand up for, by people who have everything but the good of Mother Earth in mind, and even work on her destruction! It would have been a gigantic mistake, a futile effort and a loss of time that we all desperately need to really stand up for our planet. The clock is ticking, but not for the reduction of CO2!
Conclusion:
You, Greta, and all those who are moving on with you, have missed the point and unwittingly told the world a lie. You want to enforce a policy that benefits neither the earth nor its weather or climate, but the future and the profits of certain investors and corporations, as well as the demolition of social structures and existences that no longer bring any profits. Finally, you have distracted attention from the destructions that have been increasingly perpetrated on the earth for decades and that are being added to those already known, being the ones committed by the military – on the ground, in the water and in the air, and more recently also from space. This way you are preventing the accompanying, now increasingly massive dangers for life on earth and the earth herself from finally being seen, recognized and answered at all.
You’re doing Earth a disservice. But there is still time to turn around and understand and address the real problems instead of the fake ones!
I fear, however, that “they” will not allow it.
Prof. Dr. Claudia von Werlhof, Planetary Movement for Mother Earth, Austria
I would like to thank the PBME Discussion Group for their many comments and the committed debate and cooperation in the drafting of this letter!
Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, Japanese and Chinese versions of this letter are in preparation.
“I was watching James Corbett’s “Why Big Oil Conquered The World” and was on the chapter entitled “Technocracy” featuring the editor of Technocracy News when I received these e-mails.
“The most important assumption behind the AGW theory is that an increase in global atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the average annual global temperature. The problem is that in every record of temperature and CO2, the temperature changes first.Think about what I am saying. The basic assumption on which the entire theory that human activity is causing global warming or climate change is wrong. The questions are how did the false assumption develop and persist?”
Tim Ball”
Dylan continues:
Well I thought about what Ball was saying, again, as I have mulled through this before. What is interesting is what Ball leaves out:
What scientists actually found was that CO2 feedback in response to orbital changes amplifies that effect so that 90% of the warming occurs after the CO2 increase.
“The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.”
“Other greenhouse gases” must surely include changes in the level of water vapour and cloud cover along with the ice sheet loss.
Ball refers to Anthony Watts as if he backs up his claims:
“Anthony Watts’ 2009 article identified many of the difficulties with relying on Arrhenius.”
“Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius asked the important question “Is the mean temperature of the ground in any way influenced by the presence of the heat-absorbing gases in the atmosphere?” He went on to become the first person to investigate the effect that doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide would have on global climate. The question was debated throughout the early part of the 20th century and is still a main concern of Earth scientists today.”
His calculations showed that the “temperature of the Arctic regions would rise about 8 degrees or 9 degrees Celsius, if the carbonic acid increased 2.5 to 3 times its present value.”
“It is important to note that Arrhenius was not very concerned with rising carbon dioxide levels at the time, but rather was attempting to find an explanation for high latitude temperature changes that could be attributed to the onset of the ice ages and interglacial periods.”
“By 1904, Arrhenius became concerned with rapid increases in anthropogenic carbon emissions and recognized that “the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may, by the advances of industry, be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries.”
He eventually made the suggestion that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to the burning of fossil fuels could be beneficial, making the Earth’s climates “more equable,” stimulating plant growth, and providing more food for a larger population. This view differs radically from current concerns over the harmful effects of a global warming caused by industrial emissions and deforestation. Until about 1960, most scientists dismissed the notion as implausible that humans could significantly affect average global temperatures. Today, however, we know that carbon dioxide levels have risen about 25 percent—a rate much faster than Arrhenius first predicted—and average global temperatures have risen about 0.5 degrees Celsius.”
Watts does not argue that Arrhenius was mistaken in his assessment that CO2 was a greenhouse gas that trapped heat. He argues that Arrhenius held that the CO2 rise due to combustion of fossil fuel would be beneficial. Finally Watts, like most skeptics, argues that Arrhenius overestimated the warming effect of CO2not that it has no warming effect at all as Ball insists.
He also falls back on the “Friends of Science”:
“The Friends of Science added confirmation when they translated a more obscure 1906 Arrhenius work.”
“Much discussion took place over the following years between colleagues, with one of the main points being the similar effect of water vapour in the atmosphere which was part of the total figure. Some rejected any effect of CO2 at all. There was no effective way to determine this split precisely, but in 1906 Arrhenius amended his view of how increased carbon dioxide would affect climate. He thought the effect would be much less in terms of warming, and whatever warming ensued would be beneficial. He published a paper in German. It was never translated at the time or widely distributed, though many European scientists knew of it and read it.”
“The IPCC has now lowered its estimates as well to be within range of Arrhenius’ revised view. This would give the range as 1.6 to 3.9 ℃, but the same qualifiers persist.”
As far as I know, a good approximation to this range was predicted by Roger Revelle in the 60’s. No “lowering of estimates” there.
Some scientists rejected Arrhenius’s view. Nobody remembers them, but this is Ball’s “evidence” that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?
Arrhenius himself made the link between the feedback effect of CO2 warming on water vapour levels:
“In these calculations, I completely neglected the presence of water vapour emitted into the atmosphere. This acts in two ways: In part, the water vapour reduces the radiation in the same way as does the CO2, whereby the absorption of CO2 comprises a larger fraction of the earth’s radiation then if the water vapour would be removed from the atmosphere. In part, the temperature causes an increase in water vapour emitted into the atmosphere, on account of an increase in the quantity of CO2, with the subsequent rise in temperature.”
He didn’t retract his conviction that CO2 was a greenhouse gas, he acknowledged that the feedback effect on water vapour would be necessary to amplify the temperature increase to the predicted range.
Ball again:
“The issue of Arrhenius mistaking a water vapor effect for a CO2 effect is not new. What is new is that the growing level of empirical evidence that the warming effect of CO2, known as climate sensitivity, is zero. This means Arrhenius colleagues who “rejected any effect of CO2 at all” are correct. In short, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.”
Again, Ball presents no real evidence that this is the case, he just insists that such evidence exists, but we never get to see it.
In my view, it is a waste of time debating whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not, along with whether the earth is flat or if nuclear weapons are a hoax.
CO2 is about life yes, but so is H20, and that is definitely a greenhouse gas as Ball loves to remind us. I agree though that water is where the action is. However I have seen nothing really that refutes the notion that CO2 warms the planet. It’s all about the degree to which it does that:
1/3 Global Warming due to Anthropogenic activity – 1.5 degrees Celsius
CO2 emissions, deforestation, Methane emissions etc
2/3 due to “feedback effects” – Clandestine Climate Modification – 3 degrees Celsius – enough to “destabilize human civilization”
“At that point, it might be too late to prevent permanent, dangerous feedback loops from kicking in.”
“This is the biggest problem humanity has ever faced, and we’ve barely even begun to address it effectively. On our current pace, factoring in current climate policies of every nation on Earth, the best independent analyses show that we are on course for warming of about 3.4 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, enough to extinguish entire ecosystems and destabilize human civilization.”
Humans didn’t exist the last time there was this much CO2 in the air
You will find that most anthropogenic CO2 global warming proponents that disagree with each other, disagree about the extra 2/3, the 3 degrees Celsius that will result towards the end of this century as consequence of cloud feedback.
You will find that most anthropogenic CO2 global warming skeptics (the actual scientists) usually also disagree (with the proponents) around the issue of the extra 2/3, 3 degrees Celsius that will result towards the end of this century as consequence of cloud feedback and not about the warming due to CO2. In other words, they don`t accept the clouds will amplify the initial CO2 warming to threaten humanity. For them 1.5 degree Celsius by the end of this century is acceptable as we are already half way there.
Substitute cloud feedback for Clandestine Climate Modification that will intentionally ensure the extra 2/3, 3 degrees Celsius and destabilize human civilisation.
The skeptics are right that genuine cloud feedback wouldn’t cause the threat alone but they are unaware of or ignoring the Clandestine Climate Modification.
The proponents are observing the behaviour of clouds and water vapour and extrapolating but they are unaware of or ignoring the fact that such behaviour is characteristic of Clandestine Climate Modification, intentional cloud forcing rather than merely cloud feedback.
It makes sense therefore to concentrate on the 2/3rds warming due to Clandestine Climate Modification and convince either side of it as the missing piece to the puzzle rather than waste time on the 1/3 which would not pose a threat to human civilisation alone.
This factor would also render the notion of Climate Justice entirely valid as it does indeed come down to class warfare, the rich versus the poor.
Social Engineering will be sure to play a part:
“Hansen called for a “human tipping point”—essentially, a social revolution—as one of the most effective ways of combating climate change, though he still favors a bilateral carbon tax agreed upon by the United States and China as the best near-term climate policy.”
Earth’s Most Famous Climate Scientist Issues Bombshell Sea Level Warning
Climate Modification really is the missing link that explains why the paradoxical plan of the Oiligarchs, who are really the ContrOligarchs, as set forth in James Corbett’s excellent “How Big Oil Conquered The World” and “Why Big Oil Conquered The World” is to divest from fossil fuels and phase into alternative energy sources, and transform themselves into the “saviours of humanity”.
The story they are telling is that temp would rise a few degrees in 80 years? It doesn’t explain the climate change we have already seen here in MD, over the 3 years since the spraying went berserk. No more Winter season, very little snow, all 4 seasons out of whack. Major tree die-off, majority of animals in the adjacent forest vanished, greyish dust visible on car and outdoors area. They made it warm here without the CO2. And the Sun is now a whitish color; guessing the O3 layer collapsed.
Comment from Elana Freeland Ho hum, I’ve known this since before the self-important 2015 Paris Conference. Another globalist scam. CO2 is about LIFE, and whatever life the global elites and their phalanx of complicit scientists can’t destroy, they will milk and enslave so as to pile up disaster capitalist profits for themselves and their weaponized Space Age.
Contribution from Harold Saive
CO2 IS NOT A GREENHOUSE GAS – Tim Ball:
The Evidence Proves That CO2 is Not a Greenhouse Gas
The CO2 error is the root of the biggest scam in the history of the world, and has already bilked nations and citizens out of trillions of dollars, while greatly enriching the perpetrators. In the end, their goal is global Technocracy (aka Sustainable Development), which grabs and sequesters all the resources of the world into a collective trust to be managed by them. ⁃ TN Editor
The United Nations Climate Change Conferences are held each year in the framework of the relevant treaty that was opened for signature in 1992. This treaty aims at addressing climate change by imposing on all treaty signatories the obligation to reduce the emissions of the gases that are said to cause the greenhouse phenomenon. It requires the industrialized countries – in contrast to the developing countries – to achieve stabilization at the levels of 1990. The distinction between industrialized and developing countries derives from the assertion that the industrialized countries are responsible for the greater part of global emissions of greenhouse gases and also that they possess the institutional and financial ability to limit them. As a member of the European Union, Greece is included among the industrialized countries.
The first UN climate change conference was held in Berlin in 1995. The most recent, the 23rd, is being held at this moment (12th November 2017) in Bonn. The Presidency this year is held by Fiji. At the UN climate change conferences the presence of civil society has been conspicuous from the outset in the sense that there is participation by NGOs concerned with environmental problems, and indeed not only environmental problems but also problems of equality, relations between the sexes, etc. Many of the activists are committed to what is known as climate justice, something evidently based on a supposition of deliberate human intervention in the climate, because if the climate is determined by Mother Nature, or even a combination of Mother Nature and the unintentional effects of industrial development, it appears pointless to speak of justice, because presumably Mother Nature follows her own rules which are not dictated by the desires of human beings.
Apart from the influence of NGOs on the discussions there is an additional factor, which is noted by the organization Carbon Trade Watch, a group opposed to emissions trading, one of the central elements of UN methodology for the climate.
According to Carbon Trade Watch in the years that have passed since the first conference in Berlin we see the discussions moving further away from identification of the real causes of climate change, along with a spiraling of the negative effects, influencing ever wider areas and ever larger populations. Each year we see a more powerful presence of big corporations and a weaker influence of those suffering the damage.
The climate crisis has been transformed into an opportunity for new businesses, new sources of profit. Climate policies foster the financialization of nature. The elements of nature – carbon dioxide, water, biodiversity, become measurable units, which can be bought and sold and also become the object of stock exchange speculation.
Of course the NGOs oppose these developments, and the result is that the United Nations conferences have become a battlefield between large and small vested interests. Because they are increasingly losing the ability to influence developments at governmental level, the organizations that are being funded to participate in the conferences increasingly resort to the media, staging public relations stunts which sometimes resemble reality shows.
The growing distance between the summit and the base was addressed initially through stricter policing. At Cancun in 2010 and Durban in 2011, according to the activist Anne Petermann, official permission was required for every demonstration and protest. Even wearing a T-shirt with an unacceptable slogan on it was enough to get oneself thrown out of the conference. By the time of the 2015 Climate Summit in Paris a system of apartheid had grown up with a geographical distance of kilometres separating the officials on one hand from civil society on the other.
The greatest turmoil was produced by the functions that had maximum coverage from the media. If we can judge from the experiences of some of us in Paris, where we demonstrated around an issue that is buried totally and systematically by the television and the press, namely climate manipulation, the way in which we were treated by the police was finally more polite and their interest greater than in the case of subjects that had attracted the interest of the media, where both the demonstrators and the police were more aggressive and more closed.
As indicated, at this year’s conference in Bonn, Fiji has the presidency, and the focus of media attention was on the Pacific Climate Warriors. The aim of the Pacific Climate Warriors is abolition of fossil fuels. In October 2014 they blockaded the harbour of Newcastle in Australia, the country’s largest coal exporting port. Last week, to return to the present, the Pacific Climate Warriors blocked the entrance to a lignite mine in the Rhineland in Germany.
Both in Australia and in Germany, not to mention other countries, the turn to renewable energy sources, chiefly from sun and wind, is facing many problems, which are not exclusively attributable to political pressure from the oil and mining lobbies. The Australian state that has made the greatest turn to renewables, particularly wind parks, now has the most expensive electricity in the world, and is plagued by blackouts. Many poor families can no longer afford to have electricity in their homes. Those who have their backs to the wall politically are not just the Greens and the Labor Party but also the big centre-right parties that have supported the turn to renewable energy sources. The nuclear lobby, which had been defeated in Australia on the electricity generation front, is staging a comeback and entering the fray with powerful arguments against industrial wind farms and solar installations.
In Germany both nuclear energy and wind farms have lost the confidence of the public, with the result that new lignite burning power stations are being built. The arguments against wind power are focused on the damage that ultrasound can do to human health, and also to bats, which it attracts, to be killed by the rotors, and then the damage that is being caused to wide expanses of unspoilt countryside, and the fact that wind parks do not sufficiently reduce dependency on fossil fuels.
One Carbon Trade Watch activist Ivonne Yanez from Ecuador even floats the idea that the policy of leaving 70% of fossil fuels in the ground may be supported by a section of the oil lobby with a view to securing higher prices.
In any case, in the final analysis although Greece is a member of the European Union and regarded as an industrialized country and not a developing country, the fact is that we are not in the same category as those who can fund the Pacific Climate Warriors to stage demonstrations in Australian industrial cities. We are in the same category as these people from so-called underdeveloped countries who tell us that that their property Is under threat, their land, their survival in their present way of life. And I hope that we are not going to be satisfied with staging reality shows and the politics of the spectacle. We want to be citizens with functioning institutions and with the ability to defend ourselves and defend genuine sustainable development.
The 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit (COP15) is generally seen as being a catastrophic failure.
There was, however, one little-reported meeting in the context of COP15 that looked as if it might be pointing to future discussions on other – and better – terms, namely the ETC Group’s discussion of geoengineering, including “solar radiation management”.
The Introductory Address at the Aegina meeting gave a summary of the activism of the day, some of which has withstood the test of time, but much not.
What has prevailed internationally is that instead of the deficiencies of the climate debate being addressed, the whole debate has been rejected by official politics in the USA as “a hoax”. (In fact President Trump has said: “A lot of it is a hoax. It’s a money-making industry.”) It has been left to the Chinese to lead contemporary discussion on the (defective) terms of the climate summits.
The ETC group made a timid attempt to rescue τηε subject of climate manipulation from the stigma of being “conspiracy theory”. But they have not succeeded.
Neither has the activism against “geoengineering” succeeded that was initiated in Aegina.
