Scientific Studies Confirm: Rising CO2 Levels ARE NOT Responsible For Climate Change


Though most of the world blames the fossil fuel industry for the increase in CO2, the fact is more than half of greenhouse gas emissions are coming from the animal agricultural industry.

When you have these studies, plus 97% of peer-reviewed climate science papers agreeing that humans are causing global warming, it is next to impossible to logically disagree. You would seem foolish to go against thousands of scientists.

They are, however, wrong. They are promoting an agenda.

Note: This article is not written to support what the fossil fuel or animal agriculture industry are doing to the planet. They are absolutely reeking havoc, death, and devastation, and they must be stopped.

The purpose of this article is to explore the truth behind what is happening to our planet, and what is causing it.

Frack Off Origin

Frack Off Origin

A group of Traditional Owners travelled 3,000 kilometres from the NT to Sydney to speak out against Origin Energy’s fracking plans at the company’s AGM. For some, this was their first trip outside the Territory, and even their first trip on a plane.

Traditional Owners did this because they are extremely worried about Origin’s fracking plans. Now that the NT Government has lifted its moratorium on fracking, shale gas exploration seems imminent. But instead of backing down, Traditional Owners had some tough asks for Origin Chairman Gordon Cairns. And they got him to come clean.

It became clear at the AGM that Origin has failed to reveal the scale and risks of its shale gas field proposal. Now that we have this admission, we need to mobilise to stop Origin, and give Traditional Owners the final say on what happens to their land.

Nurse of 30 years retires after seeing newborn babies routinely harmed by the NICU Vaccine


Both whistleblowing nurses and a respected medical journal stated that at the two month marker, when some of the NICU infants should still be in their mother’s womb, the six CDC-mandated vaccines rapidly degrade the health of the infants. The current program of vaccinating every newborn at birth and with another round of vaccines at two months does not take into account the severely underdeveloped and vulnerable preemies. In addition, the combined toxic adjuvant load upon a premature infant’s body is being confirmed to cause a range of physiological challenges simply ignored by the current US medical system.

‘Break up the banks’, Australians tell the Royal Commission

The public and experts made more than 1,000 submissions to the Interim Report of the Financial Services Royal Commission by the 5:00 PM 26 October deadline. Many if not most of the submissions urged Commissioner Kenneth Hayne to recommend a structural separation of Australia’s banks.

In his interim report Commissioner Hayne cited the US Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which until 1999 separated commercial banks with deposits from speculative investment banking, to show that the option of structural separation of the banks is not “novel”. He bookended his report with two crucial questions:

“What can be done to prevent the conduct happening again?”
“Is structural change in the industry necessary?”

The submissions reflected what many Australians are coming to realise, that structural change is necessary to prevent the conduct happening again.

Numerous distinguished banking experts emphasised the need for structural separation in their submissions:

Former ANZ director and chairman of Woolworths and the Herald and Weekly Times John Dahlsen wrote: “Structural change is needed … complexity makes change even more difficult. There is a powerful argument that simplicity alone will help performance and transparency. … I believe retail banking and related activities should be separated out from financial services and insurance, leaving non-retail bank activity, say commercial, in a separate entity. Guaranteed deposits would only be available to the retail bank.”

Digital Finance Analytics Principal Martin North, an expert in British and Australian banking, recommended: “The large players are too big to fail and too complex to manage, and need to be broken apart. A modern Glass-Steagall separation would achieve this, and is proven to reduce risk, and drive better customer outcomes and right-size our finance sector.” He elaborated: “In addition, there are significant risks from their operations in derivatives, and in an integrated environment, costs, risks and profits are cross linked. Given the size of the derivatives sector (significantly larger than before the GFC), the systemic risks are significant. To counter this, we advocate the implementation of a modern Glass-Steagall separation, where the high-risk speculative activities are separated from the normal lending, payment and deposit functions within banking. This would have the added benefit of reducing the potential risks of a bank deposit bail-in in a time of crisis.”

Dr Wilson Sy, the former Principal Researcher at the bank regulator APRA (Australian Prudential Regulation Authority), wrote: “The financial services industry should be structurally separated into traditional commercial banking and investment banking. Traditional commercial banking should protect the normal functions of the economy with simple products and activities: payments, deposits, home and business lending. Investment banking should provide services for financial innovation, venture capital formation, trading of securities and other complex products and activities. ASIC and APRA would then be regulating different sets of financial institutions for distinctly different economic purposes.”

Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, himself a former banker, released the Australian Greens’ submission, which calls for “Structural separation of financial institutions—break-up the banks”. The submission elaborates: “It is simply too difficult for legislators and regulators to identify, and act to prevent, all of the opportunities that arise within integrated institutions to do something other than act in the best interests of consumers, be it by subtly but consistently directing existing customers towards in-house products, or by exploiting the loyalty and inertia of customers with excessive fees and charges. The profit motive is simply too strong and structural separation is necessary to curb its worst excesses.”

The Citizens Electoral Council’s submission stated that the only answer to Commissioner Hayne’s questions is “the full structural separation of commercial deposit-taking banks from all other financial services, including investment banking, financial advice, wealth management, stock broking, superannuation, and insurance.”

The royal commission can only do so much—tell cross-benchers to lead Parliament on banking reform

The ball is now in Commissioner Hayne’s court as to whether he recommends Glass-Steagall in his final report; be assured, however, that the banks will be lobbying him against it, and there are indications that the discredited regulators such as the RBA are also pressuring him against structural change.

Yet even if Hayne does recommend structural separation, there is no guarantee his recommendations will be implemented. Governments ignore royal commission recommendations all the time, and the fact is that both the Liberals and Labor receive big donations from the banks, which will be trying to convince them it’s not necessary. This underscores the fact that Glass-Steagall will only be achieved if the Australian people demand it of their elected representatives.

The good news is the major parties are at their weakest right now. With the election of Kerryn Phelps in the Wentworth by-election, independents and minor parties now hold the balance of power in both the House of Representatives and Senate. In the House, four of the six cross-benchers have expressed support for banking separation. In the Senate, almost all cross-benchers, including the Greens, Centre Alliance and independents, and Nationals Senator Barry O’Sullivan who crossed the floor, voted for Pauline Hanson’s 18 October Notice of Motion to break up the banks (only Justice Party Senator Derryn Hinch and Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm voted with the major parties against it).

The cross-bench MPs should use their balance of power to insist the major parties commit to banking reform, especially a full, Glass-Steagall structural separation. Legislation is already in Parliament: the Banking System Reform (Separation of Banks) Bill 2018, introduced by Bob Katter and Andrew Wilkie into the House of Representatives on 25 June. Contact the cross-bench to ask them to insist the major parties allow a debate and vote on this bill. They need to know they have the public’s support for doing this. Only unrelenting, maximum pressure from the public will outweigh the lobbying power of the banks over Parliament.

Call or email these cross-bench MPs:

Adam Bandt, Member for Melbourne, Australian Greens. Supports separation.
Ph: (03) 9417 0759

Cathy McGowan, Member for Indi, Independent. Support unknown.
Wangaratta Ph: (03) 5721 7077
Wodonga Ph: (02) 6024 6284

Hon. Bob Katter, Member for Kennedy, Katter’s Australian Party. Leading supporter of banking separation; thank Bob for leading on this issue and ask him to prioritise it in his negotiations.
Innisfail Ph: (07) 4061 6066
Mt Isa Ph: (07) 4743 3534

Rebekha Sharkie, Member for Mayo, Centre Alliance. Supports separation.
Ph: (08) 8398 5566

Andrew Wilkie, Member for Denison, Independent. Supports separation.
Ph: (03) 6234 5255

* Dr Kerryn Phelps’ parliamentary contacts details are not yet available.

From our friends at the CEC.

Is the Western World Too Insane to Be Worth Saving?

According to news reports NBC has cancelled Megyn Kelly’s program for making “insensitive comments” while participating in a panel discussion on the appropriateness of blackface in Halloween costumes. Here is what she said: “Truly, you do get in trouble if you are a white person who puts on blackface for Halloween or a black person who put on whiteface for Halloween. When I was a kid, that was okay as long as you were dressing up as like a character.” She added, “I don’t know how that got racist on Halloween.”

It is beyond understanding what is offensive about what she said. She stated that it had become a no-no for the black and white races to impersonate one another even in fun and she didn’t know why. I don’t either. Do you? It makes no sense.

We seem to have reached a point where any statement can be claimed by a member of a “victim group” to be offensive. Saying anything has become risky.

It doesn’t just happen to celebrities with multi-million dollar incomes like Megyn Kelly. It happens to everyone. For example, Joshua Sutcliffe, a young math teacher in Oxfordshire, England, accidently included a “transgender student,” who apparently is female but identifies as a male, when he congratulated his class with the words “well done girls.” The female who identifies as a male but doesn’t look like one, unbeknownst to the teacher regarded herself as a male and complained about his “female-gendered words.” The school suspended him for “misgendering” a student.

Who gave the tiny group of people, who until recently were almost universally regarded as oddballs outside the domain of everyday life, the right to ruin the careers and lives of people who use the ordinary language that we all grew up with? Who gave these people power over the way the rest of us speak? Why should they have this power? it makes no sense whatsoever. It is evidence of a culture that has lost all respect for truth and all confidence it itself.

Megyn Kelly had no intention to offend anyone and neither did the math teacher. He was giving a compliment. Yet retribution falls on their heads as if they had committed some major felony when they have done nothing whatsoever but speak honestly.

I have written about how science itself is being destroyed by Identity Politics, especially by radical feminist professors who are unwilling to accept the scientific fact that there are biological differences between males and females. You can find the articles on my website.

In the Unz Review Lance Welton in his article, “It’s Official: Even Hard Science Entering New Dark Age,” reports that radical feminists have come up with terms such as “scientific racism” and “scientific sexism” and use the terms to have peer-reviewed published papers deleted from scientific publications. One can only wonder why editors of scientific publications allow emotional and ignorant feminists to censure science exactly as it was censured by the Catholic Church during the era of controversy whether the sun orbited the earth or the earth orbited the sun. The obvious conclusion is that science has lost confidence in itself and is willing to submit to rule by Identity Politics.

Welton provides several examples of science ruled by emotion. Professor Alessandro Strumia, a physicist associated with the world’s largest particle accelerator, has been suspended from his important work. Alessandro said, truthfully, that physics was “built by men” and that today men are being discriminated against in physics education and appointments, because of the push to have an equal number of male and female physicists.

I know for a fact that both of Alessandro’s statements are absolutely correct. But being absolutely correct is what dooms you in Identity Politics. The last thing a “victimized person” intent on demonizing a white male cares about is truth.

Welton also reports the case of American mathematician Ted Hill, who investigated the “Genetic Male Variability Hypothesis,” which is that males are over-represented at the extremes of high and low IQ. In other words, males are disproportionally the smartest and the dumbest.

Feminists lost it. The findings violated their ideology, which has no basis in any known science, that the genders are equally bright and equally dumb.

Hill’s paper was peer-reviewed and pubished by one journal and then taken down under feminist pressure. It was then peer-reviewed and published in another journal and then taken down.

Scientists working in the field of human genetics are finding that it is not permissible for them to publish their findings that there are genetic race differences in intelligence and other human attributes.

The only conclusion that a sane and rational person can come to is that the Western World is insane. Western science is collapsing under the ideological pressure of Identity Politics.

So why do the Russians want to join the West? Is Russia intent on being part of the collapse of scientific civilization?

Will the Russian government ever realize that their “partners” in the West are insane beyond the meaning of the word?