CHICKEN LITTLE PROPAGANDA DRESSED UP AS SCIENCE

Posted on by

The Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO have delivered their ­biennial dose of depression about the climate, but their report ignores a slew of positive environmental changes. Article by PETER RIDD in The Weekend Australian Sunday 27th November 2022.

The latest report should ring alarm bells – but not just about climate. Is this an excellent tool of propaganda, or is it a scientific statement?

The climate has warmed by 1.5C and there is barely a single benefit according to climate change experts – but is it all ­disaster?

It is often said, “if it is too good to be true, it probably is” and you are being conned. What about too bad to be true? Can a gently warming climate have no significant benefits at all? The only marginally encouraging part of the report is about northern Australia. There might have been a slight reduction in cyclone numbers, and there has been a bit more rain in recent decades.

Apart from that, the report reads like the Book of Exodus – one disaster after another. Only the frogs and boils are missing. But it is significant that the period when Egyptians were building pyramids, which was hotter than today’s climate, is often called the Holocene Climatic Optimum. The word “optimum” was an indication that scientists working in the era before climate alarmism could see some advantage of a warmer climate.

A sure sign that the report tries too hard to find disaster is when it discusses coral bleaching and the Great Barrier Reef. It stresses that there have been four bleaching events in the past six years, which it implies were devastating. But for some reason, the report fails to mention that this year the reef recorded its highest amount of coral since records began in 1985.

This proves that all the hype about coral loss from bleaching was greatly exaggerated. But the report writers were obviously ­untroubled by the contradictory evidence. They ignored it.

The northern and central Great Barrier Reef have recorded their highest amount of coral cover since the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) began monitoring 36 years ago.

And they also ignore the fact that corals grow about 15 percent faster for every degree temperature rise, and that almost all the corals on the reef also live in much warmer water near the equator. We should expect better coral, and it should extend further south. That is not too bad, is it?

Why doesn’t the report mention that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere improves the water utilization efficiency of dryland plants, which occupy most of Australia, and that this has caused plants to thrive? According to NASA satellites, there is a “greening” of Australia of at least 10 percent. Overall, the world has seen the area of green leaves expand by the equivalent of twice the area of the United States in just 35 years.

In a changing climate, there will be winners and losers, and it might be that the net effect is a major problem. But if the report writers will not even mention the good bits, how can we have any confidence in its findings?

We should all worry about whether groupthink has taken hold of the BOM and CSIRO.

We should worry when the BOM says it has recently adjusted all the temperature records reducing the temperatures a century ago by up to a degree. Can we have any confidence they did this with good scientific reason?

And we should worry about the BOM’s claims that the fire seasons are now much worse than in 1950. Why is all the information on huge bushfires before 1950 ignored – like the devastating 1851 Victorian bushfire and the 1939 fires? It is not like there is no data before 1950.

Did they ignore that data for a good reason? Is this similar to the US fire statistics, which are often reported by authorities as having a major increase in fire acreage burnt since the early 60s, but fail to mention that there was almost 10 times more acreage burnt in the “dust-bowl” period in the 1930s?

In the next decades, Australian governments plan to spend hundreds of billions attempting to prevent climate change. Before we do that, maybe we could spend a few million doing an audit of BOM and CSIRO reports.

Maybe we would find that adapting to a changing climate is by far the best way to proceed. We might even find that some of what we have been told is wrong.

Why will the conservative parties not commit to an audit? Who would argue against a bit of checking of the science, when the Great Barrier Reef statistics prove scientists got something badly wrong?

And the latest report is a sure sign that the BOM and CSIRO are drifting into political advocacy rather than science, observation, and objective prediction.

Peter Ridd is an Adjunct Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.

This is further evidence we are in the “end times” and that God’s truth and judgement have been thrown off.

SCHOOLS ARE ‘PROGRAMMING’ CHILDREN, IMPOSING TRANSGENDER IDEOLOGY

Posted on by

LAST DAYS GENERATION WILL CALL EVIL GOOD AND GOOD EVIL

A former intelligence professional (‘programming’ expert), who is a historian of the Soviet Union, is warning that schools in America are starting to embrace a propaganda operation designed to squash thought and demand allegiance to political correctness and gender ideology.

How Schools Are 'Programming' Children, Imposing Transgender Ideology: Propaganda Expert

Speaking before attendees gathered at the Family Research Council office in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, Stella Morabito, senior contributor to The Federalist, unpacked both the content and processes of a group called CASEL, the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (SEL).

“Social and emotional learning,” she explained, is becoming all the rage in the public education policy realm and if left unchecked it will result in a monolithic, nationalised mandate demanding conformity to the politically correct dogma of the day. In other words, it is a massive state-sponsored propaganda operation intended to isolate and control people, including kids, about how to feel and relate to people.

During her presentation, Morabito showed video footage of CASEL advocates and experts opining about why this kind of education is needed. They say it is because it is the only way children will acquire “life skills” and children, who are bound to become “self-directed,” are “crying out” for this, noting that data show that approximately 40 percent are “chronically disengaged” in school. CASEL’s  curriculum is being implemented in certain places in the U.S, especially in urban areas.

“Both the content and process of CASEL are statist in nature … think of it as Groupthink 10.0: We’re the government and we’re here to help. The net effect is to build a collective mindset,” Morabito explained.

The CASEL video also explains how educators “need the whole child,” and the academic content in any subject is now a “commodity” and is less important than SEL instruction since kids can access the internet for such knowledge. CASEL aims to “mobilise” this curriculum — where the dominant emphasis is kids being taught to be self-aware, how to regulate their emotions, build relationship skills, and demonstrate responsible decision-making in their schools and communities — to get it into every school in the nation.

One of the board members of CASEL is Linda Darling-Hammond, who was domestic terrorist Bill Ayers’ choice to be President Obama’s Secretary of Education. Morabito mentioned that CASEL has several partners whose pet agendas include everything from  social and economic globalism to transgenderism. Much of this radicalism comes out of Chicago, she noted.

She went on to say that she believes there are some decent people who have fallen into the trap of utopian thinking, which by nature is always collectivist. Utopian thinking disregards the individual to build a predictable, mechanical world that demands mass control over everyone’s lives and relationships, essentially programming them down to what they can and cannot say.

Morabito took a brief detour to explain that the takeover of relationships begins with undermining the family, specifically marriage, and the groundwork for this has been laid for some time. She referenced the work of gender legal theorist Martha Fineman who argued that state recognition of the institution of marriage should be abolished. Fineman observed that once that happened “a lot more regulation (protection)” would occur once interactions between individuals within families were removed from behind the veil of privacy that now shields them. Those behaviours would then be “judged by standards established to regulate interactions among all members of society.”

But this collectivising of relationships where conformity to the regulations of the smallest minutiae is insisted upon actually diminishes relationships, Morabito argued. And a prime example of this is the growing presence of gender ideology and pronoun protocols.

Forcing people to use words and pronouns that do not correspond to their biological sex but of their choosing “destabilizes thought because it totally undermines the entire structure of our language,” her accompanying powerpoint presentation read. One language is overhauled, thoughtfulness and conversation is replaced with “conditioned emotional reflexes that creates a mob mentality not allowing for differences of thought.”

Most partners of CASEL reportedly promote regulating speech in such a way.

Power elites have always utilized propaganda through psychological manipulation to coerce the masses to bend to an agenda, and over time false premises, like the notion that “sex is assigned at birth,” slowly make their way into law, Morabito explained.

During Q&A, someone in the audience asked, half-jokingly: “Isn’t using the proper pronoun [of someone’s choice] just good manners?”

Morabito, getting the joke, smiled and replied, positing: “Well, my preferred pronouns are ‘I’ and ‘me.’ So I want you to refer to me every time you talk about me, Stella … use ‘I’ and ‘me.'”

“It’s not a matter of manners when you’re talking about the destabilisation of the entire structure of our means of communicating with each other, which are basic rules of grammar and syntax that aren’t supposed to be an infinite list — which is really what it is growing to be.”