Month: April 2022

Post Content

We’re publishing today an article by James Dent, a retired hydrologist and meteorologist. In a long career, Mr. Dent worked in many parts of the world, specialising in floods and droughts. For a time, he was the World Meteorology Organisation Chief Technical Advisor to the Flood Forecasting and Warning Centre in Bangladesh. The article was initially published in the British Hydrological Society journal Circulation, but was quickly withdrawn.

Here’s an excerpt:

Like the predictions of the progress of Covid, we need to ask what the limitations are to modelling. Too easily the model output is given the status of truth, and quickly becomes unchallengeable. Climate change predictions have been commonplace for at least 25 years, but I recently read an agricultural journalist state that in the future, farmers will have to cope with hotter, drier summers, and warmer, wetter winters, and there will be more extreme events. The message has remained the same, so have we not yet reached the predicted future? It becomes easy to summarise complicated ideas into sound bites.

Over the last 15 years, I have resigned from two national institutions which have incorporated climate change hypotheses into rigid policy statements. This situation could so easily escalate to the dystopian future depicted in the recently published novel The Denial by Ross Clark. Like all the ramifications and issues relating to Covid, the danger comes when theoretical projections provide the basis of legislation, or define the stance of particular organisations, while the media presentations rely on throw-away lines and virtue-signalling in reporting.

I can see similar dangers arising from so-called ‘environmental’ policies, such as ceasing river dredging and weed clearance, ‘rewilding’ and abandoning land and road drainage maintenance. Ultimately we could find ourselves regressing to medieval conditions, where roads and marshy areas become impassable in the winter months.

Read More: The Climate Change Paper Cancelled by The British Hydrological Society

Water companies have admitted to discharging raw sewage into England’s rivers, estuaries and seas around 1,000 times a day during the last year, according to government data.

While they are permitted to do this during times of heavy rainfall, the Environment Agency says spills can affect water quality if they happen too often.

It revealed discharges from storm overflows – which releases untreated sewage and rainwater into the environment to ease pressure on the system – happened more than 372,000 times in 2021.

There were more than 2.6 million hours of spills last year, the Environment Agency data – provided by water and sewerage firms – showed.

The Liberal Democrats said it was a “national scandal” and accused ministers of “ignoring outrage” over how often untreated sewage is going into waterways.

“The government is letting water companies get away with polluting our rivers and poisoning animals for decades to come,” Tim Farron, its rural affairs spokesperson, said.

The Environment Agency says storm overflows are an important part of the sewerage system. They prevent the system from getting overwhelmed during heavy and prolonged rainfall to avoid flooding or sewage overflowing into streets and properties.

The government has been trying to clamp down on spills – which can pollute waterways and harm ecosystems – happening too frequently.

Releasing the new data, it said most storm overflows now have monitoring devices, which provides information on how often they are being used to help to “hold water companies to account and drive environmental protections”.

The data showed 5 per cent of storm overflows recorded 100 or more spills during the last year. The average number was 29 times.

But the government admitted the figures showed water firms had been discharging sewage into rivers and seas more than they should.

Sir James Bevan, the chief executive of the Environment Agency, said water companies have “rightly been under increasing pressure” from his organisation, campaigners and the public “for allowing far too many sewage spills into rivers”.

He said the current situation was “simply not good enough” and said water firms needed to “act now to reduce their overflows to the minimum possible”.

Dr Richard Benwell from Wildlife and Countryside Link, a network of environmental groups, said: “These figures show another year of our waterways being choked by sewage pollution. This must change, for our own health as well as that of plants and animals struggling to survive in our polluted waters.”

Read More : Water firms admit pumping raw sewage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wherever you live in the world, energy prices are surging upwards. But a new global survey shows that people don’t blame climate policies for rising energy costs and strongly support moves to end the use of fossil fuels.

A survey of over 22,500 adults in 30 countries, conducted by Ipsos for the World Economic Forum, found that, on average, more than half of consumers expect rising energy costs to significantly reduce their spending power in 2022.

Results varied by country, however, with two-thirds of people living in South Africa, Japan and Turkey saying they expect to have less money to spend this year, compared to just over one-third in Switzerland and the Netherlands. People on low incomes and those aged 35 to 49 were most worried about their financial future.

Climate policies aren’t to blame
But despite the impact on their financial situation, people remain strongly supportive of climate policies, with an average of 84% saying that it is important to them personally that their country moves away from fossil fuels to more sustainable energy sources.

This view was strongly held in all countries, ranging from 72% of people in Russia and 75% in the United States to 93% in South Africa and Peru; the strongest feelings about the importance of ending reliance on fossil fuels was found in emerging nations.

Although support was strong among all demographic groups, slightly more women (87%) thought it was important to move away from fossil fuels than men (81%).

Read More : WEF Spews Propaganda

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) wants Americans to believe since 2011, when the word “extremists” was just starting to take root in the public’s consciousness, there has been an explosion of violent extremism

In 2011, DHS published the “Empowering Local Partners To Prevent Violent Extremism In The United States” report while at the same time calls for ending America’s never-ending war on terror started taking hold.

The DHS report made dubious claims like al-Qa‘ida was trying to recruit Americans and radicalize terrorism across the country, which coincidentally was also the 10th anniversary of 9/11. The report mentions extremists and violent extremists interchangeably during a time when Americans were beginning to question the war on terror.

In May 2011, National Public Radio wrote, “Why We Must End The War On Terror” and asked in September, “Is It Time To End The War On Terror?” Similar articles were being published across the country asking the same thing.

Fast forward eleven years, to 2022 and the war on terror shows no signs of abating.

DHS, who could be mistaken for magicians if it were not so ironic, have convinced law enforcement that America now has at least twenty-three different types of extremists.

There does not appear to be a master list of American extremists published by DHS or the Department of Justice.

I used four sources to compile this list of twenty-two different types of violent extremists, but I fear that the government’s “official list” is far larger.

Anti–government violent extremist
Anti-war extremist
Anti–authority violent extremist
Anarchist violent extremist
Domestic violent extremist
Racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist
Militia violent extremists
Sovereign citizen violent extremist
Individual violent extremist
Involuntary celibate–violent extremist
Abortion extremist
Anti-abortion extremist
Animal rights extremist
Environmental extremist
Right-wing extremist
Left-wing extremist
Christian Identity extremist
Islamist extremist
Muslim extremist
Racist extremist
Nativist extremist
Schoolboard extremist

Read More : DHS Spawns New Types Of ‘Domestic Extremism’

There follows a guest post by retired dentist Dr. Mark Shaw, who says the culture of silence and compliance exposed in the Shrewsbury maternity scandal, where doctors kept their heads down and their mouths shut about things which ran counter to the prevailing ideology, is also doing harm in the Covid vaccine rollout.

The Shrewsbury maternity scandal is the latest example of a failing NHS. It is both shocking and unsurprising at the same time that such failures should become exposed over a period of many years. Those who listen to Mike Graham’s excellent Talk Radio show will hear one caller after another ringing in about their horrendous NHS experiences – day after day, week after week. There is no virtue-signalling clapping here.

What appalled me most was Sajid Javid’s speech in which he condemned this particular NHS institution and blamed everyone in it without accepting personal (governmental) responsibility. The word ‘sorry’ came up in such a detached and cold manner that it almost seemed as if he was trying to make the public feel sorry for him having to deal with the hospital concerned.

I trained with medical students and nurses and made friends with many of them while at University. They all genuinely wanted to help people and I knew that they wanted to become healthcare professionals with the sole intention of making patients better if they were to fall ill. So how does a ‘Shrewsbury’ happen? It is the result of many things but a failure of Government policy and correctly managed funding is highest on the list and for that reason it is a disgrace for Sajid Javid not to acknowledge that and admit some culpability.

Read More: The Dangers of a Culture of Silence and Compliance Exposed in the Shrewsbury Maternity Scandal are Being Repeated in the Covid Vaccine Programme

Imperial College London, home of some of the U.K.’s most infamous lockdown cheerleaders such as Professor Neil Ferguson, has enraged parents and students by banning parents from attending their children’s graduation ceremonies due to ‘Covid safety’. The Mail has more.

Parents have voiced their frustration at being unable to attend their children’s graduation ceremonies as a London University stuck rigidly to former Covid regulations.

Imperial College London refused to allow parents and other guests to attend graduation ceremonies in person at the Royal Albert Hall on March 10th and 30th, insisting on the safety policy as “cases of Covid are still prevalent in the U.K.”.

This is in spite of Government regulations coming to an end on February 24th.

As a result, many parents were forced to watch their children’s graduation ceremonies online before joining them for celebrations afterwards, the Telegraph reports.

24-year-old civil engineering graduate Alexander Grace accepted his diploma while his mother Lesley Grace and stepfather Stephen Radcliffe watched from a laptop in their Wembley hotel room.

The couple had travelled from Nottingham hoping to see the ceremony, which Mr. Grace had deferred last year in the hope that they could attend in person.

Imperial College London stated:

Unfortunately, guests are unable to attend our March ceremonies. Safety for graduates and staff is of utmost importance. Cases of Covid are still prevalent in the U.K., and although the pandemic appears to be largely under control at present, we are also mindful that the circumstances could rapidly change. The measures in place have been designed to give the best possible chance of graduation going ahead.

Read More: Imperial College London Bans Parents From Graduation Ceremonies ‘Just in Case’

The corporate media is now controlled by the interests of Big Pharma which has spent over $1 BILLION in promoting COVID-19 vaccines. See:

Local, National Media Paid $MILLIONS To Push COVID-19 Vaccines

Even last night’s Oscar’s show was sponsored by Pfizer and BioNTech.

So when this corporate media now switches their focus to trying to convince the American public that Russia and Putin are a threat to our national security, that’s an indication to look around and see what they are trying to cover up and hide.

And one does not have to look very far to see the damaging effects of their COVID-19 vaccines. The government’s own database of Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) through March 18, 2022 shows that there are unprecedented increases in recorded deaths and injuries following COVID-19 vaccines for the past 15 months since they were issued emergency use authorizations (EUAs), as compared to recorded deaths and injuries reported following all FDA-approved vaccines for the previous 30 years.

These government statistics show there is no greater danger to the lives of Americans today than our own government which is sitting on data that show the following increases of reports in VAERS following COVID-19 vaccines:

68,000% increase in strokes
44,000% increase in heart disease
6,800% increase in deaths
5,700% increase in permanent disabilities
5,000% increase in life threatening injuries
4,400% increase in hospitalizations

This is mass murder and genocide.

If the corporate media switched from covering the war in Ukraine and published this data directly from the government’s own database, there would be riots all across the U.S. right now, if not a Civil War.

But the largely brain-dead American consumer is content to watch their corporate news and blame all the world’s problems on Russia right now instead, as we face huge labor shortages and supply chain bottlenecks due to all these deaths and injuries from the COVID-19 vaccines that will now be blamed on Russia.

A false flag attack on American soil that will be blamed on Russia seems imminent now.

Here is a summary of the raw data in VAERS for the past 15 months following COVID-19 vaccines. (Source.)

Read more: COVID-19 Vaccine Massacre: 68,000% Increase in Strokes, 44,000% Increase in Heart Disease, 6,800% Increase in Deaths Over Non-COVID Vaccines

Update (1140ET): It looks like Moscow is making headway with its demands that “hostile states” (aka its European customers) start paying for their gas in rubles. According to Bloomberg, Putin and German Chancellor Scholz have agreed to let “experts on both sides” discuss the feasibility of Russia’s demand that Germany switches to rubles for its gas payments, according to an emailed statement from the Kremlin.

Both leaders have agreed that switching to ruble payments shouldn’t deteriorate contract terms for European importers of Russian gas (meaning that the price should remain stable regardless of which currency is used for payment and settlement). Putin also updated Scholz on the state of talks between Russia and Ukraine.

But Scholz isn’t the only European leader who appears to be seriously considering Putin’s demands. Italian leader Mario Draghi is also reportedly considering Putin’s demands.

Now that Moscow has doubled down on its demands that its European “partners” pay for its oil and gas in rubles instead of euros (which, as the bloc already demonstrated, can be easily confiscated in the name of “sanctions”), the German government is digging in its heels as the payment dispute threatens to precipitate problematic energy shortages in Europe’s largest economy.

The FT reported Wednesday that German Energy Minister Robert Habeck has activated the “early warning phase” of Germany’s gas emergency law, which was adopted to help ration supplies in the face of a severe shortage. The decision will alert German consumers and businesses to do what they can to conserve energy.

Read More: Germany Scrambles To Ration Gas After Refusing To Make Payments In Rubles

The UK government is pushing ahead with its nationwide digital ID plans, despite half of the responses to its public consultation on digital identity opposing the idea.

On April 6, 2022, new digital identity document verification technology (IDVT) that enables data sharing between public bodies and businesses for the purpose of identity verification will be introduced. It will be made available to UK employers, landlords, and letting agents who can use it to digitally carry out pre-employment criminal record checks, right to work checks, and right to rent checks.

The introduction of this digital IDVT is part of the government’s far-reaching digital ID plans which were announced in March. The government has framed these digital ID plans as a way for UK citizens to “easily and quickly prove their identity using digital methods instead of having to rely on traditional physical documents.”

Under these digital ID plans, UK citizens will be able to “create a digital identity with a trusted organisation” which can be used “in-person or online” and “via a phone app or website.” These trusted organisations will then be given a “legal gateway” to “carry out verification checks against official data held by public bodies to help validate a person’s identity.” The government will also allow the “trust” generated by a single successful digital identity check to be passed to other organisations “where appropriate.”

Read More: UK Government plans to launch new Digital ID Technology in April 22 as part of Dystopian Nationwide Digital Identity Push

Over the past two years, in the name of keeping everyone “safe” from infection, the globalists have justified unprecedented attacks on democracy, civil liberties and personal freedoms, including the right to choose your own medical treatment. Now, the WHO wants to make its pandemic leadership permanent, and to extend it into the health care systems of every nation.

The negotiations for this treaty began March 3, 2022.(1) As reported by The Pulse (video above):

“Coming off the back of the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization is proposing a new pandemic treaty they’re hoping will be accepted by enough member countries to become a reality by 2024.”

The pandemic treaty is a direct threat to a nation’s sovereignty to make decisions for itself and its citizens, and would erode democracy everywhere.

Treaty Threatens National Sovereignty
As noted by The Pulse, “there are a number of things in the treaty that the people of the world need to consider before going down this path.” In the featured video, The Pulse’s Joe Martino interviews Shabnam Palesa Mohamed, a member of the steering committee of the World Council for Health, who points out that the treaty gives the WHO:

“… an inordinate amount of power to make decisions in sovereign countries as to how people live and how they deal with pandemics, from lockdowns to mandates over treatment.”

In short, it would create a one-size-fits-all approach to disease, without regard for all the varying situations found in individual countries, and this is something we already know doesn’t work. The treaty is a direct threat to a nation’s sovereignty to make decisions for itself and its citizens, and would erode democracy everywhere.

At the same time, it would cost each member country millions of dollars to participate in this process. As explained by Mohamed, the treaty will need to go through a voting process at the World Health Assembly in 2023. They need a majority for it to pass and, if passed, all member countries will be bound by it.

The Treaty Is ‘Invalid and Unlawful’
Another concern raised by Mohamed is that many countries don’t even know about this treaty as of yet, and it’s possible that the WHO might try to push for earlier implementation than 2024 — all without public participation or input. “It is undemocratic, it is unconstitutional and therefore it makes the treaty invalid and unlawful,” she says.

She also highlights the WHO’s many health policy failures, which are “intrinsically linked to conflicts of interest.” In an open letter on the WHO’s pandemic treaty, the World Council for Health writes, in part: (2)

“The proposed WHO agreement is unnecessary, and is a threat to sovereignty and inalienable rights. It increases the WHO’s suffocating power to declare unjustified pandemics, impose dehumanizing lockdowns, and enforce expensive, unsafe, and ineffective treatments against the will of the people.

The WCH [World Council for Health] believes that the people have a right to participate in any agreement that affects their lives, livelihoods, and well-being.

However, the WHO has not engaged in a process of public participation, which is evidence that its priority is capturing more power for itself and its corporate accomplices, than serving the interests of the people. Without an unbiased democratic process, any agreement by the WHO, acting via the United Nations, will be unlawful, illegitimate, and invalid.

Historically, the WHO leadership has failed the people. Among many examples, it approved the injurious H1N1 (swine flu) vaccine for a controversially declared pandemic.

Equally, the WHO failed during the COVID-19 chapter as it encouraged lockdowns, suppressed early preventive treatments, and recommended product interventions that have proven to be neither safe nor effective.

The WHO cannot be allowed to control the world’s health agenda, nor enforce biosurveillance. While it receives funding from public sources belonging to the people, it is caught in a perpetual conflict of interest because it also receives substantial funding from private interests that use their contributions to influence and profit from WHO decisions and mandates.

For example, the Gates Foundation and the Gates-funded GAVI vaccine promotion alliance, contribute over $1 billion a year.”

Another concern is the fact that when people are harmed by the WHO’s health policies, there’s no accountability because the WHO has diplomatic immunity. According to Mohamed, “the WHO should not be making ANY decisions about world health in the future.”

Read More : The Chilling Reason They Won’t Declare the Pandemic Over?

Explained: The World Health Organization’s Controversial ‘Pandemic Treaty