I have always thought that a new ice age would be coming, not based upon any science, since I know nothing about science, but because the very idea was “cool.” Oh, a pun, pardon me, we are too old for that. Anyway, apart from my ignorance, I could be right:
  https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1237178/weather-warning-ice-age-earth-sun-hibernates-solar-minimum-long-range-forecast

“Earth could be braced for a ‘mini ICE-AGE' as experts warn a solar minimum could last until the 2050s. Sunspot activity on the surface of the Sun follows a well-known but little understood 11 year cycle. Activity rises and falls creating the so-called solar maximum and then solar minimum. During a solar maximum, the Sun is more powerful and is littered with sunspots. Conversely when the Sun enters a solar minimum – which it did about two years ago - energy from our host star begins to lessen. However, one expert has warned that the Sun will enter a period of “hibernation” this year, in what as known as a Grand Solar Minimum (GSM). Prof Valentina Zharkova, from the department of mathematics, physics and electrical engineering at Northumbria University, warned this could cause global temperatures to drop by one degrees Celsius. While that sounds like an insignificant drop, it could have major ramifications for the planet, including a slowdown in agricultural production.”

     Australia is a land of deserts, droughts, floods, bushfires, flammable forests and fire-prone grasslands – these conditions have developed since the Holocene Warm Era commenced about twelve thousand years ago. All previous Australian bushies, both black and white, have recognised the key principle of fire management in Australia – you can have many small managed “cool” fires in early spring or a few unplanned disastrous “hot” fires consuming a heavy fuel load in hot dry winds in late spring. (Arsonists have other priorities and light their fires at these most dangerous times.) Every generation of Australians sees its fire disasters and the worst ones get names – “Black Thursday” in 1851, “Black Friday” in 1939, “Ash Wednesday” in 1983, and the worst to date “Black Saturday” in 2009. Not even an armada of expensive water bombers will stop these bushfires – at that stage fire can only be prevented or contained by fire. Good fire management disappeared as rural voters were outvoted by the green leafy suburbs. Urban greens thought we could prevent all fires and encourage wildlife by locking up more parks and encouraging fire-loving, oil-containing eucalypts and flammable weeds close to towns and dwellings. (Many native plants require fire to burst open their rock-hard seed pods.) Even more stupid are those who think politicians can control or abolish droughts and bushfires by banning the use of coal and oil in a futile attempt to lower global temperature. The sun, the oceans and recurring El Nino’s will dwarf all efforts of puny politicians. We need good fire and forest management and prosecution of arsonists, not costly climate distractions.

     What a disgrace Australia is, don’t you think? Consider this over a glass of murky water, if you still have one:
  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7211833/China-revealed-biggest-foreign-owner-Australian-water.html?fbclid=IwAR2nFRr7AzHW9CZssODCjK1JtA00ayR64YCGiYAlG9eze1fmzFcMcjtJSeE

“Australia's water market should be more closely monitored after it emerged China is the largest foreign stakeholder, experts say. The Federal Government in March revealed that 10.4 per cent of Australian water rights are owned by foreign individuals or companies. Chinese investors own 732 gigalitres or 1.89 per cent of the water on the market - an amount more than Sydney Harbour which holds 500 gigalitres. In close second, Americans own 720 gigalitres (1.86 per cent) while British buyers own 414 gigalitres or 1.1 per cent. A string of investors from countries including Canada, France and Singapore own 0.5 per cent or less. The figures were revealed in a new ATO register of foreign ownership which was set up to monitor who owns Australia's most precious natural resource. But as China flexes its muscles on the global stage and seeks strategic influence across the world, experts say we must keep a close watch. A total of 10.4 per cent of our water being owned by foreigners is a significant amount,' Professor Quentin Grafton of the Australian National University told Daily Mail Australia. 'As such, it is important that Australians know who is using our water - it's a public resource and it's critically important to the country.

     India is a fascinating place to visit, but one needs to be extremely careful what one eats, and drinks, especially water. Pollution is a major problem, and the environmentalists are silence about this because …  only whites … make pollution:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWNeb_5Uj5U
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17DE2krqQMg
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHCaIvPN2rY
  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50298972

“As India's north continues to struggle with extreme pollution levels, the story has put a fresh spotlight on air quality in cities across Asia. Beijing has long been notorious for its smog - but statistics show that India, Pakistan and Bangladesh have worse air by far. So why is South Asia so much more polluted?

     For many years I have been writing that climate change has become something of a fanatical cult, which has now morphed into a new religion. Nobody paid attention to what I have said, because, well, I’m just an old loser, who drowns my sorrows for a lost life in cheap alcohol, but still, there are others, who are real people, saying the same thing now:
  https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-religion-of-climatism/

“Greta Thunberg, the teenager from Stockholm, is the prophet of a new religion sweeping the West. Call it Climatism. Like any religion worthy of the name, it comes with its own catechism (what to believe) and eschatology (how the world will end). Thunberg’s bible is the latest report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which gives us 12 years to save civilization as we know it. We have prayed to the false gods of fossil-fired growth, runs Thunberg’s indictment. Guilty are the adults who have “lied to us” and given us “false hope.” But her children’s crusade—no-school “Fridays for Future”—will show the path to redemption. And so, the youngsters did. For September 20, the 16-year-old had managed to organize worldwide protest marches. From New York to Nairobi, from Asia to Australia, tens of thousands thronged the squares and streets of their cities, chanting: “You had a future, and so should we!” 2019 is the year 1 a.g., Anno Gretae. Of course, Greta Thunberg did not come out of nowhere. All new religions emerge from competing sects, as Jesus did in Jerusalem and Muhammad in the Arabian Hejaz. Why did she succeed so quickly, virtually in a space of months? An “innocent child,” muses Gerard Baker in the Wall Street Journal, “is an inspiring story that is very effective in offering role models and propagating the faith.” A guileless demeanor trumps reams of data and multiple regressions churned out by the IPCC. But it also helps that Greta has a flawless PR machine running in the background at all times.

     I was sent this link down the food chain, having a little archaeological knowledge, from Ken who sends out dozens of emails with juicy bits of info, the original email coming in from I don’t know, and was too lazy to ask, but, good on you anyway, get the word out. The book by Bruce Pascoe, Dark Emu: Aboriginal Australia and the Birth of Agriculture (2014/2018), puts the case that Australian Aboriginal culture was not exclusively a hunter and gatherer society, but had agriculture, and well, a civilisation a bit like a kind of Wakanda (Black Panther movie)! This all goes with a modern narrative about their sophisticated spiritualism and cosmological beliefs.

     There is a site “Dark Emu Exposed”:
  https://www.dark-emu-exposed.org/home/category/Aboriginal+Agriculture   which undertakes a step-by-step critique of the Aboriginal agriculture claim. The entries are detailed and well argued, and anyone interested in this topic should have a look. As well, a few days ago there was this in the national rag:
  https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/extolling-of-dark-emu-ignores-the-doubt-about-its-historical-accuracy/news-story/9383e8daea5ef79ae3e1d7d4ba4d3357

     No doubt someone else at this site has used the zombie metaphor, perhaps in the same existential despair as me, to describe the plight of our kind. But, for the money, and there is not much of that, here it is again:
  https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-11-22-wasp-turns-spiders-into-zombies-by-hacking-hormones.html

“Around the world, parasitoid wasps use spiders as the host for their babies. Researchers recently found that the wasps take advantage of the spiders’ hormone to force their victims into doing their bidding. A wasp starts the gruesome series of events by laying an egg on the body of a spider. Its larva feeds on their host to gather nutrients for the pupa stage. Eventually, the wasp larva forces the spider to spin a specific web that will support its pupal cocoon. Once the spiderweb is finished, the larva kills the spider, wraps its former host and itself in a cocoon, and starts the maturation process into an adult wasp. Researchers from the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) and Brazil’s Universidade Federal de Uberlandia (UFU) investigated how parasitoid wasps hijack the bodies of the spiders. They learned that the wasp larvae take advantage of ecdysone, a hormone that controls the molting behavior of spiders. The parasites change the way spiders respond to increasing ecdysone levels so that their hosts produce webs for their pupal cocoons. (Related: Bugs for green thumbs: 7 Beneficial bugs that you need in your garden.) Parasitoid wasp larvae inject psychotropic substances into spiders to turn them into “zombies” STRI researcher William Eberhard teamed up with his UFU counterpart Marcelo Gonzaga. Together, they went over the existing papers on parasitoid wasp species around the world that target spider species. They also incorporated the findings of a separate Brazilian molecular study. Last but not least, they looked at the behavior of spiders in Costa Rica.”

Dear Editor

Paul Starick (Advertiser Dec 6) correctly warns that South Australia is at extreme risk of domination from eastern States, regarding the Murray Darling Basin.  He explains our lack of MP’s on the federal scene will provide minimal resistance to any attack.
The real problem which has generated so much feeling among irrigators has been caused by over-allocation, combined with minimal inflow due to drought conditions.
The irony is the over-allocation has not meant over-use.  Much of the water entitlement is held by speculative investors.  Until they sell the water (at a high price) to an irrigator, the speculator’s water will flow past those who are keen to use it  -  if only it was affordable.
Emotion is running high and much finger pointing has failed to focus on the real problem.
Plans to decommission the barrages and build a lock at Wellington lacks a vision for the whole Murray Darling Basin.  River infrastructure from source-to-sea has provided a wonderful asset which must be retained.
Changes are needed but they must deliver unity  -  even if it requires recognition of less water being available.

Yours etc

  Ken Grundy
  Naracoorte  SA

     The more carbon pollution the better I say! If our enemies support it, then it is a methodological principle that we should oppose it, and no-one is as much a bug-eyed fanatic as me … not, that is not right, our opponents are more fanatical, have bigger bugged eyes, and are, to top it off just wrong! I don’t care what thousands of professors say: what would they know? They would not recognise the majestic beauty of a coal-fired power station if they fell down the sooty chimney of one.
  https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/greta-thunberg-meltdown-imminent-china-unleash-tsunami-mega-polluting-coal-fired-power

“In recent months, emotional eco-activist Greta Thunberg who has become synonymous with the global anti-global warming climate change movement has made consistent appeals at the developed world, demanding an end to its evil, polluting ways. She even went so far as to sue some of the bigger carbon polluters in the world — Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, and Turkey — for violating her rights as a child by failing to adequately reduce emissions. And yet one nation has consistently escaped her steely gaze: China. Which is unfortunate, because whereas many of the nations that have provoked Greta's ire in the past have made concerted efforts to reduce their emissions, it is the world's biggest polluter, China, that has curiously evaded her anger. Hopefully that is about to change because as the FT reports, China is set to add an army of new coal-fired power plants equivalent to the EU’s entire capacity, as the world’s biggest energy consumer ignores global pressure to rein in carbon emissions in its bid to boost a slowing economy. Across China, a whopping 148GW of heavily-polluting, coal-fired plants are either being built or are about to begin construction, according to a report from Global Energy Monitor, a non-profit group that monitors coal stations. Putting that number in context, the current capacity of the entire EU coal fleet is 149GW, or the same as what China is about to add.

     Here is an article arguing that to deal with the climate crisis people need to have fewer children. What people? Why, going from the photograph of Nordic/Northern European white children in the article, the implication is, whites. That is applying the same standard that the establishment applies to anything else, for consistency. Thus, predict what the response would have been if only African children were portrayed. But, in fairness, judge for yourself:
  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

“The greatest impact individuals can have in fighting climate change is to have one fewer child, according to a new study that identifies the most effective ways people can cut their carbon emissions. The next best actions are selling your car, avoiding long flights, and eating a vegetarian diet. These reduce emissions many times more than common green activities, such as recycling, using low energy light bulbs or drying washing on a line. However, the high impact actions are rarely mentioned in government advice and school textbooks, researchers found. Carbon emissions must fall to two tonnes of CO2 per person by 2050 to avoid severe global warming, but in the US and Australia emissions are currently 16 tonnes per person and in the UK seven tonnes. “That’s obviously a really big change and we wanted to show that individuals have an opportunity to be a part of that,” said Kimberly Nicholas, at Lund University in Sweden and one of the research team. The new study, published in Environmental Research Letters, sets out the impact of different actions on a comparable basis. By far the biggest ultimate impact is having one fewer child, which the researchers calculated equated to a reduction of 58 tonnes of CO2 for each year of a parent’s life. The figure was calculated by totting up the emissions of the child and all their descendants, then dividing this total by the parent’s lifespan. Each parent was ascribed 50% of the child’s emissions, 25% of their grandchildren’s emissions and so on.”

     In the era before coal, oil and electricity, the environment suffered greatly. Whales were slaughtered for lamp oil; forests were cleared for firewood, mine props, building materials, roofing shingles and sailing masts; London (“The Big Smoke”) and Pittsburgh (“The Smoky City”) were smothered in smog from open fires, charcoal kilns and iron smelters; horses powered public and military transport and city streets were layered with horse manure. Then came the hydro-carbon revolution. Kerosene lamps saved the whales and coal-powered steam engines delivered electricity (clean-coal-by-wire) to the cities. Much of the sulphurous smogs disappeared. Coke from coal replaced wood charcoal to make iron and steel. Steel and concrete saved the forests and trucks and railways allowed the farmland which once fed millions of horses, mules and oxen to produce food for humans. Not one of these boons for humans AND the environment was driven by a UN resolution, invented by a government committee or funded by statutory levies on consumers, or subsidies from taxpayers. None were mandated in a government energy plan. The anti-human, anti-industry policies of the Global Greens are now reversing all that progress. A key event occurred in 2006 when a leading left-wing politician, Al Gore, invented the Global Warming Industry. Despite a finding by a British High Court that his movie “The Inconvenient Truth” contained nine key scientific errors, it is still shown in schools. This has misled students and teachers and created spreading circles of damage to jobs, industry and the cost and reliability of electricity. It also created fake industries based on energy adventurism, UN talk-fests, climate hysteria and green activism.

     The Green Piglets were born, and the environment and the economy suffered. Land that once fed horses is now used to produce biodiesel and ethanol for cars, so food prices must go up. Forests are felled to burn in green power stations and for green-tick buildings while grasslands are invaded by feral pests, woody weeds and bushfires from the ever-growing parks and Kyoto Protocol Forests. Birds and bats are being sliced by wind turbines, flatlands are being smothered by solar panels, access roads and transmission lines. But electricity costs soar, supply is rationed while reliability crashes. Behind every one of these modern maladies are troughs of Big Green Pigs getting fat on market mandates, subsidies from consumers or tax payers, and special tax treatments. In the background, governments fund an academic/media industry promoting climate alarmism, energy rationing and intermittent energy. Electric cars and penny farthings were pushed off the roads by Henry Ford’s petrol engines, but politicians are trying to put them back – a Tesla for the rich and a bicycle for the poor. Consumers and industry don’t count and taxpayers are there to be milked. In this Greentopia no one needs miners, farmers or fishermen. All are lost for a fake global warming Emergency.

     Leaders of the Clintel Group of world scientists and professionals will attend the UN Climate Change Conference (COP25) which starts in Madrid today (2 December) and runs for twelve long days. (The Climate Summit was shifted suddenly to Spain after Chile cancelled because of violent riots in Santiago.) Clintel will present their “No Climate Emergency” petition at the Climate Reality Forum. This petition has already been presented to the UN Secretary General, the European Commission and the European Parliament. Voting on a motion promoting a climate emergency declaration (in opposition to the Clintel statement), over one third of the members of the EU Parliament voted for “No Climate Emergency”. This shows there is a significant opposition to alarmism, even in the EU. The Climate Summit is expected to attract up to 25,000 high-flying delegates and hangers-on from 197 member countries. Most will not arrive using bicycles, sailing boats or gliders – they will burn hydrocarbons. Desperate to spread their “Climate Emergency” alarmism, delegates will try to force high energy costs and rationing on us while they waste it conspicuously themselves. Clintel says that computerised global temperature simulation models are unfit for the purpose of setting climate policies – they have consistently run hot for 20 years.

     The real global climate has warm and cold cycles. Current global temperatures are about as warm as the Medieval Warm era (which was followed by the Little Ice Age). There is no uniform global temperature at any place or any time, and no one knows what ideal temperature we should aim for – the Frigid Zone would probably like it warmer, the Torrid Zone would probably like it cooler. We need to take heed of climate history and energy realities, both neglected in alarmist/UN propaganda. Too many UN “scientific” reports are tinkered with by officials before release, and are designed to alarm rather than inform. For too long we have been forced to listen to biased academics (chasing research funds), energy speculators (chasing government subsidies and tax breaks), alarmist journalists (chasing sensations), noisy children (chasing days off school) and greenish politicians (chasing votes). It’s time to stop the chasing. We need a grown-up debate allowing all sides to present their science on “Man-made Global Warming”. CLINTEL says “There is NO Climate Emergency”.

     All of those young feral Extinction folks, need to focus on the real killer, their beloved smart phones which are going to destroy the earth quicker than you can say: “red meat”:
  https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/darn-inconvenient-apple-destroying-planet-maximize-profits
  http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2019/11/darn-this-is-inconvenient-apple-is.html
  https://www.fastcompany.com/90165365/smartphones-are-wrecking-the-planet-faster-than-anyone-expected

“A new study from researchers at McMaster University published in the Journal of Cleaner Production analyzed the carbon impact of the whole Information and Communication Industry (ICT) from around 2010-2020, including PCs, laptops, monitors, smartphones, and servers. They found remarkably bad news. Even as the world shifts away from giant tower PCs toward tiny, energy-sipping phones, the overall environmental impact of technology is only getting worse. Whereas ICT represented 1% of the carbon footprint in 2007, it’s already about tripled, and is on its way to exceed 14% by 2040. That’s half as large as the carbon impact of the entire transportation industry. Smartphones are particularly insidious for a few reasons. With a two-year average life cycle, they’re more or less disposable. The problem is that building a new smartphone–and specifically, mining the rare materials inside them–represents 85% to 95% of the device’s total CO2 emissions for two years. That means buying one new phone takes as much energy as recharging and operating a smartphone for an entire decade. Yet even as people are now buying phones less often, consumer electronics companies are attempting to make up for lost profits by selling bigger, fancier phones. The researchers found that smartphones with larger screens have a measurably worse carbon footprint than their smaller ancestors. Apple has publicly disclosed that building an iPhone 7 Plus creates roughly 10% more CO2 than the iPhone 6s, but an iPhone 7 standard creates roughly 10% less than a 6s. So according to Apple, the trend is getting better, but the bigger phones companies like Apple sell seem to offset some gains. Another independent study concluded that the iPhone 6s created 57% more CO2 than the iPhone 4s. And despite the recycling programs run by Apple and others, “based on our research and other sources, currently less than 1% of smartphones are being recycled,” Lotfi Belkhir, the study’s lead author, tells me. In any case, keeping a smartphone for even three years instead of two can make a considerable impact to your own carbon footprint, simply because no one has to mine the rare materials for a phone you already own. It’s a humbling environmental takeaway, especially if you own Samsung or Apple stock. Much like buying a used gasoline-fueled car is actually better for the environment than purchasing a new Prius or Tesla, keeping your old phone is greener than upgrading to any new one.

     Well, I am impressed, and I do not impress easily. Imagine the ingenuity involved here, in coming up with a scheme to shut down the pollies in Canberra, by stopping them getting to their rat holes!
  https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/extinction-rebellion-threat-to-block-mps/news-story/1e6097b33a831c7e637cbbfae956ecc7

“Climate activist group Extinction Rebellion has threatened to blockade Canberra airport when parliament rises unless MPs meet its demand and begin to “shut down the fossil fuel industry” in the next two weeks. An ACT division of the group has written a letter to all federal MPs demanding that parliament also “legislate towards meeting net zero emissions” by 2025. “If you fail to do this by the last sitting day of parliament, we will give you a taste of the kind of disruption that you are inflicting on ordinary people across the world by failing to take action on climate change,” the letter said.  “We plan to blockade your route to the airport on the 5th of December.
‘‘You don’t deserve a smooth trip home from work if your work is ensuring the continued destruction of the planet.” Resources Minister Matt Canavan told The Australian the tactic was “straight from the Green activist playbook”. “They always resort to threats and blackmail when reason and debate fails,” he said. Labor’s resource spokesman, Joel Fitzgibbon — who holds the NSW electorate of Hunter where coalmining is a key industry — was also unimpressed. He warned that the demand for net zero emissions by 2025 would “destroy our economy”. “Their idealism is to be commended but a dose of realism would be a good thing too,” Mr Fitzgibbon said.

     It is all happening, like a Christmas present for me, just as most of us journalists here struggle to get through the day now, counting the nanoseconds until the holidays, to allow time for our back and neck injuries to heal before killing ourselves writing next year. Anyway, Climate-Princess Greta has come out embracing total Marxism and anti-capitalism, which shows that the colour of the Greens, is always red:
  https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/29/greta-thunberg-goes-full-marxist/

“Greta Thunberg the teenage Climate Puppet has gone full Marxist. In her latest public statement, she says that the ‘climate crisis is not just about the environment’: It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fuelled it. We need to dismantle them all.”

The medical journal The Lancet, has a name which I have found a bit scary, since it refers to a surgical cutting instrument with a double-edged blade. Could that be symbolic? Well, the journal of that name is certainly well into the climate apocalypse stuff. Here is some material on this, which I do not necessarily endorse in full, because I am new to this area.
  https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/11/12/woke-lancet-asks-if-its-acceptable-have-children-14395/%20

“What should we make of a scientific journal that has decided that being culturally "woke" is more important than presenting evidence-based reports and opinions? Alas, this is what has become of The Lancet. For decades, The Lancet was seen as one of the world's preeminent biomedical journals, along with publications such as the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). But something has changed, and the journal now regularly publishes bad research and bizarre opinions. The latest example is The Lancet's decision to publish a review of a theatrical performance called Lungs, which is about climate change. (Why a biomedical journal is publishing theatrical reviews at all is a legitimate question in itself.) The very first paragraph is already full of misinformation:

From Deb Newell 12 October 2019

  Dear Greta,

     You should feel very proud of yourself.  Your crusade against Climate Warming has taken you into the homes and schools of the world and to the United Nations.  At sixteen years of age this is a huge achievement.  I know that you are very, very worried about the current dynamics of what is a dynamic system.  Climate by definition is variable from one day to the next, one month/one season/one year/one decade/one millennia/one geological time frame…to the next. We now stand upon the shoulders of instruments that measure the temperature of the atmosphere, the oceans, the soils and deep into Earth’s crust to assess tiny changes in heat in a multitude of sites across this planet.  This capacity is very new, about 200 years of instrument design and ongoing adaptations allow us to  do this on a regular basis so when we read about the ‘hottest ever’ we must understand that ‘ever’ refers to about 200 years of readings from instruments of varying specificity and accuracy.  To collate this data we use techniques like homogenisation before feeding such modified data into the analytic phenomenon of the twentieth century – computer software.  This is new knowledge that can be mishandled.

     At your age I loved science.  Most of my family are in one field or another of science, so I was always encouraged to never accept what I was being told was ‘the truth’ as this is a dynamic (just like the climate) coloured by perspective.  Back then there was an American scientist who reached pop-star fame, travelling the world to talk  Science to theatres full of students.  His name was Professor Sumner Miller, and his message of intellectual enquiry was to constantly ask the question ‘Why is this so?’  For your own integrity now and into the future, please start asking ‘why is it so?’ to understand the complex systems that run the climate.  This capacity for critical analysis is what defines humans.  Many, overwhelmed by information, accept what they are told as it is easier.  Religions don’t take kindly to questioning, nor do fairy tales or prejudices, but science depends upon the power of scepticism, the power of proof by enquiry.  Don’t follow the easier path of acceptance.  Ask hard questions of the science and scientists that have captured the attention of the world, many scientific institutions and many scientific publications to confirm your own intellectual dignity.

     In general, I do not like the Affirmative Right site much, mainly beginning with the name, which immediately links to “affirmative action” in my mind, rightly or wrongly. Then there are articles that to my troubled brain are just plain wrong. But, then there are real gems of articles, sheer magic. Like this one, thrashing the very idea of anthropogenic global warming (AGW):
  https://affirmativeright.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-zombie-theory-of-anthropogenic.html

“Belief in the dangers of AGW has led to the emergence of “climate change science,” an interdisciplinary field that is very different from the natural sciences. Whole regular scientists rely on objective, empirical methods to test hypotheses, climate change scientists, on the other hand, manipulate data to fit preconceived beliefs; they are trained to ignore hypotheses challenging the AGW status quo, no matter how plausible. In the natural sciences, governments fund different avenues of research; in climate change science, only AGW receives funding because it is “politically correct.” Climate change scientists are expected to uncover positive correlations between anthropogenic CO2 and temperature; if they cannot find one, it will have to be manufactured out of thin air. Not only is there no research money for those seeking alternative explanations of climate change, but any attempt at falsifying the AGW hypothesis is considered a kind of heresy.

     I can just feel it in my bones; with all the problems, the globalists will decide that we are the problem, then release some zombie apocalypse virus, genetically engineered, to polish us off, as Mike Adams sometimes speculates about in his darker moments:
  http://www.alt-market.com/index.php/articles/3998-the-globalists-are-openly-admitting-to-their-population-control-agenda-and-thats-a-bad-sign

“In the late 1960's into the 1970's there was a resurgence of population control rhetoric coming out of globalist circles. Under the supervision of the UN and some related scientific groups, the Club of Rome was formed. A prominent part of the Club of Rome's agenda was population reduction. In 1972 the group of “scientists” under the UN's direction published a paper called 'The Limits Of Growth', which called for greatly reduced human population in the name of “saving the environment”. This effort was directly linked to another agenda – the institution of a global government that could handle and enforce population controls on a wide scale.
The elites had found a new scientific front for their eugenics obsession: Climate science. In the early 1990's the Club of Rome published a book called 'The First Global Revolution'. In it they state:

     I surmise why the experts deny Stone Island's beautiful fringing coral reefs in my latest blog post, and comment on The Guardian newspapers unfair review of my first film, you can read it here:
  https://jennifermarohasy.com/2019/11/why-deny-the-beautiful-coral-reefs-fringing-stone-island/

**************
And following is the text:

We live in an era when it is politically incorrect to say the Great Barrier Reef is doing fine, except if it’s in a tourist brochure. The issue has nothing to do with the actual state of corals, but something else altogether.