Small posts on climate and related issues by Iman Safi, October 8, 2019

 

On Greta 

Greta Thunberg is attracting huge attention, accolade and criticism; even cruel and sinister criticism. Such attacks on a young girl are unacceptable by any decent human being. What is more sinister however is firstly the fact that she has been endorsed by mainstream media, and secondly the huge deflection she is creating; albeit intentional or inadvertent.

At a critical time in human history, what she is causing is indeed a deflection, and the so-called “climate debate” has been turned into a political football, a ploy for some would-be beneficiaries. After all, how can the world be captivated watching a teenager crying when the bells of war are tolling in the Arabian/Persian Gulf and tension simmering between America and China? How can the world be silent with crippling trade sanctions and embargos in place, all of which threaten peace and stability? How can we expect stability with an unfinished war in Syria, an on-going genocidal war in Yemen, a highly volatile impasse between India and Pakistan, and very uneasy stalemates in Ukraine and Venezuela? And now we are told that we can ignore all of the above, but how “dare” we not listen to Greta? Bizarre indeed.

But as Western media outlets are moving their news bulletins further away from actually reporting news, and as public opinion in the West is becoming akin to the mob mentality on “The Simpsons”, we must get used to this kind of media consumption; because “Hollywood stuff” does not have to be based on reality or concrete evidence.

The irony here is that Greta, like most other climate campaigners, is far from being a scientist. She is a kid. She is surely passionate about what she is saying, but she is a kid. And one of the ironies is that she is not warning us of the most dangerous gas in the atmosphere. After all, there is an atmospheric gas that can cause a serious blood disorder medically known as alkalosis, and if people inhale high concentrations of it for a long time, it can even cause death. It is very chemically active and highly corrosive. It can corrode the toughest of metals and can turn the mighty Titanic into dust; even under water. Imagine what it might do to the human body. It is very abundant, and we cannot escape it. It is neither carbon dioxide nor hydrogen cyanide. It is oxygen.

Human-induced global warming advocates use the same above theatrical melodramatic approach in their description of the so-called greenhouse gases and refer to this as science, because if one believes the news, he/she would be led to believe that greenhouse gases are categorically bad. This is because all the rhetoric about greenhouse gases is negative, and it is rare, if not impossible, to find a single good attribute given to them.

As a matter of fact, greenhouse gases are not any less essential for life than oxygen. Without them, we would not have rain, we would not have plant life, and the global temperatures would fluctuate between very highs and lows, making it impossible for life to exist as we know it.

Earth’s atmosphere is mainly comprised of oxygen and nitrogen. They tally up to 95-99%. The main other components are argon, solid particles, and the greenhouse gases.

The greenhouse gas that is most abundant is water vapour (moisture), but its percentage varies greatly depending on location and climate. In humid regions, the content can be as high as 3% or more, and in dry desert locations, it will go as low as 0.01% or less.

The thing with water is that it has a high “Specific Heat”. As a matter of fact, it has the highest Specific Heat of all naturally occurring substances. In other words, it takes a lot of heat to heat up water, and at the same time, water stores heat like no other substance. This is why swimming pools, sea water, and all massive water bodies resist temperature change and take a long time to cool down or warm up.

Greenhouse gases, mainly and primarily atmospheric moisture, regulate the temperature on earth. Without them, earth would experience dramatic day/night temperature fluctuations (like on the moon) but having too much of them will cause heat to build up.

Now, we have been bombarded by theories about the alleged effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. This statement is a political statement and far from scientific truth. It is atmospheric moisture that is the biggest and most significant greenhouse gas, and it is very easy for cynics to Google this statement.

Before we talk about carbon dioxide however, the other main greenhouse gases to take a look at are methane, nitrous oxide, CFC’s and ozone.

Most of methane in the atmosphere is the outcome of natural fermentations and volcanic activities. Some of it is produced as an industrial by-product and many ill-informed global warming activists and alarmists blame cattle for methane emissions from their flatulence, but it doesn’t take much intelligence to compare the orifices of cows with volcanoes to figure out which is the major contributor.

Nitrous oxide is produced in nature and by some industries. Two thirds of it however is produced naturally. Main sources of nitrous oxide emissions | What's Your Impact (whatsyourimpact.org)

When it comes to ozone, if anything, human activity and the emission of CFC’s into the atmosphere are meant to be deplete the ozone layer, not enhance it.

This leaves us with carbon dioxide, and it has been the hot topic for at least a whole decade now and blamed as the major culprit behind global warming. Activists, politicians, movie stars, opportunists, “scientists”, fear mongers and highly vocal people are all united in vocalizing endless on-going harangues about the role of carbon dioxide in global warming.

But have they heard about photosynthesis? Do they know that it is the basic step in food production? Do they know that without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere photosynthesis would stop?

We are now inundated with lectures about carbon footprints, low-carb beer and carbon-neutral air travel, and mostly from people who do not even know what carbon is and cannot find it on the periodic table. The rhetoric is coming out of our ears and talks of such issues as carbon sequestration come from people who have never heard the term until they heard it from businesspeople or politicians with vested interests. This is rather offensive for anyone who is trying to make some scientific sense out of this debate.

As a greenhouse gas, it is a fact that carbon dioxide absorbs heat. However, it does not retain it like water vapour does. Instead, it reflects it back. This video represents what a carbon dioxide molecule does with heat it receives:

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | Center for Science Education (ucar.edu)

Some climatologists who are protagonists of global warming argue that even though atmospheric moisture is the most abundant and most significant greenhouse gas, the much less abundant carbon dioxide plays a huge role in the so-called “positive feedback”. They define positive feedback as a loop process in which carbon dioxide traps heat, reflects it back at the atmospheric moisture, heating it up, and eventually producing more atmospheric moisture that will trap more heat. This is how they allege carbon dioxide is the main contributing factor to “global warming”. https://www.science20.com/news_account/greenhouse_gases_and_water_vapor_when_positive_feedback_is_a_bad_thing?fbclid=IwAR3Xp2WJCCRd9cYasM07B6hjtRLgMMNZkWurt7to01IseFOlbD-VjYbS3BE

This theory is at best debatable. First of all, there are no studies that validate it. Secondly, if this theory has any merit, we must then expect similar scenarios around the globe to what happens in deserts.

In deserts, midday temperatures can go higher than fifty degrees Celsius but a few hours later, they can drop at night to freezing temperatures and below. This is because the atmospheres of deserts have very low moisture content. Atmospheric moisture is not any different than liquid water. It stores heat, and this is why regions that have high atmospheric moisture levels, unlike deserts, do not experience those massive day-night temperature fluctuations.

The logic in this self-evident fact should also apply to regions in the world that are highest in carbon dioxide, right? If the “positive feedback” theory is accurate, atmospheric moisture accumulation and warming should be experienced mostly in and around big industrial cities, right? So why is it then that it is the glaciers in Antarctica that are melting? Why is it that the effect of low atmospheric moisture levels in deserts can be seen locally while the effect of high levels of carbon dioxide production has to travel for thousands of kilometers to show its effects? And where are the positive-feedback-generated huge clouds that lurk over big cities?

Something is certainly amiss.

Carbon dioxide-induced global warming advocates often lash out their anger, and often violently, in response to any counter argument, yelling out “stop ignoring the evidence”. They are confusing the evidence of the melting of the glaciers of Antarctica with a theory that doesn’t have a single foot to stand on.

But even if the theory about the role of carbon dioxide in global warming is accurate, naturally produced carbon dioxide from volcanoes exceed that produced by human activity by tenfold. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/?fbclid=IwAR3WFesLrvi8k8U9QFWesBHG35rZGuJ5wFH0Sr0k5dvf_QjCJbPc6VuQLfE

No one knows why Antarctica is melting. There has been a recent theory about a radioactive activity happening below Antarctica. Such an explanation would be more plausible, but it doesn’t seem to be gaining much attention probably because it doesn’t suit the agenda of the anti-carbon dioxide brigade. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/?fbclid=IwAR3S3QPZWBWJyJ1MQzfi-jmtHCTodp42wiJuL-koiMRMmZvaYtIZF3z4YJw

Among other things, global warming protagonists ignore the fact that hurricanes dissipate energy and act as virtual global cooling natural phenomena. The amount of heat dissipated by a single hurricane “is equivalent to about 200 times the total electrical generating capacity on the planet!” NASA says that "during its life cycle a hurricane can expend as much energy as 10,000 nuclear bombs!" And we're just talking about average hurricanes here, not Katrina” How much energy in a hurricane? - How much energy in a hurricane, a volcano, and an earthquake? | HowStuffWorks By expending this energy and changing it into “work”, hurricanes leave behind a cooling effect, but climatologists working for media outlets do not seem keen to talk about it. They only seem to want to blame “global warming” for generating the hurricane.

When “scientists” start telling half-truths, then they are in fact telling whole lies. When their “science” cannot be substantiated by the scientific process, it becomes a matter of opinion. When politicians and groups with vested interests take on board such opinions, as intelligent human beings, we must at least stop and ask questions. When the “thought police” stand in the way to stop us from asking questions, casting aspersions on anyone who doesn’t follow them like sheep, we should become more determined to challenge their thoughts, ideology and real objectives.

The term “global warming denialist” or just “denialist” is now akin to a term we know from history; “heretic”.

In the age of the Renaissance, scientists were persecuted and prosecuted in the West for daring to proclaim scientific facts because they were seen to be challenging the rules and authority of the Church.

Fast forward a few centuries, labelling moved from focusing on witches, to Communists, Jews, gays, people of colour, ethnic minorities and Muslims. The latest new demonising label seems to be that of the “denialist”. It is quickly becoming the crime of the age.

When big brother wants to control free thinking, including scientific thinking, the “thought police” always manage to conjure up derogatory catchy terms that are aimed at insulting those who disagree with them. This is one of the basic manipulative tricks of creating controlled opposition. They want people to follow their theories unquestionably, and if one asks to see the science, one is branded, insulted, and labelled.

But why do they do this some may ask? It is all about diverting and deflecting attention away from their crimes that are causing the real problems and dangers facing humanity.

Baby boomers in the West grew up in an era when young people toppled governments and changed the course of history by partaking in peace movements seeking to end wars and achieving peace. People, especially youth, want to feel that they are trying to make the world a better place. If today’s youth find out who is standing in the way of progress and justice, then the beneficiaries of inequity will be dethroned, and this is why the youth are given a diversion, a decoy. If there is indeed such a thing as a “false flag”, then during this era, the human-induced global warming would have to be the biggest of them all.

I am moved by Greta’s passion, but I unashamedly say that her tears do not move me in the direction they are intended to. What does, is seeing children under real and imminent danger. It is the tears of war-stricken children, victims of sanctions and injustice, victims of hunger and the shameless global silence that I really care about. These are the children who have been chased and bombed and ravaged. Some of them have lost their homes, their schools and hospitals. Others have lost their parents, their siblings, body parts and livelihoods. It is a young child who has lost everything and everyone, and tearlessly gazes at the lens of a reporter wordlessly asking “why me” that moves me. “How dare” anyone deflect the attention away from them? More on Greta There is no doubt that the whole world, especially the West, needs huge reforms and even a reset. But what is the alternative that Greta is suggesting? Is the NWO Fascism the alternative that humanity needs? Greta Thunberg: It's time to transform the West's oppressive and racist capitalist system (telegraph.co.uk)

Small posts on climate and related issues by Iman Safi , January 6, 2020

 The 2019-2020 Australian fires are a natural disaster of great proportion, but I wouldn’t say unprecedented. The 2009 fires were smaller in magnitude, but led to more loss of life. That said, we don’t know what will the final life loss tally be for a while, and as we brace and snuggle, we pray for the least final count.

What is pertinent here is the fact that the underlying reasons behind the fires are numerous and almost countless. Simply put, and without going into details, the human factors, if any, are highly likely to be the cumulative outcome of the inconvenient marriage of neglect (blamed on conservatives) and political correctness (blamed on the Left).

Instead of investing in hi-tech firefighting gear, our governments opted to spend billions on wars on countries that don’t threaten us, and only to please our international allies so we can count on them if and when invaded by Indonesia or China. How short-sighted they have been turning the blind eye to the imminent threat; and both major political parties have been equally responsible.

Even if investigators prove that the fires have all been the outcome of human activity, then more than likely no political group within Australia will be vindicated. In fact, they may end up equally responsible.

Until proven otherwise, politically-speaking, all sides of the political divide should be potentially perceived with equal accountability, but in the middle of the disaster, it is the Left narrative that has the media listening to. They are having a field day.

Turning the disaster into a political football for political gain is cheap and immoral.

In my humble view, it’s time to put this whole debate, at least within Australia, about climate and human activity away from politics. We need a Royal Commission. We have an international opportunity to lead the world into putting science ahead of politics on this matter.

Small posts on climate and related issues by Iman Safi. January 18, 2020

Small posts on climate and related issues by Iman Safi

January 18, 2020

I feel deeply disappointed when some friends, even family members, jump onto my Facebook page and hurl personal abuse simply because they believe in the anthropogenic (man-made) global warming story, and I don’t. This is is most ironic given that I can provide the science behind my argument, and they cannot.

Fortunately, most comments I receive are polite, and I often enjoy having civil discussions, but recently a “friend” unfriended me after lashing out in the most inappropriate manner.

The reason I feel saddened is because I see beautiful, intelligent, well-meaning and devoted human beings whom I love dearly turn into malleable brainwashed tools who morph into aggressive and irrational thought control freaks. When I previously said that climate is the new religion, that was not an exaggeration.

I am neither an ecologist nor a climatologist, but I am a scientist in a very related area, a soil scientist with a MSc degree and forty years' experience in land management and sustainability, and I am able to understand most, if not all, of the science behind the climate debate. Environmental conservation is my passion and part-and-parcel of what I do for a living, and I have been a practicing real greenie for decades. I have single handedly planted more trees perhaps more than all of my critics combined, and I’d be among the first in line in defence of forests, wildlife, soil conservation, biodiversity and sustainability. As a matter of fact, I come from an urban background, but my interest in soil science stemmed from my concern about global population growth versus diminishing food supplies as well as environmental degradation.

With that said, I can confidently say that until I see evidence to the contrary, I remain convinced that the anthropogenic global warming story does not have a leg to stand on. If and when I see this evidence, I will accept it and fully endorse it, but not before. So, if you want me to believe in what you believe, you won’t be able to convince me by lashing at me personally or by sarcasm. Be civil and prove your worth by providing the evidence.

At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter who believes in something and who doesn’t. What matters is the truth. Advocates of the anthropogenic global warming story try to add credibility to their argument by listing names of prominent people, including movie stars, who believe in it instead of giving priority to science. Furthermore, they tend to make assumptions and take for granted that others agree with them. How many times for example have we heard that the recent Australian fires have undoubtedly been caused by anthropogenic global warming. Where is the evidence I ask? How can any professional reach such a conclusion without looking at the findings of a proper investigation?

But don’t hear the argument against the story from me. Hear it from Dr. Patrick Moore. He is a co-founder of Greenpeace who left the organisation because it “lost its moral compass”. He is an ecologist and a climatologist with decades of experience. He neither comes from Hollywood nor is he a former politician.

Despite the controversy that surrounds him and the accusations he faces of being a corporate shill, in the video attached he is presenting a scientifically sound anthropogenic global warming story.

His argument on CO2 and the fossil records shows that the correlation between historic global warming and atmospheric CO2 concentration proves that the former affects the latter, not the other way around. In other videos, he exposes lies perpetrated by Greenpeace and David Attenborough. This makes me wonder whether or not the controversy that surrounds him is a fabricated witch-hunt.

Either way, in this video link he is presenting facts, and if this subject means so much to you that you are prepared to fight with friends and family over it, then watch this 21 min video. See for yourself that there is a valid antithesis that debunks what the protagonists of the anthropogenic global warming story want you to believe.

Patrick Moore | The Sensible Environmentalist - YouTube https://youtu.be/UFHX526NPbE

25 Sept 2015

Greenpeace co-founder, Patrick Moore, discusses how we need to look at science and environmentalism together and not just view the sensationalism activism groups show the media. After leaving Greenpeace, Moore has gone on to become what he calls a sensible environmentalist and explains how Greenpeace and other like-minded organizations have moved away from using science as a basis for their projects.

An interesting article on heat below Antartica. 
 https://www.sciencealert.com/a-mysterious-geothermal-heat-source-is-melting-antarctica-from-below?fbclid=IwAR2qAw9s93GQ8nq54-d3Abmz0zrv-Fw6331stUb_Xm6WisSzYT3Zx6-kxgA


IPCC Admits Many of its Gloomy Climate Forecasts Are of “Low Likelihood” – The Daily Sceptic

Refugees are Humans. By Iman Safi 29 July 2013

 Refugees are Humans.

https://dissidentvoice.org/2013/07/refugees-are-humans/

by Iman Safi / July 29th, 2013

The issue of refugees continues to plague the world with a reality that it prefers to ignore. But the world will either have to face it or opt to continue ignoring it at the risk of having to deal with graver consequences sooner or later.

The number of registered refugees has risen significantly over the last few years, and the nations that are would-be recipients of refugees are confronted with policies they need to have in place, with growing concerns amongst their voters regarding numbers of refugees hitting their home turf. Whilst many of the would-be refugee recipient countries are signatories to the UN Refugee Convention, the out-dated criteria and definitions of that 1951 Convention do not deal with the current problems.

The Australian government has recently signed a deal with the government of Papua New Guinea (PNG). According to this arrangement, simply put, all refugees on boats journeying to Australia will never be allowed to settle in Australia.

With the current number of world refugees standing at 41 million, such a measure may deter refugees from seeking refuge in Australia. But what will happen when the world refugee figures is increased to 100 million, 500 million? Is this far-fetched? Not really.

It is easy for the Australian Greens and other humanitarians, as well as some NGO’s, to criticise governments or major political parties. In fact, the position of the Australian Greens about the PNG deal had the hallmarks of political gain rather than proper criticism. A cynic can clearly see that the PNG deal gave the Greens a field day, but at the end of the day, they not only failed to address what makes refugees refugees – they offered no alternative policies.

The Greens appear to want to be humanitarian and benevolent. If they had it their way, one should ask them, how many of the world’s 41 million refugees do they think Australia should take? If they open up the doors for the boats, and this seems to be their only vague policy, how will they deal with the consequences of the precedent they will be setting for the refugees – and their smugglers?

The current PNG option has not yet been tested, and it may or may not work. If it does, it may work for as long as the number of boats is manageable. But PNG may not turn out to be a bad enough alternative to deter refugees anyway. This will all depend on what refugees are running away from and what they view as preferable alternatives.

Thus far, each of the receiving countries has been trying to single-handedly deal with the problem in a manner that serves their own short-term interests and appease their own voters. What they are totally ignoring are three main points:

1. Addressing the reasons that create refugees

2. Adopting a global approach to solving the problem

3. Having policies that will be able to deal with much higher numbers.

At the present time, the fact that wealthy nations, most of whom are would be refugee recipients, are contributing greatly to creating global inequity. They are conducting needless wars, exploiting resources, imposing sanctions, using the underdeveloped world as a venue for slave labour and more, thus hugely contributing to creating the refugee “problem.”

These conditions have created many refugees from countries such as Palestine, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, to name very few.

This basic aspect is currently totally ignored by the culprits, who, instead of addressing it and accepting their responsibility and role, adopt very shy refugee intake policies. With this prevailing attitude, it would not be unrealistic to assume that for every refugee they take in, they turn away ten, and maybe create one hundred.

What is also often overlooked is that by far, the highest numbers of refugees settle in neighbouring countries that are not in a position to take refugees. Jordan, a country of limited resources and very little water to supply the needs of its 6.5 million citizens, had to accept one million Iraqi refugees and most of them are still unable to return home 10 years on.

Jordan, a decade later, was again inundated by another wave of refugees, another million, this time from Syria. This figure is not officially confirmed, but the figures available show it to be about accurate. This amounts to one third of the country’s own population. This is equivalent to Australia being inundated by 7 million refugees, or the USA inundated by 100 million refugees.

A global approach needs to be based on understanding the underlying facts behind the problem. Thus, nations that have been bigger contributors to the problem should bear the bigger responsibility in resolving it by way of accepting more refugees, that they have, in reality, created.

The way the world is currently, makes it unlikely to expect that the above is foreseeable. But as problems generally get worse when not addressed at the right time and in the right manner, the refugee problem could escalate to an extent that in the absence of a realistic global moratorium, individual nations, may move further and further to the right and their constituencies become more radicalized.

In Australia, the Australian Labour Party (ALP) and the Liberals are already competing in their draconian approaches. The ALP changed course in light of over 20,000 refugees arriving annually “illegally” by boats. The Greens are not offering any real policies other than criticizing the major parties.

Being an island nation, Australia is in a fortunate position that under any situation, provided that its surveillance is up to scratch, it will be able to detect refugees, spotting them long before they arrive. Other would-be refugee recipient nations often have no such facilities.

Spotting them is one thing, dealing with them is another. In the absence of a proper global approach, what will nations like Australia do if or when the numbers rise ten folds or more?

If the rich world (aka the “Free World”) continues to exploit poorer nations, to ravage their homelands with needless wars, exploit their resources, pollute their land and water, build factories that are best described as slave labour camps, it cannot continue to wipe its hands of, and pretend to be a part of the solution when, in fact, it is the main cause, instigator and major contributor to the problem.

If this neo-colonialist “contribution” can be stopped, the world can then turn to face dealing with “real refugees”, environmental refugees, drought, earthquake and other natural disasters refugees. Aid organizations can then be better able to focus on nation-building programs rather than refugee-camp building programs. Thus, the intake of refugee migrants can then be dealt with realistically and effectively.

Depending on how quickly the problem escalates, how high the refugee numbers grow and how many manage to dodge border security measures of the receiving nations, depending on how to the right world policies shift and what moves the sentiments of voters at the time, slogans such as “stop the boats” may be rewritten to say “bomb the boats”, and they may become the clincher to put a PM in Australia’s Lodge or even a President in USA’s White House.

If the world continues to sweep this tragedy underneath the carpet and continues to create more refugees, we may one day witness air-force planes and drones programmed to bomb boats of specific shapes sizes and colours.

We may see naval ships bombing refugee boats at sea without prior warning, and trade ships banned from picking up victims at the pain of getting bombed themselves.

Is this scenario too far-fetched? It is for now, but if countries like Australia start receiving 1000 boats a day (and the USA receive ten-fold), then desperate calls will attract desperate measures – this applying to both the refugees and the nations they are seeking refuge in.

The situation of refugees could become so dire, they will be prepared to take ever higher risks – risks that those who have not lived through the terror of war will never, ever, understand.

STERN REMINDER OF POTENTIAL NEW TRIALS FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

ALARM BELLS NOT RINGING AS FIRST HALF 2021 SEES 1 COVID DEATH AND 210 VACCINE SUSPECTED DEATHS

ALARMED. 

Between January 1 this year and 29 May 2021, Australia, according to the  World Map of Vaccinations has fully (not just the1st shot) vaccinated 492,846 people. * See second photo under article.

It is not clear if the reported deaths are of this section or the entire fully and partially vaccinated sections. It is urgent to clarify this as information indicating it was the fully vaccinated group is no longer available on the Web. We will follow on with the assumption that these reported deaths are of the fully vaccinated section of vaccine recipients.

If it is just the fully vaccinated section then, of the 210 reported on the Australian Therapeutic Goods (TGA) website as having died (see under 6th heading in link) after the Covid-19 vaccination, then this is a 04% death rate.  However, only one of those reported "adverse results" has been accepted as directly related to the vaccination by the TGA.

In the same period where 210 are reported to have died after the vaccine, there has been just 1 reported Covid-19 death.
 

The highest figures given for the lethality rate of the reported Covid-19 deaths last year is .4%. Hence this would be ten times more lethal than the fully vaccinated death rate, if indeed those deaths were related.

This may not alarm some enthusiastic vaccine supporters but if it were true that all 210 deaths were related to the full vaccination, one would ask whether it is acceptable that the lethality rate of the virus is only 10 times that of the vaccine which is supposed to prevent it?

Remember in 2020 Covid-19 deaths were reported despite many reports of the deceased having pre-existing conditions. In what seems as a reversal of this practice when it comes to suspected vaccine deaths, they are disputed to the point of blaming pre-existing conditions as responsible for the deaths and not the vaccine.

If we apply the "rules" of 2020 to the fully vaccinated suspected deaths, the ratio according to the TGA figures would be 10,000 to 1, perhaps some would say it’s worth taking the risk.

But this is not all. The virus reportedly will only kill approximately 4 in a 1000 of those who fall ill with it.

However, the Government wants the entire population to be vaccinated. Based on these figures, if 24 million Australians get fully vaccinated, then 9600 will die.

As for adverse reactions, according to government figures as at May 23, and perhaps many are not reported or acknowledged for what they are, the percentage is 4.47 (22,031) of those fully vaccinated. This doesn’t account for possible long term serious affects, disablement and possible deaths later on.

 

 

* Note: The 3.6 million doses does not refer to the fully vaccinated.


As you can see below only one Covid-19 death is recorded this year for Australia

https://www.health.gov.au/resources/collections/coronavirus-covid-19-at-a-glance-infographic-collection?fbclid=IwAR2UGiSZI2WN3JspqqePYuNIk8pMbEhkeeLHcU6PdgQrmadeC6DHXoxmeAI

 

* Updated January 1, 2021.

updated 28 May, 2021

SEEKING REAL DEMOCRACY; Debunking the Two-Party System. Susan and Iman Safi 29 May 2021

SEEKING REAL DEMOCRACY;

 Debunking the Two-Party System.  

By Susan and Iman Safi 29 May 2021

One wonders whether Australians realise that the Constitution does not stipulate that a political party must win the majority of seats in the Lower House in order to form Government. This is a fallacy created by the major parties, not only in Australia, but in all other democracies. The political parties won’t disclose this fact as they are equal partners in crime, feathering their own and each other’s caps.

Whilst this is a global problem, Australia can pave the way in restoring true democratic processes and turn these undemocratic practices on their head.

By their own definition, these political parties give the impression that a hung parliament is a disaster.

Some voters will not vote for either party, no matter what. 

Some are indeed loyal, and they will consistently vote for one party regardless of any other considerations. But these are not the ones who make or break governments.

Another section of voters are those who swing between the two major parties, and election campaigns of the major parties try to swing them to their favour.

Then there is another group of voters who argue that they can see little difference between the major parties and that they are dissatisfied with both. The election campaigns focus also on this group to present to them arguments that allege that there are fundamental differences between those major parties. However, when dissecting and analyzing those claimed differences, one can clearly see that they are marginal. The parties often split hairs and argue about trivial matters when in fact both are almost identical at the core.

They both have the same stand on COVID and its management policies.

They are both supporting the so-called ‘new normal’ and all that comes with it, all the way from diluting family values to gender confusion, taking political correctness to ever increasing, often bizarre extremes and many additional ‘new normals’ that erode commonly held values and beliefs based on morality, trust and altruism. 

They both support the Great Reset.

They have identical foreign policies.

Neither possess the sophistication required to deal with China; acting tough on one hand and pleading for good trade relationships on the other.

They both squander public funds, right left and centre, giving little importance to building national infrastructure which strengthens our country, politically, economically, strategically and security-wise.

Both, despite one claiming to have a coalition member that is rural based, ignore rural Australia, our national backbone, giving scant regard for serious and meaningful policies or a commitment to a robust agricultural sector which also provides food security, let alone national security. Both parties show a gulf of ignorance when it comes to understanding the need to develop initiatives to make rural life attractive and dynamic again.

This duopoly demonstrates little, if any interest in supporting local industries and generating conditions for producing far more goods locally. As a result, Australia has lost most of its industrial base and become highly dependent on imports, not befitting of a nation considered as ‘developed’, and posing as a security risk at all levels.

Both sell-out to any stands or commitments made should they ‘need’ to pander to the Greens, even if those policies go against their purported values and even if they are destructive to the interests of the nation. 

Despite the scientific community being divided over the nature of ‘climate change’, and the actual problems and solutions, both parties sing from the same hymn book and stifle any intellectually rigorous debate. Most importantly, both parties care about one thing and only one thing; getting elected and re-elected with the national interest sidelined or even betrayed. 

The above examples just touch on some of the congruencies of a political culture that presents itself as offering alternatives but really are in bed together and concerned only for the few.

It is clear from the above, that a vote for either the Coalition or the ALP will not change any of the above bipartisan policies. So, if Australians want change, they must keep in mind that a vote for a major party is a wasted vote.

When Don Chipp established the Australian Democrats as a third party, his objective/slogan was to ‘keep the bastards honest’. After the Greens hijacked his voter-base, together with bad management issues within the Democrats’ leadership, resulting in the party’s demise, the Greens became the third political force and often the holders of the balance of power. However, instead of the Greens adhering to the values of keeping government accountable, the reverse is occurring, and one can say that in many cases The Greens are keeping the bastards dishonest.

Returning to the subject of hung Parliaments; a hung Parliament is in fact a great democratic win for the people. It is a manifestation that screams of the voter-base being dissatisfied with both parties. It is indeed a disaster, but only for the self-appointed custodians of duopoly; the two major parties. 

Recently, we have seen many election wins based on a one seat majority. It is a travesty of justice to see that the actual will of the majority, if this is what democracy is all about, is decided by one seat; especially if this seat was won by a few preferential votes.

It is time to turn the tables around; and not only on the Coalition and the ALP and deliver them hung Parliaments. It is time to turn the tables around on the Greens as well. Why should they be allowed to continue to hold the balance of power in their deceptive dance with the big powers. We should prevent both major parties from getting more than 50% majority, hence ending their game and scam.

The major political parties have created a loophole in the Western system of democracy, and it is a farce and a tragedy. It results in a fair percentage of decent, level-headed Australians from all walks of life, left dis-empowered, unrepresented and disenfranchised in a rotten political system. 

Australians deserve proper representation in Parliament. The silent majority need to speak out, be heard, and have their vote count in a meaningful way and not vote half-heartedly on the basis of giving No.1 on the ballot paper to the party that is least harmful.

THE UNTOLD STORY ABOUT THE m-RNA COVID ‘VACCINES’ By Iman Safi 23 February 2021

THE UNTOLD STORY ABOUT THE m-RNA COVID ‘VACCINES’   
By Iman Safi 23 February 2021

People are not told the complete story about the m-RNA COVID vaccines, so let us start with the basics. The DNA of higher forms of life comes in huge clusters called chromosomes. Each individual has duplicate chromosomes; maternal and paternal. Humans have 23 pairs. Each cell carries in its nucleus the same DNA that is half maternal and half paternal.

Now here is the thing. It is the DNA that produces the different types of RNA, with messenger-RNA (m-RNA) being one of them. But it is the m-RNA what provides the code for protein synthesis, a process that produces proteins that are specific to each and every individual, and it is the m-RNA that is of most prominence in deciding what the body does.

It seems that the greatest fear concerning the COVID-19 vaccines stems from the belief that they are capable of changing our DNA. To genetically change a ‘being’ in a specific manner however, one would have to change the DNA structure inside the nucleus of each and every cell. This is a virtual impossibility given the huge number of body cells. Normally animal and plant breeders do this change ‘in advance’ as it were, by changing the DNA in the sperm/egg/flower that are going to produce this ‘being’.

This is why, in the world of genetics, the egg comes before the chicken.

If you change the egg, the change will be transmitted hereditarily.

Early immunologists realized that our bodies have the ability of fighting off certain diseases if we have been struck with them before. This is what immunity means. They used this knowledge to produce substances that can mimic previous disease incidents in order to help us produce immunity to serious diseases that we have not had before.  

Vaccines were therefore developed to ‘instruct’ the body to produce its own defense systems by injecting it with a weakened form of the disease that the body can defeat by producing anti-bodies specifically designed to fight it. So, if/when the real disease attacks, the body would have its defense mechanism already in place.

Early immunologists used large animals like horses to inject the weakened disease with, and then extracted the plasma of their blood to produce the vaccine. This was definitely a procedure that involved huge risks, but the risks were outweighed by the benefits the vaccines generated. Large animals were chosen because they are able to produce larger amounts of plasma, no doubt this was animal cruelty.

The m-RNA COVID-19 ‘vaccine(s)’ are different because they are not based on instructing the body how to build up its own defense system. They are a short-cut process, based on injecting our systems with synthetically-produced m-RNA that is meant to generate the antibody (protein) that will fight the virus. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE.

Technically-speaking therefore, an m-RNA-based vaccine is not a vaccine by definition. It can even rightfully be argued that it is an experimental technique.

Normally, m-RNA is broken down after its use by a group of enzymes, known as an RNA-ase, soon after it has accomplished its mission of protein synthesis. But according to Dr. Mikovits, the synthetic m-RNA in the m-RNA ‘vaccines’ is protected by blocking the action of the RNA-ase. If true, this means that once injected into the system, Dr. Mikovits argues that it could stay for years. On one hand, the m-RNA in the vaccine needs to be protected so it doesn’t breakdown before it accomplishes its mission, but its longevity seems to be unknown. Such protection against breakdown would be within the synthetic m-RNA code; and not something that has to be disclosed in the list of constituents of the vaccines as regulatory requirements stipulate.

Dr. Mikovits is a pioneer in the world of virology and microbiology. She has had serious legal battles with Dr. Fauci, ending up in jail and with a gag order that expired in 2020. She alleges that she was the subject of a fabricated witch hunt, but no matter what opinions exist about Dr. Mikovits, the issue at hand here is the science she is presenting.

In this interview she is warning against the dangers of the vaccines.

The interview has been checked by medical doctors and virologists known to me and they concur that her warnings are true and legitimate.

There are publications that assert that research into stabilizing synthetic m-RNA has been around for quite some time. Two Polish scientists patented the technique back in 2008.  ‘The patented invention enables delivery of modified mRNA that can withstand the human body's enzymes. The more stable mRNA is five times more effective and lasts three times longer within a cell than naturally occurring mRNA molecules.’  Dr. Mikovits therefore is not talking about some future science fiction, if anything, the technique would be much improved by now and possibly giving the synthetic m-RNA greater longevity.

The technology of encoding a synthetic m-RNA in a manner that makes it resistant to the body’s own m-RNA-ases, the enzymes designed to break it down, are already in existence. It would be hard to imagine that manufacturers of the m-RNA ‘vaccines’ did not use this technology to make their products more effective.

Furthermore, in a paper published by Dr. J. Bart Classen in ‘Microbiology & Infectious Diseases’ in Jan 2021, , Dr. Classen concludes in his abstract that his own findings lead him ‘to believe that regulatory approval of the RNA based vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 was premature and that the vaccine may cause much more harm than benefit’.

Last but not least, a newsletter published by the University of Rochester in December 2020 implies that m-RNA stability can be encoded in a synthetically-produced m-RNA to ensure higher level of efficacy if/when used in treating certain medical conditions.  

So whilst the American CDC is assuring the public that the m-RNA in the ‘vaccines’ will not enter the nucleus of cells and change the DNA, and whilst this is true, the CDC ignores the fact that if the m-RNA remains floating inside the cytoplasm (the bigger portion of the cell outside the nucleus), then this actually mimics a DNA change in its outcome.

This alone is potentially dangerous in any given situation. But if the m-RNA in the ‘vaccine’ has other unknown effects on the human body, then this becomes a very serious matter, one that can cause a myriad of health problems to people, especially those with compromised immune systems, propensity to some diseases, and as well existing conditions including, but not restricted to, non-active viral infections.

Furthermore, even though the m-RNA in the ‘vaccines’ has no impact on the DNA in the nucleus as proclaimed by the CDC and mentioned above, its presence in the cytoplasm's of cells, including reproductive cells (i.e., sperms and eggs), stipulates that it can be passed on to the offspring in what is known as cytoplasmic inheritance.  This is only a scientific assumption, but one that needs to be verified either way for safety.

But, above all, the vaccines' effectiveness is questionable, and we do not know their adverse long-term side effects. Last but not least, there are no guarantees that taking them will prevent an infected person from passing it on to others.

To say then that the concept of m-RNA ‘vaccines’ is at best experimental, is not an overstatement. 

 

WAKE UP PEOPLE OF THE WEST By Susan Safi 28 February 2019

WAKE UP PEOPLE OF THE WEST
By Susan Safi 28 February 2019

Russia lost up to 40 million in World War II. The last thing they want is another war. Following modern Russian international politics in recent years, shows a nation that at every opportunity practices and advocates dialogue, negotiation, high end diplomacy and utilising the legal structures of international law and conventions. Their involvement in Syria, their legal ally, was at their request and we should be thankful for their role in Syria as this has benefited all. We should look beyond the narrative the West presents about this, instead recognising the terrifying role the West and it’s allies played in utilising terrorism for “regime change”, piracy and balkanisation.

The U.S and allies released and unleashed an evil genie from the box when Zbigniew Brzezinski introduced a new strategy which can never be reversed. In 1979, while speaking to the radical Islamist Mujahideen group in Pakistan, as President Carter’s National Security Advisor, Brzezinski told the group that “Your cause is right, and God is on your side.” The rest is history, but of course the truth is not in the Western history books where it is merely a collection of fantasies and fabrications.

The U.S is happy to see Europe plunged into trouble and war due to its alliance with them, to see Australia suffer economically due to obeying its master’s demands regarding China, Australia’s largest trading partner. It has been like this for decades. Now Russia has to spell out to the USA that they can no longer hide behind their tools (see video).

The ordinary people of the West don’t want war, they want to respect and live in peace with their fellow earthlings, but they are controlled by the media and their government's lies. They actually believe they have freedom and democracy!

In the West, popular media from daily news, to Hollywood productions and to their carefully crafted version of history, has prepared their people to accept untruths as truths and wrong as right; that it’s acceptable and justifiable for their governments to invade other countries, topple other country’s governments, take hold of their resources and unleash (often testing) weapons and armaments of all kinds. Hijacking, piracy, sleight of hand, "colour" revolutions, outright aggression are their signature calling cards and part of their Machiavellian "the end justifies the means" modus operandi.

People are too busy with their lives, dealing with all the diversions and traps, or just plain surviving, and they have no energy, motivation or sense of urgency to look deeper at the state of the world as it hurtles towards so much more trouble, let alone wake up and recognise their own state of captivity and slavery.

Whilst the "multi polar" world, a world that endeavours to work collaboratively, surges forth with exciting developments, they unfortunately have to spend resources to respond to the real "axis of evil" that threatens our world. This speech by President Putin outlines the situation of an imminent, chilling, deadly threat to his people by a country becoming increasingly desperate to grab back, at any cost, it's former sole superpower status.

How sick is it that brilliant scientific minds and the technology they've created are diverted into and engaged in how to attack and how to defend, when instead these resources could positively transform nations. But what do you do? Roll over and die? Roll over and become overwhelmed and die culturally, spiritually and economically, not to mention politically?

Australia’s ally is the U.S. It is part of the “5 Eyes”. Are we prepared to get further entangled as an ally to an empire that’s reached the bottom of the sewer pit, one that has soaring poverty and hunger rates, no free universal health care or education, searing social injustice, civil upheaval and fragmentation, private militia groups and general infrastructure collapse: a crumbling empire that will make sure its allies go down before it does?

THE CLIMATE HOAX THOUGHT POLICE ACTIVISTS: By Iman Safi 30 September 2018

THE CLIMATE HOAX THOUGHT POLICE ACTIVISTS:
By Iman Safi 30 September 2018

I have many dear friends who genuinely believe in the Al Gore version of “climate change”. We are all entitled to our opinion. What I don’t accept is thought police activists who love insulting others and calling them names because they disagree with them.

Personally, I believe that climate is changing, and it always has. But I haven’t yet seen evidence to prove that it is caused by human activity. If in the eyes of some I will be seen as a stupid ignorant uneducated materialist conservative who deserves to be locked up and lynched, that’s fine. But I have my reasons to have doubts about the Al Gore theory.

To begin with, warming has been going on for a long time. In the Engadin region of the Swiss Alps, there are markers that show how glaciers have been receding. The records started in 1840. We can only assume they started recording after noticing the phenomenon for quite some time. The melting of ice therefore started in the early 19th Century, if not earlier; long before the industrial revolution and when the population of the planet was under a billion. Those in doubt can go there and see those markers.

Secondly, when floating icebergs melt, the ice will shrink and water produced will have exactly the same volume of the previously submerged part of the once floating iceberg. If anyone doubts this, they can go back and study the laws of Archimedes. When icebergs melt therefore, water produced will not increase the total volume of ocean water and will not cause any rising levels of sea water. It is only ice on glaciers that, if melts, can cause such an effect. Having said that, 75% of the globe is covered by seas and only 25% by land. Earth will therefore need the equivalent of a layer of ice that is 3 meters deep over the entire land mass to melt for it to cause a 1 meter increase in sea level. If in doubt, one can go back to basic arithmetic.

Yes, some Pacific islands seem to be sinking, but what makes us think we know the reason? How do we for certain know that the sea level around is rising and that it is not those islands themselves that are sinking? Why isn’t the sea level rising in Holland if this is a global phenomenon?

Furthermore, as the globe warms up, and more cyclones/hurricanes are produced, each average size event transforms a massive amount of heat into kinetic energy, and this results in an enormous cooling effect. No one seems to want to talk about this fact that is easy to find on Google. The amount of heat dissipated by a single cyclone is equivalent of the overall amount of electric energy produced by humans in 200 days. If global warming is producing more cyclones, it is also surely producing more conditions for cooling.

Let us also not forget that a higher percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to a higher rate of photosynthesis; not only on land, but also in the oceans. This will increase the potential for food production as well as speeding up the rate of transforming back that carbon dioxide into oxygen.

And how can we forget natural pollutants such as volcanoes? A single average volcanic eruption will produce more dust, more greenhouse effect, more carbon dioxide, sulphur, hydrocarbons than human activities can do in decades.

None of the above is rocket science. It is basic high-school knowledge and common sense. It doesn’t take much intelligence to understand this, but is certainly takes much less intelligence to believe the Al Gore version without asking questions.

And I ask, when we fly Virgin Airlines (for example) and pay extra for carbon offsetting and the promise that trees will be planted with our money to offset the carbon dioxide our trip is producing, I ask, where are the millions of hectares of trees planted with our funds?

I am indeed sick and tired of the new-age thought police culture that thinking people feel they cannot challenge without the fear of being branded and attacked. The thought police enthusiasts seem to love to brand those who disagree with them in a similar fashion to how “heretics” were branded not long ago. This is a new type of "religious" terrorism that no one is prepared to stand up against and say I don’t believe in your nonsense.

Yes, we should stop polluting the planet. Yes we should stop plundering our resources and try to curb population growth among other things. But to imagine that by not using plastic shopping bags one won’t have to save up for an air conditioner, this is what one should be branded for as stupid.

What is more stupid is to see governments like the former (Australian) Gillard Government imposing a Carbon Tax. How does this solve the problem? The only thing it would have achieved was commodity price increase that would only disadvantage the already disadvantaged.

The way I see it, this whole kerfuffle has the hallmarks of new-age Soros controlled opposition syndrome. Make them think they are thinkers and reformers, wind them up, and release them to dance to your tunes.

The real leaders of the Al Gore version of global warming are by and large invisible, except for Al Gore himself. But there are definitely many others hiding behind the façade making a fortune selling products and services based on misinformation and fearmongering.

I ask my rational thinking friends to investigate and think deeply before they follow the stream. I didn’t mean any offence to anyone.