Australian scientists ordered to stop deleting cold temperature data as part of climate change "fake science" narrative

Image: Australian scientists ordered to stop deleting cold temperature data as part of climate change “fake science” narrativeImage: Australian scientists ordered to stop deleting cold temperature data as part of climate change “fake science” narrative

(Natural News)
The conviction that global warming is “settled science” has become firmly established in the American consciousness. Truth be told, around the globe, those who do not accept catastrophic man-made global warming as fact are viewed as pariahs, delusional, out of touch with reality, perhaps even not in full possession of their mental faculties. After all, scientists from around the world have proved that climate change is a massive problem and our planet is headed down the path to destruction, right? Well, no, actually.

Though there are many scientists who do preach the religion of global warming, there are many, many others who do not. And, even those who insist that the data proves climate change should not necessarily be believed. An excellent example of this recently emerged in Australia, where temperature readings suddenly plunged after the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) ordered an end to “tampering.”

Climate Depot is reporting that after the BoM began investigating temperatures recorded at weather stations in Australia, they determined that there were a number of cold weather stations that were not “fit to purpose,” and which would need to be replaced. At the Thredbo Station, for example, very low temperatures were somehow mysteriously not making it into the official record. After making changes to ensure that the station is now “fit to purpose,” recorded temperatures have suddenly dropped below -10°C (14°F), after showing readings of around -9.6°C in June and July.

The BoM was alerted to possible irregularities at the station by Lance Pigeon, an employee who claimed to have seen a -10.4°C reading on the BoM’s website change to -10°C and then disappear entirely. (Related: Discover what else they’re hiding at

Though the BoM has tried to downplay the incident and insist that these adjustments were just part of quality control measures, Climate Depot notes:

[B]ureau chief executive Andrew Johnson later told Environment Minister Josh­ Frydenberg that investigations had found a number of cold-weather stations were not “fit for purpose” and would be replaced.

The BoM has admitted that, in addition to Goulburn and Thredbo Top, stations at Tuggeranong in the ACT, Butlers Gorge and Fingal in Tasmania and Mount Baw Baw in Victoria would be replace­d.

Media sources have reported that electronic smart cards were fitted at some of the BoM weather stations which would automatically limit how low temperatures could drop in the readings.

Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, a scientist at Thredbo Top station who personally saw a reading of -10.6°C disappear from the record, stressed that this was no technical error or equipment failure.

Dr. Marohasy noted on her website, “To be clear, the problem is not with the equipment; all that needs to be done is for the smart-card readers to be removed. So that after the automatic weather stations measure the correct­ temperature, this temp­erature can be brought forward firstly into the daily weather observation sheet and subsequently into the CDO (climate data online) dataset.” (Related: Over 30,000 scientists say catastrophic man-made global warming is a complete hoax and science lie.)

This is by no means an isolated example of inaccurate research “proving” the global warming theory.

In 2016, the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCEP), affiliated with both the London School of Economics and the University of Leeds in Britain, was caught stealing millions in taxpayer dollars to produce phony global warming data. A paper produced by the CCEP, known as the Stern Review, was very influential in shaping global warming policy in the U.K. Now, the report’s contents and conclusions have come under serious scrutiny.

There are many more instances of serious tampering with the so-called “evidence” proving man-made global warming. It is now more important than ever before to find reputable sources of trustworthy scientific fact.

Sources include:



Source Article from

Gore's Latest Climate Film Is An Inconvenient Flop

Climate alarmist Al Gore’s second film, An Inconvenient Sequel, failed to heat up the box-office, falling from 16th to 18th over the Aug. 11-13 weekend.

It’s a dramatic fall from glory for the climate alarmist whose first film, An Inconvenient Truth, won several awards including an Oscar and grossed $24 million.

An Inconvenient Sequel, meanwhile, grossed just under $2.3 million in the U.S. since its Aug. 4 release. Worse, after two full weekends at theaters nationwide Gore’s film ranked lower than panned sci-fi flick Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets. Both Entertainment Weekly and Vanity Fair dubbed Valerian a “mess.” Rotten Tomatoes shows a 57 percent audience approval rating for Valerian compared to An Inconvenient Sequel’s 47 percent.

The film’s poor performance was especially humorous because of Viacom used many platforms to promote the film and the liberal media heaped praise on Gore prior to its release.

“You’re a movie star,” CBS national correspondent Lee Cowan told Gore in a July 16, 2017, CBS Sunday Morning interview. “It’s you and Wonder Woman this summer. It is!”

NBC Today fill-in co-host Willie Geist also fawned over Gore’s film in a two-part July 17,Today interview. Yet, Geist refused to push Gore about the film’s critics.

Almost all of the networks’ coverage of Gore’s network followed the same pattern. Between Jan. 1, 2011, and July 25, 2017, more than 87 percent of non-political stories about Gore (51 of 58 stories) ignored criticism of his climate change activism or claims.

The stories failed to mention that the first film’s carbon footprint has yet to be offset despite Gore’s promise he paid to make up for the carbon generated during its production. Coverage since Sequel was released also ignored that Gore significantly rewrote a prediction from An Inconvenient Truth in order to claim that his 2006 film had been correct.

Media corporation Viacom pushed the film onto its 700 million subscribers with “An Inconvenient Week” starting July 31, with many of its networks promoting the film. Its support for Gore’s film included an MTV town hall event with the former politician.Two days before the week-long promotion began, Viacom’s blog posted “Four Reasons to Go See Al Gore’s Hopeful, Compelling” film in which it called Gore a “climate change folk hero.”

Source Article from

NYT caught in total bulls##t LIE about Trump and a climate change report… WashPost labels "epic screw-up"

Image: NYT caught in total bulls##t LIE about Trump and a climate change report… WashPost labels “epic screw-up”Image: NYT caught in total bulls##t LIE about Trump and a climate change report… WashPost labels “epic screw-up”

(Natural News)
Have you ever stopped and asked yourself why the left-wing media constantly lies to the American people? It would seem that if the people really were embracing big government, and really did want to surrender their liberty to an all powerful state, then the liberals would just be up front with their true agenda. Likewise, if President Trump really were as incompetent, reckless and destructive as they say he is, then why are they constantly being caught lying about him?

The answer to both of these questions is simple: The left has to lie because they have no other options. If they didn’t lie, then not only would they not be able to effectively advance their agenda, but the people would also begin to increasingly show their support for President Trump. Obviously, the liberals can’t let this happen, so they are forced to deceive the public every chance at every opportunity.

The latest example of this comes from the fake news publication known as the New York Times, which on Wednesday of last week published a front-page article entitled, “Scientists Fear Trump Will Dismiss Blunt Climate Report.” In the article, the New York Times stated that they had obtained a copy of the report “which has not yet been made public” because scientists were concerned that the Trump administration would suppress it.

However, the report that the Times said had not yet been made public had actually been available online for over half a year, since January, and even had a public comment period for more than three months, which anyone in the world with internet access could engage in. If this sounds like a blatant attempt to discredit President Trump and his skepticism towards so-called “climate science,” that’s because it most likely was. How convenient it is that the New York Times never checked with the White House to make sure that the climate report really was hidden from the public.

“It’s very disappointing, yet entirely predictable to learn The New York Times would write off a draft report without first verifying its contents with the White House or any of the federal agencies directly involved with climate and environmental policy,” a White House official told the DCNF. “As others have pointed out – and The New York Times should have noticed – drafts of this report have been published and made widely available online months ago during the public comment period. The White House will withhold comment on any draft report before its scheduled release date.”

So far, several scientists have come out in opposition to the story published by the New York Times, and even the Washington Post recently called it an “epic screw up.”

The New York Times issued a statement addressing the controversy, but did not revise the part of their story that talked about how President Trump could suppress the report. “An article on Tuesday about a sweeping federal climate change report referred incorrectly to the availability of the report,” the Times wrote, adding that it had previously been published on the Internet Archive back in January and “was not first made public by the New York Times.” (Related: NYT commits treason in an attempt to overthrow the United States government.)

By this point, the never-ending campaign to discredit and delegitimize President Trump really is getting old. It’s clear that the Democrat Party, along with most writers and commentators that make up the mainstream media, are still bitter and even jealous over the fact that Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton last November, and don’t believe that he legitimately deserves to be in the Oval Office. As such, they continue to do everything and anything they can to make it seem as though President Trump is destroying the country from the inside out, including manufacture phony scandals regarding Russian collusion during the presidential election.

News outlets like the New York Times are losing all of their credibility trying to sabotage the President of the United States, and frankly, they deserve it.

Sources include:



Source Article from

Climate scientists continue to sound the alarm: Global warming fueled record temperatures in 2016

The evidence behind global climate change continues to mount, and scientists keep speaking out. Now they hope the world will listen.

The latest international climate report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) confirms that 2016 was the third consecutive year of record global heat.

On Thursday afternoon the American Meteorological Society published the 27th annual “State of the Climate” report, which verifies last year surpassed 2015 as the hottest since record keeping began in 1880.

Based on preliminary data, NASA and NOOA had made the same assessment back in January, but this week’s report is considered definitive.

“We’re scientists, and we’re providing objective information,” Jessica Blunden, a climate scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., told Yahoo News. “We don’t go into policy, but we provide the information for people who want to go further with that.”

According to the report, the effect of long-term global warming and a powerful El Niño early on pushed 2016 into record-setting warmth. The global average sea level reached a new record high last year as well, to 3.25 inches above the average level in 1993, which marks the beginning of the satellite altimeter record.

Scientists also said that the average Arctic land surface temperature continued to warm and global ice and snow cover continued to decline. Sea ice extents in the Antarctic hit record daily and monthly lows in August and November.

The “State of the Climate” report is based on contributions from nearly 500 scientists from more than 60 countries, using tens of thousands of measurements from several independent data sets. This summary of the global climate confirms data released on Jan. 18 based on analyses from scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

Blunden said the use of additional independent data sets distinguishes this report from what came before.

“The big difference in this report is we don’t just look at NOAA data. There are about four different independent data sets we looked at to come to this conclusion,” Blunden told Yahoo News. “It’s not just NOAA who is agreeing with it. NASA, the U.K. Met Office and the Japan Meteorological Agency are agreeing.”

Since the previous data was released mere days before President Trump’s inauguration, this peer-reviewed report is the most thorough assessment of climate change officially released during the Trump era.

Deke Arndt, chief of the climate-monitoring branch at NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, described the report as diagnostic when asked if anyone from the White House had weighed in on it or questioned its findings.

“This report is a diagnostic report. It basically diagnoses what is happening in the climate system,” Arndt said on a conference call. “It’s intended to provide intelligence to those sort of decision makers that you’re talking about.”

Concentrations of major greenhouse gases in the atmosphere also reached to new highs in 2016. For instance, the global average concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary driver of anthropogenic climate change, in the atmosphere reached 402.9 parts per million (ppm). This was the first time on record that CO2 concentration exceeded 400 ppm. The consensus of climate scientists is that the maximum safe level is 350.

Read more from Yahoo News:

Source Article from

'We Just Didn't Know' — NY Times Won't Take Responsibility for Its Error on Climate 'Scoop'

In April of 2004, New York Times White House correspondent Elisabeth Bumiller rudely challenged President George W. Bush in a televised press conference: “Two and a half years later, do you feel any personal responsibility for September 11?” Bumiller is now the paper’s Washington bureau chief, and she can’t even take personal responsibility when her newspaper falls flat on its factual face.

The Times is under fire for its un-factual report that the Trump administration was suppressing a draft of a climate change report that, oops, had been posted on the Internet in January, making it comical to read the boast “A copy of it was obtained by the New York Times,” as if the Internet was a secret hideaway. The Times removed that sentence from its report, but maintains the language that anonymous scientists are afraid Team Trump will suppress the report.

The only thing suppressed are the identities of the anti-Trump activists. What the Times created was….Fake news.

Washington Post media blogger Erik Wemple wrote a surprisingly critical blog headlined New York Times guilty of large screw-up on climate change story.” Wemple thought the paper’s understated correction should be posted with flashing red lights. an audio track, and the sentence “This story once peddled a faulty and damaging premise.” He felt the charge of suppression, given Trump’s spotty record on transparency, was explosive, and hence, the stakes are higher to get the facts right.

The lowlight of the piece was Bumiller professing that the newspaper’s ignorance was a defense:

New York Times Washington bureau chief Elisabeth Bumiller says of the draft report’s status: “We were just not aware that somebody involved in the report had put a draft on this nonprofit Internet site,” she says. “It was not a well-known site to us and the point is that the people who shared the draft with us were not aware of it either. That doesn’t change the larger point that scientists were worried that the government wouldn’t approve the report or release it through normal channels.”

When pressed on [Sarah Huckabee] Sanders’s criticism, Bumiller said, “We spent a lot of time trying to sort out where it had appeared before,” said Bumiller. “Again, we just didn’t know. The reporter just didn’t know and the editors didn’t know and once it was brought to our attention, we sorted it out” and ran a correction.

Keep this in the file when the Times reporters and columnists slip into high dudgeon about the White House displaying a lack of curiosity or a lack of respect for the importance of getting facts right. 

The irony of the liberal media is they adore a story about “scientists” warning of planetary doom getting suppressed by Republicans and their fossil-fuel financiers, while they fervently believe in suppressing opposition to the doomsayers as dangerously unscientific. 

Source Article from

Alt-Left Insanity: Take Your Kids to the Climate Justice Fashion Show

Note: Normal people might find some of this offensive. (We hope. Dear Lord, please!)

“Fashion, turn to the left.” — Fashion, David Bowie

The Man Who Fell to Earth wrote that telling line decades ago, but it’s oddly useful today. Fashion has become a tool of the left like every other aspect of pop culture. Often with laughable consequences.

That takes us to Jezebel being extra entertaining. Here’s a story headlined: “At a Climate Justice Fashion Show, the Kids Prove They’re Gonna Be All Right.” Yep, climate justice fashion show. This is the ultimate in intersectionality. Let’s merge stupid fashion choices with sustainability and the result is, well, entertaining.

The article starts by whining about how “Trump’s medieval budget proposal would effectively eliminate the Office of Environmental Justice.” Actual quote: “Fashion may not seem like an obvious part of the story here, but the $620 billion industry has managed to become one of the world’s major polluters while somehow dodging that reputation; as Racked pointed out in March, there are no solid emissions numbers to hold it accountable.”

The article then quoted trans model Maya Mones: “Just by me being present and existing as a trans woman of color, also Latina, Dominicana, in this industry,” said Mones, “just by me existing, that’s already a revolutionary thing, just by me walking into the room.” Because every issue with the left is related. Remember the term: “intersectionality.” It means you can’t ever agree with one thing and be accepted by liberals. You have to embrace their agenda hook, line and sinker.

The propaganda level of the event was off the charts. The story includes a short video, jam-packed with naive young people pushing the climate apocalypse. We watch as one after another, young people freak out about climate. “I’m scared of another Super storm Sandy,” says one. Another complains that “heat waves compromise my health.”

One of the best was this: “I’m excited about the climate justice runway. We’re about to deconstruct consumption and cultural appropriation.” Huh? Oh yeah, we’re going to make models wear recycled garbed instead of actual clothes and … I have no idea what she means about the rest.

So let’s recap. In one short video we’ve got: climate change, transgenders, healthy food/air/water being a human right, gentrification, climate justice, “young people of color,” and “artists of color.” It’s like a Saturday Night Live skit of a Benetton ad.

It’s really humorous.

And speaking of humorous, before we go into our other goodies, a collective sad for our friendly nutters at Salon. According to The New York Post, Salon is not doing well. “Salon, the struggling digital publisher, is having trouble paying its rent,” wrote the Post. On the upside, the world might be a better place if Salon goes under. On the downside, I’d lose some fun content that I use to entertain you.

Which takes us to this week’s goodies:

<<< Please support MRC’s NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>

“Why I Put A Dragonfruit Up My Butt…”: Yep. That’s a real, honest-to-goodness HuffPost headline. Remember, the site’s new editor Lydia Polgreen used to be a hotshot at The New York Times. HuffPost contributor Davey Wavey has “a love-hate relationship with YouTube.” Why? Because YouTube limits how filthy your posts can be.

“Edgier, controversial or sexual content, on the other hand, gets de-prioritized in the algorithm and/or age restricted. Much of the content that actually has something to say is buried in the back corners of YouTube and is often undiscoverable,” he wrote. Horrors! YouTube keeps your dirty content away from kids.

Actual quote: “So there’s this really annoying thing on YouTube called the ‘What’s Up My Butt Challenge,’ which would be great if people were actually putting the things up their butt.” He continued: “Today, we’re going to do the real What’s Up My Butt Challenge.”

This is journalism is 2017 and you owe me big time for watching this. Actual quote two: “Because I feel like as gay men, our families, religion, society, everyone’s trying to shame us and guilt us for being gay and I think we that need to approach gay sex and gay sexuality with joy. So I’m joyfully going to put these things up my butt.” It’s about here where he appeared ready to enter the next phase (or vice versa) and I stopped watching. Brent Bozell, who asked me to write this column each week, doesn’t pay me enough for the rest. Not sure he could. Not sure Bezos could.

Even If You’re Gay, The Alt-Left Might Attack You: No matter how liberal you are, all it takes is one slip-up and the mob will form. Makeup artist Patrick Starrr (Yep, the three Rs have changed a bit) did a tribute to Solange Knowles by dressing up just like her. Unluckily for Starrr, that included wearing a massive afro wig, an effect he achieved by stacking two wigs together.

But he committed a sin.

I’ll let Cosmo describe his wrong think: “But other folks dropped into Patrick’s mentions to point out that as a Filipino man, the use of the afro wig could be constituted as a sort of cultural appropriation, even when done in the name of accurate homage.” The social media star/Starrr has 3.5 million Instagram fans. Cultural appropriation is bad news even when you are gay. “I’m a boy, I have a turban, I’m gay,” he was quoted saying in Fashionista.

Not good enough. You must grovel to the gods of diversity! So, he did, issuing this apology. “”I want to apologize for offending anyone with my hairstyle last night. I wanted to celebrate a beautiful hairstyle inspired by Solange. I am not in any way claiming to be black. I am Filipino and accepting and I hope we can all celebrate beauty/diversity all together.”

In a week where questioning Google’s awful diversity policies can get you fired, this social media mob is especially terrifying.

Sign Up for MRC Newsletters!

Oh Those Awful Borders: Leave it to the loony fringe from Its Going Down — the folks too illiterate to use an apostrophe — to hate on nations and borders. IGD is a pro-antifa site that was recently banned on the funding site Patreon. (Here’s their wildly spun version of events.)

IGD posted a big piece called: “Borders: The Global Caste System.” Actual quote one: “The border is not just a wall or a line on a map. It’s a power structure, a system of control. The border is everywhere that people live in fear of deportation, everywhere migrants are denied the rights accorded citizens, everywhere human beings are segregated into included and excluded.”

So concepts of national values, property rights, national security, etc., are foreign to the alt-left. They think it’s great if the 7.2 billion people who live elsewhere just move into the U.S. any time they feel like. This screed was originally from CrimethInc., but reflects the alt-left worldview quite well. It’s resistance to law and order.

Together, we can make the border unenforceable—a step towards creating a world in which everyone will be free to travel wherever they desire, to use their creative energy however they see fit, to fulfill their potential on their own terms.” Remember, liberals think only laws they like actually apply to them.

Source Article from

Climate change: The catastrophic impact on developing countries

By Graham Peebles

The Paris agreement on climate change, signed in November 2016, was the first time all the world’s nations, with the exception of Nicaragua and Syria, committed to reduce emissions and cap man-made global warming.

Among a number of positive pledges made by governments was the goal to limit the increase in the average global temperature to well below 2°C (above pre-industrial levels) and to aim for 1.5°C. The probability is that neither of these goals will be met. In fact, a recent study conducted by the University of Washington, estimates there is a mere 5 per cent chance of meeting the 2°C target, and states that, “The likely range of global temperature increase [up to 2100] is 2.0-4.9 °C.”

Another Trump mistake

An important part of the Paris agreement was a commitment to assist developing countries as they try to prepare for and mitigate the impact of rising global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere by industrialised countries.

In a somewhat optimistic statement after the Paris accord, UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa and Moroccan Foreign Minister Salaheddine Mezouar said, “Humanity will look back on 4 November  2016 as the day that countries of the world shut the door on inevitable climate disaster.” They went on to say that the agreement is “undoubtedly a turning point in the history of common human endeavour, capturing the combined political, economic and social will of governments, cities, regions, citizens, business and investors to overcome the existential threat of unchecked climate change”. 

A step of huge significance then, not just in our approach to climate change, but also in the development of a global sense of unity. And while little of substance has been done since the accord, it represented a major shift away from isolationism, nationalism and ideology towards collective responsibility and cooperative action.

The decision by President Trump not to implement the Paris Agreement violates this unifying act and is a massive mistake, one of many. It reveals how out of touch his administration and certain sections of US business are with the mood of the times and the majority of people around the world. His violent, irresponsible and ignorant action further isolates the US, and reinforces international feelings of anger and dismay at successive US governments’ approach to global affairs and the destructive values espoused and exported by the neo-liberal ideologues that determine American government policy. 

Michael Brune, of the US environmental group the Sierra Club, expressed the view of many when he said that “Donald Trump has made a historic mistake which our grandchildren will look back on with stunned dismay at how a world leader could be so divorced from reality and morality”. Trump has “shamelessly disregarded the safety of our families just to let the fossil fuel industry eke out a few more dollars in profits”. America is a significant source of financial and technological support for developing countries: this is also jeopardised by the decision to withdraw. The ambitions of many countries to reduce emissions are dependent on receiving international support, and lack of funds will have an impact on their ability to meet agreed targets.

By this decision the US, which is responsible for 15 per cent of all carbon emissions, has made it more difficult to reach the goals laid out in the Paris agreement and intensified the risks resulting from climate change. The results could well be devastating for the whole world, including America, in particular those countries in the front line of climate change, many of which constitute the poorest nations on Earth, are not the principle polluters, have little or no resources – socially, technologically or financially – to cope with the impact of increases in global temperatures and need the support of wealthier countries.  

A World Bank report (Shock waves: Managing the impacts of climate change on poverty) states that climate change “threatens the objective of sustainably eradicating poverty”, and unless substantial worldwide efforts are made, more than 100 million people could be pushed back into poverty by 2030. Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, homes to the poorest of the poor, are the regions that will be hit the hardest. Studies by the bank show that climate change in these regions will result in increased agricultural prices and could threaten food security: it’s the same old story, the poor always suffer most, no matter what the threat is.

Over the next 10 years, according to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) “it is predicted that billions of people, particularly those in developing countries, [will] face shortages of water and food and greater risks to health and life as a result of climate change”. Concerted global action – not withdrawal from international agreements – is needed, they state, to  “enable developing countries to adapt to the effects of climate change that are happening now and will worsen in the future”.

The poor live in a state of perpetual uncertainty; one natural disaster can take away what little they have, destroying homes and livestock, bringing death and disease. Based on three reports, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecast that a global temperature increase within the lowest targets agreed at Paris, of between 1.5ºC and 2ºC, will have a devastating impact: reduced crop yields in tropical areas fuelling hunger, the spread of malaria and diarrhoea, and the risk of extinction of 20-30 per cent of all plant and animal species. By 2020, “up to 250 million people in Africa could be exposed to greater risk of water stress”, and over the course of the century millions of people around the Himalayas and Andes will be at risk of bouts of flooding and drought as glaciers retreat or disappear.

Migration and agricultural degradation

Environmental changes have always fed global migration, but the impact of climate change on communities in developing countries could lead to the displacement of unprecedented numbers of people. This will impact on countries in neighbouring regions and the wider world and in turn affect the surrounding ecosystems. 

The key cause of mass displacement due to climate change will come from sea-level rises — a rise of 17-19 centimetres in the next 40 years is likely, with many scientists projecting a one metre rise by the end of the century. In addition to small island states, Egypt, Bangladesh, Vietnam, India and China are countries most at risk – all have large populations and productive agricultural land in low-lying coastal areas. Higher temperatures (affecting agriculture), disruption of water cycles and increased intensity of storms are the other key factors that are set to drive people from their homes.

The Global Military Advisory Council on climate change states, somewhat alarmingly, that climate change could trigger a refugee crisis of “unimaginable scale”, and that mass migration will become the “new normal”. Major-General Munir Muniruzzaman, a former general in the Bangladesh army and chairman of the Military Council, has told The Guardian that, “one metre of sea level rise will flood 20 per cent of his nation. “We’re going to see refugee problems on an unimaginable scale, potentially above 30 million people.” This view was echoed by former US Secretary of State John Kerry when, in 2015 (and nothing has changed since then) he warned that with increased food insecurity and shortages of water, violent conflicts between tribal groups fighting for survival would erupt and mass migration would follow. Far from being fantastical or apocalyptic, the early signs of this vision are upon us: In Pakistan for example, one of the countries most vulnerable to climate change, floods during 2010 destroyed crops and forced 14 million people from their homes. But according to research conducted by the International Food Policy Research Institute, floods are not the biggest threat, it’s hot weather, “heat stress”, as it’s called, that drive more people from their homes, as it severely impacts on crop yields. 

Climate change is upon us, is increasingly affecting weather patterns around the world, and if the World Bank report is correct, in the short-term – between now and 2030, there is little that can be done to reduce it. The only option for developing countries over the next 15 years or so, it says, is to “reduce vulnerability through both targeted adaptation investments and improved socioeconomic conditions”. 

There is an alternative way to “reduce vulnerability” for the poorest people in the world, and that is by the rich nations sharing what they have, and what the Earth provides more equitably among everyone. Building sharing into the socio-economic model that determines peoples lives; sharing the food and water, the knowledge, skills, information and materials, technology and ideas, so that those with nothing do not suffer the most as a result of our collective poisoning of the world – contamination by the industrialised nations of the world, which has caused the greatest crisis humanity has faced and is already tearing at the lives of millions of the most disadvantaged.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Source Article from

False climate change narrative now being used to push genetically modified "drought resistant" corn on Africa

Image: False climate change narrative now being used to push genetically modified “drought resistant” corn on AfricaImage: False climate change narrative now being used to push genetically modified “drought resistant” corn on Africa

(Natural News)
Each day, farmers face real-world challenges to produce food, especially in countries where their lives depend upon agricultural success. Managing natural resources and crop yields in the face of unpredictable weather is a daunting task. African farmers face irregular seasons of drought; therefore they must breed and select the right drought-tolerant and insect-resistant hybrids in order to maintain their yields.

The last thing these farmers need is multinational seed corporations and billionaire investors sensationalizing the climate change narrative in order to introduce GM seeds, take over farmland, and steal away farmer’s right to use their own seeds and adapt them to regional weather and pest challenges. However, that now seems to be an issue: The pretentious climate change narrative is being used as a selling point to push genetically modified “drought resistant” traits on African farmers.

The main culprits, who are bringing this “climate change solution” to Africa, are the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Monsanto. Both of these entities have cleverly funded, infiltrated, and/or helped develop the Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project, an organization committed to producing drought-tolerant and insect-protected maize varieties.

The five countries participating in the WEMA project are now being sold on the necessity of Monsanto’s “drought resistant” maize genes. Even though these GM seeds have only shown a six percent reduction in yield loss in times of moderate drought, they could become the “climate change solution” for African farmers who are always looking for ways to increase corn yields. However, small, short-term gains with Monsanto’s GMOs doesn’t equate to long term resiliency, especially when nature is unpredictable, or when weeds and pests resist the GM technology. The resiliency of nature can quickly render these genetically modified traits worthless, putting a farmer’s livelihood at risk.

The single gene edits that Monsanto introduces to these countries is insufficient to handle unpredictable and ever-changing drought conditions. Drought tolerance is an adaptation process in plants governed by several genes throughout the plant’s makeup. The quality of the soil also plays a vital role in a plant’s ability to withstand insects and drought. Monsanto’s gene edits could exacerbate the farmer’s problems long term because the GM plants won’t be naturally suited to handle ever-changing weather conditions.

If current selective breeding practices are replaced by a one-size-fits-all GM trait, then farmers won’t be able to adapt to regional climate activity with a diverse selection of seed traits. Once these genetically modified seeds are unleashed into these countries, there will be a perpetual need for Monsanto’s technology. The biodiversity of the farmers’ seed selection will dwindle and their agricultural success will depend upon Monsanto.

So why does the solution always center on Monsanto’s gene edits? Why aren’t these billionaires helping African farmers create healthy soils, improve water storage, or diversify the type of crops they can grow, so they can be independent?

The WEMA project joins Monsanto and the Gates Foundation with the African Agricultural Technology Foundation, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, and African agricultural research systems that implement field trials. The coalition has been shrouded in secrecy from the start. Farmers and the rest of society from the five affected WEMA countries (Kenya, Mozambique, South Africa, Uganda and Tanzania) have been excluded from the debate. According to the African Centre for Biodiversity and the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, it has been difficult to obtain more information on the GM technology that is pushed into these affected countries. Questions have been deflected. These two pro-biodiversity groups gathered in Kenya in July of 2017 to discuss with African farmers and other concerned people what the WEMA project has been up to.

According to groups, Monsanto has already donated its failed Bt insect resistant maize called MON 810 to four of the WEMA countries, even though most countries have stopped using this technology due to the development of increased pest resistance to the GM maize. Why is Monsanto dumping its failed technology on these countries? (Related: Study shows Monsanto’s Bt toxin kills human embryo cells.)

The concerned people are also wary that Monsanto is donating the GM genes to open the door to manipulate and control other crop traits in Africa. After all, the supposed GM drought tolerant maize is only being made available unless the countries accept Monsanto’s insect resistant trait and herbicide resistant trait. (The Roundup ready trait just got commercial approval in southern Africa.)

By joining with CIMYTT, the WEMA project becomes an open door for Monsanto to access a sacred, diverse maize germplasm, which is a diverse collection of African maize, which spans 12 countries and holds valuable traits. Will Monsanto engineer aspects of this germplasm, claim property rights, and commercialize it? (Related: Visit GMO.News and stay up-to-date with all subjects biotech.)

Sources include:




Source Article from

As climate changes, global food supply will become increasingly unstable

Global food shipments rely on 14 key ‘chokepoints’ that are susceptible to disruption, with disastrous effects.

In an ideal world, all food would come from within our own communities. It would be grown and harvested by people we know, sold directly at fair prices, and enjoyed fresh with minimal packaging. It sounds lovely, but in reality there are few people in North America able to live this way.

If you do not eat local farm produce exclusively, then you probably shop at a grocery store that is dependent on complex global food production networks to stocks its shelves. While this has its perks – cheap bananas, plentiful lemons, and Greek salad in wintertime, for example – it has the downside of being susceptible to distant political and environmental tremors.

Take, for example, the Arab Spring uprisings of 2011. While there were many reasons for the widespread protests that escalated into violence and eventually the protracted war in Syria, sky-high food prices and lack of bread in Cairo did not help. Fascinatingly, this has been linked to a lack of wheat imports from the Black Sea region in Russia, which had experienced a drought the previous summer and shut down all exports to meet national needs for wheat.

A new report from Chatham House in London draws attention to the fragility of international food distribution networks. Currently there are four main crops – maize, wheat, rice, and soybeans – that are responsible for global food security as we know it, feeding approximately 2.8 billion individuals. The first three crops account for 60 percent of global food energy intake, while soybeans account for 65 percent of global feed supply (for animals to convert into meat).

These crops travel internationally by road, rail, and ship, passing through 14 key ‘chokepoints’ that Chatham House believes to be increasingly risky. These chokepoints are “critical junctures on transport routes through which exceptional volumes of trade pass.” While chokepoints in the oil industry are an obsession among pundits, they tend to ignored in the world of food – a risk that’s not worth taking.

“A serious interruption at one or more of these chokepoints could conceivably lead to supply shortfalls and price spikes, with systemic consequences that could reach beyond food markets. More commonplace disruptions may not in themselves trigger crises, but can add to delays, spoilage and transport costs, constraining market responsiveness and contributing to higher prices and increased volatility.”

All but one of these 14 chokepoints have experienced blockages or disruptions in the past 15 years. The only one that hasn’t, the Strait of Gibraltar, the Post writes, “may now come under pressure in Brexit negotiations.”

Rob Bailey, research director at Chatham House, says these chokepoints have been perilously overlooked. He told the Washington Post, “It is a glide path to a perfect storm.”

Chatham House says that climate change is only going to make the situation worse, especially if droughts, storms, or floods were to hit several key chokepoints simultaneously.

“[Climate change] will increase the frequency and severity of extreme weather, leading to more regular closures of chokepoints and greater wear and tear on infrastructure. Rising sea levels will threaten the integrity of port operations and coastal storage infrastructure, and will increase their vulnerability to storm surges. [It] is expected to aggravate drivers of conflict and instability. It will also lead to more frequent harvest failures, increasing the risk of governments imposing ad hoc export controls. Climate change may also increase the risk of concurrent supply disruptions. As extreme weather events become more common, the chances of coincidental disruptions occurring at different locations are likely to increase.”

The Washington Post uses the example of Hurricane Isaac, which hit in August 2012 and closed ports and suspended barge traffic on parts of the Mississippi River.

It is a dire prediction for the future of food and one that Chatham House recommends governments start addressing before things get any worse, perhaps by creating alternative routes and supply sources. For ordinary citizens, the discussion about chokepoints is a valuable reminder of the importance to establish and support local food networks. Crop diversification and resilient organic growing methods are safer and healthier strategies than the industrial-scale monocrop production that’s become standard in much of the world and relies heavily on fossil fuels every step of the way, from planting and harvesting to transporting around the globe. The 100-mile diet (or less!) food movement isn’t just trendy; it’s sensible, too.

Source Article from