Last week the UN found Australia ‘guilty’ of having violated the human rights of Torres Strait Islanders, due to climate inaction.

The UN’ Human Rights Committee ruled that Australia had failed to take adequate action to cut emissions or adopt adaptation measures to protect the islands.  It also said the country should “compensate the Islanders for harm suffered, … and TAKE MEASURES TO CONTINUE TO SECURE THE COMMUNITIES’ SAFE EXISTENCE”.

The Torres Strait Islanders were represented by the wealthy UK environmental group, ‘ClientEarth’, funded by wealthy billionaire Winsome McIntosh, of the A&T supermarket chain.

The Torres Strait Islanders’ case was the first climate change litigation brought by inhabitants of low-lying islands against a nation state.

As ClientEarth lawyer, Sophie Marjanac, commented:

“This case opens the door for further legal actions and compensation claims by other climate affected people, and will give hope to those fighting for loss and damage at this year’s international climate talks in Egypt”.

However, those “climate affected people” should think twice about taking advantage of the ‘landmark’ ruling.

It is little more than a ‘stalking horse’ for rich nations to use a ‘human rights argument’ justifying the declaration of a state of emergency over small islands and the forced relocation of their populations.

The 3rd National Climate Assessment states: “As sea level raises faster and coastal storms, erosion, and inundation cause more frequent or widespread threats, relocation (also called managed retreat or realignment), … will become a more pressing option”.

A 2021 paper by “Young Australians in International Affairs” is just one of many published the last few years calling for first world states to pro-actively assist in moving the Islands’ “affected populations”.

The UN’s Torres Strait ruling provides the perfect legal basis for them to do so.

After all, it instructs Australia to “take measures to continue to secure the communities’ safe existence”.

It will start gradually with the relocation of people from small, low lying coral atolls, most subject to sand erosion and king tides, but it won’t end there.

Eventually, ALL small and remote islands will be designated “at risk” from climate change.

That’s why Islanders everywhere, need to be very, very careful how they respond when these slick-talking, wealthy European NGOs come knocking at their door.

They might say they want to help but believe me, their idea of “helping” masks a different agenda altogether.

One that ends with the loss of the Islanders’ homeland, way of life, culture and heritage.


On 25 August 2022, Net Zero Australia (NZA) released an interim report detailing various scenarios for Australia successfully reaching Net Zero by 2050.

The group, including University of Queensland, University of Melbourne, Princeton University and Nous Group, estimate that Australian governments will need to spend between $100 and $150 billion a year in order to phase out fossil fuel generators in favour of renewable energy.

In terms of providing a comprehensive ‘cost-benefit analysis’, however, the NZA report fails to properly assess the true impact involved in in terms of costs, lifestyle and land use.

Instead, the report relies heavily on the use of ‘models’ and a set of extremely ‘iffy’ assumptions that fail to stand up to scrutiny.

The Chair of the Net Zero Steering Committee, Robin Batterham, said:

“Our findings show there are no two ways about it – to meet net zero by 2050, AUSTRALIA MUST TRANSFORM.”

He got that part right.

Net Zero will mean a complete transformation of Australia.

We are looking at 30 years of intense social and economic disruption, greatly diminished living standards and the imposition of a command economy.

In terms of electricity capacity alone, Australia’s grid will need to be almost three times bigger by 2050.

Most homes and buildings will need to be rewired, as will the mains fuse, street distribution and local substations.

The cost of electricity will skyrocket in order to repay these major capital costs over the lifetime of the assets.

More importantly, it is all going to take an extraordinary amount of land.

And I am not talking about land in the remote outback either.

These industrial scale renewables structures will have to be sited on land close to the cities and towns they are intended to power.

The public simply has no idea how much land use this will involve.

Solar and wind farms alone will eliminate farmland, vegetation, forests and disrupt natural habitats.

Once you add biofuel to the mix, then there’s pretty much ALL your good land gone.

This is only a tiny fraction of what ‘Net Zero’ will involve.

Australian governments and policymakers need to start being honest with the public about the true cost of this transformation, and the extent to which it will radically alter their individual lives, lifestyles, mobility, finances, property rights and jobs.

Net Zero is an idea that you could only believe possible if you have no idea how the energy economy works or how energy is produced.


Just to give some context to this quote.  It was made by Dr Kary Mullis, the brilliant biochemist who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1993 for his work on developing the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test.

The quote comes from the final chapter of his book ‘Dancing Naked in the Mind Field’, called “The Age of Chicken Little”.  Dr Mullis is speaking in relation to Global Warming and Climate scientists.

Other quotes in the chapter include:

“The global warmers—the climate simulation programmers, the so-called general circulation modelers, the computer jocks who hardly go outside even on nice days—write the programs for their bosses at IPCC.

They predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing.  If we aren’t worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries.  It’s that simple.”

“But this business of intergovernmental panels on climate change is not just mad—it’s embarrassing. Furthermore, it smacks of what the Greeks used to call hubris when one of their number decided he, and not the gods, could control his own life, the weather, or something equally impossible to control.”

“No one has ever been able to predict long-term weather better than a tossed coin.”


Here’s few excellent clips from interviews with Dr Mullis, in which he talks about the state of science today, which are also very interesting.

Watch: Dr Karry Mullis won the 1993 Nobel Prize for his work in developing the PCR Test. He died on 7 August 2019.


The world’s oil supply is under siege on all sides.

Not only has the market lost 3 million barrels a day of Russian oil due to sanctions, we have seen a string of fires, explosions, supply breakdowns and strikes take out oil refineries worldwide.

On Monday, South Africa declared a ‘force majeure’ at Naref, its last working oil refinery, due to ‘delivery delays.  That means SA’s whole refinery fleet is out of action.

In, Libya, oil production has collapsed from 1.2 million barrels a day to 100,000 barrels, while in the US, Executive Orders have closed the Keystone Pipeline and major fields off the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska Inlet.

Biden is now desperately releasing a million barrels a day from America’s strategic oil reserve, which fell to its lowest level since 1985 this week.

Nearly 1 million bpd of oil refining capacity has been lost in the US since 2020, with five refineries shut down and more closures planned.

Chevron’s CEO told Bloomberg recently: ‘there will never be another new refinery built on US soil’.

In Australia, Chevron announced the closure of WA’s largest oil field by 2025.  This follows the closure of two refineries and dozens of offshore oil fields including shutdowns at the Curtis Island project in Gladstone.

New Zealand protestors, meanwhile, have been camped at Bream Bay for 100 days calling on the government to reopen NZ’s sole oil refinery at Marsden Point.

The whole world, meanwhile, has stopped investing in oil.

Today, there are just 507 oil fields producing more than 500,000 bpd. Most are 50+ years old with 60 percent decline rates.

Replacing these fields will take years and trillions of dollars but despite the surging demand and exploding price, there is no sign anywhere of governments preparing to invest in exploration.

Oil investment peaked in 2015 at a trillion dollars, falling to 583 billion in 2016.

Funny that.

2015 was the year governments worldwide signed on to Agenda 2030 and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals?

What are the odds that hundreds of billions of oil investment were then cancelled or postponed?

Without oil, the world would grind to a halt.

Factories would stop running, Ships, trucks, cars, tractors and airplanes would all sputter to a standstill and rust.

It is the indispensable energy that powers everything from industry, agriculture, transportation and construction.

So where are the oil ‘resilience plans’ or ‘emergency preparedness strategies’?

There aren’t any.

We don’t even have the baseline analysis needed to prepare such a thing.

The one bright spot is that people are finally waking up to the fact that ‘green tech’ won’t save them.

The ‘Green New Deal’ is NOT working.

Just ask all those Germans madly chopping firewood to prepare for winter!


The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) recently announced the creation of an Asia-Pacific (APAC) Network in Singapore to help the region “address the transition to net zero”.

For those not paying attention, GFANZ is the new ‘world bankers alliance’ which committed $AUD176 trillion towards building a new “net zero” economy at last year’s COP26.

It is the brainchild of Mark Carney, John Kerry, billionaire Michael Bloomberg, the Rockefeller Foundation, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates, and its members include over 450 of the world’s biggest banks, asset owners, insurers and fund managers.

Under the guise of “net zero” and ‘saving the planet, this conglomeration of global capital say they want to create a whole new financial system with total, centralised control held by them.

In order to bring it all about, GFANZ have created “country platforms” which they describe in typical Davos style as a mechanism for ‘stakeholder capitalism’ and “public-private collaboration”.

By their definition, these platforms will “convene and align stakeholders – including national and international governments, businesses, NGOs, civil society organisations, donors and other actors – around a specific issue or geography to agree on and co-ordinate priorities around”.

The power of all those trillions will be used to force national governments into launching whatever projects, policies or investments GFANZ deems necessary for that country to ‘reach net zero’.

That’s what John Kerry and co-Chair Michael Bloomberg mean when they talk of “needing national governments to create the necessary conditions so these investments can take place”.

In GFANZ inaugural Progress Report, this is emphasised again and again, with references to pressuring governments into creating ‘high-level cross-cutting enabling environments’; ‘investment friendly business environments’ and ‘pipelines of bankable investment opportunities’.

Essentially, “stakeholder capitalism” models give global capital a seat at the table when it comes to national decision-making, as well as the formulation of laws and regulations around their activities.

It will be they and they alone who get to decide who gains access to this $176 trillion they’ve created out of nothing, and what its used for in each country.

Of course everything will be cloaked in the usual ‘green’ collectivist propaganda about needing to ‘save the planet’.

But the reality is, if we go along with this, we won’t be saving the planet, we will be handing it over on a silver platter to a billionaire-bankster cartel, and there’ll be no getting it back.

That the ‘left’ can’t see what a huge land, resource and power grab this all is by global capital, is simply astonishing.


This whole idea of ‘transitioning’ over to electric vehicles, is starting to look more and more like a huge smokescreen to me.

One masking the true agenda behind Queensland’s ‘zero emissions’ future –getting rid of individual car ownership altogether.

You just have to take a close look at what electrifying the State’s whole transport system would entail, to understand the whole thing is completely impossible.

It means replacing ALL our petrol fuelled cars, trucks, trains, boats, motorcycles, barges and farm transport by 2050.

And probably a lot sooner given the Government’s current roadmap includes a 50% ban on combustion engine sales by 2030, and a 100% ban by 2036.

At that point they will either impose a complete ban or so many pollution taxes no-one will be able to drive them anyway.

People accepted this ‘transition’ largely because they were led to believe they will emerge from the whole process still owning some kind of car, albeit an electric one.

I see three key problems with that idea.

There’s time.

There’s scale.

And there’s cost.

Right now, there are over 1.2 billion motor vehicles in the world.

Just imagine what replacing 1.2 billion motor vehicles is going to mean in terms of energy, labour, cost and resources.

Does the world even have the number of engineers or manufacturing plants needed to build that many EVs, let alone all the new infrastructure and transmission capacity to support them?

In Queensland, we have 4,303,713 million registered motor vehicles, only 8,000 of which are electric.  That leaves 4,295,713 million vehicles to be replaced.

In 2019, Professor Richard Herrington of the Head of Earth Sciences at the British Natural History Museum, told the British Government:

“Converting UK’s vehicles to electricity by 2050 would require two times the total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production.”

That’s just the UK!

“Society needs to understand that there is a raw-material cost of going green”, Herrington wrote.

And that’s the problem.

Governments have not been honest with people about any of this.

Last month, green energy experts admitted that 90-95 percent of the supply chain for EVs simply “DOES NOT EXIST”.

The EV CEO of Ford Motors, RJ Scaringe, spelt it out – “the world simply doesn’t have the resources or supply chain to transition ALL Americans into EVs”.

“All the world’s cell production combined represents well under 10 percent of what we will need in 10 years” he said.

Did you catch that?

90 percent to 95 percent of the EV supply chain does not even exist yet!

Say goodbye to the Kingswood!!


A new piece of legislation was introduced in the UK Parliament today.

It is called the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill and is seeking to remove unnecessary barriers to research into new gene editing technology” which the government says were held back by “EU’s rules around gene editing”.

The Bill also aims to ‘rebrand’ the “genetic editing” of plants and animals as distinct from earlier types of GMOs.

The distinction being that gene editing doesn’t introduce DNA from other species, it just ‘speeds up’ what could happen naturally over time – maybe.

Kind of like ‘gain of function’ for food.

All over the world, there is a coordinated push for genetic technology to solve the current food crisis.

Switzerland has amended its moratorium on GMO crops, while Ethiopia says it is growing new genetically edited varieties of wheat and maize.

Even the EU has called for a “rethink” on GMOs, while the Times of Israel asks:

“Can gene editing help farmers satisfy the rising demand for food?”

Scotland’s Press & Journal, meanwhile, has demanded that the “Scottish Government lift its GM ban to ease cost of living crisis”.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

None of it is really about the food crisis.

It is about Climate Change, and the globalists’ obsession with driving humanity into a world of animal free agriculture and lab-made foods.

Apparently, allowing billionaire profiteers like Bill Gates to force bugs and genetically altered food on the world, will “end climate change” and “save the planet”.

That’s why researchers are now churning out report after report saying “Genetic engineering can have a positive effect on the climate”.

And NGOs like “Alliance for Science” proclaiming “GMOs are the key to shrinking Europe’s climate footprint”.

It’s not just crops either.  These people want to gene-edit livestock as well.

In March, the FDA gave the go ahead for gene-edited cattle to be used for food.

As Deutsche Welles put it: “genetically altered “Climate sheep” and “Eco pigs” can help fight global warming too.

Where is it all coming from? I think you know.

It is all brought to you courtesy of the World Economic Forum and the Rockefeller Foundation, whose policy document “Resetting the Table” is the blueprint.

Well, there is a food crisis after all.

Actually, there is an ENGINEERED food crisis.

One that coincidentally allows ‘one worlders’ to roll out another of their pre-planned “solutions” for.

Strange how ‘co-incidences’ only ever seem to work in their favour, not ours.


From the beginning, analogies were drawn between Covid and Climate Change which I found alarming.

Green groups and their billionaire funders are known for their strongly autocratic views.  Like all cultists they believe that they know better than anyone else what is best for humanity.

Imagine their joy, therefore, as governments worldwide rolled out a series of tyrannical new laws suspending the democratic process, locking people up in their homes, shutting down businesses, restricting road use and criminalising free speech.

Is it any wonder that those of us who tried to question the ‘reasonableness’ of these laws, were howled down and showered with abuse?

Is it any wonder that so many of them fought the end of lockdowns tooth and nail in 2020?

I mean it wasn’t as if such people actually gave a damn about human health.

No.  It was because they all knew a ‘golden opportunity’ when they saw one.

Right at the outset they understood instantly the precedent that ‘State of Emergency’ laws set when it came to fighting climate change – only their lockdowns would be a lot more permanent of course.

In their eyes, any government with the power to limit private-vehicle use, ration the consumption of meat, impose censorship, close businesses and lock people up, was a government they could really get behind.

Even global governing bodies like the WEF, OECD and IMF, issued broad hints that to achieve ‘net zero’ by 2050, governments may need some form of ‘climate lockdown’ laws.

Now, the International Energy Agency has ‘upped the ante’ by calling for governments worldwide to adopt ‘climate lockdowns’ on the basis that “net zero” won’t be possible unless people are forced to stay home as much as possible.

As the IEA’s “10-Point Plan to Cut Oil Use’ report states:

“Governments have all the necessary tools at their disposal to put oil demand into decline in the coming years, which would support efforts to both strengthen energy security and achieve vital climate goals”.

Proposals include:

“Reducing highway speed limits; more working from home; street changes to encourage walking and cycling; car-free Sundays in cities and restrictions on other days; cutting transit fares; policies that encourage more carpooling; cutting business air travel”.

Suddenly, Queensland’s refusal to lift its Emergency Powers laws last month, makes a lot more sense.


Stephen Andrew statement on the tyranny of the elites

It should be evident to everyone by now that environmentalism, the Great Reset and the Green Movement, are almost exclusively the political plaything of the world’s rich, powerful and inter-connected elites.
A pampered class of people whose own lives remain steeped in obscene levels of luxury, consumption and excess, but whose favourite pastime is berating and lecturing the rest of humanity for their evil, evil ways. With no sense of irony or shame, these billionaires prance about at various international shindigs, posing as the great moral crusaders and saviours of our time. “Like James Bond”, Boris Johnson said yesterday, revealing just how puerile their thinking truly is.
It was Prince Charles, however, who showed once and for all, just how dangerously out of control these megalomaniacs are becoming. The Prince huffed and puffed to his fellow globalists about the urgent need to “create an environment” where global governance receives the tools and money it needs, to “TAKE THE ACTION REQUIRED”. We need to take, a ‘warlike’ approach the British Blueblood said, in order to ‘assist’ those nations who may be unable, or unwilling, to ‘get with the Great Reset program’.
It is, he said, “the only real prospect” we have, “of achieving FUNDAMENTAL ECONOMIC TRANSITION” across the globe. Anyone else seeing the nexus here between Covid, Climate Change and the ‘Great Reset’? If not, you must be fast asleep, terminally brainwashed, or both.
All this talk of global “transformations”, “resets” and “transitions” is not only very real, it is IMMANENT.
I don’t know about you – but I never signed up to any top-down revolution where a bunch of billionaire elites, and their technocratic minions, get to decide what’s best for humanity.
It’s not Covid, climate change or over-population, that frightens me – it is these morally insane plutocrats, and their relentless desire to drive humanity forward into some future Bio-state dystopia – at the point of a gun, if necessary.
We can’t say we weren’t warned. C.S. Lewis, tried nearly a century ago, when he wrote:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some points be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. … To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on the level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

Stephen Andrew statement on IMO 2020 and the Great Shipping Reset

In California, there are now a record-breaking 65 cargo ships anchored off the state’s two biggest ports, awaiting entry. Many have been there for weeks. Similar scenes are being played out at key ports around the world as the global supply chain slowly disintegrates. What is going on?
The most popular explanations given, include covid-restrictions, crew-change problems and a worldwide shortage of containers. Then there are the driver shortages, hurricanes, industrial disputes, port inefficiencies, price-gouging and an ‘online spending frenzy’ – take your pick.
What is never mentioned, however, is IMO 2020, the UN’s new ‘climate change’ regulation, which took effect on 1 January 2020. IMO 2020 was a new regulatory system intended to lay the groundwork for a ‘phase in’ of carbon taxing ships by 2023, and the transition to ‘net zero shipping’ by 2050.
The new regulation banned ships from using the old, cheap ‘bunker fuel’ and forced them to either use much more expensive fuels or install space-wasting ‘scrubber’ technology on their ships. Both options came with huge operational costs for carriers.
IMO 2020 also imposed more onerous port inspection and reporting obligations, which many feared would lead to congestion, delays and blank sailings.
According to Maersk, 60% of a carrier’s costs are FUEL.
Any transition away from cheap fuel, therefore, was always going to cause shipping costs to skyrocket, and then ripple its way down the supply chain. It is odd, therefore, that not a single shipping expert even refers to IMO 2020 when discussing the current crisis. I mean it was ALL anyone in the industry could talk about in 2019!
Goldman Sachs, meanwhile, estimated that the total impact of IMO 2020 to “consumer wallets could be around $US240 billion”. Others warned that ships would start “slow steaming” to offset fuel costs, especially on longer routes – IN FACT THE WORLD’S CLIMATE CHANGE ZEALOTS SAID THEY WERE COUNTING ON IT.
But something else happened in January 2020, that served to completely mask the impacts of IMO 2020 –Covid-19. Once oil prices and cargo flows started to recover, however, suddenly we were seeing sky-high freight rates, port congestion and shipping delays. Everything, in fact, that the experts had predicted would happen once IMO 2020 took effect. And yet, weirdly, all that is now forgotten.
Are they worried that if they mention it, people might get the ‘crazy’ idea that maybe -just maybe – it wasn’t Covid, hurricanes or lost containers that crippled the global shipping industry, but rather the world’s governing elites themselves?