You’d think that the failure of Al Gore’s alarmist (and very lucrative) movie scenario from 2006 to eventuate would deter the Cultists from this, but no.

by Peter Halligan

Climate change protagonists claim rising sea levels will ‘swallow up’ English coastal cities by 2050 – just 24 short years from now!

Who is paying for this crap?

An outfit called Climate Central puts out a slick website that fabricates coastal flood warnings globally.

It (with zero record of any success over any time period) uses “models” to make up scare stories like this one:

Rising seas put 5,500 toxic sites at risk of flooding by 2100 | Climate Central

“CoastalDEM® v3.0 is Climate Central’s newest, most precise, and best-trained digital elevation model ever.“

Climate Central’s CoastalDEM® claims that its model:

* Reduces the errors on NASA’s models to nearly zero

* Is available for almost any coastal area in the world

* Shows particular strength in low-lying and densely populated areas

Such bullshit– you can see how ignorant news outlets relish the opportunity for “copy” without the need to fact check, or verify claims of impending doom.

From here:

The UK seaside towns that ‘will be swallowed by the sea’ before 2050

“The experts at Climate Central, an independent group of scientists and communicators, have highlighted which parts of the coast specifically are most at risk.”

Experts?? Hahaha – excuse me while I try to prevent my sides from splitting!

London will be underwater / flooded!

“Another popular destination which could disappear is Weston-Super-Mare, reports MyLondon.

Located off the coast of Bristol this beach town draws nearly 750,000 visitors annually but in 27 years, it’s predicted that the entire beach and large parts of the surrounding areas will be consumed by the sea.

Extensive areas along the Bristol coast are expected to be impacted by rising sea levels, reaching as far north as Gloucester.

Here is a map of those coastal areas that will disappear in less than 25 years.

Who funds these maniacs?

From Brave AI:

“Climate Central is funded by a diverse range of foundations, individual donors, and government agencies.

“Major funders include the Bezos Earth Fund, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Kresge Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the David R. and Patricia D. Atkinson Foundation, the George H. and Estelle M. Sands Foundation, the Eric and Wendy Schmidt Fund for Strategic Innovation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the JPB Foundation, the Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation, and the National Science Foundation.

“The organization also receives support from the High Meadows Foundation, the Nature’s Own Foundation, the Quadrivium Foundation, the Schmidt Family Foundation, and the Silicon Valley Community Foundation.”

That’s not all – the US government is (used to be?) a source of funding.

“Additionally, Climate Central has received funding from federal agencies such as NASA, NSF, DOE, DOD, NOAA, NIH, and the Department of the Interior, though some of these funds are channeled through subcontractors like George Mason University.”

Individual donations and contributions from entities like Google’s foundation also support the organization.”

Maybe Trump pulled the funding.

This is a lot like shouting “Fire” in a crowded theatre – these people should be held accountable – start legal proceedings now for trials in 2050!

Onwards!

Humour for the week:

Check out the above band of monkeys gibbering on keyboards – Kapiti doesn’t start to register until after the 1.2 metre mark!

And here is what 2090 looks like  at RCP 7–

https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/10/175.4325/-40.8974/?theme=sea_level_rise&map_type=year&basemap=roadmap&contiguous=true&elevation_model=best_available&forecast_year=2090&pathway=ssp3rcp70&percentile=p50&refresh=true&return_level=return_level_1&rl_model=coast_rp&slr_model=ipcc_2021_med

Are the Globalists gearing up for Covidiocy Round 2?

by Steve Watson on modernity

Schools locked down again in secret pandemic drills

Exclusive: Exercise Pegasus imagined a virus deadly to children spreading around the world from an in south east Asia

✍️ @PaulNuki @sneweyy @maeve_cullinan https://t.co/e7cyemYWcl

— Telegraph Global Health Security (@TelGlobalHealth) November 25, 2025

In a eerie redux of 2020’s chaos, UK schools are being thrust into unannounced lockdown simulations under the guise of “pandemic preparedness drills”—with children herded into classrooms, doors barricaded, and parents left in the dark, sparking whispers of social engineering rehearsals for the next big scare.

The covert operations, exposed in The Telegraph’s bombshell report, mirror pre-covid “Event 201” tabletop exercises that eerily foreshadowed global shutdowns—raising the specter: Was the pandemic a trial run for something far more insidious?

We’ve seen this play out previously, complete with mass fear campaigns, soap-opera psyops, and “totalitarian” compliance tools.

The drills, rolled out across England without fanfare, involve “sudden” alerts forcing pupils to seal rooms, switch off lights, and hunker down—ostensibly to test readiness for “biohazards” or “chemical attacks.”

From the Telegraph report:

Exercise Pegasus, which concluded last month and involved all major government departments, was the biggest pandemic simulation exercise the country has ever held.

Those participating in the drill were told a novel enterovirus had broken out on a fictional Island in southeast Asia before spreading across the world.

Unlike Covid-19, which disproportionately affected older age groups, the new virus was most lethal in the young. The virus, “EV-D68”, was said to cause respiratory failure, brain swelling and – in rare cases – paralysis in infants, children and teenagers.

One parent fumed to the outlet: “It was completely unannounced and caused unnecessary panic among the children and parents.”

A teacher at a Midlands primary school echoed the trauma: “The children were terrified. Some were crying and asking if it was real.”

Headteachers, bound by government edicts, stayed mum—until FOI demands cracked the silence, revealing the exercises as part of a broader “resilience” push by the Department for Education (DfE) and UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA).

These unheralded lockdowns aren’t born in a vacuum; they hark back to October 2019’s Event 201 simulation, co-hosted by Johns Hopkins, the World Economic Forum, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—where global elites war-gamed a coronavirus outbreak, complete with media blackouts, mandatory quarantines, and economic shutdowns, mere months before COVID crashed the world stage.

As we’ve previously highlighted, that “exercise” eerily scripted real-world responses: supply chain collapses, “misinformation” crackdowns, and vaccine rollouts—tools later deployed with ruthless efficiency.

Fast-forward to 2025: The DfE’s “secret” drills, piloted in 20 schools since September, mandate “no-notice” activations to “build muscle memory” for crises, per UKHSA guidelines.

One directive, leaked via FOI, instructs: “The exercise should be as realistic as possible, including the use of sirens or announcements to simulate an emergency.”

Critics, including shadow education secretary Bridget Phillipson, slammed it as “overreach,” but insiders whisper it’s beta-testing compliance for the next wave—be it bird flu, mpox, or a lab-leak encore.

This resurgence reeks of the behavioral blueprints we’ve previously dissected, with UK officials admitting to having scripted BBC and ITV soaps like EastEnders and Emmerdale to “covertly shape public opinion” on vaccines—embedding pro-jab narratives to “coerce compliance” without overt propaganda.

New FoI shows how the government used TV soaps to push pro-vaccine storylines. 💉📺

We’re being entertained into compliance.

My latest in the Telegraph ⬇️ @sarahknapton https://t.co/UovyTQ8iTX

— Laura Dodsworth (@BareReality) June 13, 2025

We highlighted this in 2022, three years before it was confirmed to be scripted propaganda:

In 2021, SAGE advisors like Prof. Susan Michie revealed that the UK health authority deployed “totalitarian” fear tactics—exaggerating threats via “frightening” messaging to enforce lockdowns, admitting: “We used emerging evidence to increase the perceived level of personal threat… A substantial number of people still did not feel sufficiently personally threatened.”

“Use of fear to control behaviour in Covid pandemic was ‘totalitarian’, admit scientists”

⁦From ‘A State of Fear: how the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic’ https://t.co/gD6HFUkQqW

— Laura Dodsworth (@BareReality) May 14, 2021

The UK Government leaned on “mass formation psychosis,” a hypnotic herd mentality to justify controls—turning isolated anxieties into collective obedience, ripe for mandates.

Was COVID just a warm-up—a global dry run for engineered pandemics that lock down dissent as deftly as schools? With UKHSA eyeing “annual exercises” and whispers of EU-wide sims, the stage feels set.

This article first appeared on modernity. Follow on X @ModernityNews.

Slang could help: ‘bird’ = ‘chick’? If that fails, claim to be a tranny.

Archbishop Viganò: Fauci, Gates, Schwab, Soros, von der Leyen, Bourla and their puppets committed “the greatest crime against humanity.”

Rainer Füllmich is in prison for exposing them.

“It is not Füllmich who belongs behind bars, it is them.”

The velvet gloves are off.

#ArchbishopVigano #RainerFuellmich #CrimesAgainstHumanity #WEF #ViralVibes

via the DailyTelegraph NZ World

Former BBC health correspondent Michele Paduano says senior editors repeatedly blocked his attempts to report on emerging scientific and legal findings questioning the safety of water fluoridation, dismissing the material as “scaremongering.”

According to a report by the Children’s Health Defense, Paduano, who reported for the broadcaster for 30 years, told a Fluoride Action Network press conference this week that he pursued the story after a 2024 US federal court ruling concluded that standard fluoridation levels posed an “unreasonable risk” to children.

Despite interviews arranged with experts and new evidence from cohort studies, BBC editors cancelled his coverage, insisted the science hadn’t changed and accused him of “bias”, even after a leading pro-fluoridation adviser acknowledged the UK may need to reconsider its dosage guidelines.

Paduano escalated the issue to senior BBC leadership, arguing that suppressing new information misled the public, but received no meaningful response and ultimately left the embattled state-funded organisation.

He says subsequent BBC reporting on fluoridation expansions ignored the US judgment and emerging research, reflecting what he sees as systemic bias and a desire to avoid “worrying audiences.”

The BBC, in responses to formal complaints, defended its approach by citing majority expert opinion from bodies such as the WHO and CDC, insisting it must maintain a high bar for reporting potential health risks. Critics, including FAN scientists, argue this stance amounts to censorship that undermines public trust in science and the Legacy media.

Given Poland’s historic domination by Russia, which apart from the interwar years, only ceased in 1989, the antagonism of the rulers towards Russia is understandable albeit unjustifiable. But many Poles don’t like Ukraine because of what happened during WW2 either.

by Peter Williams

The government’s sudden decision to replace elected regional councillors with panels of district and city mayors has been sold as a bold stroke toward streamlining local government. But bold is not the same as wise, and decisive is not the same as thoughtful. In its rush to simplify a system that undoubtedly needs reform, the government has swung the axe at the wrong trunk.

Rather than fixing the machinery of local government, it has removed the very people elected to oversee that machinery — and installed a group already burdened with full-time jobs of their own.

Take Otago as a case in point. The newly elected Otago Regional Council (ORC) had barely taken shape after October’s local body elections. The majority of the twelve strong council was significantly different in political outlook from its predecessors, with a clear public mandate for change. The council had chosen former ACT MP Hilary Calvert as chair, signalling a shift in direction — particularly around environmental management and water policy, areas that have been contentious throughout the region.

Yet before these councillors could even begin their work, they were gone. In their place now sit the mayors of Dunedin, Waitaki, Central Otago, Clutha and Queenstown Lakes — all of whom were elected mayor for the first time on October 11th!

Being a mayor in 2025 is a full-time job by any measure. They are responsible for multimillion-dollar budgets, infrastructure crises, climate resilience planning, tourism pressures, housing shortages, transport headaches and the general expectations of a community that demands accessibility and leadership every day of the week. To suggest these individuals have the capacity to simultaneously govern a major regional authority is optimistic at best, reckless at worst.

And while the elected representatives disappear, the permanent staff — the bureaucrats who actually run the day-to-day functions — remain exactly where they are. There are good people in regional government, but anyone who has dealt with large public agencies knows that organisational culture matters. Those cultures tend to become resistant to scrutiny and slow to change. If anything needed reform, it was not the councillors but the structure, accountability systems and staffing of the organisations themselves. Yet instead of reshaping the engine room, the government has simply removed the drivers.

What makes this more troubling is the ideological mismatch. The ORC was about to embark on a markedly different policy direction, especially around freshwater management. Otago voters had chosen that direction. Removing the council not only disrupts that democratic mandate — it eliminates it.

Now, key decisions in environmental regulation, land use, and community wellbeing will be made by a group of mayors whose own councils may have entirely different priorities. That is not streamlining; it is dilution. And it leaves significant power in the hands of senior staff whose political leanings, as with much of the public sector, are not always aligned with the direction voters have chosen.

The government’s broader motivation is obvious enough. It wants to push ahead quickly with new resource management legislation, and removing a layer of regional governance certainly makes that easier. But convenience for Wellington is not the same as good governance for the regions. This reform raises more questions than it answers.

Who, for instance, will eventually own the ORC’s subsidiary Port Otago — a major strategic asset with national significance? Who will own the Bay of Plenty Regional Council’s 54% stake in the Port of Tauranga? These are not hypothetical accounting queries. They are multi-billion-dollar issues involving dividends, borrowing capacity, governance rights, and long-term regional economic planning. If regional councils exist only in name, with part-time oversight from already overloaded mayors, the stewardship of these assets becomes dangerously unclear.

Even the one area where this move seems tidy — the removal of appointed councillors from Environment Canterbury (ECan) — is likely to trigger conflict. Ngāi Tahu has long argued for representation commensurate with its role as mana whenua, and removing appointed seats will almost certainly ignite protest and, eventually, a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal. If the intention was simplification, the government may instead have created a fresh constitutional dispute.

Local government reform is needed. Few would deny that the system is overburdened, uneven, and too often paralysed by bureaucracy. But real reform requires careful, structural change: clarifying responsibilities, improving accountability, modernising funding models, and reshaping organisational cultures that have become sluggish or opaque. What we have instead is a shortcut — quick, dramatic, and politically tidy, but lacking coherence and public buy-in.

Replacing elected regional councillors with a panel of mayors may create the illusion of efficiency, but in reality it removes democratic oversight, overloads the wrong people, and leaves unexamined the entrenched systems that truly need change. In the end, the government may find that the simplification it sought has created the opposite: uncertainty, confusion and a loss of trust in local democracy.

Real reform requires thinking. This decision feels like anything but.

Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. He blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack — where this article was sourced.

This is not a simple issue and both our editorial group and Concerned Ratepayers Kapiti are examining it. There is general agreement that the Regional Council system has significant flaws: it results in a big wasteful level of bureaucracy and local councils and regional councils are often at odds with each other, and sometimes the central government, and there is a lack of accountability. More comment to come. —Eds

We’ve seen what a warring lunatic he is with NATO’s war on Russia in Ukraine, and we know he asked Trump to tell Candace Owens to stop making these claims about his spouse. Macron’s popularity in France isn’t much higher than Starmer’s in the UK.

By G. Calder via expose-news.com

Everybody is aware of how invasive smartphone data collection is, and many know how to limit it. But very few people realise that their car is doing the same thing – sometimes even more aggressively – and with fewer legal safeguards than mobile devices. 

Inside, your car is a sensor farm. GPS saves your every move, cameras record facial expressions, microphones can listen in to phone calls, accelerometers record behavioural metrics, and the infotainment system stores everything from your phone. It’s a goldmine for third parties. The features that make the driving experience safer and slicker also pipe personal data to manufacturers, insurance companies, marketers and data brokers. The Mozilla Foundation even called cars the worst product category for privacy reporting that all 25 of 25 major car brands failed basic privacy tests – and some even admitted sharing data with marketing partners without additional consent. 

Here’s what’s happening, and what you can do about it—

What Your Car Quietly Collects

Some of the data harvested by your vehicle makes sense, such as GPS data for navigation or tyre pressure monitoring for safety. Other tools keep you in lane, call emergency services, and prevent collisions, but also generate rich datasets about where you go, how you drive, and even who’s in the cabin. Precise location history, in-car microphone recordings, and driving behaviour are stored and transmitted to manufacturers, and third-party brokers. Most of this is buried in default settings and app permissions, masked as convenient connectivity to users. 

All of this was approved through the Biden Infrastructure Bill in 2021, along with the infamous vehicle “Kill Switch” that can shut down the vehicle remotely. That, too, is still in play. 

You can check exactly what data is collected by your vehicle using websites such as Privacy4Cars or VehiclePrivacyReport. 

You Can Restrict It – But There’s a Catch

Car makers can share or sell driving data and in-car collections for analytics, insurance pricing, advertising, and product development. While it’s possible to toggle certain sharing in vehicle menus, disabling some analytics also restrict features that drivers actually want such as live traffic or emergency calling options. Regaining privacy often means giving up conveniences you already paid for.  

Infotainment platforms and connected services may also have their own pipelines and policies too. The end result is a confusing patchwork where opt-outs in one place don’t necessarily carry over, and ultimate privacy can be hard to achieve. 

Why Is It Legal?

The Supreme Court in the US did rule that GPS tracking of a vehicle constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, which means that law enforcement must get a warrant before tracking your car. But, amazingly, that ruling only applies to government surveillance. Corporate data collection by private companies, including car makers and insurance companies, aren’t bound by the same constitutional limits. 

So, while the police need a warrant, entities profiting from your data do not. Accepting the terms and conditions at the dealership or when first using the car’s infotainment system means you’ve probably already consented to it, too. 

How Cars are More Invasive Than Phones

Smartphones collect location, Bluetooth beacons, and in-app events that can be linked to advertising ID or user accounts. App permissions, OS prompts and platform rules give tyou some visibility and control, and you can set location settings to Only While Using, revoke background access, and reset advertising IDs. But car data settings are more opaque and much trickier to navigate, with controls scattered between the dealer, the manufacturer, companion apps and more. 

Many people expect their phones to track them and have learned to simply manage those settings, which often come with clearer guidelines on when something is and is not actively monitoring their activity. Generally, people do not expect their cars to create a profile that is just as valuable – and in some cases even more actionable – for third parties. 

They Say You Can Opt Out, But It’s Not Always True

Turning off location services or clicking to opt out does not necessarily mean you’re in the clear. Independent research and investigative journalists have found that some connected vehicles continue to transmit telemetry for diagnostics, safety updates, or “system performance” even when privacy settings are disabled. 

And because the manufacturers control the software, there’s no public way to check what’s really being sent in the background. For many drivers, the only option is to trust the manufacturer’s promise – something that Mozilla’s 2023 report tells us is unwise given that every tested car brand failed basic privacy checks. 

In short, some brands’ default settings mean that the only true fix is choosing a different car. 

Final Thought

Analytics can save lives when the vehicle spots a crash, routes drivers around storms, or highlights a mechanical failure in the car. But it crosses into profitable surveillance when the same hardware also feeds businesses that create driver profiles, tailor prices, and targets individuals without clear consent. Privacy needs to be treated like a core safety feature too. Take time to audit your settings, restrict app access, wipe your data before service or sale, and make sure you know what will be recorded and sold before you buy your next car. 

Join the Conversation

Did you know how invasive car data collection can be? Have you checked settings in your own car? What else is tracking us without our knowledge? Most of us are so focused on phone tracking that we forget what else is profiling us. Add your thoughts at the link/source.

Source