The IRS is hiring new special agents!

Requirements include working min “50 hours per week, which may include irregular hours, and be on-call 24/7, including holidays and weekends” and “Carry a firearm and be willing to use deadly force, if necessary.”https://t.co/uvwbrAkIit pic.twitter.com/z0aVX6uoMr

— Ford Fischer (@FordFischer) August 10, 2022

And it is adding 87,000 of these inspectors. You wonder who they might be inspecting — latter day Al Capone types, Mexican cartel members who are not reporting their profits?

The IRS has since deleted the line about deadly force from its ad.

So much has been said about this wasteful vanity project, likely to cost $8 million+ if it proceeds, that it seems superfluous to repeat the problems with it.

We know how the Councilors seeking reelection voted: Janet Holborow was and remains a fervent supporter as does Sophie Handford. We don’t know where Jackie Elliott stands on it, although she voted for it. Rob McCann was also a strong supporter but announces he has seen the light and all the objections people made were valid. Prvanov initially supported it but then opposed it. Martin Halliday and Bernie Randall have been opponents from the outset.

Candidates who have not been on the council need to be asked their stance.

In the meantime, the plans are proceeding — this was sent to Council elected members last week:-

Te Uruhi

The finalised developed design is due to be issued from Athfield Architects next week and the next step is to commence detailed design.  Construction will not commence until detailed design is complete, resource consent is attained and approval from Council is confirmed.

We are awaiting a date for the hearing to be organised by the independent planner. 

www.kapiticoast.govt.nz/teuruhi

In Jacindaland the Green Party has similar notions.

from the Free Speech Union

For centuries, universities have been at the forefront of challenging our assumptions, developing our knowledge, and moving our society forward. This has only been able to happen because ideas or beliefs have been continuously subjected to scrutiny. Free speech underpins this mechanism.

Yet, rather than defending free speech, universities seem primary culprits undermining it today. This is deeply concerning.

Earlier this year, Jonathan and the team released the first Free Speech Union Academic Freedom Survey which was sent to over 17,000 New Zealand academics. It showed a troubling state of speech suppression, where many university lecturers felt unable to challenge certain assumptions or raise a different view with their colleagues or students.  

University Ranking Report:

Today, we are releasing a report following on from this survey – our first Free Speech Union University Ranking. We have assessed and graded the state of free speech at each university, considering their policies and actions. There is much work to do.

It is difficult to see what positive role universities can play in our society – let alone be the “critic and concience” that the law requires them to be – unless they are bastions of free expression. 

Without free speech, our universities simply perpetrate approved perspectives and acceptable speech. They are unable to contribute to important discussions, move the debate forward, or offer new understanding on controvercial matters. Some of the worst opposition we face against free speech comes from where it should be most celebrated: the university.

If we don’t stand and insist that our institutions of learning allow debate, any hope of addressing the complex questions in our society is lost.    

<<Download our Universities Ranking Report to see how each institution stacks up in standing for free speech>>

We will be meeting with representatives from each university over the coming months to discuss their ranking, and how and why they must stand for free speech.  

---

We are also continuing our Speaking Series on university campuses – the next one will be at the University of Otago. Unsurprisingly, this event had to be postponed as we had to negotiate with Otago University, but we would not give in. If you’re in Otago, this is an event worth traveling to be at. Let us know you’re coming by RSVPing at this link.

We’ll be considering what free speech and responsible politics look like in our increasingly divided age.

We have a fantastic panel moderated by Peter Williams, with Otago academics, MPs, and local government represented. With universities telling students to be afraid of free speech, this is an opportunity to open up the debate and hear from all sides.  

We reached out to numerous student organisations, such as the Otago University Student’s Association (OUSA), the political society, Generation Vote, and others, to participate in this discussion. We also contacted the four local Labour MPs and the Green party. None of them wanted to engage in this debate.  

As we always insist, free speech isn’t a Left-Right political issue. If anything, historically, it has been used more by the Left to advocate for greater freedoms and abused more by the Right through oppressive censorship. 

It’s unfortunate today that some of our leaders seem intent on shutting down important discussions by refusing to engage. It may seem like a win, refusing to dignify ‘hateful’ or ‘harmful’ speech, but dialogue has been shown again and again to be the greatest tool societies have for peace and stability. There’s a perverse irony in ‘student leaders’ advocating for students’ interests, but refusing to join in discussions that would amplify their voices. Instead, they have opted to maintain a faux-morality that neither contributes nor constructs. This is not leadership. 

A world where we are so certain of our own correctness is a world where we stop moving forward. Free speech is a humble enterprise. It admits we could be wrong, and that dialogue will reveal it. 

By challenging universities to do better, doing the leg-work to show where their policies are faulty, promoting open debates at universities, and much more, the Free Speech Union is working to ensure that the next generation values open debate. 

Labour MP’s Facebook post flies in the face of a statement by Jacinda Ardern: PM “disputes MP’s bullying claims, Labour says it ‘acted in good faith” towards Dr Gaurav Sharma”

Dr Gaurav Sharma MP for Hamilton West

12 August 2022

Over the last 24 hours many of you would have read the op-ed I wrote in NZ Herald. I want to start by thanking a large number of you who have contacted me from across the country with support. I have also had a few people who have tried to harass me without knowing the fully story. Due to being busy with constituent work and more recent matters I haven’t had much time to follow the comments on social media, but from what I have seen there are many genuine questions out there. In order to give context to the issues I raised yesterday, I am sharing the following timeline of events:

⁃Before I took my oath I was assigned a Relationship Manager by Parliamentary Services to look after me and my staffing levels. This person had a direct conflict of interest in their role due to being a Labour member who had tried to stop me getting selected as a candidate. I raised this on Day 0 with a senior Parliamentary Manager who assured me that this would never be an issue.

⁃In February 2021 I had an underperforming staff member but instead of listening to my concerns, this was actively turned into a major project by the Labour Party Whips to bring me into disrepute and to rein me in. I sat in meetings after meetings being told I was doing a terrible job and that 9/10 times the MP is a bully so we refuse to listen to anything you have to say. I wrote numerous emails to Parliamentary Services and Whips Office asking for support, providing significant evidence of underperformance by a staff member but I was told in clear words “if you are staying up and working until 3am, you should work until 5am to make up for your staff’s incompetence.”  Issues I raised involved staff being drunk at work, not showing up to work, being sent on leave without any notice or approval, and a significant wastage of taxpayer’s money. But all I was told was that I need to shut up and do a mentoring course on managing people. I had hundreds of pages to prove that my staff wasn’t doing the work they were hired to do and it affected my ability to provide services to my constituents but I was never listened to. The main bully was Kieran McAnulty who kept gaslighting me, shouting at me, degrading me in front of caucus members and other attendees at events and telling me that I was a terrible MP. His staff members at the Whips Office were the same. One of the most clearest examples was on the night of the America’s Cup final race where he asked me to come to his room for a meeting on a very short notice, but when I got there I was advised that he had to be in an important meeting so couldn’t make it. I spent close to 2 hours sitting with Kieran McAnulty’s staff in his office being told how terrible a manager I was, with no right of reply. But what was most sickening was that when I came out I saw photos of him drinking and celebrating the America’s Cup final while I sat in his office like a school kid at the headmaster’s office.

⁃In August 2021 I found that a Member of Parliament of the Labour Party and a Parliamentary staff member (also a Labour Member) were misusing taxpayer’s money. As someone who took an oath to uphold and protect the interests of this country I raised my concerns with the Relationship Manager at Parliamentary Services. Instead of protecting my identity and looking into this matter, Parliamentary Services forwarded my concerns to the Labour Party Whips and alerted them of what I had said.

⁃Following this incidence, I was put through further bullying. I was told by then Junior Whip Duncan Webb that what I did was wrong and I should be ashamed of myself. I was told that it was lucky that this Parliamentary Services Relationship Manager (who I had raised issues re conflict of interest on day 0) who is also a Labour Party member informed the Whips Office, because it could have fallen into the wrong hands which could have caused trouble. I was then told by Duncan Webb that an accusation like this could mean that the government could get into trouble, lose the election etc and such issues needed to be contained rather than discussed freely. I was then told by Duncan Webb in clear terms that “the only way this country can succeed is if Labour is in government. Government means Labour. So the Party comes first and foremost before the country.” The matter was never looked into and everything was hushed.

⁃Due to my outspoken stance on squandering of taxpayers’ money and other policy issues I was further bullied. I was called to last minute meetings with no notice and no support person (but once when I managed to take a caucus colleague with me).

⁃My staffing issues created through the mismanagement of the Whips Office and Parliamentary Services continued. My messages to the Parliamentary Services Relationship Manager were often not returned and I was repeatedly deflected to instead sort it out with the Whips.The same Whips who would bully me and had no legal right to begin with in a triangular relationship between Parliamentary Services (employer), my staff (employee) and myself (day-to-day-manager). I went to the Manager’s Manager but nothing came out of it. I went to the CEO of Parliamentary Services, I wrote emails and made calls – I was promised support to help with the staffing issue but all I got was silence. Many weeks after meeting the CEO I was told that I should go back and talk to the Whips.

Slowly I fell into a cycle of stress, depression and lack of hope as I found myself stuck. I remember one of my former patients sending me very kind message on World Mental Health Day about how I had helped her as a doctor a while ago. I thought to myself about how despite listening to and assisting many of my constituents with bullying and harassment issues, I had to put a bold face up as I struggled everyday with the thought of contemplating suicide. The Labour Party Whips Office and the Parliamentary Services removed all my mānā and didn’t give me any fair process to express my concerns. Slowly I started withdrawing from all the social events in Wellington. Every time I saw my bully Kieran McAnulty speak or smile, it made me sad and angry at the system and the process.

⁃I came to a point in 2021 where I advised Duncan Webb that I had had enough, and because I hadn’t received the support and justice I had been seeking I would go to the media to present the whole issue and tell them how I was being mistreated and there was no investigation into serious claims I had made about the incompetence of a staff member. This is the first time they listened. I was told that they would fly up to Hamilton and talk to me face to face to resolve my issues, which I declined because I had been in meetings after meetings with them for months with no resolution. Their solution included paying a severance pay from taxpayer’s purse to a person who had been repeatedly underperforming. I refused on principle, doing this would mean a double wastage of public money. I kept being pushed to concede but I refused. Eventually they cut a deal with the staff member to encourage them to resign from my office (I did not pay this person out because I stood by my claims which were never and still haven’t been investigated).

⁃After this, the bullying continued in many ways, simplest of which was a freeze on hiring staff. I challenged this and asked them to openly and fairly investigate my claims. But it was refused. For months on end I continued to be short staffed in providing support and services to my constituents who deserved better. I was told that I wasn’t an employee of the Labour Party, or its caucus or Parliamentary Services. My employers were the constituents – but my resourcing was halted by the Labour Party Whips – who were not legally even part of the triangular relationship. A fourth wheel which I continued to challenge shouldn’t be able to make decisions for my constituents especially when they were themselves the bully. When I tried to contact the Parliamentary Services they stopped taking my calls or replying to emails, instead again asking me to talk to the Whips.

⁃I went the only place I felt I could to seek help in December 2021. The Prime Ministers’ Office. The advice was always clear – do not give anything in writing and do not expect anything in writing. Everything can be OIA’ed. So I met the Chief of Staff of PMO for over an hour of meeting which was supposed to be only a 30mins appointment. I took with me hundreds of pages of evidence – emails, timelines, issues etc to explain my case. I very clearly said that Kieran McAnulty was a bully. That I was being bullied. That other caucus members were being bullied by Kieran McAnulty. Few weeks after the meeting when I had not heard from PMO, I contacted the PMO with a written complaint on 18th of December 2021. An investigation was never done. My bully still walks the halls of power with his head held up high, while a “messenger from Caucus” advised me yesterday after my op-ed in Herald that I should take the basement exit and try to avoid Parliament. The kick in the guts however is that despite raising concerns about Kieran McAnulty, not only by me but as I understand by other members of the caucus too (which I had clearly said to the PMO) he was promoted to being a Minister of the Crown. This is our justice.

⁃The issues with Parliamentary Services are even more complex & detailed and have continued. My current staff member has also raised significant concerns about the support from Parliamentary Services and has essentially been ghosted and stone walled. They have had no support in terms of expectation settings & annual review and have been underpaid for a significant amount of time. They went on to raise similar concerns as me re the Relationship Manager (the Labour member with conflict of interest) but it was only after 17months that this person was removed but never investigated for a serious breach of confidentiality (in my case raising concerns re taxpayers money) and in other cases re appropriate support and training.

by Guy Hatchard

A Conspiracy of Silence and a Litany of Lies

The Director General of the Danish Health Authority, who last week halted Covid-19 ‘vaccination’ for under 18 year olds citing absence of any evidence of benefit, has been giving interviews.

He acknowledged that the prescription of Covid vaccines for young people had been a mistake and said they never would have approved them if they had known then what they know today.

Thai Study Finds High Levels of Cardiac Risk Among Adolescents

It is possible that the Danish Ministry of Health and other health authorities around the world, including ours, were aware of risks.

Certainly, they could have been fully aware of the dangers if they had undertaken their own appropriate investigation and made unbiased assessments early on.

A study of adolescents undertaken in Thailand and published last week illustrates what could have been done.

Cardiovascular Effects of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Adolescents

The study examined the cardiovascular effects on 300 students aged 13 years to 18 years receiving their second Pfizer covid-19 ‘vaccine’ injection. Data being collected included demographics, symptoms, vital signs, ECG, echocardiography and cardiac enzymes. These were collected at baseline, Day 3, Day 7, and Day 14 using case record forms.

Although it is admitted that myopericarditis can be a side effect of mRNA vaccination, our Ministry of Health advised DHBs that it is rare and estimated that it may only affect 3 in every 100,000 recipients.

The Thai study found 29% (not 3 out of 100,000, but 3 out of every 10 students) registered cardiovascular effects, including tachycardia, palpitation, shortness of breath, chest pain, and myopericarditis. The overt symptoms subsided within 14 days (the duration of the study).

There was no follow-up of subsequent health outcomes, and therefore the long term effects remain unassessed. The authors concluded that adolescents receiving mRNA vaccination should be monitored for side effects.

It is notable that this study is an assessment of cardiovascular outcomes based on objective measurements, not on subjective assessments and estimates as was primarily the case in New Zealand.

If such simple objective measurements had been taken early on in the vaccine rollout, it would have been normal procedure to pause the programme pending more detailed investigation of the cardiovascular effects. BUT this was never done.

There was an unjustified assumption of safety based on recommendations of safety from Pfizer itself, who stood to profit greatly from our Covid-19 mRNA vaccine rollout.

The High Court Says its Views Cannot Overrule Medical Decisions of the Government

On Friday, 13 August 2022 a judgement was released by the High Court in Wellington confirming the legality of the approval process for Covid-19 children’s vaccine (aged 5-11 years).

Stuff reported on the decision. Although I have not yet seen the full judgement, the quotations from it in the newspaper raise some serious questions about our legal system.

Justice David Gendall said the decisions of our Ministry of Health complied with the law and the court shouldn’t substitute its own views for the decisions of the various Ministry of Health officers and committees. These included Medsafe group manager Chris James, the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee, a separate technical advisory group, and Dr. Ashley Bloomfield, Director General of Health.

The judge acknowledged that the applicants to the court had called their own expert witnesses and submitted evidence, contrary to that submitted by the government, weighing the risks and benefits of the vaccine. BUT according to the Stuff article, the judge said:

“It was not my role when reviewing the process, to decide which experts were right or form my own view on whether the paediatric vaccine should be supplied in New Zealand. Generally weighing the benefits and risks of the vaccine, and the desirability of it being available in New Zealand, were matters for Chris James as the minister’s delegate.”

The judge noted that Chris James had given his consent on conditions that included Pfizer giving further information as it became available, including periodic safety reports.

Somehow the judge failed to acknowledge that Pfizer has persistently sought in US courts to withhold such safety information (for up to 75 years). Nor did Stuff newspaper reveal whether James or the Ministry of Health had reviewed any court ordered safety information released to date.

If the study of adolescents in Thailand is anything to go by, 3 out of 10 ‘vaccinated’ children in New Zealand over the age 5 may already have suffered cardiovascular problems with varying degrees of severity, and there still could be more to come.

Was the High Court Judge just following Legal Precedent?

There is much legal case history and discussion centered around the need for the state to take responsibility for the application (or indeed withdrawal) of medical treatment for seriously ill children; if necessary against the wishes of the parents if they are found by the courts to be mistaken in their views. See for example this recent paper published just prior to the pandemic.

The accepted interpretation is that courts should adjudicate in disputed cases by weighing the evidence of risks. In the present case, the life of a seriously ill child was not at issue. The arguments were scientifically complex and moreover there was no unanimity among scientific professionals and in the published scientific literature.

Crucially the risks involved were open ended—not fully identified or quantified. This is because the long term effects of the vaccine are still unknown.

Typically, vaccine safety trials take 10 years to complete.

The court failed to fully take account of the fact that the risks for the children from Covid were certainly low and from the vaccine possibly high—there was an imbalance and uncertainty concerning risk.

The situation does not appear to have met the accepted justification for state intervention—serious illness of a child requiring treatment.

In summary, the court failed to address the nature of the health risks involved and avoided doing so by deferring to the government as the ultimate authority.

In other words, like Pontius Pilate, the judge carefully washed his hands of the matter and left our children’s fate in the hands of the NZ government and its officers.

Did the government responsibly complete its due diligence throughout the course of the pandemic and in its dealings with Pfizer?

Simon Rae, Manager, International Science Partnerships of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE), who vetted the vaccine supply contract with Pfizer and advised the government accordingly, wrote on 22nd March 2021 in response to an OIA request:

“We did not investigate Pfizer’s management team or its ethics as a company. We are satisfied that Pfizer has not been reckless in the development of its vaccine…we are confident that the vaccine is acceptably safe and effective…

“MBIE advised the Minister of Finance to grant an indemnity to Pfizer on the basis that doing so was in the public interest. It is not unexpected for pharmaceutical companies to seek indemnities from governments in circumstances where clinical trials are restricted, or where a purchase agreement is concluded before full trials are completed…as of 16 March 2021, MBIE is not aware of any deaths or permanent disabilities that were caused by Pfizer’s covid-19 ‘vaccine.”

MBIE asserted this, despite the fact that Pfizer already had records by 28th February 2021 (prior to the MBIE statement) of more than 42,000 injuries and 1,200 deaths subsequent to its Covid ‘vaccination.’

Did our government know of these deaths and injuries, but decided to believe assurances from Pfizer that they were unrelated? If so, were there any valid reasons for the Ministry of Health and MBIE to assume that these serious effects post ‘vaccination’ were unrelated and proceed to grant Pfizer indemnity?

If MBIE and the Ministry of Health didn’t know of the deaths, why had they not sought this information from Pfizer whom they certainly knew had been collecting such post marketing data?

Why is the Government Along With All Opposition Parties Unanimously Behind Pfizer?

It is notable that the judge in the just announced High Court judgement acknowledged that the decision of the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee (whose up to 12 members are anonymous) was unanimous in support of childhood vaccination.

This runs parallel to the unanimous approval of government pandemic policy by all members of parliament of all parties and their refusal to meet or listen to questioning voices.

Given the paucity of evidence of benefit, the incapacity of the vaccine to stop transmission, and the high rate of adverse effects and deaths, the unanimity stands in need of explanation.

BUT there has been no meaningful explanation offered except vague references to the social good of vaccines and the questionable reliability of Ministry of Health experts.

MPs have preferred to remain silent and accept the apparent assurances of the Ministry of Health that the reported 50 times greater incidence of adverse effects following Pfizer mRNA vaccination (when compared to previous vaccines) is somehow normal.

In my experience, such unanimous silence on the part of MPs of all parties is highly unusual.

Forgive me for paraphrasing the judgement of Justice Mahon following the Erebus disaster—this hints at a conspiracy of silence and a litany of lies.

Young innocent children are being herded towards vaccination through the minimisation of risks, misinformation, and consequent peer and societal pressures to conform to pharmaceutical medical orthodoxy.

An orthodoxy which has embraced universal applications of novel biotechnology and gene therapy without acknowledging or properly investigating the serious risks.

In fact, seeking to hide such risks from public knowledge or discussion. Risks that can potentially blight young lives and persist through generations.

The Danish Ministry of Health was right to acknowledge and correct their mistakes about Covid vaccine safety for the young based on updated information. They discontinued mRNA vaccination for the under 18s.

When will our Ministry do so, and when will our courts recognise the overriding need for caution?

A few statistics now tell the story better than the battle maps, which haven’t changed much lately. From The Saker at thesaker.is:

A reader recently asked me why I have not posted any maps of the military situation in the Ukraine, and that is a fair question which I will answer below.

There are a few reasons for this, but the main and most obvious one is this: unlike the first month or two of the SMO, there are very few changes worth showing on a map.  That is NOT to say that there are no changes on the frontlines, there are, plenty, but they just don’t translate into nice looking maps.

A recent post on Moon of Alabama quoted what appears to be a leak from the Ukrainian command and which I will repost here:

– The AFU are only at 43-48% strength
– medical workers at their limit
– small arms and armor are not enough
– 191 thousand soldiers were killed and wounded (only AFU, not including others)
– there is not enough hydraulics and liquid nitrogen for M777 howitzers
– no one cares about the missing – there are no statistics
– the equipment transferred by the West is running out
– western weapons are operated by amateurs, since there are no qualified specialists
– no way to repair weapons on the spot due to the lack of spares and specialists – everything is sent to Poland

I would just add here that Peski has been taken.

But the key factoids here are “The AFU are only at 43-48% strength” and “191 thousand soldiers were killed and wounded (only AFU, not including others)“.

Continue reading→

From Zero Hedge

The World Economic Forum (WEF) has been pushing hard for a ‘cashless society’ in a post-pandemic world, though physical money has made a comeback in at least one European country as consumers increasingly use notes and coins to help them balance household budgets amid an inflationary storm. 

Britain’s Post Office released a report Monday that revealed even though the recent accelerated use of cards and digital payments on smartphones, demand for cash surged this summer, according to The Guardian. It said branches handled £801 million in personal cash withdrawals in July, an increase of 8% over June. The yearly change on last month’s figures was up 20% versus the July 2021 figure of £665 million.

Across the Post Office’s 11,500 branches, £3.31 billion in cash was deposited and withdrawn in July — a record high for any month dating back over three centuries of operations. 

The report pointed out that increasing physical cash demand was primarily due to more people managing their budgets via notes and coins on a “day-by-day basis.” It said some withdrawals were from vacationers needing cash for “staycations” in the UK. About 600,000 cash payouts totaling £90 million were from people who received power bill support from the government, the Post Office noted. 

Britain is “anything but a cashless society,” according to the Post Office’s banking director Martin Kearsley.

“We’re seeing more and more people increasingly reliant on cash as the tried and tested way to manage a budget. Whether that’s for a staycation in the UK or if it’s to help prepare for financial pressures expected in the autumn, cash access in every community is critical,” Kearsley said.

We noted in February 2021, UK’s largest ATM network saw plummeting demand as consumers reduced cash usage. At the time, we asked this question: “How long will the desire for good old-fashioned bank notes last?

… and the answer is [the decline didn’t last] long per the Post Office’s new report as The Guardian explains: “inflation going up and many bills expected to rise further – has led a growing numbers of people to turn once again to cash to help them plan their spending.” 

So much for WEF, central banks, and major corporations pushing for cashless societies worldwide, more importantly, trying to usher in a hyper-centralized CBDC dystopia. With physical cash back in style in the UK, the move towards a cashless society could be a much more challenging task for elites than previously thought. 

by Viv Forbes from the BreakingViews blog

Despite Green Party/ABC propaganda, recent Australian floods were not caused by coal, cattle or cars. Weather is driven by winds; solar energy powers the winds and draws moisture for them from the oceans. These eternal natural rain-making processes have been aided recently by two extra factors. 

Firstly a big La Nina weather event in the Pacific Ocean has left warmer water closer to Australia. 

Secondly, there is increased underwater volcanism in this region as evidenced by the volcanic eruptions near Vanuatu. 

Earth’s climate history is written in the rocks. Anyone who cares to read that record will see that recurring Ice Ages, not global warming, pose the greatest threat to life on Earth. Even in today’s warm Holocene Era, the Little Ice Age was a time of war, famine and distress whereas the Medieval Warm Period heralded a time of peace and plenty.

Earth’s weather is driven by winds powered by convection currents which get most of their energy from the Sun.

Eastern Australia is currently under the influence a large La Nina event in the Pacific Ocean. These periodic ENSO (El Nino-Southern Oscillation) weather cycles are Earth’s most significant short-term weather events and have been identified in Earth’s climate as far back as 1525, well before the Model T Ford and the Watt steam engine. 

The great El Nino of 1877-78 heralded China’s Great Famine, brought droughts to Brazil and caused failures of the Nile floods and the Indian monsoon. Even the Titanic was an El Nino casualty when it met an iceberg blown far south by El Nino winds.

Australia’s famous weather forecaster, Inigo Jones, was well aware of the natural cycles in climate as far back as 1923 — long before coal, cattle and cars could be blamed for “Global Warming”.

Read the rest