All News

I am glad the minister made that last comment, because as somebody with a background in science and a qualification in science, and as a former experimental test pilot in the military—in fact, having commanded Australia’s flight test centre and worked in a systems engineering environment where we were very much based on facts, data and engineering, but with a good dose of modelling in there as well—I’m actually very familiar with the sort of approach that the CSIRO has taken.

As the minister indicated, we do have things like Senate estimates, and I did take the opportunity to go to Senate estimates to speak to the CSIRO about the GenCost report.

It may come as a surprise to the minister that, when I asked the head of the CSIRO to speak about the GenCost report, having made it clear to the committee that I intended to appear at those estimates hearings to ask about the GenCost report—therefore, the expectation is that the agencies that are being quizzed will bring the appropriate officials in order to be able to answer detailed questions at estimates—I was told that the appropriate officials were not there, and the only responses that I got to some reasonably detailed questions were very generic.

So, contrary to what the minister has indicated, estimates actually proved completely useless in terms of interrogating the CSIRO over the GenCost report. I can’t speak to the motivation of CSIRO in not bringing those officials, but what it meant was that members of the Senate, on behalf of the taxpayers of Australia, were not able to scrutinise them in any detail.

If we took the minister’s contention that he just outlined then and applied it more broadly, there would be no point in having committees of the parliament at all. In matters to do with health, for example, we might ask the AMA to draft our policy and scrutinise it. In matters to do with defence, we would rely on the defence department and perhaps defence industry, and there would be no point in having any scrutiny on behalf of the Australian taxpayer.

Yet the minister knows full well, because he has been a member of committees in this place, that the whole function of committees and the Senate committee process—getting a range of witnesses who are stakeholders affected by policy or who are subject matter experts who understand the technical details, whether in health, in economics or in defence; you name it—is so that we can unpack and understand what is behind a policy or a piece of evidence.

The last point I’ll make on this, since the minister has so kindly given me this introductory runway to approach this issue, relates to the 2019 House of Representatives inquiry into the possibility of a nuclear power industry. This is going back to the 2018 GenCost report. I will look at the Hansard records from that, from Wednesday 16 October 2019.

I respect the CSIRO, as somebody who has a science degree; I respect the whole discipline of science, which is observation, measurement and proof. But when the CSIRO were quizzed in this parliamentary inquiry about the GenCost report—and I’ll paraphrase here, but those of you who would like to read it can pull up the Hansard from Wednesday 16 October 2019 for the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy—essentially the narrative went like this: CSIRO said, ‘We don’t have any expertise in electricity generation by nuclear energy,’ so the committee asked, ‘Well, where did you get the figures that you used in your report, then?’ They said, ‘Well, we contracted an external consultant to provide those figures for us.’ If you look through the Hansard you’ll see the committee met on a sequence of days.

Why did they do that? Because, as each piece of evidence unfolded, they dug a bit deeper.

They had that consultant come in and they said, ‘Describe for us where you got the information from.’ What the consultant said was, ‘Well, we don’t have any expertise in nuclear power generation, so we went to the website of the World Nuclear Association to find information.’ The following day there was another hearing, this time with a representative from the World Nuclear Association, and the committee asked them, ‘Did you have this figure on your website?’ They said, ‘No, we didn’t have it on our website, and, more to the point, we think it is grossly inflated and unrepresentative of what the true costs would be.’

To the CSIRO’s great credit, they took all that on board, and I think they have been far more robust in how they’ve approached it since. But, to directly address the minister’s point, the benefit of a committee process with a range of witnesses that were able to challenge the assumptions that have been made was that it highlighted that the 2018 GenCost report was not based on any robust analysis of the facts of the cost of electricity generation, let alone any analysis of the likely price to the consumer.

I will leave that there, but I’m hoping that that completely debunks the minister’s assertion that there is no value in a parliamentary inquiry.

Estimates has not worked—and he proposed it would—and a parliamentary committee did highlight that, in this particular domain, the CSIRO did not have expertise in the paths they went down and that they delivered figures that were proved, on the public record, to not be robust.

Why do I support this?

Partly it’s because I believe in that committee process, but it’s also partly that, as someone who has worked in an engineering environment using modelling and as someone who has a qualification in science, I recognise that the GenCost report is largely a modelling activity, as opposed to science. If you search the PDF of the latest GenCost report, the word ‘assumption’ appears some 54 times, and, like in most modelling, they’ve had to make assumptions.

There are a range of assumptions in GenCost that the CSIRO themselves identify as not necessarily representative of the complete suite of factors to be considered.

I have some empathy for them; it’s a complex problem, but there are a few things that the Australian public need to be aware of. When Mr Bowen and others cite this as the be-all and end-all—the gospel according to the CSIRO that shall not be challenged—it needs to be said that it is a modelling exercise with assumptions based on an incomplete set of data.

There are other expert bodies in Australia and around the world who have also done modelling and come up with quite different answers to the same questions.

That’s why we should give the Australian people the opportunity to have different experts in the field address their modelling, their assumptions and, more importantly, their lived experience so that the Australian people can decide whether this is something that we should be moving towards.

The first point is that this modelling is not designed to understand the most effective way to get cheap and reliable electricity to the Australian consumer, whether that be mum and dad at home, a small business or an industrial sector that will probably go offshore if the power prices continue to increase.

In paragraph 1.1.1 of the latest GenCost report, which describes the roles the CSIRO and AEMO had in the report, it says ‘to provide an update of current electricity generation and storage cost’.

It’s not about highlighting the cheapest way to get electricity.

That paragraph also talks about the levelised cost of electricity, which is all about the factors affecting the cost to generation, as opposed to the full system’s costs.

The third point I would make is that they highlight, in paragraph 1.2 on page 16 of the GenCost report:

As discussed in Graham (2018) it is not possible to undertake spreadsheet type modelling to create a transparent but accurate estimate of the cost of integrating renewables.

This is one of the significant factors that affect the analysis of whether a renewables based approach can be comparable in terms of delivering reliability and low cost to the consumer versus baseload type approaches, whether that be high-flow rivers providing hydro or things like nuclear power. So they’re saying here that they can’t provide a transparent and accurate estimate costs of integrating renewables.

The report states:

If it were, this would have been the preferred method of implementation in GenCost.

Again, they quote Graham:

Graham (2018) concluded an electricity system modelling approach must be applied, where the details of the calculations are written in code that call on proprietary optimisation algorithms which unfortunately results in a loss of transparency.

I’m not saying that the CSIRO is in any way being malign in how they’re approaching this, but their chosen vendor, their chosen model, their chosen algorithms and their chosen assumptions are but one set that feeds into a model that gives an outcome of cost degeneration.

Other equally expert bodies—and I’m talking here about bodies like the International Energy Agency, the OECD, or the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and their subsidiary, the NEA, the Nuclear Energy Agency—have worked together over a number of years to model not the cost to generate but the cost to the consumer.

In terms of that simple measure, the levelised cost of electricity, which even GenCost recognises is not a suitable cost for this analysis and comparison, the OECD report that came out in April 2022 looks at a systems-wide approach and demonstrates very clearly that what they call ‘long-run nuclear power’, even on a levelised cost of electricity basis, is the cheapest form of electricity.

If you run a plant for a long time, it becomes, over the life of that asset, the cheapest way to generate power. They also highlight in that analysis that even new-build nuclear is on a par with grid-scale renewables but is cheaper than others. For example, it’s actually cheaper than rooftop or offshore wind et cetera.

If people who are interested look at pages 35 to 37 of that OECD report, they then break down the elements into the generating costs, the systems costs and the broader environmental costs. They highlight that, as we seek to move to curb emissions, we will probably get to 2030 with rising, but not unaffordable, power prices. But, if we seek to get to net zero by 2050 just using variable renewables with firming by things like batteries, as more coal and gas comes out of the system in order to achieve net zero, prices will go up exponentially, and their conclusion is that it is unaffordable.

This is not the coalition saying that.

This is the OECD and the International Energy Agency.

That is why people like the IPCC are saying we need to have nuclear power as part of the mix, and that’s why so many nations around the world are looking to double or triple the amount of nuclear power generation they have.

So another point I’d make is that, despite the government’s claim that nuclear is the most expensive form of energy, the lived experience of people in countries like Canada says otherwise. If you look at some of the information coming out of Canada, you can see that nuclear is even cheaper than hydro and is certainly cheaper than gas, wind, solar and bioenergy, in terms of how the Energy Board in Ontario manages things.

That’s partly because of the broader costs that variable renewables have in terms of the additional infrastructure.

My last point will be around the Net Zero Australia project done by three universities and a consultancy, which highlighted that the cost of all the additional transmission and firming as well as new generation is going to cost us in the order of $1.2 to $1.5 trillion by 2030, and $7 to $9 trillion by 2060.

The nuclear option is actually far cheaper than the variable path the Albanese government has us on.

Members of the 5th Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment (5RAR), 1st Brigade, along with supporting elements, have deployed to Malaysia for three months as part of Rifle Company Butterworth (RCB) rotation 144, under the command of the 2nd/30th training group.

Camp Paradise, typically home to the Malaysian 5th Brigade, has been transformed into a centre of trilateral engagement, hosting personnel from the US Army, Malaysian Army, and, for the first time, the Australian Army. Nestled amidst mountains and the sprawling Malaysian jungle, where rain is a constant and unrelenting presence, this camp provides a unique training environment.

Here, soldiers will strengthen interoperability through rigorous training in the jungles of Borneo and enjoy the local cuisine. RCB personnel will participate in multiple exercises and international engagements, including Exercise Keris Strike.

Major Jamie Frisby, Officer Commanding RCB 144 of 5RAR, expressed the honour of returning to Malaysia for realistic and relevant training with regional friends and partners. “The contingent faces a unique set of challenges related to operating in an austere environment within the Malaysian jungle and rural settings,” he said. “This activity is an excellent rehearsal for future deployments into the near region, testing the readiness of our people and continuing to enhance our strategic relationships. It is also a great chance for our soldiers, enabling us to further enhance foundation warfighting skills and resilience within our teams.”

Having completed a two-year posting to the Malaysian Army Academy (Akademi Tentera Darat) as the embedded Australian instructor, Major Frisby highlighted the importance of enduring relationships with regional partners. “Australia has a strong military history in Malaysia, and it is an honour to be able to expose Australian soldiers to that history and forge our new path forward within the region,” he said.

Photo: Italian Air Force (Aeronautica Militare, or AM) Eurofighter Typhoons taxi at RAAF Base Darwin, followed by an AM KC-767A tanker transport, on arrival for Exercise Pitch Black 24. Photo by Flight Lieutenant Claire Campbell.

Australia’s largest international air combat training exercise, Exercise Pitch Black, will run from 12 July to 2 August. This year marks the largest iteration in the exercise’s 43-year history, featuring over 140 aircraft from around the world and approximately 4,435 personnel from 20 participating nations.

The exercise will also host a concurrent International Observer Group program, allowing foreign forces to observe and appreciate Australia’s preparation and execution of major activities.

For the first time, aircraft and personnel from the Philippines, Spain, Italy, and Papua New Guinea, as well as embedded personnel from Fiji and Brunei, will participate. Additionally, aircraft from France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Thailand, United Kingdom, and United States, along with embedded personnel from Canada and New Zealand, will also join the exercise.

Aircraft will operate from RAAF bases Darwin and Tindal in the Northern Territory, with additional tanker and transport aircraft stationed at RAAF Base Amberley in Queensland.

Exercise Pitch Black is the Royal Australian Air Force’s most significant flying activity, aimed at strengthening international engagement and enhancing its ability to collaborate with overseas partners. Held every two years, the exercise focuses on large-force air-power-employment missions involving numerous international aircraft, boosting the RAAF’s responsiveness to air-combat requirements.

For international participants, Exercise Pitch Black offers invaluable experience in deploying air-combat assets and support personnel over long distances. Upon arrival, participants integrate their forces with those of other nations, working directly with peer or near-peer air forces.

The exercise provides a training and integration environment that supports international participants’ training needs and their ability to support operations in the Indo-Pacific. On an individual level, it builds strong relationships between Australian aviators and personnel from across the Indo-Pacific region and beyond.

Exercise Pitch Black underscores Australia’s strong international relationships and the importance placed on regional security and closer ties throughout the Indo-Pacific and globally. The 2024 iteration showcases some of the world’s most advanced air-combat capabilities, operated and supported by a highly skilled workforce in a challenging training environment.

Dive deep into the future of naval defence with Ghost Shark – Australia’s vanguard in underwater warfare, where innovation meets invincibility beneath the waves.

In a world where threats lurk beneath the Pacific, where naval supremacy is a silent, decisive force… One nation rises to the challenge!

Introducing Ghost Shark

Australia’s cutting-edge Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUV) designed to safeguard the underwater realm! Dive into the capabilities of this technological marvel, a game-changer in maritime defence.

Key Features and Capabilities

1. Stealth and Surveillance
   • Advanced Camouflage Technology: Ghost Shark is equipped with state-of-the-art stealth capabilities, making it virtually invisible to enemy detection systems.
   • High-Fidelity Sonar Systems: These allow for unparalleled underwater surveillance, ensuring early detection of potential threats and providing crucial intelligence for maritime operations.
2. Autonomous Navigation
   • AI-Powered Guidance: Utilizing cutting-edge artificial intelligence, Ghost Shark can navigate the most complex underwater terrains autonomously, adapting to dynamic environments in real-time.
   • Long-Endurance Missions: With a robust power management system, it can undertake extended missions without the need for frequent resurfacing or human intervention.
3. Versatility in Operations
   • Multi-Mission Payloads: Ghost Shark is designed to carry a variety of payloads, from sensor arrays for intelligence gathering to countermeasure systems for defensive operations.
   • Modular Design: Its modular architecture allows for quick reconfiguration, enabling it to switch between roles such as reconnaissance, mine detection, and anti-submarine warfare with ease.
4. Communication and Control
   • Secure Data Links: Ensuring real-time, secure communication with command centres, Ghost Shark can relay critical information while maintaining stealth.
   • Remote Operability: Operators can control and monitor the UUV from a safe distance, leveraging high-speed data transmission for seamless mission execution.
5. Environmental Adaptability
   • All-Weather Performance: Designed to operate in diverse underwater conditions, from the icy depths of the Southern Ocean to the warm, shallow waters of the Pacific.
   • Resilient Build: Constructed with high-durability materials to withstand harsh marine environments and ensure operational integrity over prolonged periods.

Strategic Impact

Enhancing Australia’s Maritime Security

Ghost Shark represents a significant leap forward in maritime defence capabilities for Australia. By integrating this advanced UUV into its naval fleet, Australia ensures a strategic advantage in maintaining control over its vast maritime territories. This technological innovation bolsters the nation’s ability to detect and neutralize underwater threats, safeguarding its economic interests and national security.

Strengthening Alliances

The development and deployment of Ghost Shark also demonstrate Australia’s commitment to contributing to regional security. By sharing intelligence and cooperating with allied nations, Australia can play a pivotal role in ensuring stability and peace in the Indo-Pacific region.

The Future of Maritime Defence

Ghost Shark is not just a technological achievement; it’s a symbol of Australia’s dedication to innovation and excellence in defence. As underwater threats evolve, so too will the capabilities of Ghost Shark, ensuring it remains at the forefront of maritime security.

Date: 13 July 2024

Location: Canberra, ACT

Queensland Senator Malcolm Roberts of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party is pleased to announce the Senate’s approval of a motion to launch an in-depth investigation into the Defence honours and awards system. This inquiry will specifically scrutinize the awarding process of medals, including the Distinguished Service Cross recently granted to the outgoing Chief of Defence Force, Angus Campbell.

The motion, introduced by Senator Roberts on 3 July 2024, narrowly passed with a vote of 32 to 31, despite opposition from Labor and the Greens.

In a recent Facebook statement, Senator Roberts highlighted his concerns about the misuse of the Defence honours and awards system by senior officers. “Senior brass often nominate each other for medals like it comes in their salary package,” Senator Roberts remarked. “Meanwhile, enlisted personnel have to fight for recognition and higher-ups arbitrarily downgrade their medals. I suspect Angus Campbell’s Distinguished Service Cross is just the tip of the iceberg, and this inquiry will delve deeply into these issues. The system needs a serious inquiry, and I’m thankful to the Senate for establishing one.”

The motion mandates the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee to investigate and report on the following by 28 November 2024:

1. The experiences of Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel progressing through the honours and awards system;
2. The effect of awards and honours on maintaining morale within the ADF;
3. Assurance of the integrity of awards to senior officers for conduct in the Afghanistan conflict;
4. The effect of changes in criteria for some honours and awards from ‘in action’ to ‘in warlike operations’;
5. The operation of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, including any potential improvements;
6. Any potential improvements to the Defence honours and awards system; and
7. Any related matters.

The committee is now accepting public submissions, and Senator Roberts emphasized the protections in place for witnesses providing evidence, addressing concerns about potential reprisals. “Anyone coercing, interfering with, or punishing a person for giving evidence to the committee could be held in contempt of the Senate,” Senator Roberts stated. Submissions can be made confidentially to protect the identities of those wishing to remain anonymous.

For details on making a submission, please click here.

Senator Malcolm Roberts
Queensland Senator for Pauline Hanson’s One Nation

Michael Offerdahl, a business owner in Toobeah, fears that 95 percent of the land in his hometown could be transferred to an Aboriginal corporation. Offerdahl discovered these plans through minutes from a Goondiwindi Regional Council meeting in January, where the Bigambul Native Title Aboriginal Corporation (BNTAC) disclosed its master plan on its website. BNTAC intends to use 210 hectares of the 220-hectare Toobeah Reserve for land management, eco-tourism, and land regeneration.

Offerdahl claims no members of the Bigambul people currently reside in Toobeah and questions the allocation of “inalienable freehold” land to them. He argues that the Bigambul people have only been in the region since the 1920s, long after other Indigenous tribes and the establishment of the town. He also states that the name “Toobeah” comes from the native Gamilaroi word “dhuba-y,” meaning “to point,” highlighting the limited historical connection the Bigambul people have to the area. Offerdahl is concerned that the land transfer could significantly impact the township’s future and commercial prospects, urging for more clarity to prevent widespread ramifications across Queensland.

15 Towns Under Aboriginal Land Act Applications

One Nation’s Mirani MP Steven Andrew raised the issue in state parliament on May 1, questioning the proposed land transfer under Queensland’s Aboriginal Land Act (ALA). He inquired about the inclusion of the Toobeah community in the decision-making process, the impact on property rights, and access to treated water and sewerage systems. He also sought information on other towns under pending ALA applications. The Department of Resources replied that broad community consultation is not required under the ALA but mentioned a community forum held in Toobeah on March 4. The department assured that town water and bore facilities would remain accessible, and the land adjacent to Toobeah would be used for community purposes, including open space, town expansion, and stock routes.

The council revealed that two lots of land, including rodeo facilities, would remain available for recreational use. However, Andrew’s question about which townships had expressions of interest went unanswered, with confirmation that 15 sites are under consideration. Eurong and Happy Valley on Fraser Island are among the other areas of interest for Indigenous groups seeking inalienable freehold handover under the ALA. So far, more than 6 million hectares of state land have been granted to Indigenous Australians in various forms.

How the Aboriginal Land Acts Differ From Native Title

The ALA and Native Title both represent Indigenous claims to land but differ in law and function. Native Title recognizes Indigenous rights and interests in land and waters according to traditional laws and customs. This includes rights to look after sacred sites, camp, hunt, fish, and hold ceremonies. These rights vary depending on the specific case and were established by the High Court of Australia in the 1992 Mabo case, which overturned the “terra nullius” doctrine.

In contrast, the ALA is an actual grant of land, originating from 1976 Commonwealth legislation in the Northern Territory and legislated as the Aboriginal Land Act in Queensland in 1991. The ALA recognizes the concept of inalienable freehold title, granting land to Indigenous people indefinitely, with rights including ownership, control, land management, development, lease negotiation, and economic activities.

Indigenous Group’s Plans for Eco-Tourism

BNTAC refuted claims of the state giving away 95 percent of Toobeah’s land, stating the claim involves just 0.18 percent of the land mass and that locals would still have access to amenities like water and recreational reserves. BNTAC plans to use the land for cultural, ecological, and economic development through regional eco-cultural tourism opportunities. Bigambul Executive Director Justin Saunders stated that the community had been consulted multiple times. BNTAC asserted that parts of the land need rejuvenation to restore traditional bush medicine and food plants and that the Bigambul people have long-standing connections to the Toobeah region, with camps and reserves existing there as recently as the 1950s and 1960s. The Bigambul people are Native Title holders of the land.

Council Denies Social Housing Claim

Goondiwindi Regional Council, led by former Queensland Nationals leader Lawrence Springborg, directed the public to its online Q&A on Toobeah. The Council clarified that the Toobeah Reserve’s future is a state issue and not under their control. While the Reserve is currently slated for camping or stock watering, BNTAC is open to collaboration on shared use guidelines. The Council deemed social housing unlikely due to infrastructure limitations.

Need For Transparency: Researcher

Gary Johns, Chairman of Close the Gap Research, emphasized the need for transparency in land transfers under the ALA. He criticized the Queensland government’s approach of not consulting all stakeholders and the public, urging for full disclosure on possible land uses. Johns argued that assurances from Indigenous groups are insufficient, highlighting the need for broader consultation to ensure all Queenslanders are informed and considered.

Three Royal Australian Navy officers have become the first in their service’s history to qualify as nuclear engineers in the UK, after completing nine months of intensive training delivered by the Royal Navy. The training, conducted under the AUKUS agreement—a pact between the UK, US, and Australia to develop a new generation of nuclear-powered submarines—took place at HMS Sultan in Gosport. The Australian officers trained alongside their Royal Navy counterparts.

Vice Admiral Mark Hammond, Chief of the Royal Australian Navy and a submariner, commented on the achievement: “The graduation marks another significant step forward for the Royal Australian Navy’s ability to operate, maintain, and support Australia’s future nuclear-powered submarine capability.”

The three officers, identified as Lieutenant Commander James, Lieutenant Isabella, and Lieutenant Steve, will now serve on Astute-class submarines with the Royal Navy to gain practical experience. Lt Cdr James will be assigned to the Royal Navy’s newest hunter-killer submarine, HMS Agamemnon, which is nearing completion in Barrow. “The experience of bringing her out of construction, going through trials, and training will be hugely important for our program,” he noted.

The training involved six months of intensive academic studies in subjects such as nuclear physics, thermodynamics, and nuclear safety management, followed by three months of practical training. During this period, they learned the inner workings of nuclear systems and completed control room simulations to prepare for potential incidents and emergencies.

Lieutenant Joe Roberts described the course as one of the most challenging in the Royal Navy, with many students dropping out. “It’s a course which demands the best and the brightest—and the Australians have sent three outstanding students who will go far,” he said. “It’s been an honor because these are the AUKUS pioneers. They will lead their country’s future nuclear submarine program.”

Their success represents a significant milestone in developing the skilled workforce needed for Australia’s future conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine capability under the AUKUS tri-lateral security partnership. This topic was high on the agenda during the Prime Minister’s first conversation with his counterpart, Anthony Albanese, during his inaugural weekend in office. The leaders also discussed regional challenges, including strategic competition and agreed to strengthen the AUKUS partnership.

Following China’s military joint training with Belarus, speculation arises about North Korea’s potential involvement, indicating a significant military buildup among four nations near EU borders.

North Korea’s military education delegation, led by Kim Kum-chol, has travelled to Russia. This visit marks the first announced military exchange since Putin’s visit to Pyongyang last month. The delegation hails from Kim Il-sung Military University, a prominent training institute for military officers.

During Putin’s recent visit to Pyongyang, a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership was signed with Kim Jong-un. This agreement includes a mutual defence pact, committing both nations to assist each other if attacked. This development has raised concerns in South Korea and the US about potential military repercussions. A minor border incident could quickly escalate into a broader military confrontation.

Any military exchange with North Korea violates UN sanctions, which prohibit member nations from providing military support to Pyongyang. Despite these sanctions, both North Korea and Russia have denied accusations of military cooperation in the Ukraine war.

South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol has urged Russia to avoid military assistance to North Korea, describing it as a “distinct threat and grave challenge” to security.

Ever so slowly, people around the world are waking up to the fact they’ve been deceived over the past 20 to 30 years by the biggest, most costly, most environmentally destructive fraud in the history of mankind. This deception, which has permeated every level of society, has been orchestrated with unparalleled precision and effectiveness.

Yet, so effective has the brainwashing propaganda of the deceivers been, that even those who are beginning to understand the deception still use the key words implanted into their minds through the relentless repetition of certain phrases. Terms like “global warming,” “carbon footprint,” and “greenhouse gases” have been drilled into public consciousness, shaping perceptions and beliefs without people even realizing they are being manipulated. This insidious method continues to spread deceit and illusions, fuelling the false alarms associated with the so-called Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change theory.

The media, educational systems, and even some scientific communities have played pivotal roles in perpetuating this narrative. They have created a sense of urgency and fear, convincing people that drastic measures are necessary to avert an impending climate catastrophe. This has led to the implementation of costly policies and regulations that have significant economic and social impacts, often without delivering the promised environmental benefits.

The truth continues to resonate with those who are willing to question the prevailing narrative. As more evidence emerges and more people begin to see through the propaganda, the tide is slowly turning.

I am convinced we are nearing a critical turning point. Even the most hesitant conservative politicians, those currently lacking the courage to make a complete about-face on the issue, will soon take the vital step of declaring the original demonization of CO2 to be at the very heart of this fraud. The vilification of carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring and essential component of life on Earth, has been one of the greatest deceptions. Understanding this will be key to dismantling the entire fraudulent structure.

As awareness grows, we can expect to see more voices joining the call for a reevaluation of climate policies. This will involve challenging the assumptions and motives behind the climate change narrative and demanding greater transparency and accountability from those who have promoted it. The journey to uncovering the full extent of this deception will be arduous, but it is a necessary step towards restoring scientific integrity and public trust.