Legal Challenge to Welsh Jab passports

Jab passports ‘don’t work’ in terms of any control of infections. ‘They’ know that.

They are not being introduced for public health but public control. They will morph into digital ID & a Chinese-style social credit system. That’s always been the end goal of the last 2 years.

(See my posts from 2 yrs ago).

Many of you will have noticed how this is now morphing into ‘climate crisis.’

This is no surprise as –if you think about it- -to achieve ‘Net Zero’ TPTB need a way to deprive you of your life as you knew it and standard of living which can only be achieved through control. What better way than to achieve this through first frightening most people to death and restricting/removing freedoms on health grounds?

Not saying there isn’t a virus but for the controllers no crisis goes to waste.

The great reset, I've noticed that people who read and believe this theory are against the vaccines, it's a clever theory because it can be made to look like the two things are connected, so slightly believable for anti establishment type people.

The Great Reset is not a "theory", it's an agenda proposed by the World Economic Forum that is active now and has been decades in the making. All documented and all easily accessible online. Please realise it is not a theory.

I know what it is a woke billionaires club that meet in Davos, the theory is the anti establishment spin off, they'll take our cars, homes, money, all that nonsense!!!

As innocent as a "woke billionaires club"?

What is nonsense about having restricted access to resources/property? Already seeing that in the housing market, most young people rent now, a situation that is only getting worse.

Quite frankly, if you watch their videos, they want a scenario where we live in smart cities, completely change our diet from meat to insects, rent basic household items, share your homespace with an office whilst you are at work, Zoom call your family members instead of see them - the list goes on and on. When the most influential and corrupt corporate interests meet at this forum, you must assume they agree with this agenda, and make their own business moves accordingly... Alternatively, they are just having a laugh... I know what I believe to be true!

"The World economic forum is a non government organisation, like a book club for woke billionaires."

You know what that is an excellent analogy. And like all book clubs, the WEF is able to summon pretty much every World leader to Glasgow for a nice chat about the weather.

I'm sure their is nothing nefarious about World leaders adopting and implementing policy under the banner of a global non-governmental organisation founded by a financial elite and brazenly doing so with the WEF's catchy 'build back better' slogan.

No siree Bob, nothing to see here but some good old chums, sharing a good old read of the classics(1984, Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World and Hunger Games are the books of choice this year).

Its a PR exercise thats needed thats all and by jove - I think you've cracked it. Simply switch the words "shadowy evil cabal openly establishing a neo-fuedalist one world government" with "bookclub" and it makes all the problems go away.

It wasn't my line I took it from a video above, I agree they are shady and have their own agendas, but they are not governments, they can say what they like at their Davos Billionaire meetings it doesn't mean it will happen?

We probably only disagree their influence, Cop 26 isn't because these lot say lets stop people driving cars, it's because of global warming and the effects it's having on the World? I'm certainly no eco warrior, but I do believe in Global warming, do you think it's a conspiracy story?

I don't believe they told the Chinese to create a virus from bats so as they could start to impose lockdowns and control the people either

Jab passports ‘don’t work’ in terms of any control of infections. ‘They’ know that.

They are not being introduced for public health but public control. They will morph into digital ID & a Chinese-style social credit system. That’s always been the end goal of the last 2 years.

(See my posts from 2 yrs ago).

Many of you will have noticed how this is now morphing into ‘climate crisis.’

This is no surprise as –if you think about it- -to achieve ‘Net Zero’ TPTB need a way to deprive you of your life as you knew it and standard of living which can only be achieved through control. What better way than to achieve this through first frightening most people to death and restricting/removing freedoms on health grounds?

Not saying there isn’t a virus but for the controllers no crisis goes to waste.

The great reset, I've noticed that people who read and believe this theory are against the vaccines, it's a clever theory because it can be made to look like the two things are connected, so slightly believable for anti establishment type people.

The Great Reset is not a "theory", it's an agenda proposed by the World Economic Forum that is active now and has been decades in the making. All documented and all easily accessible online. Please realise it is not a theory.

I know what it is a woke billionaires club that meet in Davos, the theory is the anti establishment spin off, they'll take our cars, homes, money, all that nonsense!!!

As innocent as a "woke billionaires club"?

What is nonsense about having restricted access to resources/property? Already seeing that in the housing market, most young people rent now, a situation that is only getting worse.

Quite frankly, if you watch their videos, they want a scenario where we live in smart cities, completely change our diet from meat to insects, rent basic household items, share your homespace with an office whilst you are at work, Zoom call your family members instead of see them - the list goes on and on. When the most influential and corrupt corporate interests meet at this forum, you must assume they agree with this agenda, and make their own business moves accordingly... Alternatively, they are just having a laugh... I know what I believe to be true!

I didn't say innocent, I think they are shady, but they don't necessarily control power or have as much influence as some people do?

I don't believe they can decide if I rent a house or a car, or can control my money and give me an allowance every month, that's what some people believe will happen.

Another procrastination inspired long post - so apologies for anyone who doesn't like long posts. (You can, however, always just ignore it and carry on)

Again I blame my hatred of end of quarter accounts and loathing of spreadsheets for the need for something to distract me...

I'm certainly no eco warrior, but I do believe in Global warming, do you think it's a conspiracy story?

Depends on what bit of it you think is conspiracy. The Earth is of course currently warming so no conspiracy there.

The fact that we are currently about 11,000 years into the Holocene interglacial period within the Quarternary Glaciation (Ice Age) that has lasted 2 and a bit million years would suggest this should be the case. Indeed, the geological, chemical and fossil records would show that we are currently in the 11th interglacial period within the current ice age. Further, even within this current interglacial period temperatures in some regions such as Oceania were higher than they are today as recently as 800 years ago (Medieval Warm Period)

Go back to the previous interglacial, the Eemian and we see warmer temperatures than we have today by about 4 degrees as well as more volatile shifts in weather and a higher density of CO2 at its peak than current levels. The Eemian interglacial period lasted about 20,000 years and began about 125,000 years ago.

So we know the temperature of the planet fluctuates.

We also know that the nature of these fluctuations is fairly well mapped to orbital (Mylankovich) cycles that factor in the Obliquity (tilt) of the planet, the regularity of its orbit (it goes from a elipse to a circle and back) and the proximity of the Earth to the sun in this orbit on both the horizontal and vertical axes. We also know that the movement of the tectonic plates can have an effect.

While there is a correlation between Co2 and temperature, the science indicates that Co2 is a lagging indicator i.e that it is a bi-product of warming temperature not a cause. This would make sense given that the largest store of Co2 on the planet is the Oceans and that in periods of glaciation the Oceans are frozen (thus locking in the Co2) and as the temperature rises and the ice melts and thus the natural cycle of weather ecosystems will release that Co2 into the atmosphere.

So no conspiracy theory within the simple statement of the planet is warming. 100% agree that it is currently in a period of warming.

However, a few questions I would perhaps be able to ask if I were to dust off my tin-foil hat:

Why is none of the above, which is all based on very credible science, as widely known as the argument that global warming is anthropomorphic (man-made?) which is based on hypothesis and provably incorrect modelling?

Given the above outlines higher temperatures, more volatile weather patterns and higher Co2 of the Eemian interglacial, which of course had no humans to screw the place up at all, why is anthropomorphic cause stated as a hard fact that has already been established rather than one issue within a multivariate problem?

Given that warming climates have greater biodiversity, and Co2 is literally the stuff that makes plants grow (ask a farmer) and Co2 is a trace element within our atmosphere that accounts for significantly less than 0.05% of the atmosphere anyway, are we 100% sure it's a good idea to combat something that we might not even be able to control - shouldn't we discuss it a bit more first?

If there isn't time to discuss it and the world is going to be flooded and on fire simultaneously in the next 8 years or so (according to the ever-lovely A.O.C) doesn't that make Biden, Obama and Bernie a little bit dumb for spending millions on waterfront properties?

Why did so many of the attendees at COP26 ignore their own message and leave a massive carbon footprint to attend the event by private jet?

If closing pipelines in the US was part of Biden's Green New Deal is it a bit inconsistent to revoke Trump's sanctions on Russia's Nordstream pipeline?

If the Paris accord is a real, genuine attempt to harmonize global policy on rather than God-tier virtue signalling why the hell has no one ever really questioned Pakistan's commitment of yeah 'we'll get it down by about 5% in the next 60 years or so, maybe, but no promises..."

If COP26 is about developing cleaner alternatives to fossil fuel why are Austria, Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg and Portugal pushing against nuclear despite it being the only credible alternative currently (Germany's catastrophic focus on wind, biomass and solar is seeing their Co2 emissions rise to the highest levels since 1990)?



Some folks may call that the ravings of a conspiracy theorist, my avatar has a tin-foil hat for a reason.

Personally, though, I'd call them all valid questions that I'd like to better understand before I sign-up for policies that have very real impact on the prosperity and liberty of our species. I guess I'm just a bit of a wacky pro-people type of looney.

Unfortunately, as with COVID and other issues emerging out of the grievance study philosophy and politics of the era, wanting to evaluate the information available before it's been via the editorialisation process is not only increasingly uncommon but I'm pretty sure edging towards heresy by this point.

In summary though - Global Warming is real. So too is the virus. So too is the exceptional obfuscation of one side of the discussion and extreme magnification of the other. Whether that is by design or incompetence the end result is it engenders mass-scale fear and hysteria in our media-saturated world addicted to doom-porn.

The one thing people across history have always willingly given up their freedoms for is security in the face of danger. I mean it's been a maxim that has served the ruling class well since at least the New Kingdom of Egypt back in the sixteenth century BC.

So while it may all be well and good and just a nice meet and greet for the "bookclub", all I'm going to say is if Carlsberg did shadowy evil secret governments...

Always a pleasure conversing with you though old Bina.

Oh, just one other thought. If they care so damn much about the planet why do they keep pushing the mass production of masks that are largely ineffective as they are not designed to stop viral transmission and have become a major contributor to Oceanic pollution (something that is a very real problem that should be at the top of any environmental agenda).

Peas.

EA

Another procrastination inspired long post - so apologies for anyone who doesn't like long posts. (You can, however, always just ignore it and carry on)

Again I blame my hatred of end of quarter accounts and loathing of spreadsheets for the need for something to distract me...

I'm certainly no eco warrior, but I do believe in Global warming, do you think it's a conspiracy story?

Depends on what bit of it you think is conspiracy. The Earth is of course currently warming so no conspiracy there.

The fact that we are currently about 11,000 years into the Holocene interglacial period within the Quarternary Glaciation (Ice Age) that has lasted 2 and a bit million years would suggest this should be the case. Indeed, the geological, chemical and fossil records would show that we are currently in the 11th interglacial period within the current ice age. Further, even within this current interglacial period temperatures in some regions such as Oceania were higher than they are today as recently as 800 years ago (Medieval Warm Period)

Go back to the previous interglacial, the Eemian and we see warmer temperatures than we have today by about 4 degrees as well as more volatile shifts in weather and a higher density of CO2 at its peak than current levels. The Eemian interglacial period lasted about 20,000 years and began about 125,000 years ago.

So we know the temperature of the planet fluctuates.

We also know that the nature of these fluctuations is fairly well mapped to orbital (Mylankovich) cycles that factor in the Obliquity (tilt) of the planet, the regularity of its orbit (it goes from a elipse to a circle and back) and the proximity of the Earth to the sun in this orbit on both the horizontal and vertical axes. We also know that the movement of the tectonic plates can have an effect.

While there is a correlation between Co2 and temperature, the science indicates that Co2 is a lagging indicator i.e that it is a bi-product of warming temperature not a cause. This would make sense given that the largest store of Co2 on the planet is the Oceans and that in periods of glaciation the Oceans are frozen (thus locking in the Co2) and as the temperature rises and the ice melts and thus the natural cycle of weather ecosystems will release that Co2 into the atmosphere.

So no conspiracy theory within the simple statement of the planet is warming. 100% agree that it is currently in a period of warming.

However, a few questions I would perhaps be able to ask if I were to dust off my tin-foil hat:

Why is none of the above, which is all based on very credible science, as widely known as the argument that global warming is anthropomorphic (man-made?) which is based on hypothesis and provably incorrect modelling?

Given the above outlines higher temperatures, more volatile weather patterns and higher Co2 of the Eemian interglacial, which of course had no humans to screw the place up at all, why is anthropomorphic cause stated as a hard fact that has already been established rather than one issue within a multivariate problem?

Given that warming climates have greater biodiversity, and Co2 is literally the stuff that makes plants grow (ask a farmer) and Co2 is a trace element within our atmosphere that accounts for significantly less than 0.05% of the atmosphere anyway, are we 100% sure it's a good idea to combat something that we might not even be able to control - shouldn't we discuss it a bit more first?

If there isn't time to discuss it and the world is going to be flooded and on fire simultaneously in the next 8 years or so (according to the ever-lovely A.O.C) doesn't that make Biden, Obama and Bernie a little bit dumb for spending millions on waterfront properties?

Why did so many of the attendees at COP26 ignore their own message and leave a massive carbon footprint to attend the event by private jet?

If closing pipelines in the US was part of Biden's Green New Deal is it a bit inconsistent to revoke Trump's sanctions on Russia's Nordstream pipeline?

If the Paris accord is a real, genuine attempt to harmonize global policy on rather than God-tier virtue signalling why the hell has no one ever really questioned Pakistan's commitment of yeah 'we'll get it down by about 5% in the next 60 years or so, maybe, but no promises..."

If COP26 is about developing cleaner alternatives to fossil fuel why are Austria, Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg and Portugal pushing against nuclear despite it being the only credible alternative currently (Germany's catastrophic focus on wind, biomass and solar is seeing their Co2 emissions rise to the highest levels since 1990)?



Some folks may call that the ravings of a conspiracy theorist, my avatar has a tin-foil hat for a reason.

Personally, though, I'd call them all valid questions that I'd like to better understand before I sign-up for policies that have very real impact on the prosperity and liberty of our species. I guess I'm just a bit of a wacky pro-people type of looney.

Unfortunately, as with COVID and other issues emerging out of the grievance study philosophy and politics of the era, wanting to evaluate the information available before it's been via the editorialisation process is not only increasingly uncommon but I'm pretty sure edging towards heresy by this point.

In summary though - Global Warming is real. So too is the virus. So too is the exceptional obfuscation of one side of the discussion and extreme magnification of the other. Whether that is by design or incompetence the end result is it engenders mass-scale fear and hysteria in our media-saturated world addicted to doom-porn.

The one thing people across history have always willingly given up their freedoms for is security in the face of danger. I mean it's been a maxim that has served the ruling class well since at least the New Kingdom of Egypt back in the sixteenth century BC.

So while it may all be well and good and just a nice meet and greet for the "bookclub", all I'm going to say is if Carlsberg did shadowy evil secret governments...

Always a pleasure conversing with you though old Bina.

Oh, just one other thought. If they care so damn much about the planet why do they keep pushing the mass production of masks that are largely ineffective as they are not designed to stop viral transmission and have become a major contributor to Oceanic pollution (something that is a very real problem that should be at the top of any environmental agenda).

Peas.

EA

Likewise always a pleasure conversing with your good self, great detailed reply.

I understand what you are trying to say, and ten years ago probably thought it was just another of the Worlds weather cycles, but I think that theory is dead in the water due to recent detailed research for every one except, yourself, Trump and a few million others.

Why do some people and leaders ignore it?

Some will feel it's too expensive, I think countries like Pakistan feel it's unfair that we have benefited from economic growth 100's of years, now they need it to develop their economies they are being told to stop using it.

Like I said the The World economic forum is a non government organisation, it can't make World leaders do anything, they decide themselves, and that's what's happening in Austria, Germany and the other Countries still going their own way

I think where we differ is you see more actions that governments make as sinister and not to be trusted. Although I'm cautious and I don't want to over-trust them, I believe the vaccines are safe and will offer a better alternative to lockdowns and that humans have added to global warming. So I trust the majority of scientists over the minority with opposing views, but still respect your alternative views

I never knew this - it was on radio 4 a while back.

There is a finite amount of carbon on the planet. It just depends where the carbon is as to how it affects climate change.
If the carbon is in the ground in the form of wood, peat, coal, etc then things are usually ok (although not always) we used to have the polar ice caps as a forest - this was before humans were around - so that wasnt our fault. Then it went the other way and the world was very nearly covered in ice (ice age) and there was a tipping point where due to the reflection of the ice - things would have got colder and colder. The vibration of the earth orbit also plays a role in temperature change.

None of the things above can we do anything about.

Then we come along and start burning 'stuff' - that releases stored carbon into the atmosphere. They raised the issue of wood burning fires in homes - and that it isnt environmentally friendly at all. As the in the carbon in the wood is released back into the atmosphere. For it to be eco - that carbon needs to be captured and stored back in the ground (where it doesnt do any harm). They never told you that in the wood burning oven adverts.

The only way to reduce carbon is to somehow take it back out of the atmosphere and store it under ground. Going electric is no good - unless it's green energy ie solar, wind, water turbine, hydrogen or nuclear.

Quite what that has to do with a legal challenge to a welsh jab passport Im not sure - BUT Drippy Drake needs to concentrate on green energy rather than being challenged about going into a pub. Covid is insignificant compared to sh1t show we have coming to us if carbon emissions are not controlled.

Likewise always a pleasure conversing with your good self, great detailed reply.

I understand what you are trying to say, and ten years ago probably thought it was just another of the Worlds weather cycles, but I think that theory is dead in the water due to recent detailed research for every one except, yourself, Trump and a few million others.

Why do some people and leaders ignore it?

I dunno maybe the same reason people take established science founded on three data from three separate disciplines (geology, chemistry and palaeontology) that maps out the fluctuating climate and atmospheric composition of the planet across millions of years and dismiss it offhand because...

Actually, why do people do that?

Oh yeah, TV told them

For the record btw I'm not against green initiatives at all. In fact, I think we are terrible custodians of the planet and we can do more. However, I don't agree with fear being used as the key motivator for engendering change and action within a population. We can and must do more for the planet but let's be smart about it.

Germany has focused their green initiatives on wind, biomass and solar.
Germany has the highest energy prices in Europe
Germany just had their highest increase in carbon emissions since 1990.

Germany is dumb. Don't be Germany.

Plastics in the Oceans is a far bigger ecological threat than CO2, but it's hard to turn a profit from cleaning the ocean. There is a lot of money in failed renewables.

Quite what that has to do with a legal challenge to a welsh jab passport Im not sure

Yeah my bad sorry Rees. Btw - that yours is one of my favourite user names on this board.

Love Rees Weston. Love Weston-Supermare.