U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. plans to announce that autism is linked to the use of Tylenol during pregnancy in a report expected to be released this month, The Wall Street Journal reported today.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will also likely suggest that low levels of the vitamin folate also contribute to autism. The report will propose that a form of folate called folic acid, or leucovorin, can be used to treat symptoms of the disorder, according to the WSJ.

Acetaminophen, the ingredient found in hundreds of prescription and over-the-counter medicines — including Tylenol products — is routinely recommended for fever reduction and the relief of mild to moderate pain. Pregnant women commonly take it.

The drug has long been linked to liver toxicity, and several studies over the last decade — including one published last month by researchers at Harvard Medical School — have found that children exposed to the drug during pregnancy may be more likely to develop neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or ADHD.

Shares of Tylenol, made by McNeil Consumer Healthcare, a division of Kenvue, declined nearly 11% Friday after the WSJ published its report.

“Nothing is more important to us than the health and safety of the people who use our products,” a Kenvue spokeswoman told the WSJ. “We have continuously evaluated the science and continue to believe there is no causal link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and autism.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) says Tylenol is safe to use in pregnancy. In 2021, as more evidence of the link was emerging, the organization published a statement opposing a consensus statement supported by a group of 91 scientists in the journal Nature Reviews Endocrinology. The scientists said that a growing body of research suggests that prenatal exposure to the drug may alter fetal development and increase the risks of neurodevelopmental, reproductive and urogenital disorders.

“ACOG and obstetrician-gynecologists across the country have always identified acetaminophen as one of the only safe pain relievers for pregnant individuals during pregnancy,” the pharmaceutical industry-sponsored medical organization insisted.

An estimated 1 in 31 (3.22%) 8-year-old children had an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnosis in 2022 — up from 1 in 36 (2.8%) in 2020, and 1 in 1,000 children in the 1990s, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said in its latest study, published earlier this year.

Studies have also linked Tylenol use in children with permanent impairments in cognition and socialization in susceptible children, including when administered after vaccination.

“The body of evidence around acetaminophen and autism really suggests that the highest risks are not prenatal but neonatal and postnatal,” according to Children’s Health Defense Chief Scientific Officer Brian Hooker.

“If I were to rank the risk periods, neonatal would be the highest, postnatal next and prenatal the least, given that pregnant women will be able to help detox the acetaminophen, reducing the burden on the developing unborn child,” Hooker said.

Kennedy announced in April that the public health agencies had launched a “massive testing and research effort” to determine what causes autism.

He said the effort involves hundreds of scientists globally and promised results by this month. Kennedy said that once the environmental causes of autism are identified, “We’ll be able to eliminate those exposures.”

Last month, Kennedy told President Donald Trump during a Cabinet meeting that his agency was on track to announce the findings of an ongoing study on the causes of autism in September.

“We’re finding interventions, certain interventions now that are clearly almost certainly causing autism, and we’re going to be able to address those in September,” Kennedy said.

Reuters reported that researchers have submitted more than 100 proposals to participate in the Trump administration’s $50 million study into possible causes of autism. A list of 25 grant winners is expected to be announced at the end of the month.

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/hhs-to-announce-autism-link-tylenol-use-pregnancy-wall-street-journal/

Fight for the Pacific

Al Jazeera (2025)

Film Review

Typically (for Al Jazeera), this documentary is very pro-Western in its perspective. It mainly expresses concerns about China replacing the US and Europe as the primary influence in the South Pacific. It appears to support continued French occupation of New Caledonia to counter Chinese influence.

New Caledonia

It focuses heavily on New Caledonia, one of the few Pacific nations still under European (French) control. Its residents are extremely bitter about their continued colonization by France, as well as French military repression and high food prices and rents.

The New Caledonian independence movement, continues steady growth begun in the 1960s with the Kanak (indigenous Melanesian people of New Caledonia) Awakening. A unilateral decision by French president Macron to change the electoral roll (to minimize Kanak representation) led to widespread riots on May 13, 2024.

The French responded by deploying 7,000 troops and killing scores of Kanaks, including several on customary land reserved for indigenous Melanesian. The UN condemned the extreme violence of the French response.

The riots also severely disrupted the tourist industry, causing many Kanak to lose their jobs and become homeless.

Years of nickel mining exploitation has led many white New Caledonian resident sto look to China for economic support. In 2011, Caledonia exported 6.9% of their nickel to China. By 2022, this had increased to 63%.

Chinese diplomats object to claims by Western leaders that they just want to colonize and exploit New Caledonia and other Pacific nations. As a founding member of BRICS and the Shangai Cooperation Organization, China is firmly committed to a multipolar world order in which sovereign nations respect the sovereignty of other nations for their mutual benefit.

Vanuatu

Vanuatu (which was never invaded by Japan) has never really recovered from World War II, when it served as a base of operations for 100,000 US troops and engineers. The latter simply abandoned all their military vehicles, leaving behind massive pollution, from petroleum products, rusting vehicles, etc which persists to this day. Vanuatu gained independence from a joint Anglo-French condominium in 1980.

Solomon Islands

The Solomon Islands were a British colony until 1978. Recently they have moved closer to China with the hope of reducing unemployment and improving their standard of living. There’s even a Chinese Communist Party in the Solomons, and the filmmakers briefly interview their leader. In 2021, there were anti-Chinese riots led by Daniel Suidani, who served as the Premier of Malaita Province from June 2019 until his ouster in a no confidence vote in February 2023. He was subsequently charged with unlawful assembly. At the time of filming his trial was ongoing.

During Suidani’s tenure as Premier of Malaita Province, the Solomon Islands government officially switched diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China (Taiwan) to the People’s Republic of China. Suidani was highly critical of this decision, alleging that the Chinese government offered him bribes in exchange for political allegiance. Suidani, in turn, ha been accused of accepting bribes from the Taiwanese government.

Suidani is also concerned about a 2022 security agreement the Solomons signed with China that would allow them to have a military presence there.

China’s envoy to the Solomons scoffs at accusation China wishes to establish a “quasi” military base there. He points out that the US has 800 military bases (the real number is over 1,000) with 400 in the Pacific Islands.

The Israeli army has bombed another high-rise in Gaza City after telling Palestinian residents to evacuate or face being killed amid its ongoing siege and imposed mass starvation in the enclave.

The Israeli military designated more high-rise towers as targets in a map released on Saturday. Shortly after releasing the map, it bombed the 15-storey Soussi Tower, which is located opposite a building belonging to the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) in the Tal al-Hawa neighbourhood.

“These attacks are causing panic amongst the people, especially considering the time they are given to evacuate. Half an hour or an hour is not enough time for people to escape from these buildings,” Al Jazeera’s Hani Mahmoud said, reporting from Gaza City.

The Israeli military said in a statement, without offering evidence, that the buildings struck were used by Hamas to gather intelligence to monitor the locations of the Israeli army. It also said armed Palestinian groups planted “numerous explosive devices” and dug a tunnel in the area.

Gaza’s Government Media Office rejected the claims and called them “part of a systematic policy of deception used by the occupation to justify the targeting of civilians and infrastructure” and forcibly displace Palestinians from their homes. It said 90 percent of Gaza’s infrastructure has been destroyed by Israel.

The targeted buildings were near the 12-storey Mushtaha Tower, which on Friday was similarly bombed and razed to the ground, as Israel moves to seize Gaza City despite international criticism.

At least 68 Palestinians were killed and 362 wounded across the Gaza Strip by the Israeli military over the past day, the enclave’s Ministry of Health said on Saturday afternoon.

The toll includes 23 aid seekers killed and 143 wounded by Israeli forces. At least six more Palestinians also died of Israeli-induced starvation, bringing the total number of starvation deaths during nearly two years of war to 382, including 135 children.

At least 64,368 Palestinians have been killed and 162,367 wounded by Israel since the start of the war in the aftermath of the Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel on October 7, 2023.

Sources at Nasser Hospital, located in southern Gaza’s Khan Younis, told Al Jazeera that at least two Palestinians were killed and many wounded in an Israeli air strike on a tent housing displaced people in the al-Mawasi area.

While this area was designated as a “humanitarian” or “safe” zone by the Israeli army early in the war, it has been repeatedly bombed, leading to the deaths of hundreds of displaced civilians.

Hours before the latest bombings, the Israeli army had announced the establishment of another similar zone in al-Mawasi, which runs along Gaza’s Mediterranean coast. It claimed the area will have infrastructure such as field hospitals, water lines, desalination facilities and food supplies.

Reporting from central Gaza’s Deir el-Balah, Al Jazeera’s Hind Khoudary said Palestinians do not trust the so-called humanitarian area as tents in similar zones have been attacked by Israel many times before and nowhere is safe.

But people in Gaza City have few options: If they stay, they risk being killed, and if they leave, they face dangers on the road and may have to spend considerable money to move their belongings south.

Those who have returned to their homes in Gaza City’s Zeitoun neighbourhood, where Israeli forces withdrew recently after weeks of ground assaults, have found everything they owned destroyed.

“What we have built in 50 years was flattened in five days,” resident Aqeel Kishko told Al Jazeera. “Nothing remains standing – buildings, roads and infrastructure. We are walking not only on ruins but also on dead bodies of our loved ones.”

Nohaa Tafish said it would be impossible for Gaza’s largest urban centre to be revived.

“What would people return to? There is nothing to return to,” she said.

Ahmed Rihem also had his home in Gaza City reduced to rubble. “It is as if the entire Zeitoun neighbourhood was hit with a nuclear bomb,” he said.

[…]

Via https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/9/6/israel-bombs-more-gaza-city-high-rises-after-forced-evacuation-orders

The ruling in this case came down shortly after a federal judge sided with Google in the DOJ’s monopoly case against the company. Google’s CEO even commented on the case while meeting with a group of the nation’s top tech leaders at the White House on Thursday.

It’s a long process. I appreciate that your administration had some constructive dialogue and we were able to get it to some sort of resolution,” Google CEO Sundar Pichai said while speaking with President Donald Trump.

The lawsuit in California isn’t the first for Google. Earlier this year, the company settled with the state of Texas for nearly $1.4 billion after facing allegations of violating privacy laws.

They’re going to have to work really hard to revamp their image in order to be able to gain back all the clout in society they had before,” said Summerville.

While at the White House on Thursday, Google leaders also announced plans to invest $250 billion in the U.S. over the next two years.

[…]

Via https://thenationaldesk.com/news/americas-news-now/google-ordered-to-pay-over-425-million-in-damages-for-smartphone-privacy-violations-ceo-white-house-president-trump-texas

Pierre-Alain Bruchez

The crisis in science that undermines research is widely underestimated, largely because irreproducible results, ideological bias, conflicts of interest, and fraud are typically discussed in isolation—without recognizing their cumulative impact and shared roots.

Scientists alone cannot resolve this. Citizen scrutiny is essential. But first, citizens should be informed.

Scientific fraud has become industrialized

Fraud is, by nature, elusive. Although improved detection tools (e.g. image duplication analysis) may struggle to catch current fraud, given how quickly fraudsters adapt, they nonetheless provide valuable insights into past misconduct.

Particularly troubling is the fact that fraud is no longer confined to isolated individuals, but is increasingly perpetrated by organized networks (see Richardson et al., The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly). The presence of fraudsters should not discredit an entire profession, but it remains the duty of each profession to expose and expel them.

The Replication Crisis

Many published results cannot be reproduced: this is the replication crisis. This is not necessarily due to fraud. In many fields, results are statistical: they can also be due to chance. For example, if you want to know whether a die is rigged, you roll it many times. If one face appears disproportionately often, you conclude it is biased.

However, it is not impossible that the die is fair and the result merely random. Typically, a result is accepted if the probability that it occurred by chance is less than an arbitrarily chosen threshold of 5% (although in some fields, such as particle physics, the threshold is set much lower).

Thus, in principle, one would expect 5% of statistical results to be false. In reality, it is much higher, especially due to publication bias. Spectacular results are more likely to be published, although they are also more likely to be statistical flukes.

As early as 2005, John Ioannidis demonstrated in his landmark paper Why Most Published Research Findings Are False that the proportion of false statistical results is far greater than 5%. A large-scale replication project in psychology confirmed that only a minority of results could be replicated. Oncology and biomedical research also show high replication failure rates. Surprisingly, no meta-study compares replication failure rates across disciplines. Why not launch a massive replication project across all fields?

The replication crisis has been recognized for years and is still not overcome. Yet, in principle, it could be drastically reduced quickly. Solutions exist. Journals must demand transparency: full data and methodology disclosure to enable replication. Methods and hypotheses should be preregistered to prevent post hoc hypothesis fishing. Articles should be accepted based on the relevance of the question and methodological rigor, not the results.

This reduces the incentive and ability to chase statistically spurious findings. The Center for Open Science offers tools to support this, but they are used in only a minority of publications.

Universities should replicate more studies, starting with the most important ones (to test the foundations of the discipline) and randomly among newly published results (to encourage researchers to be more rigorous by increasing the risk that their study will be checked). Students would gain valuable experience while providing a highly useful service. Replication is a powerful pedagogical tool.

Initiatives like those from the Center for Open Science promote replication but still operate on a modest scale compared to global research output. Replication status should be readily available when consulting a study, and journalists should systematically report it. Safeguards must also be implemented to prevent collusive validation fraud, where researchers complacently reproduce each other’s findings. All of this should be put into effect swiftly.

It is encouraging to see the growing number of initiatives aimed at tackling the replication crisis. Beyond the Center for Open Science mentioned earlier, notable examples include the Institute for Replication, Open Science NL, and the NIH’s Replication Initiative. Yet the impact of these initiatives remains modest compared to the magnitude of the replication crisis itself.

The scientific community’s lack of urgency in addressing the replication crisis is even more troubling than the crisis itself. Inertia? The deeper issue is that for too many scientists, truth-seeking is no longer the main priority. This is vividly illustrated by their increasing submission to authoritarian ideologies.

Ideological capture in universities reveals a deprioritization of truth-seeking, which also hinders efforts to overcome the replication crisis. Conversely, ideological capture has taken hold on already weakened ground—as illustrated by the replication crisis itself.

Ideological Capture

Major universities, especially in the U.S., have been captured by authoritarian ideologies. Willingly or not, researchers have often repeated claims they know are false. To expose this ideological grip, Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay, and Helen Pluckrose managed to publish deliberately absurd but politically correct papers (they present their work in a video). Boghossian had to resign from his university and co-founded the University of Austin, which positions itself as one of the few alternatives to universities captured by wokeism.

Another alternative is the Peterson Academy, created by Jordan Peterson. He famously refused to use compelled speech under a Canadian law, received threatening letters from his University of Toronto, and eventually resigned. Bret Weinstein, who opposed a day of absence during which whites were asked not to enter the university campus, was also forced to resign, along with his wife. Wokeism is increasingly spreading to European universities as well.

For instance, Professor Kathleen Stock resigned from her position at the University of Sussex in October 2021, after being subjected to intense harassment due to her views on biological sex and gender identity. These are just a few examples illustrating the power that wokeism has gained within universities.

Harassment of individuals deemed politically incorrect often arises from joint lobbying efforts involving certain students, administrative staff, and scientists. Not only can wokeism lead to the resignation of researchers or force the hiring of incompetent researchers (selected on criteria other than merit), but it can also impose or prohibit research or teaching topics, or bias the manner in which these topics are studied (for example, by banning the investigation of certain potential causes of a given phenomenon). Under these conditions, it is not surprising that many scientists prefer to assign the pursuit of truth only a secondary priority.

Within the scientific community, resistance is emerging. A chorus of academic voices rises, for example, in The War on Science, edited by Lawrence Krauss (see also an interview with Krauss presenting the book: Lawrence Krauss: The new war on science | UnHerd and conversations between Krauss and contributors to the book on the following site: The Origins Podcast). It remains unclear whether the most captured universities can be restored or must be replaced by new, healthier institutions.

A correction to the ideological grip on U.S. universities is long overdue. But the current Trump administration’s approach is crude and indiscriminate. It is not a restoration of balance, but the rise of right-wing authoritarianism, mirroring the abuses of wokeism. Two authoritarianisms reinforcing each other. Science in the U.S. is caught between them.

Ideological capture is most acute in North America, yet it is spreading elsewhere, notably in Europe (see, for example, France: Face à l’obscurantisme woke). Moreover, given the global nature of science, biased findings published by American universities within a given discipline end up contaminating that discipline worldwide— especially since many of the most prestigious institutions are located in North America and are ideologically captured (according to the 2025 U.S. College Free Speech Rankings by FIRE, Harvard University is this year’s bottom ranked school for free speech for the second year in a row).

Conflicts of Interest

Some researchers prioritize personal gain over truth in particularly egregious ways. For instance, 27 scientists published a letter in The Lancet labeling as “conspiracists” those who suggested COVID-19 might have leaked from a lab, thus censoring debate during the early pandemic phase.

At the time, several authors failed to disclose conflicts of interest, most notably Peter Daszak, who had worked with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (and was later chosen by the WHO as the sole American voice on its team for investigating the origin of the COVID-19).

I, and presumably most citizens, were unaware before the pandemic that artificially enhancing viruses through gain-of-function research was even taking place. This raises a troubling question: are there other procedures currently underway that pose serious risks, yet remain hidden from public scrutiny? What is the role of science journalism if it fails to inform the public about such dangers?

Why does it matter where COVID-19 came from (see Bret Weinstein: Why COVID-19 May Have Leaked from a Lab | Joe Rogan Experience and Where Did COVID-19 REALLY Come From? With Matt Ridley | TRIGGERnometry)?

First, knowing the origin of COVID-19 could have provided crucial insight into the virus’s properties at a time when it was still poorly understood, potentially guiding early prevention strategies more effectively.

Second, if COVID-19 originated from a lab, understanding the specifics of the accident could help us design safeguards more effectively. Third, ignoring the pandemic’s origin risks emboldening malicious actors: if nature is always blamed, then deliberate releases may go unnoticed and unpunished. Fourth, we owe it to the victims to find out what happened.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, censorship and demonization of those who questioned official narratives extended not only to the virus’s origin but also to the effectiveness and side effects of the measures taken, whether related to lockdowns, mask-wearing, vaccination, medication, and so forth.

The COVID-19 pandemic is far from the only instance in which conflicts of interest come into play. These conflicts often stem from private funding. Funders may influence researchers or simply select those most likely to produce desired outcomes. Facts typically do not speak for themselves. One study gave identical data to different researchers to test two hypotheses: their conclusions varied widely. Thus, choosing the right analyst can suffice to obtain the desired result.

Researchers can often make data say what they want, driven by ideological, financial or career motives.

A Broken Science Needs All of Us: Researchers, Journalists, and Citizens

The crisis in science has many facets, but one root cause: truth has often been relegated to the back seat. Many scientists continue to work rigorously and uphold the highest standards, but more and more scientists prioritize other goals over truth-seeking. Those are no longer true scientists.

Like other humans, researchers respond to incentives. They know that their careers depend on the quantity of articles they publish and how often they are cited, rather than on their true value. They play the game. When they review an article in a peer review process, they know they cannot truly assess the validity of its conclusions, unless there are obvious flaws.

They often lack the information needed to replicate the study, and in any case, they have more rewarding things to do. They play the game. They focus on publishing articles and disengage from the functioning of their university.

When an authoritarian ideology takes advantage of this to capture the institution, researchers submit to its demands. They play the game, just as they did when they tailored their research to secure funding. There are exceptions, but the majority of researchers play a game that no longer tends toward truth.

Yet we urgently need science to tackle major challenges, such as climate, energy and health. But science can only fulfill this role if it is restored. Truth-seeking must once again be its core value. The scientific method and freedom of speech should be restored.

Science still enjoys prestige thanks to past achievements. Our technological power proves we have understood something about how the world works. But these past achievements say nothing about the present state of science, nor about disciplines that do not lead to technology.

How to restore science? Despite promising initiatives, the scientific community has not overcome the crisis. This suggests a lack of capacity or collective will. The replication crisis persists despite available solutions. Worse, many scientists in elite U.S. universities align themselves with authoritarian ideologies.

[…]

Via https://off-guardian.org/2025/09/06/saving-the-science-we-crucially-need/

By Reality BooksSeptember 05, 2025

[…]

The book Climate CO2 Hoax – How Bankers Hijacked the Environment Movement provides evidences and testimonies from renowned international climate scientists that contradict the UN assertion that climate change is caused by CO₂ emissions or methane. 

[…]

In the book I refer to the conclusion of the Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL) that the climate changes naturally and slowly in its own cycle; and that CO2 emissions or methane from livestock, such as cows, are not the dominant factors in climate change. The number of signatories of the CLINTEL World Climate Declaration has now risen to 2,000. Coincidentally

The conclusions of the Climate Intelligence foundation include the following:

“There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming… Warming is far slower than predicted… Climate policy relies on inadequate models… CO₂ is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth: CO₂ is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO₂ is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO₂ in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.”

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, and President of Greenpeace in Canada for seven years, states:

“the whole climate crisis is not only fake news its fake science… of course climate change is real it’s been happening since the beginning of time, but it’s not dangerous and it’s not caused by people… Most of the scientists who are saying it’s a crisis are on perpetual government grants… you don’t have a plan to feed 8 billion people without fossils fuels or get the food into the cities…”

I also have experience in the field, including at United Nations Environment; at the UK Government Dept of Energy and Climate Change; and as a PhD researcher on the subject of sustainability. See also the books Climate CO2 Hoax and Transcending the Climate Change Deception Toward Real Sustainability.

The United Nations and the globalist Davos World Economic Forum declared the necessity of reaching a worldwide goal of “net zero carbon” by 2050. Massive transformations have been underway worldwide setting the stage for creation of what in the 1970’s was called the New International Economic Order. In reality it is a blueprint for worldwide technocratic totalitarian corporate-communism. The EU, a political project of globalists from its very inception, has been leading this agenda and plans to become the world’s first “carbon neutral” continent by 2050 and reduce its CO2 emissions by at least 55% by 2030.

With a virtual monopoly on mainstream media as well as social media, the ‘climate change is caused by CO2’ lobby brainwashed much of the world into believing that we should eliminate hydrocarbons including petroleum, natural gas, and coal. This bogus claim is cover for an ulterior agenda. CO2 is not carbon or soot, it is an invisible, odorless gas essential to plant photosynthesis and all life forms on earth, including us.

The myth of manmade climate change due to CO2 emissions has become so normalised amongst all political parties worldwide and in the general population, that at times it seems as if one is living in an entire society ‘blind to the truth’. Images of the apocalyptic movie and book ‘Day of the Triffids’ springs to mind. In this book almost the entire population of the Earth has become physically blinded. In 2023, it appears we are living through a society that has largely become ‘mentally blinded’ to the truth.

[…]

The current green energy/renewable technologies being promoted by the UN and WEF, are not a viable solution for the world’s energy supply.

Most ‘green policies’ are based on mathematical madness and in the above books I also describe that the current green energy/renewable technologies being promoted by the UN and WEF, are not a viable solution for the world’s energy supply. Although these technologies have some limited viability in certain locations and scenarios, the fact remains that the Energy Returned on Energy Invested is much too low – in essence the entire process is mathematically flawed.

This is evidenced by the work of scientists, including Professor David MacKay, former Regius Professor of Engineering at Cambridge University and former Chief Scientific Advisor at the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change in his book Sustainable Energy without Hot Air[1]. His analysis shows the mathematical absurdity of wind energy and that an area twice the size of the entire country of Wales would need to be completely covered with wind turbines to meet the energy demand in the U.K., based on average energy consumption per person. The creation of wind energy infrastructure is in most parts of the world a massive waste of existing fossil fuel resources.

Climate Policy and Green Energy Involve Economic Suicide – The Example of Germany

Let us consider the example of Germany as detailed in an article by strategic risk consultant F. William Engdahl[2]. In Germany, Angela Merkel and the German government as part of a 2001 government strategy to rely on solar and wind and other “renewables” aimed to make Germany the first industrial nation to be “carbon neutral.” F. William Engdahl described that:

• this strategy has been an economic catastrophe. Germany had one of the industrial world’s most stable low-cost and reliable electric generation grids, but today Germany has become the world’s most expensive electric generator.
• the energy inefficient wind and solar, today costs some 7 to 9 times more than gas. To reach targets by 2030 Deutsche Bank even admitted the state will need to create an “eco-dictatorship”[3].
• by 2025 an estimated 25% of existing German windmills will need replacement and waste disposal is a colossal problem

Furthermore, a massive input of concrete and aluminum is needed to produce solar or wind farms, all of which requires cheap energy to produce; but solar and wind is not cheap it is very expensive. Consider also that the amount of added electricity needed for a ‘zero carbon’ EU by 2050 would be far more than today, as countless millions of battery chargers will need grid electricity with reliable power.

While the people of the world pay suffer large energy price increases many renewable energy corporations made massive windfalls via subsidies and profits via government led climate policy.  In its forced transition to renewables, while banning nuclear energy, Germany has paid a very high price in this ridiculous climate crusade of mathematical madness. Author Thomas Kolbe has described in a recent article that a group of German industrial labor representatives has broken ranks, and in an open letter to Chancellor Friedrich Merz, they fiercely criticize Berlin’s climate policy:

“A group of industrial works councils is calling on Chancellor Merz to halt the climate policy suicide run. Since COVID lockdowns, over 300,000 jobs in Germany’s industrial core have vanished. Energy-intensive production has become a fantasy—especially when competitors like the U.S. pay up to 75% less for electricity… These are not outliers—they’re survivors of Germany’s failed “green transformation.” ArcelorMittal recently scrapped its green steel plans—despite billions in offered subsidies. BASF is cutting 700 jobs in Ludwigshafen. The “green restructuring” of Germany’s economy now reads like an industrial obituary. Every day, another subsidized project collapses into the dustbin of central planning…

By issuing a public letter, they’re committing open defiance. They’re aiming straight at the Green Deal—the administrative metastasis that has paralyzed Europe’s economic lifeblood… After 35 years of subsidizing wind and solar, grid stability hasn’t improved—yet grid costs are in the hundreds of billions. The high energy prices aren’t just socially unjust; they’re an existential threat to prosperity and civil peace… This protest has grassroots power—it comes from people living the reality of failed climate economics, not from think tanks or talking heads…” – Thomas Kolbe, author and journalist

The So-Called Green Economy Is Not Green at All

The western world has become shackled by nonsensical policies that claim to be environmentally friendly; however, the green mask is slipping. In reality, we see that vast industrial processes to create a so-called green infrastructure have been offshored; and green industrialisation has been ramped up to produce vast numbers of electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar panels, etc; thus causing yet more ‘real pollution’ to land, air and water systems via industrial mining for rare earth metals etc, see this article.

Furthermore, after decades of subsidies, wind and solar still only produce around 5% of the world’s primary energy supply. The maths do not add up, the Energy Returned on Energy Invested in too low. The green economy is littered with an army of expensive toys that do not create value, for example electric vehicles. Meanwhile, the tax payer is forced to pay the bill via taxes and increased energy costs, while renewable energy corporations reap vast subsidies and ‘policy-led’ profits.

[…]

Driving an Electric Car Is Fake Environmentalism – Elon Musk Debunked

Electric vehicle (EV) drivers are suckers for mega-corporate advertising, ignorantly proud of so-called low-carbon eco-cars. Apparently, unaware that the manufacture of millions of EV batteries, requires huge mining operations to acquire and refine large quantities of rare earth metals, such as lithium, rhodium and cobalt; that these metals have to be mined out of the ground using machinery which is powered by carbon-emitting vehicles powered by diesel or petrol; and importantly, that the mining and refining processes can cause significant and extensive pollution to land, air and water systems, for example in rural China and Mongolia[4]. Unlike the fake climate agenda, these are real environmental problems.

Have the deluded green politicians considered what would be the environmental consequence of transitioning the entire world population to EVs, for example, for a population of 8 billion to be using about 2 billion EVs, at around 1 per family? The real pollution to land and water systems from the mining of rare earth metals, such as lithium, for EV batteries would be massive. For example see a picture of toxic lithium leach fields in Chile in this article.

Furthermore, the push to end gasoline or diesel transport by 2035 in favour of EVs is based on a lie as the lithium-ion battery-powered vehicles have a total “carbon footprint” when the effects of mining lithium and producing all parts are included, that is worse than diesel autos. The deluded greens are trying to get us all driving EVs, but EVS are still driven by electricity produced from fossil fuels and will most likely continue to be. Furthermore, EVs are not at all an efficient use of energy as the well to tank efficiency of this electrification process has been estimated at around only 37%.

[…]

Green Politics Is Concerned with Fitting in with a Deceptive UN Climate and Sustainable Development Narrative

The majority of green policies, seemingly worldwide, are based on the misleading narrative that CO2 causes climate change. A generation of young people and deluded CO2 activists have been misled like sheep. This ‘group think’ and a need to be accepted by ones social or political peer group has turned many people into dumb animals – like sheep. Such concerns take away from the attainment of knowledge, truth, and deeper meaning.

The policies of international mega-banks and international institutions, such as the UN and the WEF, are driving environmentally destructive ‘globalisation painted green’. Green politics is fake environmentalism. The green political parties appear to be brainwashed by decades of UN-promoted propaganda; and appear to be unaware that the real environmental movement was essentially ‘hijacked’ by the Rothschild banking dynasty in 1992 at the UN Earth summit. This is detailed in the testimony of whistleblower George Hunt, see this video.

[…]

It should be noted that it is the world’s central bankers that are behind the decision to reduce CO2 emissions worldwide and are entirely funding and controlling the advancement of the worldwide project of combatting man-made climate-change. This project involves an attempt to de-carbonise the activities of the entire world population. In December 2015, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) created the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD), which represents $118 trillion of assets globally[5].

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-co2-hoax-flaws-green-energy/5899585