The Big Boil Is Coming

Are you prepared?

This heat map turned up in my Google Feed a few days ago.

Just looking at it made me sweat. I wasn’t the only one getting anxious:

How could I not click on it? I had not yet learned this unique trick of how to not fall for clickbait.

I made the image above clickable for your convenience

Too much curiosity can hurt….

Like always, science has figured it all out:

So I clicked on the heat map, and this online article from www.news.com.au appeared.

News.com.au is Australia's biggest online news site. In 2019, it attracted 11 Million readers. That is close to half of Australia’s 25 Million people. So it matters.

Source

This was the headline:

“Oh my God !!!!”,

75% of stupid, anxious readers of news.com.au yelled out loudly.

My daughter panicked, too. She is still a teen, so you have to forgive her. They can be a bit dramatic. Pacing up and down the hallway, tears on her cheeks, she yelled:

“What am I going to do?”

“I haven’t bought my new bikini yet, and my beach towel isn’t washed. “

“I am not ready for this heatwave !!!!!”

I took my bottle of gin out of the brown paper bag and gave it to her — the bag - not the gin. (The gin might have worked better.)

Meanwhile, 75% of stupid, anxious readers think: “I better read this news.com.au article to “be informed”. This sounds serious. Quickly, their index finger touches the scroll-down button on their keyboards. Jessica Wang smiles triumphantly. “Got another one.”

Who is Jessica Wang?

From new.com.au website:

Jess […] joined […] just as the pandemic “crept in”. (emphasis mine).

Interesting way of putting it.

Merriam-Webster definition of “creeping in”:

“developing or advancing by slow, imperceptible degrees.”

So, according to news.com.au, the pandemic advanced “slowly” and “imperceptible”.

Jessica is the “artist”, formerly known as a “journalist”, who “designed” this “creative piece of propaganda”, formally known as a “news article”. The actual map of this catastrophic approaching heat event, issued by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), looked like this:

So boring. That doesn’t look boiling at all. Let’s add some colour. Let’s be creative, artist Jessica decided. And voila:

If you are concerned that something happened to your eyesight because you can’t read the actual temperatures on the map, you are not alone. It is impossible to say if that was done deliberately. But as a general rule - if people want you to read something, they usually make it readable.

They did an excellent job of making it very red, though. It seems they really want you to see red and associate it with a lot of heat. So, how hot is this map? It ranges from 20C/68F(yellow) to 30C/86F (dark red near Sydney) to 34C/93F max near Broken Hill far inland.

These dark shades of red and brown were previously used for temperatures between 40C and 50C. But that was before we entered the state of global boiling. This is just one of the more subtle tricks used to make the world look much hotter than it is.

There are other little “creative” tricks used in the headline and article:

Instead of saying it will briefly get to 30C/86F on Sunday afternoon, which probably scares no Australians unless they wear a mask, have blue-green hair and vote for Labor while eating way more Vegan food than is good for them, she focuses on the anxiety-inducing but practically irrelevant fact that for one hour between 3 pm and 4 pm it will be 10C to 15C above the historical average. Average max temperatures in Sydney in September are around 21C/74F.

So this is 9 Degrees above average. Not 10C and not 15C.

More lies and exaggerations from the article:

The heatwave is so extreme that firefighters have been forced to stop hazard-reduction burns around the outskirts of Sydney.

Not only a total lie, but the opposite is true:

The weather conditions were perfect for hazard-reduction burning, as this detailed article points out:

"It's always that catch-22, where the perfect hazard reduction conditions tend to be the same conditions that traps the smoke," he said. (Emphasis mine)

The burning was halted because of the Sydney Marathon, not an “extreme heatwave.”

Describing a warmer-than-usual period with temperatures between 25C and 30C as an “extreme heatwave” is propaganda.

The seasonally-early boiling temperatures are forecast to remain until Wednesday in which a cold should return conditions to “near average”.

Ah, yes, the new B word.

She had to use the “B” word. That’s compulsory for all globalists now. Globalists, of course, include the Australian “health bureaucrats”, and they do their part:

NSW Health also issued a statement urging people to be wary of signs of heat-related illness like confusion, dizziness, fainting, nausea, vomiting, weakness, headaches heavy or loss of sweating, muscle cramps, dry swollen tongue, rapid pulse and rapid shallow breathing.

People have been urged to limit physical activity, stay hydrated, avoid alcohol and other hot or sugary drinks and stay out of the sun during the hottest parts of the day.

The health authority said the elderly, infants, young children, outdoor workers more be more susceptible to the high temperatures.

People on some medications, or who are unwell or have chronic illness, or live alone or are socially isolated may also find themselves more affected by the heat.

This “heatwave”, ranging between 25C and 30C, is a real killer by the looks of it. I hope you are prepared. Some interesting fun facts: I didn’t know I get hotter living alone or suffering from a chronic disease.

They also immediately must inform billions of Asians and Africans living near the equator, constantly drinking sweet hot tea and coffee. And millions of Australians have to be re-educated - no more beer above 25C. You could kill yourself.

What would we do without NSW Health looking out for us? We would walk out onto our deck on this upcoming doomsday full of dangerous sunrays in the air, completely unprepared. We could have a beer or hot sweet drink in our hand and, worse, be alone with a chronic knee injury.

Unprotected, unknowing, and unprepared - with four risk factors multiplying our modelled survival odds to a zone-red probability of 0.0000101%, we could die instantly. The angry and dangerous heat, provoked and irritated by tons of local CO2 in the air, is lurking above the city, watching our houses for hours, ready to strike. (Hence: Heat Stroke.)

But then you hear the muffled yells of your masked neighbour through closed windows and drawn curtains, air-con on max, blanket around his shoulders: “GO INSIDE IMMEDIATELY. HAVEN’T YOU HEARD? EXTREME HEATWAVE.” He is waving a poster showing this:

Why masked? Haven’t you heard yet? Viruses are more infective when hot.

You see the panic in his eyes and quickly retreat into the house. Stressed out, you yell: “Bad, bad good weather. You almost got me.”

To be fair, a 30C day in September is infrequent. But it happens. Does that mean there is a sudden global boiling? We have had five similar outliers since 1859 (28C - 30C). They were around 1895, 1925, 1990, 1998, 2023.

Hot days happen occasionally. It’s called The Weather. We can read all and nothing into it.

Did the weather get more and more catastrophic in the past 20 years?

Definitely, if you believe the mass media propaganda and fear-mongering. However, if you believe in simply counting the events and plot them in a graph it turns out the opposite is true: We have an approximately 10% decline in catastrophic weather events in the past 20 years:

So next time you read about another catastrophic weather event in the mass media, insinuating that they become more frequent and are caused by global warming, please remember this graph.

Just because something is reported on a lot lately doesn’t mean it is more frequent. That’s a prime example of how a reported and repeated false narrative creates a “false” reality.

So, how does Jessica get away with so much “disinformation” and outright lies?

Shouldn’t there be a law to stop that? Happy you asked. Australia is just about to push “The Misinformation Act” through parliament. “All good then,” you might say. “That will stop these kind of propaganda articles.”

You would think so, but the answer is no. Mainstream media and the government are exempt from being censored for disinformation. Both of them contributed to this distorting, fear-mongering, disinforming article. And yet, it will actually be this article that will be censored and removed when this law gets passed because it sways from the official government-owned one-source-of-truth.

But Jessica is cheating, some might say. Don’t be rude. Jessica doesn’t cheat. She is just being creative and highly flexible. It’s just her character.

Judging by that alarming red map, creatively upgraded to global boiling, global warming can’t creep in on us in “imperceptible” degrees like COVID-19. Pheew - at least I can see what’s coming. I can prepare. Are you prepared?

I am.

I bought another second-hand fridge and filled it with extra beer and tonic water. Nothing beats an excellent, potent gin tonic when it gets hot.

I emptied the pool to give it new paint before it will get too boiling to do so. I feel prepared.

My wife and daughter just came back from town, where they bought some hot weather emergency stuff:

We have been preparing for a while. Five years ago, we moved from New Zealand to Australia. Who wants to live on an island when the sea levels are rising? There has been a long-lasting debate to rename New Zealand to its Maori name, Aotearoa. It caused a bit of friction. Thanks to global boiling, this has been resolved now. Everybody agreed to rename New Zealand to No Zealand.

My wife does ocean swimming, and I call myself a surfer. I haven’t surfed for a while, though. Busy with the pool, you know. That’s what I tell my wife. The truth is, I just can’t be bothered to walk the 400 m from my house to the beach. It is too hot. I just pure myself a Gin Tonic and wait for the water to come to me instead. Should only be a few months away if the news is correct.

We bought our house strategically to prepare for the worst. I wrote to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) with our target house's exact location and altitude, and they modelled it for me. Next year, this time, we can step into the surf right from our doorstep and don’t have to leave the property anymore—no fines for us.

I bought more fishing rods and an ice maker.

I also invested in a few acres of land in the Australian outback. They were as cheap as chips. Just sand. Not much grows there. It’s an investment and backup - in case BOP got their modelling wrong., which is highly unlikely. They are experts. Here is my outback property:

The news does sound alamy - we better prepare for every occasion.

Some say rephrasing “global warming” into “global boiling” by UN boss António Guterres is propaganda. Bullshit, tells the king of propaganda:

I saw through this whole propaganda charade years ago, and it changed my life. I changed from Vodka to Gin and discovered Gin Tonic. I am prepared.

The people who accuse the UN of propaganda have no idea about how propaganda works. I break it down for them climate deniers.

1. Firstly, for propaganda to work, it has to be believable. If you are unsure, you can always do the egg test. Put a raw egg outside and wait five minutes. Then, cut it open and eat it. After that, you will know if global boiling has come to your home.

2. Secondly, for propaganda to work, it has to be related to established scientific rules, like water boils at 100C/212F C, not 30C/86F.

3. Propaganda has to be believed by intelligent people to be effective. Stupid people believe anything. You don’t need propaganda for them. Sooner or later, intelligent people will tell stupid people how stupid they are, and they will believe that, too. Stupid people will always believe the last person they have talked to. Or the last news they heard.

Propaganda is not a one-man show. It needs a whole team of experts, traditionally experienced scientists in an important position, to explain it to us. With social media, this has changed, however. Now, any influencer or famous person will be sufficient. Even 16-year-old drama students from Sweden. So, is the “global boiling” claim backed up by scientific experts? Let’s scan through this Washington Post article.

Please, experts, explain it to us. I don’t know what this means. It doesn’t make sense to me. How come my egg tasted slimy and cold?

Thankfully, Piers Forster, a professor in climate physics, explains it to us:

“His speech has sparked a surge of interest in the term “global boiling” and what it means — although scientists are divided on its use, with some pointing out that it is not a scientific term […]”

That’s not how it works, scientists. You are not supposed to be divided and undermine the profound scientific nature of this statement.

“He [Guterres] tried to come up with an even more compelling and sensational wording to try and get people’s attention, and I think we all understand why he’s doing that […] ”, Piers Forster, professor of climate physics at the University of Leeds in England and chair of Britain’s Climate Change Committee, said in an interview Saturday.”

“But I think some of what he’s saying now is beginning to depart from the underlying scientific evidence, and ultimately, that begins to lose credibility over time. It just desensitizes us all.”

Not kidding? But you are not supposed to say that. It made our honourable UN Boss look like a climate clown, and his brilliant piece of propaganda evaporated into thin air. But don’t despair, Mr. Guterres. Captain Kirk has successfully steered his spaceship around boiling-hot death stars and has some advice for you:

So how, then, does proper propaganda work?

Wikipedia:

Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented.^[1] (emphasis mine)

How to debunk it?

Buy yourself one of these.

If they are sold out, use common sense. If you don’t have one, dye your hair blue.

Propaganda identified as propaganda by the target group isn’t propaganda anymore. The moment people see that it is propaganda, it loses its power. Effective propaganda has to be believed to be true to work correctly. To achieve believability, it helps if it makes sense, Mr. Guterres.

The masses have reached incredible new heights of stupidity, but “global boiling?” Seriously?

But then again, mainstream media picked it up and doggedly repeated it endlessly. They attach a little imaginary bell to every fear-mongering climate report, and like in Pavlov’s famous dog experiments, people get conditioned into feeling fearful whenever the climate bell rings. Formerly, a fairly neutral word, climate becomes an emotionally loaded, negative word. Subconsciously, people are manipulated to go to war with climate.

But climate is all around us. It is the esoteric space of Mother Nature. How can you be happy, relaxed and at peace if subconsciously, you perceive the climate around you as a problem and, ultimately, a threat?

During COVID-19, they scared and alienated you from other people, even very close people you love, because “others” were portrayed as ”hostile carriers of deadly viruses.”

There are always several levels of understanding for any topic. Are we seeing a pattern of a dark, life-sucking force at work?

Because of these fears involving our environment and other people, some people still believe that masks work to keep an invisibly small virus in/out. People still believe that the COVID-19 injections work despite having them and getting infected with COVID-19 multiple times. Why wouldn’t they believe “global boiling” propaganda?

The best propaganda, however, is disguised as neutral information or news. It is nuanced and addresses the subconscious mind through subtle emotional triggers. If it is sub-conscious, it will not be questioned by the conscious mind, and people take it as an unquestionable fact. Even the most intelligent people are rarely in touch with their unconscious thinking and behaviour and can fall easily for clever propaganda.

How do we expose it?

We must remember that we can’t convince someone’s subconscious mind with logic. Sometimes, people can be taken out of their propaganda trance by making appropriate jokes about the underlying fear. It is a bit of an art form to do that, but it can be practised and learned.

The joke wants to make them feel slightly silly and slightly embarrassed about their fear-based, irrational gullibility without humiliating them. It must be delivered from a place of humbleness and compassion based on the knowledge that everyone, including ourselves, can sometimes be gullible.

Ultimately, we do people a favour if we wake them from the propaganda trance, and they will thank us if we do it humanely and humbly. Who wants to live with the belief the planet will be boiling soon? It's not a good life.

I think, ultimately, more people will fall for climate propaganda than COVID propaganda because climate and pollution are real global issues (unlike COVID-19), and most decent people have a legitimate concern for our environment. That concern gets used and weaponized through climate propaganda.

So, what is the agenda of climate propaganda? What do they want us to believe and fear?

Climate Change Agenda (not complete)

• Make people believe that global warming has reached a dangerous and harmful level to support immediate, drastic, expensive and controlling measures to lower temperatures.

• Make people believe that a fluctuating average temperature worldwide is “not normal” and that humans are fully responsible for it.

• Make people believe that an expected slight rise (1 to 2 Degrees) in average temperature will trigger a sudden “catastrophic and irreversible” chain reaction based on computer modelling.

• Make people believe the Carbon Dioxide (CO2) released into the atmosphere is the sole cause and solution that affects the climate and average temperature worldwide.

Thankfully, I am no climate expert at all. I am still allowed to use common sense and have the clarity of distance to make sense of it. Sometimes, scientists are too close to the object to see the whole picture.

I am also unbiased. Sadly, no one “sponsors” me to produce this. I have nothing to lose; therefore, I can say what I want. (For now).

Scientist? Not so much. Very often, their institutions are corrupted by the hands that feed them. They must produce “science” that benefits those donors who choose and fund the studies.

So what does common sense say?

Some basic universal laws govern all things.

Everything moves, everything changes. The only thing that doesn’t change is change itself.

That average temperatures rise and fall over periods is a no-brainer. That is normal, historically observed and even accepted by most climate scientists.

For argument’s sake, let's assume that average temperatures are rising. Scientists (under the leadership of Greta) claim it is “irreversible” and triggers catastrophic events. Irreversible, of course, is simply stupid.

This brings us to the second universal law - all natural systems balance themselves eventually. Our planet has cycled between extreme temperatures probably thousands of times. And if there is a long-term trend, it is this - stars and planets are cooling over time.

But, to be fair, this isn’t about planets. It is about people.

Catastrophic events will affect people, animals and plants. If - and that is a big if - predictions are 100% right (and they never are), most weather events will become more extreme over the following decades.

Will we adjust?

Of course, we will.

I just lived through the biggest bushfires in NSW history in 2019/2020 followed by a one-in-a-generation flood in 2022. It was burning and flooding all around me. These events look terrible on TV. It's not the end of the world in reality. You clean up and move on.

I, and an estimated 99% of the population, weren’t physically affected, which is part luck and part preparation and technology. Sadly, a combined 30 people died over three years. At the same time, sadly, over 800 people were killed in traffic accidents.

Without looking at the graph below, guess how many people out of 7 to 8 billion died on average from all natural disasters worldwide per year between 2000 and 2010. 50 Million? 5 Million? 500.000? 100.000?

Whatever you chose, you were wrong. It is so low I can hardly read it on the graph: Somewhere between 10.000 and 20.000. Per year. Worldwide.

Source: Our World in Data

People who died in NSW’s bushfires and floods lived in secluded areas with lots of forest around their houses and in flood-prone areas. They knew the risks; they made their choices. We carefully checked for flood and bushfire risks before we bought our house here. That’s just what you do in Australia.

Increased storm risks can be managed. Fluctuation in the rain can be managed. We will deal with it if the warming triggers more severe climate events. It won’t happen overnight. There is time to adjust.

It will affect people in poorer countries more, no doubt. But so does hunger and medical care.

In an ideal world, everyone would be healthy, fed, safe and live until they die in their sleep at age 95. I am not saying we shouldn’t try to improve the quality of life for as many people as possible, but we also have to be realistic about it.

Panicking about imagined catastrophic events based on modelled scenarios that might or might not occur doesn’t help anyone. Spending trillions on an accelerated effort to control world temperature will be trillions that can’t be spent on other life-improving measures.

The UN did a “ground-breaking global survey” - a game called 1.5 Degree - a few years ago. The survey is a joke, but nevertheless, it clearly showed one thing: Despite being affected most negatively by an increase in natural disaster events, low-income countries had the slightest concern with climate change.

Which is another no-brainer. Most people in low-income countries die from malnutrition, avoidable diseases related to poor hygiene, and inadequate medical care. They are not scared of severe weather events, especially an “extreme heatwave” topping out at 30C. They have real problems. They don’t need made-up ones.

The typical climate “climate paranoid-iee” is young, rich, and lives in a safe, green and hardly polluted wealthy country with access to many TVs and compromised news to “learn” to fear climate change—a bit like Greta.

Vast amounts of money spent on COVID were not really needed and didn’t benefit Covid victims. The trillion dollars that may or may not get us to net zero will not improve people's climate safety. It primarily supports massive bureaucratic organizations and billionaires selling “urgently needed” products at artificially inflated prices caused by time pressure.

I am not saying don’t reduce emissions and waste. Just cut out the hyperbole, urgency and panic. We can do it balanced and sustainably, as it has been done for decades in many countries.

And dump virtue signalling. NZ is a good example. Its share of global CO2 emissions is a laughable 0.14%. Who knows, Bill Gates's empire probably emits that much. They are committed to reaching net zero by 2050. This will cost the NZ people money they don’t have in an already high standard of living crisis.

It is good to reduce emissions as much as possible in NZ, as in every other country, as long as people can afford it. Anything drastic and expensive is irresponsible because it makes almost no difference to total emissions or the world’s climate if NZ, by 2050, has reduced their emissions to 0%, 5%, 20% or 50%.

It’s a fallacy to think it will make any difference in how much the US, India, and China (the most significant polluters) will reduce emissions. How willing or able they are to reduce has nothing to do with what NZ does.

My estimated guess is that there are increasingly higher costs as lower we go with eliminating CO2. In other words, if there is a 100% emission of CO2, the first 10% is the cheapest to remove because we can choose the cheapest first. As we get lower, each percentage will get more and more expensive.

Removing the last 10% might be as expensive as reducing the first 50%. Wouldn’t it be more efficient to finance poor countries to reduce massive amounts of CO2 of the top for a few dollars rather than getting as low as possible in NZ?

In other words - how much CO2 does 1 Million Dollars remove in NZ compared to investing it in India or an even poorer country? Common sense tells me many more tons of CO2. But that’s politically difficult. And NZ wants the bragging rights: First Net Zero country in the world. This works well to attract more rich, liberal, eco-millionaire immigrants to New Zealand and finance the budget year-by-year with it.

But aiming for a 100% carbon footprint elimination will also increasingly affect our essential needs: Food production, heating, cooling, and transport (going to work).

That distresses me much more than a 1.5C hotter environment and presumably more bad severe weather events.

I have to repeat: All of the climate predictions are modelled. No one knows what will happen. Those models have many variables, all affecting each other with thousands of possible outcomes.

The results will change significantly depending on the values used for each variable.

And who decides on the values put into the models?

Whoever does can manipulate the outcome. Didn’t the Imperial College of London’s Covid victims modelling in early 2020 demonstrate precisely that? Values were chosen to feed the variables that dramatically overestimated the number of Covid victims. It created panic and affected a massive worldwide overreaction because that was an agenda right from the start: To create panic.

Billionaires make a lot of money when there is panic. And they are powerful enough to influence and create a panic. Bill Gates and The Wellcome Trust are donors to the college. An exaggerated panic-inducing modelling outcome was in their interest. It is unlikely that mRNA vaccines would have dominated the health response to COVID-19 without the college's panic-inducing “tempered-with” modelling outcome.

Why would climate modelling be used differently?

Trillions will be earned on climate responses. Billionaires don’t become billionaires by sitting idle and waiting for opportunities to come their way. They create opportunities the same way Jessica made this article. Everyone has an agenda. Why do people think all these influential people and non-elected organizations, like the UN, WEF, etc., support the global warming agenda? Because they have our best interest at heart? Haven’t you learned anything from Covid?

Don’t fall for the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (Read Stupid People for details.)

But what about the polar bears?

Nothing captures apparent global warming more than the above picture. That makes it also a great temptation to be used as propaganda material to accelerate profitable urgent climate change measures.

If we Google “How does climate change affect animals?”, twelve of the first fifteen pictures are polar bears in different states of misery.

If you watch nature shows, you think the polar bears are becoming extinct. I certainly did until I looked it up.

Don’t get me wrong. I am all for protecting and increasing wildlife populations. And I love to watch polar bears in nature shows. They are amazing. I just don’t want to be manipulated by propaganda.

The WWF Website has this to say about polar bears.

The estimated numbers are 22.000 to 33.000. Unfortunately, no information is given if numbers increase or decrease over time, which made me immediately suspicious. If the numbers decline, we will see a graph proving it. They have been counting ice bears for decades by now. But no graph.

All I get is this:

3 populations are in decline
2 populations are increasing
4 populations are stable
10 populations are data-deficient (information missing or outdated)

Which still doesn’t answer the question.

Finally, I see the tiny link that gets me to this confusing page about how they are counted. It says that the total number is increasing, but at the same time, it says it is not. It is very confusing.

It looks like they don’t want to say that they are increasing. Increasing polar bear populations won’t fit the global climate change agenda, and the WWF probably gets funding from some stakeholders.

The biggest threat to and lowest numbers of polar bears was not caused by global warming but unrestricted hunting until 1970.

This is good news. We don’t need to hand over billions of dollars for power storage units for new solar and wind farms and private homes to Elon Musk to save polar bears. They could do better, of course, but they have been worse.

But, like us humans, probably more fluent and quickly, animals will also adjust should there be a rise in global temperature. They will move to find new habitats and food. If it gets hotter, some colder areas are more attractive for humans and animals, while others are less desirable. Some places get more humid, and others get more dry. It is not like everything gets worse everywhere if the planet warms. Like always, there will be pros and cons.

And there is time. At the core of every panic is the belief that there is no time. That we have to act now. This mantra is repeated endlessly to create the panic. Ignore it.

If it happens, it will take decades, and we will adjust.

I might even move back to No Zealand. It will be even more stunning. The oceans will be closer to the mountains, and the temperatures will reach a very livable Gin and Tonic range.

Stop the heck panicking, people. And polish your bullshit detectors. We are all getting played once again.

If anyone yells “Panic”, the first thing we should do is stop and think, get suspicious and use common sense. No good decisions were ever made, fuelled by panic. It is no secret that panicking minds do not work very well.

And, in case you wonder, I am not a climate denier. I love watching the weather forecast, especially when it’s hot.