Extracts from Zina Cohen’s Book on Climate Change

Vernon Coleman





Zina Cohen is the author of the international bestseller `The Shocking History of the EU’. Here are four short extracts from her latest book 'Greta’s Homework’:

1.
It was recently announced with much fanfare that Britain now obtains more electricity from renewables than from fossil fuels. But most of the electricity from `renewables’ comes from something called biomass. (Wind and solar power probably provide nearly enough electricity to power the computers and phones of climate change protestors.)

So, what is biomass?

I rather suspect that quite a lot of people don’t know that `biomass’ is another word for `wood’ – the stuff you get from chopping down trees. (It is perfectly possible that some of the children who are hysterical about climate change, particularly those who have spent a good deal of time away from school, don’t realise that wood comes from trees.)

And the trees which give us wood (aka biomass) are the same trees which we are told we must plant to save the planet.

The European Union and the British Government want to stop us using log burning stoves and open fireplaces. But at the same time they are shovelling tons of trees into power station burners.

This is more than lunacy. It’s fraud.

The biomass enthusiasts are, presumably, the same idiots who thought biofuels were a good idea – not realising that burning food condemns millions to starve.




2.
When Greta Thunberg went to America recently (to campaign against the use of oil, among other things) she returned on a £4 million boat allegedly equipped with two diesel engines for emergencies and a diesel fuel tank carrying 672 litres of diesel. When she was ready to return to Europe, members of the crew had to fly out to America to bring her back. She would have used less oil if she had simply climbed aboard a commercial aeroplane and flown across the Atlantic. That’s hypocrisy of which Prince Charles and Harry could be proud.

Time and time again, it becomes clear that those who shout loudest than the rest of us must not use oil or gas, seem to believe that although we must eschew those products it is perfectly acceptable for them to do so. They, it seems, are so important that the rules do not apply to them. It is this arrogance, this hypocrisy, which distinguishes all those (with a bunch of celebrities and members of the British royal family at the forefront) who shout loudest about climate change. It is this extraordinary hubris which ensures that their exhortations are ignored.


3.
If the hysterical Climate Change Mythmakers could put down their placards long enough to do a little research, they would find that Britain’s use of energy fell by a fifth between 2000 and 2020. We travel less and our cars go further on a gallon of petrol. Our air is cleaner than it has ever been. We have taken the carbon out of economy faster than any other country. Through caring, through the activities of capitalists and through technology we have made enormous strides – without the slogan shouting vandals and terrorists demanding that we listen to their nonsense.

Nevertheless, the British government is now in thrall to these lunatics and is introducing unilateral plans which will do dramatic damage to our way of life.

Maddest of all, the Government is forcing drivers to use electric cars which are known to be more damaging to the planet than diesel and petrol driven cars. And those electric cars will require vast quantities of electricity which will have to be produced by burning oil or wood. (Calling wood `biomass’ doesn’t change what it is.)

The myth of man-made global warming is a cruel marketing strategy designed to introduce us to the reality of peak oil without actually bothering to tell us that the oil is running out.

The celebrities, royals, CCMs and schoolchildren are merely being used to help sell the myth.


4. Spurious climate scares have been common for generations. So, for example, back on 24th June 1974, Time magazine (that’s the silly rag which made Little Greta their person of the year in 2019) announced the coming of another ice age. We are still waiting for that one.

Predictions and forecasts made by climate change `scientists’ have been woefully inaccurate – consistently.

Back in 2007, the WWF told us that we had five years to save the world. The Climate Change Hysterics told us that the English county of Cornwall would be a desert by 2010. In 2011, the International Energy Agency said we had five years to avoid Armageddon. In 2017, the United Nations said we had three years left and in that same year the International Energy Agency also said we had three years left.

Some of these merry doomsters are relatively cautious and merely claim that our planet will be unliveable within a generation. Others are far more specific. Greta Thunberg recently announced that we had eight years left to save the planet. I don’t think she explained why it was eight and not seven or nine years before the Four Horsemen would ride into view in their electric cars. It seems to me bizarre that a relatively uneducated girl with no scientific background feels able to be so dogmatic. Is it at all possible that someone is feeding her opinions, I wonder? An American politician called Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is more optimistic. Last year she said we have twelve years left before something will happen. In 2013, a Cambridge professor called Peter Wadhams said that we had until 2015 before all the Arctic ice disappeared. Mind you, he was optimistic compared to Gordon Brown who, in 2009, taking a tea-break from buggering up the British economy, told us that we had just 50 days to save the planet. Eleven years ago Prince Charles said that we had eight years left to save the planet so you might imagine that the heir to the throne would be hiding in a cupboard feeling rather embarrassed since there is clearly now no point whatsoever in doing anything to oppose the terror which awaits. However, Charles is made of sterner stuff than most of us and he is continuing with his scaremongering without allowing his past predictions to interfere with his latest forecast.

The trick, it seems, is to pick a date a few years ahead and then hope that by the time we get there everyone will have forgotten what you said.


5.
The Environmental Agency in the UK claims that `intense rainfall events’ are more common today because of climate change. This simply isn’t true. The highest rainfall in five minutes occurred in 1893. The highest rainfall in one hour occurred in 1901. The highest rainfall in 24 hours occurred in 1955. These figures all come from the Met Office. If the Environmental Agency cared about facts and science they could have easily obtained the figures before they joined the hysterical children who appear to be making government policy these days. Please read Zina Cohen’s blistering destruction of the Climate Change Myth. It will help you explain to people you know why climate change is a myth – and Little Greta’s absurd prognostications can be safely ignored. Might I suggest that you share these truths with your local paper and local radio station?

Copyright Vernon Coleman February 28th 2020



Home