On 9th January 2007, Steve Jobs did what was his most epic launch of what was to be a world changing new product – the iPhone. Just 62 years earlier, the Americans had dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those bombs had killed a mere 105,000 Japanese. The new product that Steve Jobs had launched that day, and that was soon emulated as the Android phone, proved to be much more lethal. To date, and continuing, those smartphones, leaving suicides to one side but including them in the total toll, have destroyed the lives of a significant portion of Gen Z, particularly those born in the Anglosphere (English speaking countries). That is children born after 1996 and up to 2010, as well as some of the millennials (children born after 1980 up to and including 1995) and it's destined to continue to wreak similar damage in Generation Alpha – children born after 2010. It’s easily within our power to stop that – but so far we, as a society, haven’t done much about that.

One of the outcomes of this destruction is what’s called medically, gender dysphoria, children who say that they’re confused about their sex. Children who say that they’ve been born into the wrong body – the opposite of their birth gender. This series is going to be looking particularly at that issue, but in this and the next few programmes, we’re going to join that consummate designer and salesman, Steve Jobs, on the very day that he let this genie out of the bottle and I’ll tell you the incredible story of how he got there.

Tag words: Steve Jobs; iPhone; atomic bombs; Gen Z; Walter Isaacson; Mike Markkula; The Apple Marketing Philosophy; empathy; focus; Impute; iPod; iPad; Apple computers; Nokia; Motorola; Palm; Blackberry; Ed Zander; RAZR; ROKR; Wired magazine; Hamlet; William Shakespeare; Microsoft; Bill Gates; Melinda Gates; stylus; tablet; Jony Ive; MacBook Pro; FingerWorks; John Elias; Wayne Westerman; multi-touch;

In this programme, I’ll finish my interview with Patricia Weerakoon, a retired sexologist who has now written a number of books on the issue of gender dysphoria, and then round up the programme by looking at the chilling threat often made to parents of children who say they want to transition that if they don’t go along with it there is a serious risk that their child will commit suicide. Is that for real?

Former Australian Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, did a brilliant interview with Helen Joyce. She was Britain Editor at The Economist, where she worked for over 15 years. Then she joined the gender-critical campaign group “Sex Matters” as a director. She’s the author of Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality. She had this to say on that disturbing argument which alleges that there are youth suicides by children said to be suffering from gender dysphoria who weren’t allowed to be put on the path to gender transition by administering puberty blockers.

I’ll return to this very important issue later in this programme. But now I’ll finish the interview with Patricia Weerakoon.

Tag words: Gender dysphoria; Patricia Weerakoon; Helen Joyce; Sex Matters; Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality; youth suicides; puberty blockers; Bell Curve; LGBT Community; transgender; lesbians, transwomen; Intersex; God; after-life; Cass Review; Dr Hilary Cass; The Gender Revolution; transgender ideology; Transgender ideologues; The Lancet; as Alison Clayton; Robert Oppenheimer; Apple; Steve Jobs;

Today I continue with the interview with Patricia Weerakoon, expert in the science of sex. Today she’ll discuss with us the effects of masculinising and feminising drugs, including quite severe medical implications and homeostasis. How successful is what is called sex change surgery? How do artificial vaginas work. Young children regretting the changes they have had – the so-called de-transitioners. Immature children being allowed to make major life altering surgeries. Do you know your gender identity from the time you can start talking. Are children more likely to commit suicide if they are not allowed to change their sex? Is gender the only issue, or are there other medical and social issues that may be more important than the confusion over gender? What is the impact of social media on children in relation to gender dysphoria? Is it related to social clusters or what medically is known as social contagion? What does Tourette Syndrome have to do with this.

Tag words: masculinising hormones; feminising hormones; serious adverse medical impacts; homeostasis; sex change surgery; lifetime medical problems; dilating artificial vagina; no way back; pain; gender identity; suicide, comorbidities; ADHD; pornography; social clusters; social contagion; anorexia; bulimia; Tourette syndrome; gender dysphoria

There’s a lot of talk about modern medical science being able to change the biological sex of any person to the opposite sex. We’ve come to expect amazing things from our scientists, so is this true or just exaggeration. What’s driving all this.

This is the start of a detailed series on this topic. I’m going to start by interviewing an expert on this topic, Patricia Weerakoon.

Tag words: assigned sex; sex changing; biological sex; gender; transexual clinic; gender identity; gender soul; transgender ideology; puberty; hit the pause button; precocious puberty; puberty blockers; cross sex hormones; secondary sexual characteristics; uterus, ovaries, penis, testes; sperm, testosterone; brain changes; adolescence;

Swedish climate activist, Greta Thunberg, testified at a House hearing on climate change along with other youth leaders about the cataclysmic climate and the irrefutable proof that it was actually happening. She had this to say about trusting in the science on climate change:

Many of the people who tell us that the Great Barrier Reef is dying are people without any belief in God. They don’t believe that God exists. They don’t believe what the Bible tells us about how we should live and what is happening and what is going to happen.

So they ignore the Bible which tells us God’s will, but they’ll believe anything that someone says if they call themselves scientists. The scientists that the climate alarmists believe about our Great Barrier Reef is that it is dying. It’s on the verge of becoming a coral grave yard.

But how can you believe, without question, what a scientist or a whole gaggle of scientists tell us when the most credible scientists don’t have that unquestioning belief in scientists.

One of the greatest scientists of the 20th Century, Robert J Oppenheimer, speaking on behalf of the leading scientists of his day said:

We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism.

So when people who aren’t scientists, like Greta Thunberg, tells us that we have to trust the science, we can’t trust that. Unless we know more about who the scientists she’s telling us to trust, and how they reached the view that they did, then we at least should be asking for more detail. We’re talking about spending trillions of dollars that could be usefully spent on other things – helping the homeless, finding a cure for cancer for example. So spending trillions of dollars on saving the Great Barrier Reef from climate change – shouldn’t the people who are spending your money, remember governments don’t have any money, governments take yours, be absolutely sure about the science. Shouldn’t they be sure that the Reef really needs saving?

Another leading scientist said that there is:

“… currently a crisis of confidence in … science reflecting an unprecedented level of doubt among practitioners about the reliability of research findings. …”.

He said that what many scientists are telling us is science today is “worse than fairy tales; with fairy tales the reader is at least aware that the work is fictional.”

What I am about to tell you will, or should, scare the pants off you.

Tag words: GBR; Great Barrier Reef; Peter Ridd; Reef Heresy; Greta Thunberg; Boeing Dreamliner; Florian Prinz; Marcia Angell; The Lancet; Carlos M Duarte; Reconsidering Ocean Calamities; Dr Paul Haristy; Piers Larcombe; Richard Horton; Christopher Hughes; London School of Economics; James Cook University; JCU;

Plastics in the seas. What harm are they doing? Here’s one you mightn’t have thought of thanks to the research work done by Swedish girl, Oona Lönnstedt. Her findings were published in the prestigious science journal called … well “Science” obviously.

The BBC captured her findings in this story published on 2 June 2016:

“Young fish become hooked on eating plastic in the seas in the same way that teenagers prefer unhealthy fast food, Swedish researchers have said. Their study, reported in Science, found exposure to high concentrations of polystyrene makes perch larvae favour the particles over more natural foods. As a result of exposure to plastic, the young perch are smaller, slower and more susceptible to predators.”

Oona Lönnstedt was hot scientific property after this and other international triumphs. A report that she did on Lionfish was published in another prestigious magazine, “Biology Letters”. That magazine is put out there by The Royal Society – founded by the great Sir Isaac Newton. The first scientific body established in the world.

By 2016 Oona had published a number of ground-breaking reports showing the disastrous impact of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef, coupled with the effects of coral fish eating micro plastics. 

Basically all of her findings were that coral fish, affected by micro plastics, coupled with high concentrations of carbon dioxide, had their normal behaviour, that had kept them alive for thousands of years before now, altered so that they behaved in a way that would increase their chances of being killed by other prey. Apparently eating plastic made these fish smaller (they didn’t grow because plastic isn’t nourishing apparently) and fearless a deadly combination. They were better going with their biological wiring of being cautious and timid. But climate change buggered that up.

As the gold miners on the Californian goldfields in the late 1840s, used to say, “there’s gold in them thar hills”. A scientist who produces material that confirms that the world is suffering from the impacts of catastrophic climate change will find no trouble at all in getting funding grants, as well as fortune and glory for the university that has her on their team. Oona was truly the golden girl.

As soon as she had finished her PhD at James Cook University, Uppsala University in Stockholm, the oldest university in Sweden, founded in 1477, lured her back to work with them. And that’s where this story gets interesting.

Tag words: GBR; Great Barrier Reef; Peter Ridd; Reef Heresy; Oona Lönnstedt; catastrophic climate change; James Cook University; JCU; Uppsala University; Lionfish; Dr Timothy Clark; Stephen Hawking; World Heritage Committee; UNESCO; Replicability in Psychological Science: A Crisis of Confidence; H Pashler; EJ Wagenmakers; Replication Crisis; fairyatles; Scientist Michael Guillen;

Did you know that the sunscreen you use when you go into the water to look at the Great Barrier Reef, will kill the reef?

In 2018 Hawaii became the first place in the world to ban certain sunscreens. The law came into effect on 1 January 2021.

Forensic ecotoxicologist, Craig Downs, tells us that when sunscreen washes off your body and into the ocean the chemicals can cause “bleaching, deformities, DNA damage and death in coral”. He says that sunscreen pollution can impact not just coral, but potentially all of the organisms on the reef. That is tragic.

So how much sunscreen lotion that you have slip, slop, slapped on, will cause those horrific Great Barrier Reef killing outcomes? Peter Ridd, in his book “Reef Heresy”, says that you would need 2,000 tonnes of sunscreen each week in somewhere like Kaneohe Bay, a tiny bay in Hawaii, to cause that damage. That’s the equivalent to squeezing completely empty, 20,000 tubes of sunscreen each week into that bay. How long does your tube of sunscreen last you? How long does it take you to squeeze your sunscreen tube empty? The Great Barrier Reef is 2,000 kilometres long and the Great Barrier Reef lagoon is completely flushed out every two weeks.  You are going to need vastly more sunscreen each week into the Great Barrier Reef, to have any effect. The levels of sunscreen in the water needed to cause damage to the Great Barrier Reef – is never going to happen unless everyone from China comes to the Great Barrier Reef, and on the same day, they all slap on a lot of sunscreen and they all jump into the water at the same time.

On the other hand, if you’re in the sun, on a hot day on the Great Barrier Reef off Cairns, then if you don’t have sunscreen you’ll burn within 10 minutes. It seems from the scientists that just one blisteringly bad sunburn increases your risks of getting a melanoma, which could well be fatal by 50%. They’re bad odds.

So you have to do the math. Is it better to run a very real, very high risk of getting bad sunburn, and possibly developing a fatal skin cancer, or use sunscreen with no real chance at all of having any impact on the Great Barrier Reef. With the constant and massive flushing of the Great Barrier Reef lagoon your sunscreen is not going to do anything.

But coal – the arch villain. I’ll bet it will cause some real damage to the reef. Let’s have a look.

Tag words: GBR; Great Barrier Reef; sunscreens; Forensic ecotoxicologist; Craig Downs; coal; Professor Terry Hughes; Australian Research Council Centre for Excellence for Coral Reef Studies; Hays Point terminal; coal dust; Peter Ridd; Reef Heresy; CSIRO; Australian Institute of Marine Science; UNESCO World Heritage Committee; Gina Rinehart; Robert Oppenheimer; overfishing; fishing industry; Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; Mediocre Fringing Reefs; John 8:44;

In June 2021 the World Heritage Committee, convened under the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), issued a draft report on the Great Barrier Reef, which found that Australia has not done enough to protect the world’s largest coral reef system from the impacts of climate change.

It said that the Great Barrier Reef continues to deteriorate and has suffered significant coral bleaching over the past five years.

“The Plan requires stronger and clearer commitments, in particular towards urgently countering the effects of climate change, but also towards accelerating water quality improvement and land management measures,” the report continued.

“The widespread effects of the consecutive coral bleaching events further add to the significant concerns regarding the future of the property.”

The UNESCO World Heritage Committee meeting was hosted by China in July 2021.

The last World Heritage Committee meeting came within a hair’s breadth of listing the Great Barrier Reef as being ‘in danger’.

Norway, supported by China at the meeting, criticised Australia’s Reef 2050 plan to save the Reef from climate change – so let’s find out the current status of the Reef. This sounds very serious – very serious indeed.

Tag words: GBR; Great Barrier Reef; World heritage Committee; UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; UNESCO; mass coral bleaching event; Peter Ridd; Reef Heresy; El Nino; zooxanthellae; coral; staghorns; Professor Terry Hughes; ARC Centre for Excellence for Coral Reef Studies; JCU campus; Mediocre Fringing Reefs; cyclone; Australian Institute of Marine Science; Belts and Roads Initiative;

Fertilisers from farms along the coast next to the Great Barrier Reef. What can I say. Sigh!

Well the World Wildlife Federation had this to say:

“Following the widespread destruction of trees for intensive agriculture, streams that once remained clear following rain now carry sediment and fertiliser pollution out to Reef waters.

…. On 5 September 2018, hours after heavy rain, conservationists filmed water flowing off a cane farm into a drain which leads to a tributary of Cattle Creek.

Tests revealed the water coming off the cane farm had almost nine times the recommended levels of nitrogen.

Nitrogen levels in Cattle Creek were three times above environmentally safe levels and the Creek was a muddy mess with sediment levels at least one-and-a-half times water quality thresholds.

Following more rain on 13 October 2018 nearby Clairview Creek was choked with sediment. A photograph from 2008 shows that Clairview Creek used to remain clear after rain.

Sediment and fertiliser runoff from farms is one of the greatest threats to the Great Barrier Reef.

Currently intensive agricultural development does not get assessed to ensure pollution is controlled.”

“We need stronger laws. No-one should be allowed to pollute the Reef,” said WWF-Australia spokesperson Sean Hoobin.

“The hundreds of millions invested in Reef water quality is being wasted without effective Reef pollution laws,” he said.”

Well this state of affairs would be shocking for our Great Barrier Reef if all of the claims are true. The question is, are they? In this programme, I’m going to talk a lot of manure.

Tag words: GBR; Great Barrier Reef; Fertilisers; World Wildlife Foundation; WWF; Journal of Geophysical Research; S Choukroun; Peter Ridd; Great Barrier Reef lagoon; Michael Shellenberger; Apocalypse Never; nitrogen pollution; Mary River; J Udy; Reef Heresy; John 1:3; John 8:44; environmental activists; Søren Kierkegaard; Baal; Hosea 4:6;

I hate to be a Jeremiah (I’m guessing you don’t know what I mean by that – right). Well Jeremiah was a prophet of God in the Old Testament. He had some news for the Jewish state known as Judah, that had Jerusalem as its capital. They had been worshipping idols and God was pissed. They were going to be punished and God was going to use the ruler of the Babylonians, Nebuchadnezzar, to punish them. Whenever he opened his mouth it was bad news. Just like me.

So I’ll be as gentle as I can but the bad news is that the farmers are killing the Great Barrier Reef. That’s what the World Wildlife Fund is telling us.

The World Wildlife Fund says that Eastern Australia is one of the most dangerous deforestation fronts in the world today. Globally, it says, 177 million square kilometres of forest are lost each year. That’s the equivalent, apparently, to losing 50 football fields every minute. Staggering. WWF says that Australia ranks with the Amazon, Borneo, the Congo Basin and other threatened tropical regions as the countries most devastating their forests.

WWF tells us that tree-clearing has a major impact on the health of soil and water. Without trees to anchor soil, erosion can happen and sweep our precious soils into rivers, choking and polluting our waterways. The WWF tells us that in Australia this run off is threatening the health and resilience, and even the very survival of the Great Barrier Reef.

I’m going to dig into this story a little more closely now to find out just how critical the health of the Reef is because of our irresponsible farmers.

Tag words: GBR; Great Barrier Reef; Jeremiah; prophet of God; Old Testament; Babylonians; Nebuchadnezzar; World Wildlife Fund; WWF; Peter Ridd; Reef Heresy; Piers Larcombe; Ken Woolfe; Marine Geophysical Laboratory; Mediocre Fringing Reefs; climate change; Cyclone Yasi; Coral Sea; Trinity Bay; Brodie J Fabricius; John 9:6; pool of Siloam; One Green Planet; Matthew 6:5-6; Governor Phillip; Botany Bay; Australian Institute of Marine Science;