As Karl du Fresne wrote recently, former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark is a “leading global figurehead” of the new, leftist ruling class. This ruling class is, as du Fresne notes, hypocritical and decidedly totalitarian: They have a decidedly prudish streak when it comes to alcohol and think the state should be far more active in restricting what we can eat[…]A central article of faith with the elites is that ordinary people can’t be trusted to make the right decisions for themselves.

In keeping with her busy-body, nanny-state globalism, Clark is behind a new “report” which wags its finger and sternly admonishes us to “think of the children!”

A major joint report by the WHO, UNICEF and the scientific journal The Lancet concludes the future of children around the world, including Australia, is being threatened by ecological degradation, climate change and predatory marketing practices that drive obesity.

Australia’s children were ranked 20th in the world on a ‘flourishing’ index, which takes into account poverty, health, education and protection from violence, but Australia’s performance on an index of sustainability was dire, with a rank of 174 out of 180 countries.

The poor sustainability rank was driven by high CO2 emissions per head of population, with the WHO estimating that Australia’s emissions would be 524 per cent above a global target by 2030.

So, real-world measures like poverty, health and education – none of that counts for anything compared to the globalists’ obsession with the invisible sky dragon.

After all, using real data about actual things would destroy the narrative: Australia is in the top 20 nations on the Human Poverty Index (unlike New Zealand, despite having its very own Minister for Child Poverty in the prime minister’s chair, no less), health (where Australia is in the top 10, 11 places ahead of New Zealand) or education (despite falling standards, Australia still leads the UN’s own Education Index – with New Zealand in third place).

Perhaps Clark is just embarrassed that the nation she used to lead, and now run by her acolyte, is doing so poorly compared to the so-called “deniers” in Australia? But wait: Australia has reduced its CO2 emissions by 13%, while climate-loving New Zealand has increased its by 4%.

All said, Helen Clark’s former realm is not pulling its weight in the brave new globalist world. What else is an elite panjandrum to do, but fudge the numbers and try and baffle the peanut gallery with bullshit?

The report says if global warming exceeds 4 degrees Celsius by the year 2100 in line with current projections, “it would lead to devastating health consequences for children, due to rising ocean levels, heatwaves, proliferation of diseases like malaria and dengue, and malnutrition.”

[…]Co-chair of the Commission, former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark, said children were facing future “existential threats”.

“Despite improvements in child and adolescent health over the past 20 years, progress has stalled, and is set to reverse,” Ms Clark said. “Every child worldwide now faces existential threats from climate change and commercial pressures.

theaustralian.com.au/nation/un-who-lancet-report-says-every-child-under-threat-from-climate-poor-diet/

Clark is channelling the bullying child-ignoramus who became the globalist patron saint, and shrieking, “How dare you!”

But, as Michael Reagan once said, “Invoking ‘the children’ is pure BS. It’s obvious political BS.” Political BS, though, is the globalists’ stock-in-trade – none less than Helen Clark.

And this report is A-grade, rolled-gold bullshit.

Note the core argument: if global warming exceeds 4 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.

There is absolutely no reason to think that this is at all likely. The “4­°C” claim is predicated on an absolute-worst-case scenario that, as other scientists point out, assumes a chain of events which are individually all at the extreme end of probability. The likelihood that all of them will combine to produce an absolute-worst-case is ridiculously remote.

The central premise of Clark’s argument is garbage. Any conclusions drawn from a garbage premise will, logically, also be garbage.

Globalist finger-wagger Clark’s “report” is rank garbage of the lowest order.

If you enjoyed this BFD article please consider sharing it with your friends.