Latest / UK Column Radio / Ex-UN Scientist Challenges the Climate Narrative and More

Transcript

Ex-UN Scientist Challenges the Climate Narrative and More · UK Column Radio

0:09
Well, hello, Peter. Peter Taylor.
0:11
I've got the joy of interviewing Peter Taylor today.
0:15
Now, Peter, I've known for a very long time, actually over 10
0:19
years. And he is an environmental
0:22
scientist and has worked for the United Nations at some point and
0:28
has got 2 Oxford degrees. He's an amazing man, has worked
0:32
for all sorts of people over the over the years.
0:36
And he in I, I heard about Peter when he he wrote a book called
0:40
Chill. What year was that, Peter?
0:42
It was published in 2009. 2000 that's, that's when I actually
0:47
came to live here in Glastonbury and you live locally and I read
0:52
read the book and it was about global cooling, which was really
0:55
something in 2009. And of course you, you know,
1:01
your, your colleagues didn't really take that book very well,
1:05
did they? They they kind of you got ousted
1:07
from from the whole, the whole thing with with with climate
1:12
from establishments like the UN. So tell us about that.
1:16
What happened? Yeah, well, my colleagues in a
1:19
sense were the environmental movement itself.
1:23
Since the mid 70s, I'd been working on issues of ocean
1:27
pollution, atmospheric pollution, trying to stop
1:33
certain bad things happening, a lot to do with toxic industries,
1:39
nuclear power and so forth. And I'd, I'd never looked at the
1:45
climate science as such. So all the institutes worldwide
1:50
were saying, you know, carbon dioxide is the main cause of
1:53
what we're seeing in terms of global warming.
1:58
And at at that time, before I published Chill, I'd been
2:03
involved in working with government, the Department of
2:06
Trade and Industry and Countryside Agency on how to
2:09
integrate renewable energy into the environment.
2:13
The things I care about such as biodiversity, community, rural
2:18
communities, especially upland mountain communities.
2:24
When I looked at what was being advocated in the year 2000 by
2:28
the Royal Commission and that was only with like 50% reduction
2:33
of emissions, it wasn't net 0. I looked at, I thought this is
2:38
this is going to have incredible impact on the countryside, solar
2:43
panels, wind turbines, more new. It was a godsend to the nuclear
2:47
industry, biofuels, hydro schemes and we couldn't supply
2:53
all our renewable energy from Britain.
2:55
So we were bound to go and exploit other areas which I can
2:59
talk about. And so I was still thinking
3:04
positively that the best thing to do is find a way of
3:07
integrating it. So I designed a tool by which
3:11
communities could decide for themselves.
3:14
So it was a like a computer landscape very similar to the
3:18
one that they would be in. We did a western, a Midlands and
3:22
an eastern landscape. And you could choose what you
3:25
would, how you would answer the integration of renewable energy
3:29
so that people were using their energy locally, fundamentally
3:33
and sustainably. And that was a three year
3:36
project. It was funded by the government.
3:38
It was my design. I helped the help of some
3:41
incredible computer engineers who could visualise and and work
3:45
with, I'd seen with my own children how they were in
3:49
fantasy landscapes. And I thought, wow, you know,
3:53
you can fly into them. And if you've you've seen these
3:56
computer games, couldn't we do the same for educating
3:59
communities about their own landscape and what they could do
4:03
and so on? So it was quite a sophisticated
4:06
project and and we were blessed by some very, very good minds on
4:10
the job. And that took me to about 2003
4:15
and I was actually sitting on a government committee of
4:19
community renewables. How do you empower communities?
4:22
Where can they go for information?
4:24
Can we give them any money? And so I think we had about
4:26
£1,000,000 on the table. So I, I was well on board and,
4:32
and given my record on ocean pollution, particularly working
4:37
with Greenpeace, I was their chief advocate at the UN for
4:42
many years on ocean pollution issues.
4:45
And eventually the UN realising that they got it wrong.
4:50
And that's an important thing for what we, what we can talk
4:53
about because all the institutions of science at that
4:57
time thought you could dilute stuff, put it in the ocean and
5:01
forget about it. Oh, not entirely.
5:03
You would monitor just in case you got it wrong and if anything
5:08
went wrong, you could stop whatever you were doing.
5:11
Well, yes and no, because you could also end up with stuff in
5:15
the atmosphere or the oceans which you can't do anything
5:19
about, such as CFCS and we nearly lost the ozone layer.
5:24
So science makes a lot of errors and those errors are not
5:29
publicised, they rather cover them up.
5:33
And CFCS in the atmosphere is a bit of an exception because they
5:40
they regard that as one of their success stories.
5:43
They quickly stopped the production of CFCS once they
5:46
realised it was destroying the ozone layer.
5:49
What's generally not known is that science itself nearly
5:51
missed the whole thing. They dismissed the first bit of
5:54
data from the Antarctic that the ozone hole was happening, and it
5:59
was only pressure from a few scientists below who managed to
6:03
get it up on the agenda. But in the years before that,
6:09
they were advertising chlorofluorocarbon as something
6:12
you can clean your wash, you could do your washing up in it.
6:15
It's totally non toxic. And of course, they didn't think
6:19
far enough. So I'd been educated in the
6:22
limitations of computer models, one of which had been you can
6:27
dump nuclear waste to the bottom of the ocean and we'll track it
6:31
and, and we know where it's going and monitoring and all of
6:35
that. Well, I examined all of that
6:37
very carefully and realised that this was a, in a way an entree
6:43
into the ocean for some very toxic stuff.
6:45
They wanted to just drop at the bottom.
6:49
And so we would analyse that. And I, I had a lot of support
6:53
within government as well as within Greenpeace and we were
6:57
able to penetrate the whole structure of the modelling and
7:02
criticise it, bring it before the UN and then the UN
7:06
eventually saying look, we realise that you're right, will
7:10
you come in and help us? So at one point I was consultant
7:14
to the International Maritime Organisation coming in to
7:17
rewrite their legislation such that these practises couldn't
7:22
happen. And in parallel with that, I set
7:26
up a team which was engaged in looking at technology and what's
7:32
the clean production strategy so you don't produce toxic material
7:35
that you have to get rid of or store or discharge or whatever.
7:39
It's called clean production strategies.
7:41
There's a book on it. I have a chapter in it.
7:44
Again, some incredible brains came in on that, you know, one
7:48
of whom, Tim Jackson, is now professor of sustainability at
7:52
Surrey University. So there's been a big shift in
7:55
thinking, in scientific thinking, and actually there was
7:59
quite a lot of opposition from the scientists.
8:01
They say, oh, this is political, it's not scientific.
8:04
No, no, it's scientific. It's about the limits of your
8:08
scientific knowledge and how you deal with your errors.
8:13
So that was my background in schooling until I realised that
8:19
trying to integrate renewable energy, trying to run an
8:22
industrial country such as Britain, which is very small on
8:27
renewable energy would just destroy so much of what I cared
8:32
about. And that that landscapes,
8:36
mountains. I'm a Mountaineer, you know, but
8:40
also community and biodiversity. There are lots of implications.
8:44
I mean for example, we can't grow proper biofuels here to run
8:49
our 10% EU mandated biofuel in your petrol or diesel tank.
8:57
We went to Colombia and colluded with the clearing of 400,000
9:03
hectares, 800,000 acres, nearly 1,000,000 acres of land,
9:09
clearing it of people and putting in palm oil plantations
9:13
to get bio biodiesel. Same thing happening in Brazil
9:17
with ethanol, hydropower. Again, what happens with
9:23
hydropower is the people with the resource, Southeast Asia,
9:27
Iceland and so on, they desecrate their own wilderness
9:32
by damming the rivers, generating carbon free
9:36
electricity. Then they attract huge
9:38
industries like aluminium smelting and so on.
9:41
So all of that's going on and it's a big Malay.
9:44
And so I highlighted all of that in my research.
9:49
I, I spent three years going deeply into climate change and
9:55
the models and, and I was interested in how long have we
9:59
got? I was quite shocked to find how
10:04
uncertain the science was. There were key elements which
10:08
you can spot when you know how computers are programmed and you
10:10
go, well, why did you choose that parameter and not this one?
10:15
And so. Do you think it was, excuse me,
10:16
I mean, do you think it was a lot, a lot of reliance on
10:20
modelling and and this modelling was was flawed because it's
10:24
actually it's, it's not, it's not, it's not really a, a stable
10:29
model is. It to the the problem with the
10:31
with the models is that they have a certain lifetime when
10:35
they're generating some kind of conclusion.
10:41
Then you have the policy people, governments in history and they
10:45
come in and they say, no, we we need certainty.
10:48
You'll talk about maybe this, maybe that.
10:50
So the model is then say, well, that's really difficult to give
10:53
you ZT. We'll give you our best shot.
10:56
And that's usually an average. You know, they've got very
10:59
different projections. And then you have what I called
11:05
in the old days of the ocean pollution issues, a prior
11:09
commitment. You have a prior commitment to
11:13
that model. And then when new data comes in
11:19
which actually would invalidate the model, they criticised the
11:23
data. They don't go to look at their
11:24
model. Now was was the IPCC then when,
11:29
When did the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on
11:33
Climate Change, were they involved in any of this?
11:36
At the very beginning, yes. The, the first meeting was
11:39
probably around 9596 when the UN's Framework Convention on
11:45
Climate Change was set up. And at the time I, I, I had
11:50
moved on from ocean issues to forestry, wildlife, countryside
11:56
issues and so on, which were more of a passion than trying to
11:58
stop the bad guys doing stupid things.
12:02
And what I didn't realise is one of my colleagues in the US who'd
12:07
worked with me very closely on the ocean issues, we used to do
12:11
a tandem act at the UN because he he represented a tiny Pacific
12:15
island at all. But he had one vote and the US
12:19
had one vote. So he was not their favourite
12:22
person. And the US was behind a lot of
12:24
dumping operations and so on. So I kind of lost touch a little
12:29
bit with him. And when the publishers asked,
12:36
can we have a professor who will endorse your analysis?
12:40
So I said, well, yeah, contact Jackson Davis in in California.
12:45
And what I didn't realise is he'd gone on to work on the
12:49
climate issue and he'd helped to set up the framework convention
12:53
and he'd Co wrote who was a leading author of something
12:57
called the Kyoto Protocol. So he was right there on, you
13:02
know, the whole, the whole narrative as as indeed I had
13:05
been. So I took my analysis to him and
13:10
I just said, look, Jackson, this is where I've come to.
13:13
He said, oh, you can't possibly be right Peter.
13:15
You know, it's like the whole world.
13:18
I said no, no, not not the whole world.
13:20
There are a number of scientists who disagree.
13:24
They're just being marginalised. They're not being listened to.
13:27
The same story we had with the ocean issues.
13:31
So he's a little sub story to this is that when I published
13:35
Chill and Jackson endorsed the book and said these questions
13:40
have got to be answered now, the main issue was not actually
13:44
global cooling, although that was a potential that was about
13:48
to happen. It's taking a while, but there
13:52
is the potential for a natural cycle, which peaks around now
13:56
and declines around now. So it's we're at the peak and
14:00
it's going to decline. And on the on the back of that,
14:05
everyone says I was prophesying global global cooling.
14:09
But when when I was talking about that, I wasn't really
14:18
prophesying global cooling, it was like, yeah, that's that's
14:22
potentially going to happen unless we get an ocean cycle
14:26
called El Nino super El Nino peaks at the end of a period
14:31
when there's very little global warming.
14:34
And, and you can draw a line like that, which is completely
14:36
false thing to do because this is a natural bump.
14:41
So that's happened. But two bumps all in a row is,
14:43
is almost unprecedented. So we've got very unpredictable,
14:49
unnatural, but very warm conditions at the moment.
14:52
So everyone was saying, Oh well, Peter Taylor, what's wrong?
14:55
But what people don't realise is that when you're measuring
14:58
temperature at the surface or in the atmosphere, you're actually
15:02
measuring heat leaving the planet.
15:06
Heat is stored and the only place it's stored is in the
15:09
ocean. So the ocean stores the heat and
15:12
the only source of that heat is the sun.
15:15
And it's the sunlight called shockwave radiation that can
15:19
penetrate down to 102 hundred metres.
15:22
It gives all its energy to the surface layer of the ocean.
15:26
The Ocean's 4000 metres deep mostly, and it just stores this
15:31
energy in the top 200 metres, but it shuffles it around.
15:35
It shuffles the heat around in currents and releases it in
15:40
cycles. So most of my book is about
15:43
those cycles and the release of heat from the oceans and which
15:47
says this is what's happening now.
15:50
But they cannot put that into the models.
15:54
Models have their limitations and and that was my speciality,
15:59
so I understood why they couldn't put it in.
16:02
But on top of that they just ignored all the cycles with
16:07
search. Yeah.
16:09
Could I ask you quickly, have you, you must know Valentina
16:13
Zorkova because she has a similar, she's written some some
16:17
peer reviewed papers and she's she's on the whole global
16:21
cooling thing. What do you think about her
16:24
work? Does it do you agree with it or
16:26
do you what do you feel? We have been in communication
16:29
and generally there was a smaller group of, of solar
16:36
scientists like Zarqova who think we're about to enter a
16:42
Maunder minimum or they, they, they talk about a, a grand solar
16:46
minimum, which at the moment isn't happening.
16:50
There is a decline, but it's not dropping very severely.
16:55
And most of the NASA scientists and, and a good few others don't
17:03
expect that. And actually, when we the the
17:06
little sub story was after the publication of my book, ITN News
17:13
have a documentary section and they phoned up and, and it was
17:17
the science correspondent, I think it was Rob Wilson.
17:20
And they said, oh, we'd like to do a feature on your work.
17:23
I said, oh wow, you know, great. One man against the world kind
17:26
of thing. And but it's television.
17:29
So we had the first meeting and they said, can you make it
17:32
televisual? So I said, yeah, fly me to
17:34
Greenland. I've always wanted to go to
17:37
Greenland, but David Attenborough had just suddenly
17:40
come off the fence and he's pointing to the glaciers falling
17:45
into the sea. I'll stand where he stood,
17:49
right? But instead of pointing to the
17:51
glaciers, I'll point to the ground and which is just
17:55
uncovering because of the thaw. Viking graves. 1000 years ago
18:01
the Vikings were farming on Greenland.
18:04
Then the cycle changed as it was peaking around 1000 years ago.
18:09
Cycle changes goes down. They had to leave.
18:14
So it's like at the same time White Stalk who are just now
18:18
colonising Kent after an absence since the little Ice Age.
18:24
They were nesting on Edinburgh Cathedral in the year 1100 or
18:29
1200 or whatever. So as an ecologist I'm looking
18:34
at, well, these cycles, you know, they're very real.
18:37
So we were going to go, go and produce this programme, half an
18:42
hour documentary. It would have done wonders for
18:45
the sale of my book. And I got a call after about 3
18:51
meetings saying, sorry Peter, you come in, we'll explain, we
18:54
can't go ahead. We got pressure from above.
18:57
We call them the Goreites. Al Gore had set up a media
19:01
empire and they had power and influence.
19:05
So and their science correspondent was so disgusted.
19:11
He said, I'm resigning and this is a science journalist.
19:14
And he said, Peter, what do you need for your work?
19:18
I said, well, I have no budget, but I really need to go to the
19:21
United States and talk to my colleague Jackson Davis.
19:24
He's got resources. Here's your effort, he said out
19:28
of his own pocket. So I hightailed it to my friend
19:33
who was living in Colorado and on the hill outside Boulder.
19:37
The city he lived in is the US main laboratory for computer
19:43
simulation of the globe. It's called the National Centre
19:47
for Atmospheric Research and there was also a university
19:52
specialist there, Colorado University, who was a specialist
19:56
to how the oceans release heat. So I wanted to talk to him and
20:00
we had five hours, incredible talk, great conversation, well
20:05
respected. And then we went up the hill to
20:08
the National Centre government operation.
20:11
It was a bit like something out of James Bond.
20:14
And in comes the chief modeller puts his boot, his feet up on
20:18
the table. Cowboy boots dressed in denim
20:21
from head to foot. 6 foot 6 tall, big hat.
20:25
Jerry Meal, one of the top international modellers feeds
20:29
into the IPCC that what can I do for you guys?
20:33
So I lay out my data, which was also in chill said look, this
20:38
data does not support your model.
20:40
What the data actually shows is just at the time when the world
20:45
is warming, the clouds are thinning and there's more energy
20:51
coming into the surface or warming the ocean.
20:53
The oceans then release it, much more energy, about three times
20:58
as much as your carbon dioxide model.
21:02
So he's doesn't figure, you know, you've got to answer this,
21:05
what's going on? And at the time NASA were going,
21:08
well, the clouds could be a feedback, you know, carbon
21:11
dioxide thins the clouds. Well, you know, there's not many
21:16
people going to go. Yeah, right.
21:18
You know, so this was still the question land and then I've I
21:24
feel this pressure, the IGN story.
21:27
But more than that, up until then, I I I was like a hero of
21:34
the environmental movement. My whole family had been
21:36
involved. We'd we'd climbed chimney stacks
21:39
some of the most mostly I brothers.
21:40
We'd walked into desert nuclear testing sites, boarded dump
21:45
ships. You know, it, it, it was, it was
21:49
like a yeah, we, we, we, we were well regarded.
21:53
We all bought into it. I mean, I, I, I did transition
21:56
town training once and I took the whole family to see
21:59
Inconvenient Truth, you know, and to see, realise you've just
22:03
come to this moment. But honestly, that's that
22:06
respect evaporated overnight. And that was the biggest shock.
22:11
I it's like, well, hang on a minute, I was vilified.
22:14
Some people were very rude and I was portrayed as all kinds of
22:21
things that I'm not, you know, like right wing.
22:23
I'm not right wing and in league with the oil industry.
22:28
You know, I once turned down a contract with the oil industry
22:31
and, and this was, this was a shock.
22:35
I, I suddenly realised, wow, these people are not the kind of
22:40
people I grew up with in the environmental movement.
22:43
Even the Greenpeace people, it's all changed.
22:45
They're professional, yes, but they're, they've all got another
22:49
agenda. And, and it's like, I mean, my
22:53
good friend David Taylor, who lives not far away, he was a
22:58
green during the time when we were creating the Ecology Party.
23:01
It helped to create that. Then we were advising it not to
23:05
become a party and not to become a green political thing because.
23:10
The That's where it all went wrong, Wasn't it the green?
23:13
Because. When it changed in the ecology
23:16
to the green parties when I. Hand of of of of political
23:20
parties. I'm a fundamental Democrat.
23:23
I believe in empowering parliament, parliamentary
23:26
committees, the whole deal and there are some good examples of
23:29
that globally. We are not one.
23:33
We could have been. What we've seen is the gradual
23:37
erosion of proper democracy. I mean, for me, the, the, the
23:43
key moment was when Andrew Bridging, A Conservative MP,
23:47
stood up in Parliament just to say something doesn't add up
23:51
about all these vaccines, you know, and, and the COVID story.
23:56
Just a question. And there were maybe a dozen MPs
24:00
present, 6 on either side. One of them walks over to the
24:04
Labour benches that I think the Tories were in power and and
24:08
whispers in their ear and they all walk out.
24:11
They don't even listen to what he has to say, just the minister
24:14
who has to respond. Wow I had no idea it was so bad.
24:20
And since then I've got to know Andrew and and wow, I mean he
24:24
was just completely shunted aside overall.
24:28
The Tory party disowned him and and So what I've learnt is that
24:34
there's a media compliance with, in the words of Greater
24:39
Thunberg, follow the science. But whose science are they
24:44
following? They're following the
24:45
institute's and the the the top level in the institute's.
24:50
I'm quite convinced there's a little group of politically
24:54
minded scientists and one can understand it, but that they've
25:02
concluded that in order to save the environment you have to
25:07
control people's behaviour. It makes sense, of course,
25:11
people on mass are doing some very, very stupid things, but
25:16
what they don't realise is that to control people means you're
25:21
moving into. It's called left wing, but it's
25:24
not originally left. It's more Stalinist.
25:30
It it's it's it's anti democratic.
25:34
It's we know what we're doing and we're not going to tell you
25:37
because absolutely I. Mean, this whole thing about
25:40
left and right is really clouding it all at the moment.
25:44
You know, because there is no such thing right now.
25:47
You know that it's it's disappeared.
25:49
We need a new political language to describe.
25:53
Some people call it techno fascism now.
25:56
In the early stages of the nuclear movement, anti nuclear
26:00
movement in Germany and France, which I was involved in.
26:03
You could call them fascists. They would yield troops
26:08
protecting their site. Protest was heavily, heavily
26:11
dealt with in France. 1 protest that was killed.
26:17
We were much more gentlemanly in, in, in the UK, but there was
26:21
a movement, there was an anti nuclear movement.
26:23
Now the nuclear industry's dusting off its worst plans to
26:28
use plutonium as a fuel, the nuclear weapons issue, the
26:34
closeness that we are to to nuclear war by accident, which
26:38
is more likely the way it will happen.
26:41
And there's no anti nuclear movement.
26:44
So I I because. You were really big in that,
26:47
weren't you? You, you were a big anti
26:49
nuclear. You were an activist.
26:51
Actually, I was both an activist and a scientist.
26:53
I consulted with the International Physicians for the
26:58
Prevention of Nuclear War on the effects of nuclear weapons.
27:02
You cannot protect the public from a nuclear attack.
27:06
This is absolute nonsense. First of all, it takes only
27:12
about 200 explosions and each side at the moment's got about
27:16
3000 weapons and you create a dust cloud that shrouds the
27:22
planet and you no crops will grow for three years.
27:27
So that's the extinction of a large proportion of humanity.
27:32
So it's, it's like it's not even an issue, you know, today.
27:37
So I, I'm, I'm in a very strange position.
27:41
I've spent my whole life thinking you can reform things,
27:45
you can improve democracy, you can talk to science.
27:49
I am a scientist. I have total respect for the
27:52
scientific method. I've got a forensic mind for
27:56
spotting when it's not being applied properly and actually
28:01
within the lower rungs of the scientific institutions.
28:06
I get loads of invitations to write papers, to go to
28:10
conferences. You have to pay and I did a
28:13
paper in 2019. I signed up to 1 conference.
28:18
My colleague Jackson Davis of what I didn't mention is that
28:22
when we had our experience with the National Centre for
28:26
Atmospheric Research, he came out, he said Peter, they were
28:31
worried. I said to darn right they're
28:33
worried. You know, they get billions to
28:36
support their morals and to give them their due.
28:41
That particular group did alter their models a little bit and
28:47
and they did actually run a potential more under minimum and
28:50
concluded that there would be cooling.
28:54
Our own Met Office did the same study but with different
28:57
parameters and concluded that even if you had a born dominion,
29:01
it wouldn't alter the global warming trajectory.
29:05
So that's science for you. But anyway, Jackson said, what
29:09
can I do to help? Now he's a, what I would call a
29:11
proper scientist. I'm more of a policy person,
29:13
forensic mind. He can number crunch, which I
29:17
can't do. And so he said what can I do?
29:20
I said analyse the the I score data.
29:24
Let's show them that these cycles exist.
29:27
We know they exist and you can see them in the I score data.
29:30
But nobody's actually proven that scientifically.
29:34
They, they say, oh, it's too noisy, the data's too noisy.
29:38
And what it, what they really mean is nobody's going to pay us
29:41
to study natural cycles, which is unfortunately true.
29:45
So nobody paid us either. But Jackson spent seven years
29:48
doing that. And we then produced several
29:52
joint papers, properly peer reviewed, properly published,
29:57
they don't get cited. So if you've got some awkward
30:01
data, they'll ignore it for as long as they can.
30:05
But the younger scientists are going, that's a damn good paper.
30:09
And that's due to my friend. He's, he's, he's the good, the
30:12
good scientific paper writer. So will you, will you come and,
30:16
and talk to us? And I thought as soon as I do
30:18
the abstract, they'll just invite me, right?
30:21
No. And then they they said would
30:23
you chair some sessions and be our keynote speaker?
30:27
And I thought maybe they're all very young and they want a grey
30:31
beard, you know. But no, there were full on
30:33
professors present, including I think when the IPCC realised
30:38
they were up against some proper opposition.
30:41
They sent their top modeller, a very nice guy called Venkat
30:47
Venkatramalam Ramaswamy and and he's up there on the podium with
30:55
his models and everything and I'm able to say Professor
30:59
Ramaswamy, my work and Jackson David's work and yours are not
31:05
compatible. Can you explain why there's no,
31:09
there's no cycles in your models?
31:12
He says, yes, we don't do cycles very well.
31:15
Now, if I'd been in a, if I'd been in a more cantankerous
31:19
mood, it was a very friendly meeting.
31:21
I'd have said, well, why do you not tell the public that, right.
31:25
So he said, come and have lunch. And he's and he's director of
31:29
the General Fluid Dynamics Research Laboratory in
31:34
Princeton. He said, come, come, come have a
31:36
talk with us, you know, And I thought, right, that's what
31:40
happened before the UN was open on a scientific level.
31:43
I go in there and most importantly, you've got to find
31:46
a way for them to save face. Fundamentally, I think I could
31:50
do that. And it's like if you trap them
31:55
in a corner, they'll fight you. So it's all right, I'll do that.
32:00
But then COVID intervened, which something else that we can talk
32:03
about. And, and so that never, that
32:06
never happened. And with COVID, well, I did get
32:10
involved because right at the beginning, I knew from the old
32:16
days and old skills that I developed that it was a
32:21
bioweapons laboratory source and that it was genetic manipulation
32:26
and the whole thing. You could get hold of the
32:28
genetic codes right immediately, but they just appeared.
32:32
Peking or Beijing covered up the whole, the whole trail.
32:37
But for a few months it was available and I got most of what
32:40
I needed, including access to a collaboration between the former
32:47
head of MI 6 and a top virology team, the Norwegians actually.
32:54
And, And so I thought, oh, OK. I then asked all the leaders of
33:00
the political parties and all the editors of the newspapers I
33:05
copied in. I asked could you raise with the
33:10
Prime Minister what advice he received from this, the Secret
33:14
Service? They will know what's going on.
33:17
Spire Weapons Territory didn't get any replies.
33:21
Now, of course, we know very well that the World Health
33:26
Organisation was compromised, the scientific journal Nature
33:31
was compromised. The head of the Welcome
33:34
Foundation, which is the main pharmaceutical funding body in
33:37
the world, compromised the pharmaceutical regulators.
33:43
Fauci and his crew in the States were compromised and the
33:47
virology professors on board, there were about six of them.
33:50
We know this because the US Congress has a much better
33:54
system of tracking and nailing these people.
34:00
And they subpoenaed all the emails from a little group that
34:03
met in the Centre for Disease Control.
34:07
And there you have it all in the emails where the biology
34:11
professors are saying, yeah, we know it came from a lab, but we
34:13
can't say that it would compromise science itself.
34:18
It would affect our relationships with China.
34:21
So we'll say it's highly improbable that it came from a
34:25
lab. No.
34:27
And that the editor of Nature, top journal, is there to publish
34:31
that. Well, when I saw the paper,
34:34
which was obviously before all of this was exposed by U.S.
34:38
Congress, when I saw that paper, this is rubbish.
34:41
How did that ever get published? It's not evidence.
34:44
So that's the kind of way I work.
34:47
It's forensic. The lessons from COVID are
34:53
exactly what's happening in climate science.
34:55
It's exactly what was happening previously in ocean pollution
35:00
issues that by the time you get to up to the top institutions,
35:05
you're dealing with levels of complicity and collusion and and
35:11
indeed the whole, the whole COVID thing, you're dealing with
35:14
a conspiracy on the part of these people.
35:18
Yes. To cover everything up and, and
35:20
actually mislead the public and mislead parliaments and the, and
35:26
then the whole establishment closes ranks and the media are
35:31
complicit. The BBC especially one of my
35:36
housemates said the other day, oh, Glastonbury, you know,
35:40
there's so many new age people and they don't trust the media.
35:44
They've all, they're all on the Internet and it's all
35:46
misinformation. And I said, you know, why is
35:50
that? They know now they were lied to
35:53
by the BBC. The BBC said it, it was just a
35:57
normal vaccine. It wasn't genetic manipulation.
35:59
It couldn't have come from a lab.
36:01
They now know all of that was lies.
36:04
The BBC just parroted what they were fed.
36:09
And that's the nature of the BBC and the lack of investigative
36:13
journalism. No, I've, I can look back, you
36:16
know, I can look back 40-50 years and go, wow, we used to
36:20
have investigative journalism, We used to have an effective
36:24
parliament, parliamentary select committees.
36:28
And now we've got an, a Labour government which is
36:31
authoritarian. It's just sacked a whole bunch
36:34
of good MPs because they were troublesome enough to vote
36:38
against taking money from the disabled to fund you know what,
36:45
net zero or weapons or nukes or whatever.
36:49
You know, it's like they can find 22 billion for a new
36:53
nuclear programme, but they can't find 4 billion to properly
36:58
fund. Absolutely.
37:00
I'd like to get onto your book because I, I think it's, you
37:04
know, it's important. We have you got a copy to Flash?
37:07
I do this is Peter's book Climate COVID and Conspiracy,
37:14
and I'm, I'm wading my way through it.
37:16
And it is, I'm one of those really bad people that look at
37:20
the end before beginning. But I have looked.
37:23
I've I've looked because a lot of it is scientific, but you you
37:26
describe it in a way that I even I can understand, which is
37:28
brilliant. The the structure of the book.
37:31
I was asked by an activist group in Stroud, by the way, I'd given
37:36
a talk if I could could write a follow up to chill.
37:42
She's about 15 years old, so that's a big undertaking.
37:46
I don't think I'm, I'm really capable of that now, but I have
37:51
been writing lots of articles and they're not in standard
37:56
scientific journals. They're in Caduceus, which is an
38:00
environmental health magazine, and New View, which is from the
38:05
Steiner stable. So it's quite esoteric.
38:09
But also for some reason they had reviewed Chill and they
38:15
wanted to follow up. So again, I, I did an update for
38:18
them as an article and the editors are very good.
38:22
They said, no, no, no, no, lay people will not understand what
38:25
you're saying, right. So could you find another way to
38:28
say it? So the book consists mostly of
38:31
articles over the last 10 years, plus an introduction and a link
38:36
between the COVID articles, which I did, and, and and the
38:41
climate saying what lessons can we learn from the COVID saga,
38:46
which are relevant? And you've even got Klaus Schwab
38:51
of World Economic Forum fame as saying we should learn from
38:56
COVID, right? And he's talking about lockdown,
38:59
controlling behaviour, influencing nudging people in
39:03
the right way, producing fear because people who are in fear
39:09
are more easily controlled, suppressing the media, all that
39:14
kind of stuff. And, and they, there is a school
39:17
of thought that thinks we will only solve the climate crisis by
39:23
world government. The kind of control and, and
39:28
they're not secretive about it that you would experience in
39:32
China, total surveillance, total control of behaviour, no
39:38
spirituality, which from for me is a kind of key element in all
39:42
of this that we're dealing with the cadre of bureaucrats who
39:48
seem to have no heart. There's no wisdom when you're in
39:53
a current situation where you've got bioweapons labs building the
39:58
next dangerous virus, which will be bird flu.
40:02
At the moment bird flu only infects directly from mostly
40:07
chickens in in sort of high intensity chicken production.
40:12
They're always subject to viruses so they're always
40:14
subject to vaccines. So it's a big industry and.
40:20
The bio weapons people are always looking over the shoulder
40:23
of these vaccine people. So have you got any dangerous
40:27
viruses that we can work on? So that's what happened at
40:30
Wuhan. They had a dangerous bat virus,
40:33
killed half the miners that had been exposed to it, but it
40:36
didn't transfer from minor to minor.
40:39
It was from bat to minor. It's the same with bird flu and
40:43
doesn't translate from human to human.
40:46
So what they do in the labs is say, well, how can we make it
40:50
transfer from human to human? That's what happened at Wuhan
40:55
and it was there in the science literature.
40:57
How do we do that? Here's how we do it.
41:00
And and they insert codes for the transmission through human
41:05
lungs I. Remember, I excuse me for
41:07
interrupting you, I remember Richard Desak.
41:09
Do you remember Richard Desak, the, the zoologist who was
41:13
involved with Fauci and, and the lab in North Carolina in the
41:17
university and, and he was bragging.
41:20
I've still got the clip bragging on YouTube about how they, they
41:24
manipulate things in the lab and they, they, they, they splice
41:28
humanised mouse cells with that viruses.
41:30
And I just thought, Oh my God, this is, this was before COVID.
41:34
And I just thought, my goodness, this is and went afterwards.
41:37
I realised that is, that's exactly what it appears they
41:40
did. I mean, I know there's some
41:42
people that don't believe in viruses, but you know, you have
41:45
got people being paid to do this stuff.
41:49
So do the viruses exist? They certainly did in the bats,
41:53
didn't they? The corona they were.
41:57
You get you get memes that go through what's called the truth
42:01
movement, and one of them is first viruses don't exist, which
42:05
is complete rubbish. And then there's, Oh yeah, they
42:08
do exist, but they don't cause disease.
42:11
Well, if you unless you've met somebody with a virus that's
42:15
actually giving them a really hard time, you can probably
42:18
conclude that terrain theory. And the The thing is, there is a
42:22
bit of truth here. Take meningitis, for example,
42:27
viral meningitis. It's a real killer, but the bug
42:30
is there all the time. What happens is that immunity
42:36
rises and falls according to stress, according to diet,
42:39
according to age. And so we live in a population
42:44
that's getting older and older. The the diet leaves a lot to be
42:50
desired. And so immunity is very low.
42:54
So the first projections of what would happen when this bat virus
42:58
was unleashed or escaped were huge.
43:02
You know, it'll go through the population like a wildfire
43:06
because we have a low immunity group, about 13 million people
43:11
whose immunity is compromised. So terrain theory's certainly
43:16
got something in it. But coming back to this, you you
43:20
don't get a huge lab working on perfecting the transmissibility
43:26
of one virus so that it will infect a human if they don't
43:33
exist, you know, So that's what happened in Wuhan.
43:37
Because they did work on that for about 30 years, didn't they?
43:39
They were 30 years doing this. So it.
43:41
Must more like more like 10 or 15 in the in the recent times
43:46
there had been a number of outbreaks of bat virus disease
43:50
and it was quite lethal, but it wasn't transmissible.
43:56
One was in the Middle East and there was actually a SARS
43:59
outbreak in China, which is when they first noticed this bat
44:02
virus is lethal if minors cave, people breathe it in.
44:08
So what happens is that within the Wuhan lab, and this would be
44:14
any lab really, you, the bio weapons people keep an eye on
44:18
what's going on. And they are military, of
44:20
course. And they go, oh, we're
44:22
interested in that. And so they actually took the
44:28
codes and I think they worked on it themselves.
44:30
I don't think the famous batwoman of Wuhan, XI, Jiang
44:35
Lee, I don't. She said it didn't come from my
44:39
lab. It's not.
44:40
Well, hang on a minute. What's she saying there?
44:43
Well, just down the road is the bio weapons lab.
44:46
And they've given the codes. Those codes also went to North
44:49
Carolina. And so when the Chinese say it
44:53
could just as easily have come from the Americans right now,
44:58
The thing is, the Secret Service know all this.
45:03
I mean, either they're incompetent and don't know it,
45:05
or they are. They're not, sorry to say.
45:09
Didn't they throw out, didn't they throw them out of North
45:13
Carolina because they found out they were they were doing gain
45:16
of function? Well, now you've got you've got
45:19
President Trump coming in on it and, and appointing Robert
45:24
Kennedy Junior. So they're on the case.
45:28
I don't know how far they've got, but I think Fauci, who's
45:32
the head honcho in the Disease Control, but it's also the bio
45:36
weapons section. He's got immunity of prosecution
45:41
as indeed all the pharmaceutical companies have.
45:45
So the, the, the, the rationale behind this and Peter Dadjek's
45:50
job is to find those viruses that are dangerous and can be
45:55
manipulated because the enemy might do the same.
46:00
Now, the enemy's never specified, but it's kind of
46:03
Osama bin Laden territory. And after 911, the bio weapons
46:09
community received billions to protect us against bio warfare.
46:16
So what they have to do is what's, how do you protect
46:19
against bio warfare? First of all, you have to work
46:22
out what the enemy's going to do.
46:24
And then you have to get a vaccine ready.
46:28
So that's what was happening in Wuhan and CDC in in North
46:32
Carolina. And they had a vaccine more or
46:34
less ready. That's why it happened so
46:36
quickly. And one of the most egregious
46:39
things from my perspective, having worked on radiation when
46:44
there was a big blind spot in the 50s and 60s about low level
46:52
radiation, every single scientist in the institute said
46:57
it's not a problem. There's a threshold and you
47:00
know, low level radiation can't cause any harm.
47:03
One scientist stood against this.
47:07
A A a female epidemiologist at Birmingham University.
47:11
Her connection with doctors was telling her that more children
47:14
were coming showing leukaemia than they should be.
47:18
She investigated and there was a correlation between those
47:24
children's whose mothers had been X rayed and the development
47:30
of leukaemia in the foetus, in the children.
47:34
She was vilified, she was opposed.
47:38
It took 10 or 15 years to change the establishment view.
47:43
They even knighted the British. The main protagonist against
47:47
her, Sir Edward Pochin. She received no honours at all.
47:52
Of course, nobody now X rays, pregnant women, I mean, you
47:57
know, your dentist will leave the room just for a little extra
48:01
here. So it's like you've even got
48:03
people within the the kind of anti environmental movement
48:08
saying we should get more nuclear power and all this stuff
48:11
about radiation. It's over hyped and there's no,
48:14
there's, you know, there's a threshold, a little bit of
48:16
radiation. It's good for you kind of stuff.
48:19
And they ignore all of her work and and this is a gender issue,
48:25
You know, they were blind to pregnant women and what what
48:32
happened in COVID. Within a very short time, they
48:35
were saying, yeah, we we want to inoculate pregnant women and
48:39
going, well, hang on a minute. You can't, you're not allowed to
48:42
test the vaccine with pregnant women.
48:46
So it means it's not tested. And then the first data coming
48:50
through from Japan showed that the spike protein, which one of
48:54
the chief people to do with mRNA technology had said, what are we
49:00
doing? We we thought the spike protein
49:01
would stay in the arm. And I'm going, I'm a biologist.
49:05
What on earth made you think that?
49:07
Then the data comes from Japan saying it goes all over the
49:10
body, concentrates in the uterus.
49:14
And then that would be enough to go, all right, we're not going
49:17
to inoculate pregnant women. But then a year later, a
49:22
Japanese team studying cancer rates in those people who'd been
49:26
vaccinated and those who hadn't. And that they're not much
49:32
accelerated, maybe about 2% overall, but in the uterine
49:38
cancers, more like 10%. And so because my database is a
49:44
bit of a shambles and I was writing about it, I thought, oh,
49:46
I must go back to that paper, get the details.
49:50
I remembered the authors I had. So I find it's on a Japanese
49:54
journal. It's been retracted, it's been
49:56
withdrawn. So normally you have to have a
50:00
process to do that where the people who wrote the paper agree
50:04
with the criticisms and to have it retracted.
50:07
Those people did not agree and they were opposed to the
50:10
retraction, but it happened anyway.
50:12
So that's another little way in which the establishment protects
50:16
itself. Absolutely.
50:18
And they will, they will try and get your paper retracted by
50:22
putting pressure on the editorial board.
50:25
And I've witnessed that. So all of these things we're
50:29
talking about a high level of complicity, collusion,
50:34
corruption, conspiracy. And if you use those words,
50:40
then, then they, they dismiss you.
50:42
And they don't even the Greens don't even register my past
50:47
history. You know, I'm not some lunatic
50:50
going on about conspiracy. You know it, it's like, come on,
50:55
let's get real here. But they don't want to.
50:59
They don't want to because they have an ideological commitment.
51:04
And it's it's it's basically a China type society where you can
51:09
control everything. And it's very well in their
51:13
eyes, it's very green. But even then, you know.
51:16
It's the opposite though, isn't it?
51:17
Because you know, when you look at what they, what, what the
51:20
greens are supporting is a, is a non biological technocratic
51:24
society. And it's, it's the direct polar
51:28
opposite of what they profess to be, to be.
51:32
They're all about nature and conservation and all this sort
51:34
of thing. But actually what they, what
51:36
they're supporting is entirely different in, in as much as
51:41
they're covering our land with solar farms and wind farms and
51:45
the farmland's disappearing and, and, and, and they won't have
51:49
that conversation. And it drives me insane.
51:51
And it must drive you insane too.
51:53
They just go a blind. They're they're blind to any of
51:56
this technocratic stuff. And when you listen to someone
51:59
like Noah Yuval Harari, who's Klaus Schwab's advisor, and he
52:04
says our aim is to have nothing biological on this planet, get
52:09
rid of everything but, and you just think there's a an element
52:12
of something very evil there, sort of real.
52:15
I I I I wouldn't use the word evil myself.
52:19
I've I've called it the dim DIMMM dimwits, the dangerously
52:26
imbalanced modern male mind. Thank you and and what what you
52:31
have is it's mostly a male thing, especially the science.
52:36
Lots of women involved, but they've already agreed to be
52:40
like a man, right? They'll do the methods just the
52:43
same. There's no difference.
52:44
In fact, often they're better. But what's missing the imbalance
52:52
is, is the feminine power, the feminine polarity.
52:56
And that that's, it's not so much about gender as such, it's
53:02
about wisdom. And if you go back to the
53:05
ancients, they had a, a goddess sapphire wisdom and we have it
53:10
in our language, Sophia, philosophy, the love of wisdom.
53:16
And that wisdom was always embodied by the feminine for
53:21
good reason. The wisdom is not in the mind,
53:24
right? And there are all these mental
53:27
men that they have no wisdom, they have no heart.
53:32
The the whole corporate endeavour, which is, you know, 3
53:35
or 400 years old, which has raped the planet.
53:38
There's no dispute about that. This is the, the modern male
53:43
mind gone completely AWOL. It's it's absent from its own
53:49
heart. And that's, that's acknowledged.
53:51
I mean, you can't talk about heart around a boardroom table.
53:56
You can't talk about heart in the city.
53:59
You, you can't talk about love should reign supreme in all of
54:02
this. We live in a Christian hypocrisy
54:06
where it's OK to stockpile nuclear weapons and call
54:10
yourself the Archbishop of Canterbury or whatever.
54:13
You know, it's like, no, this is not a society that has any real
54:19
connection to its heart and therefore it's it has no
54:23
connection to wisdom. So what we have to do is somehow
54:31
re immerse the male into its own feminine and that is a big
54:37
undertaking because we're talking about a feminine
54:41
approach to consciousness which we've hardly ever seen.
54:46
We've been in 3 or 4000 years of patriarchal, control orientated
54:52
war defence enemies. So you I've been for my next
54:58
book, I've been going back to where this all began and trying
55:03
to find the thread that runs through that has subjugated the
55:07
feminine mind, which here I'm, I'm, I'm talking about
55:14
intuition, love and compassion and, and not seeing the world
55:23
full of enemies. I mean, Jesus said all of this.
55:27
I'm, I'm not a, a, a Christian as such.
55:29
I'm, I'm closer to Buddhism or yoga or whatever, but we, we
55:36
don't live in a Christian country.
55:39
Don't do you think though that that it's an imbalance?
55:42
It's more of imbalance because I feel that we do need strong men.
55:47
I feel that the, the, the male energy in our world that, you
55:51
know, has, OK, we've got the awful corporate stuff going on,
55:55
the, the patriarchy and the corporations.
55:58
But in, in an, a normal sort of setting, I feel that men have
56:02
actually lost their masculinity. They're, they're the, the good
56:06
side of masculinity, which is the protection of the female and
56:09
the helping of the, and, and the, the guardianship and the,
56:13
and the warrior that there's no male areas anymore.
56:16
Where are they? Where, where were they during?
56:19
I mean, I, I know I went on quite a few of the lockdown
56:21
marches, but certainly in this movement, there's been far more
56:25
women coming forward than men and that, that has to be wrong.
56:28
It's almost like they've, I feel they've lost the, the good side
56:32
of masculinity. Masculinity is important.
56:36
And if all the men become over feminised, then surely that's
56:39
not right either. I.
56:40
Don't think the men are becoming over feminised.
56:43
I I think the the problem is that when men wake up to the
56:50
depth of the error and they feel, Oh my God, we are
56:56
responsible for this, we are toxic masculinity walking
57:01
around. See, I don't go along.
57:03
I'm sorry, I disagree with. I've seen enough of it to know
57:07
it exists. In my younger days, I was
57:13
trained in the military and I used to hang out with some, some
57:19
pretty special forces people, you know, and, and it's like you
57:23
pick up on, on the mentality, you pick up on the, the, the
57:27
attitudes to women and so on. I hope it's changed since then.
57:30
But overall you get very decent, very decent men.
57:36
I, I, I've, I've got a very positive view of our own
57:42
military. My father was in the military,
57:45
so I've seen it at close quarters and you've got very,
57:49
very decent men who, who have a warrior spirit, They have a
57:54
protective, strong, protective nature.
57:58
Unfortunately they're being used by a regime that puts them
58:04
usually in a foreign place protecting so called national
58:07
interest. Well man, I agree with all that.
58:11
What's missing is that when the men wake up, they feel guilty.
58:17
They suppress their masculine because they don't know how to
58:20
act. I can feel that many times.
58:24
You know how to act around women without offending and well.
58:28
Exactly, Yeah. And so there's this uncertainty
58:31
about masculinity. I think men are very confused
58:35
in, in a lot of ways because you've had the feminist movement
58:38
that, you know, in some ways women needed to, to, to, to, you
58:42
know, to the whole 50s woman had to get break free from the
58:45
kitchen and all that stuff and had to go out to work and
58:48
financially had to. And men don't, men don't know
58:52
where their place is because sometimes, you know, the women
58:55
are more powerful. So they they're, they're not
58:57
quite, Yeah, they're very confused.
59:00
For me, the feminist. Time as well, but we can carry
59:03
on for a couple of minutes and then.
59:05
The the feminist movement made a huge understandable error in
59:11
pursuing power. Equality is power and that
59:15
directly you are entering the male world and you're proving
59:19
that women can do just as well in that world, whether it's a
59:22
banker or top chief executive or a fighter pilot, an engineer, a
59:28
chemist, you know, a bat virus specialist, you know, it's like
59:35
they're just playing the male game.
59:38
And and like I say, they can be very good at it.
59:41
I'm a huge fan of female football, female rugby, female
59:45
athletics, you know, wow, these women are real warriors.
59:50
It takes discipline and skill and all of that.
59:53
So great admiration. But what's not happening is that
59:57
the the deeper, darker feminine, what used to be called witchy,
1:00:03
that is not. OK, That is not celebrated.
1:00:08
The kind of woman who knows where you are, knows what you're
1:00:11
thinking, can actually, in a way, travel a little bit in the
1:00:15
astral realms. What, You know, we don't want
1:00:19
that kind of woman. And this is exactly what
1:00:22
happened in, you know, England 1600.
1:00:28
Yeah, You get the King of England who's regarded as the
1:00:31
Solomon of his time, IE Wisdom in our way, attending witch
1:00:36
trials in Scotland before became King of England, and writing a
1:00:41
book on demonology outlining why you can't trust women.
1:00:47
They're much closer to the devil you know they aren't they're.
1:00:51
Connected. I can't go along with that.
1:00:53
They're they're connected to this unseen world and they can
1:00:56
manipulate it like the witches. Well, I think women do do hold,
1:01:01
you know, a lot of power. They are the in a way they, you
1:01:04
know, they're a creatrix. You know, there's a lot of power
1:01:08
within a woman and used the right way, it could like men, it
1:01:11
can be used the wrong way. I think all of our power,
1:01:14
masculine power, female power can all be used the wrong way.
1:01:18
And I I think that that, yeah, I mean, this is this.
1:01:21
Is I might be idealising, I might be idealising women, but I
1:01:24
feel that they're closer, they're closer, they're closer
1:01:28
to their heart. Yeah, they are.
1:01:30
That's and that's why, that's why, that's why the ancients
1:01:34
said wisdom is feminine. Yeah.
1:01:37
It's because real wisdom is a heart thing.
1:01:40
Yeah. And that's what we're missing.
1:01:43
And, and the women have to have to bring that back, but they
1:01:46
have to bring it back with some power.
1:01:48
The wisdom and the heart we're. Not going along with this
1:01:50
anymore. And, and we're going to stand up
1:01:53
for the heart. We're going to stand up against
1:01:56
all of this. So, you know, I, I think women
1:02:00
should be the leading edge of the change, no?
1:02:04
I think they are. I think they are, yeah.
1:02:06
Somebody like the Dalai Lama said it's the Western woman that
1:02:09
will save the world. Who knows?
1:02:12
Yeah. Well, it certainly needs.
1:02:14
It certainly needs. It needs saving.
1:02:16
Let's. Just give this a bit more of a
1:02:19
plug. Where can we get your book?
1:02:21
Is it you? Can get it from Amazon.
1:02:25
Book shops don't necessarily stop it because it's regarded as
1:02:29
too controversial and the Green Mafia might show up and and
1:02:33
trash the shop. That was the excuse given in
1:02:36
Glastonbury for why the only independent bookshop wouldn't
1:02:40
stop it. I'm going to have a word with
1:02:42
that man. Excellent, I tried.
1:02:46
What, what's good is that we can, a whole load of us can go
1:02:49
in there and say, look, we're trying to buy this book and it's
1:02:51
not in your shop. What's going on?
1:02:53
You know, I've got, well, there's enough people that
1:02:56
support your work to, to do that.
1:02:58
We've got to get a whole thing going because he could make some
1:03:01
money. And when he realises he's losing
1:03:03
out on money, maybe he'll change his mind anyway.
1:03:06
So what's, what was, what's your final thing that you'd like to
1:03:09
say about maybe the whole world about, you know, what's going
1:03:13
on? Because we did have, I know
1:03:14
you're a very esoteric man. So what would you, what would
1:03:17
you say as the final thing? Well, esoteric means inner
1:03:23
world. And recently after a talk I'd
1:03:29
given about the dangers that we all face, someone said, don't
1:03:33
you get depressed because the prospects are not good?
1:03:37
And I said, no, no, I can't get depressed.
1:03:40
He said, for me, there are two worlds this the outer world,
1:03:43
which in in yoga is regarded as a bit of an illusion.
1:03:47
You, you wouldn't want to stand in front of a bus, but you know,
1:03:50
it's, it's still an illusion, right?
1:03:53
And then the inner world, and that's the reality.
1:03:56
And the inner world is something that you have to get to know,
1:04:00
You have to explore. For a man, that inner world is
1:04:04
contains a woman inside you. Usually you've suppressed and my
1:04:10
inner woman says you've been ignoring me all day.
1:04:13
And why don't you let me make the decision sometime?
1:04:16
And it's like that. That's the level of rebalancing
1:04:21
that has has to happen. We have to, we have to
1:04:24
strengthen our hearts. And and that's heart is, is
1:04:29
where the courage is. And, and you know, you take
1:04:32
Andrew Bridgens standing up in Parliament and ruining his whole
1:04:34
career. He didn't have to do that.
1:04:38
And, and people will come up to me and say, why are you ruining
1:04:40
your career over this? You know, that's courage.
1:04:45
So it's like we've got to get courageous and, and we've got to
1:04:50
get the heart back and we've got to do the inner work so that
1:04:54
when it really gets tough and here it hasn't got tough yet.
1:04:58
But if you're in Syria or Palestine or South Sudan or a
1:05:02
lot of other places on the planet, Armageddon is already
1:05:05
with you. So it's like we have got to wake
1:05:10
up our our whole country is planning for nuclear war.
1:05:14
The whole country, our leaders so called, and then they've
1:05:20
learned the lessons from COVID. Those bioweapons labs are still
1:05:23
producing, they're still working, they're still dusting
1:05:26
off the plans through plutonium economy, hoping people like me
1:05:30
fade away. You know, so it's like it's
1:05:35
crucial. It's crucial that we we find our
1:05:38
heart and our courage very quickly now and then from there
1:05:42
we reform the system. So I don't know of any political
1:05:50
party that's dealing with this. I, I I'm not sure political
1:05:55
parties are the answer, but I think sadly, we're going to have
1:05:58
to wrap up now. Thank you for the opportunity.
1:06:01
I think there's. Very wise words at the end.
1:06:03
Absolutely. We need courage, we need we need
1:06:07
you know you those are very wise words.
1:06:09
You're a very wise and it. Takes it takes work.
1:06:12
It's inner work. It's not easy.
1:06:16
It can be scary. You, you're facing your own
1:06:18
shadow. One has to actually realise
1:06:22
there's only one human being on this planet and, and we can
1:06:27
really screw up now. And that's why science and this
1:06:32
dangerously imbalanced modern male mind has LED us.
1:06:36
So this is like wake up or die. And, and that's, that's, that's
1:06:43
what we have, what we have to do.
1:06:44
And it's, it's hard work. It's hard work to maintain that
1:06:48
inner world. And in different times you would
1:06:52
be burnt alive for doing that, you know so.
1:06:56
Yeah, right. Well, Peter, it's been
1:06:59
absolutely marvellous speaking to you and I don't know where
1:07:02
the time's gone. It's.
1:07:02
Just gone. I was just looking.
1:07:04
And it's because it's so engaging.
1:07:06
Well, thank you very much for for this opportunity talk so
1:07:09
widely, Sandy, and for being such a good host.
1:07:12
Thank you. Thank you.
1:07:14
Thank you very much. Goodbye.