The Great and the Goodall? The chimp lady and the human problem
By Paul Homewood
Ann Farmer has sent me a copy of her letter to the Express, following the latest attack on the human race by a greenie.
One doubts whether the newly woke Express will print it!
The Great and the Goodall? The chimp lady and the human problem
Dame Jane Goodall, a ‘[l]eading anthropologist’ and ‘one of the world’s top experts on primates’, was today named an advocate of the COP26 climate change conference, to be held in Glasgow this November; the 87-year-old Dame Jane, whose ‘60-year studies of chimpanzees’ is ‘unsurpassed’, believes the ‘world has reached a turning point in its relationship with nature’. Accordingly, she ‘will address people around the globe on the importance of taking action against climate change’, and ‘will also highlight what needs doing to help the planet’ (‘Dame Jane takes lead role at climate change summit’, *Daily Express*, July 23, 2021). https://www.express.co.uk/ourpaper/view/2021-07-23
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-express/20210723/282213718846527
Chosen as one of the ‘Top 25 Brits turning the country green’ in the effort ‘to tame climate change, cut pollution and reverse shocking declines in plants and wildlife’, along with Sir David Attenborough and Chris Packham, https://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/1458427/green-britons-britons-climate-change-politics-agenda
Dame Jane went on to say that in her lifetime, she has ‘“seen the ice melting in Greenland and the glaciers vanishing on Mount Kilimajaro and around the world. Forests are disappearing – deforestation means we are losing one of the lungs of the world. In 100 days, it is crucial that world leaders come together at COP26 to take urgent action to protect our plant.”’
These are shocking claims, but they have been disputed by scientists, not all of whom support the ‘climate change’ narrative. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/06/21/how-david-king-lied-to-parliament/ Yes, human beings cut down trees, but they also plant them; and glaciers do melt – they are, after all, made of ice, and if they didn’t the world would be covered in ice.
Shocking claims cease to shock if they are made over and over again, with global disaster (as opposed to normal, if apparently extreme, weather events) failing to materialise. There are only so many environmental ‘turning points’ that can be claimed before a turning point is reached at which people wake up to the fact that these are not facts but scare stories designed to prod them into taking drastic action about ‘global warming’ that with cooler heads they would never contemplate.
This is because according to Dame Jane and her climate colleagues, ‘what needs doing’ is to impoverish most of the people on the Planet, returning them to a stone age existence. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/06/28/prepare-for-the-populist-backlash-if-net-zero-becomes-an-elite-project/
Far from wishing to help the human race, Ms Goodall has been outspokenly anti-human, believing that ‘what needs to be done’ is to prevent more humans coming into the world, although in this she is not alone: Sir David Attenborough sees humanity as a ‘plague’ on the Planet, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/9815862/Humans-are-plague-on-Earth-Attenborough.html
and with fellow wildlife broadcaster Chris Packham, he is a patron of Population Matters, https://populationmatters.org/our-patrons
along with Dame Jane.
And with Sir David Attenborough and *Population Bomb* author Paul Ehrlich, Dame Jane is a patron of population control organisation Population Matters;
indeed, in a highly publicised encounter in 2019, Prince Harry pledged to her that he would stop at two children in order ‘to save the planet’. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2019/07/31/harry-meghans-malthusian-two-child-pledge-no-way-save-planet/
This was an interesting announcement, in view of his own brother’s three children, but the decrease in world population that could be achieved if all princes restricted their offspring to two would be minimal; the real target is not princes but paupers. Dame Jane says on the Population Matters website, which is festooned with pictures of black people, that ‘“population growth…underlies just about every single one of the problems that we’ve inflicted on the planet”’. https://www.populationmatters.org/goodall-population/
The Jane Goodall Institute is closely involved providing Africa with long-term contraception – aka sterilisation, since it cannot be removed by the woman herself – along with the controversial Marie Stopes International and the UN Population Fund, a powerful front for population control, under the Thriving Together programme; a declaration signed by the groups stated: ‘“We believe that by working together we can help human communities and their ecosystems thrive.”’ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/11/improve-contraception-access-to-tackle-wildlife-crisis-urges-campaign?utm_source=SPUC+News+List&utm_campaign=10dd1310d2-news190520_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_826f492851-10dd1310d2-148123137&mc_cid=10dd1310d2&mc_eid=c2228029a3
In other words, by preventing black people from having children, the Planet can be saved – for everyone but them, obviously.
Many people support the environmental campaign, encouraged by people like Jane Goodall, but a great part of that campaign is devoted to promoting the view that people are responsible for killing the Planet.
It must be obvious from all this that for many of the ‘great and the good’, the environmental campaign is a handy weapon for promoting their own interests. For the great and the not-so-good, people are the problem – but mainly other people. Ms Goodall has only one child, but has consumed a fair amount of the Earth’s resources in her 87 years telling the poor how to be mean and, above all, not to be so selfish as to have children. And significantly, she does not reveal the cost of the COP26 climate conference, at which, one presumes, attendees will not be regaled with bread and water while they emphasise the need to save precious resources.
She clearly thinks it would be better for chimpanzees if there were not so many humans, but if chimps could communicate as well as she believes they can, they would tell her that their species does not approve of preventing the births of their own offspring. But even if she were the all-time expert on chimpanzees – or on anything at all – it does not give her the right to decide how many children other people can have.
The ‘great and the Goodall’ may want to save the Planet for chimps, seeing human beings as the problem; but the real human problem is elevating dumb animals to justify putting down (sometimes literally) our fellow humans.
Yours faithfully,
Ann Farmer
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Five stars Anne.
Spot on Ann – thank you.
Is that Chris Packham the same Chris Packham as featured in this article
Surely not!!!
Might be better for gorillas if there were fewer chimpanzees?
Chimpanzees observed killing and eating gorillas for the first time ‘due to climate change’
Dozens of chimpanzees launched attacks on smaller groups of gorillas in Gabon
Not sure that Climate Change is involved for anything more than it has to be the cause of everything.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/07/22/chimpanzees-observed-killing-eating-gorillas-first-time-due/
Chimps operate in packs, known for attacking and killing other chimps for food too. No surprise that gorillas and chimps have done battle now and previously
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161128-groups-of-gorillas-have-turned-violent
Cerrone’s climate propaganda track The Impact (2019) features Jane Goodall.
Cerrone’s most famous track is probably Supernature (1977) also with an environmental message. Nothing much changes – but more than 40 years later and no real sign of the creatures taking their sweet revenge!
It’s always difficult to argue against insane environmentalists because obviously everyone supports looking after the planet/nature. Anyway, the 1977 track is still great. I wonder how much of the glacier he is sat drumming on is still there?
Nice work by Anne Farmer. I wonder what Desmond Morris would say.
But why The Daily Express? It’s hardy a publication of authority.
Name a publication that has authority. Just as a starter you can’t have The Times, Daily Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, Daily Mail or Mirror, as they all print alarmist bullshit and don’t allow comments, or remove comments that point out the errors. The Mail used to be better than most but no longer.
Who do you have in mind? The BBC?
Ann Farmer used to be a prolific contributor to the letters page of the DT. I wondered what had happened to her…
Her letter here is probably over-long for the DE but it has a message. The ‘climate crisis’ is being used as a cover by the Malthusians in their desire to rid the planet of unimportant humans. In there drive to this end they have inadvertently caused the very problem they complain of: over-population. This is because of their drive to rid the planet of efficient power-generation. Cheap energy generation which is abundant, reliable and available would actually reduce the need for large families in the Third World but the Greens want to see that world left in the stone-age.
Funny how the great-and-the-good seem to spend their time advocating something that most of the world have been quietly getting on with for years: Empty Planet: Preparing for the Global Population Decline
I note that Boris is running a recruitment drive for XR types to lecture COP 26.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15676698/boris-johnson-britain-eco-warriors-climate-change-fight/
It is undeniable that the sum total of people’s activities is responsible for the steady increase in CO2. The correlation between people and atmospheric CO2 is almost perfect. Nor can we deny that fewer people would lower that increase…changes in the birth rate and the death rate. We cannot have it both ways and expect our food supplies and standards of living can both increase while we try to eliminate all fossil fuel sources of energy. That’s where these “green” advocates and protestors miss the point as they head off to yet another climate conference.
According to the IPCC, ca. 96% of global carbon dioixide emissions comes from nature. As we come out of the little ice age, the oceans are warming slightly, decreasing the solubility of carbon dioxide in them. This could be behind much of the current steady increase. So, it is very far from undeniable that the sum total of people’s activities is responsible.
Correlation is not causation.
Sorry, my comment was aimed at Broadlands
Undeniable? My elbow!
It is perfectly deniable. Man’s CO2 output is but a recent negligible ripple on the natural cycle. More importantly it is also deniable that that rise in CO2, whatever the cause, has significant effect on temperature; most of its spectrum being subsumed within that of the majorly dominant greenhouse gas, water vapour. In any case, of the bit that does have an effect, the relationship is logarithmic, and we are currently on the long flat tail where, whether a bit more or a bit less CO2, the effect on temperature is minimal. Thirdly, and above all, historically the level of CO2 follows change in temperature, not drives it, due to ocean absorption or out gassing. Deniable, too, is that mildly higher temperatures would be dangerous, and that humanity would not have the time nor ingenuity gradually to adapt where necessary, to any changes.
However, what is undeniable is that rising CO2 is actually beneficial to the Earth’s flora, and thus humanity’s well-being. What’s not to like?
“Forests are disappearing. Deforestation means we are losing one of the lungs of the world”.
Thanks for that. I’ve always thought “lungs” was an odd description when applied to trees, as lungs remove oxygen from the air and output CO2. Quite the opposite in fact.
Thank you and fully agree. Lungs is an odd description for carbon sequestration.
“…lungs…”
What is odd is the idea that we are in the slightest danger of running out of oxygen! That was quite the scare story a few years ago. Time for a renewal of this truly idiotic lie, I suppose. The average person has no idea of quantities and time scales and any old assertion will do to depress their morale.
Actually, forests are almost in balance as regards oxygen turnover.
OTT
Incidentally, I notice that many younger scientists are actually producing some proper science, ‘underneath the radar.’ I guess they realize that there is no career path for THEM in continued kow-towing and shouting ‘Me too!’ You have to grow up at some point. The ancient, eco-warrior, living fossils can coast on until they are simply dead fossils.
OTT
The surface mass balance of Greenland is interesting. The AREA melting this summer is actually quite great, but it is snowing frequently, and the meltwater is refreezing in the snow it is lying on. The net effect is that there has been,
so far, a season with little loss of VOLUME.
Even the amount of the atmosphere that is oxygen is ‘about right’. If it raised much higher then fires really could be ‘catastrophic’
Despite all of the attention on deforestation, it’s rare to see any acknowledgement of the primary drivers. It’s my understanding that much of the clearance is not for local agriculture to feed the population. Instead it is for crops like soy, sugarcan and palm oil to supply feedstock for biofuels.
Maybe someone has the numbers on this?
The irony and hypocrisy of the WWF et al is stark: campaigning to preserve rainforests while advocating biofuels.
Also there’s never any mention of those NASA satellite studies which show that the world is now much greener. Apparently an area about twice that of the contiguous US has been added since the 70s.
Very interesting. Thank you. I don’t have that data for the Amazon but I did see the data for Indonesia and in that case you are dead on target.
Great letter from Ann Farmer. Goodall, Attenborough, et al. are full of it. How this shriveled old female (I cannot call her a lady) still manages to mislead people, I do not understand.
I am eternally grateful for my own six children, born in spite of the terror tactics of Paul Ehrlich and company. The latter are now justly exposed as thorough liars and propagandists for population control.
‘The Jane Goodall Institute is closely involved providing Africa* with long-term contraception’
This is colonialism.
The West seems to be okay with colonialism, as long as the cause appears to be good.
We have learned nothing from 200 years of history.
*’Africa’ Egypt? Morocco? They are afraid to tell the truth: sub-Saharan Africa.
She doesn’t seem to be having much success. In the 70 years since I learned about a little boy my age called Bimbo in Nigeria in my geography book, another five Bimbos have arrived.
After further review, I realize this is an Argumentum ad Verecundiam fallacy.
Studying chimps for 60 years makes you an authority on chimps, not weather.
‘Dame Jane takes lead role at climate change summit’
Thus begins her slide from respected anthropologist to political hack. Perhaps she can monetize her fame.
Argument from Authority
Really meaning, Argument from the opinion of the Authority
I think one can make a case that the (casual) opinion of any “Authority” is less useful than the (careful) opinion of an intelligent Layman* who makes a fresh study.
If the Authority comes into the field knowing a lot about the contentious subject, he is bound to have entrenched biases.** If he knows little about the subject it will be BECAUSE he has spent all his time doing something else and – in the case of Goodall – perhaps knows less, generally, at 87 than at 27. The old definition of a specialist, as someone who learns more and more about less and less until he ends up knowing everything about nothing and nothing about everything, comes to mind.
* A Layman in that particular question, not in the sense of uneducated.
**In the case of Academics who go into the public arena it seems to me that they are, to a shocking extent, deliberately and consciously biased.
No, Dave. Argument from an inappropriate authority. Goodall is an authority. On chimps. Not weather.
I remember as a teenager hearing about the “population explosion” and despite not knowing much about the “science” (ha ha…) behind it, I dismissed it. As a Christian I have always believed in filling the earth and subduing it, as God told us to do. And, as Derek Prince, the excellent bible teacher says in one of his videos, if children are a blessing, as the bible says, then why don’t Christians have more of them!! Husband and I have four children, I was content to leave it at that (though I’d wanted 6 at the age of 11).
Anyway, I slightly digress….. What I really came here to say that Reiner Fullmich, in his latest session of the Corona Investigative Committee (which took place on Friday 22ndJuly) interviewed a man called Matthew Ehret, who spoke about exactly the sort of thing that Ann Farmer writes about. You can watch the video here – https://corona-ausschuss.de/
you may be sure that she is being right royally paid for endorsing the great AGW scam as indeed are all the others involved.
This need for cash becomes increasingly more pressing as one enters octogenarian territory with medical expenses rocketing the further you get.
Pet physicians are readily available in protected environments such as Harley Street but sightings have become vanishingly more rare in general habitats.
Technical note.. many of the links Ann gave can be much shorter
#1 Generally anything after the “?” sign is just tracking info, so crop it off
#2 sharing that tracking info may be giving your personal info away
eg it could reveal which Twitter account you used
These “advocates” are not advocating for me
cos I didn’t choose them
by what process were they chosen ?
Same process as so-called think tanks: self aggrandisement.