Category: Climate Change

Craig Kelly writes:
THE TRUTH ALWAYS COMES OUT – IT‘S JUST A MATTER OF TIME

With Covid, it took a period of time before the world’s leading independent medical minds began to push back against the fear-mongering & lies peddled by the Covid grifters, exposing the “safe & effective” narrative as one of the greatest lies ever told.

Although deniers remain, the groupthink has been broken and its now widely acknowledged that the so-called vaccines were ineffective, unnecessary & unsafe.

And now the turn-around is happening on climate. Dr. John F. Clauser, joint recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, has come out and criticised the climate emergency narrative calling it “a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.”

According to Dr. Clauser, “The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.

“Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists.

“In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s expanding population, especially given an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science,”

Its time to follow the science and listen to the Nobel Laureate – there is no climate climate emergency.

Don’t let yourself be conned.

https://joannenova.com.au/2023/07/another-skeptical-nobel-laureate-of-physics-climate-science-has-metastasized/

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.

Greenpeace co-founder, Dr. Patrick Moore: “There is no definitive scientific proof… that carbon dioxide is responsible for any of the slight warming of the global climate that has occurred during the last 300 years.”

“But there is certainty beyond a reasonable doubt that CO2 is the building block for all life on Earth, and that without its presence in the global atmosphere… this would be a dead planet.”

Full talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Z5FdwWw_c

In 1914, there was a consensus among geologists that the earth under our feet was permanently fixed, and that it was absurd to think it could be otherwise. But in 1915, Alfred Wegener fought an enormous battle to convince them of the relevance of plate tectonics.

In 1904, there was a consensus among physicists that Newtonian mechanics was, at last, the final word in explaining the workings of the world. All that was left to do was to mop up the details. But in 1905, Einstein and a few others soon convinced them that this view was false.

In 1544, there was a consensus among mathematicians that it was impossible to calculate the square root of negative one, and that to even consider the operation was absurd. But in 1545, Cardano proved that, if you wanted to solve polynomial equations, then complex numbers were a necessity.

In 1972, there was a consensus among psychiatrists that homosexuality was a psychological, treatable, sickness. But in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association held court and voted for a new consensus to say that it was not.

In 1979, there was a consensus among paleontologists that the dinosaurs’ demise was a long, drawn out affair, lasting millions of years. But in 1980, Alvarez, father and son, introduced evidence of a cataclysmic cometary impact 65 million years before.

In 1858, there was a consensus among biologists that the animal species that surround us were put there as God designed them. But in 1859, the book On the Origin of Species appeared.

In 1928, there was a consensus among astronomers that the heavens were static, the boundaries of the universe constant. But in 1929, Hubble observed his red shift among the stars.

In 1834, there was a consensus among physicians that human disease was spontaneously occurring, due to imbalanced humours. But in 1835, Bassi and later Pasteur, introduced doctors to the germ theory.

All these are, obviously, but a small fraction of the historical examples of consensus in science, though I have tried to pick the events that were the most jarring and radical upsets. Here are two modern cases.

In 2008, there is a consensus among climatologists that mankind has and will cause irrevocable and dangerous changes to the Earth’s temperature.

In 2008, there is a consensus among physicists that most of nature’s physical dimensions are hidden away and can only be discovered mathematically, by the mechanisms of string theory.

In addition to the historical list, there are, just as obviously, equally many examples of consensus that turned out to be true. And, to be sure, even when the consensus view was false, it was often rational to believe it.

So I use these specimens only to show two things: (1) from the existence of a consensus, it does not follow that the claims of the consensus are true. (2) The chance that the consensus view turns out to be false is much larger than you would have thought.

These are not news, but they are facts that are often forgotten.

https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/87/

Greenpeace co-founder, Dr. Patrick Moore, on the catastrophic consequences of ‘Net Zero’:

“If we actually achieved Net Zero, at least 50% of the population would die of hunger and disease. [Because] at least 50% of the population depends on nitrogen fertiliser for its existence. And there’s people trying to ban it, and Netherlands and Sri Lanka have already made these kinds of moves. So it is truly a death wish in disguise, and the disguise is to save the Earth, which doesn’t need saving, particularly.”

https://wide-awake-media.com/dr-patrick-moore-net-zero-would-kill-50-of-population-due-to-hunger-and-disease/