Russell Brand comments on Rumble on the article in the Grayzone about him.
1. ‘How Not to Launch a Global Anti-Censorship Movement’, writes CJ Hopkins here.
Quote: “The people that no one has ever heard of are not stupid. They know the difference between a serious anti-censorship campaign and a vanity project. There’s still time for Mike to turn this thing around, let go of the reins, stop sucking up to the mainstream establishment, and reach out to the masses. Honestly, I hope he will. I wish him and the London gang success. There are millions of people out there who would get on board with a grassroots campaign opposing the Censorship Industrial Complex, but, to get them on board, you have to let go of the wheel and let them steer the ship.”
2. ‘UK quietly passes “Online Safety Bill” into law’, writes Kit Knightly here.
Quote: “This is clearly a response to Covid, or rather the failure of Covid. Essentially, the pandemic narrative broke because the current mechanisms of censorship didn’t work well enough. In response, the government has just legalised and out-sourced their silencing of dissent.“
“
Article by Larry Bell here.
Any claim of a consensus that “science is settled” regarding the existence of a dire climate crisis emergency caused by carbon dioxide is a deceptive, destructive, and costly fraud.
A “World Climate Declaration” made public by the non-profit scientific Global Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL) in August endorsed by 1,609 informed scientists and professionals — including two Nobel Laureates, John Clauser (USA) and Ivar Giaever (Norway/USA) — clearly says otherwise.
Having published two highly rated books on the subject — the second at the urgings of the late Dr. Fred Singer, founder of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, and late Dr. John Coleman, co-founder of the Weather Channel — this writer is among the 321 U.S. CLINTEL signatories.
CLINTEL argues that climate science has degenerated into a discussion of beliefs, not on sound, self-critical science:
CLINTEL’s declaration counters alarmist doomsday scenarios based upon faulty assumptions and models trumpeted by the media, which have proven entirely unrealistic.
Following temperatures of the 1930s warmer than now, and despite 1940s World War II industries that released massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, three decades of cooling until the late 1970s led “experts,” scientific institutions, and major media networks to announce the onset of a next Ice Age.
This alarm soon reversed to an alleged opposite global warming threat.
In June 2008, James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), predicted that no Arctic summer ice would remain within five to 10 years.
Note that Hansen’s successor, Gavin Schmidt, later admitted to the renowned journal Science in 2021, “It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this admission that the models can’t be trusted as a policy instrument.
“You end up with numbers for even the near‐term that are insanely scary — and wrong.”
Some will recall the “Climategate” scandal of 2009 when leaked email communications between climate scientists revealed gross unreported uncertainties reported as unsupportable claims and misrepresentations that continue today.
Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, admitted in the science journal, Nature.com, “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state.”
The late Stephen Schneider, who authored “The Genesis Strategy,” a 1976 book warning that global cooling risks posed a threat to humanity, later changed that view 180 degrees as a lead author on three IPCC reports.
As quoted in Discover magazine (1989), he said that in order to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change, “we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage.
“So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have.
“Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
No, as CLINTEL clarifies in their declaration, responsible science requires no such decision choice between honesty and agenda.
As one of the Climategate era scientist emails observed, “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”
Inconceivable, yes, but tragically, it’s still happening.
Writes Caitlin Johnstone:
During a speech at the EU Parliament’s foreign affairs committee on Thursday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg clearly and repeatedly acknowledged that Putin made the decision to invade Ukraine because of fears of NATO expansionism.
His comments, initially flagged by journalist Thomas Fazi, read as follows:
The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.
So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
Stoltenberg made these remarks as part of a general gloat about the fact that Putin invaded Ukraine to prevent NATO expansion and yet the invasion has resulted in Sweden and Finland applying to join the alliance, saying it “demonstrates that when President Putin invaded a European country to prevent more NATO, he’s getting the exact opposite.”
Stoltenberg’s remarks would probably have been classified as Russian propaganda by plutocrat-funded “disinformation experts” and imperial “fact checkers” if it had been said online by someone like you or me, but because it came from the head of NATO as part of a screed against the Russian president it’s been allowed to pass through without objection.
In reality Stoltenberg is just stating a well-established fact: contrary to the official western narrative, Putin invaded Ukraine not because he is evil and hates freedom but because no great power ever allows foreign military threats to amass on its borders — including the United States. That’s why so many western analysts and officials spent years warning that NATO’s actions were going to provoke a war, and yet when war broke out we were slammed with a tsunami of mass media propaganda repeating over and over and over again that this was an “unprovoked invasion”.
Continue reading here.
Article by Tony Thomas.
Excerpt:
There’s nothing new about mainstream climate scientists conspiring to bury papers that throw doubt on catastrophic global warming. The Climategate leaks showed co-compiler of the HadCRUT global temperature series Dr Phil Jones emailing Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann, July 8, 2004:
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth, a colleague] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
Thanks to a science whistle-blower, there’s now documentation of a current exercise as bad as that captured in the Jones-Mann correspondence. This new and horrid saga – again involving Dr Mann – sets out to deplatform and destroy a peer-endorsed published paper by four Italian scientists. Their paper in European Physical Journal Plus is titled A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming and documents that extreme weather and related disasters are not generally increasing, contrary to the catastrophists feeding misinformation to the Guardian/ABC axis and other compliant media.
The witch-hunt has Australian elements. Last September, The Australian’s environment writer, Graham Lloyd, highlighted the paper (paywalled) and its conclusion that the “extreme events emergency” was overblown. Sky News Australia, which twice reported the study, picked up more than 400,000 views and thousands of comments.
The green-left Guardian countered with a hit-piece by in-house cataastrophist Graham Readfearn featuring professors Lisa Alexander and Steve Sherwood, both of NSW University. They alleged cherry-picking and misquoting. Their main specific complaint was that the Italians’ paper had drawn on the 2013 5th IPCC Report rather than the recent 6th Report. (The Italians say they submitted the paper before the 6th Report emerged).
The Guardian’s fuss caught the attention of Agence France-Presse’s (AFP) Marlowe Hood, who modestly styles himself “Senior Editor, Future of the Planet” and “Herald of the Anthropocene”. He penned his own diatribe for The Australian (paywalled but also here) against the Italians’ paper. Jumping the gun on any editorial inquiry, AFP branded the study “faulty” and “fundamentally flawed”, involving “discredited assertions” and “grossly manipulated data”. This abuse was normal since AFP and The Guardian are leaders of the Covering Climate Now (CCN) coalition of some 500 media outlets with reach to a 2 billion audience. These outlets signed the CCN pledge to hype catastrophism and rebut and censor any scepticism about our planet’s forecast fiery fate.
The whistle-blowers’ documents reveal how this media pile-on – as distinct from reasoned scientific complaint — led the journal’s owner, Springer, to demand “action”. Springer’s aim was to force the editor to publish at least an erratum and, preferably, retract it altogether, restoring climate right-think.
Article by Tom Slater.
Patrick T Brown lays out why science, in particular climate science, is so corrupt.
At the same time, the UN announces that “climate breakdown”, whatever that means, has begun. Just a few weeks after it announced that “the era of global warming is over, the era of global boiling has begun”. How anyone can take that seriously is beyond me.
Says even the New York Times.
Article by Michael Snyder.
Excerpts:
The Internet just changed forever, but most people living in the United States don’t even realize what just happened. A draconian new law known as the “Digital Services Act” went into effect in the European Union on Friday, and it establishes an extremely strict regime of Internet censorship that is far more authoritarian than anything we have ever seen before. From this point forward, hordes of European bureaucrats will be the arbiters of what is acceptable to say on the Internet. If they discover something that you have said on a large online platform that they do not like, they can force that platform to take it down, because someone in Europe might see it. So even though this is a European law, the truth is that it is going to have a tremendous impact on all of us.
Initially, there will be 19 giant online platforms that will be forced to comply with this new law…
But starting on February 24th, 2024, the Digital Services Act will start applying to a much broader spectrum of online platforms that have fewer than 45 million monthly users.
You might be tempted to think that you will be able to avoid all of this censorship because you do not live in Europe. Unfortunately, that is simply not true. If you post something that someone in Europe might see, your content comes under the jurisdiction of this horrifying new law. So you need to brace yourself for a level of Internet censorship that none of us have ever seen before.
From this point forward, it is going to become much more difficult to share alternative views on the Internet.
For a long time, the Internet allowed ordinary people like you and ordinary people like me to share truth with a world that was desperate for it.
But now the gatekeepers are exerting a draconian level of control, and the Internet will never, ever be the same again.