Article by Iain Davis
Long text. Just linking it here in case I need it.
Article by Iain Davis
Long text. Just linking it here in case I need it.
About “post-normal science”, and the decline of rational thinking in the wake of the decline of Christianity.
8-minute video here.
This story proves that the main impulse of many in the climate change movement is not to save the planet, but to bring down humanity.
Not only do they not believe in progress, they actively combat it. Or, put another way: They DO believe in progress, but only as a fundamentally malignant force.
“What Western climate activists are really celebrating here is subsistence farming and absolute, grinding poverty. They are exploiting the indigenous people and their alleged harmony with nature to push the UN’s anti-growth agenda.”
A total of 1,609 scientists, professors and other scholars have signed on to a new declaration that argues there is no climate change crisis.
“There is no climate emergency” is the title of the declaration that consists of 53 pages’ worth of signatories from across the globe, including some Nobel Laureates and other researchers from prestigious universities. Other signers include engineers, attorneys and other professionals.
The declaration, published with its endorsers in mid-August , lists six main arguments against the alleged climate crisis, including that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and is actually “plant food” and “the basis of all life on Earth.”
The motivation for the statement “is to counter the almost universal media climate catastrophe narrative with objective facts verified by over 1,600 independent scientists, engineers and professionals from over 30 countries,” said Jim O’Brien, chair of the Irish Climate Science Forum, in an email to The College Fix.
These heroic scientists, many of whom will most certainly soon have trouble finding funds for their research, are countering a narrative supported by people who spout genocidal fantasies such as here.
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.
Article by Tony Thomas.
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.
A very interesting analysis of our situation and what can and should be done.
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.