Watch this on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v5kelqb-climate-change-hoax.html
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon Dioxide makes up .04% of our atmosphere. Carbon dioxide makes up a very small fraction of the Earth’s atmosphere, approximately 0.04% or 420 parts per million (ppm) as of 2023. While this may seem insignificant, it plays a crucial role in the greenhouse effect, which helps regulate Earth’s temperature. However, human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, have significantly increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, leading to global warming and climate change. Before the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was around 280 parts per million (ppm). Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, have increased this concentration to approximately 420 ppm as of 2023. This represents an increase of about 50% from pre-industrial levels.
This is a play on numbers. Going up from .02 to .04% is not 50% in the greater scheme of things. For example, take a glass jar full of 1,000 marbles. Now remove 2 marbles. This is the justification that the world leaders are using to scare us into climate change. How would we be able to change it from .04 to .02? Logic says to add more plants to the world. Plants eat carbon dioxide. It’s food for them. And their waste that they distribute is oxygen. Trees actually breath in carbon dioxide and monoxide and breath out oxygen. Yet, according to Bill Gates, says planting trees is “less proven approaches” to solve our climate issue. He says that is complete nonesense. Watch this video. Who’s the idiot? A common estimate is that a mature tree absorbs about 48 pounds (22 kilograms) of carbon dioxide per year. Since 1 ton is equal to 2,000 pounds, 0.02 tons would be 40 pounds. So, roughly speaking, you would need to plant one mature tree to offset 0.02 tons of carbon in a year. So, roughly 5.64 trillion trees would be needed to reduce atmospheric CO2 from 421 ppm to 220 ppm, assuming they grow and sequester carbon at an ideal rate. Currently, there are 3.04 trillion trees on earth. All we need to do is double that. Scientists say that’s impossible because of land availability, resource constraints, ecological balance, climate change and deforestation. But trees aren’t the only thing that eats carbon. Algae is the solution. It’s abundant, cheap and easy to grow. Put an algae lake in every state and problem solved.
Fossil Fuels
Crude oil isn’t from dinosaurs. While it’s true that crude oil is a fossil fuel formed from the remains of ancient organisms, these organisms were primarily microscopic marine plants and animals, such as algae and plankton. According to academia, over millions of years, these organic remains were buried under layers of sediment and subjected to high pressure and temperature, transforming them into hydrocarbons, which we know as crude oil. Ironically, it was algae that gave us oxygen to begin with and it turns into oil which we burn and mess up our atmosphere just a tad. I do not believe this is the full story. Where oil becomes dried up from drilling, it seems to come back after a while. They say because oil isn’t a lake but it’s trapped in pourous rock formations.
Academia was coerced by oil companies to call it fossil fuel because it makes it sound scarce. The reason is to drive up oil prices. Academia ignores the fours seasons and how oil is really made. Summer time produces foliage. The fall produces the sediment from the leaves of trees which break down into soil. There is oil or plasma in everything and gravity pulls it down underground where it is pressurized and condensed. This process worldwide creates crude oil. We will never run out of it unless we destroy everything green. Plants produce oil, people. That’s the true source. When they find crude oil in the desert, they understand that what they pull out will become scarce in that area because there is nothing to rejuvinate the source. Oil companies like Standard Oil have invested tons of money into academia to keep up with the lie that it’s scarce and can never be reproduced. The reality is, it’s the cheapest source of making a profit and used now in everything. He who controls the oil, controls the world.
Saved The Trees
We can argue that using fossil fuels, which accounts for .02 offset of our atmosphere actually saved trees. Instead of cutting them down for heat and steam to make electricity, using fossil fuels is actually more environmentally friendly and safe. Coal and oil used for electricity is still more sound than burning dried up plants. But this kind of thinking isn’t profitable. If we did not touch coal or crude for energy needs, one could argue the environment would be much worse than .02%. Burning wood would lead to deforestation, soil erosion, and loss of biodiversity. Wood-burning technologies are generally less efficient than fossil fuel-based technologies. This means that more wood would need to be burned to produce the same amount of energy, increasing the environmental impact. While fossil fuels are more energy-dense than wood, their extraction and combustion processes are often inefficient and wasteful. Wood burning releases particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and other pollutants that can harm human health and the environment.
Academia says burning wood is less harmful to the environment than fossil fuels. They say, while wood burning has its drawbacks, the long-term consequences of fossil fuel combustion are far more severe. While wood can be a renewable energy source, its environmental impact depends heavily on sustainable forest management practices. It’s crucial to weigh the potential benefits and drawbacks of wood-based energy against other, potentially cleaner, renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and hydro power. To provide a more accurate and comprehensive analysis, a detailed life cycle assessment would be necessary, considering all stages of production, use, and disposal for both wood and fossil fuels. The argument is greehouse gas emissions. Academia sticks to the greenhouse gas theory that trapped CO2 from fossil fuels creates a more damaging effect overall than the release of carbon monoxide from wood. There are three case studies proving this point. One in a remote area in Canada, one in Norway and in Italy. These studies assessed that the greenhouse gas emissions associated with wood fuel supply chains from mountain forests are less dangerous. It found that while wood-based energy can be a sustainable option, careful forest management is crucial to minimize its environmental impact.
Saved The Whales
The whaling industry would have had to expand dramatically to meet the world’s current oil demand. The unsustainable nature of whaling and the limitations of whale oil as a fuel source contributed to the decline of the industry and the rise of petroleum in the first place. In fact, whaling almost left the species extinct. Industrial whaling in the 19th and 20th centuries pushed many whale species to the brink of extinction. The demand for whale oil, baleen, and meat fueled a global hunt that decimated populations. The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was established in 1946 to regulate whaling and conserve whale populations. While the IWC has implemented various measures, including quotas and moratoriums, some countries, such as Iceland, Japan, and Norway, continue to conduct commercial whaling.
Right Whales: These whales were particularly vulnerable due to their slow speed and tendency to float when killed. They were hunted for their oil, baleen, and meat. Humpback Whales: Highly prized for their oil and baleen, humpback whales were heavily hunted in the 19th and 20th centuries. Blue Whales: The largest animals on Earth, blue whales were hunted for their oil. They were nearly wiped out by the mid-20th century. Fin Whales: The second-largest animal on Earth, fin whales were also a major target for whalers. Sperm Whales: These whales were hunted for their oil, spermaceti (used in candles and cosmetics), and ambergris (a valuable substance used in perfumes). The overexploitation of these species had a devastating impact on marine ecosystems. The decline of these top predators almost disrupted the delicate balance of marine food webs.
Energy Control
Just imagine the power you can have if you control the energy on the planet? If you can turn electricty on or off for whatever reason? Agenda 2030 or the Green New Deal is designed for this kind of power. Agenda 2030 is pitched to us as the solution to reducing the carbon emmissions back to pre-industrial revolution or .02% carbon. It sounds great on paper, but it’s a trojan horse for control. Here is what they plan on doing:
- No Poverty
- Zero Hunger
- Good Health and Well-being
- Quality Education
- Gender Equality
- Clean Water and Sanitation
- Affordable and Clean Energy
- Decent Work and Economic Growth
- Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
- Reduced Inequality
- Sustainable Cities and Communities
- Responsible Consumption and Production
- Climate Action
- Life Below Water
- Life on Land
- Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
- Partnerships for the Goals
Out of all those bullet points, how many actually focus on reducing the carbon? Just one. Climate action. The rest are behavioral and systemic control of people. So, I looked further into the World Economic Forum’s sustainability goals, specifically their Climate Action and how they plan on reducing the CO2. Big surprise, Agenda 2030 does not outline specific ways to reduce CO2 emissions. However, it does set out 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which include several goals that could indirectly lead to CO2 reductions. For example, SDG 7 calls for affordable and clean energy, SDG 11 calls for sustainable cities and communities, and SDG 13 calls for climate action. But none of it suggests planting more green plants. How are people buying into this bullshit? What does my gender or sex preferences have to do with anything, too? If I want to have sex with a gerbil, am I protected under the sustainable development goals and could it potentionally reduce my carbon footprint? That’s a joke, but not far off from the 17 goals that literally have nothing to do with planting more green things. This is all about control of populations and how they behave.
Resource Control
It’s also about controlling the resources. Government and corporations are going after farmland. Many farmers have received notices from the government to destroy their crops in exchange for a check. The check is far below the value but they are forced to do it anyways. This leaves the farmers without profit thus eventually into bankruptcy. The reasons for the destruction of food could be anything and honestly, irrelevant as it is a complete lie. Corporations like Black Rock, Vanguard and State Street own an absurd amount of stock on the stock market. While they don’t own all of the stocks, their influence on the market is undeniable. This concentration of ownership has raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest, reduced competition, and the impact on long-term economic growth.
Larry Fink, CEO of Black Rock is on the board of trustees on the World Economic Forum. They have a significant influence on global policy and decision-making. Farmland and real estate is their current target. They are quickly buying up land and homes to gain control of the masses and our resources. According to the 2022 Census of Agriculture, the number of US farms fell by 7% between 2017 and 2022, from about 2 million to just under 1.9 million farms. This represents a loss of 141,733 farms in just five years. These factors are putting significant pressure on the US agricultural sector, and it is likely that the number of farms will continue to decline in the years to come. Farm loss is accelerating and the big 3 have been buying them up. Not to plant green things. But to control us.
Elecricity Control
In order to generate electricity, a significant amount of energy must come from an originating source. We have concluded that wood burning can’t generate more power than fossil fuels. In 2023, approximately 60% of all electricity generated in the US came from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases). The remaining 40% came from a combination of nuclear energy (19%) and renewable energy sources (21%). In order to get to this energy source, world leaders are mining using slave labor from communist countries that are controlled by MK Ultra dictators that were put into power by the CIA. This form of exploitation isn’t sustainable yet this problem isn’t being addressed in the 17 point plan by the WEF. The World Economic Forum (WEF) does not specifically address labor exploitation in communist countries for fossil fuel mining. However, the WEF does address broader issues related to labor rights, sustainable development, and responsible resource extraction. The WEF’s proposals often lean heavily on regulation and taxation, rather than directly addressing the root causes of issues or providing tangible solutions. While these measures can play a role, they don’t always guarantee effective change.
Electricity and the control of it must bypass fossil fuel consumption. Battery powered devices and vehicles rely heavily on electricty and the current infrastructure would not sustain it. Imagine an apartment complex with 150 apartments. Each apartment houses 2 residents with 2 electric cars. 300 cars need plugged in every day. That apartment needs its own power grid. But that is the point. If everyone relies on a select few who controls the grid, then we are at the mercy of them. Fossil fuels allows us to break away from the grid and this is the wntire reason behind Agenda 2030. They want to stop all fossil fuels for control and not to save the planet from a .02% increase in carbon. They are liars and manipulators and profiteers. They will force us to heat our homes with their sources and not our own. Every home and apartment complex that is being built right now does not include natural gas outlets. They all require electricty to heat the home.
Dead Scientists
Since the 1980’s, hundreds of scientists are killed each year and the trend is growing. Thousands upon thousands of scientists have been missing, murdered or died under strange circumstances over the last 50 years. From microbioligists to bioweapons experts. Important scientists, who discovered things like an antitoxin treatment for bioweapon or found cures for aids, cancer and smallpox. But those are not the alarming ones. The ones that study climate change and find the truth that our government controls the weather and the narrative are the ones who get killed. Scientists who undermine the scam are threatened, coerced, blackmailed and lose grant money if they do not comply. They are also blacklisted, gang stalked and are unable to find a job unless they write about the hoax. 74 Nasa scientists have been killed in the last 10 years alone. Probably because they were tired of the big lie. You can’t find articles on dead scientists on Google. But Yandex.com, Russia’s equivalent to google shows hundreds of links and hard data.
Scientists are the number one threat to the global system. In fact, the inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, which has been widely used in detecting COVID-19, slammed Dr. Anthony Fauci by calling him a liar. He also strongly criticized Fauci’s understanding of science, while revealing that the PCR test is not suitable as a diagnostic tool, in the way it is being used for COVID-19. He mysteriously died in 2019. Scientists are bad for business and are easily replaceable with younger puppets who know no better. To be a scientist in this world, is even more dangerous than a traffic controller. Their risk of death surpasses skydivers. You are more prone to lose your life writing a paper against climate change than playing chicken with a train. Scientists, unfortunately, have to play the game. Most know the truth but are afraid to come forward. The ones that do, die. Control the resources and the energy grid and you are king of the world. Just as it was elegantly put here in this video: Play argument.
Complete Control
Big oil has lied to us about its sustainability. Since they have control of it, they can use it as a weapon of control. The world economic forum 17 point plan to reduce the carbon footprint is absolutely horseshit. They are spineless billionaires that worship the devil and get off on hurting humanity. Especially Kill Gates when he claims that planting trees isn’t a proven appraoch. The hell it is! There are 8 billion people on this planet. If we each grow a tree in our home and plant it after maturation, we could put a huge dent in the .02% that these satanists are proposing as dangerous. In fact, the easiest way to bypass their new laws and regulations in Agenda 2030 is this to mandate that every home in America have an algae pool outside. A simple plastic kiddy pool filled with water and algae on every home property would literally stop this nonsense of .02% panic. They know this. And the scientists that are critical thinkers have come up with solutions and were killed for it. Saving the world is easy. Removing these psychopath fuckers is the hard part.
Instead of sustainability, they are putting rules and regulations in place that costs money. This is nothing but a tax scheme. The regulators are private companies that corporations and citizens will have to pay to evaluate their own carbon footprint. In Goal 17: Strengthen the Means of Implementation and Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development: Domestic Resource Mobilization: This goal encourages countries to improve their domestic tax systems to generate more revenue. Closing tax loopholes: Preventing individuals and corporations from avoiding taxes. Enhancing tax administration: Improving tax collection efficiency. Broadening the tax base: Expanding the range of goods and services subject to taxation. And Goal 10: Reduce Inequality Within and Among Countries through Progressive Taxation: This goal could promote tax systems that redistribute wealth, such as higher taxes on higher incomes and wealth. I asked AI who it taxes and it’s not the uber rich. It’s the middle class. Increased Income Taxes: Higher marginal tax rates on high incomes. Wealth Taxes: Taxes on net worth, including assets like real estate, stocks, and bonds. Inheritance Taxes: Taxes on inherited wealth. Capital Gains Taxes: Taxes on profits from the sale of assets. Even AI can’t deny it. The claim that Agenda 2030 “does nothing but help the rich” is a common misconception. While it’s true that some policies within the framework could potentially benefit the wealthy, the primary goal of Agenda 2030 is to address global challenges like poverty, inequality, climate change, and environmental degradation.
Mathematical proof that man-made climate change is a total hoax
One of the grandest scientific hoaxes ever perpetrated against humankind is that Man’s modern life (along with cattle farts) is causing catastrophic “climate change”—or “global warming,” depending on the day. There has been a plethora of evidence to prove the whole thing is a hoax, for anyone willing to actually see it and accept it. This has ranged from faking warming data, to pretending that climate change is “settled science,” to hiding the real motives behind the hoax. In fact, hoaxers have even changed the entire narrative; once upon a time it wasn’t global warming that was going to destroy all life, it was global cooling.
Now, there is even mathematical evidence proving the great climate lie. Infowars reporter Millie Weaver recently interviewed Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a conservative British politician and inventor of mathematical puzzle “Eternity,” who said there is a breaking discovery that will prove the entire climate change scare is based on faulty mathematics. This seems logical, given that the vast majority of claims that the earth is warming and that modern industry is the cause are primarily based on incorrect computer models.
At a conference in Phoenix called, “Global Warming: An Inconvenient Lie,” Monckton discussed in depth a mathematical discovery made by he and his team and that their findings have since been submitted for the proper academic peer review. (RELATED: Follow the real science about climate change at ClimateScienceNews.com)
‘I knew there was an error’
The team of international scientists has “discovered a major, significant, substantial error in the way in which the computer models calculate how much warming they would predict should be happening.” He said if the error is taken away, “there is no longer any climate problem.” And while there will indeed be “one or two Celsius of warming” and a doubling of CO2 concentration “but you won’t get much more than that.”
The notion being pushed by Left-wing control freaks in global government that our planet is warming at an alarming, unstoppable rate, is completely bogus, and it always has been. Monckton and his team have demonstrated it mathematically, and no matter how many more times alarmist hoaxer Al Gore claims all of the ice caps are going to disappear “soon,” it just isn’t true. (But the sheeple will believe almost anything. Follow more sheeple news at Sheeple.news)
Monckton said he has known that the modeling error existed and that he had been trying to find it for about a decade. “But I didn’t know what the error was,” he told Weaver. “I just knew they’d made a mistake.” He also says he knew that because he is “a classical mathematician,” which is based on the findings of Menaechmus of Alopeconnesus (380-320 BC).
As further reported by The New American, Monckton—a climate realist and former science advisor to the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher—showed during his conference presentation that the so-called “red flags” of climate change based largely on United Nations data were nearly all wrong. Because of this and other problems associated with the UN, he then proposed that both Britain and the U.S. leave the UN, even though Monckton has been a regular at UN “climate” summits around the world, to expose their fraud and mock their phony findings and made-up data. He even dropped into one such event held in South Africa with a parachute.
Tired of seeing bad policy made on phony narratives
Monckton’s instincts were spot-on, as noted by an earlier report from The Daily Caller noting that 95 percent of climate models predicting rising temperatures have been wrong.
Dr. Roy Spencer, a former scientist for NASA, says climate models relied on by the federal government (which has been all-in pushing this hoax under President Obama) to create actual policies “have failed miserably.” So not only is the science incorrect, but actual government policies are being based on these failed models. (Stay informed on real science at Scientific.news)
Spencer said he examined 90 climate models and compared them to real surface temperatures and satellite temperature data; he found more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trends since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”
On his blog, Spencer wrote that he had grown tired of well-used and oft-cited statements since the 1950s that “most warming” is “human-caused,” or “97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming” (a lie), neither of which led to any demonstrable conclusion that proved the claims. He said such statements also should not have led government policymakers to conclude that “we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more people to death for the greater good.” And yet, that’s exactly the direction all of the policy is going.
Thousands of Scientists Unite to Expose ‘Climate Crisis’ Hoax
Scientists from around the world have united to stand up to the green agenda by exposing the so-called “climate crisis” as a hoax. 1609 scientists, including two Nobel laureates, gathered together to sign a declaration, proclaiming that “there is no climate emergency.” The main goal is to end the mass climate hysteria and the destruction this clamor brings to the U.S. economy.
“There is no climate emergency,” the document signed by Nobel prize recipients John F. Clauser from the U.S. and Ivar Giaever from Norway/U.S. and the others emphasized. “Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. “We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero [carbon dioxide] CO2 policy proposed for 2050.
“Go for adaptation instead of mitigation; adaptation works whatever the causes are.” They also note that climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. According to them, scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in the predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.
The proclamation also pointed out that Earth is undergoing cold and warm phases and they are natural phenomena and the gap between the real and modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change:
“The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases.
“The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. “Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming,” adding that warming is even far slower than what was predicted on the basis of modeled anthropogenic or human activity forcing.
Lately, climate alarmists and globalists are also pushing for CO2 emission reduction, even resorting to measures of taxing animals’ burps and farts just to make sure CO2 is reduced. However, the scientists dispelled this narrative: “CO2 is not a pollutant.
“It is essential to all life on Earth. “More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. “Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. “It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.” They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases but they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial. In fact, as per the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), when trees absorb and store CO2 in their fibers, it helps to clean the air.
According to the Arbor Day Foundation, a mature tree absorbs more than 48 pounds of CO2 from the atmosphere in one year and releases oxygen in exchange. “So, you’d actually want more trees,” award-winning investigative reporter Joshua Philipp pointed out during an episode of EpochTV‘s “Crossroads.” “If you actually believe the climate change narrative, you’d actually think that the solution is to plant more trees.”
Additionally, the declaration highlighted how global warming has not increased natural disasters as there has not been any statistical evidence that it is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts, or other such natural disasters, or making them more frequent. Meanwhile, there is ample evidence that CO2 mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. Professor Steven Koonin, former Undersecretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy and author of the 2021 bestseller, “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t and Why It Matters,” said in his book that what the largely unreadable (for laymen) and complicated science reports say on climate change is completely distorted by the time their contents are filtered through a long line of summary reports of the research by the media and the politicians. “There are abundant opportunities to get things wrong – both accidentally and on purpose – as the information goes through filter after filter to be packaged for various audiences… It’s not only the public that is ill-informed about what the science says about climate,” he said, detailing how the government and UN press releases do not accurately reflect the reports themselves.
“Distinguished climate experts (including report authors themselves) are embarrassed by some media portrayals of the science,” he further stated.
During an “Uncommon Knowledge” interview with Peter Robinson, Koonin revealed that his colleagues’ reactions to his book were that he should not be telling the public or the politicians the truth about climate change. “I was taught that you tell the whole truth [as a scientist]. And you let the politicians make the value judgments and the cost-effectiveness trade-offs and so on,” Koonin said.
He noted as well the immorality of asking the developing world to cut down emissions when so many do not even have access to electricity and the immorality of scaring the younger generations: 84 percent of American teenagers believe, as of January 2022, that if climate change is not addressed, “it will be too late for future generations, making some part of the planet unlivable.” In March, the White House released a report “undermining any claims of an ongoing climate crisis or imminent catastrophe,” Koonin wrote in July. “The report’s authors should be commended for honestly delivering likely unwelcome messages, even if they didn’t make a show of it. “The rest of the Biden administration and its climate-activist allies should moderate their apocalyptic rhetoric and cancel the climate crisis accordingly. “Exaggerating the magnitude, urgency, and certainty of the climate threat encourages ill-considered policies that could be more disruptive and expensive than any change in the climate itself.” However, President Joe Biden continues with his radical policies and fearmongering. “I don’t think anybody can deny the impact of the climate crisis anymore,” he said, commenting on Hurricane Idalia on August 30. “Just look around. Historic floods. I mean, historic floods. “More intense droughts, extreme heat, and significant wildfires have caused significant damage.”
Scientists say, “burying trees can reduce global warming as well.” I don’t know where they’re finding these scientists – Watch more on Josh’s analysis of Bill Gates’ agenda to chop down forests. Watch This Clip.
Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist: ‘Climate Crisis Is a Hoax To Depopulate the Planet’
Dr. John Clauser, the co-winner of the 2022 Nobel Physics prize and one the world’s leading authorities on quantum mechanics, slammed the green agenda push by WEF-controlled countries as a “dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.” According to Dr. Clauser, the man-made climate change hoax is being perpetrated by government’s and media organizations who are bought and paid for by the globalist elite. The goal of globalists is to depopulate the planet and to drastically decrease the quality of life for those who remain. “In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis,” Clauser said.
“There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s largest population and an associated energy crisis.” “The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.”
Dr. Clauser is not the first Nobel prize-winner to challenge the “settled” scientific and political narrative of “climate change.”
As The People’s Voice previously reported, the World Climate Declaration has been signed by by hundreds of scientists and professionals from around the world. “There is no climate emergency,” the document states. Greenpeace founder Dr. Patrick Moore also previously testified that the man-made climate change narrative is a “dangerous hoax” perpetrated by the elite to take away our most basic freedoms.
Thenewamerican.com reports: “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,” Clauser said. “Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience.”
And that “pseudoscience” has implications far beyond the world of climate science. “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,” Clauser declared. Clauser claims that the “climate emergency” being touted by Al Gore, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and others doesn’t exist.
“In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis,” he said. “There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.” Clauser made the remarks at the “Quantum Korea 2023” event in June. The physicist criticized the Nobel committee in 2021 for awarding a prize for the development of computer models meant to predict global warming. According to Clauser, most computer models do not account for the dramatic temperature stabilization provided by clouds.
Clauser has reportedly developed his own climate model, which takes the stabilizing effect of clouds into account. According to him, this regulating effect of reflective cloud cover is fifty times as strong as any warming effect produced by CO2. He further states that the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] and National Academy of Sciences repeatedly concede that the effects of clouds do indeed represent the greatest uncertainty in their climate predictions.” In fact, the IPCC barely takes clouds into account: “The IPCC’s detailed analysis of clouds (AR5) and their effect on climate totally misunderstands the effects of clouds, and totally ignores this dominating energy transport process,” Clauser has said. Despite his Nobel Prize credentials, climate hysterics have either ignored Clauser’s opinions on climate change or claimed that he’s not the right kind of scientist to have an opinion. Twitter user BONUS, who bills himself as a “Scientist (Presented at a UN Climate conference),” used this tactic. “Dr. John F. Clauser has no expertise in climate science at all. He doesnt [sic] even understand that cloud feedbacks are a response to temp changes caused by CO2. His links to the fossil fuel lobby group the “CO2 “coal”-ition” only suggest he is wrong on climate,”
The dominant tactic of the climate cult is to ignore Clauser and his criticism of their political (not scientific) movement. Eventually, they’ll likely attempt to tie him to “big oil” or “fossil fuel interests” instead of listening to his words. He and others like him frighten climate hysterics because they won’t simply bow down in obeisance. Clauser is clearly a man who says what he thinks. And he says it with a Nobel Prize-winning pedigree behind him.
Any information that is given to the public from the top down should never be trusted. As I have proven, this entire Agenda 2030 is nothing but a scam to rake in more taxes. Those that buy into it are either willfully ignorant or in on the scame. There is no in between. Scientists are unfortunately being sensored and those that come forward are shamed, humiliated or murdered. As I have said for years, we live in a fallen world where everything is upside down. What is good is bad and what is bad is good. This will never stop until either the people decide to hunt down the bloodlines or a supernatural savior comes. I would prefer the latter because even if you destory all the current bloodlines, it’s in our nature to want power and another will pop up and take their place. It’s part of the fall.
sources
Gemini AI
https://rense.com/general62/list.htm