by Iris

The Number One tell-all sign why the Soviets knew straightaway that the Apollo missions were a hoax, as soon as they “landed”:

Initially, the Soviets did not fully appreciate the effect of weightlessness and wrongly assumed that it would enhance the health of their astronauts.

The first short-term flights inspired optimism, but after the 5-day long 1969 Soyuz-7 flight, the returning crew had to be removed on stretchers, and their arrival so distressing that it had to be hid from the public.

On the longer lasting, 18-day long Soyuz-9 flight of June 1970, the astronauts arrived in state of pre-heart infarction and had to be urgently taken to intensive care for ressucitation. The Soviets realised that weightlessness was actually a killer.

That’s an archive photo of Soyuz-9 astronauts Nikolaev and Sevastyanov being carried like motionless dolls out of the return module.

NASA obviously did not know this, since it had never even sent astronauts to orbit around the Earth. So it pictured, on its fake return missions, dashing, fresh and energetic astronauts jumping from craft to ship. This is a photo of the 1965 Gemini-5 crew, after they had just landed in the ocean and were about to jump (literally) into the aircraft carrier collecting them.

So unless the Apollo astronauts were some kind of bionic super-beings with synthetic muscles, they clearly had not been exposed to the major impacts of weightlessness experienced by all of the Soviets, the longer the stay, the more terrible the effects.

Nowadays, the effect of weightlessness are very carefully fought and monitored. The ISS astronauts have to undergo a daily workout plan lasting 2 hours, to prevent bones and muscle loss.

Putin and Lukashenko on GLOBAL WARMING – Watch light-hearted exchange between the 2 leaders and Russian researchers warning of just 10 thousand more years of heat.

“Normal, it means we’ll live a little longer” – Putin shares a laugh with Belarus Prez next to him (00:17).

Authored by Iain Davis via Off-Guardian.org,

According to the UK Met Office, 2023 was the second hottest year in the UK since 1884.

Quite obviously, this is complete nonsense.

Unless they are troglodytes that never venture out in daylight, why would anyone in the UK believe such absurd drivel?

The Met Office states:

2023 is provisionally the second warmest year for the UK according to mean temperature. [. . .] 2023’s provisional mean temperature of 9.97°C puts it just behind 2022’s figure of 10.03°C and ahead of 2014’s 9.88°C.

Right, it’s “provisional” drivel.

The UK summer of 2023—where I live—was a thoroughly miserable affair. We had a few weeks of decent sunshine in the spring and a couple of hot weeks of Indian summer. That was it!

The rest of it was cold, wet and comprehensively devoid of anything we might traditionally call “summer.” The winter preceding and following it wasn’t particularly cold, but nor was it unusually warm.

I’m knocking on a bit and can remember about 50 years of my life. I know, for a fact, that I have lived through many warmer years. Sure, this is anecdotal, but I haven’t completely taken leave of my senses and I still have a functioning memory. No way am I unquestioningly buying the Met Office’s silly claim.

Neither do I believe any of the legacy media reports trying to convince me that the Met Office’s preposterous assertion is evidence of an alleged climate crisis. It simply isn’t true, so it is not “evidence” of anything at all. Although it does suggest deception.

The Met Office—obviously unreliably—tells us “UK mean temperatures have been shifting over the decades as a result of human-induced climate change. [. . .] 2023’s provisional mean temperature of 9.97°C puts it just behind 2022’s figure of 10.03°C.”

For a start, “human induced climate change,” or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), is a questionable and unproven scientific theory, not scientific fact. This too is just another claim from the Met Office which it wrongly asserts as fact.

The Met Office also tells us that “sunshine was near-average for much of the UK.” If we have got this right, the Met Office is claiming that, with average hours of UK sunshine in 2023—which also seems pretty dubious to me—somehow, since 1884, the only year that has been “hotter” was 2022. Which doesn’t ring true either.

What’s going on?

What does the Met Office mean—pardon the pun—by “mean temperature”? It reports that its 2023 alleged “provisional mean temperature of 9.97°C” had been obtained via the HadUK-Grid data set. The Met Office also cites its 2023 rapid attribution study. It is from this that we can—eventually—glean how the “UK mean temperature” is calculated by the Met Office.

In its rapid attribution study, the Met Office states:

Observed values of the UK annual mean temperature are obtained from the HadUK-Grid dataset v1.2.0.0. The time series spans 1884 – 2023, with the 2023 values being provisional as of 2nd January 2024.

“Observed,” that’s what we want to hear. So what observations are reported in the HadUK-Grid dataset? The Met Office claims:

HadUK-Grid is a collection of gridded climate variables derived from the network of UK land surface observations.

If we look at the HadUK-Grid methodology, the Met Office adds:

The gridded data sets are based on the archive of UK weather observations held at the Met Office.

So far so good. The HadUK-Grid reportedly records real data, such as sunshine hours, rainfall and even temperature. We live in hope. Unfortunately, there is some caveats. The Met Office continues:

The methods used to generate the daily grids are described in more detail in [this] report.

OK. So beyond just recording real-world data, what are the “methods” outlined in said report?

[. . .] the Met Office climate data archive [. . .] contains a simplified version of the raw observations generated according to well-defined rules. [. . .] Mean temperature [. . .] is the average of the maximum and minimum temperatures.

At last we have a definition of the “mean temperature” the Met Office claims to be the second highest since 1884. Apparently, it is “generated according to well-defined rules.”

In Met Office speak “mean temperature” isn’t the actual arithmetic mean of daily temperatures but rather the “average” of minimum and maximum temperatures recorded between 09:00 and 21:00 on any given day. Begging the question how are the minimum and maximum UK temperatures “observed”?

Although the data ha[s] undergone some quality checking, the extent and effectiveness of this has changed through time since the 1960’s. [. . .] NCIC climate data analysis software was again used to create the gridded data. [. . .] The station data were normalised with respect to the monthly 1km x 1km gridded 1961-1990 climate normals described by Perry and Hollis (2005a).

So the minimum and maximum allegedly “observed” 2023 “mean UK temperature” wasn’t actually observed at all. It was calculated from normalised data using computers running software based upon the “climate normals” defined in Perry and Hollis (2005).

The related paper considered how to calculate long term averages (LTAs) and suggested a methodology by which “mean” temperatures could be calculated:

For air temperature, 1490 stations reported at some point between 1961 and 2000 but only an average of 560 of these were open at any one time. This gives an array which is 38% complete. [. . .] [T]he solution is to fill in the gaps using an appropriate estimation technique. [. . .] Once the gaps in the array have been filled, long term averages for the periods 1961-1990, 1971-2000 and 1991-2000 can be calculated for each station from the complete array. [. . .] The regression model parameters provide an estimation of [. . .] the UK climate, explaining between 29% and 94% of the variance in the data depending on the climate variable.

Potentially, up to 62% of the data forming the Met Office’s “Mean UK temperature” is “generated” by “fill[ing] in the gaps.” This is based upon an “estimation technique” which supposedly explains between “29% and 94% of the variance in the data depending on the climate variable.” This doesn’t mean that the estimated fill-ins are inaccurate but they cannot be called “observations” either.

We seem to be moving further away from empirical science. Surely the Met Office isn’t claiming that it knows what the average UK “provisional” mean temperature was in 2023 based upon such limited observations? With regard to how it interprets the HadUK-Grid dataset the Met Office states:

The HadUK-Grid dataset is produced on a 1km x 1km grid resolution on the Ordnance Survey’s National Grid. To facilitate comparison of the observational dataset with the UKCP18 climate projections [. . .]. All the gridded datasets use the same grid projection. The re-gridding is conducted through averaging of all 1km grid points that fall within each of the coarser resolution grid cells.

Whoa there! We already know that the “observational dataset” is created by “fill[ing] in the gaps”—around a 60% gap apparently—with computer modelled estimates. Now we are told some sort of “re-gridding” is necessary to “facilitate comparison” with UKCP18 climate projections. Why is that necessary?

The UK Met Office adds:

Area averages are also produced based on averaging the 1km grid [data] across a set of geographical regions to provide spatial statistics for country, administrative regions and river basins. The details of these areas can be found in the UKCP18 guidance notes.

Now we’ve got “spacial statistics,” instead of empirical measurements, based upon “area averages” that facilitate, for some unknown reason, comparison with “UKCP18 climate projections.” OK, so how are the “area averages” constructed in accordance with the UKCP18 guidance notes:

Before using [UKCP18 guidance notes], it is important to understand the assumptions made, the caveats and limitations and the appropriate use of the results.

Assumptions made, caveats and limitations! What bloody assumptions, caveats and limitations? Just measure the temperature and calculate some sort of meaningful average for crying out loud!

Let’s look at the caveats and limitations:

Our understanding and ability to simulate the climate is advancing all the time but our climate models are not able to represent all of the features seen in the present day real climate and there are still limitations in our ability to project 21st century weather and climate.

Why are the Met Office “generating” temperature datasets to “facilitate comparison” with climate models if those models “are not able to represent all of the features seen in the present day real climate.” Surely the models should be based upon the empirically observed and measured features of the “real climate,” as opposed to creating “area averages”containing “spacial statistics” to fit in with the models?

Almost unbelievably, this is evidently what the UK Met Office is doing:

The relative probabilities indicate how strongly the evidence from models and observations, taken together in our methodology, support alternative future climate outcomes. [. . .] The probabilities are conditioned on methodological choices and expert judgement. The results may change if a different methodology is used.

In essence, the Met Office uses a tortuous and unnecessarily convoluted methodology to make up the bulk of its UK “temperature” data. While the Met Office claims that the provisional UK mean temperature was for 2023 was 9.97°C it also states that its results might change “if a different methodology” was used.

What’s more, the data it uses is normalised, based upon a wide gamut of climate assumptions, in order to fit in with its own climate models. Again, it admits its so-called observations, of things like mean temperature, are “taken together in [its] methodology” expressly in order to “simulate the climate.”

Most of these modelling shenanigans are utterly superfluous if your objective is to calculate the arithmetic mean annual UK temperature. Of course anomalies, such as heat islands, need to be normalised in the data but the rest of the Met Office’s “methodology,” which doesn’t even attempt to calculate an arithmetic mean temperature anyway, is about as far removed from empirical science as it is possible to venture.

Inevitably, it produces completely meaningless pap. The problem with such allegedly “scientific” rubbish is that, rather than being laughed off, it is then taken seriously by millions—thanks the unquestioning propaganda reports of the legacy media—and used to advance policy agendas, such as Net Zero.

Apart from the fact that it is blatantly obvious, to anyone who has lived in the UK from more that a couple of decades, that 2023 was not a warm year, there are other notable reasons not to automatically trust the Met Office’s makey-uppy “climate science.” Its entire claim is reliant upon the HadUK-Grid dataset which is a project funded by the UK government. As is the Met Office itself.

Apparently, the UK government is irreversibly committed to UN Sustainable Development and the associated UK Net Zero policies. The Met Office’s alleged scientific “observations” suffer from an enormous financial conflict of interest. Providing any evidence that contradicts the notion of “unprecedented global warming” couldn’t be further removed from the Met Office’s and the UK government’s own declared interests.

There is absolutely no reason to believe any of it. As “science” goes, it’s complete junk. I’ve read comics with more credibility that the Met Office’s claim that 2023 was the second warmest year in the UK since 1884.

Pull the the other one, it’s got bells on it.

Authored by Chris Morrison via The Daily Sceptic,

It could have been worse. King Charles could have ascended to his desert dais and pronounced that we had just 96 months to avert “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse”. But that was the Right Charlie back in 2009, giving us the benefit of his sandwich-board scientific wisdom. These days it is all fashionable bad weather and undefined “tipping points”. The man is now King, and at COP28 he threw away his irksome politically-neutral constitutional role, wrapped himself in Guardianista pseudoscience, and punched down hard on the poor who will be forced to pay for the collectivist madness that is the Net Zero project.

King Charles is no friend of general humanity. Speaking at COP28, he said: “The Earth does not belong to us, we belong to the Earth.” As with many know-your-place elitists, he appears to abhor the impacts that humans have on the planet. He exhibits, sadly on a world stage, a snobbish distain for capitalism – what used to be dismissed in British aristocratic circles as ‘trade’. This capitalist trend over the last 200 years has harnessed the power of natural hydrocarbons to raise billions to a standard of living and health unimaginable to previous generations. In 2009, Charles said we can no longer afford consumerism and the “age of convenience” was over.

Not for the new British King, it need hardly be observed. He lives a life of pampered indulgence where no expense is spared to ensure his every comfort. On his accession to the throne, he added considerably to his Palace Portfolio. To spread his malevolent Net Zero fantasies, he has a fleet of cars, private planes and even a personal train at his command. He uses these to call for “transformational action” to be taken to save the planet. In his COP28 speech, he called for the restoration of nature, the need for sustainable agriculture, and co-operation between the public and private sectors.

Few calls could be more political in tone. The restoration of nature and sustainable agriculture is shorthand for largely meat-free diets and massive reductions in nitrogen fertiliser. The latter, in particular, will lead to worldwide famine. COP28 seems set to announce new food and agriculture restrictions using the tactic of demonising methane, a gas emitted by animals and humans that is barely measurable in the atmosphere due to a very short lifecycle. Whenever the subject of ‘co-operation’ between public and private sectors is raised, there is an immediate dash to count the spoons, since it can only signal a large transfer of cash from productive industries to unproductive and inferior green operations.

At one point in his COP speech, King Charles veered into sandwich-board territory claiming that “we are seeing alarming tipping points being reached”. There was no evidence presented to justify this claim, often made by climate extremists using modelled data. In fact, he didn’t even refer to any actual ‘tipping’ event that has been reached. Many scientists have concluded that bad, or extreme, weather events are no worse than in the immediate past. Many categories of natural disasters such as floods, droughts and ecosystem productivity “show no clear positive trend of extreme events”, note a group of four Italian scientists. They argue that the data shows there is no “climate emergency”.

None of these facts seem to matter to a political King, who, like a stuck Guardian record, keeps on pressing on with made-up emotional stories of impending climate Armageddon. At one point he referred to repeated cyclones battering vulnerable islands, something that cyclones have always done.

The King can always cherry-pick individual storms but there is plenty of evidence to show that hurricane and cyclone frequency, along with intensity, has changed little over the recent historical record, as the above graph shows.

Wildfires are a bit of a dud when it comes to whipping up climate hysteria, not least because the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes that most conflagrations are started by humans. “Human activities have become the dominant driver,” it observes. But when there is political Net Zero work to be done, the King is only too happy to overlook the evidence. In common with many other countries this year, Canada experienced its worst wildfires for a century, he said.

Despite all the human involvement, the above graph shows the gradual decline of global emissions from wildfires over recent decades. In fact, wildfires are almost impossible to pin on any changes on climate since so many other factors, such as arson and land management, are in play.

Net Zero is rapidly becoming the dominant political issue of the age. Its obvious collectivist nature gathers support from mostly sectional interests in society. It has no significant grassroots support, since it aims to restrict human lifestyles and wealth on a scale never attempted before in history. It is awash with junk science, fake statistics and computer models.

The late Queen, in her infinite wisdom, never went anywhere near it.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

Stop Press: David Cameron at COP28 has said the U.K. will pay £60 million in climate reparations to developing countries.

Authored by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

Anyone capable of critical thought knows this entire globull warming/ climate crisis/ health emergency narrative is false, contrived by the ruling elite/globalist cabal billionaire class as a further means to gain control, increase their already ungodly wealth, tax us into oblivion, lock us down in their 15 minute cities, and dole out our daily allotment of bug protein.

Their narrative is filled with lies, misinformation, and holes so big you can drive a Tesla through them.

They have faked the temperature data for decades.

CO2 is not a pollutant.

Eating meat is not destroying the planet.

Cows farting is not ruining our environment. Of course, Chris Christie farting may be harming the planet.

This fake narrative is dutifully spewed by the corporate regime media 24/7, as they are funded by Gates, Soros, and the WEF to do so. Lies, lies and more lies.

The foolishness of the drivel they expect us to swallow is beyond the pale.

They want to put oil companies and coal companies out of business because fossil fuels are evil.

They are purposely attempting to drastically reduce our energy output, which means less electric power.

But they also want to force everyone to drive an electric vehicle.

And they won’t allow nuclear power plants to be built. These insane beliefs are ridiculous.

Only low IQ willfully ignorant NPCs could believe them. More than half the population apparently fall into this category.

Wind and solar are polluting, environmentally damaging and inefficient. They push solar, while at the same time push geo-engineering to block the sun, to cool the planet.

This idiocy speaks volumes to what these people running the show think about the intellectual capacity of the masses.

They believe we are sufficiently dumbed down, distracted, and apathetic to implement their agenda through constant propaganda, fear mongering, and threats.

They want to own everything, while you own nothing. It’s nothing but a show and they will keep it going until we do something about it.

Authored by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

25 refrigerators.

That’s how much the additional electricity consumption per household would be if the average US home adopted electric vehicles (EVs).

Congressman Thomas Massie – an electrical engineer – revealed this information while discussing with Pete Buttigieg, the Secretary of Transportation, President Biden’s plan to have 50% of cars sold in the US be electric by 2030.

The current and future grid in most places will not be able to support each home running 25 refrigerators—not even close. Just look at California, where the grid is already buckling under the existing load.

Massie claims, correctly, in my view, that the notion of widespread adoption of electric vehicles anytime soon is a dangerous fantasy based on political science, not sound engineering.

Nonetheless, governments, the media, academia, large corporations, and celebrities tout an imminent “transition” to EVs as if it’s preordained from above.

It’s not.

They’re trying to manufacture your consent for a scam of almost unimaginable proportions.

Below are three reasons why something sinister is going on with the big push for EVs.

But first, a necessary clarification.

You no doubt have heard of the term “fossil fuels” before.

When the average person hears “fossil fuels,” they think of a dirty technology that belongs in the 1800s. Many believe they are burning dead dinosaurs to power their cars.

They also think “fossil fuels” will destroy the planet within a decade and run out soon—despite the fact that, after water, oil is the second most abundant liquid on this planet.

None of these ridiculous notions are true, but many people believe them. Using propaganda terms like “fossil fuels” plays a large role.

Orwell was correct when he said that corrupting the language can corrupt people’s thoughts.

I suggest expunging “fossil fuels” from your vocabulary in favor of hydrocarbons—a much better and more precise word.

A hydrocarbon is a molecule made up of carbon and hydrogen atoms. These molecules are the building blocks of many different substances, including energy sources like coal, oil, and gas. These energy sources have been the backbone of the global economy for decades, providing power for industries, transportation, and homes.

Now, on to the three reasons EVs are a giant scam at best and possibly something much worse.

Reason #1: EVs Are Not Green

The central premise for EVs is they help to save the planet from carbon because they use electricity instead of gas.

It’s astounding so few think to ask, what generates the electricity that powers EVs?

Hydrocarbons generate over 60% of the electricity in the US. That means there’s an excellent chance that oil, coal, or gas is behind the electricity charging an EV.

It’s important to emphasize carbon is an essential element for life on this planet. It’s what humans exhale and what plants need to survive.

After decades of propaganda, Malthusian hysterics have created a twisted perception in many people’s minds that carbon is a dangerous substance that must be reduced to save the planet.

Let’s entertain this bogus premise momentarily and assume carbon is bad.

Even by this logic, EVs do not really reduce carbon emissions; they just rearrange them.

Further, extracting and processing the exotic materials needed to make EVs requires tremendous power in remote locations, which only hydrocarbons can provide.

Additionally, EVs require an enormous amount of rare elements and metals—like lithium and cobalt—that companies mine in conditions that couldn’t remotely be considered friendly to the environment.

Analysts estimate that each EV requires around one kilogram of rare earth elements. Extracting and processing these rare elements produces a massive amount of toxic waste. That’s why it mainly occurs in China, which doesn’t care much about environmental concerns.

In short, the notion that EVs are green is laughable.

It’s simply the thin patina of propaganda that governments need as a pretext to justify the astronomical taxpayer subsidies for EVs.

Reason #2: EVs Can’t Compete Without Government Support

For many years, governments have heavily subsidized EVs through rebates, sales tax exemptions, loans, grants, tax credits, and other means.

According to the Wall Street Journal, US taxpayers will subsidize EVs by at least $393 billion in the coming years—more than the GDP of Hong Kong.

To put that in perspective, if you earned $1 a second 24/7/365—about $31 million per year—it would take you over 12,677 YEARS to make $393 billion.

And that’s not even considering the immense subsidies and government support that have occurred in the past.

Furthermore, governments impose burdensome regulations and taxes on gasoline vehicles to make EVs seem relatively more attractive.

Even with this enormous government support, EVs can barely compete with gasoline vehicles.

According to J.D. Power, a consumer research firm, the average EV still costs at least 21% more than the average gasoline vehicle.

Without government support, it’s not hard to see how the market for EVs would evaporate as they would become unaffordable for the vast majority of people.

In other words, the EV market is a giant mirage artificially propped up by extensive government intervention.

It begs the question, why are governments going all out to push an obviously uneconomic scam?

While they are undoubtedly corrupt thieves and simply stupid, something more nefarious could also be at play.

Reason #3: EVs Are About Controlling You

EVs are spying machines.

They collect an unimaginable amount of data on you, which governments can access easily.

Analysts estimate that cars generate about 25 gigabytes of data every hour.

Seeing how governments could integrate EVs into a larger high-tech control grid doesn’t take much imagination. The potential for busybodies—or worse—to abuse such a system is obvious.

Consider this.

The last thing any government wants is an incident like what happened with the Canadian truckers rebelling against vaccine mandates.

Had the Canadian truckers’ vehicles been EVs, the government would have been able to stamp out the resistance much easier.

Here’s the bottom line.

The people really in charge do not want the average person to have genuine freedom of movement or access to independent power sources.

They want to know everything, keep you dependent, and have the ability to control everything, just like how a farmer would with his cattle. They think of you in similar terms.

That’s why gasoline vehicles have to go and why they are trying to herd us into EVs.

Conclusion

To summarize, EVs are not green, cannot compete with gas cars without enormous government support, and are probably a crucial piece of the emerging high-tech control grid.

The solution is simple: eliminate all government subsidies and support and let EVs compete on their own merits in a totally free market.

But that’s unlikely to happen.

Instead, it’s only prudent to expect them to push EVs harder and harder.

If EVs were simply government-subsidized status symbols for wealthy liberals who want to virtue signal how they think they’re saving the planet, that would be bad enough.

But chances are, the big push for EVs represents something much worse.

Along with 15-minute cities, carbon credits, CBDCs, digital IDs, phasing out hydrocarbons and meat, vaccine passports, an ESG social credit system, and the war on farmers, EVs are likely an integral part of the Great Reset—the dystopian future the global elite has envisioned for mankind.

In reality, the so-called Great Reset is a high-tech form of feudalism.

Sadly, most of humanity has no idea what is coming.

Worse, many have become unwitting foot soldiers for this agenda because they have been gaslighted into believing they are saving the planet or acting for the greater good.

by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times

International scientists have jointly signed a declaration dismissing the existence of a climate crisis and insisting that carbon dioxide is beneficial to Earth, contrary to the popular alarmist narrative.

Children take part in a climate change protest in Montreal on Sept. 26, 2020. (Graham Hughes/The Canadian Press)

“There is no climate emergency,” the Global Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL) said in its World Climate Declaration (pdf), made public in August. “Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.”

A total of 1,609 scientists and professionals from around the world have signed the declaration, including 321 from the United States.

The coalition pointed out that Earth’s climate has varied as long as it has existed, with the planet experiencing several cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age only ended as recently as 1850, they said.

“Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming,” the declaration said.

Warming is happening “far slower” than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools,” the coalition said, adding that these models “exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases” and “ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.” For instance, even though climate alarmists characterize CO2 as environmentally-damaging, the coalition pointed out that the gas is “not a pollutant.”

Carbon dioxide is “essential” to all life on earth and is “favorable” for nature. Extra CO2 results in the growth of global plant biomass while also boosting the yields of crops worldwide.

CLINTEL also dismissed the narrative of global warming being linked to increased natural disasters like hurricanes, floods, and droughts, stressing that there is “no statistical evidence” to support these claims.

“There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. Go for adaptation instead of mitigation; adaptation works whatever the causes are,” it said.

“To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today’s climate discussion to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. Should not we free ourselves from the naive belief in immature climate models?”

Climate Models and Sunlight Reflection

Among the CLINTEL signatories are two Nobel laureates—physicists John Francis Clauser from the United States and Ivan Giaever, a Norwegian-American.

Mr. Clauser has made a significant addition to climate models to dismiss the narrative of global warming: the visible light reflected by cumulus clouds which, on average, cover half of the earth.

Young demonstrators hold placards as they attend a climate change protest opposite the Houses of Parliament in central London on Feb. 15, 2019. (Ben Stansall/AFP via Getty Images)

Current climate models vastly underestimate this aspect of cumulus cloud reflection, which plays a key role in regulating the earth’s temperature. Mr. Clauser previously told President Joe Biden that he disagreed with his climate policies.

In May, Mr. Clauser was elected to the board of directors at the CO2 Coalition, a group focusing on the beneficial contributions of carbon dioxide in the environment.

“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,” Mr. Clauser said in a May 5 statement.

“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.”

False Doomsday Predictions, a Presidential Issue

CLINTEL’s declaration against the climate change narrative counters propaganda spread by climate alarmists who have long predicted doomsday scenarios triggered by global warming—none of which have ever come true.

In 1970, some climate scientists predicted that the earth would move into a new ice age by the 21st century. Pollution expert James Lodge predicted that “air pollution may obliterate the sun and cause a new ice age in the first third of the new century,” according to The Boston Globe.

Participants hold placards as they take part in a demonstration demanding the government take immediate action against climate change in Sydney, Australia, on Jan. 10, 2020. (Mohammed Farooq/AFP via Getty Images)

In May 1982, Mostafa Tolba, then-executive director of the United Nations environmental program, said that if the world did not change course, it would face an “environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible, as any nuclear holocaust” by 2000.

In June 2008, James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Sciences, said that within five to 10 years, the Arctic would have no ice left in the summer.

As climate alarmists continue to spread propaganda about global warming, the topic has become an issue in the 2024 presidential race, with multiple candidates openly dismissing it.

In a July 13 post on X, Democrat presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that climate change “is being used to control us through fear.”

“Freedom and free markets are a much better way to stop pollution. Polluters make themselves rich by making the public pay for the damage they do,” he said.

During the first 2024 GOP presidential debate, candidate Vivek Ramaswamy called climate change a “hoax.”

“The reality is, the anti-carbon agenda is the wet blanket on our economy. And so the reality is, more people are dying of bad climate change policies than they are of actual climate change,” he said.

High Temperatures, Biden’s Appliance Crackdown

Climate activists have insisted that global warming is responsible for the soaring temperatures across the United States, even claiming that temperatures are hitting record highs.

In a recent interview with The Epoch Times, John Christy, a climatologist and professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, dismissed the narrative of record high temperatures.

“Regionally, the West has seen its largest number of hot summer records in the past 100 years, but the Ohio Valley and Upper Midwest are experiencing their fewest,” he said.

“For the conterminous U.S. as a whole, the last 10 years have produced only an average number of records. The 1930s are still champs.”

Climate change policies have been used to justify sweeping lifestyle changes across the United States by the Energy Department, like restricting home appliances, and sometimes, even outright banning them.

In June, the Energy Department proposed rules that would require ceiling fans to become more energy efficient, a development that could lead to manufacturers having to shell out $86.6 million per year in “increased equipment costs.”

In February, the DOE proposed energy efficiency rules targeting gas stoves that would affect half of all new models of such stoves sold in the United States while making most of the existing ones noncompliant.

In July, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission proposed a policy that would remove nearly all existing portable gas generators from the market.

The Biden administration has already implemented a ban on incandescent light bulbs, which came into effect on Aug. 1.

Ed. Note: Let’s not forget the most important and simple argument against the Global Warming hoax. From about the year 900 through 1450, that’t just 500-1,000 years ago, Greenland was . . . green. The Vikings and the Welsh had a thriving agriculture there. They had open seas to routinely navigate to Vinland, what is today New England in the US. All of that flourishing civilization withered away though as the 1,000 year-long Winter set in. See Footprints of the Welsh Indians

 

via ZeroHedge

Corporate media unleashed a barrage of headlines of climate doom, including “Era of global boiling has arrived” and “hottest month in the history of civilization” and “hottest day ever recorded.” These headlines were published in July, the typical peak of the Northern Hemisphere summer. Some of these wild claims were based on records from four decades ago, even though Earth has been around for billions of years.

CBS News wrote, “Earth sees third straight hottest day on record, though it’s unofficial: ‘Brutally hot.'” It’s crucial to note that CBS hedged itself with “unofficial,” meaning the data hasn’t been verified.

Records grab attention, and clearly, the climate alarmists in corporate media were pushing a ‘climate change’ agenda in a month with the warmest temperatures of the year: geniuses. As for the warmest ever, well, even the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had questions about the climate math (Read: Even NOAA “Runs Away” From ‘Hottest Day Ever’ Claim After Media Hysteria).

July was hot, but it’s because of the peak Northern Hemisphere summer. The El Nino weather phenomenon may have contributed to some extra warmth. In terms of temperatures deviating excessively from a 30-year average, well, there’s not much of that, according to Bloomberg data.

If you weren’t able to visualize temperature data, the corporate media had people believing the world was on fire:

So how do climate alarmists know what the precise temperatures were hundreds of thousands of years ago? Well, it might be one giant guess, as environmental attorney Steve Milloy recently explained in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece titled “Hottest Days Ever? Don’t Believe It“:

“One obvious problem with the updated narrative is that there are no satellite data from 125,000 years ago. Calculated estimates of current temperatures can’t be fairly compared with guesses of global temperature from thousands of years ago.”

Remember when climate child warrior Greta spewed this junk science in 2018? Where were the fact-checkers??

But don’t worry. The billionaires funding the climate change movement are still flying in private jets and sailing around the world in mega-yachts while they rid the world of cow farts and force insects into the diets of the masses.

Al Gore

Michael Bloomberg

Climate fear has been a multi-decade scheme…

Here’s Milloy’s report titled “Media Climate Fact Check.”

The European Commission has warned the bloc’s lawmakers that geoengineering – large-scale technological interventions to mitigate climate change – is fraught with potential “unintended consequences.”

The EU executive body said in a statement released on Wednesday that deploying technologies like solar radiation modification without sufficient understanding of the potential dangers – either for Europeans or populations elsewhere in the world – could be devastating.

“These technologies introduce new risks to people and ecosystems, while they could also increase power imbalances between nations, spark conflicts and raises a myriad of ethical, legal, governance and political issues,” the statement continued, adding that there were no existing rules to ensure such technologies were deployed safely, and that any serious efforts must engage the EU and UN.

“Nobody should be conducting experiments alone with our shared planet,” EU climate policy chief Frans Timmermans told reporters earlier this week, calling for any proposed experiments to be “discussed in the right forum, at the highest international level.”

It’s the latest sign of global concern over climate interventions. Billionaire Microsoft co-founder and Bill Gates attempted to bring his Harvard geoengineering team and their sun-dimming experiment to the north of Sweden in 2021, only to meet with ferocious opposition from the indigenous Saami population and Swedish NGOs, forcing them to return to the US.

Gates has invested heavily in stratospheric aerosol injection, a type of geoengineering in which finely powdered rock is released into the atmosphere to block some of the sun’s rays. Indigenous leaders warned the experiment would create a “moral hazard,” destroying any incentive to reach net zero carbon emissions. Meanwhile, the US – and the rest of the world – would be locked into a geoengineering sequence permanently, as halting the process would result in a sudden rebound of heating.

Critics have also pointed to studies showing that geoengineering setups like Gates’s could destabilize areas of the world in which they are not deployed, worsening the effects of climate change elsewhere by as much as 9%, even as they cooled whichever wealthy country could afford to deploy them.

Mexico banned geoengineering experiments in January after a startup called Make Sunsets tried spraying sulfur particles into the air “without any public engagement or scientific scrutiny,” according to MIT Technology Review. The university condemned that experiment, but has remained bullish on geoengineering, recently suggesting it “might be our final and only option.” The UN released a report in March backing the idea.

The European Commission included its concerns in a document reimagining what it called “the climate and security nexus.” The bloc’s leaders argued that climate change posed a greater threat to national security than ever – not just with biodiversity and resource depletion, but with a surge in migrant populations, more interactions with disease-carrying animals, and potentially runaway technology.

Meanwhile the little bees are at work . . . setting fire to the large swaths of the forests in Canada and northern US.

Toxic air quality alerts stretch from Michigan to Ohio, West Virginia to Pennsvyina to Maryland, Washington, DC, Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and into the lower New England area.

by Thierry Meyssan via Voltaire Net

The theory of the anthropogenic cause of global warming will soon be at the center of the confrontation between the West and Russia. While no one denies that some parts of the world are warming, there is currently no alternative explanation for this phenomenon. But renowned scientists will be presenting another at COP-28 in Dubai. They happen to be members of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

The theory that global warming is observable all over the planet and that it is caused by human activity has been popularized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); a United Nations commission.

I have no expertise in climate issues and I don’t presume to judge whether this theory is true or false, but I am an expert in international politics and I can assess the work of this UN commission.

Ten years ago, I wrote that, as its name suggests, the IPCC is not a learned academy at all, but an intergovernmental group [1]. Its conclusions are therefore not the fruit of a scientific approach, but of a political debate.

The IPCC was created on the initiative of the British Prime Minister, Margareth Thatcher, to support her fight against the miners’ unions. Unsurprisingly, it concluded that coal is bad for the environment, while nuclear power is desirable. This is not a scientific theorem, but a political statement.

Furthermore, I pointed out that the creation of greenhouse gas emission rights is not an intergovernmental initiative, but an idea of the Joyce Foundation, implemented by Climate Exchange Ltd. [2]. Each state drafts its own legislation on the subject. It receives a certain quantity of emission rights, which it allocates as it sees fit to companies. Companies that only partially use their rights can resell them on a specialized stock exchange in Chicago.

The articles of association for this exchange were drafted by a then unknown Joyce Foundation lawyer, a certain Barack Obama (future President of the United States). The call for investors to launch the exchange was organized by Al Gore (future vice-president of the United States), and David Blood (former director of Goldman Sachs bank). Whether you consider these people to be bona fide environmental activists or high-flying swindlers is a matter of perspective.

Over time, this political device has been cloaked in a veneer of science and good intentions, making it difficult to question. Yet there is an alternative scientific theory to explain global warming. It was put forward by Croatian geophysicist Milutin Milanković between the wars.

The Earth’s orbit varies according to three natural cycles: eccentricity, obliquity and the precession of the equinoxes. Each of these variations follows a cycle, between 20,000 and 100,000 years, which is perfectly calculable. Combined, these three variations influence the Earth’s insolation and hence its climate. This theory was confirmed in 1976 by the study of ice cores from the Vostok drilling project in Antarctica. But it doesn’t explain everything.

The Russian Academy of Sciences has just put forward a third theory, also based on observation of nature. According to it, “The main cause of local climatic catastrophes is the increasing emission of natural hydrogen due to the alternating gravitational forces of the moon and sun, which cause holes in the ozone layer. The resulting rise in temperature and the mixing of ozone and hydrogen are the main causes of forest and steppe fires” [3]].

The Académie des Sciences not only questions the dogma of the IPCC, it also challenges the mechanism for reducing holes in the ozone layer. Namely, the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol “whose implementation has wiped out entire sub-industries of the chemical industry without affecting the size of ozone holes, which have only increased”.

The Russian Academy of Sciences’ theory is also based on the idea that global warming is not a comparable phenomenon in different parts of the world. Contrary to popular belief, the temperature of the Pacific Ocean is actually cooling [4].

The findings of the Russian Academy of Sciences will be presented at COP-28 in Dubai in late November/early December. A political battle is already underway to silence the scientists. It concerns the appointment of the session chairman, who will be able to give the floor to the troublemakers or, on the contrary, silence them. Mohammed ben Zayed, the ruler of the United Arab Emirates, is in charge of choosing the chairman. He has appointed Sultan al-Jaber, his Minister of Industry. US and EU parliamentarians immediately wrote to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, asking him to oppose the move. Their argument, as ever, is irrelevant to their objective. They argue that Sultan al-Jaber is also Chairman of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (Adnoc). He would therefore be judge and jury. Instead, they recommend appointing a non-fossil fuel lobbyist. He would also be judge and jury, but for the opposing camp.

If Russian scientists speak out at COP-28, the assembly is likely to split in two, not along scientific but political lines. Anglo-Saxon supporters versus Russian supporters (the rest of the world). There’s no doubt that the IPCC dogma will soon become the idée fixe of the West and the laughing stock of the rest of the world.

Translation
Roger Lagassé