In this final instalment of our three-part series we’ll look at the evident political bias and staggering conflicts of financial interest polluting much of “the Climate Science™.” To have a full grasp of the arguments informing this article, please first read Part 1 and Part 2.
In Part 1, we looked at the basic principles of the official climate science orthodoxy—Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory. We explored some of the numerous scientific doubts about AGW theory and noted the failure of the AGW theorist climate scientists to provide consistent layman’s explanations of their own scientific claims. This also suggests there may be a problem with the theory.
In Part 2 we continued to appraise some fundamental concepts of AGW theory. We noted the problems with some of the alleged experimental proofs and questioned the circular reasoning commonly found in some dubious “climate models.” We noted that when the models don’t match empirical data it is often the empirical measurements that are considered inaccurate, not the models—despite the fact that the models are based on an apparently unproven theory.
Climate science does not exist in a vacuum. It is central to the global political push toward so-called sustainable development. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations (UN), which aim to transform every facet of our polity, our economy and our lives, are based solely on AGW theory. If SDGs are going to be accepted by the global population, then, the thinking goes, we must all unquestioningly believe AGW theory.
Questioning The Bias of the IPCC
When we consider who funds the scientific bodies that provide the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and “climate scientists” with the raw data for the climate models favoured by that very same IPCC, a political bias is evident.
Indeed, IPCC-endorsed climate impact models, founded on AGW theory, predict everything from rainfall and severe weather events to rising sea levels, oceanic “acidification” and ice sheet collapse. Once the models are released, the legacy media dutifully spreads the corresponding “climate alarm.”
In the United States, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies global surface temperature (GISTEMP) data-gathering and analysis is funded by the US government. In the United Kingdom, HadCRUT data—monthly temperature records from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia—is paid for by the UK government. Oceanic temperature datasets are fed to the IPCC by the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), funded by the UN. Data on weather events largely come from the US government-funded National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) and the UK government-funded Met Office.
The IPCC is biased exclusively toward Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory. The IPCC was established with the following remit:
The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change [AGW], its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
The IPCC makes no attempt to “understand the scientific basis” for any other natural process that may impact climate change. As far as the IPCC is concerned, AGW theory is the consensus-settled science. Assuming an AGW theory-based analysis of climate change, the IPCC focuses on how society should adapt to and mitigate the projected—or modelled—socio-economic impacts. In other words, The IPCC is focused solely on advising political policy.
Being an intergovernmental agency, the IPCC is an overt political—not a scientific—body. It publishes its Summary for Policymakers (SPM) in advance of its scientific Assessment Reports (ARs). The IPCC explains its reasons for publishing its reports in that order:
The IPCC has circulated the final draft of the Summary for Policymakers and a longer report of the Synthesis Report of the Sixth Assessment Report to governments for review and comments. [. . .] The Final Government Distribution [. . .] is the last phase of preparations before the Panel’s plenary approval of this final instalment of the IPCC’s [. . .] Assessment Report.
As the UN’s official body for “assessing the science related to climate change,” the IPCC only assesses climate change from the perspective of a single, unproven theory and discards any and all other evidence and explanations. Prior to publishing the official climate science, the IPCC first seeks government approval.
As South African economist Rob Jeffrey and many others have highlighted, there is significant concern among scientists that AGW theorists, including those who govern and constitute the IPCC, too readily discount the role of the sun in Earth’s climate.
Jeffrey reports:
The sun and not human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) may be the main cause of warmer temperatures in recent decades, according to a new study with findings that sharply contradict the conclusions of the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The peer-reviewed paper, produced by a team of almost two dozen scientists from around the world, concluded that previous studies did not adequately consider the role of solar energy in explaining increased temperatures.
As discussed in Part 1 of this series, energy from the sun (solar flux) is measured in W/m2. Using various temperature measurements, or proxies, such as glacier size, a historical record of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) can be calculated. But estimates vary considerably depending upon the measure, or proxy, used. The team of scientists Jeffrey cited used a standard linear least-square fitting for TSI records and then applied the IPCC’s recommended “anthropogenic forcings” time series to the results.
In Connolly et al. (2021) the international team of scientists found:
For all five Northern Hemisphere temperature series, different TSI estimates suggest everything from no role for the sun in recent decades (implying that recent global warming is mostly human-caused) to most of the recent global warming being due to changes in solar activity (that is, that recent global warming is mostly natural). It appears that previous studies (including the most recent IPCC reports) which had prematurely concluded the former, had done so because they failed to adequately consider all the relevant estimates of TSI and/or to satisfactorily address the uncertainties still associated with Northern Hemisphere temperature trend estimates.
The suggestion was that that the IPCC had cherry-picked the data to demonstrate that global warming was “mostly human-caused.” This is to be expected, because the IPCC remit is only to provide “the scientific basis” for “human-induced climate change” and nothing else.
It appears the IPCC, and, by extension the UN, ignored empirical evidence that indicated the effects of AGW may be overstated or that AGW theory could potentially be wrong. This cannot be called science. Then again, the IPCC is not a scientific body.
Simultaneously, the IPCC and the globe-spanning legacy media demand that we all accept AGW theory as settled science. Questioning it labels one as a “climate denier” even though many of the people who doubt AGW theory are eminent scientists, including Nobel Laureate physicists.
Questioning AGW Theory Related Climate Alarm
The AGW theory-modelled predictions of catastrophe are, at best, guesses based upon a single questionable theory and speculative computer models, not on scientific fact. As stated by the IPCC, long-term climate predictions are impossible. Climate alarm is an emotional response to speculation.
We should not overlook environmental problems. Pollution, perhaps most acutely plastic pollution, plus habitat loss, deforestation, and biodiversity loss, may well be exacerbated by natural and anthropogenic climate change, though we don’t really know to what extent. There is a risk we might wrongly imagine that reducing CO2 emissions will provide environmental solutions, when such reductions may do less than nothing to address the real environmental risks.
In his June 2022 doctoral dissertation, Rob Jeffrey cited the work of climatologist Richard Lindzen. He pointed out that in his 2011 paper, A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action, Lindzen wrote:
[. . .] the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc. etc. all depend not on some global average of surface temperature anomaly, but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind. [. . .] This is simply to note that factors other than global warming are more important to any specific situation. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred and this will not change in the future. Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this.
The IPCC—a body of the United Nations—drives much of the climate alarm. It is all predicated upon the AGW theory-based notion of the “climate crisis.”
Let us contrast the definition of climate “alarm”—which means “sudden worry and fear, especially that something dangerous or unpleasant might happen”—with climate reality.
Virtually none of the historical, alarm-raising predictions made by the IPCC and other AGW theorists have yet materialised. In 2005, the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP)—IPCC co-founders alongside the UN’s World Meteorological Organization (WMO)—claimed that environmental disasters would create 50 million “climate refugees” by 2010.
The UNEP and the IPCC are not the only “authorities” to have made baseless AGW theory-related prophecies of doom.
In 2003, the Pentagon released its terrifying document, “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security.” It claimed that California would be flooded with inland seas, that parts of the Netherlands would become “unlivable,” that Australia would become a fortress island subcontinent, and that summer polar ice would completely vanish by 2010.
As we know, none of these events happened. Yet the intensity and frequency of the alarm bells has only picked up.
Why? Empirical evidence cannot possibly be the source of climate alarm. The data simply doesn’t warrant any “climate alarm”-driven panic. By more-or-less every measure, there is virtually no sign of any increasing or unmanageable risk from a warming climate.
Instead, climate alarm appears to be the product of a global legacy media propaganda operation and some scurrilous data manipulation.
Take the BBC article “Climate change: Huge toll of extreme weather disasters in 2021,” for example. The hyperbole in this article is linked to unevidenced claims from the IPCC. Here is what the BBC wrote:
In August, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published the first part of its sixth assessment report. In relation to hurricanes and tropical cyclones, the authors said they had “high confidence” that the evidence of human influence has strengthened. [. . .] “The proportion of intense tropical cyclones, average peak tropical cyclone wind speeds, and peak wind speeds of the most intense tropical cyclones will increase on the global scale with increasing global warming,” the study said.
In 2022, the UN’s WMO said man-made “climate change” was partly responsible for a purported fivefold increase in weather disasters over the last 50 years. It noted that this allegedly “devastating” increase had also coincided with fewer deaths from weather disaster due to “improved early warnings and disaster management.” Quite where the WMO got its scary data from or what it based its claim of improved early warning and response upon is hard to say.
When an actually devastating tsunami struck Indonesia in 2018, the “early warning” system failed completely. Similarly, when catastrophic wildfires broke out in the Hawaiian island of Maui, the early warning system was conspicuously absent, as was the emergency response from US authorities.
Lack of adequate government response is nothing new. It was notably absent following Hurricane Katrina, which destroyed much of New Orleans in 2005.
Following these disasters, numerous explanations have been offered for deficient early warning systems and poor government coordination of relief efforts. That is why the WMO claim that “improved early warning and disaster management” explains lower mortality from environmental emergencies is questionable. There must be other factors that have contributed toward fewer deaths caused by extreme weather events.
Engineers designing infrastructure projects and urban developments need to understand the potential risk of future natural disasters. In 2016, researchers from Cambridge University Department of Engineering searched the available records and were surprised by what they found:
It is widely promulgated and believed that human-caused global warming comes with increases in both the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. A survey of official weather sites and the scientific literature provides strong evidence that the first half of the 20th century had more extreme weather than the second half, when anthropogenic global warming is claimed to have been mainly responsible for observed climate change. The disconnect between real-world historical data on the 100 years’ time scale and the current predictions provides a real conundrum.
Moving into the 21st century, the best “climate disaster” data currently available comes from International Disaster Database (EM-DAT) maintained by the Belgium Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). When Professor Roger Pielke Jr. checked the EM-DAT data, he found that between 2000 and 2021 the general trend in recorded global weather and climate disasters showed an approximate 10% decline.
Cyclones and hurricanes are the most damaging of all weather events. Klotzbach et al 2021) found:
This study investigates 1990–2021 global tropical cyclone (TC) activity trends, a period characterized by consistent satellite observing platforms. We find that fewer hurricanes are occurring globally and that the tropics are producing less Accumulated Cyclone Energy—a metric accounting for hurricane frequency, intensity, and duration.
Hong et al. (2017) measured the maximum daily streamflow data from 9,213 flood monitoring stations across the globe. The researchers concluded:
[. . .] there were more stations with significant decreasing trends than significant increasing trends across all the datasets analysed, indicating that limited evidence exists for the hypothesis that flood hazard is increasing when averaged across the data-covered regions of the globe.
IPCC predictive models stated that global warming would severely reduce snowfall. When Connolly et al. (2019) compared the IPCC models with real-world data, they found that there had been a slightly larger decline in spring snowfall than the IPCC projected, but this was more than offset by a notable increase in winter snowfall.
As the planet warms for natural reasons, the likelihood of extreme heat events will increase. While these pose a potential health risk to vulnerable people, the mortality risk they face from extreme cold is significantly greater. Gasparrini et al. (2015) estimated that extreme cold events are potentially seventeen times more dangerous to the vulnerable than are extreme heat events.
Yet the legacy media persistently highlights the mortality risk related to extreme heat. Occasionally, however, this evident propaganda misfires. The headline and most of the content in the Sky News article “Temperature related deaths on hot days have more than doubled in 32 years” served to heighten climate alarm. But tucked away in the piece was the observation:
[D]eaths linked to cold weather outnumbered those associated with extreme heat [. . .] with rising temperatures resulting in fewer cold related deaths, there has been an overall fall in temperature related deaths in general.
Supposedly, the alleged sixth mass extinction event is being “aggravated by runaway climate change.” That notion stems from the UN’s Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) release of its 2019 Summary for Policy Makers. Not surprisingly, the sixth mass extinction alarm continues to be relentlessly pushed by the legacy media.
This claim is dubious, to put it mildly. The raw data on species loss is collated by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). It produces the corresponding Red List. The IPBES chose to display the Red List data as the cumulative loss of species throughout the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. The resultant graph appeared to show an alarming increase in species loss.
Closer analysis of the data shows that most of the forced extinction peaked at the end of the 19th century. With the decline of excessive hunting, there was a steady decrease in species loss. As post-WWII CO2 emissions are supposedly the primary culprit for AGW climate change, there is an inverse correlation between man-made CO2 emissions and species loss.
This doesn’t rule out the possibility that climate change is a factor “aggravating” continued extinctions, nor is it reason to be unconcerned, but it does indicate that human CO2 emissions have nothing to do with extinctions.
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) claims that “wildlife” has declined by 69% since 1970. This has led to some alarming “end of days” stories published by the legacy media. The WWF states:
Today we face the double, interlinked emergencies of human induced climate change and the loss of biodiversity, threatening the well-being of current and future generations.
The 69% figure is based upon the Living Planet Index. The reporting of it is misleading, to say the least. Of course, we should be concerned because it still tells us that, on average, there was a 69% decline in population across 31,821 studied vertebrate “populations.” However, this doesn’t necessarily tell us much about vertebrate extinction risks.
We will illustrate the way the WWF and legacy media have twisted the facts with this analogy: Say there were three populations of elephants, each containing 100 animals, and two of those populations, driven out of their habitat by farmers, migrated to join the third. On paper, this would look like two out of the three studied populations had been wiped out and the “population” decline would show up as 66%. However, the third population would have increased to 300 elephants. Thus, the number of elephants wouldn’t have decreased at all!
There are an estimated 5 to 10 million animal species on Earth, living in separate populations all over the planet. Yet we’ve identified only 2 million or so of them. So, while the 69% figure tells us that some vertebrate populations are declining, it doesn’t tell us much about the overall picture. If your objective as the WWF spokesman or a journalist is to push out propaganda, then you will make sure the headlines sound scary.
If they wanted to be more informative, they would look at the net impact across taxonomies of vertebrates. And they would find that roughly 50% of studied populations are increasing, while the other 50% are decreasing. Work needs to be done to understand why some populations are struggling while others are thriving. Conservation efforts can then be targeted as required. What the WWF figures do not say (despite legacy media attempts to frighten us) is that AGW-based climate change is contributing to wiping out “wildlife.”
NASA has noted that increased atmospheric CO2 is stimulating plant growth, leading to the greening of the planet. When between 800 ppm and 1200 ppm of CO2 is pumped into greenhouses, it is not for the purpose of killing the plants! The gardeners know that CO2 will result in more vegetation and higher crop yields. Having more plants to eat is generally good news for animals—including human beings.
That said, the WWF reports that we are using more land, more water, more pesticides and are thus creating more environmental pollution. Is WWF saying that CO2 is not the cause of everything negative in the environment?
Canadian meteorologist Chris Mart said:
Sitting on our hands and blaming climate change for every abnormal environmental event is a waste of time when our efforts would be better spent on addressing how to manage risk and mitigate vulnerabilities.
In general, global organisations are eager to push climate alarm buttons for apparently unwarranted reasons.
In 2021, for example, the World Economic Forum (WEF) reported that the climate disaster was killing off Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR). True, coral bleaching is a concern, but what causes the bleaching and what affects the GBRs’ ability to recover are aspects of a far more complex picture.
The Australian Institute of Marine Science’s 2021–2022 Annual GBR Report noted:
Above-average water temperatures led to a mass coral bleaching event over the austral summer of 2021/22. [. . .] Survey reefs experienced low levels of other acute stress over the past 12 months, with no severe cyclones impacting the Marine Park. [. . .] The combination of few acute stresses and lower accumulated heat stress in 2020 and 2022 [. . .] has resulted in low coral mortality and has allowed coral cover to continue to increase in the Northern and Central GBR. [. . .] On the Central and Northern GBR, region-wide hard coral cover reached 33% and 36%, respectively; the highest level recorded in the past 36 years of monitoring. Region-wide hard coral cover on reefs in the Southern GBR was 34% and had decreased from 38% in 2021, largely due to ongoing crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks.
Warmer waters, fewer cyclones, more crown-of-thorn starfish, lower coral mortality and rapid coral growth all combine in a complex ecosystem that determines the health of the GBR. Clearly, the simplistic narrative of “climate alarm” published by the WEF wasn’t even close to being accurate.
The same can be said about the apocryphal stories told about the melting ice sheets. The UK Guardian published the petrifying tale of “dire” five-meter sea rises caused by the “inevitable collapse” of the ice sheets in west Antarctica. Imagining a future of abandoned coastal cities threatening a “third of the global population” and predicting “doom” brought about by the “climate crisis,” the Guardian only fleetingly mentioned the uncertainty about the computer model predictions.
The models may be uncertain, but, in fact, there isn’t that much uncertainty about Antarctic ice sheet collapse. Assuming the current warming trend continues, research led by field scientists from the Potsdam Institute of Climate Research—who physically inspected the ice sheets to assess their stability—was reasonably certain:
As we are in a warming interglacial period, the ice sheets are melting. The question is how fast and what the impact might be.
Professor Ronja Reese from the Potsdam Institute said:
While a number of glaciers in Antarctica are retreating at the moment, we find no indication of irreversible, self-reinforcing retreat yet, [. . .] our calculations also clearly indicate that an onset of an irreversible retreat of the ice sheet in West Antarctica is possible if the current state of the climate is sustained.
Prof Julius Garbe added:
The thing with sea-level rise from Antarctica is not that changes would happen overnight as an immediate threat to coastal communities. The process of melting would happen over hundreds or thousands of years.
Bell et al. (2011) shows that the ice sheets are thickening in east Antarctica. The thickening will potentially counteract any possible sea level rise caused by melting ice sheets in west Antarctica.
It is not surprising that glaciers are retreating, just as they once advanced. As they move, they tend to grind away whatever is beneath them. “Ice patches” are static and have a complicated relationship with glaciers. During extremely cold periods, such as the Little Ice Age, these ice patches can expand and themselves become moving glaciers, or they can be compressed by glaciers moving above them. But virtually all glaciers start as ice patches—and ice patches are the last thing that remains when glaciers melt.
Yet the legacy media constantly cite the melting glaciers as evidence of the supposedly “catastrophic” and, crucially, “unprecedented” climate crisis. They use alarming analogies—comparing, for example, meltwater volume with the volume required to submerge a country. Ice archaeology casts significant doubt on the basis for these scary media stories.
While the distribution of artefacts found when ice melts suggests movement both around and within ice patches, the nature of some archaeological finds clearly show human activity in historically warmer climates.
For instance, the discovery of a Viking highway on the melting Lendbreen ice patch in Norway tells us there was a major trade route in the region around 300 CE. Warmer climate conditions led to a population boom in the area. This trade activity presumably peaked around 1000 CE.
While the population today is much larger, such finds indicate that human beings not only adapt to warmer climates but thrive in them. But all this evidence is ignored by climate alarmists at the IPCC and elsewhere. Instead, they maintain a constant drive to heighten public fear.
In 2003, the US Department of Defense commissioned climate scientists from Columbia University, who predicted that man-made global warming could cause rapid global cooling. This goes to the heart of what independent researcher James Corbett has called the “unfalsifiable woo-woo pseudoscience” of climate alarm. Less snow, more snow, fewer hurricanes, more hurricanes, droughts, floods, heat waves, ice storms—you name it, think of any weather or climactic event, no matter how contradictory, and it will surely be attributed to AGW by some “climate scientists.”
The government-funded IPCC models and predictions are promulgated by a global legacy media propaganda network, which is almost entirely owned by a tiny handful of global corporations. The propaganda network fuels widespread climate alarm, despite the fact that it is without foundation. No matter what the IPCC or the legacy media claim, climate alarm is not supported by the data.
Even if climate change risks were approaching potential catastrophe (and there doesn’t appear to be any reason to think they are), the idea that humanity couldn’t adapt seems bizarre. Human beings have been adapting to natural climate change for hundreds of thousands of years. We’ve reclaimed entire nations from the sea.
The frequent disconnect between the “climate alarm” stories and the empirical, scientific evidence raises many questions.
Why are intergovernmental organisations, non-governmental Organisations (NGOs), global stakeholder capitalist organisations and legacy media outlets across the world trying to scare us witless by making outlandish claims about a “climate disaster” that is, in truth, so imperceptible as to be nonexistent?
Why are they so determined to convince us, despite a lack of evidence, that we face an imminent “climate catastrophe”?
Questioning the Legitimacy of AGW Theory Climate Science
In his dissertation, Rob Jeffrey pointed out that we are being purposely conned:
Unfortunately, on many occasions, so-called climate change experts have manipulated the data they have presented to enhance the arguments that man is causing global warming. [. . .] [T]here are several incidences where data has been manipulated to exaggerate the impact of global warming and humans’ influence on global warming.
The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (CRU) at the University of East Anglia provides much of the HadCRUT data which informs the IPCC’s climate change models. In 2009 the CRU were embroiled in the Climategate Scandal.
In that scandal, leaked emails, probably from a disgruntled insider, appeared to show systematic data manipulation (scientific fraud) at the heart of the CRU. The emails revealed obvious collusion between supposed scientists to hide, alter, misinterpret and otherwise manipulate raw data—apparently to demonstrate AGW.
The emails showed that wealthy NGOs, such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), were influencing the science of the CRU and its international partner network of scientists. The WWF asked the CRU to “beef up” some of the data and downplay less convenient evidence. The CRU evidently complied. In so doing, it was not acting as an objective scientific body.
One of the key tenets of AGW climate change is that the current human emissions-driven warming is “unprecedented.” Any evidence that current warming is not “unprecedented” would require a reassessment of AGW theory. It makes sense, then, that CRU scientists would have felt the need to collude with other leading IPCC-linked “climate scientists” to hide some of the contradictions in the data.
Apparently, the CRU scientists could not demonstrate that modern-day warming was notably different from previous warming events. The raw data suggested a similar Medieval Warm Period and a modern warming trend that followed from the end of the Little Ice Age. Other datasets appeared to show that the rate of global warming had been through a period of “decline” during the late 20th century while CO2 levels were consistently rising. These facts didn’t appear to support AGW theory either.
The uncertainty was in the proxy data—tree rings—the scientists used to estimate historical warming. The 20th century tree ring data was at odds with thermometer measurements from the 1960s onward. This led the CRU and IPCC scientists to doubt all tree ring data. The added uncertainty only made it harder for them to prove that current warming was indeed “unprecedented.” The conflicting data suggested that “the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago.”
One of the leading CRU scientists, Phil Jones, wrote an email in which he said he had “completed Mike’s nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years.” This trick had enabled him to “hide the decline” in temperatures that had been observed since 1960.
The IPCC lead author group wanted to include the now- infamous hockey-stick graph, first published by American climatologist and geophysicist Michael E. Mann, in its third assessment report. In keeping with its remit to provide only the “scientific basis” for AGW theory, the IPCC wanted Mann’s hockey-stick graph to show the world that “unprecedented” modern warming was caused by humanity’s CO2 emissions. But the raw data just didn’t fit the graph. This is what the CRU scientists were seeking to remedy with Mann and others.
Phil Jones discussed how Mike Mann’s “nature trick” resolved this problem. The “trick” was explained in an email from Chick Keller from the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at the University of California:
Anyone looking at the records [for] the temperature variation for many individual records or sites over the past 1000 years or so[. . .] see this as evidence that the 0.8° Celsius or so temperature rise in the 20th century is not all that special. The community of climate scientists, however, in making averages of different proxies gets a much smaller amplitude of about 0.5° Celsius [for historical records], which they say shows that [. . .] the 20th century warming is unique.
So CRU scientists demonstrated “unprecedented” 20th century warming by applying Michael E. Mann’s “trick” of averaging proxy data in a manner that effectively removed contradictory data. This enabled the IPCC to include Mann’s hockey-stick graph in its third assessment report (TAR) and to claim “unprecedented warming.” It is the TAR that is most commonly referenced whenever there is a need to demonstrate the scientific consensus on AGW theory.
The Climategate Scandal does not prove that AGW theory is wrong, only that further research was needed at the time to firmly establish its credibility. Unfortunately, it also reveals that, under pressure from groups like the IPCC and WWF and with dependent funding from oil companies on the line, the “climate scientists” seem to choose to fudge the data instead.
This interpretation of the Climategate Scandal is said to be a conspiracy theory—one that has allegedly been “debunked.” After the BBC reported that the emails “seemed to suggest scientists had been deliberately manipulating data to exaggerate evidence of climate change,” it then firmly declared that this allegation “wasn’t true.”
But why such clear evidence of data manipulation is alleged to be untrue has never been explained by the BBC or any other legacy media organisation. Instead, they have shifted the Climategate narrative into a story about alleged hackers, right wing extremists, conspiracy theorists, climate deniers and unwarranted victimisation of honest, hard-working climate scientists. Nonetheless, the evidence still appears to show that data manipulation occurred, no matter how the narrative is retold.
A Canadian court case followed when Mann, a professor at Penn State University, brought a defamation case against Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball after Ball quipped that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” Ball’s lawyers chose the “truth defence.” Their intention was to demonstrate that the defamation claim was without merit by proving to the court that Ball’s comment insinuated that Mann had knowingly engaged in scientific fraud and thus was accurate.
Prior to the case being heard, Tim Ball’s defence team exercised their legal right to request that Michael Mann disclose the mathematical regression he had used to formulate his—and the IPCC’s—“hockey-stick” graph. Seeing the regression would enable the court to decide whether Mann had fairly and accurately portrayed the data. If the data had been found accurate, Mann would almost certainly have won his defamation claim against Ball.
More than eight years after the defamation claim was lodged by Mann, the case was summarily dismissed. All costs were awarded to Ball, because Mann had failed to produce the requested mathematical regression. His explanation for not providing his mathematical proof was apparently that he had been too busy for eight years.
It seems possible that the real reason for Mann’s reluctance was that evidence of data manipulation would have come to light—costing Mann not only the suit but also, presumably, his scientific credibility. When the mathematician Stephen McIntyre and environmental economist Ross McKitrick reanalysed Mann’s hockey stick calculations, they found that:
[. . .] estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects. [. . .] The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century. The particular “hockey stick” shape derived [. . . ] is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.
“Mike’s nature trick” had effectively added data from one dataset to data from another set. This was justified by claiming that the historical temperature record was wrong. If the historical proxy data temperature record is considered more reliable, then there is no “unprecedented warming” and no “hockey-stick.”
Mann, Jones, the CRU and other climate scientists ostensibly removed both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age to show “unprecedented” modern warming. This was then used as the “scientific basis” demonstrating AGW-driven climate change in the IPCC’s TAR.
It seems that releasing information as required is a problem for some involved in the Climategate Scandal. When a freedom of information request was made to find out how many members of the CRU who were embroiled in the scandal continued to contribute the IPCC assessment report, the publicly funded university department did not respond as required. The UK Information Commissioners Office (ICO) found that the University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 50) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
We should remember, of course, that regardless of the emails, the contradictory science, the raw climate data and the court rulings, the Climategate Scandal has been resoundingly debunked by the legacy media. All of the evidence can therefore be ignored and consigned to the memory hole.
We might be tempted to forgot the affair were it not for the fact that this kind of evident data manipulation seems to be an ongoing problem. In fact, it appears to be common climate science practice among AGW theorists.
There is no doubt that official “climate science” temperature adjustments occur. There are many reasons given to explain these adjustments, including the relocation of measuring stations, improvements in modern analysis techniques, accounting for urban heat island effects and so on. Yet, despite this lengthy list of multiple factors informing the “adjustments,” the effect of the changes made to the raw data is consistent.
Historical temperatures are decreased and relative modern temperatures increased. The trend is always to statistically heighten the perception of global warming.
For example, if we look at the raw 1998 data from GISS’s GISTEMP records for the US Celsius surface air temperature (SAT) annual mean temperature anomaly since 1880, we can see that 1998 had a +1.05°C anomaly. This made 1998 the fifth-warmest Celsius anomaly year after 1917 (+1.06°C), 1931 (+1.15°C), 1921 (+1.19°C) and 1934 (+1.30°C).
If we then look at the same dataset but this time adjusted in 1999 by GISS, the changes are obvious. The year 1998 has become the second hottest annual mean anomaly year with an increased +1.20°C anomaly. Though 1934 remains the hottest year, its anomaly has been reduced from 1.30°C to 1.24°C. All the other historical temperature records have also been reduced to elevate 1998 to its new position: 1917 (+1.00°C), 1931 (+1.00°C) and 1921 (+1.08°C).
Despite the explanations for these adjustments, which continue to this day, it is hard to see this as anything more than data manipulation. Far from objective “climate science,” it appears to be scientific fraud in action. We may even have been given an explanation regarding why the manipulation has occurred.
The greenhouse effect was a largely forgotten scientific theory until 1988 when then-director of GISS James Hansen told the US Senate Energy Committee that “the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now.”
Speaking in 1999, the year the “adjustment” of GISS data started, Hansen told his GISS colleagues:
Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934. Global temperature, in contrast, had passed 1930s values by 1980 and the world has warmed at a remarkable rate over the last 25 years [following adjustment]. Yet in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.
This doesn’t evidence AGW theory. Now the data has been “adjusted” it is far more amenable.
Questioning the AGW Theory Sceptic’s Bias
Most well-known scientists who are sceptical of AGW, such as the astrophysicist Willie Soon, lead author of Soon et al. (2015)—referenced in Part 2—are regularly accused by climate alarmists of being biased by corporate funding. In Soon’s case, he received some funding from interests linked to energy companies, such as the Charles G. Koch Foundation.
Of course, it is reasonable to consider a potential conflict of interest with Dr. Soon’s or anyone else’s work. Yet these concerns about possible conflicts of interest apparently only extend to AGW sceptics. Those who advocate AGW theory and climate alarm, such as the Sierra Club, and the American Geophysical Union, also receive funding from the fossil fuel and energy industries, but they are never questioned.
Fossil fuel companies also fund “official” climate change research. Saudi Aramco, the largest oil company on Earth, is committed to “reach net zero emissions by 2060” and is “accelerating the country’s transition to a green economy.” To this end, it has invested “more than $186B [billion]” in “collaboration and innovation” to help achieve “sustainable growth” in keeping with “global goals.” Saudi Aramco has made a massive capital investment commitment entirely contingent on continued acceptance of AGW theory.
As we’ve already discussed, the “official” AGW climate science is often funded by groups like the BMGF. The BMGF Trust manages the BMGF endowment fund. As you might expect, the BMGF “Trust” is heavily invested in pharmaceutical and agrichemical corporations, such as Moderna and Bayer. In turn, Bayer is pushing the production of biofuels through its effective subsidiary, CoverCress.
Rodrigo Santos, president of Bayer’s Crop Science Division, notes that “CoverCress is exciting because it has the potential to become an important source for biofuel production.”
Bayer is set to profit handsomely from the increasing use of biofuels, and so, too, are its major investors, such as the BMGF Trust. This explains why Bill Gates has long been an investment partner with oil companies in biofuel development. Yet when DeCicco et al. (2016) looked at the US production cycle of biofuels they found that:
U.S. biofuel use to date is associated with a net increase rather than a net decrease in CO2 emissions.
It would seem, then, the BMGF couldn’t care less about increased CO2 emissions. Yet it is funding the consensus AGW climate science, which informs sustainable development and net zero policies. The BMGF Trust is also set to profit from technological solutions to the “climate emergency.” This potential conflict of interest for “the Climate Science”™ seems to not interest any AGW propagandists.
Moreover, the “official” AGW climate science is overwhelmingly funded by taxpayers via their governments. Funding projects like the EU’s Horizon Europe will only invest its €95.5 billion budget into research that “helps to achieve the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs). The UN says SDGs are entirely hung on the assumption that AGW theory is an established scientific fact:
Climate change is caused by human activities and threatens life on earth as we know it. With rising greenhouse gas emissions, climate change is occurring at rates much faster than anticipated. Its impacts can be devastating and include extreme and changing weather patterns and rising sea levels. [. . .] Saving lives and livelihoods requires urgent action to address the climate emergency.
Funding initiatives such as Horizon Europe raise the possibility of an enormous scientific conflict of interest for AGW theory science. Like the IPCC, Horizon Europe funding is exclusively biased toward just one scientific theory. Why is it, then, that the finger is only pointed at those who are sceptical of the AGW theory?
Influential climate change activist groups, such as Just Stop Oil, are funded by some of the richest oiligarchs on Earth. Extinction Rebellion is funded by, among others, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF). CIFF invests more in “climate change organisations” than in any other lobby sector. The BMGF, the Rockefellers and the European Climate Foundation—the largest single donor—are among CIFF’s leading financial backers.
The European Climate Foundation is also backed by, among others, the Rockefellers Brothers Fund. Having amassed a staggering fortune from fossil fuels and banking, the Rockefellers are now supporting the “climate change activists” calling for a switch away from fossil fuels to “renewable energy.” The Rockefellers are heavily invested in renewable energy and the envisaged low carbon economy.
Climate activists, like Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion, are campaigning on behalf of oiligarchs—again, entirely based on the continued acceptance of AGW theory.
CIFF, the European Climate Foundation, Horizon Europe and formerly the Rockefellers—who actually still invest via CIFF and the European Climate Foundation—directly fund the global Climate Bond initiative. Climate bonds will enable investors to profit from a new global economic model based on the mobilisation of “global capital for climate action.” That is, all based on AGW theory.
The Climate Bond initiative’s partners are multinational banks and investment management corporations, including BlackRock, HSBC, State Street, Credit Suisse and Barclays. This is their collective mission:
Climate Bonds aims to educate, inspire, convene, and steer a global collaboration of institutional investors, governments, development banks and industry to shift capital toward low-carbon and resilient investments. [. . .] We are at the forefront of advances in sustainable finance, collaborating with numerous global stakeholders, including governments, investors, banks, and large companies.
The ambition is to create an investment market worth $5 trillion (USD) annually:
Governments must signal clear support for net-zero by initiating a supportive policy environment for transition. [. . .] To reach 1.5°C society must undergo a transition. [. . .] The climate challenge offers a political opportunity to steer the real and financial economy towards a green future. [. . .] Investors have been supporting the transition since 2007, and appetite is growing as illustrated by the rapid expansion of the green bond market.
An entire new global economy is being constructed on the back of AGW theory. AGW theory is the “scientific basis” for the UN’s Agenda 2030 which aims to transform the world:
All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan. [. . .] We are determined to take the bold and transformative steps which are urgently needed to shift the world on to a sustainable and resilient path.
Governments, intergovernmental organisations, global NGOs and philanthropic oligarchs, as well as the biggest polluters on Earth (including global oil and energy corporations), global financial institutions and billionaire investors are exerting their combined financial might to support the AGW theory “climate scientists.”
To pretend to equate their mammoth funding with the relatively minuscule levels of funding received by the scientists labelled “climate deniers” is ludicrous.
Put another way: For climate alarmists to accuse AGW sceptics of funding bias while simultaneously ignoring the staggering conflicts of financial interest behind all AGW theory “climate science” is absurd.
Why?
At the 2022 WEF Sustainable Development Impact Meeting, Melissa Fleming, Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications at the UN, told delegates that the UN had partnered with several big tech companies—among them TikTok, Facebook (Meta), and Google—to censor and control what she called “climate change narratives.” She also said:
We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do.
That Fleming felt confident enough to assert that the UN “owns” climate science is bad enough. But that she was, for all intents and purposes, absolutely correct should be a matter of concern for science and scientists everywhere. And that the UN also assumes the right to prevent anyone, including scientists, from publicly questioning the AGW theory climate science it owns is a matter of concern for humanity.
While there are clearly many scientific reasons to question AGW theory climate science, the globalists’ refusal to entertain any doubt or brook any questioning is highly conspicuous—especially considering that doubt, not consensus, is a foundational scientific principle.
Perhaps more blatant yet are the continued attempts to deceive and mislead by those who most fiercely insist that we unquestioningly accept the official “climate alarm” narrative.
Speaking in August 2023 at the Signet Library in Edinburgh, former US Secretary of State and current US special presidential envoy for climate John Kerry gave an address in which he said:
[. . .] without a single piece of peer reviewed, documentation to the contrary, we are again witnessing another moment in which the persuasive force of evidence and with it, earth’s future hangs in the balance. All because some extremist political voices, holdout nations, and vastly vested interests have declared war on facts and science. [. . .] While they refuse to accept the facts behind the increasingly obvious damages of the climate crisis, they lash out at the truth tellers, and label indisputable evidence as hysteria. They compound the already difficult challenge of the climate crisis by promising to do more of exactly what created the crisis in the first place. So now, humanity is inexorably threatened by humanity itself—by those seducing people into buying into a completely fictitious alternative reality where we don’t need to act and we don’t even need to care.
But, as Rob Jeffrey highlighted in his PhD thesis, there is a wealth of peer-reviewed scientific evidence that contradicts Kerry’s specious claim and that “documents” scientific doubt about AGW theory and the alleged “climate crisis.”
And for Kerry to have accused climate science sceptics of bias by “vested interests,” while failing to mention that “the Climate Science™” is paid for by nation-states and the most powerful corporations on Earth, was nothing other than propaganda by omission.
John Kerry is a lawyer by profession, not a scientist, but he strongly promotes the AGW theory-based concept of climate change.
For him to assert, as he does, that any lay opinion about climate change that disagrees with his own is “extremist” is the mark of a rank propagandist.
And for him to insinuate that there aren’t any climate scientists who question his professed certainty only emphasises his amateurism as a shill.
And for him to insist that “the damages of the climate crisis” are “obvious,” that every claim he makes is a “fact” and that only he and his allies represent the “truth” calls into question his integrity.
To be blunt, Kerry had to know he was telling lies. He must have known he was spreading disinformation and misleading his audience and spewing propaganda. It all amounts to the same thing: fraud.
The question is: why?
Why, time and time again, are the proponents of AGW theory caught manipulating and even falsifying data?
Why does the legacy media continually misrepresent the facts and push the climate alarm button?
Why do people like Kerry and organisations like the United Nations, and powerful interest groups like the WEF call everyone who questions AGW theory “deniers” or “extremists?”
Why do they make up a never-ending stream of falsehoods?
Sustainable development is a resource grab by a network of globalist “vested interests.” These interests are using SDGs to reimagine the global economy for the purpose of centralising and consolidating global power in the hands of a select few. They are making a bid to cement global governance under a global public-private partnership. Ultimately, they are participating in a gigantic conflict of interest scheme that is driving fraudulent science and censoring scientific debate.
Beneath all of this there is perhaps something else even more malevolent. Kerry gave us a clue when he said that “humanity is inexorably threatened by humanity itself.” This has long been the argument of eugenicists, who regard humanity as a blight.
Convincing us that we should sacrifice ourselves for their benefit has always presented a public relations problem for the eugenicists.
In 1991, the Rockefeller-funded globalist think tank, the Club of Rome, published The First Global Revolution. It revealed how the eugenicists had resolved their sales pitch conundrum:
In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap….namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.
The UK government’s Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) benefits from £8 billion (USD $10.2 billion) of UK taxpayers’ money earmarked for environmental scientists and UK researchers. But the funds go only to those who contribute to fulfilling the “global goals for sustainable development.”
We are being asked to disregard the conflict of financial interest here.
We are being invited to trust “the Science™.”
Sure enough, “the Climate Science™” has rammed home the essential eugenicist message that we should curtail humanity in order to save the planet. That message has become so in-your-face that NERC was brazen enough to recently fund publication of a “scientific” paper titled “Measurements of methane and nitrous oxide in human breath and the development of UK scale emissions.” The extremely well-funded authors of that paper found that:
Exhaled human breath can contain small, elevated concentrations of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), both of which contribute to global warming. [. . .] We would urge caution in the assumption that emissions from humans are negligible.
Thirty-four years after a global network “came up with the idea” that the “threat of global warming” exposed humanity as the “enemy,” John Kerry and many eugenicists of his ilk are still peddling the same arguments. Despite their doom-laden soothsaying having been demonstrably and consistently wrong, they are still trying to convince us that “humanity is inexorably threatened by humanity itself.”
If we buy it, AGW theory will completely restructure our world. In the process, it will commit all of humanity— excluding, of course, the select few—to ever-more-onerous behavioural restrictions and increasingly limited opportunities.
Which is yet another reason not to buy it.
Please consider supporting my work. I really need your help if I am going to continue to provide the research and analysis that you value on a full-time basis. You can support my work for less than the price of a cup of coffee via my donor page or alternative become a paid subscriber to my Substack.
I extend my gratitude to my editor, who has provided invaluable contributions to my articles since October 2021 (but who, for personal reasons, prefers to remain anonymous).
Please feel free to share anything from iaindavis[.]com excluding any and all third party content. I use a Creative Commons License. All I ask is that you give credit to the author and clearly mark any changes you make. Please share my work widely. Censorship is increasing and we need to get this information out there. If you value what I do then please consider supporting my work. Many thanks.
Supporters of AGW have several advantages when arguing their case. Global warming was replaced with climate change. The issue with arguing global warming is that if global temperatures don’t increase any more or decrease your narrative collapses. However, climate change can mean anything and is difficult to prove or disprove. The term Climate change means all types of weather can be attributed to man made climate change eg both lack of rain and too much rain is due to climate change. Supporters of AGW argue we are facing weather disasters and an increasingly unstable climate. The reality is the climate is harsh and has always been so. Droughts, tornados, hurricanes, heatwaves, heavy rain are natural phenomena which have always occurred and will always occur. AGW can use natural weather events uninfluenced by human actions as signs of dangerous man made climate change. AGW supporters can ignore anything which doesn’t support their beliefs eg failed predictions.
James Corbett called it “unfalsifiable woo-woo science.”
Bad weather of all kinds of can have devastating consequences; droughts can cause crop failures, heavy rain can cause flooding, storms can cause property damage and disrupt travel and heatwaves can make life uncomfortable. The notion spread by AGW supporters we are going to face more extreme weather and and unstable climate taps into a primal fear.
I feel there is an important point to be made on this issue. The attitude of AGW supporters is man made Climate is an urgent issue we must address but their beliefs don’t get beyond this. It is clear AGW supporters are never going to say CO2 emissions have been reduced to an acceptable level and AGW has been solved. AGW is an issue which must never be resolved and how do you explain this attitude if there really was dangerous AGW? People have been banging on about AGW since the late 1980s.
I think we need to divide those lay people, the vast majority, who passively accept AGW theory because they have been convinced by propaganda and biased science, as averse those who know the science is biased but maintain the deception anyway. The latter know that “net zero is a preposterous idea but they are not using it in the hope that they can ever actually achieve zero emissions. That is a propaganda fable for the lay people majority. Instead the whole point is to never achieve “zero”emissions thereby always having another excuse for more and more restrictions and control of the population.
Club of Rome document would have been paper document of many pages, put into digital format years later. Error converting to digital perpetuated unless back-checked to original.
Extract quoted in articles interpreted as ‘Humanity’, collective noun for Humans, yet word presented as ‘humanity’, a human trait.
Need context of extract and word as printed but I’ve not seen original document.
Have you seen it Iain?
All policies over 20 years have interfered with life, it’s destruction invariable result; witness explosion in plastic use with ‘mandatory’ masks and screens 2020.
Deaths by hypothermia, legalising murder by Midazolam, ‘electrification’, building on AONB less restricted, HS2/H2S, eradicated natural crops and rotation, lethal fear-mongering, lockdown, pesticides, organophosphates, genetic engineered crops and livestock, 1000s satellites into low orbit, 5G saturation, fail supply water, …
Gloom policy censors joy; retailers took down decorations week before Christmas.
So, “human induced climate change and loss of biodiversity” intentionally done by eugenicists, of which Gates an avid devotee, therefore funder.
They rightly claim destruction is caused by humans as it’s themselves doing it but, given their lack of humanity, it’s debatable if they’re part of Humanity.
“humanity is inexorably threatened by humanity itself”; as psychopaths have no humanity, they relentlessly endanger Humanity.
Is it genuine trait ‘humanity’ eugenicist psychopaths fear?
Promotion by psychologists of overt emotion abolished self-control; making people easier to manipulate via emotions. Eradicating courtesy, existing on-line instead of living in life, also aid fear-mongers.
‘Might’ happen is exciting if so bored want to worry about nothing, but if busy with real-life’s ups and downs, ‘might’ happen falls by way-side.
Cyclones, hurricanes, storms, as ‘pandemic’, ‘vaccine’, re-defined to include more and, lowered skill in English language and Maths aids scammers.
Belief in virus not amenable to factual details, no beliefs are. So, countering climate policies perhaps easier by warning of personal impact, eliciting counter emotion.
‘Cleaner’ means cleaning-out our pockets and cleaning-up by killing us and nature.
So, as own pocket is usual top priority, each will probably become anti climate policies when their own pocket hurts too much; witness fury about ULEZ fines.
All the best for 2024 to you Iain
Jane,
It would seem that the Net Zero Fanatics haven’t been exactly forthright with Jo Sixpack regarding the true costs of achieving such.
It’s easy to sell the concept using biased propaganda for now, but when the OTT costs of heat pumps, electric vehicles, net zero energy etc come home to roost, there will be a sudden shift in attitude.
Even worse would be the social & economic backlash in the event of people being driven into poverty & desperation chasing such goals, only to find they are unachievable, & that the climate will continue to change, just as it always has (a bit like chasing zero Covid).
All the while, the Elite will continue to travel to remote locations, in Private Jets, to preach to us all how we are to blame for just about every weather related incident, & how it is we – not them – who should dig deep in our pockets to cleanse our guilt ridden souls.
People who thought Covid was a cash grab by the Elite of epic proportions haven’t seen anything yet.
Agree entirely. Unfortunately, most people are in for a very nasty surprise.
I think the people who will be in for the biggest and nastiest of surprises are those who are very intelligent and perceptive, who can clearly see what the Parasitic Elite are doing, yet at the same time, are atheists and don’t realise it is all literally diabolical.
“For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.”
Those at the very top of the food chain are in league with Satan. It’s the only reason they attained this power in the first place. Their agenda and true, hidden goal is to bring forth the anti-Christ and see him enthroned.
But, when the time comes to either take his mark or die, it will be most apparent to anyone still alive who he is!
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
If I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible what was the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: ‘Men had forgotten God; that is why all this has happened.’
You have forgotten God Iain and censoring comments that put faith in God betrays a real weakness. Weaker even than the dispirited, demoralised and weakened people you are trying to awaken. I am very disappointed Iain. I thought you were better than this!
Hang on David! I haven’t censored any comments that put faith in God. Why do you say that? I haven’t forgotten God I do not believe that God, in the Abrahamic religious sense, exists. I do think that good and evil exist and I think I am a spiritual being whose duty is to live a good life and oppose evil. What you would call God, I would call consciousness, what you would call God’s Law, I would call Natural Law, but essentially I do not disagree with the genuine tenets of faith.
You have my apologies Iain! I posted the comment on January 2, 2024 at 4:21 pm and it said ‘waiting for moderation’ yet some hours later it seemed to have disappeared altogether. I mistakenly assumed you’d deleted it and I should have known better.
Sorry Again.
No worries. I apologise, but I can’t check all comments daily so there may be delays.
Why not take a look at some other Solzhenitsyn quotes?
https://quotlr.com/author/aleksandr-solzhenitsyn
Hello Mike
I think you’re correct about fight-back when costs hit own pockets. I hope it will not be too late and not too violent. I find it easier to see overall picture when I read phrase ‘climate change’ as ‘political climate change’. Then scattered bits of info. fall neatly into place.
Why not take a look at some other Solzhenitsyn quotes?
https://quotlr.com/author/aleksandr-solzhenitsyn
In the 2000s, the issue I had with the entire AGW discussion was it all seemed to revolve around the following logical statement:
If scientific findings true, then totalitarian control of all humanity.
I rejected all of it based on this.
It annoyed me that “conservatives” accepted the logic statement, because all they seemed to do was argue the science.
I was wondering if you’re at all familiar with the works of Stephen Reicher and Alex Haslam? They provide a better conclusion than Milgram did on Milgram’s own experiments because they evaluate from the perspective of group identity. Alison Morrow did an excellent interview with them here:
https://odysee.com/@AlisonMorrow:6/harming-others-for-the-greater-good-the:e
They published a book called “Together Apart” in which they apply their understanding of group identity and use it to advise how to manipulate the population to support all the COVID nonsense. I have to admit I’ve only read about half of it, but it seems very much to be a playbook for manipulating populations based on group identity.
https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/together-apart/book275359
Thank you for all your excellent work.
Thanks Paul. No I isn’t aware of their work so thanks very much. I agree, even if we are heading for climate catastrophe that’s no justification for tyranny.
A work of sheer brilliance and dedicated passion Ian. I am proud to be a supporter of your valuable work and look forward to more of the same in the future. A very Happy New Year to you sir.
Many thanks John. Your support and Kind encouragement are greatly appreciated.
Blablabla…bullshit propaganda…shove up your fucking ass, shithead!!
Thanks for your concise critique. You don’t know Derek who commented on Part 2 by any chance do you?
Hi, Lain:
I really appreciate your effort to carefully look into the validity of AGW. My basic question is not AGW. In other words, the basic question is not “Anthropogenic or not”, but it is about the question what is actually holding the atmospheric temperature. Is it CO2 or other so-called greenhouse gases which is supposed to absorb the infrared emitted by the surface of the globe. CO2 in the air is only 0.04%. Do the main components N2 and O2 do nothing? In the real life greenhouse, the sunlight comes in and the solid material inside is warmed. The warmed solid material emits IR (heat), and the IR is absorbed by glass window which acts like greenhouse gas, i.e., absorbs the IR emitted and about the half energy absorbed return back into the inside. Is it true? The emitted IR (heat) warms the air, by mobilizing the main components N2 and O2, and hence the greenhouse (the gas phase inside) is warmed. Isn’t what happens in a greenhouse ? To tell you the truth, Ian Plimer in his book “Heaven and Earth: global warming the missing science” says “The use of the term “greenhouse effect”is a complete misnomer”. In the case of atmosphere no enclosure is provided. So the heat coming out heats the atmosphere (N2, O2), but also leaves upward. A steady state is established, and that is the current temperature of the air over the global surface. There are only a few scientific papers that discuss this issue. I wonder why. Am I absolutely wrong? If this is correct, the idea that CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) is causing global warming, naturally or anthropogenically is basically wrong.
I have written a short article on this issue and will be happy to send it to you if you think it worthwhile to look at.
Eiichiro Ochiai
Vancouver, Canada
Thanks Eiichiro Ochaiai, Part 1 and 2 of this series makes more or less the same argument you have just presented here. Personally I think the Earth’s atmospheric temperature is a function of convection, atmospheric compression and adiabatic lapse. Radiative heat transfer also occurs. But that’s just my opinion.
https://iaindavis.com/the-climate-science-is-settled-any-questions-part-2/
Just to say:
“List of instructions following the meeting with young scientists
The President approved a list of instructions following a meeting with participants of the III Congress of Young Scientists held on November 29, 2023.
January 24, 2024
…
i) submit proposals for expanding cooperation with the BRICS member states in terms of:
implementation of joint developments in the field of monitoring of climatically active gases and measurement of the carbon balance of ecosystems, including the development of data collection and processing systems for the assessment of anthropogenic and natural fluxes of greenhouse gases and other climatically active substances;
mutual recognition of methods and technologies in this area;
creating the basis for the development of joint scientific and technical solutions aimed at mitigating the anthropogenic impact on the environment, climate and the adaptation of economies and populations of states to climate change.
Deadline: June 3, 2024
Responsible: M.V. Mishustin”
http : // www .kremlin .ru/acts/assignments/orders/73317
Further to my comment on January 1st 2024, perhaps the penny is dropping faster than expected, even to our…err…Trusted BBC Reporter Laura Kuenssberg.
It must be Election Year!
But perhaps I shouldn’t have jumped the gun, because her report mentions the Green Alternative Steel at PT, but not the loss of around 3000 jobs to achieve it, or the 500 million of tax Payers money to – basically – retain the remainder.
Yes indeed, the government is “green hushing policies, but only because they don’t want to drop the bomb of the true costs to Jo Public during an election year, & the main parties don’t want the Plebs to ask awkward questions on the door steps.
Laura states, “There is a definite sense in industry that politicians are yet to understand fully the scale of the changes that have to be made to reboot the energy system – the “transition”.
I do hope she isn’t suggesting that our Thrusting Leaders have signed us up to International Legally binding targets & Legislation that will cripple the country, without thinking about the consequences first?
It’s getting increasingly difficult for that Poor Cart to continue to pull the Horse.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68261445
Thanks Mike