Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
TN

"Exposing the Deceptions of The CLIMATE CHANGE NARRATIVE" - Sources of Information, Websites, Articles, Videos and more

Recommended Posts

(edited)

This Thread is for alternative perspectives to the "Official Climate Change Narrative", because we all know that Google and other online platforms are now censoring sources of information which is contrary to the "Official Climate Change Narrative".  If you have a source, a website, an article or video which offers alternative views against the Mainstream Media perspective, please post it on this Thread.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

th?id=OIP.m3Is5ToMURsXPUfZyOWcUQHaEK%26p

Tony Heller and others at Real Climate Science pull back the curtain on junk science.   RealClimateScience.COM - https://realclimatescience.com/

WEBSITE 1585808025_TonyHellerRealClimateScience(2).thumb.png.fae3366355e732ead755723c358edd7d.png

VIDEO CHANNELS - YouTube, NewTube, Odyssey, Bitchute 

https://www.youtube.com/c/TonyHeller/videos

https://newtube.app/TonyHeller

https://odysee.com/@TonyHeller:c

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/tonyheller/

 

80854111_TonyHellerYouTube1(2).thumb.png.4267a4e23681cff6821a80fd9d05fc19.png

258645693_TonyHellerYouTube2(2).thumb.png.97d97e77c094e54a65e02ed00fd8c175.png

809607396_NewTube(2).thumb.png.3f543028023d51fb6481afe463039d29.png

2118467831_Odysee(2).thumb.png.f198d33ac469f9da17cdf1ccd09915ef.png

Tony Heller often has some very interesting articles, complete with documents.  One of his more recent articles has to do with HEATWAVES...

Imaginary Connections

Posted on July 2, 2022 by tonyheller

https://realclimatescience.com/2022/07/imaginary-connections/

Image-4168-530x1024.png

Edited by Tom Nolan
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, you should know, pointing to historical accuracy is never responded to by the climate religion zealots. 

Or pointing out science according to all Glacier cores is directly against their CO2 stupidity.

Or pointing out that even if 100% of the atmosphere was CO2, the temperature would remain the same as is shown by probes sent down to Venus as it matches gas models and solar irradiance models.   Who knew, Black body radiation models are unbroken...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or pointing out that according to THEIR OWN models, the TTO(tropical troposhphere) has less warming than the surface... hrmm maybe these clowns should throw out all city data instead of throwing out most of the rural data like they did in 2016... what a thought...   Oh right, we have a continent wide rural data set... and it shows ZERO warming since its start date(2004?05?).  Oh right, good thing propagandists zealots are in charge so they can "average" real data in with city data sets with increasing population, more pavement, more heating, more AC... to eliminate that pesky real world data set. 

Or pointing out that these scum dwelling lying clowns keep getting caught removing REAL data and installing warmer temperatures to make their zealotry happier.  Iceland, SW, USA, Australia, SE USA, removing upper Canada weather stations, etc etc etc. 

Or pointing out that sea level rise has been 100% consistent for well over 100 years even though CO2 has been asymptotic... hrmm it is almost as if this is caused by something constant like say.. ALL of NE Canada rising out of the sea, attributing at least 1/3 of all sea level rise in the last 100 years all by itself. 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/07/joseph-mercola/how-corporations-are-using-environment-concerns-to-scam-you/

How Corporations Are Using Environment Concerns to Scam You

By Dr. Joseph Mercola

Pouncing on investors’ interest in environmentally friendly, sustainable investing, the S&P 500 ESG Index was launched in 2019.1 ESG, or environmental, social and governance, funds are supposed to be those focused on companies with strong environmental ethics and responsibility, but further investigation reveals rampant greenwashing has occurred, and many ESG-labeled funds are far from “sustainable.”

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has been scrutinizing ESG funds for years, as their popularity soared. While funds focused on socially responsible investing were valued at $2.83 billion in 2015, this grew to $17.67 billion by 2019, when Alex Bernhardt, U.S. head of responsible investments at investment consultant Mercer, told The Wall Street Journal, “In every asset class, in every region, ESG product development is the thing right now.”2

Fast-forward to 2022, and the SEC is cracking down on ESG labels, with multiple investigations launched into ESG greenwashing on Wall Street by multiple mega-banks. Globally, $41 trillion are expected to flow into ESG funds in 2022.3

Murky Guidelines Mire ESG Label Credibility

A glaring problem with ESG labels is the lack of regulations that define what qualifies as a company that’s environmentally or socially responsible. In 2019, the SEC began sending letters to asset managers asking for what models were used to determine ESG investments.

In 2019, Betty Moy Huber, co-head of law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP’s environmental, social and corporate governance group, told The Wall Street Journal, “This is a relatively new area. Now the SEC is saying, ‘Wait, how do you know these are ESG products and that you don’t have a fossil fuel company with known, poor ESG performance in there?’”4

S&P and MSCI have established their own ratings system for ESG labels, with controversial methodologies. For instance, ESG funds may hold up to 20% of their shares in non-ESG stocks, such that “fossil fuel-free” funds may actually hold fossil fuel companies.5

“As a result, many “ESG” funds still hold major emitters like ExxonMobil, and are only marginally less carbon-intensive than the market average,” Quartz reported.6 It wasn’t until May 2022 that the SEC announced plans to develop stricter standards for ESG labels.7

SEC Goes After Goldman Sachs

After an investigation into greenwashing by Deutsche Bank in 2021 — that led to a raid of the bank’s offices in Germany by German authorities8 — and a $1.5 million fine to BNY Mellon for “misstatements and omissions about ESG considerations,” the SEC is now going after Goldman Sachs.

In the BNY Mellon case, one ESG fund included 185 investments, 67 of which had no ESG-quality score when the security was purchased, but shareholders were told its strategy included “identifying and considering the environmental, social and governance risks, opportunities and issues throughout the research process.”9 But in the case of Goldman, as reported by Quartz:10

“The Goldman investigation is focused on mutual funds. Because there is no legal standard for ESG definitions, the SEC will determine whether the bank’s actual methods for managing ESG funds differ from what it has disclosed to investors, not whether the funds are really green or not.”

Goldman manages at least four ESG or “clean energy” funds and renamed its Blue Chip Fund the U.S. Equity ESG Fund in June 2020. According to The Wall Street Journal:11

“Goldman says in regulatory documents that its ESG fund aims to keep 80% of its net assets in stocks issued by companies that meet the fund manager’s criteria. They exclude companies that earn most of their revenue from selling alcohol, tobacco, weapons, coal, oil and gas, and some other products.

Goldman says holdings in the U.S. Equity ESG Fund undergo an ESG analysis but reserves the right to invest in some companies without such a screening. It can also invest up to 20% of its net assets in stocks that deviate from its ESG standards.”

When the SEC first began scrutinizing ESG labels, it was done via compliance examiners, who would forward any concerns to SEC enforcement attorneys. An SEC enforcement task force was launched in 2021 to further investigate greenwashing related to ESG investing products, and the Goldman investigation could result in formal enforcement action.12

‘The World’s Largest Ponzi Scheme’

BlackRock founder and CEO Larry Fink, who has close ties to the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) head Klaus Schwab, and joined WEF’s board in 2019, stated in October 2021, “Short-term policies related to environmentalism in terms of restricting supply of hydrocarbons has created energy inflation, and we’re going to be living with that for some time … We’re in a new regime.”13

On Twitter, Russ Greene wrote, “ESG advocates have sought to portray as a conspiracy theory the link between ESG and higher oil and gas prices, but if so it’s one that’s shared by many of the most successful figures in finance, including ESG investors,” referring to Blackstone cofounder, billionaire Steve Schwarzman, who has said that a focus on ESG is “driving a credit crunch for oil and gas companies.”14

However, investment firm BlackRock has more power than most governments on Earth, and it also controls the Federal Reserve, mega-banks like Goldman Sachs and the WEF’s Great Reset, according to F. William Engdahl, a strategic risk consultant and lecturer who holds a degree in politics from Princeton University.15

BlackRock also has ties to Blackstone — the largest landlord in the U.S. as well as the largest real estate company worldwide, with a portfolio worth $325 billion16 — as Schwarzman and Fink started out in business together.17 BlackRock, Engdahl believes, may control the world’s economic future, in part via ESG investing:18

“Fink … now stands positioned to use the huge weight of BlackRock to create what is potentially, if it doesn’t collapse before, the world’s largest Ponzi scam, ESG [Environment, Social values and Governance] corporate investing. Fink with $9 trillion to leverage is pushing the greatest shift of capital in history into a scam known as ESG Investing.

The UN ‘sustainable economy’ agenda is being realized quietly by the very same global banks which have created the financial crises in 2008. This time they are preparing the Klaus Schwab WEF Great Reset by steering hundreds of billions and soon trillions in investment to their hand-picked ‘woke’ companies, and away from the ‘not woke’ such as oil and gas companies or coal.

BlackRock since 2018 has been in the forefront to create a new investment infrastructure that picks “winners” or “losers” for investment according to how serious that company is about ESG — Environment, Social values and Governance.

For example a company gets positive ratings for the seriousness of its hiring gender diverse management and employees, or takes measures to eliminate their carbon “footprint” by making their energy sources green or sustainable to use the UN term.

How corporations contribute to a global sustainable governance is the most vague of the ESG, and could include anything from corporate donations to Black Lives Matter to supporting UN agencies such as WHO.

… Oil companies like ExxonMobil or coal companies no matter how clear are doomed as Fink and friends now promote their financial Great Reset or Green New Deal.”

Elon Musk Calls ESG a ‘Scam’

In May 2022, electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla was removed from the S&P 500 ESG Index, despite its focus on creating environmentally conscious vehicles. Incidents of racial discrimination at a company factory were cited as one factor in its removal, and Tesla was said to be “ineligible for index inclusion due to its low S&P DJI ESG Score, which fell in the bottom 25% of its global GICS® industry group peers.”19

Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk tweeted in response “@SPGlobalRatings has lost their integrity [sic],” considering Exxon Mobil is still listed in the S&P 500 ESG Index top 10.20 Musk tweeted:21

“Exxon is rated top ten best in world for environment, social & governance (ESG) by S&P 500, while Tesla didn’t make the list! ESG is a scam. It has been weaponized by phony social justice warriors.”

What’s more, TIME reported, “According to Bloomberg, the world’s largest ESG-focused exchange-traded fund has almost invested 3.1% of its assets in the oil and gas sector …”22

A New System of Control Via Allocation of Resources

ESG is one tactic being used to push the “green” agenda forward. While the notion of a pollution-free world is an attractive one, ultimately this isn’t about the environment — it’s all about creating a control system in which the world’s resources are owned by the richest of the rich, while the rest of the population can be controlled through the allocation of those resources, including energy. As explained in an anonymous Winter Oak article:23

“Under such an economic construct, asset holding conglomerates can redirect the flow of global capital by aligning investments with the UN’s SDGs [sustainable development goals] and configuring them as Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) compliant so that new international markets can be built on the disaster and misery of potentially hundreds of millions of people reeling from the economic collapse caused by war.

Therefore, the war offers a huge impetus for the governments pushing the reset to actively pursue energy independence, shape markets towards ‘green and inclusive growth’ and eventually move populations towards a cap-and-trade system, otherwise known as a carbon credit economy.

This will centralize power in the hands of stakeholder capitalists under the benevolent guise of reinventing capitalism through fairer and greener means, using deceptive slogans like ‘Build Back Better’ without sacrificing the perpetual growth imperative of capitalism.”

The WEF also discusses ESG as part of its “sustainable” resource-based economic system:24

“Digital finance refers to the integration of big data, artificial intelligence (AI), mobile platforms, blockchain and the Internet of things (IoT) in the provision of financial services. Sustainable finance refers to financial services integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria into the business or investment decisions.

When combined, sustainable digital finance can take advantage of emerging technologies to analyze data, power investment decisions and grow jobs in sectors supporting a transition to a low-carbon economy.”

But it’s important to be aware of the downside of reliance on suspect labels like ESG, which could ultimately tie large parts of the global population, including small farmers, to a new form of data slavery. According to one of Navdanya’s reports:25

“A global ‘seal’ of approval based on fake science, fake economics of maximizing profits through extraction will create new data slavery for farmers. Instead of using their own heads and cocreating with the Earth, they will be forced to buy ‘Big Data.’ Instead of obeying the laws of Mother Earth, they will be forced to obey algorithms created by Big Tech and Big Ag.”

Sources and References

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s Hot! People on the north side of our spherical-shaped earth may have noticed the heat…

SOLAR CYCLE 25 and GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM

QUEUED at 8:50
“…with SOLAR CYCLE 25 ramping up to a new Solar Maximum expected in three years. 2025. The hazard maps are coming not a moment too soon… …but guys, what they’re saying here about Solar maximum arriving in 2025; now, that’s this cycle but remember GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM is not about one 11.8 year cycle. They go back years and years and the cycles are declining in their peak. You understand what I’m saying: So we’ll have a surge for the next three years and it’ll peak in 2025 of a smaller cycle each time.“

Wednesday June 15, 2022 – QUEUED
Extreme Heat as Earth Passes thru Solar CME
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipBvQdp0xt4&t=530s
[Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) are large expulsions of plasma and magnetic field from the Sun’s corona. They can eject billions of tons of coronal material and carry an embedded magnetic field (frozen in flux) that is stronger than the background solar wind interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) strength.]

“SOLAR LOCKDOWN: Plandemic & Grand Solar Minimum”
(At the 10 minute mark, Christian list the SYMPTOMS of a Grand Solar Minimum)
https://youtu.be/FqcL1JGlA2I
LINKS and website in show notes.

Grand Solar Minimum SYMPTOMS
IMAGE
https://secure.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/9/6/5/9/highres_494738489.jpeg

“Grand Solar Minimum” Paper at NIH.gov (National Institute of Health)
Published online 2020 Aug 4th by Valentina Zharkova
“Modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575229/

…the Earth was entering a cooling period because of a phenomenon called a Grand Solar Minimum that could last until 2053.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grand Solar Minimum 101:

https://electroverse.net/grand-solar-minimum-101-the-future-looks-cold/

international-sunspot-nu.jpeg?resize=768

“…with SOLAR CYCLE 25 ramping up to a new Solar Maximum expected in three years. 2025. The hazard maps are coming not a moment too soon… …but guys, what they’re saying here about Solar maximum arriving in 2025; now, that’s this cycle but remember GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM is not about one 11.8 year cycle. They go back years and years and the cycles are declining in their peak. You understand what I’m saying: So we’ll have a surge for the next three years and it’ll peak in 2025 of a smaller cycle each time.“

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 2020-2021 was like the coldest season ever in recorded history of the Southern Hemisphere.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.58c81ee3d2862ed551646ff8f6f99d9e.png

no info is more urgent than that, yes?............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EXCERPT

When you take a more complete look at the context, rather than the limited 172 year / 0.0000086% of climate history Carbon Brief seems to want you to focus on, there is nothing unusually warm about today’s global temperatures. Even if further global warming does occur, if those little primate ancestors with walnut size brains could manage to thrive in the Palaeocene – Eocene thermal maximum, I’m pretty sure we could figure out how to cope with a small fraction of the warming they enjoyed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

gisp2_easterbrook_fig5.png

Climate Alarmists Respond to the Global Warming Pause

Essay by Eric Worrall

The oceans swallowed my global warming? Desperate butt covering from alarmists who are facing increasingly embarrassing questions about the failure of the world to end.

14 July 2022  16:41

Factcheck: No, global warming has not ‘paused’ over the past eight years

A decade ago, many in the climate community were fixated on an apparent “pause” in rising global surface temperatures. So many studies were published on the so-called “hiatus” that scientists jokedthat the journal Nature Climate Change should be renamed Nature Hiatus. 

However, after a decade or so of slower-than-average warming, rapid temperature rise returned in 2015-16 and global temperatures have since remained quite warm. The last eight years are the warmest eight years since records began in the mid-1800s.

While the hiatus debate generated a lot of useful research on short-term temperature variability, it is clear now that it was a small variation on a relentlessly upward trend in temperatures.

But nearly a decade later, talk of a “pause” has re-emerged among climate sceptics, with columnist Melanie Phillips claiming in the Times this week that, “contrary to the dogma which holds that a rise in carbon dioxide inescapably heats up the atmosphere, global temperature has embarrassingly flatlined for more than seven years even as CO2 levels have risen”.

This falsehood appears to be sourced from a blog post by long-time climate sceptic Christopher Monckton, which claims to highlight the lack of a trend in global temperatures over the past eight years.

In a rebuttal letter to the TimesProf Richard Betts – head of climate impacts research at the Met Office Hadley Centre and University of Exeter – points out that it is “fully expected that there will be peaks of particularly high temperatures followed by a few less hot years before the next new record year”.

In fact, the last eight years have been unusually warm – even warmer than expected given the long-term...

[Article continues]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/21/climate-alarmists-respond-to-the-global-warming-pause/

th?id=OIP.o62aGr8DLOqNZjhtQ1H4-QHaC2%26p

SAMPLE

WUWT-cooling-trump.jpg?fit=720,494&ssl=1

https://wattsupwiththat.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a paper published on Tallbloke’s Talkshop that via a new SSR dataset find that not only is CO2 not the primary driver of warming but also seems to offer confirmation of the fraudulant nature of establishment “adjustments” and “corrections” of past climate measurements:

Implications of a New Gridded Dataset of Surface Solar Radiation
for the Evolution of Earth’s Global Surface Temperature Since 1960

Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. and Karl Zeller, Ph.D.
July, 2022

“…We find that the SSR-based global temperature estimates match quite well the UAH satellite record from 1982 to the present in terms of overall trend and interannual variability suggesting that the observed warming of the past 40 years was the result of a decreased cloud albedo and an increased SSR rather than rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The HadCRUT5 record also shows a satisfactory agreement with the SSR-based temperatures over the same time period. However, between 1962 and 1983, the SSR-based temperature reconstruction depicts a steep global cooling reaching a rate of -1.3 K/decade during the 1970s. This is drastically different from the mild warming claimed by HadCRUT5 over this time period. The cooling episode indicated by the SSR data is corroborated by more than 115 magazine and newspaper articles published throughout the 1970s as well as a classified CIA Report from 1974 all quoting eminent climatologists of the day, who warned the public that the observed worldwide drop of temperatures threatened the global food supply and economic security. Based on this, we conclude that researchers in charge of the HadCRUT dataset have likely removed the 1962 – 1983 cooling episode from the records before the publication of HadCRUT1 in 1994 in an effort to hide evidence contradicting the UN Resolution 43/53 from 1988, which proclaimed a global warming caused by greenhouse gases as a major societal concern, and urged Governments to treat it as a priority issue in climate research and environmental protection initiatives…”

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2022/07/11/ned-nikolov-does-a-surface-solar-radiation-dataset-expose-a-major-manipulation-of-global-temperature-records/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tom Nolan said:

VIDEO from Project Veritas

Caught Red Handed! CNN tech director speaks about instilling the next fear (Climate change) as COVID is no longer a fear factor in controlling Americans.

https://twitter.com/aboutparesh/status/1549770683890253825

Imagine that!!!!!!  It's just plain B.S. period.  Don't need no windmills and solar crap, it's a scam to make some wealthy folks more wealthy.

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2022 at 8:40 PM, Tom Nolan said:

From a paper published on Tallbloke’s Talkshop that via a new SSR dataset find that not only is CO2 not the primary driver of warming but also seems to offer confirmation of the fraudulant nature of establishment “adjustments” and “corrections” of past climate measurements:

 

Implications of a New Gridded Dataset of Surface Solar Radiation
for the Evolution of Earth’s Global Surface Temperature Since 1960

 

Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. and Karl Zeller, Ph.D.
July, 2022

 

“…We find that the SSR-based global temperature estimates match quite well the UAH satellite record from 1982 to the present in terms of overall trend and interannual variability suggesting that the observed warming of the past 40 years was the result of a decreased cloud albedo and an increased SSR rather than rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The HadCRUT5 record also shows a satisfactory agreement with the SSR-based temperatures over the same time period. However, between 1962 and 1983, the SSR-based temperature reconstruction depicts a steep global cooling reaching a rate of -1.3 K/decade during the 1970s. This is drastically different from the mild warming claimed by HadCRUT5 over this time period. The cooling episode indicated by the SSR data is corroborated by more than 115 magazine and newspaper articles published throughout the 1970s as well as a classified CIA Report from 1974 all quoting eminent climatologists of the day, who warned the public that the observed worldwide drop of temperatures threatened the global food supply and economic security. Based on this, we conclude that researchers in charge of the HadCRUT dataset have likely removed the 1962 – 1983 cooling episode from the records before the publication of HadCRUT1 in 1994 in an effort to hide evidence contradicting the UN Resolution 43/53 from 1988, which proclaimed a global warming caused by greenhouse gases as a major societal concern, and urged Governments to treat it as a priority issue in climate research and environmental protection initiatives…”

 

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2022/07/11/ned-nikolov-does-a-surface-solar-radiation-dataset-expose-a-major-manipulation-of-global-temperature-records/

 

Not too sure if i remember correctly

image.png.9d96b20a140f18b55120db1237457516.png

Not Sure if our assumption remains true when it comes to solar activity...

For example, we assume that hydrogen has 1proton, 1 electron, no neutron.

what if, hydrogen naturally has 1 proton, 1 electron, forming 1 neutron.

It has a mass of 1.

If hydrogen exists in stable molecular form of H2, sharing covalent bond, in the sun, it would be 2 electrons, 2 protons, forming 2 neutrons.

Fusion of two hydrogen molecules would form an atom with 4 electrons, 4 protons, 4 neutrons. Decay of this atom would produce

2 Alpha ray of two proton two neutron / Helium

4 beta ray of one electron

What if....... it is fission of atom produces alpha, beta rays or heat?

Then, there would be a saturation point of production and decay which justify the existence of a cycle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EXCERPTS

...In late 1957 a newspaper report on Revelle's research was the first to use the term 'global warming.' Revelle focus however was getting more data and understanding it better.   In the 1960s Revelle was teaching at Harvard and shared with students his interest in the global warming theory. At the same time and on the same campus, Al Gore was studying political science but took one course on real science. Fatefully, that was Revelle's. Gore put that little global warming package in his knapsack.

Two decades later in 1988, Gore ran in the Democratic presidential primary. That campaign now is largely scrubbed from the internet, but the published biographies are clear - he was pro-guns, life, school prayer, tobacco and Jesus. It was a searing experience. Gore came third but only because he took so long to drop out. The party base was cranky with Gore. African Americans accused him of racist tactics in the campaign. Gore needed a make-over. His party had moved sharply left. So would he.

A few short months after the 1988 debacle, Gore wrote a column in The Washington Post about global warming. Communism was imploding and the left needed a new cause. Global warming it was and Gore its champion.

Gore's lack of scientific credibility was papered over with his effective pitch - he was to Revelle what St Paul was to Christ - the mass communicator of a sacred message. Thanks mostly to Gore, global warming was now no longer a debate confined to academia. The evening news was reporting it as an imminent apocalyptic certainty without radical government action...

...It would get worse. During the trial, Gore (now VP) phoned Ted Koppel pitching that ABC's Nightline investigate, not Singer's science, but who was funding him. Koppel did a story but not what Gore had in mind. Koppel told his primetime audience "Gore was resorting to political means to achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific basis." Ouch!

It was now a train wreck. Some speculated Clinton might need a new VP. Gore quickly cut his losses and so...

...In 2006 the second crusade was launched via a new bookAn Inconvenient Truth — which was turned into a movie followed by an academy award, a Nobel prize, sainthood and a tonne of cash...

...The film claims Revelle believed the science was settled almost immediately after the data collection began in 1957. A bald-faced big lie. Gore is vague but creates the impression he and Revelle were close but (1) there are no photos of them together, (2) Revelle's final testimony was critical of Gore's position, and (3) Gore worked deviously to alter Revelle's position....

FROM

Revealed: Al Gore's real climate catastrophe

Ian Plimer, John Ruddick
Spectator Australia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 7/24/2022 at 11:15 PM, Tom Nolan said:

EXCERPTS

...In late 1957 a newspaper report on Revelle's research was the first to use the term 'global warming.' Revelle focus however was getting more data and understanding it better.   In the 1960s Revelle was teaching at Harvard and shared with students his interest in the global warming theory. At the same time and on the same campus, Al Gore was studying political science but took one course on real science. Fatefully, that was Revelle's. Gore put that little global warming package in his knapsack.

Two decades later in 1988, Gore ran in the Democratic presidential primary. That campaign now is largely scrubbed from the internet, but the published biographies are clear - he was pro-guns, life, school prayer, tobacco and Jesus. It was a searing experience. Gore came third but only because he took so long to drop out. The party base was cranky with Gore. African Americans accused him of racist tactics in the campaign. Gore needed a make-over. His party had moved sharply left. So would he.

A few short months after the 1988 debacle, Gore wrote a column in The Washington Post about global warming. Communism was imploding and the left needed a new cause. Global warming it was and Gore its champion.

Gore's lack of scientific credibility was papered over with his effective pitch - he was to Revelle what St Paul was to Christ - the mass communicator of a sacred message. Thanks mostly to Gore, global warming was now no longer a debate confined to academia. The evening news was reporting it as an imminent apocalyptic certainty without radical government action...

...It would get worse. During the trial, Gore (now VP) phoned Ted Koppel pitching that ABC's Nightline investigate, not Singer's science, but who was funding him. Koppel did a story but not what Gore had in mind. Koppel told his primetime audience "Gore was resorting to political means to achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific basis." Ouch!

It was now a train wreck. Some speculated Clinton might need a new VP. Gore quickly cut his losses and so...

...In 2006 the second crusade was launched via a new bookAn Inconvenient Truth — which was turned into a movie followed by an academy award, a Nobel prize, sainthood and a tonne of cash...

...The film claims Revelle believed the science was settled almost immediately after the data collection began in 1957. A bald-faced big lie. Gore is vague but creates the impression he and Revelle were close but (1) there are no photos of them together, (2) Revelle's final testimony was critical of Gore's position, and (3) Gore worked deviously to alter Revelle's position....

FROM

Revealed: Al Gore's real climate catastrophe

Ian Plimer, John Ruddick
Spectator Australia

This was after Al invented the Internets.

Edited by Andrei Moutchkine
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/big-green-lie-almost-everyone-claims-believe

The Big Green Lie Almost Everyone Claims To Believe

Tyler Durden's Photo
by Tyler Durden
Sunday, Aug 07, 2022 - 03:30 PM

Authored by Patricia Adams and Lawrence Solomon via The Epoch Times,

Almost every member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, pays homage to the Big Green Lie. So do all the past and remaining Conservative candidates vying to be prime minister of the UK and every candidate currently vying for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. So does virtually all of the mainstream press. The Big Green Lie—that carbon dioxide is a pollutant—is so pervasive that even those considered skeptics—including right-wing NGOs and pundits—generally adhere to the orthodoxy, differing not in their stated belief that CO2 is a pollutant but only in how calamitous a pollutant it is.

GettyImages-96493283-web-700x420.jpg?ito

Because everyone now participates in the CO2-emissions-are-bad lie, the debate over climate policy hasn’t been over whether a CO2 problem exists but over how urgently CO2 needs to be addressed, and how it should be addressed. Do we have eight years left before Armageddon becomes inevitable or decades? Do we get off fossil fuels by building nuclear plants or wind turbines? Should we change our lifestyles to need less of everything? Or should we mitigate this evil—the view of those deemed climate minimalists—by shielding our continents from a rising of the oceans by enclosing them behind sea walls?

With almost everyone across the political spectrum publicly agreeing that curbing CO2 is a good thing, the debate has been between those who want to do good quickly by reaching Net Zero in 2040 and sticks in the mud who want to slow down the doing of a good thing. With discourse careening down rabbit holes, almost everyone gets lost pursuing solutions to Alice-in-Wonderland delusions—and wasting trillions of dollars in the process.

Until the 2000s, when climate change was still called global warming and the mainstream media still noticed that none of the myriad predictions of a climate catastrophe were being borne out—the polar caps weren’t melting, Manhattan wasn’t about to be submerged, malaria wasn’t infecting the northern hemisphere—many exposed man-made climate change as a hoax. The leaked Climategate emails revealed how scientists had conspired to “hide the decline” in temperatures that didn’t conform to their models. The claim that 97 percent of scientists supported the global warming theory was exposed as a fraud, as was the claim that the 4,000 scientists associated with the IPCC endorsed its report—those 4,000 hadn’t endorsed it, and most hadn’t even read it but had merely reviewed parts of the report and often disagreed with what they read.

The claim that the “science was settled” on climate change never withstood scrutiny. Scientists around the world signed a series of petitions to dispute that claim. The 2008 Oregon Petition, spearheaded by a former president of the National Academy of Science and championed by Freeman Dyson, Albert Einstein’s successor at Princeton and one of the world’s most preeminent scientists, was signed by more than 31,000 scientists and experts who agreed that “the proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. … Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

GettyImages-1236538614-1200x777.jpg?itok

COP26 President Alok Sharma (C) speaks during the U.N. Climate Change Conference COP 26 in Glasgow, Scotland, on Nov. 13, 2021. (Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

What is settled is the abject failure of the three-decade-long attempt by the bureaucracies of the 195 countries of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to convince anyone other than themselves, a credulous media, and a relatively few gullible people that climate change represents an existential threat. Poll after poll over the decades show the public gives climate change short shrift when asked to rank its importance.

Gallup Poll released this week, which asked Americans, “What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?” found that climate change didn’t meet its criteria of the many issues worth listing. As Gallup noted, “Many parts of the nation have suffered record heat in recent weeks, and other regions have received record flooding. But a low 3% of Americans mention the weather, the environment or climate change as the nation’s top problem.” So, too, last month, where “just 1 percent of voters in a recent New York Times/Siena College poll named climate change as the most important issue facing the country …. Even among voters under 30, the group thought to be most energized by the issue, that figure was 3 percent.”

Although most elites continue to pay lip service to the urgency of curbing carbon dioxide, their actions belie their words, whether judged by their penchant for private jet travel or their disingenuous commitment to climate-related policies. According to an International Energy Agency (IEA) announcement last week, coal is once again king: Global coal demand this year will “match the annual record set in 2013, and coal demand is likely to increase further next year to a new all-time high.” The IEA’s assessment comports with a worldwide embrace of coal that includes the European Union, until recently the world’s most zealous climate scold. The EU is now walking back its Net Zero commitments.

In some countries, governments are not so much walking back climate policies as unabashedly kicking them out. Calling wind turbines “fans” that harm the environment and cause “visual pollution” without providing much energy,

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said the government will end the subsidies and stop issuing permits for new wind projects.

Israel is also set to pull the plug on the country’s wind industry, its environmental protection minister arguing that wind provides a “negligible contribution” to the country’s power system “compared to the potential for harm to nature, which is high.”

Recognizing renewables as economic and environmental boondoggles, as Mexico and Israel have done, is a step toward puncturing the lie that a fuel that emits carbon dioxide can be sensibly replaced. The other shoe to drop is the lie that carbon dioxide-emitting fuels should be replaced.

The fantastical claim that CO2 is a pollutant was cut out of whole cloth. The 2008 statement by the 31,000 experts—that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate” is as true today as it was then, and as it always has been. No scientist anywhere at any time has shown that manmade CO2 emissions—aka nature’s fertilizer—do any harm to anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Tom Nolan said:

https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/big-green-lie-almost-everyone-claims-believe

The Big Green Lie Almost Everyone Claims To Believe

Tyler Durden's Photo
by Tyler Durden
Sunday, Aug 07, 2022 - 03:30 PM

Authored by Patricia Adams and Lawrence Solomon via The Epoch Times,

Almost every member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, pays homage to the Big Green Lie. So do all the past and remaining Conservative candidates vying to be prime minister of the UK and every candidate currently vying for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. So does virtually all of the mainstream press. The Big Green Lie—that carbon dioxide is a pollutant—is so pervasive that even those considered skeptics—including right-wing NGOs and pundits—generally adhere to the orthodoxy, differing not in their stated belief that CO2 is a pollutant but only in how calamitous a pollutant it is.

GettyImages-96493283-web-700x420.jpg?ito

Because everyone now participates in the CO2-emissions-are-bad lie, the debate over climate policy hasn’t been over whether a CO2 problem exists but over how urgently CO2 needs to be addressed, and how it should be addressed. Do we have eight years left before Armageddon becomes inevitable or decades? Do we get off fossil fuels by building nuclear plants or wind turbines? Should we change our lifestyles to need less of everything? Or should we mitigate this evil—the view of those deemed climate minimalists—by shielding our continents from a rising of the oceans by enclosing them behind sea walls?

With almost everyone across the political spectrum publicly agreeing that curbing CO2 is a good thing, the debate has been between those who want to do good quickly by reaching Net Zero in 2040 and sticks in the mud who want to slow down the doing of a good thing. With discourse careening down rabbit holes, almost everyone gets lost pursuing solutions to Alice-in-Wonderland delusions—and wasting trillions of dollars in the process.

Until the 2000s, when climate change was still called global warming and the mainstream media still noticed that none of the myriad predictions of a climate catastrophe were being borne out—the polar caps weren’t melting, Manhattan wasn’t about to be submerged, malaria wasn’t infecting the northern hemisphere—many exposed man-made climate change as a hoax. The leaked Climategate emails revealed how scientists had conspired to “hide the decline” in temperatures that didn’t conform to their models. The claim that 97 percent of scientists supported the global warming theory was exposed as a fraud, as was the claim that the 4,000 scientists associated with the IPCC endorsed its report—those 4,000 hadn’t endorsed it, and most hadn’t even read it but had merely reviewed parts of the report and often disagreed with what they read.

The claim that the “science was settled” on climate change never withstood scrutiny. Scientists around the world signed a series of petitions to dispute that claim. The 2008 Oregon Petition, spearheaded by a former president of the National Academy of Science and championed by Freeman Dyson, Albert Einstein’s successor at Princeton and one of the world’s most preeminent scientists, was signed by more than 31,000 scientists and experts who agreed that “the proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. … Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

GettyImages-1236538614-1200x777.jpg?itok

COP26 President Alok Sharma (C) speaks during the U.N. Climate Change Conference COP 26 in Glasgow, Scotland, on Nov. 13, 2021. (Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

What is settled is the abject failure of the three-decade-long attempt by the bureaucracies of the 195 countries of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to convince anyone other than themselves, a credulous media, and a relatively few gullible people that climate change represents an existential threat. Poll after poll over the decades show the public gives climate change short shrift when asked to rank its importance.

Gallup Poll released this week, which asked Americans, “What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?” found that climate change didn’t meet its criteria of the many issues worth listing. As Gallup noted, “Many parts of the nation have suffered record heat in recent weeks, and other regions have received record flooding. But a low 3% of Americans mention the weather, the environment or climate change as the nation’s top problem.” So, too, last month, where “just 1 percent of voters in a recent New York Times/Siena College poll named climate change as the most important issue facing the country …. Even among voters under 30, the group thought to be most energized by the issue, that figure was 3 percent.”

Although most elites continue to pay lip service to the urgency of curbing carbon dioxide, their actions belie their words, whether judged by their penchant for private jet travel or their disingenuous commitment to climate-related policies. According to an International Energy Agency (IEA) announcement last week, coal is once again king: Global coal demand this year will “match the annual record set in 2013, and coal demand is likely to increase further next year to a new all-time high.” The IEA’s assessment comports with a worldwide embrace of coal that includes the European Union, until recently the world’s most zealous climate scold. The EU is now walking back its Net Zero commitments.

In some countries, governments are not so much walking back climate policies as unabashedly kicking them out. Calling wind turbines “fans” that harm the environment and cause “visual pollution” without providing much energy,

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said the government will end the subsidies and stop issuing permits for new wind projects.

Israel is also set to pull the plug on the country’s wind industry, its environmental protection minister arguing that wind provides a “negligible contribution” to the country’s power system “compared to the potential for harm to nature, which is high.”

Recognizing renewables as economic and environmental boondoggles, as Mexico and Israel have done, is a step toward puncturing the lie that a fuel that emits carbon dioxide can be sensibly replaced. The other shoe to drop is the lie that carbon dioxide-emitting fuels should be replaced.

The fantastical claim that CO2 is a pollutant was cut out of whole cloth. The 2008 statement by the 31,000 experts—that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate” is as true today as it was then, and as it always has been. No scientist anywhere at any time has shown that manmade CO2 emissions—aka nature’s fertilizer—do any harm to anything.

The reason why this topic has been unsettling............

Climate change, or global warming and its consequences, did not get that much attention when the first petition signed by ~100 scientists was made public in the late 80s or 90s. It's most likely people were occupied with something else at that moment. In addition,  information regarding it might not be much enough back then.

For example, I was watching swarm of bees died outside of my resident back then. It must had been a coincidence that it happened few days after i dissected a rat and brought it back to investigate further. I wondered " what has happened" ......... No synapse signal to dissect them for further investigation........... I did not recall any subsequent thought 30 seconds later because i was occupied with something else and i did not know enough to answer why......

How did it become such a heated subject and when? Most probably after an extrapolated prediction that oil reserves could last us not more than 50 years or so i.e. we would be out of oil droplets in 2030 or so...... A rush to find alternatives for fossil fuel began...... it gradually becomes a forcible push because the progress has been too slow. " We are out of time... OH NO........" 😱  So the race goes.....

Besides that, research data on ice cores from ice age shown that there is a direct correlation between CO2 concentration and higher recorded temperature or warming. CO2 is the culprit for global warming started to become a religious chant......

The fear for CO2 could also be related to the unhealthy damage it caused during industrial revolution e,g, fog, haze, acid rain that damage plants, buildings, soil etc.....

Confession.... I did not follow the chant, merely vaguely acknowledged this information.. and did not remember a thing after 5 seconds...... Frankly, it was none of my B_s_ _ _ss..... back then.........So, how did it become related to me? 'o' ..... If not mistaken, it must have been once upon a time, when I had nothing much to do but to write a book and joint a forum after a year of persistent invitation............ +.'

Alright. the important keys might be these.............

1. we did not care enough.........

  ( we were busy and occupied with respective routine, no? '-') ..........

2. we did not know enough.........

  ( we gathered info to know, chanted " imorteb" along and that's all, no?)

3. now we have nothing much to do.....

  ( but to get involve to make things better) 'n'

 

Today, we have pieces of information here and there. Beating around the bush with one dysfunctional policy after another enthusiastically......

There might have been cult info that is not so popular yet, read and acknowledged only by a few, which introduce us into refreshing direction of thinking. A wider vision, from a higher perspective. More wholesome, more inclusive, more practical.

Until more joining the cult, seeing with new pair of eyes, meaningful concensus can be made and practical actions can be taken. Until then, someone please keep those bushes alive........... to be beaten........

image.png.a489fbd987746dff31544befa4d6fe20.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0