Whether they’re debating a co-worker in the break room or making a movie with a bunch of oversized powerpoint slides, one thing radical environmentalists always seem to do is conveniently leave out any facts that go against their “global-warming-is-going-to-kill-us-all” argument. For example, they have no problem arguing that sea ice is going to melt and water levels will rise due to increasing global temperatures, but they leave out the fact that Antarctic sea ice has actually expanded in recent years. They tell us that carbon emissions are reaching astronomical levels, but conveniently leave out the fact that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been much higher thousands of years prior to the industrial revolution. This is how they sell their agenda to the American people – through lies, half-truths and misinformation.
Yet another example comes from a recent study conducted by the European Commission and the Joint Research Center, which found that heat waves with temperatures of 55 degrees Celsius (or 131 degrees Fahrenheit) would begin to emerge if global warming continues. “Heatwaves amplified by high humidity can reach above 40°C and may occur as often as every two years, leading to serious risks for human health,” the study explains. “If global temperatures rise with 4°C, a new super heatwave of 55°C can hit regularly in many parts of the world, including Europe.”
Yet another study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that “by the end of this century, climate change could lead to summer heat waves with levels of heat and humidity that exceed what humans can survive without protection.”
First and foremost, it’s important to understand that these types of “studies” have been routinely published for decades now. Time and time again, these research groups, which are mostly run by leftists and environmental extremists (the people liberals refer to as “climate scientists”) get together, manipulate data, and come out with “shocking” new reports about how doomed we all are if we don’t go green. Then doomsday never comes, and so they publish a series of new “studies” as if to say, “we were wrong before, but we really mean it this time.” Al Gore is known for doing this very thing. In 2006, he famously predicted that the world would fall apart by 2016 unless we slowed the effects of global warming, and yet – surprise! – it never happened.
But even though these two studies make it seem as though the end is near, once again, the whole truth was not revealed. Last year, a study published in the British Journal The Lancet found that cold weather is 20 times more deadly than hot weather, meaning you are much more likely to die when the temperature takes a dip than you are when it rises.
The study analyzed data on over 74 million deaths in 13 countries between the years 1985 and 2012. Of those 74 million deaths, 5.4 million were related to cold weather, and only 311,000 were related to heat.
“Public-health policies focus almost exclusively on minimizing the health consequences of heat waves,” explained Gasparrini, one of the authors of the study. “Our findings suggest that these measures need to be refocused and extended to take account of a whole range of effects associated with temperature.”
The reason why there is so little focus on deaths related to cold weather is because it simply doesn’t fit into the left’s agenda, even though it is a fact that cold temperatures have more of a negative effect on people than hot temperatures do. If the liberals drew attention to the harmful effects of cold weather, then it would take attention away from what they have been trying to sell the people for decades – that a warming world is the single greatest threat to our future, and unless we surrender our liberty, we will lose that future.
The evidence behind global climate change continues to mount, and scientists keep speaking out. Now they hope the world will listen.
The latest international climate report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) confirms that 2016 was the third consecutive year of record global heat.
On Thursday afternoon the American Meteorological Society published the 27th annual “State of the Climate” report, which verifies last year surpassed 2015 as the hottest since record keeping began in 1880.
Based on preliminary data, NASA and NOOA had made the same assessment back in January, but this week’s report is considered definitive.
“We’re scientists, and we’re providing objective information,” Jessica Blunden, a climate scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., told Yahoo News. “We don’t go into policy, but we provide the information for people who want to go further with that.”
According to the report, the effect of long-term global warming and a powerful El Niño early on pushed 2016 into record-setting warmth. The global average sea level reached a new record high last year as well, to 3.25 inches above the average level in 1993, which marks the beginning of the satellite altimeter record.
Scientists also said that the average Arctic land surface temperature continued to warm and global ice and snow cover continued to decline. Sea ice extents in the Antarctic hit record daily and monthly lows in August and November.
The “State of the Climate” report is based on contributions from nearly 500 scientists from more than 60 countries, using tens of thousands of measurements from several independent data sets. This summary of the global climate confirms data released on Jan. 18 based on analyses from scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.
Blunden said the use of additional independent data sets distinguishes this report from what came before.
“The big difference in this report is we don’t just look at NOAA data. There are about four different independent data sets we looked at to come to this conclusion,” Blunden told Yahoo News. “It’s not just NOAA who is agreeing with it. NASA, the U.K. Met Office and the Japan Meteorological Agency are agreeing.”
Since the previous data was released mere days before President Trump’s inauguration, this peer-reviewed report is the most thorough assessment of climate change officially released during the Trump era.
Deke Arndt, chief of the climate-monitoring branch at NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, described the report as diagnostic when asked if anyone from the White House had weighed in on it or questioned its findings.
“This report is a diagnostic report. It basically diagnoses what is happening in the climate system,” Arndt said on a conference call. “It’s intended to provide intelligence to those sort of decision makers that you’re talking about.”
Concentrations of major greenhouse gases in the atmosphere also reached to new highs in 2016. For instance, the global average concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary driver of anthropogenic climate change, in the atmosphere reached 402.9 parts per million (ppm). This was the first time on record that CO2 concentration exceeded 400 ppm. The consensus of climate scientists is that the maximum safe level is 350.
(Natural News) A study by researchers from the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill has sent shock-waves across the globe with its finding that over 260,000 people will die prematurely by the year 2100 because of air pollution triggered by global warming. The “catastrophic man-made global warming” alarmists love these kinds of studies, of course, because they reinforce their doomsday predictions. However, even if these researchers’ alarming findings are 100 percent reliable (and there is enough conflicting evidence out there to make that highly unlikely), even a quarter of a million people would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of people that Big Pharma will likely kill by 2100. More on that later.
According to the Daily Mail, the researchers believe that hotter temperatures will cause an increase in the speed of the chemical reactions that cause air pollutants, and that as areas become increasingly drier, there will be less rain to remove these pollutants. These higher temperatures will also cause trees to emit more organic pollutants.
The study predicts that this toxic combination will result in killer smog that will kill 260,000 people across the globe (with the exception of Africa) by 2100.
The Mail reports:
The rise in toxic air pollution adds to other risk of death from climate change including heat stress, a lack of clean water and food, severe storms and the spread of infectious diseases.
The study was published in the Nature journal, Climate Change.
Of course, the mainstream media has been quick to jump all over this story, blasting readers with headlines like the Mail’s “Global warming will cause 260,000 premature deaths from air pollution by 2100, shocking study finds.” While that number does seem high, and it is true that pollution causes many deaths worldwide each year, there is a far more alarming number that the mainstream media has made no attempt to disclose: The number of deaths attributable to Big Pharma and its toxic chemicals.
Nonetheless, if we include only the figures for deaths which can directly be blamed on Big Pharma, a staggering 21,483,350 (at the time of writing) people died at their hands since 2000. That’s a mind-blowing average of 1,227,620 per year for the past 17.5 years.
Figures included were for deaths resulting from: Chemotherapy; adverse drug reactions; SSRIs; prescription drugs; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; opioids; benzodiazepines; antidepressant overdoses; anti-epileptic and anti-Parkinsonism drugs; systemic and hematological drugs; antipsychotic and neuroleptic drugs; acetaminophen-related deaths; respiratory drugs; cardiovascular drugs; barbiturates; autonomic nervous system drugs; anesthetics and therapeutic gases; hormones, insulins and glucocorticoids; anti-infectives; diuretics and other drugs, medicaments and biological substances; and topical drugs.
Based on the aforementioned average, by the year 2100, 122,762,000 people will have been killed by Big Pharma – a number that is more than 45,000 percent higher than the number of people predicted to die from so-called global warming.
This begs the question: Why is the media silent? Who will speak for the millions who have died and will continue to die at the hands of the greedy pharmaceutical giants?
(Natural News) A rational review of global warming data has unveiled systematic scientific fraud to alter temperature data in support of the global warming false narrative. This is the largest discovery of scientific fraud in the history of science, and it shows that “global warming” and “climate change” are elaborate science hoaxes rooted in fraud, not fact. As The Daily Caller reports:
A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”
The purpose of the widespread fraud has been to achieve “consensus” by exposing scientists to fake data that appear to show a catastrophic rise in average global temperatures. It’s all being done to support the moneymaking scam of carbon taxes that enrich fraudulent science hoaxers like Al Gore who are raking in billions of dollars from carbon tax schemes and oppressive government regulation of carbon emissions.
The fraudulent warming data are then used as a basis for climate modeling software systems that extrapolate the fraudulent data to predict “climate doomsday” for the planet. This is where delusional scientists like Stephen Hawking lose their minds and claim that Earth will be transformed into Venus with temperatures over 800 degrees (F) and sulfuric acid rain. In truth, humanity couldn’t achieve such large-scale terraforming outcomes even if we tried.
“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”
The greatest science HOAX in human history
The entire climate change / global warming narrative is an elaborate science hoax that’s being continually faked through the ongoing, systematic alteration of temperature data in order to “conform” with the false narrative. At every level, it is Orwellian science at its worst, complete with its own Ministry of Truth that pushes its false narrative through the fake news media. Many scientists are deliberately participating in the fraud, knowingly working to alter temperature data in order to prop up their delusional narratives that collapse under the slightest scrutiny.
This is why all rational skepticism about climate change is shamed and silenced: Because the fake science narrative cannot withstand scientific scrutiny. Thus, its proponents declare “the science is settled,” meaning no discussion or dissent shall be allowed (because if it were, the fraud would be quickly exposed).
This is how “science” got hijacked by climate change cultists who share more in common with dogmatic, tyrannical CULTS than anything that could be honestly labeled “science.” Watch my news video to learn more:
From the Hagmann blood sugar protocol to the Hodges joint protocol, Dr. Broer has helped hundreds of thousands of people. There is something for everybody atHealthmasters.com. Take 5% off the cost of your order with coupon code DAVE5
Last Week, David Wallace-Wells wrote a cover story for of New York Magazine, “The Uninhabitable Earth,” on some of the worst-case scenarios that the climate crisis could cause by the end of this century. It describes killer heat waves, crippling agricultural failures, devastated economies, plagues, resource wars, and more. It has been read more than two million times.
“Importantly, fear does not motivate, and appealing to it is often counter-productive as it tends to distance people from the problem, leading them to disengage, doubt and even dismiss it,” wrote Michael Mann, Susan Joy Hassol and Tom Toles at the Washington Post.
Erich Holthaus tweeted about the consequences of the piece:
“A widely-read piece like this that is not suitably grounded in fact may provoke unnecessary panic and anxiety among readers.”
“And that has real-world consequences. My twitter feed has been filled w people who, after reading DWW’s piece, have felt deep anxiety.”
“There are people who say they are now considering not having kids, partly because of this. People are losing sleep, reevaluating their lives.”
While I think both Mann and Holthaus are brilliant scientists who identified some factual problems in the article, I strongly disagree with their statements about the role of emotions—namely, fear—in climate communications and politics. I am also skeptical of whether climate scientists should be treated as national arbiters of psychological or political questions, in general. I would like to offer my thoughts as a clinical psychologist, and as the founder and director of The Climate Mobilization. “Our job is not to protect people from the truth or the feelings that accompany it—it’s to protect them from the climate crisis.” Affect tolerance—the ability to tolerate a wide range of feelings in oneself and others—is a critical psychological skill. On the other hand, affect phobia—the fear of certain feelings in oneself or others—is a major psychological problem, as it causes people to rely heavily on psychological defenses.
Much of the climate movement seems to suffer from affect phobia, which is probably not surprising given that scientific culture aspires to be purely rational, free of emotional influence. Further, the feelings involved in processing the climate crisis—fear, grief, anger, guilt, and helplessness—can be overwhelming. But that doesn’t mean we should try to avoid “making” people feel such things. Experiencing them is a normal, healthy, necessary part of coming to terms with the climate crisis. I agree with David Roberts that it is OK, indeed imperative, to tell the whole, frightening story. As I argued in a 2015 essay,The Transformative Power of Climate Truth, it’s the job of those of us trying to protect humanity and restore a safe climate to tell the truth about the climate crisis and help people process and channel their own feelings—not to preemptively try to manage and constrain those feelings.
Holthaus writes of people feeling deep anxiety, losing sleep, re-considering their lives due to the article… but this is actually a good thing. Those people are coming out of the trance of denial and starting to confront the reality of our existential emergency. I hope that every single American, every single human experiences such a crisis of conscience. It is the first step to taking substantial action. Our job is not to protect people from the truth or the feelings that accompany it—it’s to protect them from the climate crisis.
I know many of you have been losing sleep and reconsidering your lives in light of the climate crisis for years. We at The Climate Mobilization sure have. TCM exists to make it possible for people to turn that fear into intense dedication and focused action towards a restoring a safe climate.
I do agree with the critique, made by Alex Steffen among others, that dire discussions of the climate crisis should be accompanied with a discussion of solutions. But these solutions have to be up to the task of saving civilization and the natural world. As we know, the only solution that offers effective protection is a maximal intensity effort, grounded in justice, that brings the United States to carbon negative in 10 years or less and begins to remove all the excess carbon from the atmosphere. That’s the magic combination for motivating people: telling the truth about the scale of the crisis and the solution.
In Los Angeles, our ally City Councilmember Paul Koretz is advocating a WWII-scale mobilization of Los Angeles to make it carbon neutral by 2025. He understands and talks about the horrific dangers of the climate crisis and is calling for heroic action to counter them. Local activists and community groups are inspired by his challenge.
Columnist Joe Romm noted, we aren’t doomed—we are choosing to be doomed by failing to respond adequately to the emergency, which would of course entail initiating a WWII-scale response to the climate emergency. Our Victory Plan lays out what policies would look like that, if implemented, would actually protect billions of people and millions of species from decimation. They include: 1) An immediate ban on new fossil fuel infrastructure and a scheduled shut down of all fossil fuels in 10 years; 2) massive government investment in renewables; 3) overhauling our agricultural system to make it a huge carbon sink; 4) fair-shares rationing to reduce demand; 5) A federally-financed job guarantee to eliminate unemployment 6) a 100% marginal tax on income above $500,000.
Gradualist half measures, such as a gradually phased-in carbon tax or cap-and-trade system, that seem “politically realistic” but have no hope of actually restoring a safe climate, are not adequate to channel people’s fear into productive action.
We know what is physically and morally necessary. It’s our job—as members of the climate emergency movement—to make that politically possible. This will not be easy, emotionally or otherwise. It will take heroic levels of dedication from ordinary people. We hope you join us.
Recently, a controversy over temperature adjustments has spiraled out of control — with proof of records being changed to support Obama’s climate policies and the global warming narrative.
A new research report — published June 27, 2017, by two scientists and a veteran statistician — found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years are totally inconsistent with published and credible temperature data.
“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST [global average surface temperature] data sets are not a valid representation of reality,” the study authors explained. “In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”
Despite the fact that these data sets show that the recent years have been the warmest ever, the results cannot be trusted, noted the authors of the study. The astonishing evidence they found may change the entire idea of global warming and how to address the threats posed by the climate change hoax.
Adjustments in favor of the global warming narrative
The aim of the peer-reviewed study was to validate the adjustments made to raw thermometer readings by NASA, NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), and the U.K.’s Met Office. Climate researchers often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data, TheDaily Caller explained.
Though the study didn’t question the changes to the data, they reported that nearly all the adjustments were in favor of the increasing global warming trend. In an interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation, Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo — who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso — explained that nearly all the warming they are now showing is found in the adjustments, adding that each data set pushed down the 1940s warming trend and pushed up the current warming.
“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said D’Aleo.
Furthermore, the team of researchers concluded that the measurements used to fortify the global warming narrative “nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history” by “systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”
In 2009, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was given legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to tackle climate change issues. Based on these new findings, the study authors noted that the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide or CO2, based on the global warming trend is invalidated.
Sam Kazman, an attorney with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), noted that this study is yet another important piece to add weight to the climate change debate, noting that this alone should give the EPA enough reason to reevaluate the endangerment finding.
Since the evidence used by the EPA to come to their conclusion and put a halt on CO2 emissions does not exist, D’Aleo and Wallace already filed a petition with EPA on behalf of their research group, the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC).
“In sum, all three of the lines of evidence relied upon by EPA to attribute warming to human GHG emissions are invalid,” reads CHCC’s petition. “The Endangerment Finding itself is therefore invalid and should be reconsidered.”
During the Obama-era, we have repeatedly been told that rising CO2-emmisons are destroying the planet. Let’s hope President Donald Trump orders the EPA to reopen the endangerment finding to new scrutiny. Just as he ordered the EPA’s Administrator Scott Pruitt to review the Clean Power Plan. Though Pruitt said that he was spearheading a red team exercise to tackle climate science, he didn’t say a word whether or not he will reopen the case.
For more info about The REAL SCIENCE behind carbon dioxide, watch the video below.
Apparently, he’s become a man of the cloth all of a sudden, even though he is actually pro-abortion. It’s hard to believe that God would give anyone who condones murdering babies the charge of “saving the planet,” but then again — so-called “climate change activists” are doing more harm than good, and their call to purge the Earth of carbon dioxide is actually going to cause even more devastation. Perhaps Gore is really speaking to the Devil?
In his recent publicity stunt to put the spotlight on his new film, An Inconvenient Sequel, Gore spoke with Interview Magazine and likened his “fight” against “global warming” to that of the struggle faced by the women’s suffrage movement and the civil rights movement. Because we all know how hard it is to be Al Gore these days. He essentially described his climate crusade as being more of a religious call to the moral high-ground, and his self-aggrandizing narrative only gets more stomach-turning the more he speaks.
In the interview, Gore commented, “Regarding the climate movement, there are people who say, ‘God is in complete control of everything that happens, and if the Earth is getting warmer, then maybe God intends that,” — a sentiment Gore completely rejects, of course.
“Well, no. God intends for us to take responsibility for how we treat God’s creation, and if we choose to use the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet as an open sewer for 110-million tons of global-warming pollution every day, the consequences are attributable to us,” he suggests.
Gore added, “And if you are a believer, as I am, I think God intends for us to open our eyes and take responsibility for the moral consequences of our actions.”
So basically, Al Gore says that God has actually given us the charge of “fixing” climate change — even though it’s actually been proven to be a hoax.
If you believe in God and believe in Gore, then you also believe God didn’t know what he was doing when he formed the planet.
If Al Gore were truly just a fanatic, perhaps his sentiments wouldn’t be so sickening. But the fact is that the man is a hypocrite. In addition to living in an extravagant mansion, Gore has come under fire for his association with “un-green” companies like Exxon Mobil. He also co-founded the investment firm Generation Investment Managment (GIM). As Climate Change Dispatch reports:
One trust in GIM’s portfolio is SPY (SPDR S&P 500), an exchange-traded fund (an ETF holds assets such as stocks, commodities, or bonds, and trades close to its net asset value over the course of the trading day).
One asset the SPY fund holds is Apple Computer shares, a company in which Gore personally owns 103,574 shares valued at $13,350,688 million (data as of Mar. 4, 2015). Apple makes up 69 million shares of the SPY trust, and coming in at second is Exxon, an [sic] fossil fuel company, making up 49.81 million shares.
In 2015, out of the 30 funds in their portfolio, Gore’s GIM only had one clean energy company, SolarCity.
Global Warming Scam Born In San Fransisco, California By Maurice Strong
Maurice Strong: The climate change and economic crisis require a degree of international cooperation that has only been achieved on a limited basis in wartime and never on the global scale.
MaximsNewsNetwork, a UN news outlet posted an interview with Maurice Strong on October 14, 2009, in which power-behind-the-throne chieftain and current Chinese national Maurice Strong talks about the Copenhagen conference.
In the interview Strong stated- among other things- that “What is necessary is a global system of governance through which the nations of the world cooperate to address issues which none can deal with alone.”
In a spectacular example of doublethink, Strong proves himself a master-conjurer: after stating that “Global government is neither necessary nor practical” he actually says: “(…) the role of global government would be to provide the framework of principles and contexts required to facilitate actions which can be best taken at the local, national or regional levels.”
David-Mayer-de-Rothschild ~ Poster Boy For The Rothschild Global Warming Marketing Scheme.
Fred Dubee & Marisha Wojciechowska-Shibuya: Can the international community and our governments really meet the challenge?
Maurice Strong: The climate change and economic crisis require a degree of international cooperation that has only been achieved on a limited basis in wartime and never on the global scale.
Global government is neither necessary nor practical.
What is necessary is a global system of governance through which the nations of the world cooperate to address issues which none can deal with alone.
Highest priority must be given to those issues which affect the security, sustainability and survival of all humanity.
WORLD CONTROL WILL ALLOW PERMISSION TO PAY AND POLLUTE BY CARBON CREDITS.
This is certainly true of both climate change and the related needs for fundamental changes in our current economic system.
I believe in the principle of subsidiary that all actions should be dealt with at the levels closest to the people concerned.
On this basis, the role of global government would be to provide the framework of principles and context required to facilitate actions which can be best taken at the local, national or regional levels.
Global government. First it’s “neither necessary nor practical”, and then it provides “the framework of principles and context”. Now it’s there, now it’s gone.
Although Strong is apparently hiding out in China, he is still being interviewed in matters of “global governance”. It seems his words are still being listened to by his former employer.
During a preparatory meeting in Switzerland back in July of this year, Strong also advocated “radical things” to be undertaken by all participating nations to make Copenhagen a success for the global elite.
“Copenhagen”, Strong said, “is very very important. I have to say that so far we have not seen real evidence that the governments are prepared to do radical things that they must to in Copenhagen. If we just patch up the existing system, it will not work. It will come back and bite us even more strongly.”
What radical things must governments be prepared to do according to Maurice Strong?
“The climate change issue and the economic issue come from the same roots. And that is the gross inequity and the inadequacy of our economic model. We now know that we have to change that model. We cannot do all of this in one stroke. But we have to design a process that would produce agreement at a much more radical level.”
How convenient then, that the economic recession occurred not long before. A financial crisis coupled to a fabricated environmental one are key ingredients for the world government as envisioned by Strong and company. What’s absolutely key is the concept of incrementalism- a gradual process as opposed to a radical one.
“Hopefully”, says Strong, “Copenhagen will move us forward. I think it is too much to expect that the conference will produce the kind of agreements necessary. But the conference can produce some important agreements that it can provide the foundation for a continuing process.”
The concept of incrementalism is well understood by the big boys. The President’s chief science adviser and notorious eugenicist John P. Holdren stated yesterday on the last day of Copenhagen:
“I think”, Holdren stated, “we ought to get what we can now. Start on the 450ppm trajectory now, and as more evidence appears about the harm caused by climate change, as more experience develops about how well we can do reducing emissions affordably, my guess is that these targets and this timetable will continually be revisited, and they may well become more aggressive over time.”
Although many useful idiots outside the Copenhagen conference halls have naively called for “Climate Action Now!” (while standing in an ice-cold raging blizzard), the people inside understand that their desired global government is a step by step process, aiming to incrementally implement their age-old plan for world domination.
We have reached a dangerous state of scientific tyranny. People are ridiculed and even vilified for questioning the prevailing narratives about the nature of our world, but this counters the true meaning of science. At its core, science is about questioning what we think we know.
“A central lesson of science is that to understand complex issues (or even simple ones), we must try to free our minds of dogma and to guarantee the freedom to publish, to contradict, and to experiment. Arguments from authority are unacceptable.”
Today, many scientific assumptions have transformed into scientific dogmas. In almost every field of science, from the study of consciousness, to modern day medicine, to food and drugs, controversy and corruption exist. As many whistleblowers have revealed, big corporations have a monopoly on science and control what gets published and enters the public domain.
Dr. Diane Harper, for example, one of a mere handful of experts on the human papillomavirus (HPV) and one of the leading researchers in biomedical science, has pointed to this fact a number of times, specifically with regards to Gardasil, the HPV vaccine. She has spent her life studying vaccines; she was the principle investigator of both HPV vaccines — Gardasil manufactured by Merck, and Cervarix manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline. In multiple interviews she’s stated how the vaccine was approved and fast-tracked before all of the science had been completed.
You can check out this FDA document to verify that for yourself, as it’s no secret. Here’s another interesting publication you can check out published in the Journal of Medical Ethics about its fast-tracking. We’ve also written about Gardasil/HPV extensively, so you can find out more here.
Investigations have also discovered that the FDA manipulates science press, and multiple whistleblowers have brought this to light. Take Dr. Richard Horton, the Editor in Chief of one of the largest peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. He says, “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.” (source)
It can be truly overwhelming to see just how many of these scientists, who have such distinguished positions and backgrounds, are making statements like these. There are countless examples to choose from.
As with medical science, climate science is fraught with corruption. Questioning climate science is just as scary for some people as questioning vaccine science. This is because the mainstream ridicules people who ask questions. They do this through clever marketing, constantly pushing the idea that vaccines save lives and carry no risks, which entirely contradicts the science that continues to emerge showing otherwise.
When there are so many scientists with distinguished backgrounds, who come directly from the fields in question, making statements that are completely ridiculed by mainstream media, we should be taking notice. Why aren’t any of these scientists given a voice in corporate media? And why does corporate media make people feel stupid and even scared to look into or even contemplate what they have to say?
In the interview below, Richard Lindzen mentions the monopolization of science, arguing that science has become a tool to push forth political, economic, and financial agendas.
Lindzen is one of the world’s top experts in the field and lead author of “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” Chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change. He is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, and pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer, and dynamics interact with each other. He is also the Emeritus Sloan Professor of Meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
In many of his lectures, he has pointed out how policymakers were heavily involved with the IPCC and their publications.
You can learn more about him and view his publications and CV here.
It’s great how he mentions Eisenhower’s warning, which was referring to the military industrial complex and the potential for the rise of misplaced power, which unfortunately is our reality today. JFK also spoke about this hidden hand:
It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. (source)
Here is a full lecture given by Lindzen in 2009 that explores this issue further.
He’s Not the Only One
The most intriguing part about this whole thing is the fact that he’s not the only one saying this. Although mainstream media continues to push the narrative that the majority of scientists in the world agree on our impact on climate change, there are hundreds around the world who don’t, and are quite firm in their belief. One of them is Lindzen.
We need to have open discussions without judgement, fear, and hysteria. Clearly, there are some extremely intelligent people out there who do not agree with the popular narrative.
A few politicians have also been making this argument. One example is the Australian Prime Minister’s chief business adviser, who believes that climate change is a “ruse” led by the United Nations to create a New World Order. He claims that the UN is using false models which show sustained temperature increases in order to impose authoritarian rules. You can read more about that here.
That being said, it’s important to recognize that this “politicization of science” has also been used to brainwash scientists. A classic example comes in the form of a federal lawsuit that was initiated by Steven Druker, who is the Director of the Alliance For Bio-Integrity. The lawsuit forced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to divulge its files on genetically engineered foods. Druker exposed how the agency covered up the warnings of its own scientists about the risks, lied about the facts, and then ushered these foods onto the market, in violation of federal law. As a result of this approval, a number of scientists have now been brainwashed into believing that the “science is solid”
The most important point here is that we must not shut out these viewpoints. We need to have open discussions, where all of the information on each side is presented, without corporate, political, or social interests getting involved. We cannot continue to shun questioning, especially in the face of scientific dogma.
Yes, we are destroying our environment and polluting our world, and there is a great need to implement clean green energy technologies.
Our organization (CE) is involved in clean green energy initiatives and doing our best to help push them forward. Check out www.nce.energy.
What we need is a body or an organization that is more concerned with these issues than the furtherance of their own political/economic agendas.
Below is a 12 minute segment of him at the Cato Institute speaking about the corruption and politicization of science.
“The hockey stick debate is thus about two things. At a technical level it is about flaws in methodology and erroneous results in a scientific paper. But at a political level, the debate is about whether the IPCC betrayed the trust of governments around the world.” – Professor Ross McKitrick, 2005
In late 2016, the liberal media launched a conspiracy theory narrative that claimed “the Russians stole the election from Hillary Clinton.” This was achieved, we were told without a single shred of supporting evidence, by hacking the DNC emails and publicizing the highly embarrassing messages that revealed just how corrupt and criminal the DNC has been all along. That hacking, we’ve been informed, was very real and very scary, and it’s why the entire left-wing media continues to insist to this day that the election was a fraud.
The “Russian conspiracy theory” is, of course, complete fiction. It was fabricated by the left-wing media as cover for Hillary Clinton’s dismal candidate performance and horrendous loss to a total political outsider. The Russian conspiracy narrative, in fact, wasn’t spawned until the days after Clinton’s loss, and it was just a few weeks earlier that Hillary Clinton herself had condemned Donald Trump for refusing to pre-accept the outcome of the election, even before the election took place. Clinton said she “feared for our democracy” and shuddered at the thought that someone wouldn’t agree in advance to honor the outcome of an election the lawless Left was systematically stealing through vote fraud, rigged CNN debate questions and an all-out media smear campaign to destroy the reputation of Trump.
The 2016 wasn’t hacked; it was lost by Hillary Clinton. But there is some real hacking that has been going on to steal national sovereignty and overthrow national governments. That hacking, it turns out, was conducted on a piece of software to make it produce false “hockey stick” graphs depicting global warming out of data sets that logically support no such conclusion.
Hacking the IPCC global warming data
The same left-wing media outlets that fabricated the “Russian hacking” conspiracy, curiously, have remained totally silent about a real, legitimate hacking that took place almost two decades earlier. The IPCC “global warming” software models, we now know, were “hacked” from the very beginning, programmed to falsely produce “hockey stick” visuals from almost any data set… include “random noise” data.
What follows are selected paragraphs from a fascinating book that investigated this vast political and scientific fraud: The Real Global Warming Disaster by Christopher Booker (Continuum, 2009). This book is also available as an audio book from Audible.com, so if you enjoy audio books, download a copy there.
Here’s what Booker found when he investigated the “hacking” of the temperature data computer models:
From “The Real Global Warming Disaster” by Christopher Booker: (bold emphasis added)
Nothing alerted us more to the curious nature of the global warming scare than the peculiar tactics used by the IPCC to promote its orthodoxy, brooking no dissent. More than once in its series of mammoth reports, the IPCC had been caught out in very serious attempts to rewrite the scientific evidence. The most notorious instance of this was the extraordinary prominence it gave in 2001 to the so-called ‘hockey stick’ graph, mysteriously produced by a relatively unknown young US scientist, which completely redrew the accepted historical record by purporting to show temperatures in the late twentieth century having shot upwards to a level far higher than had ever been known before. Although the ‘hockey stick’ was instantly made the central icon of the IPCC’s cause, it was within a few years to become one of the most comprehensively discredited artefacts in the history of science.
Similarly called into serious doubt was the reliability of some of the other temperature figures on which the IPCC based its case. Most notably these included those provided by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Dr James Hansen, A1 Gore’s closest scientific ally, which were one of the four official sources of temperature data on which the IPCC relied. These were shown to have been repeatedly ‘adjusted’, to suggest that temperatures had risen further and more steeply than was indicated by any of the other three main data-sources.
…Out of the blue in 1998 Britain’s leading science journal Nature, long supportive of the warming orthodoxy, published a new paper on global temperature changes over the previous 600 years, back to 1400. Its chief author was Michael Mann, a young physicist-turned-climate scientist at the University of Massachusetts, who had only completed his PhD two years before. In 1999 he and his colleagues published a further paper, based only on North America but extending their original findings over 1000 years.
Their computer model had enabled them to produce a new temperature graph quite unlike anything seen before. Instead of the previously familiar rises and falls, this showed the trend of average temperatures having gently declined through nine centuries, but then suddenly shooting up in the twentieth century to a level that was quite unprecedented.
In Mann’s graph such familiar features as the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age had simply vanished. All those awkward anomalies were shown as having been illusory. The only real anomaly which emerged from their studies was that sudden exponential rise appearing in the twentieth century, culminating in the ‘warmest year of the millennium’, 1998.
As would eventually emerge, there were several very odd features about Mann’s new graph, soon to be known as the ‘hockey stick’ because its shape, a long flattish line curving up sharply at the end, was reminiscent of the stick used in ice hockey. But initially none might have seemed odder than the speed with which this obscure study by a comparatively unknown young scientist came to be taken up as the new ‘orthodoxy’.
So radically did the ‘hockey stick’ rewrite all the accepted versions of climate history that initially it carried all before it, leaving knowledgeable experts stunned. It was not yet clear quite how Mann had arrived at his remarkable conclusions, precisely what data he had used or what methods the IPCC had used to verify his findings. The sensational new graph which the IPCC made the centrepiece of its report had been sprung on the world out of left field.
…Yet when, over the years that followed, a number of experts from different fields began to subject Mann’s two papers to careful analysis, some rather serious questions came to be asked about the basis for his study.
For a start, although Mann and his colleagues had cited other evidence for their computer modelling of historical temperatures, it became apparent that they had leaned particularly heavily on ‘proxy data’ provided by a study five years earlier of tree-rings in ancient bristlecone pine trees growing on the slopes of California’s Sierra Nevada mountains. ‘Proxies’ used to calculate temperature consist of data other than direct measurement, such as tree rings, stalactites, ice cores or lake sediments.
According to the 1993 paper used by Mann, these bristlecone pines had shown significantly accelerated growth in the years after 1900. But the purpose of this original study had not been to research into past temperatures. As was made clear by its title – ‘Detecting the aerial fertilisation effect of atmospheric C02 enrichment in tree-ring chronologies’ – it had been to measure the effect on the trees’ growth rate of the twentieth-century increase in C02 levels.
Tree rings are a notoriously unreliable reflector of temperature changes, because they are chiefly formed during only one short period of the year, and cannot therefore give a full picture. This 1993 study of one group of trees in one untypical corner of the US seemed a remarkably flimsy basis on which to base an estimate of global temperatures going back 1000 years.
Then it transpired that, in order to show the twentieth-century section of the graph, the terrifying upward flick of temperatures at the end of the ‘hockey stick’, spliced in with the tree-ring data had been a set of twentieth-century temperature readings, as recorded by more than 2,000 weather stations across the earth’s surface. It was these which more than anything helped to confirm the most dramatic conclusion of the study, that temperatures in the closing decades of the twentieth century had been shooting up to levels unprecedented in the history of the last 1,000 years, culminating in the ‘warmest year of the millennium’, 1998.
Not only was it far from clear that, for this all-important part of the graph, two quite different sets of data had been used. Also accepted without qualification was the accuracy of these twentieth-century surface temperature readings. But the picture given by these was already being questioned by many expert scientists who pointed to evidence that readings from surface weather stations could become seriously distorted by what was known as the ‘urban heat island effect’. The majority of the thermometers in such stations were in the proximity of large and increasingly built-up population centres. It was well-established that these heated up the atmosphere around them to a significantly higher level than in more isolated locations.
Nowhere was this better illustrated than by contrasting the temperature readings taken on the earth’s surface with those which, since 1979, had been taken by NASA satellites and weather balloons, using a method developed by Dr Roy Spencer, responsible for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Centre, and Dr John Christie of the University of Alabama, Huntsville.
Surprisingly, these atmospheric measurements showed that, far from warming in the last two decades of the twentieth century, global temperatures had in fact slightly cooled. As Spencer was at pains to point out, these avoided the distortions created in surface readings by the urban heat island effect. The reluctance of the IPCC to take proper account of this, he observed, confirmed the suspicion of ‘many scientists involved in the process’ that the IPCC’s stance on global warming was ‘guided more by policymakers and politicians than by scientists’.
What was also remarkable about the ‘hockey stick’, as was again widely observed, was how it contradicted all that mass of evidence which supported the generally accepted picture of temperature fluctuations in past centuries. As was pointed out, tree-rings are not the most reliable guide to assessing past temperatures. Scores of more direct sources of proxy evidence had been studied over the years, from Africa, South America, Australia, Pakistan, Antarctica, every continent and ocean of the world.
Whether evidence was taken from lake sediments or ice cores, glaciers in the Andes or boreholes in every continent (Huang et ai, 1997), the results had been remarkably consistent in confirming that the familiar view was right. There had been a Little Ice Age, across the world. There had similarly been a Mediaeval Warm Period. Furthermore, a mass of data confirmed that the world had been even warmer in the Middle Ages than it was in 1998.
The first comprehensive study to review this point was published in January 2003 by Dr Willie Soon and his colleague Dr Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. They had examined 140 expert studies of the climate history of the past 1,000 years, based on every kind of data. Some had given their findings only in a local or regional context, others had attempted to give a worldwide picture. But between them these studies had covered every continent. The question the two researchers had asked of every study was whether or not it showed a ‘discernible climate anomaly’ at the time of (1) the Little Ice Age and (2) the Mediaeval Warm Period; and (3) whether it had shown the twentieth century to be the warmest time in the Millennium.
Their conclusion was unequivocal. Only two of the studies they looked at had not found evidence for the Little Ice Age. Only seven of the 140 studies had denied the existence of a Mediaeval Warm Period, while 116 had confirmed it.
On the crucial question of whether or not the twentieth century had been the warmest of the past thousand years, only 15 studies, including that of Mann himself, had unambiguously agreed that it was. The vast majority accepted that earlier centuries had been warmer. The conclusion of Soon and Baliunas was that ‘Across the world, many records reveal that the twentieth century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.’
But if Mann and his colleagues had got the picture as wrong as this survey of the literature suggested, nothing did more to expose just how this might have come about than a remarkable feat of analysis carried out later in the same year by two Canadians and published in October 2003. (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick, 2003, ‘Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy databse and northern hemispheric average temperature series’, Energy and Environment, 14, 752-771. In the analysis of McIntyre and McKitrick’s work which follows, reference will also be made to their later paper, McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005b, ‘The M & M critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere climate index, Update and applications’, Energy and Environment, 16, 69-99, and also to McKitrick (2005), ‘What is the “Hockey Stick” debate about?’, op. cit.)
Stephen McIntyre, who began their study, was a financial consultant and statistical analyst specialising in the minerals industry, and was later joined by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at Guelph University. Neither made any pretensions to being a climate scientist, but where they did have considerable expertise was in knowing how computers could be used to play around with statistics. They were also wearily familiar with people using hockey sticklike curves, showing an exaggerated upward rise at the end, to sell a business prospect or to ‘prove’ some tendentious point.
Intrigued by the shape of the IPCC’s now famous ‘hockey stick’ graph, in the spring of 2003 McIntyre approached Mann and his colleagues to ask for a look at their original data set. ‘After some delay’, Mann ‘arranged provision of a file which was represented as the one used’ for his paper. But it turned out not to include ‘most of the computer code used to produce their results’. This suggested to McIntyre, who was joined later that summer by McKitrick, that no one else had previously asked to examine it, as should have been required both by peer-reviewers for the paper published in Nature and, above all, by the IPCC itself. (This account of the ‘hockey stick’ saga is based on several sources, in particular Ross McKitrick’s paper already cited , ‘What is the “hockey stick” debate about?’ (2005), and his evidence to the House of Lords Committee on Economic Affairs, ‘The Economics of Climate Change’, Vol. II, Evidence, 2005. See also David Holland, ‘Bias and concealment in the IPCC Process: the “Hockey Stick” affair and its implications’ (2007), op. cit.)
When McIntyre fed the data into his own computer, he found that it did not produce the claimed results. At the heart of the problem was what is known as ‘principal component analysis’, a technique used by computer analysts to handle a large mass of data by averaging out its components, weighting them by their relative significance.
One of the first things McIntyre had discovered was that the ‘principal component analysis’ used by Mann could not be replicated. ‘In the process of looking up all the data sources and rebuilding Mann’s data set from scratch’, he discovered ‘quite a few errors concerning location labels, use of obsolete editions, unexplained truncations of various series etc.’ (for instance, data reported to be from Boston, Mass., turned out to be from Paris, France, Central England temperature data had been truncated to leave out its coldest period, and so forth).
But the real problem lay with the ‘principal component analysis’ itself. It turned out that an algorithm had been programmed into Mann’s computer model which ‘mined’ for hockey stick shapes whatever data was fed into it. As McKitrick was later to explain, ‘had the IPCC actually done the kind of rigorous review that they boast of they would have discovered that there was an error in a routine calculation step (principal component analysis) that falsely identified a hockey stick shape as the dominant pattern in the data. The flawed computer program can even pull out spurious hockey stick shapes from lists of trendless random numbers. ’ (McKitrick, House of Lords evidence, op. cit.)
Using Mann’s algorithm, the two men fed a pile of random and meaningless data (‘red noise’) into the computer 10,000 times. More than 99 per cent of the time the graph which emerged bore a ‘hockey stick’ shape. They found that their replication of Mann’s method failed ‘all basic tests of statistical significance’.
When they ran the programme again properly, however, keeping the rest of Mann’s data but removing the bristlecone pine figures on which he had so heavily relied, they found that the Mediaeval Warming once again unmistakably emerged. Indeed their ‘major finding’, according to McKitrick, was that Mann’s own data confirmed that the warming in the fifteenth century exceeded anything in the twentieth century.44
One example of how this worked they later quoted was based on comparing two sets of data used by Mann for his second 1999 paper, confined to proxy data from North America. One was drawn from bristlecone pines in western North America, the other from a tree ring chronology in Arkansas. In their raw state, the Californian series showed a ‘hockey stick’ shape; the other, typical of most North American tree ring series, showed an irregular but basically flat line with no final upward spurt. When these were put together, however, the algorithm emphasised the twentieth-century rise by giving ‘390 times as much weight’ to the bristlecone pines as to the trees from Arkansas.45
In other words, although Mann had used hundreds of tree ring proxies from all over North America, most showing a flattish line like that from Arkansas, the PCAs used to determine their relative significance had given enormously greater weight to those Californian bristlecones with their anomalous ‘hockey stick’ pattern.
Furthermore, McIntyre and McKitrick found that Mann had been well aware that by removing the bristlecone pine data the ‘hockey stick’ shape of his graph would vanish, because he had tried it himself. One of the files they obtained from him showed the results of his own attempt to do this. The file was marked ‘Censored’ and its findings were nowhere mentioned in the published study.
What, however, concerned McIntyre and McKitrick as much as anything else about this extraordinary affair was what it revealed about the methods of the IPCC itself. Why had it not subjected Mann’s study to the kind of basic professional checks which they themselves had been able to carry out, with such devastating results?
Furthermore, having failed to exercise any proper quality control, why had those at the top of the IPCC then gone out of their way to give such extraordinary prominence to ‘the hockey stick data as the canonical representation of the earth’s climate history. Due to a combination of mathematical error and a dysfunctional review process, they ended up promoting the exact wrong conclusion. How did they make such a blunder?’
Conclusion: The global warming “hockey stick” is SCIENCE FRAUD
What all this reveals, of course, is that the global warming “hockey stick” is fake science. As Booker documents in his book, data were truncated (cut off) and software algorithms were altered to produce a hockey stick trend out of almost any data set, including random noise data. To call climate change “science” is to admit your own gullibility to science fraud.
The IPCC, it turns out, used science fraud to promote global warming and “climate change” narratives, hoping no one would notice that the entire software model was essentially HACKED from the very beginning, deliberately engineered to produce the alarming temperature trend the world’s bureaucrats wanted so they could terrorize the world into compliance with climate change narratives.
The Russians didn’t hack the 2016 election, in case you were wondering. But dishonest scientists really did hack the global warming modeling software to deceive the entire world and launch a whole new brand of climate change fascism that has now infected the minds of hundreds of millions of people across the planet. Everything they’ve been told about climate change, it turns, out, was all based on a software hack.